DEVELOPMENT OF AN ATTITUDEDEHAWOR TOWARD - DRUG USERS'SCALE mmvme GUTTMAN FACET ; 1: DESIGN AND ANALYSIS * Thesis for the'Degre—e of»Ph.. D. g MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ' WES m. KAPLE M ' ii, _ » "'~‘~"'II“-'p§i; . lfll\\|1\\\2\||\9lflllllll um mm l 1m w 183 44 5 LIBRARY ,. ..Michigan State ‘ " University This is to certify that the thesis entitled DEVELOPMENT OF AN ATTITUDE-BEHAVIOR TOWARD DRUG USERS SCALE EMPLOYING GUTTMAN FACET DESIGN AND ANALYSIS presented by James M. Kaple has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. Counseling, Personnel Services and Educational Psychology Jegree in M ‘ professor / Date (Ln/(Q1 /4" /47/ 0-7639 $‘EB‘~?¢§* 1991 $15 ABSTRACT DEVELOPMENT OF AN ATTITUDE-BEHAVIOR TOWARD DRUG USERS SCALE EMPLOYING GUTTMAN FACET DESIGN AND ANALYSIS BY James M. Kaple The major purpose of this study was to create an attitude-behavior toward drug users scale1 (ABS:DU) employing Guttman facet design and analysis and to test that con- struction. Certain substantive hypotheses were also tested to illustrate that specified predictor variables correlate differentially with different levels of the ABS:DU. Six categories or populations of individuals with varying amounts of contact with drug users were employed in the study. The categories chosen were: incarcerated drug users, police, a fundamentalist religious sect, high school students, college students, and drug users in treatment. These six categories were chosen because their attitudes were believed to fall along a continuum from 1The Attitude Behavior Toward Drug Users Scale is hereafter referred to as the ABS:DU. James M. Kaple unfavorable to favorable toward drug users. Within each category, several groups were chosen from various geographic locations including Michigan, Kansas, Kentucky, and Califor- nia. The initial scale (240 items) was administered to a total of 17 different groups during the spring quarter of 1971. All scales were group administered according to standardized directions. -The scale was constructed according to facet theory. Attitude was operationally defined as "a delimited totality of behavior with respect to something" (Guttman, 1950). Guttman (1959) originally delimited the totality of behavior with three facets and their corresponding elements, relating them in such a way as to yield four Levels of attitude- behavior. These four Levels of attitude-behavior identified by Guttman as representing a complete attitude paradigm for group interaction were: Stereotype, Norm, Hypothetical Interaction, and Personal Interaction. Jordan (1968) exPanded the original Guttman paradigm to include five facets and hence six Levels. These 6 Levels include the four identified by Guttman, plus: Moral Evalua— tion and Actual Feeling. Jordan's six Level adaptation was employed in the present study, and a statistical structure was hypothesized to exist between the six Levels (a simplex one: joint struction). The content for the ABS:DU was also chosen according to facet theory (lateral struction). The five categories or facets of content (causes, characteristics, consequences, James M. Kaple treatment type, and treatment reason) were arranged in a mapping sentence and 40 items were written to deal with the five facets. Each item was then carried across the six Levels identified in the Guttman-Jordan paradigm. A 240 item scale resulted. A personal data questionnaire was also administered in an effort to determine the relation- ship of specified variables with different Levels of attitude. The results obtained were subjected to analysis procedures which revealed that the attitude-behavior toward drug users measured did scale as hypothesized (i.e. simplex approximation). Predictive and construct validity were supported and content validity was assumed due to the item selection procedures employed. Internal consistency reliability figures consistantly exceeded .80 and frequently exceeded .90 for the groups and categories identified. Item to facet, item to Level, and item to item scale correlations were used as criteria to select four items from each content facet. These four items from each of five facets were carried across the six Levels and a final scale of 120 items resulted. Internal consistancy reliability coefficients and estimates of simplex approximation were obtained by re— analysis of the original data on the basis of the final scale items. The results suggest that the final scale James M. Kaple will possess internal consistancy reliability;and content, predictive,and construct validity, and will scale according to the simplex model. Certain of the substantive hypotheses did receive some support and it was demonstrated that certain predictor variables do correlate differentially with specified Levels of attitude-behavior, as measured by the initiallattitude- behavior toward drug users scale (ABS:DU). 1This study is related to a larger cross-cultural study of attitude-behaviors toward addiction (including alcholism) under the direction of John E. Jordan, College of Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 48823. DEVELOPMENT OF AN ATTITUDE-BEHAVIOR TOWARD DRUG USERS SCALE EMPLOYING GUTTMAN FACET DESIGN AND ANALYSIS BY k/ Hfl ‘1 James MD Kaple A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1971 Copyright by James M. Kaple 1971 PREFACE This study is one in a series, jointly designed by several investigators, as an example of the "project" approach to graduate research. A common use of instru- mentation, theoretical material, as well as technical and analyses procedures were both necessary and desirable. The authors, therefore, collaborated in many aspects although the data were different in each study (Nicholson, 1971) as well as certain design, procedural, and analyses methods. The interpretations of the data in each study are those of the author. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Due to the nature of this research, many people, from California to Washington, D.C. have been of invaluable assistance not only in collecting, collating, and processing the data, but also in conceptualizing and designing the scale itself. I am especially grateful to Dr. John E. Jordan who chaired my doctoral study. His personal inter- est, assistance, and encouragement have been greatly appreciated. I wish to thank Dr. Bernard Finifter, Dr. Gregory Miller and Dr. Andrew Porter for their guid- ance and direction as members of my doctoral committee. I am also grateful to Dr. A. Hughes, Dr. Joseph Paige, Mr. F. Macklin, and Mr. C. wells for their insight and assistance at all stages of this project. I am indebted to Mr. R. E. Kious, Mr. Robert Jones, Commander C. Reese, Sargent Tawes, and the Rev. Dr. G. A. Gough for their assistance in Obtaining the data. I am particularly indebted to all those individuals who come pleted the ABS:DU scale while it was still in its original form. I am grateful for my parents constant encouragement and interest. Thanks also to my fellow student Bill Nicholson, for his help and encouragement in various aspects of the iv study. My appreciation to Herman Crump and Dan Seyb for their assistance with the data processing. This study was supported in part by a training grant No. 20-T-69-70 from the Rehabilitation Service Administration, Department of Health, Education and welfare, Washington, D.C. Most of all, I wish to thank my wife Stella, my son Gareth, and my daughter Siobhan for their constant love, inspiration, and understanding. TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O PREFACE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES O O O O O O O O O O C O 0 LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. II. INTRODUCTION . O O O O O O O O O O 0 Nature of the Problem . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . Theoretical . . . . . . . . . . . . Substantive . . . . . . . . . . . . DRUG RELATED ATTITUDES: REVIEW OF MEASUREMENT - TECHNIQUES AND RESEARCH FINDINGS . . . . . Differential Scales . . . . . Summated Scales . . . . . . . . . . Cumulative Scales . . . . . . . . Semantic Differential Scales . . . . . . Other Scaling Techniques . . . . Special Scales Constructed for Particular Studies . . . . . . . . . Summary of the Scales Used in the Measurement of Drug Related Attitudes . Review of Substantive Findings Demographic Factors . . . . Socio-Psychological Factors . Contact Factors . . . . . . . . . . Knowledge Factors . . . . . . . . . . Other Factors . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Substantive Findings . . . . . vi Page ii iii iv viii xii xiii 11 15 15 16 17 19 23 25 25 26 28 30 35 38 39 39 41 Chapter III. METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES . . . . . . . Guttman Theory and Techniques of Attitude Scaling . . . . . . . . . Multidimensional Scaling . . . . . . . Instrumentation . . . . . . . . Guttman Four Level Theory . . . . . . . Jordan' 5 Six-Level Adaptation . . . . . . Joint Struction . . . . . . . . . . Lateral Struction . . . . . . . . . Lateral Struction Employed 1n ABS:DU . . . Intensity Function . . . . . . . . Major Variables of the Study . . . . . . Demographic variables . . . . . . . Contact with the Attitude Objec ct(Dru ug UserS) Socio Psychological Variables . . . . . Political Activism . . . . . . . . . Research Population . . . . . . . . . Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reliability . . . . . . . . . . Major Hypothesis of the Study . . . . . . Theoretical Hypotheses . . . . . . . Substantive Hypotheses . . . . . . . Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . . Research POpulation . . . . . . . Level to Level Correlations and Q2 Evaluation to Test Simplex Approximation of Initial Scale . . . . . . . . . . . Reliability Coefficients . Inter-Item, Item to Facet (Within Levels), and Item to Level Correlations on Initial Scale Reliability and Validity of the Final Scale . Analysis of Variance . . . . . . . . Substantive Hypothesis . . . . . . . . V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECCMMENDATIONS . . Summary . . . . . . . . . Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . Discussion and Recommendations . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 APPENDIX vii Page 44 94 103 105 107 116 129 132 132 134 134 146 157 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. substantive Findings-~Correlates of Drug Related Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . 31 2. Guttman's Facets used to Determine Component Structure of an Attitude Universe . . . . . 50 3. Guttman Facet Profiles of Attitude Levels . '. . 51 4. Hypothetical Matrix of Level by Level Correla- tions Illustrating the Simplex Structure . . 54 5. Jordan's Facets Used to Determine Joint Struction of an Attitude Universe . . . . . 57 6. Comparison of Guttman and Jordan Facet Designations . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 7. Joint Level, Profile Composition, and Lebel for the Six Types of Attitude Struction Identified by Jordan . . . . . . . . . 59 8. Permutations of Five Two-element Facets . . . 61 9. Permutations of Five Two-element Facets and Basis of Elimination . . . . . . . . . 62 10. Five-Facet Six Level System of Attitude-Behavior Verbalizations: Levels, Facet Profiles, and Definitional Statements for Twelve Permutations . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 11. Semantic Path "C" for a Five-Facet Attitude universe 0 O O O O O O O O O I O O 64 12. Potential Item for Inclusion in the ABS:DU, Illustrating the Six Level Structure Including Directions and Foils . . . . . . 68 13. Hypothesized Rank Order of Specificed Categories on the Unfavorable to Favorable Continuum of Attitude-Behavior Toward Drug Users at Each Level of the ABS:DU . . . . . . . . . 77 viii Table 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Hypothesized Direction of Correlations Between Efficacy and Political Activism and the Six Levels of the ABS:DU . . . . Research Populations Employed . . Correlation Matrices and 02 Values and Best Simplex Approximations, Initial Scale . . . . . . Correlation Matrices and Q2 Values and Best Simplex Approximations, Initial Scale . . . . . . Correlation Matrices and Q2 Values and Best Simplex Approximations, Initial Scale . . . . . . Correlation Matrices and 02 Values and Best Simplex Approximations, Initial Scale . . . . . . Correlation Matrices and Q2 Values and Best Simplex Approximations, Initial Scale . . . . . . Correlation Matrices and 02 Values and Best Simplex Approximations, Initial Scale . . . . . . Correlation Matrices and Q2 Values for Original Category A, for Original Category B, for Original Category C, for Original Category D, for Original Category E, for Original Category F, for Original Page 81 88 96 97 98 99 100 101 and Best Simplex Approximations, All Categories Initial Scale . . . . . . . . . . . 102 23. Group and Category Reliability Coefficients for Initial Scale, by Level . . . . . . . . 104 24. Item to Facet and Item to Level Correlation by Level--Incarcerated Inmates (Category A). . . 108 25. Item to Facet and Item to Level Correlation by Level——Police (Category B) . . . . . . . 109 26. Item to Facet and Item to Level Correlation by Level-’Kansas Parish (Category C) . . . . . 110 27. Item to Facet and Item to Level Correlation by Level--High School (Category D) . . . . . 111 ix Table 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. Item to Facet and Item to Level Correlation by Level--College Students (Category E) . . . Item to Facet and Item to Level Correlation by Level-—Treatment Addicts (Category F) ' . . Total Item to Facet and Item to Level Correla- tions Greater Than .50, From all Categories . . . . . . . 6 Hoyt Reliability by Group for the Final ABS:DU Correlation Matrices and 02 Values and Best Simplex Approximations, Final Scale . . . . . . . Correlation Matrices and Q2 Values and Best Simplex Approximations, Final Scale . . . . . . . Correlation Matrices and Q2 Values and Best Simplex Approximaticns, Final Scale . . . . . . . Correlation Matrices and Q2 Values and Best Simplex Approximations, Final Scale . . . . . . . Correlation Matrices and Q2 Values and Best Simplex Approximations, Final Scale . . . . . . . Correlation Matrices and 02 Values and Best Simplex Approximations, Final Scale . . . . . . . Correlation Matrices and 02 Values and Best Simplex Approximations, Final Scale . . . . . . . for Original Category A, for Original Category B, for Original Category C, for Original Category D, for Original Category E, for Original Category F, for Original All Categories Analysis of Variance Between Categories, Pair Wise Comparisons, Initial Scale Rank Ordered Means, by Category and By Level (Initial Scale) . . . . . . Actual Correlations and Significance Levels Obtained With Specified Variables (Initial Scale: Total Sample) . . . . Page 112 113 114 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 126 128 131 Table 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. A48. A49. A50. A51. A52. A53. A54. Multiple and Variables, Multiple and Variables, Multiple and Variables, Multiple and Variables, Multiple and Variables, Multiple and Variables, Partial Correlations for Specified Category A, Initial Scale . . . Partial Correlations for Specified Category B, Initial Scale . . . Partial Correlations for Specified Category C, Initial Scale . . . Partial Correlations for Specified Category D, Initial Scale . . . Partial Correlations for Specified Category B, Initial Scale . . . Partial Correlations for Specified Category F, Initial Scale . . . Abbreviated Item Content and Subscale Level Numbers for the Final ABS:DU . . . . . Adjusted N, Mean, Category A, Adjusted N, Mean, Category B, Adjusted N, Mean, Category C, Adjusted N, Mean, Category D, Adjusted N, Mean, and Standard Deviation, all Variables (Initial Scale) . and Standard Deviation, all Variables (Initial Scale) . and Standard Deviation, all Variables (Initial Scale) . and Standard Deviation, all Variables (Initial Scale) . and Standard Deviation, Category E, all Variables (Initial Scale) . Adjusted N, Mean, Category F, and Standard Deviation, all Variables (Initial Scale) . xi Page 138 139 140 141 142 143 215 238 239 240 241 242 243 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. A Mapping Sentence for the Facet Analysis of Joint and Lateral Struction of Attitudes Toward Drug Users . . . . . . . . . . 48 xii LI ST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page 1. Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 2. Directions for Administration . . . . . .' 164 3. Variable List--Code Book . . . . . . . . 170 4. ABS-DU (Initial Version) . . . . . . . . 172 5. ABS-DU (Final Scale) . . . . . . . . . 214 6. N, Mean, and Standard Deviation by Group for all Variables . . . . . . . . . . . 237 xiii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Research on drug use and abuse has been inconclusive and on occasion contradictory as to the correlates of drug related attitude-behavior. This research will document the need for a new approach to the measurement of attitude- behavior toward drug users and will employ Guttman facet theory to create such an instrument. Nature of the Problem Drug use is currently considered one of the most crucial social problemslfaced by American Society (Pro- ceedings, White House Conference on Narcotic and Drug Abuse, 1962). It occupies a large portion of the popular and academic press. Presidential task forces and advisory commissions on Narcotic and Drug Abuse have been created at the Federal level of government (Proceedings, White House Conference on Narcotic and Drug Abuse, 1962; President's Advisory Commission on Narcotics and Drug Abuse 1962; Task Force Report: Narcotics and Drug Abuse, 1967). At the state and local levels numerous agencies have been formed to deal with the problems of drug use (e.g., Michigan Governor's Office of Drug Abuse, Tri-County 1On June 17, 1971, President Nixon declared drug abuse a National Emergency. 1 (Lansing area) Mental Health Drug Program, and Kiwanis Operation Drug Alert). In fact Gov. Milliken has recently identified the drug problem as the priority item in the field of Mental Health for the State of Michigan. The problem of drug use and abuse is not new, but in the United States it is becoming increasingly widespread. It is present in large cities, small towns, and rural areas. It is not limited to people of any particular area, age group, environment, or level of income. "There is a growing body of evidence that children in elementary school, even as young as seven years old, are finding access to abusive substance" (Michigan Department of Education, 1970). A recent Gallup Poll (Detroit Free Press, 1970) surveying college students on 61 campuses revealed that 42% said they had tried marijuana (almost double the 1969 figure of 22% and more than eight times the 5% recorded in 1967). D-lysergic acid diethylamide (L.S.D.) was reported to be used by 14% as compared to 4% in 1969 and 1% in 1967. Comparable figures were obtained for barbiturates (14%) and amphitamines (16%) use. The Federal Bureau of Narcotics reported 55,894 active addicts (opium and its extracts) in the United States as of December 31, 1964 (O'Donnel and Ball, 1966). A recent special publication of the Detroit Free Press (1969) estimated the number of heroin addicts to be 100,000. According to the 1970 comprehensive law enforcement and criminal justice plan of Michigan, Project Rehab in Grand Rapids estimates that one heroin addict on the street costs the city $10,500 per year (President's Advisory Commission on Narcotics and Drug Abuse, 1963). Should the addict be arrested, an additional estimated cost of $16,800 in jail, legal and court costs are introduced for a total of $27,300 per year, attributed to one heroin addict. Officials of the City of Detroit estimate that approximately $40,000,000 per year is spent on illegal drug purchases. They also report clients with $150. per day, 365 days a year heroin habit. The President's Commission (1967) states that it takes approximately $150 worth of stolen property for the heroin addict to net $15 in cash. It adds that while the price of heroin is not uniform across the nation and fluc- tuates according to supply and demand, "it is never low enough to permit the addict to obtain it by lawful means." Although no specific figures are available regarding the cost of supporting use of drugs other than the opiates (e.g., amphetamines, barbiturates, cocaine, hallucinogens, marijuana and solvents) it is generally accepted that these costs are substantial. In the State of Michigan, arrests for possession of narcotics and dangerous drugs were up 110% in 1969 over 1968. This is particularly alarming when in 1968 the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs ranked Michigan fifth in the United States for opiate drug arrests. Arrests for selling were up 48%, with a 79 1/2% increase in heroin cases. There was an increase of 98% in arrests of persons under twenty-one years of age, 111% of persons over twenty-one, with an 88% increase in total arrests. Locally the statistics are similarly alarming. In actual figures, 222 arrests were made in the Lansing, Michigan area for sale of narcotics, 820 arrests for possession, and 66 arrests for use during 1969. With regard to sex, 972 were males and 121 females. Persons arrested in the age bracket of 17-21 totaled 603. Of those arrested for possession, sale or use, 490 were over 21. Further, the Michigan State Police estimate that approximately one-third of all the narcotics arrests in the State of Michigan take place in the Lansing area. The Ingham County Sheriff's Office count an average of two new cases of heroin per week handled through their office. From September, 1969 to March, 1970 the Ingham County Sheriff's Department handled 148 cases of narcotics and dangerous drugs. Of this number, 107 were arrested in the county as opposed to 41 cases in Lansing and East Lansing. Approximately 65% of these cases were marijuana oriented, 15% heroin, and two arrests for cocaine sale or use, and the remainder for dangerous drugs. While no complete and adequate studies of the extent of drug addiction in the Tri-County Area are avail- able at this time, there is direct and indirect evidence of a marked increase in drug dependency problems, particu- larly so since 1968. All police agencies in the area report a steady increase in narcotic violations. In Ingham County alone nearly 20 to 25% of the cases reported out of Circuit Court each week involve narcotics. In the first few months of 1970, Lansing Police Narcotic Agents made 34 arrests. East Lansing Police reported 68 drug cases pending. The Ingham County Sheriff's Department had 39 cases, while the State Police Intelligence Unit had 34 such cases in its files. Whereas eight years ago the majority of cases of drug dependency had to do with minors in possession of alcohol, now most of the cases have to do with hard drug abuse. Both the Eaton and Clinton County Sheriff Depart- ments report increases in the number of arrests for narcotic violations, however, specific figures were not available at this time. An additional barometer which indicates the serious- ness of the drug problem, in the Lansing Community is the increase in hepatitis. The Ingham County Health Department officials have eXpressed concern about the rapid rise in instances of hepatitis. Three times as many cases have been reported in 1970 as compared to 1969, with the highest frequency among persons 17 to 23 years of age. Dr. Dean Tribby, acting public health director for the county stated that "approximately 50% of the hepatitis cases are due to sernal hepatitis, following drug experi- mentation." A total of 53 cases of hepatitis were reported the first ten weeks of 1970 compared with 18 in 1969 and 7 in 1968. Several professional persons working particularly in the west End of the City of Lansing have estimated that there are as many as 1,000 hard heroin addicts in that section of town. Although exact numbers of drug dependent persons are not available it has been the experience of the staff of the Tri-County Mental Health Drug Programs that the above listed statistics are realistic and do reflect the magnitude of the epidemic of drug use in the City of Lansing. Obviously the dollar and cents cost of drug use is extremely high when we include the monies allocated to research, evaluate, rehabilitate, control, apprehend, prosecute, and incarcerate drug users with the cost of the actual habits discussed above. As the President's Commission (1967) suggests: "while crime reduction is one result to be hoped for in eliminating drug abuse, its elimination and the treatment of its victims are humane and worthy social objectives in themselves." It is evident, that the social losses involved, other than money (i.e., in the lost resources implicit in the drug addict) are also substantial. Cohen's et a1. (1970) study comparing drug using vs non-drug using psychiatric patients indicates that heavy drug users were of higher intelligence (p<.05) than non-drug users. The implications are awesome. Numerous and sundrey attempts to rehabilitate drug users have been employed. Included are: incarceration, education, detoxification, methadone treatment, inpatient hospitalization (e.g., Lexington), Synanon, halfway houses, and various individual and group therapy procedures. Unfortunately as Nyswander (1967) states: "Attempts to 'cure' narcotic drug addiction have had little success. . . ." Apparently rehabilitation attempts have had a minimal impact on drug use. As the Michigan Department of Education teacher's resource guide for drug and abuse (1970) states: "The great need in drug abuse is prevention." The preceding description of the nature and extent of illicit drug use reveals that the curative, legal, and punitive measures employed to date for the prevention of drug abuse have been structurally inefficient and func- tionally ineffective. Implicit in this realization is the assumption that human behavior is the result of internal, as well as external motivations. Krech, Crutchfield,and Ballacy (1967) state that actions of the individual are governed to a large extent by his attitude. Russo (1968) and O'Donnell (1966) have stated that it is necessary to become more cognizant of the relationship between "pro- or antidrug attitudes" of indi- viduals and their drug use behavior. Numerous researchers (Blum, 1966; Borgotta, 1966; Nowlis, 1966; Keniston, 1966; Jones, 1969; Brehm and Back, 1968; Middendorf, 1969; Glick, 1968; Pattison, 1968; and Whitehead, 1969) have demonstrated the significance of attitude in predicting an individual's drug use patterns. Similarly the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice (1967), the President's Advisory Commission on Narcotics and Drug Abuse (1963), the Michigan Department of Education (1970), the Office of Criminal Justice (1970), and the Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs (1970) have all recognized the importance of drug related attitudes and their relationship to drug use. Social psychologists have employed numerous tech- niques to measure attitude toward various attitude objects, but the most widely used and most carefully tested and designed technique is the attitude scale. Selltiz, Jahoda, Deutsch, and Cook (1966) have identified three generic classifications of scaling methods for the measurement of attitude. Specifically the dif- ferential scale (equally appearing interval method) generally associated with Thurstone, the summated scale associated with Likert, and the cumulative scale associated with the name of Guttman. Krech et a1. (1962) lists these plus the social distance scale and the scale discrimination technique. Lemaine (1967) compared the major scaling techniques and stated that the Guttman scale, provided it meets criteria for reproducability (scalability), is the best instrument for the measurement of attitudes. Although this breakdown is not necessarily exhaus- tive, the methods herein identified have been responsible for a variety of instruments used in attitude research. However, as Shaw and Wright (1967) point out, much of the effort in attitude research has been wasted because of the lack of suitable instruments for the measurement of attitude. Frequently attitude is defined differently from one study to another, further limiting the compara- bility of attitude scales and the resulting information derived from their administration. Jordan's (1968) review of current attitude research revealed that most attitude studies employ items from the Stereotypic Level only (Levels of the Guttman-Jordan paradigm are described in Chapter III and definitions of specific termonology may be found in the glossary, Appendix 1). Guttman's definition of attitude, as well as his .multidimensional facet methodology for scale construction, is employed in this research. The use of facet theory should permit the identification of variables that correlate with given Levels of attitude-behavior specified in the Guttman-Jordan paradigm, thus avoiding many of theLEriti- cisms leveled at the scales reviewed in Chapter II. Guttman 10 methodology will receive a thorough discussion in Chapter III. Guttman (1950) defines attitude as a "delimited totality of behavior with respect to something." Most other definitions of attitude view it in terms of 'predispositions' rather than as behavior per se. Guttman's definition is used here as it is more easily operationalized and lends itself to facet theory analysis. Guttman (1959) took the four types of interaction with a cognitive object proposed by Bastide and van den Berghe (1957) and elabo- rated on them to produce four Levels (3 facets) of belief or action which would delimit the totality of behavior with respect to an attitude object. Guttman's four Levels or sub-universes were: (a) Stereotypes, (b) Norms, (c) Hypothetical Interaction, and (d) Personal Interaction. Jordan (1969) expanded on Guttman's (1959) original three facet (4 Level) paradigm and developed a more inclusive set of five facets (6 Levels) to delimit the totality of behavior (attitude as defined by Guttman, 1950). Three specific attitude scales: ABS-MR (Jordan, 1969); ABS-BW (Hamersma, l969),and ABS-MI (Whitman, 1970), have since been developed using Jordan's 6 Level adapta- tion of Guttman facet theory. Several other attitude- behavior scales are currently under development using the same methodology (Jordan, 1970b). 11 Statement of the Problem The need for research in the area of drug use and particularly in the area of attitudes toward drug abuse (O'Donnell, 1966) has been demonstrated. The purpose of this research will be to develop an attitude-behavior scale toward drug users employing the Guttman—Jordan methodology discussed in Chapter III. Review of the instruments currently available dealing with attitude toward drug users (see Chapter II) revealed results similar to those encountered by Hamersma (1969), Jordan (1968), and. Whitman (1970). Namely, no studies on attitude toward drug users have employed an attitude scale constructed on the basis of the structural theory proposed by Guttman (1959). As a result it is unclear what atti- tudinal Levels, or sub-universes in the Guttman model were being measured in most of these studies, although the impression is that most of the scale items probably measured attitudes at the Sterotypic Level in Jordan's paradigm (see Table 6). As illustrated in Chapter II, the available research on correlates of drug related attitudes are inconsistent and occasionally contradictory. Jordan's (1968) review of the literature on attitude toward the mentally retarded and Hamersma's (1969) review of literature on racial atti- tudes revealed similar inconsistencies. Both Jordan and Hamersma constructed six Level (see Table 6) attitude 12 behavior scales toward their respective attitude objects. Their results suggest that many of the variables identified in the literature correlate selectively with the Levels of attitude-behavior identified in the Guttman—Jordan para— digm. However, they correlate differentially at different Levels. It is hypothesized that a major reason for the inconsistent and contradictory results evidenced in the literature on attitudinal correlates of drug related behavior stem (at least partially) from their failure to Operationally define attitude and their neglect to specify Level of attitude-behavior (it is recognized that poor design, different pOpulations, and other confounding variables may also have contributed to the inconsistent results referred to above). It is anticipated that con- struction of an attitude-behavior scale, according to Guttman facet theory, will facilitate the identification of correlates of attitude-behavior toward drug users at specified Levels of behavior. It is also conceivable that identification of such correlates will suggest differential methods of changing attitude-behavior at a specified Level. Ancillary purposes, other than the construction of an attitude scale toward drug users will include: 13 (a) the replication of support for the six Level atti- tude scale construction of Jordan, employing Guttman facet design and analysis to test that construction (i.e., simplex approximation), and (b) to illustrate that certain variables arbitrarily selected from those identified in Chapter II may correlate differentially with the specified Levels of attitude-behavior. If support is found for the hypothesized differential relationship of specified variables with different Levels of attitude-behavior, there will be implications for chang- ing behavior at given Levels. Jordan (1970) found that knowledge, contact, and value structure were differentially related to Levels of attitude-behavior toward the mentally retarded. If, for example, amount of contact is found to- correlate positively with attitudes toward drug users at Levels four, five, and six but not at Levels one through three, there would be definite implications for changing attitude-behavior at a specified Level. Namely, that attitude-behavior change may require manipulation of dif- ferent variables to change different Levels of behavior. Similarly, the ABS-DU scale may prove useful as a screening device to identify potential drug users; although this possibility will not be eXplored in this study. 14 Hypotheses to be examined will be of both a theo- retical and substantive nature. The theoretical hypotheses will deal with the examination of Guttman's facet theory approach to attitude scale construction. The substantive hypotheses to be tested will be exemplary rather than ex- haustive in nature. The substantive hypotheses will deal with potential correlates of attitude-behavior toward drug users identified in the literature review. As previously mentioned, past research has presented inconsistent results regarding correlates of drug related attitudes. The sub- stantive hypotheses will deal with the relationships of these variables to specified Levels of behavior. All substantive hypotheses will be tested on the basis of items identified for potential inclusion in the final scale. This analysis will be done on the same data col- lected to establish reliability and validity data. It is recognized that the samples are not randomly selected and generalizability is minimal. However, as previously mentioned, the substantive hypotheses are exemplary in nature and are meant to be illustrative of the postulated relationship between predictor variables or correlates and the Levels of attitude-behavior, specified in the Guttman-Jordan paradigm. Examples of both substantive and theoretical hypotheses are presented below and more specifically elaborated in Chapter III. 15 Theoretical There will be a positive relationship (correlational) between the structural (conceptual) theory and the statisti- cal structure (i.e., the size of the correlation coefficient increases with the increase in the number of contiguous facets). Substantive Efficacy will correlate positively with attitude- behaviors toward drug users as measured at Level 6 of the ABS:DU for the groups identified. CHAPTER II DRUG RELATED ATTITUDES: REVIEW OF MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES AND RESEARCH FINDINGS Although attitude research has held a prominent position in the social sciences for many years, studies of attitudes toward drug users, drug use, and drug abuse have only recently gained prominence. This recent interest in drug related attitudes seems to be a direct result of the increasing incidence of drug use and the corresponding concern over its potential dangers (both monetary and human). Experts agree that attitude measurement can play an important role in evaluating preventative methods as well as providing a screening device to identify potential drug users. Attitude assessment has taken various forms. Traditionally, three types of attitude scale construction have been employed: differential scales, summated scales, and cumulative scales (Selltiz, Jahoda, Deutsch, and Cook, 1966). Since these three types of scales are represented, to some degree, in the literature dealing with drug related attitudes, each will be discussed in some detail. 16 l7 Differential Scales Differential scales are closely associated with L. L. Thurstone. Such scales consist of items whose posi- tion on the scale has been determined by judges' ratings. Several rating methods have been employed: the paired comparison method, the equal appearing interval method, and the successive interval method. The equal appearing interval method is most commonly used, and will be pre- sented herein. Initially,severa1 hundred statements thought to be related to the attitude to be measured are gathered. These statements are then classified (usually into eleven piles) by a large number of judges (usually between 50 and 300). The judges are instructed to place the state- ments in piles according to their favorableness (from most favorable to most unfavorable) toward the attitude object. The scale value of a specific statement is computed as the median pile (or position) to which it has been assigned by the judges. Those statements which have too broad a scatter are discarded. From the statements so identified items are drawn along the continuum, from favorable to unfavorable, and included in the attitude scale. Usually such a Thurstone scale consists of approximately twenty items. When a subject takes a Thurstone type attitude scale, he is instructed to check statements with which 18 he agrees (or disagrees). The median of the scale values of the items checked by a given individual is reported to .indicate his position on a scale of favorable-unfavorable attitude toward the object in question. Differential or Thurstone type scales have recieved widespread criticism on several counts. As Selltiz et a1. (1966) indicate, these scales are laborious and cumbersome to construct and score. It is also pointed out that, since an individual's score is the median of the scale values of several items, similar scores may express different atti- tudinal patterns. In other words, identical scores do not necessarily mean identical patterns of attitude responses. Although Thurstone asserts that scales constructed by his method yield true interval data, and are subject to appropriate statistical analysis, studies by Gramneberg (1955) and Kelley et a1. (1955) cast serious doubts on this assumption. Their studies suggest that Thurstone type scales more closely approximate ordinal data. A major criticism of the equal appearing interval method is that the attitudes of the judges (employed in the scale construction) may influence their judgements (Krech, Crutchfield, and Ballachey, 1962). Findings of Hovland and Sherif (1952) suggest that the attitude of the judge will bias his judgement of items, although in most cases this effect will be small. 19 Vincent (1968) constructed a Thurstone type dif- ferential scale to investigate the attitudes of 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students toward smoking marijuana. Visual inspection indicates that this twenty item (single form) scale consists exclusively of "Actual Feeling" items as identified in the Guttman—Jordan paradigm (see Table 6). Vincent reports known group validity to be acceptable and a reliability coefficient of .94 was obtained via the Spearman-Brown "prophecy formula." This was the only differential type scale dis- covered, by this author, which purported to measure drug related attitudes. Summated Scales= Summated scales used to measure attitudes are frequently referred to as Likert-type scales (Likert devised his scaling techniques in the early 1930's). Items (selected by intuition) which are felt to be definitely favorable or definitely unfavorable to the attitude object are employed. Unlike Thurstone scale construction, items that are neutral or slightly favorable or unfavorable are excluded from Likert scales. These items are administered to subjects representative of the population to receive the questionnaire. Rather than checking only the items with which the respondent agrees, he indicates his degree of agreement or disagreement with every statement (i.e., 20 1. strongly agree, 2. agree, 3. undecided, 4. disagree, 5. strongly disagree). Usually 5 categories are employed for each item, however some investigators have used both a larger and smaller number of categories. Scoring simply involves the summation of the scores of the individual responses made to each item. This results in a total score which is interpreted as the individual's position on a scale of favorable-unfavorable attitude toward the object in question. Individual responses are then analyzed to determine which items best discriminate between high and low total scores. Frequently the responses of the upper and lower quartile (total score) are used as criterian groups. Items which do not show substantial correlation with the total scores, or those that do not elicit different responses from the criterion groups are eliminated. These procedures insure "internal consistency." The Likert type (summated) scale is reported to have several advantages over the Thurstone scale. It permits the use of items that are not manifestly related to the attitude scale, since it can be proved diagnostic by virtue of its correlation with the total score. Likert scales are easier to construct and are likely to be more reliable due to the increased number of choices, i.e., length (Selltiz, Jahoda, Deutsch, and Cook, 1966). If Thurstone's scales provide interval data (a dubious assumption) they are capable of measuring how 21 mugh_more favorable one respondent is than another while Likert scales provide ordinal data and can provide rank ordering, at best. Another disadvantage of the Likert technique is that the total score of a given individual often has little clear meaning, since many patterns of response to the various items may produce the same score (Jahoda and Warren, 1966). King (1970) employed a Likert type (7 point) scale (to establish attitudinal correlates) and a survey of behavior to compare users and non-users of marijuana. No reliability or validity data are presented. King's instrument purported to measure five general attitudes. Attitude toward external control, and behavioral and situational correlates of marijuana usage were evaluated by an individual's "yes" or "no" response to specific items. Attitudes toward external agents for inducing tension relief and relaxation, marijuana usage in relation to the law, and personal knowledge of physiological and psycho- logical effects of marijuana were assessed by a Likert type, seven point scale. These results were dichotomized into favorable and non-favorable attitudes (non-committal responses were omitted from the analysis). Attitude items (Guttman-Jordan paradigm; Table 7) seem to include Hypothetical Action, Personal Feeling, and Personal Action. King makes no attempt to explicity define attitude, however, his title "Users and Non-Users of Marijuana: 22 Some Attitudinal and Behavioral Correlates" (1970) suggests that he views attitude as a predisposition to behavior rather than a "delimited totality of behavior." Brehm and Back (1968) developed a 34 item Likert type questionnaire concerned with "attitudes toward taking medication, typical response to illness and concern with such factors as personal control." Respondents were to check one of six alternatives ranging from "strongly agree to strongly disagree." Usage of specific drugs was evaluated on a 6 point scale ranging from "definitely" to "not at all" for ten agents ranging from aspirin to opiates. Reliability and validity data are not presented and no attempt is made to define attitude in the Brehm and Back study. Most of the items employed seem to fall at the Stereotypic and Actual Action Level of the Guttman— Jordan paradigm. It is interesting to note that although Brehm and Back do not identify it as such, they have employed an aspect of facet theory in four of the questionnaire items. Specifically, they have used Stereotypic and Hypothetical Action Levels to measure what they labeled "resistance to drug effects" and "relative curiosity." Resistance to drug effects was measured by the difference between responses to the statement "when under the influence of drugs peOple will not do anything they would not do normally" (Stereotypic Level) and the statement "under the influence of drugs I 23 would not do anything I would not normally do," (Hypothetical Action Level). These were the only examples of holding item content constant while changing the Level and referent, that were encountered while reviewing drug related attitude scales. Robbins et a1. (1970) developed a Likert type scale dealing with attitudes toward different facets of drug use. Five alternatives were offered ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Most of their items request respond- ents opinions and fall at the Personal Feeling Level of the Guttman-Jordan paradigm (i.e., the continued use of drugs will improve academic performance). No reliability or validity data are presented for this questionnaire and no definition of attitude is given. Cumulative Scales Cumulative scales are composed of a series of items to which the respondent indicates agreement or disagreement. Guttman's name is most frequently associated with cumula- tive scaling techniques. The main purpose of Guttman's Scalogram analysis is to ascertain if a set of attitudes isunidimensional. That is to say do they measure only one attitude. Anunidimensional scale, as defined by Guttman, has a coefficient of reproducability of at least .90. A perfect Guttman scale, would be one in which know- ledge of an individual's total score would permit 24 reproduction of his responses to each of the items. An example of a perfect Guttman scale would be one concerning height. If the items read: (a) I am more than four feet tall, (b) I am more than five feet tall, (c) I am more than six feet tall, etc. and each yes is assigned a weight of l and we know a person's total score is 2 we can reproduce his individual responses and state that he answered "yes" to items 1 and 2 and "no" to item 3. Guttman's scaling procedures (Guttman and Suchman, 1947) also allows for the establishment of a neutral region of the scale by employing an intensity function. This procedure allows a method of distinguishing favorable from unfavorable attitude. Guttman'sunidimensional scalogram analysis has been criticized for its neglect of the problem of representa- tiveness in selecting the initial set of statements. Since statements selected for such scales are a matter of intui- tion and eXperience, it is impossible to estimate their content validity (Krech, Crutchfield and Ballachey, 1962). Jahoda and Warren (1966) state that Guttman'sunidimensional scales may not be appropriate for measuring complex atti- tudes and that such a scale may be unidimensional for one group of respondents but not for another. No example of Guttman scaling procedures being applied to construction of a questionnaire to measure drug related attitudes was discovered. 25 Guttman's recent contributions to scale construc- tion and attitude measurement (i.e., facet design and multidimensional scaling) avoid many of the prior criti- cisms of unidimensional scaling since they provide an a priori method of item selection and are multidimensional in nature. To the author's knowledge facet design and nonmetric analysis have not been used to measure attitudes toward drug users. Semantic Differential Scales Doctor and Sieveking (1970) developed a 35 item bipolar questionnaire with a 5 point semantic differential format. No reliability or validity data were presented and no attempt was made to define attitude. Recent cor- respondence with Doctor (November 1970) revealed that he and Sieveking are "very dissatisfied with the struc- ture“ of the questionnaire and current revision is being undertaken. ‘Other Scaling Techniques Two other scaling techniques are identified by Kretch et a1. (1962). They are the social distance scale (associated.with Bogardus) and the scale discrimina- tion method (associated with Edwards). The social distance scale was designed specifically for measuring attitudes toward different nationalities and thus has not been employed in the measurement of attitudes toward drug 26 use. The scale discrimination technique "attempts to synthesize" (Krech et a1. 1962) the methods developed by Thurstone, Likert, and Guttman. However, its strengths and weaknesses have not been sufficiently evaluated and as a result it is seldom employed. Review of current studies that measure (or purport to measure) attitudes toward drug use (drug use is broadly defined here with respect to referant and specific attitude object--i.e., drug user, marijuana, heroin, etc.) reveals very few attitude scales that have been developed and scored, according to one of the specific scaling techniques previously outlined. It also becomes apparent that relia- bility and validity data usually are absent. Definitions of the concept of attitude were seldom presented and as a result no attempt was made to relate an operational definition of attitude to a specific measurement technique. Special Scales Constructed for Particular Studies Drug related attitudes are most frequently assessed by instruments that are specially designed and tailored for a specific study. This is a type of scale most often found in the literature. In fact, with the exception of Vincent's (1970) scale to measure attitude toward smoking marijuana most of the scales reviewed to date seem to fall in this "special" category having been designed for a "one-shot" study. The other scales previously reviewed were, however, 27 included under a specific methodological heading, since they were identifiable as either Thurstone or Likert scales. Instruments specially created for a given study (rather than general use) usually do not rely on familiar techniques of scale construction and item selection. How- ever, there are occasions when a modification of a particu- lar scaling method is used. Generally, validity and reliability data are lacking on these instruments. Fre- quently articles which purport to discuss drug related attitudes are based solely on the author's subjective opinions. When a "questionnaire" has been used, they usually do not meet the stringent requirements of the "scales" previously discussed. Seldom are the "question- naires" reproduced in the article, and replication is virtually impossible in most instances due to meager methodological descriptions. Bennet's (1968) discussion of public attitudes toward LSD use, Solnit et a1. (1969) statement regarding motivation for drug use, Davis and Munoz (1968) article on Patterns and Meanings of Drug Use Among Hippies, and Feldman's (1968) paper on Ideological Supports to Becoming and Remaining a Heroin Addict are all examples of apparently subjective opinions regarding drug related attitudes. None of these individuals presented evidence of employing attitude questionnaires or scales and conclusions suggested by such reports must be validated by objective research. Examples 28 of instruments constructed for a specific study or purpose and apparently not stringently adhering to any specific scaling technique may be found in Murphy, Leventhal and Balter (1969), Rand (1968) Gioscia (1969), Pearlmen (1968), Klein and Phillips (1968), Suchman (1968), Rosenberg (1968), Pattison, Bishop and Linsky (1968), Jones (1969), and Bogg (1969). Apparently these instruments have had restricted applications and have seldom (if ever) been replicated. Generalizing about correlates of drug related attitude- behavior from the results of special made instruments or subjective opinions such as these is precarious at best. Summary of the Scales Used in the Measurement of Drug Related Attitudes Review of scales used to measure drug related attitudes reveals various methods and quality of scale construction procedures. An extremely limited number of scales exist to measure drug related attitudes which have been developed according to the scaling techniques reviewed. Most of the instruments appear to have been constructed for a "one-shot" study, not adhering to any particular scaling procedure. Validity and reliability data are missing in almost every instance. Generally, there is little prior consideration given to the complexity of attitudes and appropriate analysis of data obtained. Attitude is usually not defined and as a result few attempts are made to relate the concept of attitude to its measurement. 29 Of special interest to this study is the fact that no research has been found that employed a facetized design (Guttman, 1959) to measure and analyze attitudes toward drug users. As a result, it is unclear which attitude Levels (or sub-universes) of the Jordan-Guttman paradigm (see Table 6, Chapter III) were being measured. However, perusal of the scales employed to measure drug related attitudes suggests that some scales are measuring a single Level (e.g., Stereotypic) while others are measuring a mixture of Jordan and Guttman's Levels. Visual inspection of the scales revealed that some were measuring Levels not included in the Jordan-Guttman paradigm while certain items were not measuring attitude at all, but were similar to achievement tests in that they were assessing factual knowledge. Absence of knowledge of and control over Levels being measured, coupled with the absence of definition of attitude seem to have contributed to results which are seldom comparable and occasionally contradictory, as evidenced in the review of substantive findings. Review of Substantive Findings Jordan's (1968) comprehensive review of the litera- ture dealing with attitude research revealed four classes of variables (or factors) that appeared to be important determinants, correlates and/or predictors of attitude. Specifically these include: (a) demographic factors (age, sex, geographic location, education, etc.) 30 (b) socio-psychological factors (values, change orientation, etc.), (c) contact factors (amount, nature, enjoyment, etc.), and (d) the knowledge factor (amount of factual knowledge or information possessed about the attitude object). Other attitude research employing the Guttman- Jordan methodology (Hamersma, 1969; Whitman, 1970; Dell Orto, 1970; Harrelson, 1970; Frechette, 1970; Williams, 1970) found support for these four determinants and/or correlates of attitude. Review of the research results on attitudes toward drug users will be organized around this classification and will include other factors dis- covered specifically in the drug literature. The review of substantive findings are presented alphabetically, by author, in Table 1. This table is followed by a description of these findings by "class" of variable examined. Finally, a discussion of some of the consistencies and inconsistencies discovered in the research reviewed is presented at the conclusion of each category of variables (e.g. demographic). Demographic Factors Rossenberg (1968) reports that the addicts he inter- viewed in Rozelle, New South Wales were "usually" reared in a "poor" economic environment, and were usually of above average intelligence. Similarly, Rose (1969) found that LSD users tended to be (although no significant differences 31 TABLE l.--Substantive Findingsae-Correlates of Drug Related Attitudes. Author Sample Drug Related Behavior Correlates or Findings Bogg et al., '69 Brehm and Back, '68 '69 Brunswick, Doctor and Sieveking, '70 Edison, '70 Elles, '70 Jones, '69 King, '70 Klein and Phillips, '68 Levitt et al., '63 Pearlman, '68 Robbins et al., '70 '68 Rossenberg, Suchman, '68 High School Students College Students New York adolescents College Students Police Addicts Users and Non-users College Students "mostly" undergraduate males College Students Lower and Middle Class males age 16-29 Hospital Employees Graduating College Students College Students 50 addicts from New South Wales University Students (west coast) Drug Use Drug Use Drug Use Attitudes toward drug users Attitudes towards drugs and drug use Drug Use Attitudes toward drugs LSD Users Attitudes toward drug usage Hard vs Soft drugs Attitudes toward drug users Drug Use Attitudes toward drug use Addiction Frequency of drug use Attitudes toward drug use Males > Females Socio—economic class does not predict G.P.A. results con- flicting Self Concept didn't differentiate Users more "politically active" Self Concept Change orientation Ethnicity not related to self reported use Ethnicity related to perceived use Negro > White or Spanish Social-Psychological etiology Increased contact increases positive attitudes Social and political situations Undergraduates >Graduates Graduate students more negative than under- graduates "Value-goals" Time perspective Self Concept Users politically apathetic Frequency of use and contact Perceived knowledge Peer Pressure Socio economic class Contact (amount) Sex does not predict GPA does not predict College major Males >Fema1es Sex does not dif- ferentiate Self Concept "poor environment" Above average IQ Attempted suicide Males >Females High GPA < low GPA Opposition to draft and Viet Nam war “Hang loose ethic" Contact "hang loose ethic" Sex Attitudes toward war aThis table presents only those findings believed to be pertinent to the present study. Original documents should be consulted for results not presented here. 32 were presented) more intelligent by both self report and others judgement. Suchman (1968) indicates that when cumulative grade point average is considered as an index of academic behavior, drug use is more likely to occur among the poorer students. Fifteen per cent of those with a G.P.A. of 3.0 or higher reported using drugs, while 31% of those with less than a 2.5 G.P.A. reported drug use. Suchman (1968) also indicated that, for his sample, males were more likely than females to smoke marijuana. He found that family income was not related to attitudes toward marijuana use, and that sex was significantly related to attitudes toward marijuana use, with males reporting sig- nificantly more favorable attitudes. Klein and Phillips (1968) suggest that hard drug users (Opium and Opium derivatives) exist most frequently in deprived areas of the city, while soft drug users are typically middle class. Pearlmen (1968) offers some conflicting evidence on the use of certain demographic data (e.g. sex) as a predictor of drug use or drug related attitude. Data gathered on the Brooklyn College Campus revealed that "age, sex distribution, marital status, and home living" did in no way differentiate drug users from the main "senior group." Similarly, no difference was notable between users and the total senior population on the basis of scholastic performance. 33 Rand (1968) surveyed drug use patterns at Ithaca College and concluded that although drug use varied greatly among different majors,"within majors"the use of drugs did not vary significantly according to academic year. Rand indicated that male students used drugs significantly more often than females. Brunswick (1969) studied adolescent attitudes in the Washington Height Health District in New York. No variance between ethnic groups was reported with respect to cannabus use, however, one-third of the Negro group said "some or most young people around here use heroin" while less than 8% of the "white or Spanish" groups responded that way. No ethnic distinctions were evident on the basis of self reported use. Elles (1970) studied use and attitudes toward drugs and legal controls on the Caltech campus. Results suggest that undergraduates are more likely than graduate students, to use marijuana and LSD. Similarly graduate students, more frequently than undergraduates, favor prohibiting the use and possession of marijuana. Robbins et a1. (1970) indicate that attitudinal positions within a drug use subgroup are essentially the same for males and females. A Study of Attitudes and Actions of the Young People in Michigan (Bogg, Smith,and Russell, 1969) suggests that users and non-users of marijuana do not appear to differ 34 significantly in their plans for college (high school seniors were surveyed). In the schools analyzed, males were more likely to smoke marijuana than were females. Conflicting results were obtained regarding the relation- ship of grades and smoking, with marijuana smokers reporting higher grades in one of the schools and vice- versa in the other four. Marijuana smokers were more likely to report that their fathers had college degrees than were non-smokers. Socio-economic class and family size did not reveal any significant differences between marijuana users and non-users. Dating patterns revealed that marijuana users were more likely to have dated prior to their fourteenth birthday, while non-smokers were more likely to report attaining the age of 15 at the time of their first date. Frequency of steady dating did not prove to be a statisti- cally significant indicator of marijuana smoking. Marijuana users surveyed on the Michigan Study (1969) were less likely to report participation in school sponsored extra—curricular activities, than were non-suers. Similarly, marijuana smokers reported consistently less participation in religious activities. Suchman, Rand, and Pearlman looked at frequency of drug use on college campuses. Suchman and Rand agree that males use drugs more frequently than females, while Pearlman suggests that sex does not differentiate. Suchman indicates 35 that sex does correlate with attitudes toward drug use while Robbins states that it does not. Rossenberg and Klein and Phillips agreed that socio-economic class was predictive of addiction patterns among college and inner city residents respectively. However, Bogg et a1. state that socio- economic class was not predictive of drug use among high school students. Suchman and Pearlman also disagree on the relationship of G.P.A. and drug use among college students with Suchman stating that G.P.A. does correlate with drug use, while Pearlman says it does not. In summary there are conflicting results presented in the literature regarding the relationship of demographic variables to drug related attitudes and behavior. Although it is probable that differential sampling proceedures and design have contributed to these inconsistancies it is postulated that failure to identify and specify Levels of attitude-behavior are a contributing factor to the seemingly confused results available. Socio-Psychological Factors Doctor and Sieveking (1970) after employing a semantic differential scale to survey attitudes toward drug addiction, concluded that their respondents (police- men, non-users, narcotic addicts,and marijuana users) expressed the view that the crucial determinants of addiction were socio-psychological {rather than medical, 36 physical, or hereditary)." In general, Doctor and Sieveking's subjects viewed the drug addict as "socially distant and interpersonally adversive, potentially harmful, frightening, untrustworthy, unpredictable, and somewhat repulsive." Users of marijuana,non-users and policemen agreed that long term psychiatric assistance was needed while addicts indicated that such assistance should be short term (rather than long term). King (1970) found that users of marijuana tend to be more opposed to external control (i.e., university imposed regulations) and view marijuana as a specific agent for inducing tension relief and relaxation more frequently than do non-users. Brehm and Back (1968) conclude that drug users more frequently demonstrate a dissatisfaction with self (as shown by discrepancy scores on their semantic differ- ential scale and expressed insecurity) and consequently desire self modification more often than non-users. Rossenberg (1968) indicates that 42% of the addicts he interviewed in New South Wales, Australia had made at least one attempt at suicide. Suchman (1968) identifies a group of values and personality variable he calls the "Hang Loose Ethic," After surveying 600 "west coast" university students he suggests that "the more ones' behaviors, attitudes and personality conforms to the Hand Loose Ethic the more 37 likely one will be to approve of smoking marijuana." He indicates that drug users more frequently believe that "human lives are too important to be sacrificed for any form of government" than do non-users. Davis and Munoz (1968) like Suchman (1968) feel that a specific group of values exist among drug users. Similar to Brehm and Back (1968) they suggest that a general willingness to experiment with and change ones self exists among the drug using "hippies" they identified. Jones (1969) found significant differences between users and non-users of LSD in terms of value-goals, clarity of future plans, level of aspiration, and time perspective. Users tended to be less committed to "normal" goals and to live in the present. Although both users and non-users expressed similar levels of religious feeling, they differed dramatically in the degree of commitment to a formal or organized religion. Jones' findings of lesser self under- standing among users are congruent with the results presented by Brehm and Back (1968). Similarly non-users, more frequently than users see themselves as more in control of life." Robbins et a1. (1970) found that students who used illicit drugs tended to View themselves as more likely to feel "worthless, useless, and insecure than non-drug using students." 38 Bogg et a1. (1969) in their study of Michigan youth discovered that feelings of "powerlessness" and "social- estrangement" did not significantly differentiate marijuana users from non-users. With the exception of the Bogg et a1. (1969) study, the research tends to agree that socio psychological characteristics such as Efficacy do correlate with drug related attitudes. Perhaps the fact that Bogg et a1. employed a younger population (i.e. high school students) than did the other researchers, accounts for his conflicting results. It is also conceivable that specification of Level of attitude-behavior measured may provide more consistent results on specified socio-psychological variables such as Efficacy. Contact Factors Doctor and Sieveking (1970) suggest that nonpuni- tive and tolerant attitudes toward addicts may correlate highly with amount of contact with drug users. They indicate that individuals who expressed the most lenient nonpunitive attitudes, probably had the greatest direct contact with addicted individuals. No effort was made to ascertain the quality of that contact (i.e., enjoyable or not enjoyable, forced or voluntary), but one might assume (Jordan, 1970) that such factors may be important correlates of attitude. 39 Levitt, Baganz,and Balachy (1963) concurred, noting that direct contact with addicts resulted in a greater lessening of cynical, rejecting, and punitive views than did indirect contact. King (1970) indicated that contact with marijuana and marijuana users correlated highly and positively with attitudes toward marijuana usage. Knowledge Factors King (1970) found that attitudes toward marijuana usage and users correlated positively with perceived know- ledge of both physiological and psychological effects of the drug. This relationship held "somewhat more" strongly for the psychological than for the physiological effects. Other Factors Doctor and Sieveking (1970) indicate that addicts and non-users were more inclined to feel that addicts should be protected rather than punished for mistakes (nonpunitive reaction) while policemen took a more punitive position. Marijuana users ascribed to a very lenient, (more so than either the addict or non—user) nonpunitive position. Edison (1970) suggests that most users (83%) feel that universities should take no position on drug usage while the majority of non—users (68%) believed that the university should take a "punitive position" on drugs. King (1970) and Bogg (1969) found similar results. 40 Political and social aspects of drug use were also examined by Edison (1970). He surveyed 135 drug users and 302 non-users and stated that "users" were strongly anti- war and held "dovish" views of what should be done in Viet Nam, while "non~users" were "more divided" on this issue. He concludes that social and political situations exert a "powerful influence" on drug use in young peOple. This conclusion does not appear warranted in light of the sampling proceedures and eXperimental design presented. Suchman (1968) states that "On the political scene, drug use is much more likely to occur if the student is opposed to the Viet Nam war." Similarly drug users more frequently opposed military service (352) than did non- users (152). Jones (1969) found that LSD users were politically allienated and fell near the apathetic end of the political involvement scale while non-users were highly committed to current societal values. Conversely, Bogg et a1. (1969) study of Michigan youth revealed that marijuana smokers were more likely to participate in political activities such as "underground newspapers" and "activist groups such as young Americans for Freedom and Catholic Peace Fellowships." As might be expected Doctor and Sieveking (1970), King (1970), Suchman (1968), Rand (1967» and Robbins et a1. 41 (1970) found that drug users were more permissive toward the legalization of marijuana than were non-users. Many of the authors reviewed seem to agree that political and social factors do correlate with drug use and drug related attitudes. However, there are inconsist- encies in the direction of these correlations. Jones sug- gests that the male college LSD users he sampled were "politically apathetic"when compared with non-users. Bogg et a1. (Michigan youth), Edison ("users" and "non-users"), and Suchman (college students) indicate that drug users tend to be more "politically active"(Bogg, 1969) and more "anti-war" (Edison, 1970 and Suchman, 1968). Summary of Substantive Findings When interpreting the apparentconsistencies and inconsistencies in the drug related literature reviewed, it is necessary to realize that the comparability of the studies is seriously limited by the different populations, sampling techniques, instrumentation, and methodologies employed. However, review of the substantive findings reveals criticism closely paralleling that leveled at the scales used in the measurement of drug related attitudes. Specifically: little, if any, of the research employed Guttman's (1959) facetized design, thus being unable to differentially relate the predictor variables to different Levels of attitude-behavior. As a result, it is difficult 42 (if not impossible) to determine what Levels or sub—universes in the Guttman-Jordan paradigm were being measured. Con— flicts, and in some instances contradictions, regarding determinants and/or correlates of drug related attitudes are readily evident in the literature. It is postulated that these contradictory findings result from unclear specificationof the Level of attitude being measured as well as varying quality of design, different populations, and various sampling techniques. Few of the research studies present an Operational definition of attitude and most neglect a theoretical paradigm for relating determinants and/or predictors of attitudes toward drug users. Past studies of attitudes toward drug users have not (to this author's knowledge) been replicated, and most of the scales used and results presented, are based on a "one-shot" study. As a conse- quence, most of the data presented are not directly comparable. Often the conclusions drawn by researchers might be accounted for in several different ways due to failure to control for confounding variables such as sample bias. Frequently statements regarding external validity and generalizability exceed what is warrented by the sampling proceedures and experimental design employed. Two variables identified in the review of litera- ture indicating conflicting relationships with drug related attitudes and behavior, have been chosen to demonstrate the 43 differential relationship of given variables with specified Levels of attitude-behavior. These two variables are Efficacy and political activism. Political activism will be assessed by reported voting behavior during the 1968 presidential election and reported participation in political rallies. Efficacy will be assessed by employing an adaptation of Wolf's (1967) Life Situations scale. ‘The specific substantive hypothesis to be tested are presented in Chapter III. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES Although some substantive hypotheses are tested in this study, the primary emphasis is methodological. As a result, the primary emphasis of this chapter deals with methodology,Vspecifically Guttman facet theory and tech- niques of scaling, and Jordan's adaptation of these techniques. Guttman Theory and Techniques of Attitude Scaling The Attitude Behavior Scale: Drug Users (ABS:DU)1 employes'Guttman's recent contributions to attitude scaling and measurements, namely, facet design and non- metric analysis and Jordan's adaptation and elaboration thereof. Excellent reviews of Guttman's earlier tech- niques (scalogram analysis curunidimensional.scaling and multiple unidimensional scaling) are found in Guttman (1959) , Stouffer (1950), Edwards (1957), Waisanen (1960), Jahoda and Warren (1966), Hamersma (l969),and Jordan (1970b). As a result, the current study will review only the lHereafter referred to as the ABS:DU. 44 45 multidimensional scaling (facet design and nonmetric analysis) employed in this study. Multidimensional Scaling Guttman's multidimensional scaling, (facet design and nonmetric analysis) provides a systematic a priori method of item construction rather than relying on intui- tion or judges opinions. In Jordan's (1970b; 1971a) words: Facet theory (Guttman, 1959, 1961, 1970) specifies that the attitude universe represented by the item content can be substructured into semantic profiles which are systematically related according to the number of identical conceptual elements they hold in common. The substructuring of an attitude universe into profiles facilitates a sampling of items within each of the derived profiles, and also enables the prediction of relationships between various profiles of the attitude universe. This should provide a set of clearly defined profiles for cross—national, cross- cultural, and sub-cultural comparison. Hamersma (1969) succinctly states that: What Guttman wants to achieve by facet design and analysis is to be able to construct a scale by a semantic, logical a priori technique and to be able to predict the statistical order structure which would result from empirical observation. What would happen then would be the reverse of what, in reality, factor analysis accomplishes. Factor analysis tries to make sense out of what already has been observed by a mathematical process of forming correlational clusters and then naming them, i.e., calling them factors. These factors are thus inferred a posteriori. As opposed to this approach, facet design, in essence, names the facets before one begins. This procedure is thus an a priori one. A facetlis a factor or semantic unit. If these facets are viewed in terms of set theory (Guttman, 1965), 1Definitions of this and other terms relative to facet analysis are presented in the Glossary (Appendix 1). each facet is a set, containing elements or subsets. The elements are then ordered sub-units of a facet. In dia- graming, facets are represented by capital letters, elements of a facet by corresponding small letters with numerical subscripts showing the position of the given element in order of elements. Foa (1958) states that: "The determination of facets that are relevant to a given class of phenomena involves of necessity a process of selection that is largely intuitive in nature." Nevertheless, certain principles are available to guide the researcher in his selection of relevant facets. The principle of logical independence of the facets (Foa, 1958) suggests that every combination of the elements of selected facets describe a logically possible phenomenological category. Guttman (1965) states that the facets identified for a particular project can be arranged in a "facet definition." This "facet definition" contains and arranges the facets (and their elements) so they read like a sentence. Guttman (1965) provides the following "facet definition" of intelligence: An act of a subject is intelligent to the (extent) to which it is classified by a (teacher) as (demon- strating) a correct perception of an unexhibited logical (aspect) of §_TEEI§tion) intended by the tester, on the basis of another (exhibited) lggiggl (aspect) of the iglatégp that is correctly perceLved by the subject The concepts in parenthesis above are the relevant facets. 47 A more elaborate and refined process for arranging the various facets and their elements is the mapping sentence employed in this study. Figure l is an example of a mapping sentence. Foa (1958) states that conceptual contiguity is a necessary condition for statistical dependence. Guttman and Schlesinger (1966) state that: . . . the relationship between items within the framework of facet design should be expected to have its counterpart in the empirically obtained correla- tion matrix, where the size of the correlation is related to similarity of facet profiles (p. 6). Elsewhere Guttman (1959) states that: One cannot presume to predict the exact size of each correlation coefficient from knowledge only of the semantics of universe ABC but we do propose to predict a pattern or structure for the relative sizes of the statistical coefficients from purely semantic considerations (p. 324). In other words, the contiguity principle states that the correlation between two variables is higher the more similar their facet structure and the intercorrela- tions should reveal a simplex ordering so that the maximum predictability of each level is attainable from its immediate neighbors. This predicted relationship has been obtained by Jordan (1970b),wfilliams (1970), Erb (1969), and Frechette (1970) on various attitude objects. Guttman (1954-55) attacks the problem of order among variables with his radex theory. A radex, according to Guttman, is a set of variables that have a law of 48 .COAuosuuu «unease ouococ n nmsoucu m mueoom n .cOMuosuuu unwon ouocou m Susanna 4 muouuma .muuma mono pum3oa mocsuwuu< uo noduosuum namuoumq use museon wo menaamsm umumm ecu ecu obscucom mcwmamz <1:.a ousmwm sawumucouoocw mw v HoowooHocoamo mm mafiammcsoo me aw as oo: m>w a 18328 J .. x ”.3 a H Lhasa” m: Oasocooo nn Amocmcmucwmev m o>wmoou >9 v m . . rue: museumbsm msup w xoom hau:0:d&~0m pmum>wuoE «>333 81 an . N All Hugues . Seascapsuai .203... On 2 ~ m>wumooc Ax awuwmzcm Hm ousueumbsm most a“ Hmoma a: oocon> moocwsmemcou «axe useEumoue :Ommwm ucwEummue Ax. An. “He Are ‘ HO>OH absceumoscm mam :mpceeum coco: mam m00wuomuo Hmsxwm Hmsmscs cam HoAOOmwusm mam >uflusume Nam codewawu Ham o>flmmAEuoa >Hamsxom cam :WHWSHHOM: am 7 >ueamwu manomo mo \ Ho>mH oeeocoom em debates em some om mom» we >uwawbopcwaoc xuoz mo ceeuoooou uuoflxcm mu :0wumofiuwuwuo amass v0 OOOHm soon we anuuo3umsuu mm cuex\eoue\ch ceeuwwoumepouo ML Eouw sues muomu0ucw mp m ocAu~omou . m :mumm: maps: 7 onecounmeuu do cued 050: w anue3v wuooeoo . monomeuaouce m reoccuum Hmoflmwrm aw monomeoo as V In uo«>mcom wuflumfiumuomumco momscu msoumHQDCH m.u0u0¢ A0. are Lav moon N . Lawn No ’ . Lawn ~m \ NAHMCOAueummo o sebum I ceauom \ mo unsecuwu ou . .QOO cowmwuodm oru uso>o Nb uofi>mcmb . .uou powueoeum mmusbwuuum u 030 paso3 H ’ .mHOc3 mm .OOO a umsu \ a ’ uccuouou \ .maon3 mm .mom ’ Axe uowflnsm Henceaooe m w muoruo o can woaawb Ho orb muoruo Hm uo«>mnem m.u0uo< «0 season nobo< Leaumrmm ucoummom ucoumwmm Au. .0. Ami Awm Ham mmonom “sod one m.H mumenomnomv now: on 30H Eouw mumomm o>wm one no name oqudqo Dab no because haamcoeumnomo we :oeuonuum “neono Hmcoepmnomo mo coeuomuwbce No made No coHuom we made we eum>o oeaooemm Ho somwummEoo Ho mumsuo Ho mweaoo an muoouo Hm Hoe>msom Hoe>msom msoumnousH H0e>mnmm muouoa wo semeoo m.Houom Hovoe psmuommm usonmmom m Q U m fl .mmno>ess mOOpfluum no mo Geeuosuvm tendon mswfinmumo 0» comb mumoom m.:MOH0bII.m mamma 58 memfiwn coeeom III m>fluomnmusw mo “omnosm No uuo>o Nb III moonm III m>flpoummeoo Ho m.DOOmnsm Ho mowamn HQ III H0e>momb moonmumuse How>o£mo III m.usmnmmmm ucmuowom m.uommnsm III smEuusw soeuom Hmsoepoummo mm soeuomuouce mo mamm mo pno>o mo maom mm oeHOQESm Ho somehomEoo Hp muosuo HO mmeamb Ho muscuo Hm Hoe>msmo H0H>m£mo m.uouoo moonmuwucfl How>mnmn mo cemeoa m.uoyom moved econommm usmuommm soonon m G U m Aw sowuoumoo< cmouon cw mumomm .mcoeumcoemwo umomm soonon out cmfiueso mo cowenmmEOUII.m mamde 59 .somooo mums moaewoum w swoop gowns mo mascowumu MOM m pom m edema moms soeuom Hmcomumm No No No No as m oceaomm HMQOmHmm Ho No No No mm m coauom Hmoepocpommm HMQOmHom am No No HQ No v coaumsHo>m Homo: Hocomsom am «O HO an an m Enoz Hopowoom Ho mo HO an as m ommuoonmum Hopoeoom Ho Ho HO HA as H Hm>oaImm>B Esme ucHOO o>fiumenommo maemoum soeuosuum mamomnsm .cmouon mo oowmwucmoH soapbouum opouwuud mo mwmma xwm one How maobmq out o.:0wuemomEou maemoum .Ho>mA uGAOhII.e memes 60 Maierle found that only 12 of these profiles (Table 8) were logically and semantically consistent. Table 9 shows Maierle's basis for elimination of the other 20 profiles and Table 10 presents the definitional statements of the 12 possible profiles. Note: Table 9 replaces the subscripts "l" and "2" shown in Table 8 with letters representing the elements names (e.g., 0 = others, b = believe, i = interact, p = Operational). This permits the definitional statements shown in Table 10. Maierle identified six sets of permutations which fit the restrictions on "semantic paths." Table 11 depicts the set of permutations corresponding to Jordan's (1968) paradigm, to be employed in this study. This semantic path (Table 11) corresponds to the underlined facet pro- files in Table 10. The definitional statements facilitate the writing of appropriate attitude items for each Level member while the listing of profiles by facet change (Table 11) makes possible a clearer graphic representation of the successive changes from weak to strong elements (simplex) . Maierle (1969) also randomly varied the order of Level presentation of a Guttman facet type attitude scale and found that a better simplex approximation was obtained when the correlations were plotted according to theoretical relationships rather than order of administration; thus 61 TABLE 8.--Permutations of Five Two-element Facets.a Permutations Facets and Subscripts A B C D E l l l l l 1 2 l l l 2 l 3 2 1 1 1 l 4 2 1 1 2 l 5 1 l 2 1 l 6 l l 2 2 l 7 2 l 2 1 1 8 2 l 2 2 1 9 l 2 l l l 10 l 2 1 2 1 ll 2 2 l l l 12 2 2 l 2 l 13 l 2 2 l l 14 l 2 2 2 l 15 2 2 2 1 1 l6 2 2 2 2 1 l7 1 l l l 2 18 l l 1 2 2 19 2 l l 1 2 20 2 l l 2 2 21 1 1 2 l 2 22 l l 2 2 2 23 2 1 2 1 2 24 2 1 2 2 2 25 l 2 l l 2 26 l 2 l 2 2 27 2 2 l 1 2 28 2 2 1 2 2 29 1 2 2 l 2 30 1 2 2 2 2 31 2 2 2 1 2 32 2 2 2 2 2 aSubscript "1" indicates weak element; "2" indicates strong element. 62 TABLE 9.--Permutations of Five Two-element Facetsa and Basis of Elimination. Permutations Facets and Subscripts Basis of Elimination In In No.b Table 10 Table 7 A B c D E l 1 Level 1 o b o c s 2 2 Level 2 o b o i s 3 3 -- i b o c s 4 4 Level 3 i b o i s 5 5 -- o b i c s 6 6 -- o b i i s 7 7 -- i b i c s 8 8 Level 4 i b i i s 9 -- -- o a o c s 2 10 9 -- o a o i s 11 -- -- i a o c s l 2 12 -- -- i a o i s l 13 -- -- o a i c s 1 2 l4 -- -- o a i i s 1 15 -- -- i a i c s 2 16 10 Level 5 i a i i s 17 -- -- o b o c p 3 4 18 -- -- o b o i p 4 19 -- -- i b o c p 3 4 20 -- -- i b o i p 4 21 -- -- o b i c p 3 4 22 -- -- o b i i p 4 23 -- -- i b i c p 3 4 24 -- -- i b i i p 4 25 -- -- o a o c p 2 3 26 11 -- o a o i p 27 -- -- i a o c p 1 2 3 28 -- -- i a o i p 1 29 -- -- o a i c p 1 2 3 30 -- -- o a i i p l 31 -- -- i a i c p 2 3 32 12 Level 6 i a i i p elements, both "o" or both ___ cannot be preceded by an "a" in facet B. facet D cannot be followed by a a "p" in facet E cannot be preceded by a "b" in See text for explanation. aSee Table 3 for facets. bNumbering arbitrary, for identification only. cLogical semantic analysis as follows: an "a" in facet B must be preceded aid followed by identical .1. Basis 2: P a "c" Basis in facet E. Basis 1: in facet 3: a "c" Basis 4: facet B. D in 6Z3 .muwnEoE Hw>oH msoHHm> mo mQHmeoHDmHou ODMOHUCH monocucmuoa CH mmEm: muocumqu .szmmd or» CH pom: mcoHuouOEuomw U .mucmEououm acoumHmcoo use ucmocspou Lo been one monocucouom :H mpuozo .mucoEoHo mcouum wo HOQEOCII.OZ n .a was a moshae .uum I I I I momamoanma mcoHuo< chomnom thHmcoHucuouo pooHODCH H Auom Hy m m H H o H o I I I I I HONUNUNDNQ mocHHoom Hosomuwm e>HHooHH02EHm uooumusH H Auoo He v w a H m a m HOH>MLOQ mooum Hmsuod >HHocoHucHoam Donueucm muocum Auom muenumv Q a O o o m v mecmoHnma osoHuO¢ HmOHuorbou>r HoCOmuom oxHHmoHHosewm uocuoucH H w>oHHom M m H a o H AmmcHHoww I l I I OOOHO Hmsuoov >uHucooH usouu >HHmoHHooEmm uOtuOucH muenuo Loom muwruov m H o m o AmcpooHoomxm I l I I I QOOHOV w3oq UOEHOHOOHQ >HHQOHHOQE%m bomuODCH H o>OHHoo muocuo m H H o o Amsumum HoCOmHom omconmo I I N m I>HHoCOmummv uueocoOIuHom xHHeOHHCQEwm ouooEoo H o>oHHom M m o H 3 H AmosHm> po>Hoououv I I I HemoHoHomo ocoHuous>m Houoz HocomHOO oxHHooHHOQE>m bosseDCH muorum o>oHHOQ M m H o n H msuoum HMCOmHoQ ooconmOIOsouo >HHeoHHOQE>m oucoiom M o>oHHom muwrum m U H o o I I I I l HONUHUHDHM oEuoz HouoHoom w>HHmoHHooE>m uooHODCH muosuo o>oHHoo muoruo H m H o n o N msuoum QOOHO pmcmHmmMIxHHOCOmHOm wHHmoHHOQEHW ououeom muorum o>oHHom M m o o n H wimsuoum usono I HmeHpoHm pwcmemm mooumv muxuooumum HouoHOOm ozHHoOHHOQE>m ouoqum muscum m>oHHom muorum o m U o n 0 H oEmz m>HumHu0moo omucmEououm HocoHuHsHmoo oz moHHw0um pooch Ho>oq U .mcoHuoOOEuom w>Ho3B Hoe mucoseuoum HocoHuHsHmoQ pom .meHwoum uoumm .mHm>oq mumcoHumNHHonuo> uoH>oLomIoosuHuu¢ mo Eoumwm Ho>wq me umommlm>HMII.OH mqmde n 64 .AusoEmHm mcouumv N no AucoEoHo MmmBV H umHHoonm m oocmHmmm Hoomm some £HH3 .chHumpsEHmm mo pom oEmm ecu mysommnm h oHome .owuosnpmcoo mm3 OHmom DoImmd one £OH£3 Op mcHouooom mmocu one gene OHucmEom mHnu sH oomHHmfioo chHpmusEHmm Ho pom exam COHuoo HmsOmHmm -H H I" m Q.- 04 H H m -H l!) aoHHom HmOHHmauoasr Hmaomuma H H H n m m H H n H a sOHHmsHm>m Hmnofi HosOmHom H H o o m m H o A H m Enos HmHmHoom H o o b m m a o o o m ommuoonmuthomeoom o o o o m m o o n o H adumm .mnomd mmsmnu uoomm .opmum .moo mofimz m>HumHuommo we wHHmonm an mHHmoum Hm>mH m.omuo>HsD mosaHuud umommIo>Hm o Mom :0: Spam OHucmEomII.HH mqmHuHmomum GOHHMHOHHOO m>Hummmsuzm m m m HD>DH m m m Ho>oH m m w Ho>mq m m m HO>®H Z Z N Hm>mH z 2 H Ho>OH EmH>HHom HmoHuHHoa HUMUHHHH mmoHQMHHm> OOHmHoomm . Ho>mHImm>B suHs QOHHMHmHHOU omNHmmnuommm onomnsm .ooumma as» H0 mHm>mH me who one smH>HHoa HMOHHHHom pom hom0Hmmm cmw3pom mQOHHMHOHHOU mo cOHuomHHo omNHmosuommmII.vH mqmme 82 drug users is also presented with each hypothesis. The political activism variable was arbitrarily chosen for inclusion as an illustrative substantive hypothesis from those variables with an apparently confused relationship with drug related attitudes. Again, the hypothesized relationships are based on the authors clinical judgment, review of the literature, and consultation with a psychologist. No attempt will be made to exhaustively study political activism. For this study, the political activism variable will be measured by self reported voting behavior in the 1968 presidential election and by self reported participation in political demonstrations. Theoretical'Hypotheses H-l: The six Levels of the ABS:DU will form a simplex for each of the criterion groups. The obtained 02 values for each group shall equal or exceed .70. H-2: The criterion categories will rank order at Level 6, as hypothesized in Table 13. Substantive Hypotheses H—3: Efficacy will correlate positively with attitude-behavior toward drug users as measured at Level 6 of the ABS:DU for the samples identified. Rationale Individuals who feel in control of their environ- ment will feel less threatened by drug users and will be more likely to have progressed educationally,occupationally, 83 and emotionally to positions where experiences with drug users have been favorable. H-4: Efficacy will correlate positively with attitude-behavior toward drug users as measured at Level 5 of the ABS:DU for the samples identified. Rationale Individuals who feel in control of their environ- ment will be more likely to feel favorable towards groups dissimilar from themselves since they are less likely to be threatened by them. H-S: Efficacy will correlate positively with attitude-behavior toward drug users as measured by Level 4 of the ABS:DU for the samples identified. Rationale Those who score high on Efficacy will feel capable of handling new situations and will be more likely to feel they would be able to engage in behavior with others who are different (e.g. drug users). H—6: Efficacy will correlate positively with attitude-behavior toward drug users as measured by Level 3 of the ABS:DU for the samples identified. Rationale Those who feel high control over their environment will be more self confident and feel less need to be morally devaluating of others who are different. 84 H-7: Efficacy will correlate negatively with attitude-behavior toward drug users as measured at Level 2 of the ABS:DU for the samples identified. Rationale Those who score high on Efficacy will be more open and receptive to others views and will have observed that others would find interaction with drug users undesirable. H-8: Efficacy will correlate negatively with attitude-behavior toward drug users as measured at Level 2 of the ABS:DU for the samples identified. Rationale Those who score high on Efficacy will have observed that others are threatened by drug users, and that the stereotypic views of society are unfavorable. H-9: Political activism will correlate negatively with attitudes-behavior toward drug users as measured at Level 1 of the ABS:DU for the samples identified. Rationale The politically active individual is likely to see others as politically inactive and threatened by people like drug users who engage in socially unacceptable behavior. H-10: Political activism will correlate nega- tively with attitude-behavior toward drug users as measured at Level 2 of the ABS:DU for the samples identified. 85 Rationale The politically active person is more likely to be well read and informed about matters of current concern. As a result the politically active will be more likely to have seen the normative way of dealing with drug users as unfavorable. H-ll: Political activism will correlate positively with attitude-behavior toward drug users as measured at Level 3 of the ABS:DU for the samples identified. Rationale The politically active person is likely to believe that his vote counts and thus, that he is able to govern his destiny. As a result he will feel less need to devalue others on a moral basis because of his positive self con- cept. H-12: Political activism will correlate positively with attitude-behavior toward drug users as measured at Level 4 of the ABS:DU for the samples identified. Rationale The politically active person is likely to believe that his vote counts and thus, that he is able to have a bearing on his destiny and be capable of handling new situations. As a result he would likely believe that hypothetical interaction with others such as drug users would be positive. 86 H-13: Political activism will correlate positively with attitude-behavior toward drug users as measured at Level 5 of the ABS:DU for the samples identified. Rationale The politically active person is more likely to feel that his voting affects his destiny and that of others. Consequently he is also likely to feel positive about unknown quantities such as drug users. H-l4: Political activism will correlate positively with attitude-behavior toward drug users as measured at Level 6 of the ABS:DU for the samples identified. Rationale The politically active person is more likely to feel that his vote and his behavior effects his life. The politically active is also likely to have sought out new experiences and acquantances to enlighten his voting decisions. Due to his positive self concept he is likely to have perceived his experiences with the attitude object (drug users) as favorable. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA The basic intent of this research was the establish- ment of an attitude-behavior toward drug users scale, employ- ing facet theory. As a result, the primary emphasis in this chapter is on item analysis, simplex approximation, validity, and reliability. Originally, 40 content items were con- structed and carried across the six Levels (i.e. Stereo- typic through Actual Action) resulting in 240 items. Through item analysis 20 of these items were selected for the finallcomposite scale which can be employed in further research. Certain illustrative substantive hypotheses were also tested and their analysis is also described. Research Population The entire 240 item scale (ABS:DU) plus a 40 item personal data questionnaire was administered to all of the groups described below (depicted graphically in Table 15). In order to insure the anonymity of subjects and institutions participating all groups are described in geographic terms. The actual participants are described in more detail. For analysis purposes the respondents,are divided into five 1The authors of the scale will continue further work on the scale and users of the ABS:DU should consult them regarding developments. 87 88 .mHQMHHm> xwm cu pcommmu ou mpoanSm meow mo mHDHHmm ow map 2 Hmuou Hmsgm mwmsz #0: oo mEsm mHmEmm paw mHmE umnu mpozm mHHm.o co m cm mm m mucmHumm mcoomgumz mmu< “Houuwa muoH©©< muHm.o so HH OH Hm N mHoHooa smxuse oHoo chuoHHHmo Hameummne zmH HH om ow H mpoHoo< conmcmeH m zmH mH am mv m mmeHoo suHcsssoo aways cm muchSpm ZmH NH OH mm m mmmHHou cmmHnon cumsusom é wmmHHOU zmH HH m mH H sUHmum>Hca mumum :mmHsUHz m zmH em mH mm H Hoorom :mHm mmmzmx EmH mm mH vv m Hoonom smHm cmmHsoHS cumcusom Hmuom mucmcsum smH Ha Hm mm N Hoocom anm mmum mchcmq Hoosom smHm :mH mm pH we H Hoocom :mH: mmua uHouumo a gnome mHHm.O_co hv ow mm H anHmm mmmcmx mDOHmHHmm umHHmucwEmocsm U zmH m Hm mm m muonwwo Houpmm MHcHOMHHmU swan: ZmH m mm mm m mumonmo moHuoonz MHcHOMHHmo Gonna moHHOm zmH m mm mm H moHHom :meron can“: m mHHm.O co 0 me mu m .con Hmupcmu cpsom CH comHHm mmumEcH muHm.OH:o 0 mm mm m .Lon Hmuusmu nusom cH comHHm omumnwoumocH wHHm.OH:o m mm mm H mmné HHouqu cH comHum é mmcommmm .02, mo came meEmm mmHmz mz msouw coHumcmHmmo msouu whommumu .UmonQEm wCOHuMHsmom noncommmll.mH mqmfie 89 main categories, A through E,shown in Table 15. Each category is then divided into responding groups (i.e., 1, 2 etc.). This termonology is depicted in Table 15 and will be employed throughout Chapter IV and V. Category A consists of inmates from three Michigan prisons. Group 1 inmates (28 males and 8 females) were arrested on drug related charges (e.g. possession, use, sale, as well as criminal offences such as breaking and entering) and were identified upon screening intake (by medical doctors) as "addicts." Approximately one-third of this group had been sentenced and the other two-thirds (approximate) were incarcerated while awaiting trial. All of the females and 24 of the males were Blacks. The 28 males in group 2 were arrested on drug or drug related charges and were identified as addicts in the same manner as group 1. Here again, approximately two-thirds were awaiting sentence while one-third were serving time. Approximately 50 per cent of this group were Blacks. Participants in both groups 1 and 2 of category A constituted a comprehensive sample (i.e., all incarcerated drug users in jail on the day of administration) however, all par- ticipation was on a voluntary basis. Only four of those inmates identified in groups 1 and 2 failed to complete the scales. Category A,group 3,subjects consists of 45 males incarcerated in.a Federal Prison N.A.R.A., II (Narcotic Addiction Rehabilitation Act, 1964) rehabilitation program. All these subjects are confirmed "addicts" and 90 had been in the program from 2 weeks to 9 months at the time of administration (approximately 70 per cent of this group were Blacks). Again a comprehensive sample was employed and all inmates in the specified NARA program were asked to take the scale. None of this group refused to do so. Category B consists of police officers from both Michigan and California. The group 1, category B,officers were stationed in an urban Michigan penitentiary where "drug addicts" were frequently incarcerated. A total of 60 scales were handed out at morning role call, however, only 27 of these scales were returned. Due to the anonimity of respondents, no follow-up procedures (with the exception of the moral persuasion wielded by their inspector) were _employed to increase the sample size. It was also impossible to determine the racial balance in this group. Group 2, category B,consists of 23 males and 8 females making up a "special narcotics bureau" in a large California city. These subjects were directed to take the scale by their commanding officec. Similarly, group 3, category B,was made up of regular "patrol officers" from the same California Police Department. Here co- operation was voluntary and 33 of the approximately 50 officers contacted, returned completed questionnaires (31 males and 2 females). The racial balance of this 91 group is unknown since the author did not administer the scale to this group. Category C consisted of the members of a fundamen- talist religious sect located in an urban Kansas setting. Eighty-seven members of this congregation (40 males, 47 females) returned usable questionnaires, at the request of their pastor (approximately 100 were distributed). The church dogma of this group includes clearly anti-drug statements (ethnicity of this group is unknown). Category D is made-up of 4 high school groups. Group 1 consists of 48 juniors (17 males, 29 females) attending two basic Biology courses in a suburban Detroit district. This type "A" (2200-2400) district is typically middle class and no Black students were present in this group. All students in both classes agreed to participate. Group 2, category D,inc1uded 65 seniors (21 males, 41 females) from an urban, central Michigan High School (class "A"). These students were enrolled in a driver education class and approximately 5 of those present at the time of administration did not complete the question- naire (4 due to stated preference not to take such an instrument and 1 because of time scheduling problems). Again the district is typically white middle class. Two rural southern Michigan high school classes (junior level economics) constitute group 3. All of the 15 males and 29 females present agreed to take the 92 instrument. These students are in a "class B" (550 to 1,100) school which draws heavily on a white rural popula- tion. No Blacks were included in this sample. Group 4, category D,is made-up of 52 seniors from an urban Kansas high school enrolling approximately 1,500 students. These students were enrolled in two senior English classes and all students present participated. The racial balance of this group is unknown. Group 1, category E,(college students) includes 16, Masters level, graduate students from Michigan State University. These students were enrolled in a graduate counseling seminar, and all those present agreed to complete the questionnaire. No Blacks were represented in this group. Group 2, category B,contains 10 males and 12 females (1 respondent did not indicate sex) enrolled in a private, southern Michigan Liberal Arts College. A sophmore sociology class of approximately 60 was asked to take the questionnaire and 23 turned in usable results. The time allotted for the questionnaire administration was insufficient and those who did complete it did so on their own time and turned in their answers at a later date. Group 3, category B,consistec of 45 students enrolled in two summer school freshman English classes at an urban community college in eastern Michigan. All 27 males and 18 females present completed the questionnaire. 93 Group 1, category F,inc1udes 40 patients at the National Research Center in Lexington, Kentucky. All patients at this center are NARA I or NARA III clients. All are admitted drug users. Those who agreed to take the scale, did so on a voluntary basis. Approximately 50 per cent of those who took the scale (26 men and 11 women) were Blacks. Group 2, category F,includes 21 "cold turkey" addicts from a self help, in residence program in an urban California setting. Para professional guidance is provided by two "ex—addicts." Group 3, category F,consists of 26 outpatient methadone maintenance clients from a Detroit area hospital. A11 respondents in this category volunteered to their counselors request. This group consists of 20 males and 5 females. All scales were group administered according to the instructions given in Appendix 2. The author adminis— tered all groups except the California police, (category B, group 2), the Kansas parish (category C), Kansas high school (category D, group 4), and the Lexington patients (category F, group 1). The other groups were administered by professional contacts in the distant geographic locations (i.e. California and Kansas). In all cases the scales were group administered according to the directions in Appendix 2. 94 In most cases respondents used IBM answer sheets. However, in instances where respondents were unlikely to have had experience with IBM type answer sheets, the instructions were to circle their answers or the questionnaire booklet (Appendix 2) . All datawere coded and punched according to the code book shown in Appendix 3. In summary, there are 6 categories and 17 groups (Kansas Parish is counted as both a category and a group) to which various statistical procedures were applied to obtain: 1. Level to Level correlations and 02 evaluations for each group, each category, and total, 2. Hoyt reliability coefficients were obtained on each group and each category, 3. Inter-item, item to facet, and item to Level correlations for each category and each group, 4. Analysis of variance between categories. These analyses will now be described in detail. Level to Level Correlations and Q2 Evaluation to Test Simplex Approximation of InitiaT’Scale The STATROUT computer program at the Michigan State University computer center was used to produce Level to Level correlations for all groups and all categories. This facilitates analysis of the simplex approximation postulated 95 in Hypothesis 1. Interpretation of simplexes obtained do not lend themselves to any direct test of significance. However, Kaiser (1962) has created a method whereby the obtained simplex is submitted to a procedure that "evaluates" the obtained correlation matrix (resulting in a 02). The program also rearranges adjacent pairs of coefficients into the best possible simplex order and computes a "best approximation" 02. Tables 16 to 22 present the correlation matrices and Q2 values for both the original matrix and for the "best approximation" for every group and for the total subjects to which the initial scale was administered. Negative correlations are not accounted for in the simplex structures and relatively few have occurred in this study. Where they have occurred they have been reflected as positive as Kaiser (1962) suggests (e.g., -.01 is inter- preted as .01). No negative correlations are noted in the "Total" simplex and it is suggested that sampling errors may account for the negative correlations evidenced in some groups. As stated in Chapter III a Q2 value of .70 is accepted as reflecting a satisfactory simplex approximation according to the Jordan-Hamersma 6 reversal criteria (Hamersma, 1969). Perusal of Tables 16-22 indicates that only one correlation matrix failed to exceed this criteria (category B, group 1). No concrete reason can be offered for the failure of this group to achieve the Q2 value of 596 TABLE 16.-—Correlation Matrices and Q2 Values for Original and Best Simplex Approximations, Category A, Initial Scale. ORIGINAL SIMPLEX MATRIX CATEGORY A GROUP 1 “00000 0.0390 0.5500 0.0020 0.1020 0.1340 0.6390 1.0000 0.9390 0.0370 0.0390 0.0050 0.5500 7 0.0390 1.0000 0.2570 3 0.2550 0.1700 0.0620 0.0370 9.2570 1.0000 0.9010 0.7070 0.1020 0.0390 0.2530 0.9010 1.0000 0.7900 0.1340 0.0050 -0.1700 0.7070 0.7900 1.0000 0402. 0.9007435252 BEST SIMPLEX MATRIX CATE;ORY A GROUP 1 1.0000 0.0300 0.0390 0.0390 0.0370 0.0050 0.0390 1.0000 0.5500 0.1020 0.0020 0.1340 0.0390 0.5500 1.0000 0.2550 0.2570 0.1700 .0.0390 70.1020 w 0.2550 "11.0000 0.9010 . 0.7900 0.0370 0.0020 0.2570 0.9010 1.0000 0.7070 0.0050 0.1340 0.1700 0.7900 0.7070 1.0000 0002- 019183410501 ORIGINAL SIMPLEX MATRIX CATEGORY A GROUP 2 1.0000 0.5090 0.3010 0.3230 0.3050 0.1000 0.5090 1.0000 0.4730 0.4340 0.4000 0.3420 _ 0.3010 0.4730 7 1.0000 0.4200." 0.4510 . 0.4300 0.3230 0.4340 0.4200 1.0000 0.0500 0.7200 0.3050 0.4000 0.4510 0.0500 1.0000 0.0200 0.1000 0.3420 0.4300 0.7200 0.0200 .1.0000 0002. 0.9629715613 BEST SIMPLEX MATRIX CATAGORY A GROUP 2 1.0000 0.5090 0.3010“ 0.3230 0.3050 0.1000 0.5090 1.0000 6.4230 0.4340 0.4000 0.3420 0.3010 0.4730 1.0000 0.4200 0.4510 0.4300 0.3230 0.4340 0.4200 1.0000 0.0500 0.7200 0.3050 0.4000 0.4510 0.0500 1.0000 0.0200 .00.1000 . 0.3420 -.fi.4300 0.7200 0.0200 01.0000 0002- 0.9629715813 ORIGINAL SIMPLEX MATRIX CATEORY A GROUP 3 ‘1.0000 ' 0.3900 ’ 0.4440’“v0.2370 0.2020 0.1440 0.3900 1:0000 0.1900 0.0090 0.0110 0.0030 ,_ 0144401 -0.1500 _ 1.0000“. 0.7000 __0.0590 _ 0.23001_ -0 _r _ 0.2370 0.0090 9.7000 1.0000 0.7040 0.3310 0.2020 0.0110 9.0590 0.7040 1.0000 0.3010 1.10.1440.W,0.0030-n 0.2300--70.33100 -0.3010 __1.0000 0 " """ " "' ‘ ‘ ' " 00020 "0.0502520030’ BEST SIMPLE)! MATRIX CATEGORY A GROUP 3 1.0000 0:3000 £11900 0.0090 0.0110 0.0030 05.0.3900“ .1‘0000.“ 40-- 0. 2370 _ 0.2020 ”,0 1410 -, .1 - _-_ 0.1900 034440 1.0300 0:7000 0.0590 0:2300 0.0090 0.2370 0.7000 1.0000 0.7040 0.3310 0.0110 0.2020.-.§.0590 010.704090_1.0000m_ 0.3010- 7 _5 0.0030 0.1440 0.2300 0.3310 0.3010 1.0000 0.020 0.9207029434 97 _ . . 2 . . TABLE l7.—-Corre1ation Matrices and Q Values for Original and Best Simplex Approximations, Category B, Initial Scale. ORIGINAL SIMPLEX MATRIX CATEEORY B GROUP 1 1.0000 0:7200 0.3000 0.1950 0.4010 0.5470 0.7200 1:0000 0.7030 0.4300 0.0000 0.6430 700.3380 - 0,7030 1.0040- .0.7980 1 0.2620 0.4510-” - 0.1950 0.4300 0.7900 1.0000 0.1400 0.1730 0.4010 0.0000 0.2020 0.1400 1.0000 0.9700 _0.5470._ 0.0430 - 0.4510 0 0.1730, 0.9700 .1.0000 0..2. 0.0453950351' BEST SIMPLEX MATRIX CATEGORY B GROUP 1 ” 1.0000 0.7900 0.4300 0.1950 0.1730 0.1400 0.7900 1.0000 0.7030 0.3000 0.4510 0.2020 -0.4300_.”0.103001.1.0000- 00.7200 0.0430 0.0000 _ 0.1950 0.3000 0.7260 1.0000 0.5470 0.4010 0.1730 0.4510 0.0430 0.5470 1.0000 0.9700 0.1400 7 0.2020 0.0000 0.4010 0.9700 1.0000 0042- 0.9497372505"- BEST SIMPLEX MATRIX CATEGORY B GROUP 2 1.0000 0;7440 0.7050 0.7370 0.5720 0.4710 0.7440 1.0000 0.9500 0.9170 0.7210 0.0300 0.7050 0.0500 1.0000 0.9110 0.0000 0.0550 0.7370 0.9170 0.9110 1.0000 0.0450 0.7000 0.5720 0.7210 0.0000 0.0450 1.0000 0.0700 0.4710 0.0300 0.0550 0.7000 0.0700 1.0000 0402- 0.9843153287 ORIGINAL SIMPLEX MATRIX CATEGORY B GROUP 2 1.0000 0.7440 0.7050 0.7370 0.5720 0.4710 0.7440 1.0000 0.8500 0.9170 0.7210 0.6380 007650 008500 340000 009110 005000 046550 0.7370 0.9170 0.9110 1.0000 0.0450 0,7000 0.5720 0.7210 0.0000 0.0450 1.0000 0.0700 0.4710 0.0300 0.0550 0.7000 0.0700 1.0000 0..2- 0.9043153207 ORIGINAL SIMPLEX MATRIX CATEGORY B GROUP 3 1.0000 050220 0.4140 0.4020 0.5300 0.4790 0.0220 1.0000 0.4040 0.0000 0.4040 0.4130 0.4140 0.4040 1.0000 0.0000 0.4640 0.4130 0.4020 0.0000 0.0020 1.0000 0.0300 0.0230 0.5300 0.4440 0.5110 0.0300 1.0000 0.0540 0.4790 0.4130 0.5590 0.8230 0.8540 1.0000 0.42. 0.0571090477 “ BEST SIMPLEX MATRIX CATEGORY B GROUP 3 1.0000 0.0220 9.4040 0.0000 0.4040 0.4130 ._0.02203 1.0000.- 0.4140 n 0.4020 0.5300.. 0.4790 0.4040 0.4140 1.0000 0.0000 0.4040 0.4130 0.0000 0.4020 0.0020 1.0000 0.0300 0.0230 0.4040. 0.5300 1 0.5110 0.0300 1.0000 0.0540 0.4130 0.4790 0.5590 0.0230 0.0540 1.0000 0902! 0.8589548865 98 TABLE 18.--Correlation Matrices and Q2 Values for Original and Best Simplex Approximations, Category C, Initial Scale. ORIGINAL SIMPLEX MATRIX CATEGORY C 1.0000 0.0050 0.3070 0.3400 0.3790 0.1770 0.0050 1.0000 0.3040 0.2030 0.2430 0.0490 0.3070 0.3340 1.0000 0.0100 0.0370 0.5700 0.3400 0.2030 0.0100 1.0000 0.0030 0.0300 0.3790 0.2430 0.0370 0.0030 1.0000 0.0090 0.1770 0.0490 0.5700 0.0300 . 0.0090 1.0000 0.02. 0.0994420391 BEST SIMPLEX MATRIX CATEGORY C 1.0000 0.0050 0.3340 0.2030 0.2430 0.0490 0.0050 . 1.0000 0.3070 - 0.3400 0 0.3790 0.1770 0.3340 0.3470 1.0000 0.0100 0.0370 0.5700 0.2030 0.3400 0.0100 1.0000 0.0030 0.0300 0.2430 3 0.3790 . 0.0070 0.0030 1.0000 0.0090 0.0490 0.1770 0.5700 0.0300 0.0090 1.0000 0902! 0.9316642267 TABLE l9.--Correlation Matrices and 02 Values for Original and Best Simplex Approximations, Category D, Initial Scale. ORIGINAL SIMPLE MATRIX CATEORY D GROUP 1 1.0000 0:4010 0.3070 0.1310 0.2710 0.2010 0.4010 1.0000 0.2200 0.0030 0.1940 0.2320 -__0.3070 30.2200 __1.00000_,0.5090_, 0.5030.. 0.032011-___ ,1, 0.1310 0.0030 0.5090 1.0000 0.8600 0.0070 0.2710 0.1940 0.5030 0.0000 1.0000 0.0410 _ 0.2010 032320 ,-0.0320. 10.0070 0.0410 1.0000. , 0.020" ' ” 0.9379540055— BEST SIMPLE! MATRIX CATEGORY D GROUP 1 1.0000 014010 0.2200 0.2320 0.1940 0.0030 _ 0.4010 .1.0000 0.3070 0.2010 0.2710 0.1310 0.2200 0.3070 1.0000 0.0320 0.9630 0.5090 0.2320 0.2010 0.0320 1.0000 0.0410 0.0070 0.1940 0.2710 0.5030 0.0410 1.0000 0.6800 0.0030 0.1310 0.5090 0.0070 0.0000 1.0000 0002. 0.9720764600 ORIGINAL SIMPLEX MATRIX CARGORY D GROUP 2 1.0000 0:2930 0.2940 0.2500 0.3020 0.3500 0.2530 1.0000 0.1000 0.0200 0.0020 0.0210 0.2940 0.1000 1.0000 0.0900 0.7530 0.7540 0.2500 0.0200 0.0900 1.0000 0.0000 0.0520 0.3020 0.0020 0.7530 0.0000 1.0000 0.0050 0.3500 0.0210 0.7500 0.0520 0.0050 1.0000 0.02. 0.7577604569 BEST SIMPLIX MATRIX CARGORY O GROUP 2 1.0000 0:2930 0.1000 0.0210 0.0200 0.0020 0.2530 1.0000 0.2940 0.3500 0.2500 0.3620 0.1000 0.2940 1.0000 0.7540 0.4900 0.7530 0.0210 0.3700 0.7540 1.0000 0.0520 0.6650 0.0200 0.2900 0.0000 0.0520 1.0000 0.0000 0.0020 0.3420 0.7530 0.0050 0.0000 1.0000 0.92. 0.6681515083 ORIGINAL SIMPLEX MATRIX CARGORY D GROUP 3 1.0000 0.1080 5.1790 0.0390 0.0480 0.0920 0.1000 1:0000 0.2530 0.4190 0.1000 0.3510 0.1750 0.2530 1.0000 0.7310 0.0190 0.5150 0.0390 0.4190 0.7310 1.0000 0.0290 0.0040 0.0400 0.1000 0.0190 0.0290 1.0000 0.7540 0.0920 0.8910 0.5150 0.5040 0.7590 1.0000 0002. 0.9900731673 REST SIMPLE! MTRIX CATmORY D GROUP 3 1.0000 0.1000 0.1750 0.0920 0.0390 0.0400 0.1000 1.0000 0.2530 0.3510 0.4190 0.1600 0.1750 0.2530 1.0000 0.5150 0.7310 0.0190 0.0920 0.3910 0.5150 1.0000 0.0040 0.7590 0.0390 0.4190 0.7310 0.0040 1.0000 0.0290 0.0400 0.1200 0.4170 0.7540 0.8290 1.0000 0.020 0.9050110004 ORIGIRAL SIMPLE! MATRIX CATEGORY D GROUP 40 1.0000 0.7000 0.2150 0.1200 0.0900 0.1020 0.7000 1.0000 0.3070 0.2300 0.1510 0.2040 0.2150 0.3470 1.0000 0.0270 0.4900 0.5110 0.1200 0.2300 0.5270 1.0000 0.9000 0.0590 9.0900 0.1910 0.4040 0.9000 1.0000 0.0000 0.1020 0.2040 0.5110 0.0590 0.0000 1.0000 0002- 0.9906832996 BIT SIMPLE! MATRIX CA'h'JORY D GROUP 6 1.0000 0.7000 0.2150 0.1200 0.1020 0.0700 0.7000 1.0000 0.3070 0.2300 0.2040 0.1510 0.2150 0.3470 1.0000 0.5270 0.5110 0.4900 0.1200 0.2300 0.5270 1.0000 0.0590 0.9600 0.1020 0.2440 0.5110 0.0590 1.0000 0.0000 0.0900 0.1510 0.4900 0.9000 0.0000 1.0000 0002! 0.992221000‘ TABLE 20.--Correlation Matrices and Q2 Values for Original and Best Simplex Approximations, Category B, Initial Scale. ORIEHUU.SIMPLEXIUHRIX (MIEGOKYIZGROUP 1 .50 level r's>.50 r's>.50 1 16 3 ® 2 2 0 2 3 1 O 1 1 4 18 4 g 5 10 5 6 13 4 (2:) 7 4 1 5 8 l7 3 20 9 17 10 27 10 19 12 31 11 20 7 12 28 12 13 28 8 (ggj 2 14 25 9 15 14 3 17 16 13 3 17 17 30 7 Egg; 18 27 12 19 31 5 36 20 12 3 15 21 4 1 5 22 26 15 41 23 36 19 24 36 20 3 25 31 ll 37 33 4 4O 23 1 24 26 34 9 ® 27 35 15 6D 28 ll .4 15 4 29 23 0 (I) 30 29 l (I) 31 2 0 2 32 14 l 15 33 18 2 20 34 20 13 35 36 3 5 36 32 0 38 36 4 39 31 2 aCircled totals represent the four items within a facet which have the most item to facet and item to Level correlation totals greater than .50, yet have inter-item correlations less than .50. Note: See Appendix 5 Table A48 for final scale. 115 simplex approximation may not yield results equivalent to those obtained if only the final items were administered as a scale to a new sample (due to such problems as answer sets). Hewever it is believed that such a procedure will provide a valuable estimate of the reliability and simplex approximation to be found in the final scale. It should be pointed out that the reliability and 02 values obtained in this manner may be spuriously high however, due to the item selection procedures used to produce the final scale. In order to obtain these predictive estimates of final scale reliability and simplex approximation, Hoyt reliability coefficients and the Q2 simplex approximation values were generated on the final scale items. The Hoyt reliability values on the final scale, for all categories and groups, are shown in Table 31. If these reliability coefficients are indicative of those obtained when the final scale is administered as a separate entity, internal consistancy reliability is assured. The Q2 values generated from the items chosen for the final scale are shown for groups and for totals in Tables 33-39. Here again, if these values are predictive of the Q2 values to be obtained on the final scale, it will satisfy the simplex approximation conditions described earlier. These relatively high 92 values also indicate that construct validity is supported. 116 As mentioned in Chapter III, content validity is assumed, due to the facet structure (lateral struction) employed to identify item content. This assumption is further supported in the final scale due to the item selection procedure employed. Namely, high item to facet and item to Level correlations, yet low item to item correlations. This assures that items within a facet are heterogeneous yet do correlate highly with the facet total. Predictive validity was assessed by comparing the hypothesized position of "known groups" (categories) along an unfavorable to favorable continuum toward drug users, to the Actual Action Level (Level 6) scores obtained on the ABS:DU. Tables A49—A54 in Appendix 6 show the N, mean, and standard deviation of all groups on all variables. The rank ordering of the 5 major categories are presented for each Level in Table 40 (both incarcerated drug users and treatment addicts are combined here to form one category, since only the position of "drug users" was predicted). Although the rank ordering of each category is presented for all Levels, only Level 6 behavior is used to assess predictive validity (see Chapter III). Analysis of Variance In order to further examine the relationship between the criterion groups chosen, analysis of variance procedures were employed. The UNEQl routine (Ruble, Kiel, Rafter, 1966) 117 TABLE 3l.--Hoyt Reliability by Group for the Final ABS:DU. Category Group Level 1 2 3 4 5 6 A 1 .88 .83 .73 .87 .88 .82 Incarcerated 2 .84 .81 .71 .89 .87 .71 Drug Users 3 .93 .90 .88 .95 .95 .94 B l .84 .82 .85 .91 .90 .87 Police 2 .92 .93 .92 .93 .94 .94 3 .94 .94 .93 .92 .95 .96 C Kansas 1 .98 .98 .98 .99 .99 .94 Parish D 1 .93 .89 .90 .94 .94 .70 High School 2 .94 .92 .89 .94 .94 .89 Students 3 .92 .92 .89 .93 .93 .82 4 .97 .98 .95 .97 .97 .92 E l .87 .86 .86 .86 .90 .73 College 2 .92 .89 .88 .92 .90 .74 Students 3 .95 .95 .93 .92 .96 .87 F l .96 .90 .92 .94 .94 .89 Treatment 2 .87 .88 .83 .91 .93 .88 Addicts 3 .82 .75 .86 .92 .92 .89 Total .99 .99 .99 .99 .99 .99 TABLE 32.--Correlation Matrices and QZ Values for Original and Best Simplex Approximations, Category A, Final Scale omnunugsnumzxuxmux CHHflOKYALGMMm 1 1.0000 .0570 .6100 .0270 .0450 .1170‘ .0570 1.0000 .6000 .0630 .1010 .1730 - 10130-1. _- 16.0.0.0 __11000-0 - __12-61L __d-lZDi._123§-(1__-._____ 00270 00630 02630 300000 08860 .7230 .0450 .1010 .3370 .8860 1.0000 .7300 0‘170 ..01730.__m42350.-wm422301.m-J7300 - 11000“-u_ Wh_vm- -- —’-”‘""”_"__"" '_‘0342§-“' "””_:3737§63117—- nmnrsnumzx1uumrx cmnrbxrticmomrl ”1.0000 ‘ '.0570""'.6100"""I1170' " .0450 '.0270" ' .0570 1.0000 .6000 .1730 .1010 .0630 .6180 .6000 1.0000_H .2350 .3370 .2630 .1170 .1730 .2350 1.0000 .7300 .7230 .0450 .1010 .3370 .7300 1.0000 .0060 .0270 10930 ...2630 ,_-.7230 .8660 1.0000 . - i - 0‘42: .9620516329_— cmnm 2 1.0000 .1860 .2140 .1990 .1640 .0290 .1660 1.0000 .2666 .2700 .1320 .2360 .21‘3 .2880 1.0000 ‘.9010 .790? .7660 - .1 , .1990 .2700 .9010 1.0000 .6260 .6660 .18‘0 .1320 .7900 .6260 1.0000 .6660 .0290 .2360 .7660 .6660 .6660 1.0000 00-2. .9156207599 oucnuu. smnxx MATRIX armour 0 GIDUP 3 1.0000 .2970 .069fl .0460 .1690 .2040 .2970 1.0000 .2530 .4150 .2740 .4090 .0690 .2530 1.0000 .7240 .5690 .4970 .0460 .4150 .7240 1.0000 .7660 .7730 .1690 .2740 .5690 .7060 1.0000 .6040 .2040 .4090 .4976 .7710 .6040 1.0000 0'02: .9079950677 BEST snunmx HATRLX CATEGOEYIJGBOUP 3 1.0000 .2970 .2040 .1690 .0460 .0690 .2970 1.0000 .4090 .2740 .4150 .2530 .2040 .4090 1.0000 .6040 .7730 .4970 .1690 .2740 .6040 1 003 .7660 .5690 .0460 .4150 .7730 .7660 1.0000 .7240 .0690 .2530 .4970 .5690 .7240 1.0000 0902- .9625175600 ouuuuu.snumzxuanux carun21116mmm'6 1.0000 .6310 .2650 .1190 .0930 .0860 .6310 1.0000 .3140 .1640 .1170 .1910 .2050 .3140 1.0000 ..5310 .4770 .5770 7 .1190 .1640 .5300 1.0000 .9460 .6600 .0630 .1170 .4770 .9460 1.0000 .6960 .0660 .1910 .5770 .6600 .6960 1.0000 0--2- .9901616360‘ .___ us: 3110an mm cannon 0 cm 4 1.0000 .6310 .2650 .1190 .0660 .0630 .6310 1.0000 .3140 .1640 .1910 .1170 .2650 .3140 1.0000 .5300 .5770 .6770 .1190 .1840 .5300 1.0000 .6600 .9463 .0660 .1910 .5770 .6600 1.0000 .6960 .0630 .1170 .4770 .9460 .6960 1.0000 9°02- .9917112736 122 TABLE 36.--Correlation Matrices and Q2 Values for Original and Best Simplex Approximations, Category B, Final Scale. ORIGINAL SIMPLEX MATRIX CATEGORY E GROUP 1 1.0000 .5680 .4130 .5600 .5170 .0340 .5680 1.0000 .2600 .3090 .1840 .3570 .4130 .2680- 11.00007 “.8080 .7020 .2270 -__ .5600 .3090 .6080 1.0000 .9630 .5860 .5170 .1840 .7820 .9630 1.0000 .5690 .0340 .3570 .2270 .5860 .5690 1.0000 1 0°92: .8145865888 BEST SIMPLEX MATRIX CATEGORX E GROUP 1 1.0000 .5600 .4130 .5600 .5170 .0340 .5600 1.0000 .2680 .3090 .1040 .3570 .4130 .2600 1.0000 .8080 .7820 .2270 .5600 .3090 .6000 1.0000 .9630 .5860 .5170 .1640 .7020 .9630 1.0000 .5690 .0340 .3270 7.2270 .5860 .5690 1.0000 0‘02: .8145665088 ORIGINAL SIMPLEX MATRIX CATEGORY E GROUP 2 1.0000 .0700 .1220 .1970 .1610 .2710 .0700 1.0000 .0970 .2200 .2610 .2350 .1220 .0970 1.0000 .6200 .6400 .5580 .1970 .2280 .6280 1.0000 .9452 .0900 .1610 .2610 .6400 .9450 1.0000 .9250 .2710 .2650 .5580 .6900 .9250 1.0000 00.2: .8032595500 3331‘ SIMPLEX MATRIX GATmORY E GROUP 2 1.0000 .0700 .2710 .1970 .1610 .1220 .0700 1.0000 .2350 .2280 .2610 .0970 .2710 .2350 1.0000 .8900 .9250 .5580 .1970 .2200 .8900 1.0000 .9450 .0260 .1610 .2610 .9250 .9450 1.0000 .6400 .1220 .0970 .5580 .6280 .6400 1.0000 0.02: .8506856314 ORIGINAL SIMPLEX MATRIX CATEGORY E GROUP 3 1.0000 .5660 .2700 .1590 .0540 .2040 .5660 1.0000 .3230 .2430 .1800 .3350 .2700 .3230 1.0000 .7670 .7260 .7820 .1590 .2930 .7070 1.0000 .8780 .9230 .0540 .1000 .7260 .8700 1.0000 .9020 .2040 .3350 .7820 .9230 .9020 1.0000 00.2: .9563579903‘ BEST SIMPLEX MATRIX CATEGORY E GROUP 3 1.0000 .5660 .2700 .2040 .1590 .0540 .5660 1.0000 .3230 .3350 .2430 .1800 .2700 .3230 1.0000 .7820 .7870 .7260 .2040 US$50 , -47820M_-160000 [923D 69020_- __ l .1590 .2430 .7870 .0230 1.0000 .8780 .0540 .1000 .7260 .9020 .8780 1.0000 0'92: .9634269094_ 123 TABLE 37.--Correlation Matrices and 02 Values for Original and Best Simplex Approximations, Category F, Final Scale. 0KHHNMLSDfl$D£HNHuX QUEMWXI?GMflW 1 1.0000 .7220 .1330 .0040 .2250 .2040 .7220 1.0000 .1770 .2880 .0810 .2490 .1330 .1770, _1.0000,, ,.3410. _ .2190 .0310 1 _l l .0040 02860 .3410 1.0000 .4990 .4030 .2250 .0810 .2190 .4990 1.0000 .5840 .2040 .2490 .0310 .4030 .5840 1.0000 0-12- .725530394I_— nzsr srursz uamaxx carscony r GROUP 1 1.0000 .7220 .1330 .2250 .2040 .0040 .7220 1.0000 .1770 .0810 .2490 .2880 .1330 .1770 1.0000 .2190 .0310 .3410 .2250 .0810 _.,.219011 1.0000 -...5840 -..4990 _ .2040 .2490 .0310 .5840 1.0000 .4030 .0040 .2880 .3410 .4990 .4030 1.0000 0'023 .75?1529593__ .cmo. AHo..H.oxmooo.vH.mHAmooo.oH.mm Amoco.cm.vm Amoco.vm.mm Amoco.v~.mma m Amoco.vm.om floa.vh.m Amo.vo.m Ahh.vmo. Aao.va.mfimooo.va.haAmoco.vw.hm Amoco.va.vm Amoco.vm.mh Amoco.vv.HHH e Amoco.vv.am Aoo.vm.m Aao.vm.m Avn.voa. Amw.vmm. ANo..h.m Amoo.vm.oa Amoco.vm.mv Amoco.vh.hw Amoco.vm.hm m Amoco.vm.m Amo.vo.m Amo.vh.m Amm.vvv. Awm.vmm. Aam..o.a Aoo.vm.m Amoo.vw.m Amoco.vm.mm Amoco.va.mm N Amoco.vm.ma Awm.vm.a AHoo.Vh.oa Amo.vh.m Amo.vm.~ Aom.vmm. Ana.vm.a Aaoo.vm.oa Amoco.va.ma Amoco.va.mv H a m. a M a M 5 ml .0 I.“ a u. a M. a mi .0 w. Oflflwm nu rm MM .m m D .m Mm Q . MWO m> m> m> m> m> m> m> m> m> a e m o o o o o m m m Hm>mq 2126 Amoco.va.mm Amm.vmm. A¢N.Vm.a Amm.vhm. Amoco.VH.Nm “Hoo.vm.ma H.m> N.vw m.mo o.mh m.vm o.mo w Amoco.vv.om Amfi.vh.a Amoo.vm.m Amoco.vw.ma AmH.V>.H Amoco.vfl.vm s.vh m.mh m.mh o.mh N.mm m.Hh m Amoco.vv.mm Aom.vm.a Amoo.vo.m Amoco.vm.mH AwH.VH.N Amoco.vm.mv m.v> «.mh h.mh m.mm H.mm H.Nh v Amoco.vv.mm AHN.Vw.H Amoo.vo.oaAmooo.vm.wH Amv.vmv. Amoco.vm.mm N.m5 m.nh N.hh m.Nh H.mm 0.05 m Amoco.vh.va AN5.VNH. AOH.VB.N Amoo.v¢.m Avm.vmm. AHoo.vm.NH >.Hw w.mm h.mm w.mm m.mm m.Nm N Amoco.vv.vm Amoo.vv.m Amo.vm.m Awm.vao. Aom.vo.fi Amoco.vo.m¢ H.mm o.mm H.ww m.mm m.hm m.hm H a m. a u. a m. a M. a M a _M o m m a o m . m> m> m> m> m> m> m m G U m AN m < d < [N < mCOmHHMQEOU mmflz Mama memo: huommumu Hw>mq you me>oq mocmoflmwcowm cam moflumm M .mHmom HMfluflsH.mcomemQEoo mmflz uflmm .mwfluomwumo cwaumm TUCMflum> mo mfimhamcdll.mm mqmws 127 students and treatment addicts. Thus 10 of the 15 compari- sons (analysis of variance was done using incarcerated and treatment addicts as separate categories) at Level 6 yielded significant differences. Although 10 of the 15 comparisons were significant, comparison of Tables 13 and 40 indicate that the predicted rank ordering of categories on Level 6 is supported (in the hypothesised direction) in six instances. It is pointed out, however, that with the exception of the Kansas Parish group, the categories did rank order as hypothesized. It was hypothesized that the Kansas Parish group would be most unfavorable toward drug users at Level 6. Their scores however, indicate that they are the most positive at Level 6. Examination of Table 13 indicates that differences between the means were suggested, although not explicitly stated. It should be noted that the dif- ference between the Kansas Parish and other categories was believed to be large. Analysis of variance revealed that the Kansas Parish Level 6 scores were significantly dif~ ferent from all other categories but in the direction opposite tothat hypothesized. This reversal means that either "pre- dictive validity" of the scale may be limited for this group or that the position of the Kansas Parish is not really "known." That is to say that the Actual Behavior of parish members may not coincide closely with the stated church dogma regarding drug use. A further possibility is that this specific fundamentalist parish is not unfavorable 128 .AU muomwumov Swanmm mmmcmx u .AQ whommumov musmospm Hoonom swam .Am wuomwpmov mpCTUSpm mmmaaoo .Am whommumov TOflHom .Am com d mmfluommumov mumms mono ll QQaUfiIM o.~s m.os m.mm ~.¢o m.¢m seahoa Hmsuua x a m o m o Hm>mq m.ms m.m> H.mp o.ms «.mm mafiammm Hmspoa m o a m m m Hm>wq h.mn N.ms H.mn m.mm H.mm Hmoflumnuommm m U D M A v Hm>mq m.ss m.ss m.~s n.Hn H.mm ammo: m U M o m m Hm>mn n.06 o.mo m.mm m.mo m.mm m>flpmsuoz m U M D m m Hm>mq m.sm H.66 m.mm o.mm 6.5m oflmmpomumpm m a M o m H Hm>wq mfinmuo>mm manmno>6mso .Amamom Hafipwch Hm>mq %Q can anommumu an .mcmmz cmHmUHo xammll.ov mamds 129 toward drug users. At any rate, the total reversal of the one category noted is not believed to seriously jeopardize the predictive validity of the scale since the other four groups rank ordered as hypothesized. Examination of Table 13 also indicates that the "intuited" interval between police and college or high school students, and the difference between drug users and college or high school students was believed to be larger than that between college and high school students. Both visual inspection of the relative sizes of the means (Tables A49-A54) for these categories, as well as the pair-wise contrasts (Table 39) reveals that this was in fact the case. This lends further support to the predictive validity claimed for the ABS:DU. Substantive Hypothesis Certain illustrative substantive hypotheses were generated to demonstrate that the variables identified in the literature as important correlates and/or predictors of drug related attitudes, relate differently to specified Levels of the ABS:DU. All the substantive hypothesis in the present study were tested with a variation of the CDC STATROUT program. The two variables chosen to demonstrate this relationship were political activism and Efficacy. Political activism was assessed by voting behavior and participation in rallies while Efficacy was measured by 130 an adaptation of Wolf's (1967) Life Situations scale. The hypothesized correlation directions are presented in Table 14. Table 41 depicts the actual size and direction of the correlations obtained between these two variables and the specified Levels of attitude—behavior (i.e. Stereotypic to Actual Action) on the initial scale. These correlations were obtained from the variable to Level analysis carried out on the total sample (i.e., all groups at all Levels). Examination of Table 41 indicates only one correlation between specified Level 6 of the ABS:DU and Efficacy or participation in political rallies to be significant at the .05 level. Although voting behavior does correlate significantly with Levels 3 through 6, it accounts for less than 9 per cent of the variance at any given Level. Nevertheless, hypothesis H—7 (Efficacy will correlate negatively with attitude-behavior toward drug users as measured at Level 2 of the ABS:DU for the sample identi- fied), is supported. The eleven other substantive hypothe- ses are not supported. It appears, that political activism and Efficacy (as defined in this study) do not, by theme selves predict attitude-behavior as measured by the ABS:DU. However, it is suggested that drug related attitude-behavior may not correlate highly with any one given variable, but that the combined variance of several variables may be predictive. This possibility will be further explored in Chapter V. 131 TABLE 41.-~Actual Correlations and Significance Levelsa Obtained With Specified Variables (Initial Scale; Total Sample). Subscale Efficacy Political Political Type-Level Activism Rallies Voting Behavior Level 1 -.08 (.03) -.05 (.20) .03 (.39) Level 2 -.15 (.005) -.05 (.25) .05 (.17) Level 3 -.05 (.19) -.17 (.005) .02 (.65) Level 4 -.O6 (.12) -.28 (.005) .01 (.80) Level 5 -.05 (.19) -.29 (.005) .04 (.28) Level 6 .02 (.65) -.26 (.005) .01 (.88) a o o o I Significance levels in parentheses. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The first four chapters have dealt primarily with the methodological nature of the study, the analysis of data, and the testing of hypotheses. This chapter will briefly summarize the study, discuss limitations of the research, discuss the results, and make recommendations for future research. Summary The major purpose of this study was to create an attitude-behavior toward drug users scale, based on facet theory and methodology. The instrument consists of six Levels of attitude-behavior which scale according to a specified statistical structure (i.e., simplex joint struction). Furthermore, the content of this attitude-behavior scale, was selected according to an a priori mapping sentence (lateral struction). Construct validity was assessed via the simplex approximation. Content validity is assumed since facet theory was employed to guide item 132 133 selection, thus increasing the probability of the selection of relevant item content. Predictive validity was assessed by hypothesizing the relative position of "known groups" along an unfavorable to favorable attitude—behavior toward drug user continuum at Level 6. Reliability was assessed via the Hoyt method. The initial scale was administered to a total of 679 subjects from categories and groups specified in Chapter IV. Item analysis procedures were employed to select 4 items from each of the 5 content facets employed in the original scale. These items constitute the final scale (Appendix 5). Reliability data obtained on the original scale was consistantly high. Similarly, the Q2 values obtained suggest that construct validity of the original scale is high. Data were also obtained that partially supports predictive validity. Reliability and Q2 values calculated on the items used in the final scale suggest that both internal consistancy coefficients and construct validity are acceptable. It was also the purpose of this study to demonstrate that certain predictor variables may relate differentially with specified Levels of attitude-behavior, as measured by the ABS:DU, since previous studies of drug related attitudes provided incomparable, inconclusive, and frequently incon- gruous results regarding predictors and/or correlates of drug related attitude-behavior. This was not generally supported. 134 Limitations of the Study The only theoretical hypothesis which was not supported was that regarding predictive validity. As discussed earlier, the rank ordering of the "known group" Kansas parish is believed to have been either "unknown" or spurious at Level 6. As a result, conclusive state— ments about predictive validity are not possible at this time. The relationship of the predictor variables and/or correlates of attitude-behavior toward drug users seems to be questionable, although multiple correlations indicate that certain of these variables are contributing signifi- cantly to the observed variance in scores. Finally, the joining of groups to form categories to test the substantive hypothesis seems to be a questionable procedure, since analysis of variance between groups within categories has often reflected significant differences on Level scores of the ABS:DU (Table 39). Discussion and Recommendations The methodological and theoretical hypothesis (simplex order, reliability, and rank order of groups) were supported, and the data indicate that the ABS:DU will serve a useful purpose as a research instrument in the future. It is also anticipated that the content item to facet analysis employed herein, may assist in developing 135 scaling procedures which permit a more precise structuring of the content items employed. It is conceivable that such content or lateral struction may approach unidimensionality within facets:within Levels,while maintaining multidimen- sionality across Levels. This, however will be subject for future research. The directions and item stems for Levels 3 and 6 were changed slightly from previous ABS scales. Previous scales had not strictly followed the semantic structure outlined by Jordan (1969) at Level 3. Previous scales stated: In respect to (attitude object), do you yourself believe that it is usually right or wrong (specified behavior). This item stem more closely approximates the obiis profile outlined in Table 10. Although this is a semantically acceptable profile (Maierle, 1969), it is not the profile suggested by Jordan. The recommended profile (ibgig, see Table 10) was employed in this study and the item stem read: In respect to (attitude object) what do you, yourself, believe others think is right or wrong (specified behavior). Previous scales employed 4 choices for each item at Level 6. These choices were: (1) No eXperience, (2) No, (3) Uncertain, and (4) Yes. In the present scale, respond- ents were told to leave out Level 6 unless they had had experience or contact with illegal drug users (attitude object). As a result, three choices were offered to each 136 item. Namely: (1) No, (2) Uncertain, (3) Yes. The con- sistantly high Q2 values obtained may partially reflect the new semantics employed at these levels. Again further research and experimentation is required to more fully evaluate the effect of slight differences in semantic structure. As stated in Chapter IV, only one of the substantive hypothesis was supported. It was suggested that no one variable identified in this study would consistently account for a large portion of variance observed on the ABS:DU Level scores. After these results were observed, it was postulated that multiple correlations, run between specified variables and Levels of the ABS:DU might reveal significant predictors and/or correlates of attitudes toward drug users. In an effort to examine this possibility, seven variables were chosen, on which to run multiple and partial correlations. The variables chosen included those about which substantive hypothesis had been tested, namely Efficacy (variable 38) and political activism (variables 20 enu122,includes voting behavior and participation in rallies and demonstrations), plus contact. Jordan (1969) suggests that amount of content per se, avoidance possi- bilities, and enjoyment of contact were predictive of :attitude-behavior toward the mentally retarded. The 137 multiple and partial correlations for these variables, by group (Initial Scale) are presented in Tables 42-47 Examina- tion of these tables indicates that the combined variance of these variables was usually statistically significant. This suggests that the interaction of two or more variables is more predictive of attitudes toward drug users than any single variable. Partial correlations permit simultaneous examination of a number of variables with the dependent variable (in this case, Level scores on the ABS:DU). When a series of Pearsonian Eli are examined between predictor variables and a dependent variable, spurious conclusions might be drawn if the predictor variables are themselves inter- related. However, partial correlations take into consider- ation the relationships among the predictor variables and partial out the "unique" correlation of each variable with the dependent variable. This permits us to examine the relationship between two variables while holding the others constant. Therefore, if significant multiple correlations exist for a given group, at a given Level, it is possible to examine both the partial and the zero order correlations (available from the author) to determine which variable(s) is contributing most to the variance at a given Level. Examination of the partial correlations, (Tables 42-47) indicates that many are negative. For example, in 138 .mmlmv mmAQmB .momospcouom EH mAm>mA mocmoflwflcmflm n .wuommumu HOA zo Amo.vom. Amo.vmm. Amo.vvm. Amo.vov. Amo.vmm. Amo.vvm. cmv m TAQAAADE Amm.vmo. Amn.voo. Aom.VmA. Aom.va.| Amm.va. Ano.vAm.| >omoflwwm mm Amm.VmA. Amm.vmo.| nov.VVA. Amm.vno.n Amw.vmo.| Amn.vmo. pcmE>oflcm mm Amm.vmo. Amv.VMA. AAm.V>A. Amm.vAm. Ano.vno. Avm.VAo.n mocmpAo>< mm Amh.vmo.l Amw.vmo. on.VmA. AqA.me.t AAo.vA¢.I Amo.vow.| ADCSOEoV uomucou mm m lqv.VMA. lmA.VNN. lom.V6A. Aom.vNA. Amm.v¢o. lms.voo. muo> mm macho Amm.va. Amm.vwo.n Ame..mo. Anm.VoA. Aeo.vvm. Amm.va. mCOAu 4 ImuumCOEmQ Amofluflaom Am xuommumu AAN.VNN.I Anh.voo.l Amm.vmo.a Aom.va.u Amo.vmm.u Amm.vom. mwAAAmm AmoAuAAom om Amo.vmv. Amo.vmo. Amo.vvv. Amo.vnv. Amo.vmv. Amo.vvm. 6mm m TAQAAADE Amv.va. Amm.vmm. Amm.vmm. Amn.voo. on.va.| Amm.vma.n xomoflwwm mm Amm.vvm. Anm.vom. Anm.vAo. Amm.vnm. Anw.voA. Amv.voA. useExoflcm mm Amm.voa. Amm.VMA. Ahw.v0A.| Amm.vmo. Amm.vAA. Amo.vmm.| mocopflo>< mm Ama.vvm.l Awo.vAv. Avm.v6A. Amw.vmo.n Amm.va.| Amm.vmm. Aucsoewv uomucou mm N Amo.VOA. ANA.va. AAq.VmA. Amq.va. ANA.vmm. Amo.VOA. mwo> mm msouo Amm.vmo. Amm.vmo. Amm.vmo. Amm.vmo. Anv.va.n Amm.vnm. mcoflu < ImuumCOEmQ AooAuAAom Am xuoumumu Amo.vmo.l Amm.VAA. Amm.vmm.| Amo.VOA. AAo.VAA. AmA.vmm.| mmAAAmm AmoAuHAom om Amo.vmv. Amo.vmv. Amo.vmv. Amo.vmm. Amo.vAm. QANo.VAv. com m oAmHuAsz Amm.voa. Aon.vho.u Awn.voo.l Amv.va. Amm.voA. Amn.vwo. >omoflwwm mm Avm.vmm. AAv.VmA. Amm.VmA. Amv.VVA. Amn.vmo. Awm.vmo.u ucoewomcm mm Aom.vmo. Amm.VmA. Amw.vmo. Avm.vmo.n Anm.vAm.l Amm.vmm.| wocmpflo>< mm Aom.VMA. Ama.vmm. AmA.vnm. AwA.me. Amm.vmm. Amm.vmo.u AACSOEmV aomucou mm A Amm.cmA. AAR.VRO.- lsm.cAo.- ARA.VBN.- AAA.lmN.- Aom.vsA.- wuo> mm 6:006 Amn.vno. Anm.vnA.| Amm.voo.| Avm.vao. Amm.vvo. Amn.vvo. mcoAu a unnumCOEwo AMOHDAAom Am whommumu Amm.voo. ANA.me.I AAv.VmA.I Aom.vmo. Amv.va. Aho.vvm. mmAAAmm AMUAAAAom om . . o o o c j/ m A m A v A .I m A m A A A onmAHm> dsouv :fiflflfifl/ .6Amom AmAhflcH . N whomopmu .mmAQmAMm> UTHWHommm MOM mcoAAmAmHMOU Awflunmm paw THQHpAs2I|.mv wAméa 139 .huomwumu How zm Amo.1~m. Amo.cms. Amo.csv. “No..vo. Amo.cmm. imo.o>¢. mmm m mAmAuAsz 1A6.COA.- AAq.cmA.n Rom..vA.n Asm.cmA. AAm.c~o.u lm6.cmo. aumoAuem mm iv~.cm~. AAN..m~. Amm.csA. Amm.cmA. ism.v¢o.- lvs.cso. ucmsmoflcm mm AAA..mm.n AAA..m~.I AmA..m~.n Amo.vnm.u ASA.omm.u Amm.evm.u mocmvo>< mm Ahm.cmo. Amm.cAA.n Amv.ch.u Avm.emo.u Amh.cmo.u lom..m~.u AussoEm. uomucoo mm m Ams.coo. Amm.cqo. Aom.cAo.n imm.cmA.- Ava.cAo.u ism.emo. muo> NN macaw ANA.cAm. Avo.cAv. Amm.cvo. .mm.cAA. Amm.coo. 16~.cm~. mcoAu m ImuumCOEmo AmuAuAAom AN whommumu Amm.csA. AmA.cm~. AmA..6~. imm.cmA.- Ame.16A. lam.csA. mmAAAmm AmoAuAAoa oN Amo.cAo. Amo.cmn. Amo.com. Amo.com. .No.vmm. Amo.cms. 6AM, m mAmAuAsz Ao~.os~. AmA.Vm~. lv~.cv~. leo.cao. lAv.csA. Amm.cAo. somoAmum mm 1mm..~A.u Aom.cAo. Amm.coo.u imo.voq. Amm.vmo. imA..s~. ucossomcm mm 1mm..~A. .m~.cm~. 165.cmo. Ahm.cmA. Amm.cAo. Amm.cmA. muccho>¢ mm 16A.cmm.u AAo.cmm.u loo.vmm.- loo..am.u .oo..om.u la~.cmm.- RussoEmC nomucoo aw m .mn..mm.u on.cmA.n Ams.coo. imm.cAo. Aos.cmo. A-.cm~. mao> mm 6:006 Amm.cmo.u Amm.cmo. Amm.c~o.u Anm.cmA.u lAm..¢A. im~.cm~. mcoAu m Imuumcosmn AMUAAAAOA AN >Hquumu lAm.cAA. AAS.VOA.- 166.1mo. lm~.cvm. .om.cmo.u 106.1AA. mmAAAmm AmoAuAAom om A~o.cAm. Amo.v¢m. Amo.vom. Amo.cAs. Amo.cos. Amo.cws. .Am m onAquz ls~.cm~.u 155.15o. Amm.cvo.n Asv.csA. Amo.cvv. AaA.vom. somoAuwm mm Amo.vao. Ash.cso.- Aa~.em~.u Amm.cm~.u Amm.c-.- Amm.cmo.- unmasoflcm mm Avo.emv. Amo.csv. loo.cAv. AMA.cqm. .sm.er.u Amv.cmA. moccho>< mm Amo.c~v. AAA..mm. Amo.cmv. AAA.VAm. Ame.VOA. Ame.COA. ,Aucsoemc uomucoo am A 1mm..6~.n Ame.csA.u .os.cmo. .mm.cAo. Amm.VMA. imm.co~.u muo> mm macaw AAo..mm. loo..mo. loo.cmm. Amo.vmv. .mo..Am. Aao.cAv. mcoAu m Imuumcoewo AmoAuAAom AN ahommumo .oq.va.n .mm.cmA.- Amm..vo.- .mm..~o.u AAm..mA.u Amm.cmo. mmAAAmm AmuAuAAom om 6.A m.q «.3 m.q «.3 H.q mAnmAum> muons 'II'IIII .mAmom AmqucA .m ahoomumu .mmAAmAHm> thonQO How mcoAumAwHHoo ATAuHmm cam TAQAUADSII.mv WAmflh 140 .mnommgmu new 26 Amo.emm. Amo.cvq. “mo.vAm. Amzcso. Amzcmo. Amzvmo. mum m mAmAuAsz Amo.vvm. Amm.cmo.n AAA.VmA. Acm.VAo.u Aon.cmo. Aom.vAo. momoAmmm mm Amo.cmm. AAA.ooA. AAA.VmA. Amm.VOA. Ams.cqo.u Amm.ooo.u ucmssoflcm mm Amm.vno. Amn.oqo. lom.cAo. Ams.cqo. Aom.vo.- Aso.vvm. woccho>< mm Amoo..Am. Ams.cmo. Amm.cmo. Amm.ooo.u .mm.VAA.u Ama.voo. Aucsosmc homucoo mm o Amo.vom.n Amn.cmo.u lsm.cmo. An¢.cmo.u .Am.emo. lmA.va.u muo> «N muommuwo Amm.cmo. .mo.ov~. Amo.VAN. Amm.emo. lmq.coo. Asv.cmo. mcoAu . INHHmCOEOQ HMOflu. ._1—”Om HN Amo.emA. Amo.cmA. imA.voA. Ame..mo. Amm.cmo. Asm.10A.u mmAAAmm AmoAuAAom cm o.q m.A v.A m.q N.A A.A . mAnmAum> msouo lulllluHH'“ .mAmow AmAuAcA .U huomwumu .mmAAmAum> pronmmm new * wcoAumAmHHOU AwAuHmm Cam mAmAuASZII.v¢ MAAAB Ju4l .xuomwumu Hem 2c lmo VNm “No.1me. Amo.voo. Amo.vnv. Amzva. lmzch. «mm m oAmAuAsz Amm one u Amm 1A0 . Ame..vo.u .vq.c~A.- Avo.cno.u Amm.c~o. Numofloum mm lAm..vo. AAA.Vv~. ANA.1m~. lm~.1hA. lAm.cmA. ima.vmo. ucmEAOAcm mm imm.cAo.- Amm.vmo.- 156.coo.u Avm.vmo. AAa..mo.- le.cmo. mocoaAo>< mm Amo..m~. Amo.cmm. Aso.la~. 1A6.Vmo. lam.VMA.- loo.cmo.- lucsosm. nomucoo mm c iv~.cmA.- lmv.V~A.- Amm.cmo.- AAA.1-.- lmo.coo. Amm.vAo. muo> mm macho Ams.cmo.- Aom.va.- AAm.VOA.u Amm.1~o.- lam.coo. ivm.er. mcoflu o ImuumCOEmo AMUAuAAOm AN huoomumu im~.cmA. Aom.COA.- on.c~A.- 1mm..mA. Ava..Ao. Amw.cso. mmAAAmm AauAuAAoa om Amo.omm. Amo..ao. Amo.c~s. imo.cmm. .mo.cAm. lmzeom. new a mAaAuAsz lam.cmo. laa.voo.- i~6.1mo. 14A..mm. 156.1ao.- lAm.VAA.- sumoAutm mm AAA.VVN. lmo.cwm. Avo.vmm. ANA.cm~. lam.CVA.- lAm.cvo.- unwasoflcm mm ims.imo. AAA.16N.- ivm.vAo. Ame.VMA. lwm.emo.- inm.lso. wocwcAo>< mm lm~.1o~. Amo.cmm. “mo.c~m. lmq.c~A. lmA.lv~.- imm.cAA.- lucsoeme nomucoo mm m lvm.loA. Amm.lmA. 10A..m~. 10A.ca~. lAm..mo.- loo..~o. muo> mm 6:006 Ase..~A. lm~.io~. AMA.cm~. lmA..-. 1AA..mo.- 105.cmo.- mccAu o Imuumcoewo AmoAuAAom AN xuoowumu .oA.cm~.- l¢¢.cAo.u AAN.VAN.- Aom.lvo.- AMV.VMA. Amm.loo. moAAAmm AmoAuAAoa o~ Ame..sm. Amo.c~o. Amo.ism. imo..mv. imo..mv. lmo.16~. mmm m oAaAuAsz lam..~o.- lmo.is~. AOA.VNN. imA.lo~. AMA.VON. Amo.emA. sumoflocm mm .moo.vmm. AAN.VSA. Aom.va. lmA.cmA. imm.ch.- ivn.lvo.- ucwesoflcm mm lam.cmo.- 156.160.- Amp..qo. Amw.lno.- lom.CVA.- imm.lao.- occ¢c_o>4 mm lam.VVA. Amo.voM. iqA..o~. 156.160. ln~.lmA.- Amh.vvo. Aucsoamc pomucoo mm N 100.com. Amw.coA. AAN.VAA. Ame..ao. AAN.CAA. lav.coA. muo> mm 6:006 lms.cqo. AVA.lo~. Avo.cm~. lwo.im~. iAo.iom. lv~.coA. mcoflu a IduumCOEmwQ HMUHUMHOQ HN >H0mumwumU .As.cmo.- ima.voo. Ash..vo.- lam.voo. Amm.imo.- Amm.va.- moAAAmm AmvoAAOA om .mo..mm. lwo.cvo. lmo.cam. lNo.lom. Amo.e~m. imo.cm~. Mme m oAaAuAsz le.cmv.- lmoo.lmv.- le.imq.- Amm.eo~.- ANA.im~.- 150.1Ao. xomoAuom mm io~.caA. 166.1no. Amo.imo. Amm.cAA.- ioa.vAo.- ANV.CMA.- “coesoflcm mm imm.cmo. Amo.iso. Amm.loA. lAm.ivo.- lvmioA.- imm.ioA.- mocmuflo>< mm le.V~v. Amo.iwm. Amo.em~. Amm.vo~. ism..Ao.- AVA..v~. lucsoamc pumucoo mm A 1AM.CAA. lam..mo.- lms.emo. iwm.vAo. imm.v~o. lAm.evo.- auo> mm 6:006 ANA.VMA. Amo.cnm. ASN.1mA. imo.lo~. lmv.imA.- imm.loA. mcoflu a . nmuumcoewo AmUAuAA0d AN xuommumu lam.cmo. AmA.cv~.- AAm.c~A.- AMQ.VMA.- lav.laA. .ms.lmo.- mmAAAmm AmoAuAAoa om w.A m.A v.A m.A N.A A.A mAnmAum> moouo Ifll‘i. 3;.“ Ilia" “nil. .III...|'I( lull" . I “”1. fillllJn... II. v1... .oAmom AmAuAcH .o suoaoumo .moAnmAum> omAuAuoam no“ mcoAumAmuuoo Amfluumm 6cm mAaAnAsz-u.mv mam. ANo.me. Amo.va. Amo.va. Mme m mAmAuAsE Amm.va.| Amo.vno.l Amm.vvo.| Awh.vmo.| AmN.VmA.I RON.VAN.I womoAmmm mm Amoo.vmv. AmA.VNN. Amo.va. Amm.vmo. Abv.VNA.| Amn.vmo. usmEmoncm mm AOA.VNN. Amoo.vom. Amoo.vmv. AAo.vAv. Abw.v>o.| ANV.VMA.I mocmpAo>¢ mm Anm.vmo.l Amn.vvo. Amm.vNo.| Amm.vmo. AvN.VmA. AAm.vNo.u AAGSOEMV uomucoo mN m Amm.v>o.l Avm.vmo. Amn.voo. Avo.vmo.| ANm.VAA. Amv.vAA.I muo> NN macaw Amm.vAo. Avo.vvm. Amh.va. Amm.vvo. Aom.v>A. Aom.vNA. mGOAp m ImuumCOEwo AMUAAAAON AN whommumu Amm.VVA.I Amo.vmm.| AmN.VmA.I Ano.vno. Avm.vmo. Amm.VAo.u mwAAAmm AMUAAAAom 0N ANo.an. ANo.vmm. ANo.vmh. ANo.vmh. ANo.me. ANo.vvm. mNN m TAQAAADE ANm.V>N.| Avm.VmN. AvN.vAm. Avm.VMA.n AvN.VAm. ANA.vmm.I .womoAmwm mm Amo.vmv. AAo.V¢m. Avo.vmm. Amo.vom. ANm.veA. Ahm.VNA.I ucwsmoflcm mm “om.va. Amm.VmA.| Aam.VmA.| Ano.vmv.a Ahm.VvN.n AmN.VAm.I moccho>4 mm Amo.vvv. Amm.vmo. Ao>.VOA. Amm.vmo. ANm.Vmo. Avv.vAN. AucsoEmv uomucoo mN : N Amq.vom. Amm.vmo. Aom.cho. AmA.cmm.- ism.VMA. lsq.va.- muo> mm msouo AAm.VmA. AmA.vmm. ANN.VmN. Am¢.VNA. Aom.VmA.I Amm.VmN.I mcoAu m ImuumGOEmo AmoAuAAom AN whommumu Anm.vvo.l Amm.va.| ANm.Vmo.| Ahm.va. Amn.vmo.L Amv.va. mwAAAmm AmoAuAAom 0N ANo.va. ANo.me. ANo.VNm. Amo.vmm. Amzvmm. ANo.vmn. mmA m mAQAuAcz AAv.vAm.| AMA.vvm. Avm.vmm. Avm.vmm. Amn.VNA.I AmN.vov. >omkomm mm AmN.va. Amv.vom. AmN.VAA. Amm.VMN. Ama.vvo.u ANA.vmm. ucmfimoflcm mm AmN.VAA.I Avv.va. AmN.VAv. ANN.VvA. ANm.VmA.I ANN.VAv. mocmpAo>d mm Amo.vmm. Aom.vmm. on.VNm. AmN.VNA. AmN.VNA.I AmN.vvv.I AAQSOEMV uomucou mN A ANN.VNA. Ao>.VmA.I Am>.VAA.I AoN.VNv.I Amm.VMN.I AAA.th.I muo> NN msouw Amm.voo.| Amm.vmo.n Amm.voo.l Avm.vmo. Amm.voo.n AVN.Vvv.I mcoAu m ImuumCOEmo AMUAAAAom AN muommumu Amm.vno. AAN.VvA.I Aow.VNA.I Amv.VmN.| Amm.vvm. ANm.Vmo. mmAAAmm AMUAAAAON ON m.A m.A v.A m-A N.A . A.A TAAMAHM> QDOHU .mAmom AMAAACA .m muommumu .mmAAmAHm> pmAMAommm MOM mcoAAMAmHHOU AMAuumm cam mAmAuADEII.mv MAmNB 143 .xnommumu HOA zm lmzcmN. Amo.cmv. Amo.emq. Amo.vmm. Amo.cmm. Amo.vmm. amm m mAmAuAsz Amn.cmo.u Am~.cm~.- lvq.cmA.- ims.cso. lsm.cvo.u Amm.vvo. momoAmum mm Amm.cmA. .mv.cmA. Amm.ce~. ims.vmo. Aqm.evo.u AAm.cmo.u unmasoflcm mm Amm.cmo. AMA.cmm. AA~.com. 166.1AA.- Amm.cAo. Amm.vmo.u moccho>4 mm lmo.co~.- l~s.cmo.- Aem.c~o.- .sm.vAm.- Asm.c-.- As~.cm~.- lucsoEMV pomucoo mm m Amm.cqo.u AAm.Vv~.- lop.VOA. lsq.csa.- AAm.c~o.- 150.c0A. muo> mm 6:006 Amm.vAo.n Aom.cmA.- Am~.cm~. Amm.c~o.- imq.emA. Ass.cmo.- mcoAu m ImuumGOEma AMUAAAAom AN whommumu lvm.cmo.u lAm.cmo.- Amm.cmA. lqm.vmo.- lam.voo. ism.cAA. mmAAAmm AmoAuAAom om Amo.vos. Amo.cos. lmo.c~s. Amo.cmm. Amo.cmm. imo.vmm. mAm m mAmAuAsz 165.cmo.u .AS.CNA. Amm.cqm. Amm.cm~.- lmo.c~m.- ANA.CNA.- somowtcm mm lAm.cso.- Amm.vmo.- Ass.cmo. Aom.cm~.- Ams.vmo.- lom.coA.- unmasoAnm mm AMA.CA¢. i-.evm. lmA.emm. Amo.cav. “mo.esm. Amo.com. moccho>< mm ASN.1AM. lm~.vm~. lwA.esm. lAv.cm~.- AA~.me.u Am~.1mm.- lpcsoemc uomucoo mm . N lom.cmo.- loo.ch.- io~.vmm.- lqs.vmo.u loo.com. AAA.cov. muo> «a 6:006 Aqm.cmo.- Amm.cs~.- 16A.csm.- Amm.com.- lvm.lmo.- lAm.cmo.- mcoAu m IMHUmGOEwD HMUflUMHOnA HN \nnommumu imm.cmA. AAA.eov. 16A.lmm. Amm.vm~. imm.v~o. AAA.VAA. mmAAAmm AmoAuAAom om Amo.cAm. Amo.csm. Amo.e~v. Amo.cam. Amo.voq. “mo.com. «an m mAmAuAsz AAA.cm~.u Amo.cmm.- lm~.cA~.- Amo.cmm.- Amm.cmo.u Amq.ch. NUMUAmmm mm Amo.cAm. “Ho.emv. AAA.com. A-.c-. Amm.esA. AAA.em~. unmasoflqm mm lmA.cs~.- lAm.cm~. ism.csA. 16A.co~. im~.com. lv~.cA~. ‘ mocmnAo>m mm lmA.cq~. lam.va.u ism.VOA.- Amm.coA.- imo.cAm.- Amo.cAm.- AussoEmc pompcou mm A Amo.cmm.- lmo.cmm.- 16m.CAA.- AAS.VOA. iAw.vmo.n Aos.cmo. muo> mm 6:006 Amm.cmm. Asm.c~m. lom.c~o.- lvv.lvfl. lmm.csA.- lqo.cwm.- mcofln m ImHAmCOEmQ AMUAAAAom AN wuowmumu ism.csa. lov.va. AAA.VVA. lom.c~o. las.cmo. AAA.VAN. mmAAAmm HmoAuAAom om m.A m.A v.A m.A . N.A A.A mAAMAHm> macho .mAmom AMAuAcA .h whommumu .mmAAMAHm> pmAonmmm HOA mcoAumAmnuoo AmAuumm can mAmAuA521|.nv mAmme 144 the multiple correlation analysis (group 2, category B) attitude becomes more negative with increased contact per g3 (variable 29). One might hypothesize that this is due to the nature of the respondents occupation. However, the narcotic officers from this group who say they "enjoy" (partial correlation, variable 35) their contact are more favorable at Level 3. This suggests they feel that others "should do more" to help addicts (i.e. their Moral Evalua- tion is more positive). It is also interesting to note that urban Michigan police, Table 43 (group 1, category B) indicate more positive attitudes on all Levels, as their involvement in political demonstrations and marches increasesries, A. P. Self reported and judged personality, value, and additudinal patterns: A comparison of users and non-users of LSD—25. RMPA Symposium on Alcohol and Drug Use, Albuquerque, New Mexico, May, 1969. Jc>3:ckuh.J} E. Attitudes toward education andgphysically disabled persons in eleven nations. East Lansing: Latin American Studies Center, Michigan State University, 1968. Jc>1rékuh J} E. Guttman facet design and development of a cross cultural attitudes toward mentally retarded persons scale. East Lansing, Michigan, Michigan State University, 1969 (available from author). JtDchian, J. E. A Guttman facet theory analysis of teacher attitudes toward the mentally retarded in Colombia, British Honduras, and the United States. Indian Journal of Mental Retardation, 1970, 3, 1, 1-20 (a). *thTéian, J. E. Attitude-behaviors toward mentally retarded persons: A cross cultural analysis. Final report, U.S. Office of Education, Grant No. OEG-O-8-000126— D197, Project No. 7-E-126, 1970 (b). ‘Jcnrtieuhka E. Racial attitudes: A Guttman facet theory research design. Paper presented at the annual meeting of APGA. New Orleans, Louisiana, March, 1970 (c). ~3Ceraan, J. E. Attitude~behavior research on physical—mental— social disability and racial—ethnic differences. Psychological Aspects of Disability, 1971, 18, 1, 5-26 (a). JC’J'S’Cflan, J. E. Cross—cultural measurement of attitude- behaviors toward mental retardation: A Guttman facet analysis. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 197l,—in press (b). 152 I 23. Civil Disturbances 1-7 68 37 97 1-2 :13: 24. Political Revol. 1-7 69 37 98 1-2 8‘: 25. Social Revol. 1—7 70 37 99 1-2 26. Political Change 1-7 71 38 100 1-4 27. Armed Service 1-7 72 38 101 1-2 28. With (type) 7 ll 38 102 1-5 29. Amount 7 12 38 103 1-5 30. Kind 7 13 38 104 1-4 31. Use 7 14 39 105 1-5 3 32. Amount of use 7 15 39 106 1-5 3 33. Avoidance 7 16 39 107 1-5 s 34. Gain 7 17 39 108 1-2 8 3s. Enjoyment 7 18 39 109 l-S 36. Arrested 7 19 39 110 1-2 37. Reason for use 7 20 39 111 1-5 Value 38. Efficacy 7 21-29 40-41 112-120 9-35 39. Nation 1-7 1-2 -- -- -- 40. Subject No. 1-7 3-5 -- -- -- .3 41. Administration 3 Groupb 1-7 6-7 -- -- -- 5 42. Interest GroupC l-7 8-9 -- -- -- E 43. Card No. 1-7 80 -- -- -- aSex: l=female; 2=ma1e bSame c Same as group numbers in Table 15. as category numbers in Table 15. APPENDIX 4 ABS-DU (INITIAL VERSION) 172 ATTITUDE BEHAVIOR SCALE I_)U_ DIRECTIONS This booklet contains statements of how people behave in certain situations or feel about certain things.‘ You, yourself, or other persons often behave in the same way toward illegal drug users. You also have some general ideas about yourself, about other persons like you and about illegal drug users. Sometimes you feel or behave the same way toward everyone and sometimes you feel or behave differently toward illegal drug users. This questionnaire has statements about ideas and about behavior. Each statement in this questionnaire is different from every other statement, although some of the statements in each section are similar. Your answers in one section, therefore, may be the same as answers in another section, or your answers may differ from section to section. Here is a sample statement: Sample.l Others believe the following things about drug users as compared to themselves: 1. Chance of drug users being sick more often Q less chance . about the same 3. more chance If others believe that illegal drug users have iess chance to be sick more often, should circle the number 1 as shown above or if you are using an IBM sheet, make a heavy dark line on the answer sheet between the two lines after the number as follows: l. l ‘ 2 === 3 === 4 == 5 === Please mark only one response for each question. Although the answers to .some questions may not exactly fit your Opinion, chOOse a "best" answer. ****************** DO NOT pUT YOUR NAME ON THE BOOKLET ******************** by: John E. Jordan James M. Kaple William Nicholson College of Education Michigan State University 318 71“?I ABS-I—DU Directions: Section I This section contains statements about ideas which pthers have about illegal drag “SQES- Circle or fill in the answer sheet number that indicates how others compare drug users with non drug users. Others believe the following things about illegal drug users as compared to non-drug users: 1. Drug users usually come from homes that are: 1. less happy than others 2. same as others 3. happier than others Drug users are genetically predisposed (born that way) to use drugs. 1. less Often than others 2. the same 3. more often than others Drug users take drugs because it is "the thing to do." 1. disagree 2. undecided '3. agree As compared to others drug users deal with anxiety or worry: 1. less well 2. same 3. better than non drug users Others believe that minority racial groups are more likely to be drug users than whites. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree People who use drugs are: l. physically weaker than others 2. same 3. physically stronger than others (3thers believe that drug users start taking drugs for medical reasons. 1. very seldom 2. undecided :3. more Often than not 31871 -a ABS-I—DU Others believe the following things about illegal drug users as compared to non-drug users: 8. 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. Others believe drug users take drugs to "escape reality." 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree Others believe drug users' intellectual ability is: 1. less than others 2. equal to others 3. more than others Others believe drug users can be trusted: 1. less than others 2. same as others 3. more than others As compared to non—drug users, others believe drug users are: l. more frightening 2. same 3. less frightening As compared to non-drug users others believe that drug users plan for the future. 1. less often 2. same 3. more often With regard to work, drug users are: 1. less dependable than others 2. same as others 3. more dependable than others Others believe that drug users are usually "followers" rather than "leaders." 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree with regard to sexual practices, , others believe that drug users are: 1. more sexually loose than non-drug users 2. same 3. less sexually loose than-nonvdrug uSers 318 71 -a ABS—I-DU Others believe the following things about illegal dggg users as compared to non-drug users: 16. Others believe that drug users lead religious lives: 1. less often than non-users 2. same as non-users 3. more often than non—users 17. As compared to others, drug users act immature. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 18. Others believe that drug users are antisocial: l. more often than non—drug users 2. same as non-drug users 3. less often than non-drug users 19. Others believe that drug users make "good friends:" 1. less often than non-drug users 2. same as non-drug users 3. more often than non—drug users 20. Others believe that drug users are interested in unusual sexual practices: 1. more often than non—drug users 2. same as non-drug users 3. less often than non-drug users 21. Others believe that drug users go to universities: 1. less often than non-users 2. same as non-users 3. more often than non—users 22. Others believe that drug users are faithful to their spouses: 1. less often than non-users 2. same as non—users 3. more often than non-users 23. Others believe drug users are an economic tireat to society. 1. agree 2. undecided 3. disagree 31871"a —>- ABS-I-DU Others believe the following things non-drug users: 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. Others believe that drug users 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree As compared to non-drug users, 1. less fun to date 2. the same 3. more fun to date Others believe that drug users 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree Others believe that society in jails. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree Others believe alization. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree Others believe 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree Others believe 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree Others believe rehabilitating 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree 31871 -a that that that that drug drug users drug users drug users drug users about illegal drug users as compared to are a threat to society. others believe that drug users are: are beyond medical help. should be isolated from the rest of should be isolated from society by hospit- can best be helped by ex-drug addicts. are beyond halp by psychologists. the government should pay all costs associated with users . -6- ABS—I-DU Others believe the following things about illegal drug users as compared to non-drug users: 32. Others believe that all that drug users need is hospital detoxification (drying out). 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 33. Others believe that drug users respond better to group therapy than to other therapy types. 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree 34. Others believe that legal restraints on drug users should be: 1. more strict 2 . remain unchanged 3. less strict 35. Others believe that most drug users usually seek treatment only to lower the amount of daily drug intake. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 2M5. Others believe that drug users need a permanent drug substitute, like methadone, to permanently "kick the habit." I. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 37. (Others believe drug use leads to permanent physical damage to the user. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 38. ()thers believe drug users usually desire treatment because they are in legal (lifficulty. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 31871 —a -7- ABS-I-DU Others believe the following things about illegal drug users as compared to non-drug users: 39. Drug users usually seek treatment to permanently "k1Ck the habit." I. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree 40. Others believe that drug users need help with emotional problems more than non drug users 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 31871 ‘3 ABS-II-DU Directions: Section II This section contains statements which people generally believe others would experience when interacting with illegal drug users. Please choose the answer that indicates what you think most others believe about illegal drug users. Most people generally believe the following about interacting with illegal drug 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 31871 users: PeOple generally believe that others would find that drug users come from homes that are: 1. less happy than others 2. same as others 3. more happy than others PeOple generally believe that others would find that drug users are genetically predisposed (born that way) to use drugs. 1. less than others 2. same as others 3. more than others PeOple generally believe that others would find that drug users take drugs because it is the thing to do. 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree PeOple generally believe that others would find drug users deal with anxiety or worry: 1. less well than others 2. same as others 3. better than others People generally believe that others would find that minority racial groups are more likely to be drug users than whites. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree PeOple generally believe that others would find drug users to be: 1. physically weaker 2. same 3. physically stronger -a —9- ABS-II-DU Most people generally believe the following about interacting with illegal drug users: 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. PeOple generally believe that others would find that drug users start to take drugs for medical reasons. 1. very seldom 2. undecided 3. more often than not PeOple generally believe that others would find that drug users take drugs to "escape reality." 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree PeOple generally believe others would find drug users to be: 1. less intelligent than others 2. of equal intelligence 3. more intelligent than others PeOple generally believe that others would find that drug users can be trusted: 1. less than others 2. same as others 3. more than others PeOple generally believe that others would find drug users are: l. more frightening than others 2. the same 3. less frightening than others jPeOple generally believe that others would find that drug users plan for the future: .1. less often than others 2. same as others 13. more often than others itith regard to work, people generally believe that others would find drug users to be: 1. less dependable than others 2. same as others 3, more dependable than others 318 71 -a -10- ABS-II~DU Mbst people generally believe the following about interacting with illegal drug users: 54. 55. 56. S7. 58. 59. People generally believe that others would find that drug users are usually "followers" rather than "leaders." 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree People generally believe that others sexually loose. I. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree PeOple generally believe that others religious lives: 1. less often than non-users 2. same as non-users 3. more often than non-users People generally believe that others 1. less mature than others 2. same as others 3. more mature than others People generally believe that others antisocial. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree People generally believe that others "good friends." 1. disagree 2. undecided 3. agree Peeple generally believe that others would find drug would find that would find that would find that would find that would find that interested in unusual sexual practices: 1. more often than non-users 2. same as non-users 3. less often than non-users 31871-a users to be drug drug drug drug drug users users users users users lead act: are make are -11- ABS-II-DJ Most people generally believe the following about interacting‘with illegal drug 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 31871 users 3 People generally believe that others would find drug users go to universities: 1. less often than non-users 2. same as non—users 3. more often than non-users People generally believe that others would find drug users to be faithful to their spouses: 1. less often than noneusers 2 . same as non—users 3. more often than non-users People generally believe others would find drug users to be an economic threat to society: 1. more than others 2. same as others 3. less than others PeOple generally believe that others would find drug users to be: 1. more of a threat to society than non—drug users 2. same threat to society 3. less of a threat to society than non-drug users People generally believe that others would find that drug users are: 1. less fun to date than non-drug users 2. the same as non-drug users 3. more fun than non-drug users People generally believe others would find that drug users are beyond medical help . 1. agree 2. uncertain 3 . disagree People generally believe that others would find that drug users should be isolated fran the rest of society in jail. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree -a -12- ABS-II-DU gnag_gggplg generally believe the following about interacting with illegal drug 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. users : PeOple generally believe that others would find that drug users should be isolated from society by hospitalization. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree People generally believe others would find drug users can best be helped by ex-drug addicts. 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree PeOple generally believe others would find that drug users are beyond help by psychologists. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree People generally believe that others would find that all costs associated with rehabilitating drug users should be paid by the government. 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree People generally believe that others would find that drug users only require hospital detoxification (drying out). 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree People generally believe that Others would find that drug users respond well to group therapy. 1.. disagree 2 . uncertain 3 . agree EMBOple generally believe that others would find legal restraints on drug users should be: 1. more strict 2. remain unchanged 3. less strict I£1871 ‘3 -13- 9.831510. Host pgogle generally believe the following about interactingywith illegal drug users: . 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. PeOple generally believe that others would find that drug users usually seek treatment only to lower the amount of daily drug intake. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree People generally believe that others would find that drug users need a permanent drug substitute, like methadone, to permanently "kick the habit." I. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree PeOple generally believe that others would find that drug use leads to permanent physical damage to the user. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree Pe0ple generally believe that others would find drug users usually desire treatment because they are in legal difficulty. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree PeOple generally believe that others would find drug users seek treatment to permanently "kick the habit." 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree People generally believe that others would find that drug users need help with emotional problems: 1. more often than others 2. same 3. less often than others 31871 -a ~14- ABS-III-DU Directions: Section III This section contains statements of the ri t or wrong way of behaving or acting toward illegal drgg_users. You are asked to indicate what you youiself believe others think should be done with respect to illegal drug users. In respect to illegal drug users. what do you, yourself, believe others think is right or wrong: 81. For others to believe that drug users come from unhappy homes is: 1. usually right 2. undecided 3. usually wrong 82. For others to believe that drug users are genetically predisposed (born that way) to take drugs is: 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 83. For others to believe that drug users take drugs because it is the "thing to do" is: 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 84. For others to believe that drug users deal with anxiety well is: 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 85. For others to expect most drug users to be from a minority racial group 1. usually right 2. uncertain 3. usually wrong 86. For others to believe that drug users are physically weak is: 1. usually right 2. undecided 3. usually wrong £37. For others to expect that drug users usually start to take drugs for medical reasons is: 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right L3]£37l -a -13- ABS-III-DU In respect to illegal drug users, what do you, yourself, believe others think is right or wrong: 88. For others to expect that drug users take drugs to "escape reality" is: 1. usually right 2. uncertain 3. usually wrong 89. For others to expect drug users'intellectual ability to be the same as others is : 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 90. For others to expect drug users to be trustworthy is: 1. usually right 2. undecided 3. usually wrong 91. For others to expect drug users to be frightening is: 1. usually right 2. undecided 3. usually wrong 92. For others to expect drug users to plan for the future is: 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3 . usually right 93. For others to believe that drug users are less dependable workers is: 1. usually right 2. undecided 3. usually wrong ‘94. Fbr others to expect drug users to be "followers" rather than "leaders" 1. usually right 2. uncertain 3. usually wrong $95. For others to expect drug users to be sexually loose is: usually right undecided usually wrong UNH 318 71 -—a —l6- ABS—III-DU In respect to illeggl drug users, what do you, yourself, believe others think is right or wrong: 96. For others to expect drug users to lead religious lives is: 1. usually wrong 2 . undecided 3. usually right 97. For others to expect drug users to be immature is: 1. usually right 2. uncertain 3. usually wrong 98. For others to expect drug users to be antisocial is: 1. usually right 2. undecided 3. usually wrong 99. For others to expect drug users to make 'good friends" is: 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 100. For others to expect drug users to be interested in unusual sexual practices is: 1. usually right 2. undecided 3. usually wrong 101. For others to expect drug users to go to university is: 1. usually wrong 2. uncertain 3. usually right 102. For others to expect drug users to be faithful to their spouses is: 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 103. For others to expect drug users to be an economic threat to society is: 1. usually right 2. uncertain 3. usually wrong 318 71-a -17- ABS-III-DU In respect to illegal drug users, what do you, yourself, believe others think is right or wrong: 104. For others to expect drug users to be a threat to society is: 1. usually right 2. uncertain 3. usually wrong 105. For others to eXpect drug users to be fun on a date is: 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 106. For others to eXpect that drug users are beyond medical help is: 1. usually right 2. uncertain 3. usually wrong 107. For others to expect drug users to be isolated from society by jail is: 1. usually right 2. uncertain 3. usually wrong 108. For others to eXpect drug users to be isolated from society by hospital- ization is: 1. usually right 2. uncertain 3. usually wrong 109. Fbr others to expect drug users to best be helped by ex—drug addicts is: 1. usually wrong 2. uncertain 3. usually right 110. lFor others to expect that drug users are beyond help by psychologists is: 1. usually right 2. uncertain 3. usually wrong 11]" IFor others to expect the government to pay all costs associated with rehabilitating drug users is: 1. usually wrong 2 . undecided 3. usually right 31871 ‘3 ~18— ABS-III-DU In respect to illegal drug users, what do you, yourself, believe others think is right or wrong: 112. For others to believe that all that drug users need is hospital detoxification (drying out) is: 1. usually right 2. undecided 3. usually wrong 113. For others to expect drug users to respond well to group therapy is: 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 114. For others to expect legal restraints on drug users to be too strict is: 1. usually wrong 2. uncertain 3. usually right 115. For others to think drug users seek treatment only to lower the amount of daily drug intake is: 1. usually right 2. uncertain 3. usually wrong 116. For others to think that drug users need a permanent drug substitute, like methadone, to permanently "kick the habit" is: 1 usually right 2. uncertain 3. usually wrong 117. For others to think that drug use leads to physical damage to the user is: 1. usually right 2. uncertain 3. usually wrong 118. For others to believe that drug users usually desire treatment because they are in legal difficulty is: 1. usually right 2. undecided 3. usually wrong 31871 -a -19- ABS-III-DU In respect to illegal drug users, what do you, yourself, believe others think is right or wrong: 119. For others to believe that drug users seek treatment to permanently "kick the habit" is: 1 usually wrong 2. uncertain 3. usually right 120. For others to believe that drug users need help with emotional problems is: 1. usually rigor 2. uncertain 3. usually wrong 31871’3 -20- ABS-IV-DU Directions: Section IV This section contains statements about how you think you would act toward illegal drug users. Choose the answer that indicates how’you think you would set. In respect to illegal drug users would you yourself: 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 31871 I would expect that drug users come from: 1. unhappy homes 2. undecided 3. happy homes I would expect that drug users are genetically predisposed (born that way) to be that way. 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree I would expect drug users to take drugs because it is "the thing to do." 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes I would expect that drug users deal with anxiety: 1. poorly 2. uncertain 3. well I would usually expect drug users to be from a minority racial group. I. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree I would expect that drug users are: l. physically weak 2. undecided 3. physically strong I would expect that drug users usually start to take drugs for medical reasons. 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree -a ABS-IV-DU In respect to illegal drug users would you yourself: 128. I would expect drug users to take drugs to "escape reality." 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 129. I would expect the intellectual ability of drug users to be: 1. less than mine 2. equal to mine 3. more than mine 130. I believe I would trust drug users: 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree 131. I believe I would be frightened by a drug user. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 132. I would expect that drug users plan for the future. 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree 133. With regard to work, I would expect drug users to be: 1. less dependable than others 2. same 3. more dependable than others 134. I would expect to find that drug users are "followers" rather than leaders. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 135. I would expect that drug users are sexually loose. I. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 136. I would expect drug users to lead religious lives. 1. less often than non users. 2. same as non users 3. more than non users 31871‘a -22- ABS-IV-QQ In respect to illegal drug users would you yourself: 137. I would expect drug users to be immature. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 138. I would expect drug users to be antisocial. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 139. I would expect drug users to make good friends. 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree 140. I would expect drug users to be interested in unusual sexual practices. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 141. I would expect drug users to go to university. 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree t 142. I would expect that drug users are less faithful to their spouses than non drug users. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 143. I would expect drug users to be an economic threat to society. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 144. I would expect drug users to be a threat to society. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 145. I would expect that drug users are fun on a date. 1. disagree 2. undecided 3. agree 31871-8 — , ... 23 AL; !£;ra In respect to illegal drug users would you yourself: 146. I would expect that drug users are beyond medical help. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 147. I would expect drug users to be isolated from society by jail. I. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 148. I would expect drug users to be isolated from society by hospitalisation. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 149. I would expect that drug users can best be helped by ex-drug addicts. 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree 150. I would expect that drug users are beyond help by psychologists. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 151. I would expect the government to pay all costs associated with rehabili- tating drug users. 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree 152. I would expect that all that drug users need is hospital detoxification (drying out). 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 153. I would expect drug users to respond well to group therapy. 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree 31871‘3 -24- ABS-IV-DU In respect to illegal drug users would you yourself: 154. I would expect to find that legal restraints on drug users are: 1. not strict enough 2. undecided 3. too strict 155. I would expect drug users usually seek treatment only to lower the amount of daily intake. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 0 156. I would expect that drug users need a permanent drug substitute like methadone to permanently "kick the habit." I. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 157. I would expect that drug use leads to physical damage to the user. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 158. I would expect that drug users usually desire treatment because they are in legal difficulty. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 159. I would expect drug users to seek treatment primarily to "kick the habit." I. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree 160. I would expect that drug users need help with emotional problems. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 31871-a 5”" V 2'2: This section concerns actual feelings thuL you yourself have about illegal drug users. You are asked to indicate how you feel about the following. How do you feel toward illegal drug users: 1. I feel drug users cue from: 1. unhappy homes 2. undecided 3. happy homes .2. I feel drug users are genetically predisposed (born that way). 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree 3. I feel drug users take drugs because it is "the thing to do." 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree 6. I feel drug users deal with anxiety 1. poorly 2. uncertain 3. well 5. I feel drug users usually belong to minority racial groups. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 6. I feel drug users are: l. physically weak 2. undecided 3. physically strong 7. I feel drug users usually start to take drugs for medical reasons. 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree 8. I feel drug users take drugs "to escape reality." 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 31871 - a -26- ass-2:29. How do you feel toward illegal drug:use;g3 9. I feel the intellectual ability of drug users is 1. less than mine 2. same as mine 3. more than mine 10' I feel I can trust drug users: 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree 11, I feel frightened by drug users. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 12. I feel drug users plan for the future: 1. less than others 2. same as others 3. more than others 13. With regard to work, I feel drug users are: l. undependable 2. undecided 3. dependable 14. I feel drug users are usually "follower" rather than'leaders". 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 15. I feel drug users are sexually loose. I. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 16. I feel drug users lead religious lives. 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree 31871 - a ABS-V-DU How do you feel toward illegal drug users: 17. I feel drug users are immature. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 18. I feel drug users are usually anti-social. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 19. I feel drug users make "good friends". 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree 20. I feel that drug users are involved in unusual sexual practices. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 21. I feel drug users go to the university as often as others. 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree 22. I feel drug users are less faithful to their spouses than non-drug users. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 23. I feel drug users are an economic burden. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 24. I feel drug users are a threat to society. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 25. I feel that drug users are fun on a date. 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree 31871 - a -28- ABS-V-DU How do you feel toward illegal drug users: 26. I feel drug users are beyond medical help. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 27 I feel drug users need to be isolated fromxsociety by being put in jail. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 28, I feel urug users need to be isolated from society by being hospitalized. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 29, I feel drug users can best be helped by ex-drug addicts. 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree 30. I feel drug users are beyond help by psychologists. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 31, I feel the government should pay all costs associated with rehabilitating drug users. 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree 32, I feel that all that drug users need is hospital detoxification (drying out). 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 33, I feel drug users respond well to group therapy. 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree 31371 - a -29- ABS-VrDU How do you feel toward illegal drug users: 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 31871 I feel legal restraints on drug users are: 1. too easy 2. all right 3. too strict I feel drug users usually seek treatment only to lower the amount of daily intake. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree I feel drug users need a permanent drug substitute like methadone to permanently "kick the habit". 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree I feel drug use leads to physical damage to the user. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree I feel drug users desire treatment because they are in legal difficulty. 1- agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree I feel that drug users seek treatment primarly to "kick the habit". I. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree I feel that drugusers need help with emocional problems. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree -a ~10~ ABS‘VI-DU Directions: Section VI This section concerns actual ggperiences you have had with illegal drug users. Try to answer the following questions from the knowledge of your own experi- ences. If you have had 32 experience or contact with illegal drug users, omit the next 40 questions and begin again at question on page 34. If you have had any experience or contact with illegal drug users answer all Questions to the best of your ability. Experiences or contacts with illegal druggusers: 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 31871 I have found that drug users come from: 1. unhappy homes 2. undecided 3. happy homes I have found that drug users are genetically predisposed to (born that way) use drugs. 1. disagree 2. undecided 3. agree I have found that drug users take drugs because it is the thing to do. 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes I have seen drug users deal well with anxiety. 1. no 2. uncertain 3. yes I have seen that drug users usually belong to a minority racial group. 1. yes 2. uncertain 3. no I have experienced that drug users are: 1. physically weak 2. undecided 3. physically strong I have seen that drug users usually start to take drugs for medical reasons. 1. no 2. uncertain 3. yes - a -31- ABS-VI-DU Experiences or contacts with illegal drug users: 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. S3. 54. 55. 56. I have seen drug users take drugs to escape "reality". 1. yes 2. uncertain 3. no I have experienced that the intellectual ability of drug users is: 1. less than mine 2. equal to mine 3. more than mine I have trusted drug users. 1. no 2. uncertain 3. yes I have been frightened by drug users. 1. yes 2. uncertain 3. no I have experienced that drug users plan for the future. 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes I have found drug users to be: 1. undependable 2. undecided 3. dependable I have seen that drug users are usually "followers" rather than'leaders". 1. yes 2. undecided 3. no I have seen that drug users are sexually loose. 1. yes 2. undecided 3. no I have seen that drug users lead "religious lives" more often than non users. 1. no 2. uncertain 3. yes 31871- a ABS-VI-DU Expgriences or contacts with illegal drug users: 57, I have seen that drug users are immature. 1. yes 2. uncertain 3. no 58. I have found that drug users are anti-social. 1. yes 2. uncertain 3. no 59, I have seen that drug users make "good friends". 1. no 2. uncertain 3. yes 60. I have seen that drug users are involved in unusual sexual practices. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 61. I have experienced that drug users go to university less often than non users. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 62, I have seen that drug users are unfaithful to their spouses more often than non drug users. 1. yes 2. uncertain 3. no 63, I have seen that drug users are an economic threat to society. 1. yes 2. uncertain 3. no 64, I have seen that drug users are a threat to society. 1. yes 2. uncertain 3. no 31871 --a -33- ABS-VI-DU Experiences or contacts with illegal drug users: 65. I have had fun dating drug users. 1. no 2. uncertain 3. yes 66, I have seen that drug users are beyond medical help. . g 1. yes 2. uncertain 3. no 67, I have seen that drug users need to be isolated from society by jail. 1. yes 2. uncertain 3. no 68. I have seen that drug users need to be isolated from society by hospitali- zation. 1. yes 2. uncertain 3. no 69. I have seen that drug users can best be helped by ex-drug addicts. 1. no 2. uncertain 3. yes. 70. I have seen that drug users are beyond help by Psychologists. 1. yes 2. uncertain 3. no 71, I have encouraged the government to pay all costs associated with rehabili- tating drug users. 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes. 72_ I have seen that all drug users need is hospital detoxification (drying out). 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes 31871 - a Experiences or contacts with illegal drug users: 73. 74; 75) 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 31871 -34- ABS-VI'DU I have seen that drug users respond well to group therapy. 1. no 2. uncertain 3. yes I have seen that legal restraints on drug users are: 1. too easy 2. all right 3. too strict I have seen that drug users usually seek treatment only to lower their daily intake. 1. yes 2. uncertain 3. no I have seen that drug users need a permanent drug substitute like methadone to permanently "kick the habit." 1. yes 2. uncertain 3. no I have seen that drug use leads to physical damage to the user. 1. yes 2. undecided 3. no I have experienced that drug users desire treatment because they are in legal difficulty. 1. yes 2. uncertain 3. no I have experienced that drug users seek treatment primarily to "kick the habit." I. no 2. uncertain 3. yes I have seen that drug users need help with emotional problems. 1. yes 2. uncertain 3. no - a -35- ABS“VI-DU This part of the booklet deals with many things. For the purpose of this study, the answers 2: all persons are important. Part of the questionnaire has to do with personal information about you. Since the questionnaire is completely anonymous g£_confidentia1, you.may answer all of the questions freely without any concern about being identified. It is important to the study to Obtain your answer £2 every_question. Please read each question carefully and do not omit any questions. Please answer by circling the answer you choose. 81- Please indicate your sex. 1. Female 2. Male 32. Please indicate your age as follows: 1. Under 20 years of age 2. 21-30 3. 31-40 4. 41-50 5 50 - over 83. What is your marital status? 1. Married 2. Single 3. Divorced 4. Widowed 5. Separated 84. What is your religion? 1. I prefer not to answer 2. Catholic 3. Protestant 4. Jewish 5. Other or none ’ 85- About how important is your religion to you in your daily life? I prefer not to answer I have no religion Not very important Fairly important Very important LflJ-‘WNH 86-About how much education do you have? . 6 years of school or less 9 years of school or less . 12 years of school or less Some college or university A college or university degree VibWNF-J 31571 ' a 87. Some peeple are more set in their ways than others. HowWwould.you rate yourself? . I find it very difficult to change . I find it slightly difficult to change . I find it somewhat easy to change . I find it very easy to change my ways #WNH 88. Some people feel that in bringing up children, new ways and methods should be tried whenever possible. Others feel that trying out new methods is dangerous. What is your feeling about the following statement? ”New methods of raising children should he tried out whenever possible." . Strongly disagree . Slightly disagree . Slightly agree . Strongly agree #WNH 89.Family planning on birth control has been discussed by many peOpIe. What is your feeling about a married couple practicing birth control? Do you think they are doing something good or bad? If you had to decide, would you say that they are doing wrong, or that they are doing right? . It is always wrong It is usually wrong . It is probably all right . It is always right bU-DNH 90.People have different ideas about what should be done concerning automation and other new ways of doing things. How do you feel about the following statement? "Automation and similar new procedures should be encouraged (in government, business and indust.'\ ince eventually they create new jObs and raise the standard of l...ng." 1. Strongly disagree 2. Slightly disagree 3. Slightly agree 4. Strongly agree 91 In respect to your religion, about to wha; extent do you observe the rules and regulations of your religion? 1. I prefer not to answer 2. I have no religion 3. Sometimes 4. Usually 5 . Almos t always 31571 - a -37- 92. I find it easier to follow rules than to do things on my own. Agree strongly Agree slightly Disagree slightly Disagree strongly J-‘UONH see 93. What is your political preference? 1. Republican 2. Independent 3. Democrat 4. Other 94. How many political rallies have you attended? 1. None 2. One or two 3. Three to six 4. Seven to 15 5 . More than 15 95. How many political demonstrations or marches have you taken part in? 1. None 2. One or two 3. Three to six 4. Seven to 15 5. More than 15 96. Did you vote in the 1968 Presidential election? 1. No 2. Was too young to vote or unable to vote 3. Yes 97. Have you ever been arrested or taken into custody for taking part in a civil disturbance? 1. No 2. Yes 98. Do you feel that a political revolution is needed in this country? 1. No 2. Yes 99. Do you believe that a social revolution is needed in this country? 1. No 2. Yes 31871-a -38- 100, Running a village, city, town or any governmental organization is an important job. What is your feeling on the following statement? "Political leaders should be changed regularly, even if they are doing a good job." 1. Strongly disagree 2. Slightly disagree 3. Slightly agree 4. Strongly agree 101. Have you ever been in the armed services: 1. no 2. yes QUESTIONNAIRE: PC This part of the questionnaire deal with you experiences or contacts with illegal drug users. Perhaps you have had much contact with illegal drug users, or yoy may have read or studied about them. On the other hand, you may have had little or no contact with illegal drug users and may have never though much about them at all. 102, Some types of drug users are listed below. Indicate the type you have had the most contact with. Mark only one. . Marijuana users . Amphitamine and/or barbiturates . Heroine or opium users . Multiple users . No contact U‘war—a 103. How many times have you talked with, worked with or had personal contact with illegal drug users? . No contact . Less than five . Between five and 15 . Between 15 and 50 . More than 50 ViwaH 104. The following question deals with the kinds of experiences you have had with illegal drug users. If more than one categor applies, please choose the answer with the highest number. 1. I have read or heard lectures or seen movies about drug users 2. A friend or relative is, or was, a drug user 3. I have counseled, dated or worked intensively with drug users 4. I, myself, am or have been an illegal drug user 31871 - a —-———————77 -39- 105. If you have ever used illegal drugs, circle the drug most frequently used. If you have never used illegal drugs, leave the answer blank. Marijuana . LSD and/or hallucogens . Barbiturates and/or amphetamines . Heroine and/or opiates . Cocaine mwar—a 106. How many times have you used the drug(s) circled above? If you have not used any illegal drugs, leave your answer blank. Only once Two to five times Five to 10 times 10 to 50 times More than 50 times owl-‘comp- O O 107. When you have been in contact with drug users, how easy for you, in gen- eral, would it have been to avoid contact with these drug users? 1. I could not avoid contact 2. I could generally avoid the personal contact only at great difficulty 3. I could generally avoid this personal contact with considerable difficulty 4. I could generally avoid this personal contact with some difficulty 5. I could generally avoid this personal contac without any difficulty 108. During your contact with drug users did you gain materially in any way, such as being paid or gaining academic credit? 1. No 2. Yes 109. How have you generally felt about your experiences with drugh users? . No experience . I definitely disliked it . I did not like it very much . I liked it somewhat . I definitely enjoyed it meNI—t 110. Have you ever been arrested or taken into custody for possession or use of illegal drugs? 1. No 2. Yes 111. Why do you (or might you) take illegal drugs? 1. Never have or would 2. To release anxiety 3. To feel good 4. Because it is the "thing to do" 5. to "escape" 31871-a -40.. LIFE SITUATIONS This section of the booklet deals with how people feel about several aspects of life or life situations. Please indicate how you feel about each by marking the appropriate number on the answer sheet. 112. It should be possible to eliminate war once and for all. 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Agree 4 Strongly agree 113, Success depends to a large part on luck and fate. 1. Strongly agree 2. agree 3. Disagree 1. . Strongly disagree 114. Some day most of the mysteries of the world will be revealed by science. . Strongly disagree . Disagree . Agree . Strongly agree #wNP‘ 115, By improving industrial and agricultural methods, poverty can be eliminated in the world. . Strongly disagree . Disagree . Agree . Strongly agree war-I 116. With increased medical knowledge it should be possible to lengthen the average life span to 100 years or more. . Strongly disagree . Disagree . Agree , . Strongly agree buNr- 117, Some day the deserts will be converted into good farming land by the application of engineering and science. Strongly disagree . Disagree . Agree . Strongly agree «L‘wNv—I 118. Education can only help people develop their natural abilities; it cannot change people in any fundamental way. Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree war-a I -41- 119,. With hard work anyone can succeed. l . S trongly d isagree 2 . Disagree 3 . Agree 4 . St rongly agree 120. Almost every present human problem will be solved in the future. 1 . St tong 1y d isagree 2 . Disagree 3 . Agree 4 . S trong 1y agree 31871- a APPENDIX 5 ABS-DU (FINAL SCALE) 214 2115 TABLE A-48.--Abbreviated Item Content and Subscale Level Numbers for the Finala ABS:DU. Item Numbers in Subscale Level Content Original Item Facet Number Content Level Level- Level Level Level Level 1 2 3 4 S 6 m 1 Homes-type l 21 41 61 81 101 H g 4 Anxiety/worry 2 22 42 62 82 102 s 5 Minerity grOUp 3 23 43 63 83 103 8 6 Weak-strong 4 24 44 64 84 104 l 8 12 Future orientation 5 25 45 65 85 105 :3 m 13 Work dependable 6 26 46 66 86 106 6.3.3 17 Immature 7 27 47 67 87 107 n+2 18 Antisocial 8 28 48 68 88 108 5.33 m 23 Economic threat 9 29 49 69 89 109 5, 8 25 Dating 10 3o 50 7o 90 110 tonne 37 Physical damage 11 31 51 71 91 111 g, 8 24 Societal threat 12 32 52 72 92 112 o 4.) g 26 Medical help 13 33 53 73 93 113 s-Ea) 27 In jails 14 34 54 74 94 114 4.; g 29 Addict-help 15 35 55 75 95 115 39 30 Psychologist—help 16 36 56 76 96 116 B 4.1 g c 35 Lower intake 17 37 57 77 97 117 “‘5 o 36 Need methadone 18 38 58 78 98 118 .6 53 38 Legal trouble 19 39 59 79 99 119 fig 39 Kick habit 20 40 60 80 110 120 B aSee Table 30. AETITUDE BEHAVIOR SCALE pg DIRECTIONS This booklet contains statements of how people behave in certain situations or feel about certain things. You, yourself, or other persons often behave in the same way toward illegal drug users. You also have some general ideas about yourself, about other persons like you and about illegal drug users. Sometimes you feel or behave the same way toward everyone and sometimes you feel or behave differently toward illegal drug users. This questionnaire has statements about ideas and about behavior. Each statement in this questionnaire is different from every other statement, although some of the statements in each section are similar. Your answers in one section, therefore, may be the same as answers in another section, or your answers may differ from section to section. Here is a sample statement: Sample I Others believe the following things about drug users as compared to themselves: 1. Chance of drug users being sick more often less chance . about the same 3. more chance If others believe that ille a1 users have less chance to be sick more often, you shoulru circle “the number 1 as shown above or if you are using an IBM sheet, make a heavy dark line on the answer sheet between the two lines after the number as follows: 2—————-—— 3————— 4== 5————— l. l Please mark only one response for each question. Although the answers to some questions may not exactly fit your opinion, choose a "best" answer. *********** DO NOT PUT YOUR NAME ON THE BOOKLET ************ by: John E. Jordan James M. Kaple William Nicholson College of Education Michigan State University 6171 l ABS-I-DU Directions: Section I This section contains statements about ideas which others have about illegal drug users. Circle or fill in the answer sheet number that indicates how others compare drug users with non drug users. Others believe the following things about illegal drug users as compared to non-drug users: 1. Drug users usually come from homes that are: 1. less happy than others 2. same as others 3. happier than others 2. As compared to others drug users deal with anxiety or worry: 1. less well 2. same 3. better than non drug users 3. Others believe that minority racial grOUps are more likely to be drug users than whites. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 4. Others believe that people who use drugs are: 1. physically weaker than others 2. same 3. physically stronger than others 5. As compared to non-drug users others believe that drug users plan for the future. 1. less often 2. same 3. more often 6. With regard to work, others believe that drug users are: 1. less dependable than others 2. same as others 3. more dependable than others 6171 2 ABS—I-DU Others believe the following things about illegal drug users as compared to non-drug users: 7. As compared to others, drug users act immature. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 8. Others believe that drug users are antisocial. l. more often than non—drug users 2. same as non-drug users 3. less often than non-drug users 9. Others believe drug users are an economic threat to society. 1. agree 2. undecided 3. disagree 10. As compared to non-drug users, others believe that drug users are: 1. less fun to date 2. the same 3. more fun to date 11. Others believe drug use leads to permanent physical damage to the user. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 12. Others believe that drug users are a threat to society. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 13. Others believe that drug users are beyond medical help. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 14. Others believe that drug users should be isolated from the rest of society in jails. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 6171 3 ABS-I-DU Others believe the following things about illegal drug users as compared to non-drug users: 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 6171 Others believe that drug users can best be helped by ex-drug addicts. 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree Others believe that drug users are beyond help by psychologists. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree Others believe that most drug users usually seek treatment only to lower the amount of daily drug intake. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree Others believe drug users need a permanent drug sub- stitute, like methadone, to permanently "kick the habit." I. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree Others believe drug users usually desire treatment because they are in legal difficulty. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree Drug users usually seek treatment to permanently "kick the habit." 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree ABS-II-DU Directions: Section II This section contains statements which people generally believe others would experience when interacting with illegal drug users. Please choose the answer that indicates what you think most others believe about illegal drug users. Most people generally believe the following about interacting with illegal drug users: 21. People generally believe that others would find that drug users come from homes that are: 1. less happy than others 2. same as others 3. more happy than others 22. People generally believe that others would find drug users deal with anxiety or worry: 1. less well than others 2. same as others 3. better than others 23. People generally believe that others would find that minority racial groups are more likely to be drug users than whites. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 24. PeOple generally believe that others would find drug users to be: 1. physically weaker 2. same 3. physically stronger 25. People generally believe that others would find that drug users plan for the future: 1. less often than others 2. same as others 3. more often than others 6171 5 ABS‘II-DU people generally believe the following about interacting illegal drug users: With regard to work, people generally believe that others would find drug users to be: 1. less dependable than others 2. same as others 3. more dependable than others People generally believe that others would find that drug users act: 1. less mature than others 2. same as others 3. more mature than others People generally believe that others would find that drug users are antisocial. . undecided 3. disagree People generally believe others would find drug users to be an economic threat to society: . more than others 2. same as others . less than others People generally believe that others would find that drug users are: . less fun to date than non-drug users 2. the same as non-drug users . more fun than non-drug users PeOple generally believe that others find that drug use leads to permanent physical damage to the user. 2. uncertain . disagree Most with 26. 27. 28. 1. agree 2 29. 1 3 30. l 3 31. 1. agree 3 32. 6171 People generally believe that others would find drug users to be: 1. more of a threat to society than non-drug users 2. same threat to society 3. less of a threat to society than non-drug users Most With 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 6171 'ABs—II—DU- people generally believe the following about interacting 1 egal drug users: People generally believe others would find that drug users are beyond medical help. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree People generally believe that others would find that drug users should be isolated from the rest of society in jail. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree PeOple generally believe others would find drug users can best be helped by ex—drug addicts. 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree People generally believe others would find that drug users are beyond help by psychologists. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree People generally believe that others would find that drug users usually seek treatment only to'ldWer the amount of daily drug intake. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree PeOple generally believe that others would find that drug users need a permanent drug substitute, like methadone, to permanently "kick the habit." 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree ABS-II-DU Most people generally believe the following about interacting w1th illegal drug users: 39. 40. 6171 People generally believe that others would find drug users usually desire treatment because they are in legal difficulty. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree People generally believe that others would find drug users seek treatment to permanently "kick the habit." 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree ABS-III-DU Directions: Section III This section contains statements of the right or wrong way of behaving or acting toward illegal drug users. You are asked to indicate what you yourself believe others think should be done with respect to illegal drug users. In respect to illegal drug users, what do you, yourself, believe others think is right or wrong: 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 6171 For others to believe that drug users come from unhappy homes is: 1. usually right 2. undecided 3. usually wrong For others to believe that drug users deal with anxiety well is: 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right For others to eXpect most drug users to be from a minority racial group is: 1. usually right 2. uncertain 3. usually wrong For others to believe that drug users are physically weak is: 1. usually right 2. undecided 3. usually wrong For others to expect drug users to plan for the future is: 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right ABS-II I--DU In respect to illegal drug users, what do you, yourself, believe others think is right or wrong: 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 6171 For others to believe that drug users workers is: l. 2. 3. For usually right undecided usually wrong others to expect usually right uncertain usually wrong others to expect usually right undecided usually wrong drug drug For others to expect drug threat to society is: l. 2. 3. For usually right uncertain usually wrong others to expect usually wrong undecided usually right drug users users users users to be to be to be to be are less dependable immature is: antisocial is: an economic fun on a date is: For others to think that drug use leads to physical damage to the user is: l. 2. 3. usually right uncertain usually wrong For others to expect drug users to be a threat to society is: 1. 2. 3. usually right uncertain usually wrong 10 ABS-I II-DU In respect to illegal drug_users, what do you, yourself, believe others think is right or wrong: 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 6171 For others to eXpect that drug users are beyond medical help is: 1. usually right 2. uncertain 3. usually wrong For others to eXpect drug users to be isolated from society by jail is: 1. usually right 2. uncertain 3. usually wrong For others to expect drug users to best be helped by ex-drug addicts is: 1. usually wrong 2. uncertain 3. usually right For others to expect that drug users are beyond help by psychologists is: 1. usually right 2. uncertain 3. usually wrong For others to think drug users seek treatment only to lower the amount of daily drug intake is: 1. usually right 2. uncertain 3. usually wrong For others to think that drug users need a permanent drug substitute, like methadone, to permanently "kick the habit" is: usually right 1. 2. uncertain 3 usually wrong 11 ABS—I I I‘-1DU In respect to illegal drug users, what do you, yourself, believe others think is right or wrong: 59. For others to believe that drug users usually desire treatment because they are in legal difficulty is: 1. usually right 2. undecided 3. usually wrong 60. For others to believe that drug users seek treatment to permanently "kick the habit" is: 1. usually wrong 2. uncertain 3. usually right 6171 12 ABS-IV-DU Directions: Section IV This section contains statements about how you think you would act toward illegal drug users. Choose the answer that indicates how you think'you wouldiact. In respect to illegal drug users would you yourself: 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 6171 I would eXpect that drug users come from: 1. unhappy homes 2. undecided 3. happy homes I would expect that drug users deal with anxiety: 1. poorly 2. uncertain 3. well I would usually expect drug users to be from a minority racial group. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree I would expect that drug users are: l. physically weak 2. undecided 3. physically strong I would expect that drug users plan for the future. 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree With regard to work, I would expect drug users to be: 1. less dependable than others 2. same 3. more dependable than others 13 AB‘SL-IV-DU' - In respect to illegal drug users would you yourself: 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 6171 I would eXpect drug users to be immature. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree I would expect 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree I would expect to society. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree I would eXpect 1. disagree 2. undecided 3. agree I would eXpect to the user. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree I would expect 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree I would expect 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree I would expect by jail. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree drug drug that that drug that drug users to be antisocial. users to be an economic threat drug users are fun on a date. drug use leads to physical damage users to be a threat to society. drug users are beyond medical help. users to be isolated from society 14 ABS-IV-DU In respect to illegal drug users would you yourself: 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 6171 I would expect that drug users can best be helped by ex-drug addicts. 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree I would expect that drug users are beyond help by psychologists. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree I would expect drug users usually seek treatment only to lower the amount of daily intake. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree I would expect that drug users need a permanent drug substitute like methadone to permanently "kick the habit." 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree I would eXpect that drug users usually desire treatment because they are in legal difficulty. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree I would expect drug users to seek treatment primarily to "kick the habit." I. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree 15 ABS-V-DU Directions: Section V This section concerns actual feelings that you yourself have about illegal drug users. You are asked to indicate how you feel about the following How do you feel toward illegal drug users: 81. I feel drug users come from: 1. unhappy homes 2. undecided 3. happy homes 82. I feel drug users deal with anxiety: 1. poorly 2. uncertain 3. well 83. I feel drug users usually belong to minority racial groups. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 84. I feel drug users are: l. physically weak 2. undecided 3. physically strong 85. I feel drug users plan for the future: 1. less than others 2. same as others 3. more than others 86. With regard to work, I feel drug users are: l. undependable 2. undecided 3. dependable 6171 16 How do you feel toward 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 6171 ' 'A'Bls-v-DU- . illegal drug users: I feel drug users are immature. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree I feel drug users are antisocial. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree I feel drug users are an economic 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree I feel that drug users are fun on 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree I feel drug use leads to physical damage to the 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree I feel drug users are a threat to 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree I feel drug users are beyond medical help. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree burden. a date. society. user. I feel drug users need to be isolated from society by being put in jail. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree l7 ABS-V-DU How do you feel toward illegal drug users: 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 6171 I feel drug users can best be helped by ex-drug addicts. 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree I feel drug users are beyond help by psychologists. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree I feel drug users usually seek treatment only to lower the amount of daily intake. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree I feel drug users need a permanent drug substitute like methadone to permanently "kick the habit." 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree I feel drug users desire treatment primarily because they are in legal difficulty. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree I feel that drug users seek treatment primarily to "kick the habit." 1 disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree 18 ABS-VI-DU Directions: Section VI This section concerns actual experiences you have had with illegal drug users. Try to answer the following questions rom the nowledge of ypur own experiences. If you have had no experience or contact with illegal drug users, omit questions 101- 120 and begin again at question 121 on page 20. If you have had any eXperience or contact with illegal drug users answer all questions to the best of your ability. Experiences or contacts with illegal drpg users: 101. I have found that drug users come from: 1. unhappy homes 2. undecided 3. happy homes 102. I have seen drug users deal well with anxiety. 1. no 2. uncertain 3. yes 103. I have seen that drug users usually belong to a minority racial group. 1. yes 2. uncertain 3. no 104. I have experienced that drug users are: l. physically weak 2. undecided 3. physically strong 105. I have experienced that drug users plan for the future. no 1. 2. undecided 3. yes 6171 19 A'BS’-VI-'DU EXperiences or contacts with illegal drug users: 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 6171 I have found drug users to be: 2 undecided 3. dependable in work I have seen that drug 1. yes 2. uncertain 3. no I have seen that drug 1. yes 2. uncertain 3. no I have seen that drug to society. 1. yes 2. uncertain 3. no I have had fun dating 1. no 2. uncertain 3. yes I have seen that drug to the user. 1. yes 2. undecided 3. no I have seen that drug 1. yes 2. uncertain 3. no I have seen that drug 1. yes 2. uncertain 3. no 1. undependable in work users are immature. A users are antisocial. users are an economic threat drug users. use leads to physical damage users are a threat to society. users are beyond medical help. 20 ‘ABS‘VI‘DU'~ Experiences or contacts with illegal drug users: 114. I have seen that drug users need to be isolated from society by jail. 1. yes 2. uncertain 3. no 115. I have seen that drug users can best be helped by ex-drug addicts. 1. no 2. uncertain 3. yes 116. I have seen that drug users are beyond help by psychologists. 1. yes 2. uncertain 3. no 117. I have seen that drug users usually seek treatment only to lower their daily intake. 1. yes 2. uncertain 3. no 118. I have seen that drug users need a permanent drug substitute like methadone to permanently "kick the habit." 1. yes 2. uncertain 3. no 119. I have experienced that drug users desire treatment primarily because they are in legal difficulty. 1. yes 2. uncertain 3. no 120. I have experienced that drug users seek treatment primarily to "kick the habit." Q 1. no 2. uncertain 3. yes 6171 21 APPENDIX 6 N, MEAN, AND STANDARD DEVIATION BY GROUP FOR ALL VARIABLES Variables are identified in the variable list-- Code Book Appendix 3' 237 .,.. __ _r 2238 ooa.o Nov.; ems.“ mmn.o vnn.o «on.s cos.“ noo.o eoo.o nne.s soc.“ onn.» www.cu >mo nwm ooo.= com.m mom." koo.a nnv.o onv.o ono.u wwo.° onc.a amn.o omm.o ”on.o ana.da >wo ohm aea.a ooo.e ~nu.a aak.a ono.o snn.= one.“ men.“ nae.d ono.e con.. oeo.aa um»..« >mo ohm .Hw>mq Don» How commoup mm; soauo>nmmbo was Amid mmHQMHHm> .m.av Hm>mq cm>flm mam um mEmufl whoa no on nw3mcm ou Umafimm pommnsm ham smnzm coo.“ ”no.“ meo.m omn.n noH.a «ao.a can.“ nno.m mmv.~ kmo.m oa«.~ oem.aa oafl.nk 2am: soc.“ mmm.n ~mm.~ com.» new.“ one.” ovv.~ oa~.n omo.~ ok~.n nos.“ «no.ne ooo.on z (n «4) rn x<> cn 14> um m¢> vm m<> «m m<> «a m<> ma m<> ma :«> o 14> o m<> n ma) 2 mzcz noa.v ocm.a nam.o non.o oc~.H van.o nrm.« now.“ nee.“ mo~.a «no.9 mo).o wao.o« >u= a» omn.v own.” coo.” odd.“ owe.” «no.0 orn.n nc~.a v.6.o mmv.d «mm.o nok.o« ko~.~a um 14> am a.) “a ¢<> ea ««> ma ma> ma m<> 1.. a: o ¢<> n «4) z mxaz nco.«« - -Edah.o::sgl:daa.a-:zzla:nm::.:!llmrema>- nos.mm we on nee maa.a ooe.o ne an ma) moe.n we mn eaa oom.s new.“ ne on m<> nmo.e me mn m<> rav.o emo.v a. an m¢> «oc.v mv om m4> cav.c ooH.n ov mm m<> “on.m me om ea) eae.e eao.H n. mm e¢> nod.“ nu - mm mm) --smom.d ssltlnoa.a nm. mm-a meo.o oeo.n ne on ma) aoo.« «a as ea> o~«.H sea.n m. on m<> eme.n «a as e<> ~H6.o mom.~ , me nd-a<> “no.n me «a m<> va.H nmm.n No on ma) nnona E -mv. - Emle4>-z;u-mbo.o oeo.~ me n ma> oao.n~ ” m ea» “no.5 nva.na me e «a, oaa.mo no N aa> mor.n oma.oo me a ma) m ?MC Chm Z Hos.“ eav.n on an ea) noa.n om mm a<> oem.a ova.” ow en «4) knm.v om mn m<> m~n.a noa.n- E m-, 1:,«n+m<> oav.v om om m<> owe.“ nn«.n om cm ma> a~e.~ aw ow ¢<> one.o ooh.“ om m~ ma) odn.a - E mm nw e<> mamas kam.a om mm «a, ok~.~ om ow ¢<> moo.o noe.~ om on ¢<> nom.m om AH a<> vea.a mmo.~ o~ on m<> one.n om ea m<> -flmw.«: .:-mm.- -,--.m-I;IEI:n two’s «on.» a~ «a ma) Nae.” ooo.n on a“ «(> oomtml -- ems: o ma> ooo.e ooo.~ om n ma) Oceans an n ma) “ae.dal- eao.~a on o ea, aflm.ea o~ m m<> koo.a« koa.«a an a mu) m -E:|weur -: 2 ,mra: .>mm cum. EEIEzwmme aEsz-uul.rlummwml N some e 12838 2353 :2 .. softw- 3 uuuuu .anga owm.a~ an on e<> nan.” one.» an an ma) eon.» nn mn e<> moe.o non.” on on r<> - one: - en on a; 2.58 Ezofi.nil-EEK ........ :Jnlmifi ¢o~.o an an ea> amo.a «an.» n» o~ aa> ”on.~ on om ea) mdv.e one.“ n» m~ ma) - , 3a. a E ---E--.-on--.IE-En~-m§EA~3E|AAd.AEEanIdNIm<flI eon.” on ow a<> oac.e oko.~ on ea «a, nno.~ on a“ e<> flea.“ ooo.~ on on a.) kno.~ on E ea m<>:t:15~ms.d --E:;onn.-::||qgon:::!i:lmalm¢s: can.» on as ea) ”on.” sea.» on an «a, -n.~ , on E. o e<> -v.o oan.« on a ¢<> ~w¢.oo- w» - m aa> ooo.aa omv.eo nn- o ¢<> ooo.oo an m e<> ov~.~a mao.oo a. a ma) m 2no cum 24w: 2 wxaz ->mo o» .Amamum HMHUAGHV a exaol‘nssaaso mmHQmHHo> Ham fl >uommumo soflu6fl>mm whopcwum paw .cmm: .z opoumshodll.mwlm mqmmq awn» How omnmoup mm3 soflum>nmmbo on» Anna mebmHHm> .m.flv Hm>mq cm>Hm mam #m mEmpH mHOE HO OH Hm3mcm op pmaflmm uvmflnsm ham cmszm wu;.m soul» “.9.- Nv mt; eeo.e aea.~ an ac ma) era.» aar.su we on or; eat.6 neg.” mm an «4) nnfi.e ono.a nm on m<> \en.o arr.m “n an ac: osm.o nfln.u mm en m<> nomad mw~.m en an «4) oe:.fi eee.a fl an era rnman nnn.m n an mefll mao.e oam.~ mm an ma> o.t.o anr.e r» on or: nnm.a ter.m mm rm m<> mov.e nan.“ nn um x4) aca.n inu.m mm om are uxfi.e one.a nm mm ma) «eaaa Hoe.a nm em ma> ~en.° are.a we mm or: moo.“ rem.w n» Nm ma) ona.a ono.H nm em m<> eea.a aor.e mn om ea; eo¢.a oec.H on on ma) «66.5 eon.~ mm as xa> .aa.a mne.e me an at: t\o.a n.a.m mm on ma) «emu; ono.n nn rd ma> ona.o namaa .re enurea Hok.a Ana.m nm ma ma> ome.e ono.n nm as ma> are.” aoo.n en HH er; eao.o ner.m mm on m<> eek.e oon.a mm o ma> ar5.o ree.m me m at: mem.o one.” on a x<> nva.o emv.flo mm o za> aro.afi aor.ma an m or: nor.r 5:5.ao mm o m<> weo.r oao.no nn n ma) ore.o ooa.mo me m era eoe.r nma.no n» a ma) >mc new 24m: 2 uzaz >2: new raw: : wre: >ne cum :aui z wzqz n axio1_nsxmaso E-EEE---ll1---------------l---aaaqn ..... amndswulsEEEam Ne re) =oe.a oeo.~ nn no me) ass.~ eaa.n~ an on arr onn.e moo.a a» an m<> eoa.a ~ne.a an en ma) nefl.fl Nae.m on mn arr oer.a omn.a om on me) use.» emo.~ mm Kn ma> Nea.a sewn“ m mn ea) oco.o oee.n -« «n ea) som.= noo.~ om an ma) nra.a koo.e on am 3:: ooo.e nme.n on em z<> oov.o nno.fl an em x4) new.” oe~.m a” om urn «on.e koo.a an ow m<> emmla nae.” an emlma> 9:4.0 Noe.a an nm are a‘m4e eno.~ on Nm re) mfle.a onn.a om flu ma> xnn.a one.m cm om «<5 ecu.e mom.“ on as za> moa.fi vmv.~ an an 14> ~cn.a oee.n on ma at) uxw.c mmn.n an on z<> «~54: aeo.n an mw-ma> credo oe=.m en ea er: oxo.o nnu.~ a» nd1m coo.“ mme.n an a“ are rea.a oec.~ an on x<> com.o nn~.a on o m<> wrx.o mne.n ”n m a<> mee.c men.n an m m4> cards ooo.rm mm o m<> Hrsao noe.nn an m as: arr.n+ mweqoo mm c m<> qvv.aa Hnm.~o mm n ma> nan.oa swa.>e an m are one.o max.fla w» H ma> >mc chm zuc cum 2 oa~.o nom.o« am on m<> doo.o moo.“ an en ma> ocm.a -~.H on on m<> are.“ mon.~ om an e<> mom.o can." ea on «4) was.“ ooa.n am nn m<>-: ;oom.u ocvam E E-ulda.- ,Emntm¢>.ll-1¢nw.n ..mwv+a- EINE an ¢¢> «ms.o ao~.~ nm en m.> non.” oom.n om om m<> mom.a m~m.~ e~ om m<> oom.a one.” mm am m4> ooa.fl No~.~ om om m<> Nev.o sod." a~ mw ma) oem.a New.” on ,.:En~zm«> oeo.o see.“ as mm ea> «no.a moo.a ou mu ma) nam.. mam.“ on "N ma) “as.” new.“ am on e<> eno.° aav.~ ¢~ on m¢> one.“ -~.~ an as ¢<> nao.e ee~.n mm as ea) oeo.a eoo.~ m~ as ea) uoo.° oeo.~ om ma xa> onoaal::z omnam; ;:- ,mm:qllslzwdrr<>+ vso.a eaa.m um na me) oaa.a noo.~ an ma ¢4> “an.” «aa.n am «a e<> ona.a oam.~ an an ma> moo.o oak.” om -n:e<>,,al-nmm.o Hen.“ an o r<> ao~.e owo.a aw a ma> aom.nfi aoe.oo ma o ma> newava oak.ao an m a<> wev.o« vo~.«k an e ma) om»..« oaa.ek a“ n ma) oak.da nfio.~o on m r<> owe.ed nao.ko on H ea> >mo c»m zamz z mzaz >wo ohm zuo cum 24w; - z wraz o AmHMUm HMflNflCHV H .595 m 558940 moanoauo> Ham m snooouoo coauoa>mo ouooooum ooo .oooz .z oomumononuu.omu¢ mamas 2410 can.” m-.o sa¢.u omo.. ~«n.° no... How.» ooo.o «vo.o ono.. coo.n our..u «oo.o >wo arm «ox.o “No.“ one.» owe.“ om~.« can.“ ono.a vnm.~ owm.n nos.» sou.“ om°.~a a-.~k zamr so on o. oo or no on or on on on no .Hm>mq #mnu How ommmoso mmB coflum>nmmno or» av on nn cn vN «N (a mu «a aa> a.) m.> m.> 14> ¢<> a.) ra> ma> ra> ma> ma) ma> mz .w.flv Hm>wq co>wm mam am mEmbw wHOE Ho OH HmBmcm ou pmafimm uothSm xcm Gonzo :aEE-.. oeo.a oaeEA «a Me «an. a.o.~ wom.- on on r<> oak.o oa~.fi as an «4) as; 2.x..- - . - :- 23 a; {as E as; E-; 3 --E-.-.-aifip can.” nno.a o ~n e<> oao.e nnn.« o an ea) nee.” m.n.~ no on «4) o~n.a omk.n on o~ re) and.“ oaa.m on on e<> «No.0 oa~.d an mw za> ?:ann.o :s:2:.moaa on an ea) -EAok.e -+om.~ an -E- ¢a> soo.o emu.“ oo ow e<> ooo.o cos.“ on ow ma> moo.o nam.v . oo -.-- w“ a<> E -EMoa.«-.-E1:ono.~.:E:raemm.E:EEEEo«-@m> ooo.o odo.~ oo o” e<> mok.a own.~ on n«,e.» ona.o cok.v on «a m<> nov.o ooo.n on a” ea> .oo~.m ova.» an o a<> «em.e coo.” no 5 ea) oo~.o-..e1:dqummz Eda m «(a mak.o mno.oo «a o «4) noo.k nom.no do w u<> coo.“ oko.mo do a ¢<> . >wmto»m :,-mmmmlrnzll z: mr Ham 0 huomwumu COHHMH>oQ pumpcmum pom .cmmz .z mpwumsflpall.aml< mqmmq away How oommomo mos coaum>ummno may send mwabmflum> .w.Hv Hm>mq sm>flm saw um mamas whoa Ho OH Hmzmsm ou Umnwmm HoanSm mam Gonzo eaa-q one-n «a no mo, eao.a coo.o so so «as os~.o eas.n~ an on no: com.“ oso.~ no en mos eeo.o coo.“ an on so, own.“ sso.n an an no: oon.o ass." so on «os ado.“ nusan so nn mo) mea.« coaan o4 an z<> o:s.a nan.« as «n mdal coo." snu.~ an an «as eon.“ man.» an om so: soo.s oos.s an om mo) oos.o own.“ an em mo> nos.“ ~on.~ so on «or mon.o osn.s mm ow co) Nnv4d anmdd Nu ow m¢> ad= Nahum Nvota Nm NN m4: osn.= 0mm.“ so fl~ zo> oao.o can.“ sn as no: mso.o owo.~ on as mo, no¢.= nns.~ ~m (a ¢<> ooa.o enm.n on ss mo> ~se.o oom.~ wm on a<> nmoao con.n mm as so» mso.o ~as.~ an o« ¢o> .4ooaa- «oo.~ -n ma mow ooo.a eoo.n so «a ¢o> neo.o oos.n an as no: on«.« «so.» so as «o, ooo.= ooa.~ mm o mo> see.” one.” mm o m<> zoo.o oon.s ~m s ao> nn~.a« ss~.no oo o «as omoqaw ono.~o mm m aoe n~m.ss oao.no mm o «o» mes.mu «oo.oo so n cos ao~.o nsa.so an s co: no~.r oom.so ~n « mo, >mo as» zomz z mxoz smo arm row: 2 stop >oo asm row: 2 mzoz c_&KIGA—H!XIHSU ===.a ano.« oo no mo, ooa.e ooo.o oo «o a.» ~sn.o so».s~ oo on no) sss.a oos.« no sn co» oom.a cos." no on ¢o> ooo.s snr.~ so on ¢o> eon.o os~.« so on go, som.a oooEo an on go, osm.« ~oo.s s« «n co) oo«.«- emuwd- as an mo. na«.. mo~.~ oo on xo> moo.“ cn~.n no ow co) o~o.s ~on.~ no em ¢o> noo.o and.“ oo s~ ¢o> ooo.o non.~ oo on ¢<> con.” moo.a oo nu mo, «oo.a noa.« oo om m¢> aaa.a eaoaa. oo nu m<~ “coma man-s no «N :4, osm.= on~.« oo um ¢o> oco.o don.” oo om ¢<> nso.o oou.~ no on ¢o> noo.o oao.~ oo on a.) se~.u oos.n oo ss uoa noo.s ono.~ oo on go, noo.u Noaln oo no a.) sooqa odo.~ om oa cos sns.o ado-w oo ma «4. «no.. sea.» oo «a «as ono.e amo.o oo as cos one.“ ass.» oo as «as non.o nuo.~ oo o aa> «no.9 coo.“ oo o cos oso.o ”on.“ oo s a.» ~«s.a«- sos1no an o a.) «o~.~s soc.os oo n ¢<> oon.na ooa.ss oo o «4:- noo.ns ooo.os oo n ¢o> ooc.ns ~os.oo oo m mo» so~.o noo.oo oo « co) >wo arm zmmm z mxoz >ua nsm tom: 2 mxo: >uc osm zomy z mxoz n Exlosuhlfllflflv . aoo.o eem.o me «o no, ooo.o ooo.o no so ¢o> meo.o oos.«~ no on ¢o> s-.H mso.s so sn ¢o> «on.o n~«.s so on ¢o> woo.» ons.s sm an uoa onm.o nnn.s no on ¢o> oonau oooan no on xo> dsn.« noo.~ «N «n co: suo.a use.“ on «n mo: oes.a ooo.~ «0 en ¢o> moo.” ooe.n we ow ¢<> ens.“ ans.~ oo on ¢o> can.. soc.“ no su ¢o> ses." sos.~ me om cos soo.o sso.s no an ¢<> osc.o moa.« mo ou xa> oe~.a roe.d me n~ aoa «oo.a ooo.a oo. «a no, uns.o coo.“ mo s~ ¢o> oss.o sno.a we cu mo) «so.n onn.~ no as co> moo.“ omo.~ oo on go) osn.a ran.» mo ss no: snows as». oo on «o» ons.o oooam no on ¢o> uso.a oer.s oo on mos omo.o amn.~ oo n« no, uso.a do..~ oo as ao> ~o~.a non.» o6 «a cor nsn.a ~s«.n on as no» uss.e one.“ on o a.» son.» sso.s we a no) sno.e sno.s mm s to» own.»« as~.os on o a.) oen.os r4¢.es no a eoa ~nn.c« oes.ss o co» son.o« ooo.ss no n ¢o> noo.o so¢.mo me ~ eo> omo.o ono.so no a ¢o> bub arm zone 2 are: >un n»m row: r, wror 5mm rs» zowz ; mxou s axlo._naxnna oua.c ccm.n a. «1 ac) a.o.. sea.a oo so so, oso.o noa.- no on mos can." can." no so so, noo.o oo«.s so on xo> own." «oo.s so an cor oso.o man.“ so on ¢o> one.“ new.» oo on so) onoqa oo~.~ om «n cos «No.a ooo.« as an no) oso.. ”as.“ oo an «o» ooo.a oso.~ eo o~ so) won.“ one.» no o~ co, aoo.o and.“ no s~ a.) ooo.° sos.~ oo om no) oso.a one.“ no nu ¢o> sana saved no om mo, a~m.a on~.« so n~ ¢<> ~9n.a unv.« no «N ¢<> oso.. con.“ no «u ¢o> ~ss.o can.“ oo on go» noo.o -o.~ no as co, soo.o ono.~ no as ¢o> ~os.s oao.~ oo ss ¢o> ooo.o sso.~ no on go» ono.o sooam do us zo> sac.“ sno.~ oo os uo> moo.“ on~.~ so nu cos oon.a soo.~ so ss ¢o> nos.“ oos.n so as co) coo.“ oao.~ so as «as oo~.. ooo.~ so o ¢o> oro.o cos.“ so a u<> enm.o ooo.« so s ¢o> ~o~.~« mss.os go o ¢o> ooo.«« noo.ss no a eo> «no.a« ons.os oo o co) .oa..« o~«.os oo n uo> eds.su oos.oo no N ¢o> oon.o« oas.oo no « ¢o> >wo arm zowx z wxoz >mn osm row: E::.:. z wror >mm osm zomi z mxoz a Efliosunflfllflflv .Awamom Hmsuwch mmabmssm> Ham 0 muommumu COADMfl>mD pumpcmum paw .cmmz .z mpmumsnpmq away How commouo mmB cowum>smmno was AmIH m¢abdssm> .w.s Hm>mq sm>sm mam um mamas whoa so on Hmzmco ou pmasmw snowman mam amass .v oasqn asnlo. no so 44> eoe.a oeo.s mo so m4> ose.m oms.mm 44 on 44> sen.s so~.m as so m4> Non.a ssa.s No on m4> or~.s N~s.s s mm «45 esn.; oms.s on on m4> smo.s ass.o on rn m4> can.s sow.» om 4n e45 sso.s or4.s om sn 44> mmc.s nnn.m mo on m4> ~ro.s oss.n so em «45 ooc.s oos.~ no r~ a4> omo.= s«~.s 44 as m4> oao.o mno.~ so as «45 oer.s oro.s no mm 44> son.a oss.s mo ow m4> oe~.o oos.s mo on «4: sssqe «no.4 94 mm 44> som.e osn.s oo sm 14> moo.s .oos.s so as 44> ssn.e man.~ no es 14> noo.= mco.~ no es m4> swe.s uno.n oo es «4: soe.s nee.~ oo os r4> sss.e omn.n mo ms 44> ors.o s~s.N so os 44s sos.s noo.m- no ms 44> onn.a mne.» 44 as 44> moo.o ma4.n no 4s e4» ons.s ass.» no as 44> soo.o oom.s mo o m4> sos.o m~o.s no 4 e4> r54.e oso.s no s 14> woe.ms osoqoo mm o m4> ossqms soo.«s ro m «45 cos.s4 sso.os mo 4 44> nus.os aco.ms mo n m4> oso.o nos.ro no N o4: oom.m mma.mo no s z4> >mc osm 24»: z mz4z >ua osm 74mr -I, r wr4r >uc osm 74m; 2 wt4z- n axiom—ssfisaso ooa.a ose.s an no 44> ooo.o oso.s nm so ¢4> nso.n oso.n~ nm on 44> msn.s on~.~ s~ sn 44> «No.9 oon.s n~ on 44> oem.s sea.» as an 44> oso.o nos.s s~ on 44> ooo.s ono.n mm on ¢4> nmo.s ssm.~ os mn a4> ooo.o nnm.s ms sn ¢4> ~oo.s oon.m ms an 44> sns.s ons.n ms on 44> son.s smo.s nm ow 44> 42 oon.o ons.s nm s~ m4> oso.o oon.~ nm ow m4> nes.o sms.s mm mm ¢4> n4 oso.o oon.s nw om m4> soo.° oss.s n~ nm m4> oom.o mom.s n~ mm ¢4> 12 ooo.o oso.s ms s~ 44> oso.a ooo.s ms on 44> sos.e smo.s as as 44> moo.o coo.» ns ms 44> omn.s oso.~ n~ ss m4> ooo.o nso.~ ns os ¢4> oao.o oao.n ms ms 44> mos.o ooo.~ nu os 44> mss.o oon.~ ns ms 44> emo.o own.» nm ms m4> nos.s our.» nm ss m4> ons.s oss.» n~ cs 44> son.o smo.s mm o m4> omm.o ns~.s mm o 44> nom.o -m.s ns s 44> soo.ss noo.os ss o m4> ono.ns oso.os mm m 44> nns.ms omo.ss nm o ¢4> «ms.~s ooo.os as n 44> ss~.os mom.oo mm s 44> oon.o oso.oo as s ¢4> >mo osm 24m: 2 mz4z >wo osm 24m: 2 mz4z >mc osm 24m: 2 mx4z ~.asaossssfisaso ------E:-- - _ - osr.e osm.~ . - .os mo,m4>- ooo.s coo.n os so r4> noo.n emw.s~ ms on 444 sea.s soo.s ms sn c4> ooe.a ooo.s ms on a4> ssn.s oos.s os mm «4) «no.s om~.s ms on 44> eon.s oeoqo ss on m4> ssm.s oer.“ a we 44> oeo.s sos. o sn 44> soo.o noo.s os an m4> sso.s nos.n ms om 44> sxs.s nns. ms mm a4> mss.o oo~.s ms s~ x4> oso.c ooo.m ms ow m4> som.o oeo.s “s mm 44> roo.e nnn.s ms om m4> sso.e oes.s ms nu r4> oom.a nno.s as mm 44> sso.s nnn.s ms s~ 44> ooo.° nsm.s «s as «4» oss.s nsn.~ os as 44> ooa.o oom.~ os ms m4> n.4.o nsm.n +4 ss «4» oom.n msm.m os os m4> oso.e one.n os ms m4> msc.s nss.n es os 64: moo.” nsn.m os ns 44> osm.e soo.o ms as x4> ouo.e sos.n us ss 44> mo~.s 44o.» ms as 44> oos.e nn>.s ms o 14> osc.o =o4.s ms o m4> oso.a nsn.s os s a4> osn.r osr.so ss o 14> ooo.ss een.ss ms m 445 ss4.ss msr.ns os o 44> ron.ns ooo.0s os n 14> orm.n nos.co as m «4» ros.s mrr.~o os s a4> >mc csm 24»: z mz4z >ue asm 74mr: : mz4: >uo csv 24m: 2 wt42 . Amflmom HMHfiHCHV a scam u Hmosado nmsoosso> sso m snooosoo cosums>oo osoooosm oom .com: .2 oooumonomq so>sm man no mamas wHoW pwmmouo mm3 sesum>uwmbo may . HO OH Hmsmcm o Amid mmHnmaHm> . . as; 2:... . . u mosses-6.06.53 mam owns. m 3 Ilse; con; MN so m4> n36 . . . QVO-c 0N 0N F.” I d H MNvom. 0V QM zE n: a a. e as a n a...“ g a, 4 . ON .. ch. J «4) .Maq «J mm v Wm.“ at; a... "w m; 9:; 36:... as as as, ”or.” mm.» .s sm ”3 en a a ._1» Mi e. a. a1. a . . . mC) u . mm Noose dnn.~ om o." 14> nee..." vans-a ox om . 04.5 a cgjm mm m<> - . <> o . 0N wwosw Goa. cm W." m<> . d Nméoa cm a «No s 00H.” NN m1) 4 no nee 4. mss.. .4 ss r4; s . . mm a were We. a s s M... e an an... 6 e s as mm we a em..: . s 44> ~..s . om ns ooo.~s mon.~ o m4> . . p c an . m.» con.n a4> h 0N orfi NH cvws - w as. = . . . mm on >wa men 24m: 2 nwm.> seo.~s one.wm as m 44> mom.ms new.s mm s Mu» <7 >uo ohm z Nor-n. co . q 98 nsn.s s. s on 44> a. .. a «N em . sea a aea.o ud~.o on n «N nn m<> Ls,- o one... H. mm. ”2: muons new. «N Nvdfl eon.a «no.» so an a > oso.o smouo sm on 64> noo.s n o.» sm sn 44> oso.a ons.s as sm «4 ooo.> soo.o sm us 44> oos.a ssm.s sm on 24> snm.s ”MMHs as oNMu» "mo.” Noe.m as MM 44> soo.e omw.m ”N s» 44> m a .4. sasqs 44: s . m as sso.o one. s so 44> . as . n m a can.s m4> . m. cm . men a c a. mm «(1,. ma . ... om. mm s.“ s a.» .1.- ..r s. .- e» nos.s "mmuo so as eu> Masum rosin Wm "M e4> oaa.a aao.m no as 44> s."- ss 6 a s s... s z a: s.“ n a s ss .o s . . o 44> s . . a >wo osm 24w: 2 n 44> nem.~s smm.MM mm m 44> mam.“ Ms..s sm M m«» 9‘42 >mn ohm 7.4m: om m «4.). owns-.1 ”awaken Hm vg . 7 mx4r >u= osm "4mw s~z s ¢4> - . -.- mr4z 0 “WM.“ “mun" ov «v 14> 051v IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII N .586 h Nuogg on e o. mwlq IIIIIIIIIIII "wan“ sso.~ so NM 44> ooo.s nw~.m~ so on 44> oem.m .mamww as. ...... saws2>- coo.o mmo.n so an M4> nor.o dds.o an mn 44> =31s moo.n on so ¢4> (do: omnod at AN 4) envod ocwov be Nn ¢¢> ONNqH mOHdH on #0 «<> 0' quo emu.dfl _ ON “(8. Hhcoc o O. 0N «( sss.s soo.~ s~ 44> oo~.s a so no sme s > as, . .41 um. mm 000.0 who-N on ma ¢¢> Hcflod nowow on ON #0.» s 05”..“ 1‘) . m<> . av NN n o - Nwa o no... . h." m<.. . o a. on ”mm“ as.“ .s .M e» .3. mm s. mk- sms e a mu» . N mm» o .s. s «44. .. . an an sm4.. m n. on o 44> . as» N so eon s mmo.~ m4> >mo nsm sz «s so n ¢4> ”mm.os smo.ns eo o 44> ooo.o oer.s so as 44> (m2 2 wt .a. O rNoowm m a<> #34 cc 4 ow 8 $4) 42 >mo new 24m: so ~ m4> com.s o-m.ns oo o ¢4> 7 . wror >no asv mr4mm ooz s z4> . wz4z H .580 N #03810 O O O m B IE5 "fifiifufiixuiliflmfiwi\®mifli\\‘ 0