‘ A GUTTMAN FACET ANALYSIS OF. ' . * ’AITITUDEV-BEHAVIORSTOWARD DRUG USERS BY I HEROIN -ADD!CTS'AND MENTAL HEALTH THERAPISTS - 7 f ‘ _,Th:esis for the Degree-Of Ph.’D‘ Mgcmamsms UNIVERSITY ' H I ' a mmm N.-Nch0LSON ' u L" mug Iflzlfllflmll will 1" ll gym ll ll"! ;, This is to certify that the thesis entitled A GUTTMAN FACET ANALYSIS OF ATTITUDE-BEHAVIORS TOWARD DRUG USERS BY HEROIN ADDICTS AND MENTAL HEALTH THERAPISTS presented by William N. Nicholson has been accepted towards fulfillment . of the requirements for Ph.D. Couns. Pers. SerV'. 8 de ee in gr Ed. Psy. /l,/l7w 2‘ 6204A . v / Major %fessor Date November 5, 1971 0-7639 ' LIBR; RY Micki ~. A \ULity Stan . , . .L . K ‘ r“, K g , .; 7 / 'Ecfii» {~03 ‘ mp2?“ ABSTRACT A GUTTMAN FACET ANALYSIS OF ATTITUDE-BEHAVIORS TOWARD ILLEGAL DRUG USERS BY HEROIN ADDICTS AND MENTAL HEALTH THERAPISTS BY William N. Nicholson Statement of the PrOblem The growing abuse of drugs and the need to more fully understand the illegal drug user prompted the inter- est in researching attitude-behaviors toward illegal drug users. This study constituted part of a comprehensive effort1 to research attitude-behaviors toward the illegal drug user and to search for causes, determinants and/or correlates of drug abuse and dependency in the United States. This particular study was concerned with two principal groups, the heroin dependent person, with his attitude-behaviors toward himself, others, and fellow drug users, and mental health therapists, both professional and paraprofessional. Heroin addicts were selected because 1The larger international study of attitude-behaviors toward drug use and drug users is under the direction of Dr. John E. Jordan, College of Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 48823. William N. Nicholson they represented individuals with the most serious illegal drug problem. Mental health therapists were selected because they have been given the responsibility of treating the illegal drug user and attempting to change his behavior. Methodology The Attitude Behavior Scale: Drug Users (ABS:DU) was constructed according to considerations of Guttman's facet theory of attitude—behavior structure which specifies that an attitude-behavior universe can be sub-structured into attitude—behavior Levels which are systematically related according to the number of identical conceptual elements they hold in common. Attitude was operationally defined as "a delimited totality of behavior with respect to something" (Guttman, 1950). Utilizing the Guttman-Jordan (1968) paradigm of a five facet--six Level structure, the ABS:DU was developed to measure six Levels of attitude-behavior: Societal Stereotype, Societal Norm, Personal Moral Evaluation, Personal Hypothetical Action, Personal Feeling, and Personal Action. The ABS:DU scales according to a spe— cific statistical structure which provides not only multidimensional measurement, but also a means of as- sessing construct validity. The content of the ABS:DU was also selected accord- ing to facet theory resulting in five additional facets: William N. Nicholson (a) causes of illegal drug use, (b) characteristics of illegal drug use, (c) reasons for treatment, (d) types of treatment, and (e) consequences of illegal drug use. The scale consisted of 240 items plus a "personal data ques- tionnaire" of 40 items to gather data in four areas: demographic, sociopsychological, political activism, and contact with illegal drug users. The ABS:DU was administered to a total of 254 subjects, of which 177 were heroin dependent persons and 77 were mental health therapists. The heroin addicts were selected according to four categories: heroin addicts incarcerated--no treatment, heroin addicts on methadone maintenance, heroin addicts in NARA II treatment, and heroin addicts in NARA I and III treatment. Subjects were obtained from county jails, methadone maintenance clinics, a federal prison, and the NIMH Clinical Research Center at Lexington, Kentucky. Therapists were selected according to two categories: professional and parapro- fessional. Results The results indicated that the ABS:DU did provide six measures as hypothesized (i434! simplex approximation) with internal consistency reliability figures in the .80's and .90's. Significant differences were found between the six research categories on the six Levels. Predictor William N. Nicholson variables (demographic, sociopsychological, political activism, and contact) taken independently were not found to be significantly related to the six measures of attitude- behavior, indicating that perhaps groups of variables are operative in determining attitude-behaviors toward illegal drug users. Incarcerated heroin addicts who were receiving no treatment were consistently different from the other addict categories on all six Levels, while the addicts in the NARA programs had very similar attitude-behaviors to those of their therapists. Paraprofessionals scored very similar to professionals when they were working together, but closer to the addicts when they were not associated with professionals. Certain content items were analyzed to demonstrate the varied use of the ABS:DU and to offer clinical data to the therapist and program develOper. For example, it was found that 72-90 per cent of the addicts reported that ex-addict therapists were the best help for the addicts, while only 51 per cent of the professionals agreed with this, and a surprising 35 per cent of the paraprofessionals, many of whom.were ex-addicts, agreed with this. The multidimensional nature of the ABS:DU was repeatedly demonstrated. Recommendations for future research and clinical use are listed. A GUTTMAN FACET ANALYSIS OF ATTITUDE-BEHAVIORS TOWARD DRUG USERS BY HEROIN ADDICTS AND MENTAL HEALTH THERAPISTS BY 1.),- William N. Nicholson A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling, Personnel Services, and Educational Psychology College of Education 1972 COpyright by WILLIAM N . NICHOLSON 1972 The soc ill soc The drug world serves as a barometer of human society--an indicator of underlying social illness and a warning of existing and approaching social storm. The storm is mounting. Joel Fort (in R. H. Blum, Society and Drugs, 1969) ii DEDI CAT ION To Nancy, Anne Marie, and Kristin iii several approac mentati and ana althoug analysi 19 71) . are th< 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 and theoretical material, as well as technical and analyses procedures, was both necessary and desirable. The authors, therefore, collaborated in many aspects although the data and certain design, procedural, and analysis methods were different in each study (Kaple, 1971). The interpretations of the data in each study are those of the author. iv invaluabl the data, research Jordan, 111 and assis and Dr. my doctor Werner of bution to I Wayne Cou: the NIMH I Mr. Thoma Clinton C of the Fe and Mr. R ance prog the sampl I James Kap ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am deeply grateful to many people for their invaluable assistance not only in collecting and processing the data, but also in conceptualizing and designing this research project. I am especially grateful to Dr. John E. Jordan, my major advisor, whose constant encouragement and assistance were a tremendous source of help. I am grateful to Dr. William Hinds, Dr. Dale Alam, and Dr. Ronald Jordan for their assistance as members of my doctoral committee. I am also grateful to Dr. Arnold Werner of the MSU Department of Psychiatry for his contri- bution to this study. I am indebted to Mr. R. E. Kious of the Detroit- Whyne County Department of Health, Dr. Robert Jones of the NIMH Clinical Research Center at Lexington, Kentucky, Mr. Thomas Updike and Dr. Eugene Friesen of Eaton-Ingham- Clinton Community Mental Health Services, Mr. Arnie Swartz Of the Federal Correctional Institution at Milan, Michigan, and Mr. Robert Townley, formerly of the methadone mainten- ance program in Detroit, for their assistance in obtaining the sample. I am particularly grateful to my fellow student, James Kaple, for his insight into the application Of sway. 1. as statis computer constant the years grant :1 Administ Welfare , Guttman scaling and his assistance in many aspects of the study. My thanks also goes to Geoffery Yager who served as statistical consultant and Daniel Seyb who served as computer programmer. My greatest thanks goes to my wife Nancy for her constant love and encouragement and her patience during the years of my doctoral study. This research was supported in part by training grant number 20-T-69-70 from the Rehabilitation Services Administration, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington, D.C. vi DEDICATION. PREFACE. . ACKNOWLED LIST OF TAB LIST or FIG LIST OF APP Chapter I. IN III . Il TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DEDICATION O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 iii PREFACE O O O O O O I O O O O I O O O 0 iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . V LIST OF TABLES o o o o o o o o o o o o o X LIST OF FIGURES O O O O O O O O O O O O O Xiv LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . xv Chapter I . INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O O O 1- Extent of Drug Abuse . . . . . . . 1 Drug Abuse and Crime . . . . . . . 6 Penalties and Treatment . . . . . . 8 Methadone . . . . . . . . . . 11 State Supported Programs . . . . . . 13 Attitude and Drug Behavior . . . . . l4 Attitude Measurement . . . . . . . 16 Statement of the Problem . . . . . . 19 II. REVIEW OF RESEARCH AND THEORY . . . . . 22 Difficulties in Defining Addiction, Use, and Dependency. . . . . . . . . 22 Theories of Drug Dependency . . . . 27 Attitudes Toward Drug Use and Illegal Drug Users . . . . . . 36 Attitude Scales for Special Studies . . 40 Summary of Attitudes Toward Drug Users and Measurement Scales . . . . . . 48 Theory and Methodology. . . . . . . 49 Guttman's Four Level Theory . . . . . 50 Jordan's Six Level Adaption . . . . . 57. Joint Struction . . . . . . . . . 58 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . 64 III. INSTRUMENTATION AND RESEARCH DESIGN . . . 65 The Attitude-Behavior Scale: Drug Users. 65 vii Chapter IV. Chapter Joint Struction (Object-Subject Relationship) . . . . . Lateral Struction (Item Content) . . Validity . . . . . . . . . . Reliability . . . . . . . . . Independent Variables . . . . . . . Demographic Variables . . . . . Contact with Illegal Drug Users. . . Sociopsychological Variables. . . . Political Activism . . . . . . . Design and Analysis Procedures . . . . Heroin Addict Sample . . . . . Mental Health Therapist Sample . . . Sample Size . . . . . . . . . Major Research Hypotheses. . . . . . Theoretical Hypotheses. . . . . . Substantive Hypotheses. . . . . . Analysis Procedures. . . . . . . . Correlational Statistics . . . . Analysis of Variance and Multiple Means Statistics . . . . . . . Multivariate Analysis of Variance . . Simplex Approximation . . . . . . Significance Level . . . . . . . IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . Research Population. . . . . . Category A: Heroin Addicts Incarcerated--No Treatment. . . . Category B: Heroin Addicts in Methadone Maintenance . . . . . Category C: Heroin Addicts in NARA II Treatment. . . . . Category D: Heroin Addicts in NARA I and III Treatment. . . Category E: Mental Health Therapists- Paraprofessional . . . . Category F: Mental Health Therapists- Professional . . . . . . . . Data Analysis. . . . ABS: DU Reliability and Validity. . . Research Hypotheses. . . . . . . . v. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . Summary. . . . . . . Interpretation of the Results Stereotypic (Level 1) . . Normative (Level 2). . . Moral Evaluation (Level 3) . . . . viii Page 66 68 72 78 78 79 79 79 80 80 81 85 87 88 88 88 91 91 92 93 93 94 95 95 95 97 98 98 98 99 100 100 101 147 147 150 151 154 157 Chapter REFERENCI APPEND IC Chapter REFERENCES. APPENDICES. Personal Hypothetical Action (Level 4) Personal Feeling (Level 5) Personal Actual Action (Level 6) Heroin Addicts Incarcerated--No Treatment . Heroin Addicts--Methadone Maintenance. Heroin Addicts——Federal Prison Treatment Program. Heroin Addicts—~Residential Hospital Treatment . . Paraprofessional and Professional Therapists . . Predictor Variables. Content Item Analysis Recommendations and Limitations. ix Page 159 161 163 164 167 170 170 175 179 183 183 186 197 Table 10. 11. 12 13 14 15 Table 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. LIST OF TABLES Continuum of Attitude—Behaviors. . . . . . Basic Facets Used to Determine Component Structure of an Attitude—Behavior Universe . Facet Profiles and Descriptive Labels of AttitUdE‘BehaVior Levels 0 o o o o o o Hypothetical Matrix of Level-by-Level Correla- tions Illustrating Simplex Characteristics . Jordan's Expanded Facets Used to Determine Joint Struction of an Attitude-Behavior Universe. . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Guttman and Jordan Facet Designation. . . . . . . . . . . . Joint Level, Profile Composition, and Labels for Six Types of Attitude Struction. . . . Combinations of Five Two-element Facets and Basis of Elimination. . . . . . . . . Five-Facet Six Level System of Attitude- Behavior Verbalizations: Levels, Facet Profiles and Definitional Statments for Twelve Combinations . . . . . . . . . Semantic Path "C" for a Five—Facet Attitude- Behavior Universe. . . . . . . . . . Item in the ABS:DU, Illustrating the Six Level Structure Including Directions and Foils . . Postulated Rank Order Position of Categories at Level 6 of the ABS:DU . . . . . . . Research Population Employed. . . . . . . Group Reliability Coefficients for ABS:DU by Level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlation Matrices and Q2 Values for Original and Best Simplex Approximations, Category A . X Page 51 53 54 56 58 59 6O 61 62 63 73 77' 96 102 103 Table 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 20.1. 20.2. 20.3, 20.4. 20.5 20.6. 20.7. 21. 22. 23. COI’ (Zor Cor Cat Des DEE Prc Pr< Prr Pr: Prl Pr Co Mu Mt Table Page 16. Correlation Matrices and Q2 Values for Original and Best Simplex Approximations, Category B, Category C, and Category D. . . . . . . 106 17. Correlation Matrices and Q2 Values for Original and Best Simplex Approximations, Category E . 109 18. Correlation Matrices and 02 Values for Original and Best Simplex Approximations, Category F . 112 19. Category and Rank Ordered Means by Level. . . 117 20. Descriptive Rank Order of Category Means Obtained on ABS:DU by Level . . . . . . 118 20.1. Descriptive Rank Order of Category Means Obtained on ABS:DU by Level . . . . . . 152 20.2. Profile Across Levels of Category A--Incarcer- ated Heroin Addicts-—No Treatment . . . . 166 20.3. Profile Across Levels of Category B——Heroin Addicts--Methadone Maintenance . . . . . 168 20.4. Profile Across Levels of Category C--Heroin Addicts--NARA II Treatment. . . . . . . 171 20.5 Profile Across Levels of Category D-—Heroin Addicts-~NARA I and III Treatments . . . . 173 20.6. Profile Across Levels of Category E-- Paraprofessional Therapists . . . . . . 177 20.7. Profile Across Levels of Category F-- Professional Therapists. . . . . . . . 178 21. Correlations and Significance Levels of Illegal Drug Use to the 6 Levels of ABS:DU, by Category. . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 22. Multivariate Analysis of Variance, Comparison of Categories A, B, C, D (Addicts) to Categories E and F (Therapists) on Levels 1 and 2 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 122 23. Multivariate Analysis of Variance, Comparison of Categories A, and B to Categories C and D on Levels 3, 4, 5, and 6 . . . . . . . 125 24. Multivariate Analysis of Variance, Comparison of Category Elto Categories E2 and F, on Levels 4, 5, and 6 . . . . . . . . . 127 xi Table 25. Multj of 26. Corre Imp 27. Corre of Cat 28. Corre 29. Parti 30. Part1 31. Corre 33, M 34, NIS 3e, N.S Corrc 38' Corr: 39' Corr. 40 41' Corn Table Page 25. Multivariate Analysis of Variance, Comparison of Level 4 to Level 6 for Categories C and D. 129 26. Correlations and Significance Levels of Importance of Religion to the 6 Levels of ABS:DU for Categories A, B, C, and D . . . 131 27. Correlations and Significance Levels of Amount of Education to the 6 Levels of ABS:DU, by Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 28. Correlations and Significance Levels of Age to the 6 Levels of ABS:DU, by Categories . . 134 29. Partial and Multiple Correlations and Signifi- cance Levels Between Levels 3, 4, 5, and 6 of ABS:DU and Change Orientation Variables for Categories A, B, D, and D. . . . . . 136 30. Partial and Multiple Correlations and Signifi- cance Levels Between Levels 3, 4, 5, and 6 of ABS:DU and Political Activism Variables for Categories A, B, C, and D. . . . . . 140 31. Correlations and Significance Levels of Efficacy to the 6 Levels of ABS:DU, by Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 32. Definitions of Illegal Drug Users . . . . . 145 33. N's, Means, and Standard Deviations for Category A . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 34. N's, Means, and Standard Deviations for Categories B, C, and D . . . . . . . . 259 35. N's, Means, and Standard Deviations for Category E . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 36. N's, Means, and Standard Deviations for Category F . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 37. Correlation Matrix for Category A, Group 1 . . 263 38. Correlation Matrix for Category A, Group 2 . . 265 39. Correlation Matrix for Category A, Totals . . 267 40. Correlation Matrix for Category B, Group 1 . . 269 41. Correlation Matrix for Category C, Group 1 . . 271 xii Table 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 50. Corr: Corr: Corre Corr: Corr< Corrr Corre Corre Resp< Table Page 42. Correlation Matrix for Category D, Group 1 . . 273 43. Correlation Matrix for Category E, Group 1 . . 275 44. Correlation Matrix for Category B, Group 2 . . 277 45. Correlation Matrix for Category E, Totals . . 279 46. Correlation Matrix for Category F, Group 1 . . 281 47. Correlation Matrix for Category F, Group 2 . . 283 48. Correlation Matrix for Category F, Group 3 . . 285 49. Correlation Matrix for Category F, Totals . . 287 50. Responses to Selected Content Items on Level 6 of the ABS:DU . . . . . . . . . . . 300 xiii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. A Mapping Sentence for the Facet Analysis of Joint and Lateral Struction of Attitudes Toward Specified Persons. . . . 70 2. A Mapping Sentence for the Facet Analysis of Joint and Lateral Struction of Attitudes Toward Drug Users . . . . . . . . . 71 xiv Appendix Glo Dir Var. ABS ABS Appendix 1. LIST OF APPENDICES Glossary . . . . . . . . . . Directions for Administration . . . Variable List-—Code Book . . . . . ABS:DU (Initial Version) . . . . . ABS:DU Definitional Supplement . . N's, Means, and Standard Deviations by Category and Group for all Variables Correlation Matrices by Category and Group Content Analyses of Specific Items on Level 6 . . . . . . . . . . XV Page 198 204 210 212 254 257 263 289 The gr challenges fac articles have detrimental ef on our society of alarm conce drug use parti are young peOp Portions? How users be helpe Intern of Opium, its opiods, began Of 1912: Which 1925 and Subse 1936, and 1948 by Various bod ImportatiOn, a CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The growing abuse of drugs is one of the major challenges facing society today. Countless books and articles have been written in the last few years describing detrimental effects that drugs and drug abusers are having on our society. The public is now gripped with a sense of alarm concerning the epidemic prOportions of illegal drug use particularly by the youth of this country. Why are young peOple turning to drugs in such alarming pro- portions? How dangerous are the various drugs? Can drug users be helped once they are hooked? What can be done to prevent further spread of this drug-using epidemic? Extent of Drug Abuse International efforts to curb the non-medical uses of Opium, its derivatives, and more recently, synthetic opiods, began with the Hague International Opium Convention of 1912, which was followed by the Geneva Convention of 1925 and subsequent conventions and protocols in 1931, 1936, and 1948. These international agreements, monitored by various bodies provide for limitation of production, importation, and exportation of opium, coca leaves, and cannabis pm and dispense dependence-1 bodies incli Supervisory United Nati< Committee or Organizatior United Natic In I Drug Abuse v druq traffic Concerns. 1 0n Narcotic the M 1iShed focus PrOblem of ( PIESidentia: In I Was Created Posals Were Problem edua tencing tho; establishme] within the : Spring 0f 11 cannabis products, and control of the manufacture, sale, and dispensation of opiods with significant physical dependence-producing properties. The various international bodies include the Permanent Central Opium Board, the Drug Supervisory Body, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of the United Nations Economic and Social Council, the Expert Committee on Addiction—Producing Drugs of the World Health Organization, and the Division of Narcotic Drugs of the United Nations. In 1962 a White House Conference on Narcotic and Drug Abuse was convened in recognition of the fact that drug traffic and abuse were growing and critical national concerns. Following this the President's Advisory Commission on Narcotic and Drug Abuse was created in 1963, and in 1967 the Task Force Report: Narcotics and Drug Abuse was pub— lished focusing on the most recent information on the problem of drug abuse and the recommendations of the presidential commission. In Michigan a House Special Committee on Narcotics was created in 1967 by the state legislature. New pro- posals were made in 1969 calling for a critical health problem education program, flexibility to judges in sen- tencing those convicted of narcotics charges, and the establishment of a drug abuse and drug dependency program within the State Department of Public Health. In the spring of 1971, Governor William Milliken of Michigan called on t the prevent abuse. Loc. Health Boari to combat t] drug addict; The in our nati« It is presel areas. It ; area, age gr is a growim SChool, eVe1 access to a} Pos: Conntry is 1 menting Wit} declining at increasing i concerning 1 taking, or I the hard Ha] estimateS’ 1 million a YG called on the state legislature to enact new bills for the prevention, education, treatment, and control of drug abuse. Locally, the Ingham—Eaton-Clinton Counties Mental Health Board has initiated a new drug treatment program to combat the spread of heroin and rehabilitate current drug addicts. The problem of drug use and abuse is not new, but in our nation it is becoming more and more 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" (A Teacher Resource Guide for Drug Use and Abuse for Michigan Schools, 1970). Possibly the single most startling problem in this country is the rapid drop in age level of people experi— menting with marijuana and other drugs. However, the declining age level is merely one part of the ever— increasing problem. According to several recent articles concerning the drug scene, one of every 200 Americans is taking, or has taken, illegal drugs-—from.marijuana to the hard narcotics such as heroin. Based on conservative estimates, Americans are paying from $300 million to $400 million a year for illegal drugs. In 5% million obtained th pblication numer of h A r students on had tried m per cent an in 1967). cmpared to Comparable untamine u Ace and Crimina Hm street arrested, at hgal and c per year, a Mor in New Illinoi Texas, where h is an u mmm i and hig to be m educate taged e Narcoti In Detroit alone, heroin addicts spend more than $16 million a year for the drug, most of the money being obtained through constant criminal activities. The special publication of the Detroit Free Press (1969) estimated the number of heroin addicts there to be 100,000. A recent Gallup poll (Dec., 1970) surveying college students on 61 campuses revealed that 42 per cent said they had tried marijuana (almost double the 1969 figure of 22 per cent and more than eight times the 5 per cent recorded in 1967). LSD was reported to be used by 14 per cent as compared to 4 per cent in 1969 and l per cent in 1967. Comparable figures were obtained for barbiturate and am- phetamine use. According to the 1970 Comprehensive Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Plan of Michigan, one heroin addict on the street costs a city $10,500. Should the addict be arrested, additional estimated costs of $16,800 in jail, legal and court costs are introduced for a total of $27,300 per year, attributed to one heroin addict. More than one-half the known heroin addicts are in New York. Most of the others are in California, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Texas, and the District of Columbia. In the states where heroin addiction exists on a large scale, it is an urban problem. Within the cities it is largely found in areas with low average incomes, poor housing, and high delinquency. The addict himself is likely to be male, between the ages of 21 and 30, poorly educated and unskilled, and a member of a disadvan- taged ethnic minority group (Task Force Report: Narcotics and Drug Abuse 1967). T1 10 to 15 a heroin American cent or m Represent Affairs C soldier g risk of b (Tine: J 1971, th for G. I . establish H laws . It be lawful stances, tice. A] smuggled being the transacti criminal. not share more pots does not The United States Army is finding that an alarming 10 to 15 per cent of its troops in Viet Nam have developed a heroin habit. That represents from 26,000 to 39,000 American soldiers. Some estimates are even higher-—20 per cent or more, which means upwards to 50,000 G.I. addicts. Representative Robert H. Steele of the House Foreign Affairs Committee made this chilling observation, "The soldier going to South Viet Nam today runs a far greater risk of becoming a heroin addict than a combat casualty" (Time, June 7, 1971). President Nixon declared on June 1, 1971, that a new government agency to combat the narcotics crisis in the military and to provide treatment programs for G.I. addicts returning home from Viet Nam would be established. Heroin occupies a special place in the narcotics laws. It is an illegal drug in the sense that it may not be lawfully imported or manufactured under any circum- stances, and it is not available for use in medical prac- tice. All the heroin that reaches the American user is smuggled into the country from abroad, the Middle East being the reputed primary point of origin. All heroin transactions, and any possession of heroin, are therefore criminal. This is not because heroin has evil properties not shared by the other opiates. Indeed, while it is more potent and somewhat more rapid in its action, heroin does not differ in any significant pharmacological effect Narcotics afoul of ment of a Th tion of on a special Together w tact with gives him and, in ar place in p In narcotics 0Ver 1968. Federal Bu from morphine. It would appear that heroin is outlawed because of its special attractiveness to addicts and because it serves no known medical purpose not served as well or better by other drugs (Vaillant, 1966). Drug Abuse and Crime Addiction itself is not a crime (Task Force Report: Narcotics and Drug;Abuse). It never has been under Federal law, and a state law making it one was struck down as un- constitutional by the 1962 decision of the Supreme Court in Robinson v. California. It does not follow, however, that a state of addiction can be maintained without running afoul of the criminal law. On the contrary, the involve- ment of an addict with the police is almost inevitable. Thus, the addict lives in almost perpetual viola- tion of one or several criminal laws, and this gives him a special status not shared by other criminal offenders. Together with the fact that he must have continuous con- tact with other people in order to obtain drugs, it also gives him a special exposure to police action and arrest, and, in areas where the addiction rate is high, a special place in police statistics and crime rate computation. In the state of Michigan arrests for possession of narcotics and dangerous drugs were up 110 per cent in 1969 over 1968. This is particularly alarming when in 1968 the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs ranked Michig Arrests cent inc 98 per 0 of age, 222 arre cotics, With reg sons arr Of those over 21. approxir the sta- average their 0 Ingham . narcoti arreste Michigan fifth in the United States for opiate drug arrests. Arrests for selling were up 48 per cent, with a 79-1/2 per cent increase in heroin cases. There was an increase of 98 per cent in arrests of persons under twenty—one years of age, and 111 per cent of persons over twenty-one. Local statistics are similarly alarming. In 1969, 222 arrests were made in the Lansing area for sale of nar- cotics, 820 arrests for possession, and 66 arrests for use. With regard to sex, 972 were males and 121 females.' Per- sons arrested in the age bracket of 17 to 21 totaled 603. Of those arrested for possession, sale or use, 490 were over 21. The Michigan State Police further 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 Department 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 per cent of these cases were marijuana oriented, 15 per cent heroin, two arrests for cocaine sale or use, and the remainder for dangerous drugs. An additional barometer which indicates the seri- ousness of the drug problem in the Lansing community is the inc Departm instanc been re est fre Dr. Dea County, hepatit drug en were re 18 in] cies he abuse r most e: enform dition to inc has be the m respo of im offen gible the increase in hepatitis. The Ingham County Health Department has 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 high- est frequency among persons 17 to 23 years of age. Dr. Dean Tribby, acting public health director for Ingham County, stated that "approximately 50 per cent of the hepatitis cases are due to serum hepatitis following drug eXperimentation." A total of 53 cases of hepatitis were reported the first ten weeks of 1970 compared with 18 in 1969 and 7 in 1968. Penalties and Treatment Since early in the century our drug control poli- cies have been built around the twin judgments that drug abuse was an evil to be suppressed and that this could most effectively be done by the application of criminal enforcement and penal sanctions. Since then, one tra- ditional response to an increase in drug abuse has been to increase the penalties for drug offenses. The premise has been that the more certain and severe the punishment, the more it would serve as a deterrant. Typically, this response has taken the form of mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment, increasing in severity with repeated offenses, and provisions making the drug offender ineli- gible for suspension of sentence, probation, and parole. ‘ C Ideally, abiding, members 0 no one tr As a resu is given is intend significa treatment the drug definitio the use 0 are consc drawal . usually 5 (Jaffe, l I treatment and local that, tre largely r at Lexing I Fort Wort Psychothe Compulsive drug users are a heterogeneous group. Ideally, treatment would permit them all to become law— abiding, productive, emotionally stable, and drug-independent members of society. With our present knowledge, there is no one treatment that reliably leads to this global goal. As a result, the treatment used will depend on which goal is given priority, the subgroups for which the treatment is intended, and the factors that are thought to be most significant in perpetuating the problem. Most commonly, treatment entails two overlapping phases: withdrawal of the drug and rehabilitation of the patient. Almost by definition the compulsive drug user has lost control over the use of the drug, and even the best-motivated patients are consciously or unconsciously ambivalent about with- drawal. Therefore, with few exceptions, withdrawal is usually successful only in a drug free environment (Jaffe, 1970). In the last ten to fifteen years numerous new treatment programs have been developed by federal, state and local agencies for the treatment of addiction. Before that, treatment Opportunities for opiate addicts were largely restricted to the two federal narcotic hOSpitals at Lexington, Kentucky, and Fort Worth, Texas. Lexington, prior to 1966, had 1,042 patients and Fort Worth had 777 patients. Although there was some psychotherapeutic treatment, the care was mostly custodial in a pri twelve -y to perio compulsor Institute two U.S. the prisc Clinical now calls the provi of 1966. 250 of wt volunteer Center, a developme United St federal is being Departme experime Variety Conrad, The trea limi comm tive 10 in a prison environment. Vaillant (1966) found in a twelve-year follow-up study that 90 per cent had returned to periodic drug use. Significantly, the best outcomes were found among those who had undergone some formal compulsory supervision after discharge. The National Institute of Mental Health took over control of these two U.S. Public Health Service Hospitals in 1967, changing the prison milieu to a therapeutic milieu. The NIMH Clinical Research Center, as the Lexington hospital is now called, admits no prisoners, but only patients, under the provisions of the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act of 1966. Presently there are 345 patients at Lexington, 250 of whom are NARA patients, 25 are prisoners who have volunteered for experiments at the Addiction Research Center, and 45 are chronic psychotic patients. With the (development of drug treatment programs throughout the limited States by local communities the need for the two fkederal hospitals is changing. The Fort Worth hospital i4; being phased out and transferred to the Justice Ekepartment in July, 1971. The Lexington center is an efl Uthrtpepazé‘el?‘ onNa 15 Nowlis (1966), Keneston (1966), Jones, A. (Eric Ed. 035- 909), Brehm, M. and Back, K. (1968), Middendorf (1969), Click (1968), Pattison (1968), and Whitehead, P. (1969)-- have demonstrated the significance of attitudes in deter- mining an individual's drug use patterns. Similarly, the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administra- tion of Justice (1967), the President's Advisory Commission on Narcotics and Drug Abuse (1963), the Michigan House Special Committee on Narcotics (1969), the Michigan Depart- ment 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 attitude and its relationship to drug use. The current alarm over drug use has often been pre- occupied with the drugs themselves and has failed to concern itself with the people who use the drugs and why Blum (1969) has stated: A public concern which focuses on social drug dangers or drug abuse without also focusing on the drug user himself is misdirected. It is a person who employs a drug and a person who suffers harm himself or visits harm on others. It is what people do to themselves and to each other with or without drugs which justly arouses public concern and horror. It is, therefore, the person that must be attended to and the reasons for and consequences of his drug use that need to be established. Dale Warner, chairman of the Michigan House Special Committee‘ On Narcotics (1969), has stated in even stronger words that: . . . the attitude of society and the governmental agencies through which society acts may be fairly nique but t desig defir. to be tiVe] 16 characterized as one of vengeance and vindictiveness toward the drug dependent person who is treated as an evil person. In the years to come, we will look back at the superstitions and cruel reaction of our society to drug dependence with the same horror and disgust we now reserve for the way another generation misunderstood and abused its mentally ill and, more recently, its victims of alcoholism. Jerome Jaffe (1970), director of the new national drug treatment agency, states: Social attitudes and legal regulations have profound effects on both the patterns and the consequences of drug abuse and on the treatment of compulsive drug users. It is now obvious that every measure taken to regulate drug use has its social cost as well as its potential benefit. . . . Furthermore, prohibi- tions against Specific classes of drugs and the social attitudes associated with such prohibitions create selective processes that determine the characteris- tics of users of prohibited drugs. For example, if the penalties and attitudes are such that a particular drug (e.g., heroin) is available only by interacting with a deviant and antisocial subculture, then only those willing to engage in such interaction are likely to persist in the use of that particular drug. The effects of subculture membership, the drug-using eXperience, and the initial selective process inter- act to produce many of the characteristics sometimes thought to be due to the drug experience alone. Attitude Measurement Social psychologists have employed numerous tech- niques to measure attitude toward various attitude objects, 1Out the most widely used and most carefully tested and (flesigned technique is the attitude scale. As yet there is no complete agreement Upon the definition of the concept of attitude. There does appear to be general agreement, however, that attitudes are rela- tively permanent, referential, shared, reflect evaluations, and ti in the study scale: ahun of Gu has d with the c behav Guttn ized 0f i1 by Be a st deft four Inte beha atti 17 and that social environment is instrumental and decisive in their development (Duijker, 1955). Frequently attitude is defined differently from one study to another, limiting the comparability of attitude scales and the resulting information derived from their administration. For the purposes of this research the orientation of Guttman (1950) will be accepted and adopted. Guttman has defined attitude as a "delimited totality of behavior with reSpect to something." Thus, he has broken away from the common definition of attitude as a predisposition to behavior, and placed it in the category of behavior itself. Guttman's definition is therefore more easily operational- ized and lends itself to facet theory analysis. Guttman (1959) elaborated on four types or "Levels"1 of interaction with a cognitive object that were proposed by Bastide and van den Berghe (1957) and expanded them into a structural theory of belief and action based on and defined by elements to produce each Level. Guttman defined four of these Levels or sub-universes: (a) Stereotypes, (b) Norms, (c) Hypothetical Interaction, and (d) Personal Interaction (See Tables 2 and 3 in Chapter II). Attitude— behaviors in this schema thus range from the stereotypic attitude Level to the subject's actual reported behavior. h lSee glossary of terms in Appendix 1. studies tobe i of atti income, orient; percei‘ (d) th. format studie dictor well b seemin differ trol c Seems dictor three Sive 5 of be] have 1 the G Retar White 18 Jordan (1968) reviewed the literature on attitude studies and concluded that four classes of variables seemed to be important determinants, correlates, and/or predictors of attitude: (a) demographic factors such as age, sex, and income; (b) socio—psychological factors such as one's value orientation; (c) contact factors such as amount, nature, perceived voluntariness, and enjoyment of the contact; and (d) the knowledge factors, i;e;, the amount of factual in- formation one has about the attitude object. Jordan found, however, that most of the research studies were inconclusive or contradictory about the pre- dictor variables and suggested that the reason might very well be that the attitude scales were composed of items seemingly stemming from different structures, 323;, from different Levels of Guttman's sub-universe. Lack of con- ‘trol over which attitudinal Levels are being measured seems likely to continue to produce inconsistent, contra- dictory, and non—comparable findings in attitude research. Jordan (1969) expanded on Guttman's (1959) original three facet-four Level paradigm and developed a more inclu- sive set of five facets-six Levels to delimit the totality Of behavior. Several types of attitude—behavior scales have been developed using Jordan's six Level adaption of the Guttman facet theory: Attitude—Behavior Scale: Mental Retardation (Jordan, 1970); Attitude-Behavior Scale: Black- White (Hamersma, 1969); Attitude-Behavior Scale: Mental Illness Drug 05' to rese and to drug ab is conc is cons toward health cerned l9 Illness (Whitman, 1970); and Attitude-Behavior Scale: Drug Users (Kaple, 1971). Statement of the Problem The present study is part of a comprehensive attempt to research attitude—behaviors toward the illegal drug user and to search for causes, determinates and/or correlates of drug abuse and dependency in the United States. This study is concerned with two principal groups, the heroin user who is considered drug dependent, with his attitude-behaviors toward himself, others, and fellow drug users, and mental health therapists, both professional and paraprofessional. This study can therefore be described as being con- cerned with the following propositions: 1. To determine predominate attitude—behaviors that heroin dependent persons (addicts) have toward themselves, others, and fellow illegal drug users. 2. To investigate differences in attitude—behaviors between the following heroin dependent (addict) categories: a. heroin addicts incarcerated--no treatment b. heroin addicts in methadone maintenance c. heroin addicts in NARA I and III treatment d. heroin addicts in NARA 11 treatment 3. To investigate differences in attitude-behaviors between the following mental health categories: be m (ABS . 1971 was Para i thex atti (ABE 20 a. professional therapists (Ph.D., M.D., M.A., M.S.W., R.N.) b. paraprofessional therapists (no academic degree). 4. To compare differences between addict categories and mental health treatment categories. 5. To assess the predictive validity of the fol— lowing hypothesized determinants of attitude— behaviors toward illegal drug users: a. demographic b. contact c. social psychological d. political activism. 6. To seek for recommendations concerning the rehabilitative psychological treatment of heroin addicts. Attitude—behaviors toward illegal drug users will be measured with the Attitude—Behavior Scale: Drug Users (ABS: DU). This scale was developed by Jordan (1971a, 1971b), Kaple (1971), and the present author. The ABS: DU was developed via the facet theory of the Jordan—Guttman Paradigm (Table 7). Measurement of attitude-behaviors will, therefore, be done on six Levels of interaction with the attitude-behavioral object (see Chapter III and Appendix 4). Since the Attitude—Behavior Scale: Drug Users (ABS: DU) has been recently developed, the results of this investi for the 21 investigation will be added to the results of Kaple's study for the purposes of further establishing normative data. science area wl drug or study . toward Of her review ency a attitu two c] and ti and "1 Set 0: com. drugs betwe CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RESEARCH AND THEORY The literature on attitudes in the behavioral sciences is currently large and constantly growing. One area where this has not been true has been in relation to drug users, drug abusers, and drug addicts. Since this study is concerned with measuring attitude-behaviors toward illegal drug users, and more specifically, those of heroin dependent persons and therapists, the present review of literature will include theories of drug depend- ency as well as theories and methodologies of measuring attitudes. Difficulties in Defining Addiction, Use, and Dependency The drugs liable to abuse are popularly put into two classifications of "narcotics" and "dangerous drugs," and the peOple who abuse them are popularly called "addicts" and "users." In an attempt to arrive at a more precise set of definitions the World Health Organization's Expert Committee in 1952 and 1957 treated dependence upon various drugs as a single entity and distinguished at that time between addiction and habituation. 22 or chrc tion of from t] tics i1 1. 23 "Addiction" they defined as 'a state of periodic or chronic intoxication produced by the repeated consump- tion of a drug. . . . Its characteristics include: 1. An overpowering desire or need (compulsion) to continue taking the drug and to obtain it by any means. 2. A tendency to increase the dose. 3. A psychic (psychological) dependence and generally also a physical dependence on the effects of the drug. 4. A detrimental effect on the individual and on society.’ "Habituation" was defined as 'a condition resulting from the repeated consumption of a drug. Its characteris- tics include: 1. A desire (but not a compulsion) to continue taking the drug for the sense of improved well-being which it engenders. 2. Little or no tendency to increase the dose. 3. Some degree of psychic dependence on the effect of the drug, but absence of physical dependence and hence of an abstinence syndrome. 4. Detrimental effects, if any, primarily on the individual.‘ These terms were meant chiefly to separate physical from psychological dependence, a distinction which was found to be increasingly difficult to apply, as phases overlap and vary from drug to drug and patient to patient. The W.H.O. Expert Committee's report in 1964 introduced the single term "drug dependence" and stressed that the drug dependencies are a group of illnesses with many features in common and not a single disease (W.H.O., 1964). "Drug dependence" is defined as "a state arising from repeated administration of a drug on a periodic or continuous basis. Its this of d depe type 1967 sens of e medf terr ant: is: mOOI moo sid ass Opt hav The to 0r 24 Its characteristics will vary with the agent involved, and this must be made clear by designating the particular type of drug dependence in each specific case-—for example, drug dependence of morphine type, of cocaine type, of cannabis type, of barbituate type, of amphetamine type, etc." (Wikler, 1967). The term "drug abuse," when used in its broadest sense, refers to the use, usually by self—administration, of any drug in a manner that deviates from the approved medical or social patterns with a given culture. Thus, the term rightfully includes the "misuse" of a wide spectrum of drugs, ranging from agents with profound effects on the central nervous system to laxatives, headache remedies, antibiotics, and vitamins. Generally, though, drug abuse is directed to the abuse of drugs that produce changes in mood and behavior. One of the hazards in the use of drugs to alter mood and feeling is that some individuals eventually con- sider that the effects produced by a drug, or the conditions associated with its use, are necessary to maintain an Optimal state of well-being. Such individuals are said to have a "psychological dependence" on the drug (habituation). The intensity of this dependence may vary from a mild desire to a "craving" or "compulsion" to use the drug. This need or psychological dependence may then give rise to behavior (Compulsive drug use) characterized by a preoccupation with the 1 beha‘ dise; admi: apprl drug Howe 1y, toba sive may abus of a Opic 0r 25 the use and procurement of the drug. In extreme forms, the behavior exhibits the characteristics of a chronic relapsing disease. Since intense reliance on the effects of self- administered drugs EE£.§E is generally a deviation from approved and eXpected patterns of use, the terms "compulsive drug use" and "compulsive abuse" are often interchangeable. However, there are often striking inconsistencies. Current— ly, in Western society, the attitude toward the use of tobacco is so permissive that even chronic, heavy, compul— sive use damaging to the user's health, and over which he may have little control, is rarely thought of as compulsive abuse (Jaffe, 1970). Whereas chronic heavy, compulsive use of alcohol, barbituates, amphetamines, hallucinogens, and opiodsl would be considered compulsive drug abuse. Jaffe (1970) remarks: Since the definition of drug abuse is largely a social one, it is not surprising that for any particular drug there is a great variation in what is conSidered abuse, not only from culture to culture but also from time to time and from one situation to another within the same culture. Compulsive drug use is commonly, but not necessarily, associated with the development of tolerance and physical dependence. Tolerance has developed when, after repeated administration, a given dose of a drug produces a decreasing effect or, conversely, when increasingly larger doses must be administered to obtain the effects observed with the original dose. Physical dependence refers to an altered phySiological state produced by the repeated administration of a. drug, which necessitates the continued administration 1The term "Opiod" refers to any compound, natural or synthetic, with morphine-like properties. A. ,—o— n .4 drug "add: for' ways appe habi the ”add opic the Jail rat the ins 26 of the drug to prevent the appearance of a stereo- typed syndrome, the withdrawal or abstinence syn- drome, characteristic for the particular drug (Jaffe, 1970). It is possible to describe all known patterns of drug use and abuse without employing the terms "addict" or "addiction." In many respects this would be advantageous, for the term addiction has been used in many different ways. Wikler (1967) comments that ". . . the most general appellation for persons who abuse opiods would be 'opioid habitues' (who may or may not also be 'addicted'). But the term 'opiod habitues' is not in general acceptance. . . ." Wickler therefore uses the terms "addiction" and "addicts" in the pOpular sense referring to abuses of Opioids in general, with reliance on the context to clarify the particular issues discussed. The definition that Jerome Jaffe, the director of the new national agency on drug abuse, uses will be employed in this study. The term addiction will be used to mean a behavioral pattern of compulsive drug use, characterized by overwhelming involvement with the use of a drug, the securing of its supply, and a high tendency to relapse after withdrawal (Jaffe, 1970). Addiction is thus viewed as an extreme on a continuum of involvement with drug use and refers in a quantitative rather than a qualitative sense to the degree to which drug use pervades the total life activity of the user. In most instances it will not be possible to state with precision at what point compulsive use should be considered addiction. Jaffe refer deper drugs being codi (mep tal, hydr diaz who had fat the Car 27 Jaffe goes on to state that "addiction in this frame of reference cannot be used interchangeably with physical dependence. It is possible to be physically dependent on drugs without being addicted and to be addicted without being physically dependent." Drugs that may be associated with addiction are: (a) opium, its derivatives (morphine, heroin, paregoric, codine, etc.), and the synthetic morphine-like drugs (meperidine, dilaudad, etc.), (b) barbituates (phenobarbi- tal, pentobarbital, etc.), (c) sedative drugs (chloral hydrate, etc.), (d) antianxiety drugs (chlordiazepoxide, diazepam, meprobamate, etc.) and (e) alcohol. Drugs that may be associated with habitual use are: (a) cocaine and other stimulants such as amphetamines, (b) marijuana and other derivatives of hemp (hashish, etc.), (c) antianxiety drugs, (d) alcohol, (e) nicotine, and (f) caffeine. Theories of Drug Dependency Psychoanalysis views drug addicts as individuals whose psychosexual development has been arrested or has undergone regression to infantile levels. Lack of a strong father figure and presence of an over—indulgent mother figure is stressed in this connection. As a consequence, the individual has been unable to learn that all his wants cannot be fulfilled in reality and comes to regard other person merely cissis oral c devoid satisf depend direct be tur wishes be re] pharme is cor an exI drugs amea: ously Playii is as: Castr. it is makes asent Predi to ex 28 persons, particularly the mother or substitutes for her, merely as objects to be used for self gratification (nar- cissism). Because of the arrested psychosexual maturation, oral cravings are most prominent and genital pleasures are devoid of interest. Since such wants can never really be satisfied, frustration results and the narcissistic, oral- dependent person reacts with hostility, which is often directed toward the mother or other women. Hostility may be turned inward on the addict, resulting in self-destructive wishes. In such individuals, frustration is supposed to 'be relieved by distortion of reality consequent to the pharmacological effects of drugs. Since the use of drugs is condemned by society, the act of drug use constitutes an expression of hostility. Furthermore, since abuse of drugs eventually results in serious consequence, it achieves a measure of self-destruction and expiates guilt simultane— ously. Other psychodynamic processes are also regarded as playing a role. Self administration of drugs hypodermically is associated with erotic fantasies of various sorts--incest, castration. According to the psychoanalytic formulation, it is not the toxic agent but the impulse to use it that makes an addict of a given individual. The particular agent used is not regarded as of prime importance. The predisposition to use drugs is considered to exist prior to experience with the drugs, and repetitive use of drugs is ascribed to the psychological predisposition itself, and t1 drugs effec From class psych In tt relis drugs Norma pain i feel. i impl dent The mere Stan ture depe diff Pre\ beer Pre: Sta- 29 and the contrast between the elated.state produced by the drugs and the disillusionment which ensues when the drugs' effects are dissipated. A second approach is that of Wikler and Rasor (1953). From a symptomatological point of View, addicts can be classified as having neurotic traits, psychopathic traits, psychoes or, infrequently, as having normal personalities. In this formulation, neurotics are presumed to use drugs to relieve anxiety (negative euphoria), while psychopaths use drugs in order to induce an elated state (positive euphoria). Normal individuals become addicted only in order to relieve pain, while psychotic individuals use the drug to alleviate feelings of depression. This particular nosological scheme implies that the choice Of Opiates by such patients is acci- dental and that other drugs would serve the same purpose. The development Of physical dependence is regarded as merely a complicating process which is undesirable from the standpoint of the user but which is not an essential fea- ture of drug addiction. With the development Of physical dependence, the euphoric effects Of Opiates become more difficult to Obtain and drugs are then used primarily to prevent distressing abstience phenomena. A third formulation called "pharmacodynamic" has been developed by Wikler. This formulation, rather than presupposing that the kind Of drug used is of no importance, states that specific drugs have specific effects which may be of S} psychole called ] antisoc: lieved ‘ sources express ality c of the pharmac direct] develop need. and is Wikler‘ Venting AS tOle drugs ] relega Situat 30 be of specific importance to individuals with specific psychological needs. The Opiates are known to reduce so called primary drives--hunger, pain, and sex; aggression, antisocial impulses are also inhibited. Thus it is be- lieved that addicts are individuals in whom the chief sources of anxiety are related to pain, sexuality, and expression of aggression, regardless Of the kind of person- ality classifications used in describing them and regardless of the theories advanced to explain such traits. The pharmacological effects Of the addicting analgesies are directly valuable to such personalities. In addition, as the addiction process proceeds the development of physical dependence creates a new biological need. The satisfaction Of this need is relatively simple and is directly and intensely pleasurable,.according to Wikler, rather than being merely a negative matter of pre- venting the appearance Of distressing abstinence symptoms. As tolerance and dependence develOp, motivation to Obtain drugs becomes so strong that all other motivations are relegated to positions of minor importance. When this situation has arisen, anti-social, aggressive behavior may be displayed when Opiates are not available. The dis- tressing symptoms which occur on withdrawal of drugs also may serve a variety of psychological purposes. The suffer- ing associated with discontinuation of drugs may serve the addict as a means Of expiating guilt and leaves him free to re The i opiat class lief becor an i] the nost amon matu corr malI imme Sp01 and gra rai ach the ade 00 es dr 31 relapse, because he has "paid his debt to society." instantaneous relief of this suffering afforded by .ates serves to heighten the addict's esteem for this LSS Of drugs and causes him to use the drug for the re- :f of discomfort from any cause. In a sense, the addict zomes conditioned and any unpleasant situation calls for injection. Ausubel (1961) has delineated two types Of addicts, a immature and the reactive. The most serious, and prog- ;tically least hopeful, variety of drug addiction occurs >ng individuals who fail to undergo adult personality :uration, who fail to develOp the long term drives and rresponding motivational traits characteristic of nor— -ly mature adults in our society. Such motivationally rature persons are typically passive, dependent, irre— >nsible, lacking in perseverance and self discipline, . preoccupied with achieving immediate, pleasurable self itification. They are unconcerned about marriage, sing a family, socially useful employment, vocational ievement, etc. The most common type of addiction found today in United States, according to Ausubel in 1961, is reactive iction. It is a transitory, developmental phenomenon, urring principally among slum—dwelling adolescents with entially normal personalities. The adjustment value of gs for these individuals is simply that they provide an outl of c atti and popt does on ' Ros pos in the cor ex; he: go ef in CC 32 outlet both for the exaggerated rebelliousness and defiance of conventional norms, and for the particular aggressive attitudes associated with membership in an underprivileged and Often ethnically stigmatized segment of the urban population. Ausubel's definition of the reactive addict does not agree with most of the more recent studies done on teenage addicts in slums (Bender, 1963; Vaillant, 1966; Rosenberg, 1968; Torda, 1968) and appears to be a simplistic position. Feldman (1968) examined the life style of teenagers in the slums for major clues to the causal explanation for the spread Of drug use in the slums. He concluded that the concept Of the "stand-up cat" (the ideal type) helps to explain how a large minority Of slum youth experiment with heroin both before and after the physical and social conse- quences of addiction are realized. Once the initial effects of heroin are defined as pleasurable the movement into a drug-consuming subculture depends on the degree of commitment Of the drug user's former reference group tO the "stand-up cat" ideology. A much different approach to the theory of addiction is the one stated by Lindesmith (1963). Instead of viewing the motives of addicts as crucial to a general theory of addiction, he has rephrased the central problem to read: "What is the experience in which the characteristic crav- ing of the addict for drugs is generated?" This question, Lind or b the drug opie dist mini siti dra Ap sym bec in wit km 801 of be fr wi be 33 idesmith believes, cannot be answered in terms of motives be answered by saying that the craving is produced by 2 pleasurable effects or euphoria associated with the 1g. He has suggested that the addict's craving for .ates is born in his eXperience of relief of withdrawal .tress which follows within a matter of five to ten rutes after an injection. The craving develops in this :uation only when the individual understands the with- Lwal symptoms and attributes them to the proper source. werson who remains ignorant Of the source of withdrawal rptoms and interprets them in some other way will not :Ome addicted. The only organism that can become addicted the full human sense of that term is one to which the :hdrawal distress can be explained. Hence, infants, rer animals, and most feebleminded and psychotic per— rs would be eXpected to be immune to addiction. Lindesmith (1963) states that the various features addiction do not fit the Older theories of addiction rause: (a) some addicts deny ever eXperiencing euphoria .m the drug, (b) some persons may and do become addicts hout ever taking the drug voluntarily, (c) addicts can deceived about whether they are under the influence of drug or not, (d) the euphoria is associated primarily the initial use of the drugs and virtually disappears addiction, (e) the addict maintains that his shots cause to feel "normal," and (f) marijuana and cocaine, which do nc gards formi propc to ti is In basi« tion that prin diti assu conc elat COIli moti qual tim sin the tho the net 34 do not create tolerance and physical dependence, are re- garded by Lindesmith as non—habit forming and that the habit forming propensity Of various substances seems to be roughly prOportional to the severity of withdrawal symptoms and not to the euphoria they produce. The addict's craving--it is implied by this view-- is not a rational assessment or choice Of any sort, but basically an irrational compulsion arising from the repeti- tion of a sequence Of experiences in a process like those that lead to the behaviorist's conditioned response. The principal difference between the consequences of the con- ditioning process in human beings and lower animals is assumed to be that, in the case of human beings capable of conceptual thought and language, the craving is symbolically elaborated and responses arising from it are directed or controlled by higher cortical processes. The attempt to explain addiction in terms Of the motives which prompt peOple to try drugs has not been ade- quate. The motives which addicts report are numerous, and it seems impossible to make any simple kind of generaliza- tion about them that can be ascribed to all addicts. The situation is complicated by the necessity Of noting that the motives for first use characteristically differ from those for continued use to the point Of physical dependence, that motives for use after dependence is established are not the same as those at earlier stages, and that motives _____________ ___J for re in thi i variou 2 often point i or typ i essent i 1 reasor i of abt compui i multi E to re i any P i drug i patte i tione | i for t t its a I duce i to di Vious ( 35 for relapse again have their own characteristics. Writers in this field commonly fail to distinguish between the various stages and the various social situations and often seize upon a single type of motive common at some point in the process among addicts Of a particular group or type, project it into all phases, and state it as the essential motive Of all addicts. There is a growing consensus that there is no single reason for a person to begin using drugs, no single pattern of abuse, and no single inevitable outcome. In short, compulsive drug users are a heterogeneous group in which multiple factors interact to sustain drug use and predispose to repetitive relapse. These include the persistence Of any physical illness and/or psychopathology that antedates drug use, and their interaction with strongly reinforced patterns of drug—seeking behavior as well as with condi- tioned abstinence symptoms that may intensify the craving for the drug. Abstinence on the part Of the user, with its attendant changes in behavior and role, can also in- duce tension in other members of the family, and relapse to drugs sometimes represents a means to restore the pre- vious (pathological) equilibrium. Jaffe (1970) states: Cultural attitudes about addicts and alcoholics further increase the drug user's difficulties in Obtaining realistic gratifications and simultane- ously foster his return to an environment (the i loe is ant since of ten (1970) drug 1 hol or takine mdSCU been tolle less with Parti their devig to p; drug. to m the 1970 36 local bar or group Of heroin addicts) where he is accepted. In such an environment the use Of a drug is also acceptable, the drug is available, and its use has been repeatedly reinforced. Attitudes Toward Drug Use and Illegal Drug Users Social attitudes play an extremely important role since they determine which drugs are acceptable for relief of tension and which are prohibited, according tO Jaffe (1970). Social attitudes also determine the meaning Of drug use so that, for example, the excessive use of alco- hol or opioids can be a gesture Of hostility, whereas the taking of tranquilizers may mean weakness or a loss of masculinity. Recently in the United States a shift in values has been occurring among young adults. Non-violence is ex— tolled, and aggressiveness and masculinity as such seem less important. Sometimes a drug may become identified with acceptance Of a group's values, and individuals may participate in drug-using behavior as a way Of symbolizing their group affiliation. Group membership, even in highly deviant groups, in turn may represent attempted solutions to problems Of personal identity. For such individuals, drug-using behavior may be sustained as much by the need to maintain this identity and Obtain peer approval as by the pharmacological effects Of the particular drug (Jaffe, 1970). Thus, the investigation of social attitudes in the area larl user ment scal att (l9 wit dee ade 37 area of drugs and peOple who use drugs seem to be a particu- larly important need to the total understanding Of drug use. Social attitudes toward drugs and illegal drug users are most frequently measured by methods or instru- ments that are specifically designed for one study. If a scale is employed it rarely reflects rigorous techniques of scale construction and item selection. Frequently arti- cles dealing with drug related attitudes are based solely on the author's subjective Opinions. One attempt to employ some objective measures in attitude study was done by Patterson, Bishop and Linsky (1968). They sampled pOpular magazine articles dealing with narcotic addiction which covered a time period Of seven decades to focus on changes in public attitudes toward addiction. They assumed that magazine content is related to, although not identical with, general public attitudes of the period studied. The articles were analyzed for con- tent in two main areas: (a) attitudes and beliefs about narcotic addiction and (b) recommendations for coping with narcotic addiction. Attitudes toward the addiction problem were rated on three separate dimensions: (a) the moral blame ascribed to the addict for his addiction; (b) the moral blame ascribed to drug suppliers for the addiction problem; and (c) the locus of causal factors in the etiology of drug addiction. They concluded in the area of moral blame ascribed to the individual addict that there was a definit moral b century second cluded until i occurre conclue present the car factor: cized follow on the 38 definite shift from a high moral blame attitude to a low moral blame attitude in the first three decades of the 20th century, which has remained constant since then. In the second area, attitudes toward drug suppliers, they con- cluded that a high degree of moral blame had been constant until the 1960's when a marked shift toward low moral blame occurred. In the third area, etiology of addiction, they concluded that there was a shift from the 1920's to the present from the attitude that drug traffic and supply was the cause to the attitude that the individual personality factors are the cause. Although their study can be criti- cized in terms Of methodology and valid measures, their following statements reflect the importance Of attitudes on the treatment of addicts: Public views about behavior seem to lag several decades behind changes in professional views pro- duced by research. Thus, psychodynamic explorations into the meaning of mental illness conducted in the 19305 resulted in changes in public attitudes in the 19405. Research on alcoholism in the 19405 led to changes in public attitude in the 19505. With re- search on addiction leading to meaningful explana- tions of addictive behavior in the 19605 we may anticipate changes in the public view of the nar- cotic addict in the 19705. Psychiatrists have given up moralistic judgmental attitudes toward most psychotic and neurotic behavior. But when we look at the character disorders, such as the sociOpath, homosexual, alcoholic, and drug addict, we find that psychiatrists, no less than the general public, have retained a much more judgmental moralistic attitude. It is not uncommon to hear psychiatrists speak of 'worthless sociopaths,‘ 'filthy alcoholics,‘ and 'no-account addicts.‘ As David Shapior has recently noted in his book, Neurotic Styles, the atten they measu towar motir on pg Feldr and ; enth They futu Ole 39 moralistic attitudes Of psychotherapists have pro- foundly influenced their interpretation Of character— Ological behavior. It is paradoxical that psychotherapists, along with the general public, ascribe a high capacity of choice and self-determination to character dis- orders. Yet such persons are exactly those who often feel most 'driven' to their behavior--the alcoholic who 'can't stOp,' the sociOpath who 'just felt like it,‘ the addict who 'had to have a fix.‘ Predictably, then, we find that psychotherapists tend to ascribe moral blame to persons with char- acter disorders and recommend their isolation or punishment rather than recommending rehabilitative measures. Public attitudes can be seen to follow the images which psychiatry has presented to the public. Or perhaps more accurately, public views of the character disorders will not change until psychiatry changes its professional view. Although these impressions are important in calling attention to discrepancies in attitudes and need for change, they are of little value in terms Of attitude—behavior measurement. Bennet's (1968) discussion of public attitudes toward LSD use, Solnet's, et a1. (1969) statement regarding motivation for drug use, Davis and Mainoz's (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 appar- ently subjective opinions regarding drug-related attitudes. They lack Objective measures that can be replicated in future studies. None of these studies presented evidence of employing attitude questionnaires or scales. ent: 12tl ite: S a rep SCE agr the im at Th on 40 Attitude Scales for Special Studies Vincent (1968) constructed a Thurstone type differ— ial scale to investigate the attitudes Of 8th, 10th, and h grade students toward smoking marijuana. This twenty m scale consists exclusively Of "personal feeling" items identified in the Guttman—Jordan paradigm. Vincent orts known group validity to be acceptable. When a subject takes a Thurstone type attitude 1e, he is instructed to check statements with which he ees or disagrees. The median of the scale values of items checked by a given individual is reported to icate his position on a scale of favorable-unfavorable itude toward the Object in question. Differential or rstone type scales have received wide5pread criticism several counts. As Selltiz, et al. (1966) indicates, 5e scales are laborious and cumbersome to construct and re. Since an individual's score is the median Of the 1e values of several items, similar scores may express ferent attitudinal patterns. Thus, identical scores do necessarily mean identical patterns of attitude re— nses. Schur (1964) conducted a small-scale study of dent attitudes on various controversial issues including 3 addiction. The scale consisted Of 38 items ranging n addiction to abortion. The five possible responses were pub ish (e) n a rea C11 ane wa: be? 41 were that the behavior in question: (a) should not be publicly condemned; (b) should be condemned but not pun- ished; (c) undecided; (d) should be punished but not severely; (e) should be severely punished. Whereas the item "being an importer and distributor of black market narcotics" was reacted to with more punitiveness than any other item (in- cluding forcible rape, armed robbery, tax evasion, perjury, and selling pronography), the item "being a drug addict" was viewed more punitively than only 12 Of the 38 types Of behavior. The condition of addiction was condemned less than statutory rape, abortion, being a prostitute, eutho- nasia, draft evasion, exhibitionism, and voyeurism. Twenty- six per cent of the sample said that being an addict should be punished and an additional five per cent called for severe punishment; on the importer—drug—distributor item the corresponding figures were ten per cent (punished) and ninety per cent (severely punished). Schur's scale is a Likert-type scale. In a Likert scale items are employed that are chosen as "definitely favorable" and "definitely unfavorable." These items are administered to subjects representative of the population of interest. Rather than checking only the items with which the respondent agrees as in a Thurstone scale, the respondent indicates his degree of agreement or disagree- ment with every statement, i.e.; (a) strongly agree, (b) agre scor This indf att: spo dis que use ste do an si 42 (b) agree, (0) undecided, (d) disagree, (e) strongly dis- agree. 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 re- sponses are then analyzed to determine which items best discriminate between high and low total scores. Fre- quently the responses Of the upper and lower quartile are used as criterion groups. Items which do not show sub- stantial correlation with the total scores, or those that do not elicit different responses from the criterion groups are eliminated. These procedures insure internal con- sistency. Likert type scales are easier to construct than Thurstone type scales and are likely to be more reliable (Selltiz, Jahoda, Deutsch and Cook, 1965). A disadvantage Of the Likert technique is that the total score of a given individual Often has little clear meaning, since many pat- terns Of response to the various items may produce the same score (Jahoda and Warren, 1966). King (1970) employed a Likert type scale and a survey of behavior to compare users and non-users Of marijuana. NO reliability or validity data are presented. King's scale was designed to measure five general attitudes. The attitude items seem to include Personal Hype 1 int att: (IIU Beh tud lim USE mar ane‘ ati COI CL 43 (pothetical Action, Personal Feeling, and Personal Action 1 the Guttman—Jordan paradigm. King does not define :titude in his study although the title of his paper 'Users and Non-Users Of Marijuana: Some Attitudinal and ahavioral Correlates," 1970) suggests that he views atti— 1de as a predisposition to behavior rather than a "de— -mited totality of behavior." He found that marijuana sers tend to be more Opposed to external control and see irijuana as a specific agent for inducing tension relief 1d relaxation more frequently than do non-users. Positive :titudes toward marijuana usage correlated highly with >ntact with marijuana users and with perceived knowledge 5 both physiological and psychological effects of the tug. Brehm and Back (1968) studied attitudes toward rking medication, typical response to illness and concern .th such factors as personal control. They developed a = item Likert type scale to evaluate usage of specific fugs from "definitely" to "not at all" for ten agents .nging from aspirin to opiates. The attitude items di- .ded in five groups: insecurity, fear of loss of control, .ck role, denial of effects, and curiosity. They conclude .at the combination of doubt about and wish to change the 1f plus a general confidence in the effectiveness of 'ugs is related to using any type of physical agent, ”___”. where ties specf "rel: scal and coll dent typi dent non- eXp to bor les USE at PO re 44 whereas a combination of curiosity about one's potentiali- ties and an absence of fear Of loss Of control relate more Specifically to using that complex of agents known as "releasers." Robbins, et a1. (1970) developed a Likert type scale to assess medicinal (amphetamines and barbiturates) and drug use (marijuana, LSD, and heroin) patterns among college students. Responses were Obtained from 286 stu— dents representing 20 schools in the New York area. The typical marijuana user was found to be a liberal arts stu- dent, who reported somewhat looser religious ties than his non-drug-using classmates. Half the marijuana smokers expressed dissatisfaction with their school, in contrast to 20 per cent Of the nonusers. Drug users described themselves as usually anxious, bored, disgusted, impulsive, moody, rebellious, and rest— less significantly more Often than.did nonusers. The non- users were much more positive in their self-reports, select- ing ambitious, contented, decisive, and secure as traits that usually depicted them. Doctor and Sieveking (1970) set out to assess public attitudes about drug addiction, addicts, and treatment. Four reference groups were sampled: (a) law enforcement representatives; (b) college student non-users; (c) student users of marijuana; and (d) post—withdrawal narcotic addicts. They developed a questionnaire consisting of 35 bi} to as: agree] state helpf addic promi relev with of pa be t] came Nash‘ Rese this havi ills desi Seer det 45 35 bipolar descriptive statements, to which subjects were tO assign a rating from one to five, indicating their agreement, neutrality or non-agreement with each of the statements. An additional 11 items assess the potential helpfulness of different classes Of people to the drug addict. The descriptive statements were selected from prominent topics in the clinical and research literature relevant to the general area of mental health and dealt with questions concerning etiology, treatment, and a range Of personal evaluative attitudes and reactions (eLgLJ can be trusted, harmful, repulsive, etc.). The student sample came from Vanderbilt University, the police sample from Nashville, Tennessee, and the addicts from the NIMH Clinical Research Center of Lexington, Kentucky. The Doctor and Sieveking study comes the closest to this dissertation in terms Of researching attitudes and be- haviors of mental health therapists and drug addicts toward illegal drug users. Although their attitude scale is designed on a different theoretical basis, their findings seem to be most pertinent and are included here in some detail. In general, S5 tended to View the drug addict as socially distant and interpersonally aversive. The addict was characterized by respondents as responsible for his condition, potentially harmful and frighten- ing, provoking, somewhat repulsive, untrustworthy, and unpredictable. This combination Of attributes would seem to match stereotypes of the antisocial or criminal individual (Sieveking and Doctor, 1969). 46 i In part, these reactions probably reflect a publically held stereotype of addicts that is reinforced by criminal role expectancy and hostile police attitudes (Schur, 1964, Grennan, 1962) rather than representing impressions gained from direct personal contact with addicted individuals. For example, it is well docu— mented that addicts, if forced to resort to criminal activities, are typically nonviolent and nonassault— ive (Task Force Report, 1967) and that interpersonally they appear quite nonaggressive, passive, dependent, conservative, inhibited, fearful and tend to rely on fantasy as an adjustive technique (Campbell, 1962; Ausabel, 1958). Furthermore, field studies find the social and physical communities of addicts are not transient and ill—formed, as might be expected with strictly criminal individuals, but have a high degree of structure, interdependence, and residential stability (Schumann, Caffrey, & Hughes, 1970). While respondents tended to identify and react to addicts as criminals, they also expressed the view that the crucial determinants of addiction were socio—psychological (rather than medical, physical or hereditary) and that through long-term direction by a mental health professional, the addict had potential for improvement. This emphasis on ’psychological' determinants and the clearly non-punitive View of appropriate treatment is congruent with current campaigns to educate professionals and to temper public Opinion (Schur, 1964, Pattison, Bishop and Linksy, 1968). While the necessity for a lengthy and intensive program of reshaping behavior has been recognized by self—help lay groups such as Synanon (see Yablonsky, 1965) and Addicts Anonymous, most state and federal programs still adhere to essentially a detention model. In this regard, it is interesting to note that addicts themselves tended to minimize the seriousness of their problem in terms of duration and extent of treatment required. This tendency to deny illness and to adopt unrealistic and unwarranted optimism has also been noted by Blachly, et a1. (1961), in their survey of addict attitudes after three months of hospitalization. Undoubtedly, the conflict of addict and professional views hampers if not under— mines treatment efforts. Addicts themselves agreed with the negative reactions expressed by members of other groups and also indicated no desire to have fellow addicts as Close friends. This apparent dislike and distrust 47 of members of the same subculture would seem to raise some interesting questions. For example, is the perceived aversiveness and rejection of other addicts an indirect result of the addict' s plight, i. e. , being hunted and exploited, thus serving as a protective reaction against associating with indi— viduals who might be arrested or turn them in? Or are these reactions expressions of socially immature individuals who are intolerant of others? In any event, the addict's reactions to other addicts have important implications for identifying behavioral targets for treatment and for developing effective treatment programs. Psychologists, psychiatrists and physicians were rated as most helpful to the addict followed by friends, family members, and ministers. Police— ment and politicians were uniformly seen as not very helpful in spite of the fact that these two organizations have had the greatest effect on public and professional attitudes about addicts and treat— ment for addiction. While American medical Opinion has come to View the physician in an ancilary treat- ment role (Chapman, 1962), medical personnel have been very successful as prime treatment agents in Britain (Schur, 1964) and most informed professionals agree that physicians and mental health workers should have prime responsibility and complete freedom in treating problems Of addiction. Likewise, while there is recognition of the potential helpfulness of minis- ters, family members, and friends, public support has favored medical and psychiatric intervention rather than more socially broad—based programs. If the history Of treatment models for alcoholism and mental illness is indicative of where public policy and support will be directed and strengthened (Pattison, Bishop and Linsky, 1968), the role of the non—professional in the treatment of drug addiction should become more prominent. Carney (1970) investigated attitudes toward the risk gain of a number of behaviors including drug use. Six red and fifty subjects cooperated in the study of which were adults conCerned with drug use among the youth, were junior and senior high school students, and 200 48 are college students. The Risk Taking Attitude Question— aire were developed to measure attitudes and behaviors. he questionnaire was revised four times during the year ong study therefore making any validity and reliability easures impossible. The study focused more on reported se of marijuana, alcohol, and tobacco than on attitudes oward users. They did find a significant correlation etween the u5e of these three drugs and theft and sexual elations. There have been a number Of recent studies that ave investigated drug use mostly among college Students sing marijuana or LSD. The questionnaires employed ypically are not developed according to any theoretical ramework and replication is virtually impossible in most nstances due to meager methodological descriptions. xamples of specific studies that do not adhere to any pecific scaling may be found in Murphy, Leventhol, and alter (1969), Groscia (1969), Pearlmen (1968), Klein and hillips (1968), Suchman (1968), Rossenberg (1968), Patterson, ishop, and Linsky (1968), Jones (1969), and Bogg (1969). ‘ Summary of Attitudes TOWard Drug Users and Measurement Scales Although there have been a number of studies investi— ating the amount of illegal drug use, these studies have een limited mostly to college samples. Studies focusing n heroin use and attitudes toward addicts are very few. 49 The most pertinent investigations are those of Patterson, Bishop, and Linsky (1968), Feldman (1968), Schur (1964) and Doctor and Sieveking (1970). No reported research on attitudes toward illegal drug use or drug users has employed a comprehensive facet attitude—behavior approach. It, therefore, is difficult to determine what levels or sub- universes in the Guttman-Jordan paradigm would compare with the previous research. Conflicts regarding determinants and/or correlates of attitudes toward illegal drug users are evident in the literature. Few studies present an Operational definition of attitude and most neglect a theoretical paradigm for relating determinants and/or predictors Of attitudes to- ward drug users. Past studies Of attitudes toward illegal drug users have not been replicated, and most of the measurement scales have been prepared for only one investigation. Thus, there is a need for a comprehensive study of attitude-behaviors toward illegal drug users that employs a measurement scale based on a workable theoretical frame— work. Theory and Methodology Among the better known names in attitude theory are those of Allport, Thurstone, and Likert. Allport's dis- cussion of the nature of attitudes (1935) is perhaps the 50 classic in the field. The Likert technique (1932) is widely used in scales designed to measure "attitudes," "Opinions,' and "beliefs." Thurstone (1928) was among the first to suggest a specific scale construction technique. Both theory and measurement continue to receive extensive treatment. Although the term "attitude" remains ambiguous, some trend toward precision may be noted. In 1928 Symonds noted that the term could mean drive, muscular adjustment, generalized conduct, readiness, emotional response, feelings, or verbal responses (Symonds, 1928). By 1966, much of attitude theory (excluding the work of Guttman, to be discussed in a following section) agreed with the Kerlinger notion of a predisposition to perceive, think, feel, and behave (Kerlinger, 1966). Guttman's Four Level Theory Guttman has defined attitude as "a delimited totality of behavior with respect to something" (1950). Within the limits Of such a definition, both verbal responses and overt behaviors can be construed as attitudes. This provides a conceptual framework which forms a continuum from the common definition of attitude (predis— position to perceive, think, feel, and behave) to the common definition of behavior (overt behavior). Attitudes and behaviors are, thus, not dichotomized but are viewed together as the totality of human behavior. All attitude is behavior. 51 With the range Of human behavior being this inclusive, it is possible then to think of points along this continuum which could then be measured. The points along the con— tinuum become the "Levels" in the Guttman-Jordan paradigm of attitude-behaviors (see Table l). ’Qéjfr: q TABLE 1.--Continuum of Attitude-Behaviors. predisposition to overt perceive, think, behavior feel, and behave range of human behavior (attitude-behavior universe) Once attitude or attitude—behavior is viewed as a continuum from a verbal-cognitive orientation to overt action, then significant points can be determined as measurement points and a method Of measurement develOped. The signifi- cant points at which measurement should take place are called "Levels" and measurement points are based on "facets" and "elements." Commenting on the work Of Bastide and van den Berghe, Guttman (1959) distinguished three "facets" involved in a particular attitude response: the subject's behavior (belief or overt action), the referent (the subject's group or the subject himself), and the referent's 52 intergroup behavior (comparative or interactive). Jordan has defined it in this manner: Facet design makes it possible to construct items by a systematic a priori method instead Of by the method of intuition or by the use of judges. Facet theory (Guttman, 1959, 1961, 1970) specifies that the attitude universe represented by the content can be substructed into sematic profiles which are systematically related according to the number of identical conceptual ele— ments 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 (Jordan, 1970). What is sought then by facet design and analysis according to Harrelson (1970), is to be able to construct the content of a scale by a semantic, logical a priori technique and to be able to predict the order structure which would result from the empirical data. 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 done by a mathematical process of forming correlational clusters and then naming them, i.e., calling them factors. As opposed to this approach, facet design, in essence, names the facets before one begins. The three facets (Table 2) proposed by Guttman are combined according to definite procedures to determine the semantic component structure of four important sub—universes or Levels Of the attitude—behavior universe. 53 TABLE 2.-—Basic Facets Used tO Determine Component Structure of an Attitude—Behavior Universe. (A) (B) (C) Subject's Referent Referent's Facets Behavior Intergroup Behavior al belief bl subject's cl comparative group Elements a2 overt b2 subject c2 interactive action himself One element from each and every facet must be repre- sented in any given statement. These statements can be grouped into profiles Of the attitude-behavior universe by multiplication of the facets A x B x C, yielding a 2 x 2 x 2 combination Of elements or eight semantic profiles in all, i;§;J (l) alblcl’ (2) alblCZ' . . . (8) a2b202. It can be seen that combinations 1 and 2 have two elements in common (a ) and one different (cl and c2), whereas profiles 1 lbl and 8 have no elements in common. Guttman facetized the semantic structure of the atti- tude behavior items into the four sub-universes or Levels as shown in Table 3. He reasoned that if an attitude— behavior item can be distinguished semantically by the three facets ABC outlined in Table 2, then an individual item could have one, two, or three subscript "2" elements for a total of four attitude—behavior Levels. Logically, if the elements are correctly ordered within facets, and if 54 the facets are correctly ordered with respect to each other, a semantic analysis of attitude-behavior items will reveal n+1 types or Levels Of attitude-behavior items. While a total Of eight combinations are possible on the four Levels (one each on Levels 1 and 4 and three each on Levels 2 and 3) only the four combinations shown in Table 3 were studied by Bastide and van den Berghe (1957). TABLE 3.--Facet Profiles and Descriptive Labels of Attitude- Behavior Levels. Level Profile Descriptive Label 1 alblcl Stereotype 2 alblc2 Norm 3 albzc2 Hypothetical Interaction 4 a2b2c2 Personal Interaction The model in Table 3 depicts the attitude-behavior Levels and the descriptive labels for each Level defined by Guttman (1959). An attitude—behavior item corresponding to Level 1 would deal with the belief of the subject (al) that his group (bl) compared itself (cl) favorably or un- favorably with the Object in question, in this case members of a different racial group. Similarly, an item corresponding to Level 4 would deal with the subject's own (b2) reported overt behavior (a2) in interacting (c2) with the Object. 55 A common meaning for the orderings was suggested by Guttman, iye;J they Show in each case a progression from a weak to a strong form Of behavior of the subject toward the Object. That is, the more subscript "2" elements a set contains, the greater the strength Of the attitude- behavior. Facet analysis Of the semantic structure Of attitude items provides a social psychological theoretical basis for predicting the structure of the empirical intercorrela— tion matrix of Guttman's four Levels: if items are written to correspond to each Of the four Levels, then Levels closest to each other should be more similar and thus Should correlate more highly with each other than with more dis- tant Levels. One cannot propose to predict the exact size Of each correlation coefficient from knowledge only of the semantics of universe ABC, but we do propose to pre- dict a attern or structure for relative sizes Of the statistical coefficients from purely semantic con- siderations (Guttman, 1959, p. 324). Guttman (1959) referred to this as the contiguity hypothesis which states that sub-universes or Levels closer to each other in the semantic scale of their definitions will also be closer statistically. In other words, the responses at any given Level would be most closely related to the most similar Levels--the Levels having the largest number of common facets--and less related to less-Similar Levels. Thus Level 1 responses would be more similar to Level 2 responses than to responses of any other level. If 56 If such similarities were expressed in correlation ratios, the matrix Of Level-by-Level correlations would have a dis- tinctive appearance. Table 4 indicates what such a hypo- thetical matrix might approximate. Such a matrix Guttman labeled a "simplex." TABLE 4.-—Hypothetical Matrix of Level—by—Level Correlations Illustrating Simplex Characteristics. Level 1 2 3 4 1 1.00 2 .90 1.00 3 .80 .90 1.00 4 .70 .80 .90 1.00 It is important to point out that one does not attempt to predict the magnitudes of each correlation coefficient. The simplex requirement does not necessitate either identical correlations in diagonals or identical differences between diagonals: the case given is sometimes called a "perfect simplex." The fundamental requirement in any simplex is that correlations decrease or "order" as they are farther from the main diagonal. Slight reversals in the ascending or descending order are not considered a contradiction to the contiguity hypo- thesis, since sampling bias or other idiosyncracies in 57 selection or administration might be the cause Of such reversals. Jordan (1968) employed Kaiser's( 1962) procedure to sort and rearrange all possible arrangements of adjacent pairs of correlation coefficients so as to generate the best empirically possible simplex approximation and assign a descriptive statistic, Q2, to the original and rearranged matrices. Q2 is a descriptive statistic with a range Of 0.00 to 1.00. Hamersma (1969) found a value of at least .70 should optimally be used to accept a matrix of attitude— behavior Level correlations as having approximated a simplex and a 02 of .60 to be considered a minimal criteria. These figures were obtained by applying practices followed by Jordan for ascertaining the "goodness of fit" of an obtained simplex (Hamersma, 1969). According to Guttman, if attitude-behavior items are correctly written, tigi' to correspond to each of the hypo- thesized levels, then the matrix Of Level—by-Level correla- tions should approximate the simplex. If, on the other hand, a simplex did not appear, the items were incorrectly or ambiguously assigned to Levels. Jordan's Six Level Adaption Guttman's (1959) paradigm of facet design and analysis for attitude—behavior items allows for three facets and hence four Levels of attitude—behaviors. Theorizing 58 that there might be other pertinent facets, but accepting those identified by Guttman as appropriate, Jordan (1968) expanded facet analysis for attitude items dealing with specific groups to include five facets and hence six Levels. This expanded and more inclusive set of facets and their elements is shown in Table 5. A comparison of Guttman's facets and Jordan's facets are illustrated in Table 6. TABLE 5.--Jordan's EXpanded Facets Used to Determine Jointa Structure of an Attitude-Behavior Universe. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) Referent Referent Actor Actor's Domain Behavior Intergroup of Actor's Behavior Behavior al others bl belief cl others dl comparison el symbolic a self b overt c self d inter- e opera- 2 0 2 I 0 action action tional aJoint struction is Operationally defined as the ordered sets of the five facets from low to high (subscript l's are low) across all five facets simultaneously. Joint Struction Guttman's three facets and two elements resulted in eight possible combinations or profiles. Jordan's five facets and two elements results in 32 combinations. Jordan (1968) states that not all combinations are logical due to semantic considerations. However, the selection of a "best" 1.I...141....1i4ll..1ln. .1. 11114111.. “1.1.11.1 1.11.1- 1111.11.41. . 131M? .....Ws 59 .Aoa .m .osmflv qmsgon scum ompmmwm manmsm MmeEHQ cOHpom 11 o>HpomsobcH No pomflQSm No pno>o N9 11 gsoum 11 m>HpMHMQEOU Hp m.pommfldm Ho meng HQ 11 H0H>mgmfl mDOHmHm#CH HOH>mnmn 11 m_pcoswwmm acmuwmom m.poon95m 11 swappsw Hmc0H# soHsom Imsmmo No QOHpommopsH mp wHom mo pHm>o NQ MHmm mm H H H H H UHHonfihm m GOmHHmmEoo U mhwnpo o wwHHwQ Q mnmapo m HOH>mnoc H0H>mgon m.HOpow muonmnwch MOH>M£®Q mo chEOQ m.n0po< Hopod pcmumwmm #:oumwmm GmpHOh m D U m 4 Hogpsa 60 set of profiles from the 32 possible combinations was still made partly as a matter of judgment. Maierle (1969) later extended research in this area by providing a set of logical rules for the selection of combinations and found that 12 of the possible 32 combinations were semantically consistent. The six profiles were chosen as psychologically relevant and potentially capable of instrumentation (see Table 7). TABLE 7.--Joint Level, Profile Composition,a and Labels for Six Types of Attitude Struction. Subscale Struction Descriptive Joint Term Type-Level Profile 1 alblcldlel Societal Stereotype 2 alblcldzel Societal Norm 3 azblcldzel Personal Moral Evaluation 4 azblczdzel Personal Hypothetical Action 5 a2b2c2d2el Personal Feeling 6 azbzczdze2 Personal Action aSee Table 8 for rationale by which these 6 profiles were chosen. Maierle's research showed that only 12 of these profiles (Table 8) were logically and semantically con— sistent--Jordan's six and an additional six. Table 9 presents the definitional statements of the 12 possible profiles and Table 10 depicts the set of combi- nations corresponding to Jordan's (1968) paradigm. This 61 TABLE 8.--Combinations of Five Two-element Facetsa and Basis of Elimination. Combinations Facets and Subscripts Basis of Elimination In In No.b Table9 Table 7 A B C D E 1 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 1 13 -— -- o a i c s l 2 14 -- -- o a i i s l 15 -- -- i a i c s 2 16 10 Level 5 i a i i s 17 -- -- o b o c p 3 4 l8 -- -- 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 ll —- 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 aSee Table 5 for facets. bNumbering arbitrary, for identification only. cLogical semantic analysis as follows: Basis 1: an "a" in facet B must be preceded and followed by identical elements, both "0" or both "i." Basis 2: a "c" in facet D cannot be preceded by an "a" in facet B. Basis 3: a "c" in facet D cannot be followed by a "p" in facet E. Basis 4: a "p" in facet E cannot be preceded by a "b" in facet B. See text for explanation. 62 .mzlmm< msu :H 6mm: mcoHumcHnEoom .mhonEwE Hw>mH msoHHm> mo mmHnmCOHHMHOH wumUHch mmwmsucwumm cH mmEm: wumcumuH¢d .mycmfimumum pnwumHmcoo ufin unmocscmu Ho puma mum mmmmnucmumm cH mnuozo .mucmEme mcouum mo HmnED:11.ozn .m pan 5 wMHDMB .mum 1 1 mmmqmomnmm mCOHuud Hmcomuom wzHHMGOHumuwmm nomeHCH H Auom Hy m H H m H w HmmoNUNQNm mmCHwam Hmcomumm meHmoHHOQfiwm DUMHQDCH H “Hum Hy m H H m H m HOH>mcmfl mzoum Hmsuo< >HHmcoHumemm Documucm muosum Auom mHonumv Q.H o m o v 1 1 $3.95? wquuo¢ HMUHumsuom>: HMGOmem wHHHmUHHonE>m uumumucH H m>oHHmn H m a H 2 a AmmcHHmww | I | | | mdoum Hmnuumv wuHucmcH QSOHO xHHMUHHOQExm HQMkuCH muwguo Auom mHmzuov m H o m o HmEOHumuowaxw I I I | I msoumv msmq meHMHUOHm >HHmoHHonE>m uomuwHCH H ®>wHH®D mumcuo m H H n o Amsumum Hmcomumm owcmHmmm I I | | I, N m 1>HHm:Omuwmv unwocooleow >HHmoHHOQE>m oummEou H m>MHHwn H m o H n H AwwnHm> ©0>Hmoumav I l | I I HMNUHUHQNm wCOHumus>m Hmuos HMEOmHmm oaHHmoHHonE>m nomHmHCH muonuo m>wHHwQ H m H o n H msumum HMCOmem UmcmHmmMImsouw >HHm0HHOLE>m oanEom M ®>®HHmm mH®£pm m u H n o 1 1 1 1 1 HmNuHUHnHm mEHoz HmuwHuom meHmoHHonazm uumnmu:H muocpo w>wHHwQ muwnuo H m H o n o N msumum macho cmcmeMMIxHHmcomHom >HHmoHH02E>m mummEOm muw£um w>®HHmm m m o o n H mamzumum aboum HprHUHflHm pwcmHmmm QSOHOV wa%uomu®um HapmHoom m>HHmoHHonE>m mummEom muwcum m>wHH®m muwcbm c m U o a o H mEmz m>HuQHuom®o oz mHHwoum uwomm Hm>mq c omucwEmumum HmcoHuHCwao .0 .mGOHDMCHnEOU m>H039 How mucwEwumum HmcoHuHCmeQ 63 may musmmmum m mHQme .AucwEon @soupmv N Ho AucoEmHm xmmsv H umHHomQSm m pmcmHmmm Hmomm comm SHHB .msoHHMCHnfioo Ho pom mEmm .Uwuosuumsoo mm? mHmom Doummé map 30H£3 on mchnooom mwonu mum summ oHucmEmm mHnu CH pmmHHmEoo mCOHHmcHQEoo mo umm ones COHHom HMGOmem H H H m m m H H m H m mCHHmmH HMQOmHmm H H H m m m H H m H m coHHom HmoHngyoms; HacOmHmm H H H n m m H H a H s GOHumsHm>m HmuoE HmCOmHmm H H o a m m H o Q H m Enos HmHmHoow H o o 3 m m H o Q o m mmmpommwum Hmmeoom o o o D m m o 0 Q o H 0 fl U m m m D U m d mmcmnu Hmomm. .mpmpm .mmo mmEmz m>HumHHomoo >9 oHHHoum an mHHHoum Hm>mH .m .mmum>Hca mpsuHuud pmommIm>Hm m How :0: Spam UHHQMEmmII.OH mqmme 64 semantic path (Table 10) corresponds to the underlined facet profiles in Table 9. The definitional statements facilitate the writing of appropriate attitude-behavior items for each Level member while the listing of profiles by facet change (Table 10) makes possible a clearer graphic representation of the successive changes from weak to strong elements. Summary Guttman proposed a four—Level system of attitude- behavior items. Within the system, Levels were hypothesized to be related to each other according to the principal of contiguity, so that a matrix of Level-by-Level correlations would approximate a simplex. Jordan proposed a five-facet, six Level adaption of the system and has data within and across cultures on a research instrument (Jordan, 1970). Jordan's data has given support to Guttman's hypothesis. CHAPTER III INSTRUMENTATION AND RESEARCH DESIGN Past research has presented inconsistent results regarding the structure and correlates of attitudes toward illegal drug users. The instruments used in these studies were mostly developed for one investigation and lacked a theoretical base for scale construction. Facet theory and analysis seems to offer not only a theoretical basis for a comprehensive understanding of attitude and behavior but also provides a system of instrumentation and measurement that specifies which attitude—behaviors are being measured. The Attitude-Behavior Scale: Drug Users (ABS: DU)l (Kaple, 1971) was developed according to the Guttman— Jordan paradigm of facet theory (multidimensional scaling) to measure the universe of attitude-behaviors toward illegal drug users across six Levels. The purpose of this study is to use this scale with samples from two populations, heroin addicts and mental health therapists. The Attitude—Behavior Scale: Drug Users The ABS: DU is the product of two sources: (a) the Guttman-Jordan paradigm of facet theory and analysis, and lHereafter referred to as the ABS: DU. 65 66 (b) written research on illegal drug users, as well as personal interviews with illegal drug users, therapists, law enforcement agencies, clergy, students, and parents. Facet theory was used to evolve both "joint and lateral" struction. Joint struction refers to the object- subject relationship: the six different Levels. The know- ledge gained from and about drug users was used in the development of the items. The item content and its arrangement is noted as "lateral struction." Joint Struction (Object-Subject Relationship) Jordan's five facet—two element-six Level design served as the structure upon which the ABS: DU was develOped. The following definitions of the six—Level paradigm (Table 7) were employed: 1. Societal Stereotype--what you believe others believe about illegal drug users as compared to what they believe about non—drug users; 2. Societal Norm--what you believe others generally believe about interacting with illegal drug users; 3. Personal Moral Evaluation--in reSpect to illegal drug users do yougyourself believe that others. believe it is usually right or usually wrong that the following occur; 67 4. Personal Hypothetical Action——in respect to illegal drug users would you yourself; 5. Personal Feeling--how do you actually feel toward illegal drug users; and 6. Personal Action-—actual experiences or contacts with illegal drug users that ygu_have or have had. These six profiles (Table 7) are ordered such that Level 1 < 2 < 3 < 4 < 5 < 6 or Societal Stereotype < Societal Norm < Personal Moral Evaluation < Personal Hypothetical Action < Personal Feeling < Personal Action. Guttman (1959, p. 320) states that "according to scale theory, ordering the profiles (our six subscales) also implies a formal ordering of the categories within each facet." The ordering of Level 1 < 2 < 3 < 4 < 5 < 6 implies formally the following simultaneous orderings: al < a2,< bl < b2 . . . xl < x2. Guttman suggests a common semantic meaning: a progression from a weak to a strong form of behavior of the subject vis-a—vis the attitude-behavior object--in this case illegal drug users. Examination of Table 5 indicates the rationale of this ordering system. Facet A--the referent "other" is weaker than "self“ in being less personal. Facet B--"belief" is weaker than "action" is being "passive" rather than "active." 68 Facet C—-referring to the behavior of one's "self" rather than that of "others" is stronger in that it implies personal involvement. Facet D--"comparative" behavior is weaker than "interactive" behavior since it does not imply social contact; a comparison is more passive than interaction. Facet E--"symbolic" behavior is weaker than "oper- ational" in that it does not imply acting out behavior. The semantic path (Table 10) used in the development of the drug scale was chosen for three reasons: (a) psycho- logical rationale and/or usefulness in the six subscales, (b) the simplex order between the six subscales, and (c) they were judged to be potentially capable of instru- mentation. In conclusion, the six Levels or subscales of the ABS: DU were constructed to correspond to the facet design depicted in Tables 3, 7, 9, and 10. Lateral Struction (Item Content) Lateral struction deals with the item content of an attitude-behavior scale. Six additional facets--F through J--were added to differentiate item content within levels.‘ The complete mapping sentence for the family of scales constructed, or to be constructed, on this a_priori basis 69 is presented in Figure 1. The attitude—behavior object of interest, in this study, illegal drug users, is developed in the mapping sentence shown in Figure 2. Thus, every item on every Level of the ABS: DU corresponds to a combination of elements of each and every facet A through J of Figure l. The rationale of facet theory enables the specification of object-subject relationships (joint dimension) as well as situation content (lateral dimension) in each attitude scale item. Jordan and Hamersma (1969) were the first to create an instrument based on Guttman facet theory in which the content of each item was repeated across all six Levels or profiles; the only difference from Level to Level then being the alternation of the specified item content to fit the structure (joint struction) of the different Levels. This method affords easier assessment of the item content. This procedure was followed in the construction of the ABS: DU. Guttman's facet theory implies a different approach to scale construction than the usual "item analysis, relia- bility, and validityfi approach. The mapping sentence of _ \.\£1[‘. 7';-~.a . .... Figure l imposes a semantic meaning on the content of the items, while the paradigms in Tables 5, 7, and 10 specifically impose a structioned ordered meaning system for the relation- ships between the six scale Levels. 70 .annmme wnu new pwusuHumnsm on awe msoum UHccum Ho HmaoHumc .oummz .0HH0200HM .UGHHQ .pmmm wwmw .QN umzmaw mm £09m msoum HmHUOm Ho comuwm xcfiw .coHuosHum ucHon new mm couummom HmHoom pmHquw «OHHOSMum Hmumumq now vmmon>mU cwmn um» no: man Emehm mcHuopuo one MON mun-UWUMCH HUMMMH COfiUUSHHW Hflhmflflq H0 “Gmugoo GUSUHHHM ”Noam” :5: n SONS“ :h: MUwUQhU cmsuuao mwaoq mUHnumchs «swam cmmHsqu .Hm>mH uo coHuosuum ucHos muocmc =m= nosounu =1. mumomm ampuow .m econ n .mme .5 noun: «0 mocmucmm mchmmE co pmmmmm .mCOmuwm cpmHmHommm cum3oa mopsuHuu< mo coHuosuum UHMHmuMH Ucm ucHOh Ho mHmmHmc< umomm may “OH wocmucmm wchmmz <11.H musmHm m Q AmcHQOUV . , HHmLoH>mronv AmuHHHnmmHu .w.wv m ~ AHmonmcav .mcompma pHmLp Hmzuom n HmucoE3LumcH :owHeHoman: ‘0>HumMoc mx #4! Aaonocmc .w.wv m>Hsooccm stmxou mocon> yo>HuHmoa Hxfi \ pHmpp nwpanpuHm Hm I w>Hpchoo mucmHm> Hm>mg uHaLe mane unLe Axv Adv AHV mcoHpmHmp Q30pm HLmUCOUmm w muHamoo m: uHmcu uo anamomn m: o» uomamog nuH: Hz HNM MOO-4H nmmoopm coHumsz>m sz so zHHEme ocm xmm a coHumHmHmmH AHmmuv on ocoamou a .mtmchz .cpHmmc we 01H: Aav coHuHocoo ucmEonQEm 1» aHmn mHHmHomqm pops: mocmu 30H mm coHpmosoo no cH mcomgoa :qu muompmucH mu -LanH co Hw>mH EsHomE am mcH>Ho>cH :oHpmmuomL me :poHcHomam: cmHn Hm mcoHuchL dsopm atmeHLQ mu Acqu mamaeoo mHHmLH chomLoa He mmpm Eoo Ho . poH>mcmm mocmupomEH mcoHumsuHm ooHH asopmpwucH m.p0uu< Hos Auv on moon HHHmcoHu chm mo cHom mm -mnmao mm .ouo .306 .onwmz L0uom coHpom ho .oum .3mw .opwoz acmpmcmp ucwso noHnmmHn co mucopma on» utw>o mo LoH>mcmo omHnmmHo co muconaa 0» “H303 umemmHoococ umc» ucmpmcmp cprmmHosco: mmuszLuum HHHmo oHogz m mm .aoa mum cmHHms Hp m2» mHozz m mm .aoa Axv uomnosm -HHonrzm Hm mumruo Ho mtmcuo Hm LoHpmumm m.pouo< do chuom tauo< L0H>mcmm ucmpwemm mmmmmmmm Ame , on Ame Amd mH mcHmecsoo HmoHuHHom vH :xmxHSu pHoo= oHEocoom Mm H HoocmcouchEV ’ m>HuHmOQ Nx . N. LuH3 mocmumnsm vsuc .. . . A.) HmHUOm .H . H H HszmucLuH3v ‘ m>Hummwc x Hmon>LQ H ousuHumnsm @sup mmmMflmw mmmmwmmmmmmw omwk uCOEumou9 C: E A: Hm>wH HmcoHumuspo on :mpcmHuw Doom: mHm mmoHuomum Hmsxom Hmsmsc: vHo HmHoowHucm MHm quusumE NHO conHHou HHm m>HmmHEuwd >HHw3xom cHU \ :muconHow. as r J quHmoL oamomo ms \ Ho>oH oH£0coom hm HmoHUou ouch mm ouch >uHHH3mpc0Qmp xuo3 mm coHuuwutu nucquc coHumunHuouo HmHoU cm A duosw page mnuuozumsuu mm cthxLuhmxcH . cOHuHmCQmHUou1 vchmucmHuw mo ucHumxmou K LJHH cLo: mUCQOHHHOucH H7 unsatuuw Haonmsm moHumHumuompmru MmmMmm ADV T: woos N LHmm mo MHHmcoHumuumo m tOuom coHuom .Qoa UoHuHoomm ecu uLo>o N2 uamso pHso3 H .wHoc3 mm .moa H umgu NHHmuHHonENw o mumzuo u mam onHmm H2 uoH>mnwm m.u0uod mo chsoo uOuod Lszmnom ucouomom Hwy .0. Am. Hauwumq one mucHoo mo mmeHmc< uwomm wcu qu .coHuosuum ucHofl wuocwp m cmsounu 4 wuoommm mocwucmm ocHdamz 411.~ ouson mH ..H HH Hw>oH anmc m w>Hoomu um3oH Cu 5 an NH xomm xHucmCMEuwQ N pwum>HuoE =onx: 0» 2 HH H . HmowH : Cowmom ucoEumoue Art n m o. t m. ...H pm i EOHL A cuH3 muomuOHCH mp V m. :muoma asap: 1 H1 . AcuHBV oumdeoo w A mouqmaoo Hp HoH>mzom mnoumumucH m.u0uo< 2: WHmm mm Lo ucmuwumu ou uoH>mnoQ .moa coHWHome mmuanuuum accuomou .mHOLB mm .Qom Ax. uowflnsm emu wuonuo Hm ucmummom Hm. 72 The five content facets specified in Figure 2 (i.e., facets F, G, H, I, and J) were repeatedly identified as pertinent aspects (facets) of attitude—behavior toward illegal drug users. These five facets include causes, characteristics, treatment reason, treatment type, and consequences. Kaple (1971) states: The specific content for items used in each of the five attitude content areas was taken from various sources, including previous research, personal inter— views with addicts and other specific interest groups, books on attitudes, clinical judgment of individuals who have experience with drug users, and past attitude scales. From the complete facet design depicted in Figure 2, forty content items were selected for each of the six Levels of the ABS: DU so that the scale consisted of 240 items. Forty additional items of demographic, contact, sociopsycho- logical, and political activism were added in a "Personal Data Questionnaire" which was included as part of the ABS :DU. Validity "The validation of attitude measures presents a difficult problem," states Anastasi (1961, p. 545). Harrelson (1970) commented, "In the years since Anastasi's statement the problem has apparently not been further re-- solved." One aspect of this problem involves the relation- ship between "public" and "private" attitudes: how do the TABLE ll.--Item in the ABS: 73 DU, Illustrating the Six Level Structure Including Directions and Foils. Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Directions: Item: Directions: Item: Directions: Item: Directions: Item: Directions: Item: Directions: Item: Others believe the following things about illegal drug users as compared to non—drug users. Others believe drug users can be trusted (1) less than others, (2) same as others, (3) more than others. Most_people generally believe the following about interacting with illegal drug users. People generally believe that others would find that drug users can be trusted: (1) less than others; others, (3) more than (2) same as others. In respect to illegal drug users, what do you, yourself believe others think is right or wrong. For others to expect drug users to be trustworthy is: (1) usually wrong, (3) usually right. (2) undecided, In respect to illegal drug users would you, yourself. I believe I would trust drug users: (1) disagree, (2) uncertain, (3) agree. How do you feel toward illegal drgg users: I feel I can trust drug users: (1) disagree, (2) uncertain, (3) agree. Experiences or contacts with drug users: I have trusted drug users: (1) No, (2) Uncertain, (3) Yes. 74 individual's publicly-expressed attitudes compare with the Opinions he voices in conversation with intimate friends or with the stranger he never expects to see again? This aspect of the problem, it would seem, is largely insolvable beyond attempts to assure the subject that his responses will remain completely anonymous. This procedure was employed in the normative study (Kaple, 1971) as well as in this research study. Another aspect of the validity problem, as outlined by Anastasi (1961), concerns the relationship between verbal and non-verbal overt behavior. Anastasi points out that disrepancies between verbally expressed attitudes and overt behavior have been noted in several studies. Harrelson (1970) replies regarding the mental retardation scale: The attitude items in the ABS-MR scale, as in all attitude scales, are verbalizations of behavior; the advantage inherent in an attitude scale based on facet theory, however, is that the verbalizations I refer to different Levels of behavior and go beyond the usual stereotype, comparative, abstract, and hypothetical.Levels of most attitude scales to verbalizations about affective experiences and concrete, overt behavior. If the relationship between verbal attitudes and overt behavior is ever to be further specified, it may well be through a facet theory approach. Anastasi (1961) has also pointed out that many attitude studies are conducted for the stated purpose of systematically exploring verbally reported attitudes. In such a case, she feels, the criterion itself should be defined in terms of verbally eXpressed attitudes. 75 Harrelson (1970) again replies: Given that this is a legitimate assumption, what too often happens is a resort to a superficial kind of content validity based upon a cursory examination and classification of tOpics to be covered. It would appear that the method of selecting item content on a systematic basis through the use of facet theory and a mapping sentence . . . is far superior to pre- vious methods in assuring that a representative sample of the desired behavior domains is selected. Through this method it becomes a relatively simple matter to plot out the elements and facets one wishes to include and to construct scale items to meet this criterion, thus assuring that all desired elements are represented. Commenting on content validity of the ABS: DU Kaple (1971) states, "Content validity will be assumed since facet theory will be employed . . . and since the .Vx content will be evolved through consultation with drug users, drug therapists, and law enforcement agencies, as well as a comprehensive review of the literature." Construct validity will be ascertained in the drug scale by evaluation of the postulated simplex. "There will be a positive (correlational) relationship,‘ remarks Kaple (1971), "between the conceptual theory (facet design) and the statistical structure; the size of the correlation coefficient will increase with the increase in number of contiguous facets in the variables." Concurrent or predictive validity will be inferred by the "known group" method. In the normative study (Kaple, 1971) five groups were identified as possessing "known" attitude—behaviors toward illegal drug users at the personal action Level (Level 6) of the Guttman—Jordan paradigm. 76 Kaple states that these behaviors fall along a continuum from favorable to unfavorable toward drug users. The validity of this assumption (igegy Level 6 attitude- behavior) can be ascertained via the self reported behavior obtained in the personal data questionnaire. There are also external criteria that can apply to those groups where known drug use is evident. In the normative study five known groups were chosen: illegal drug users, police, high school students, college students, and members of a fundamentalist Kansas parish. "These groups," states Kaple (1971), "were chosen because of their 'known attitude-behaviors' toward drug users at Level 6 of the Guttman—Jordan paradigm." In terms of illegal drug users themselves, they have exhibited relatively favorable Level 6 behavior toward drug users since they form their peer group, have been trusted as buyers and sellers, and generally form the subculture to which they subscribe. In the present study the differences between the designated heroin addict categories on the Level 6 behavior provides more of an empirical question than a known quantity. It is hypothesized that the addicts incarcerated (no treat- ment) will have the most positive behaviors toward illegal drug users; the rationale being that the addict who is incarcerated has been forcibly pulled out of his sub- culture and his resentment would be directed toward the 77 police (and society) and would still have very positive attitudes toward illegal drug users (including fellow addicts). The NARA I and III category, on the other hand, would be involved in a treatment program, would be receiving consultation and support from therapists, and would (hopefully) be establishing a new way of life. Since many paraprofessional mental health therapists are ex-addicts themselves, and the trend today is to employ ex—addicts as therapists, it is postulated that they would have more positive behaviors toward illegal drug users than the professional therapists who might feel more of a dis- tance between themselves and their patients. The "known" or postulated position of the addict and therapist's groups at Level 6 behavior is shown in Table 12. TABLE 12.--Postulated Rank Order Position of Categories at Level 6 of the ABS:DU. Postulated Position of Categories at Level 6 Unfavorable Favorable F E D C B A A = Addicts incarcerated—-no treatment B = Addicts--methadone maintenance C = Addicts--NARA II D = Addicts--NARA I and III E = Paraprofessional therapists F = Professional therapists 78 Beliabilityy The method of estimating reliability of the ABS: DU was to compute a Kuder-Richardson type reliability coef- ficient for each scale Level. Hoyt (1967) has described a formula for estimating test reliability based on analysis of variance which gives precisely the same result as the formula described by Kuder and Richardson (1937). It is postulated that the ABS: DU will compare favorably with the reliability results obtained on the mental retardation scale (ABS: MR). The reliabilities reported for the mental retardation scale (Jordan, 1970) compare favorably to those of many tests used for indi- vidual diagnosis, evaluation, and selection described by Anastasi (1961). Independent Variables A "Personal Data Questionnaire" consisting of 40 items was designed to measure independent variables that the literature suggested to be correlates and/or predictors of attitude-behaviors toward drug users. Jordan (1968) identified four classes of variables that seem to be important determinants, correlates, and/or predictors of attitudes: (a) demographic (eggg, age, sex, and education), (b) sociOpsychological (ELgL, value orienta- tion), (c) contact (eggg, amount, voluntariness, and enjoyment), and (d) knowledge about the attitude object. 79 The present review of the literature regarding attitudes toward illegal drug users revealed that three of the four categories of variables appear to be relevant. The know— ledge variable was not well documented and is difficult to instrument. Another factor did appear in the literature, that of political activism. The "Personal Data Question— naire" was therefore developed to measure four types of variables: demographic, sociopsychological, contact, and political activism. Demographic Variables Six demographic variables were included in the questionnaire as possible correlates and/or predictors of attitude-behaviors toward drug users: (a) age, (b) sex, (c) education, (d) marital status, (e) religious preference, and (f) political affiliation. Contact with Illegal Drug Users The contact variables were designed to measure: (a) the kinds of experiences the respondent has had with illegal drug users, (b) the amount of contact with illegal drug users, (c) ease of avoidance of contact, (d) material gain from contact, and (e) enjoyment of contact. SociOpsychological Variables Sociopsychological variables are concerned with a person's concept of change and the relationship between man 80 and his environment. The concept of change is assessed in the following areas: (a) self change, (b) child rearing methods, (c) birth control, (d) automation, and (e) rule adherence. The life situations items were included to measure attitudes toward man and his environment. These items were adapted from a scale by Wolf (1967). The continuum underlying this scale range from a view that man is at the mercy of his environment and could only hope to secure some measure of adjustment to forces outside of himself, to a View that man could gain complete mastery of his physical and social environment and use it for his own purpose (Wolf, 1967, p. 113). Political Activism Political activism is measured by self reported participation in political rallies, marches or demonstra— tions, voting, and arrests for civil disturbance. Additional items relate to feeling for the need of a political and social revolution in this country. Design and Analysis Procedures A comprehensive international study of attitude- behaviors toward illegal drug users is being developed by Jordan to investigate the attitude-behaviors of known groups in different societies. The purpose is to search for causes, determinates and/or correlates of drug abuse and addiction in the United States and elsewhere, as well as to investigate the attitude-behaviors of the significant 81 groups who either come into contact with abusers and addicts or have a vested concern for them. This present study focuses on two of these major groups, heroin dependent persons (addicts) and mental health therapists. Heroin addicts have been selected because they represent individuals with the most serious illegal drug problem, both in terms of the consequences of the addict's life and the difficulty of rehabilitating them. Mental health therapists have been selected because they have been given the responsibility of treating the illegal drug user and attempting to change his behavior. Heroin Addict Sample Four heroin addict categories were identified as being available for research. These include addicts who are incarcerated and receive no Specific treatment to addicts involved in various treatment programs. Addicts who are currently using heroin and are involved in sup- porting their habit were not included in this study for two reasons. One, they are an extremely difficult pOpu- lation with which to establish the rapport needed to research them, and two, they are either "working" to gain the money needed for their drug, or they are under the influence of the drug to such an extent that they would be unable to respond to any written questionnaire. 82 The following four categories were selected because it is hypothesized that they reflect a continuum of attitude— behaviors: l. Heroin addicts incarcerated-—no treatment 2. Heroin addicts in methadone maintenance 3. Heroin addicts in NARAl II treatment 4. Heroin addicts in NARA I and III treatment 1. Heroin addicts incarcerated--no treatment. These addicts have been arrested on a drug or drug related offense (usually breaking and entering) and incarcerated in a city or county jail. Typically they are awaiting bond, trial, or are serving a short sentence. They have gone through the withdrawal period (usually five to seven days) and are not receiving methadone or any form of thera- peutic treatment. It is presumed that their attitude- behaviors are the closest to the addict out in the street since they are in jail against their will and generally were not participating at the time of their arrest in an active treatment program. 2. Heroin addicts in methadone maintenance. This category of addicts have selected the methadone maintenance program as their desired form of the available treatment programs. They are participating in this treatment because of their own desire and are technically not under a court lNARA refers to Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act of 1966 enacted by the U.S. Congress. 83 order. The addict receives his daily dosage of methadone at a clinic or hospital, has weekly urine tests to indicate any heroin use, and is involved in individual and group therapy. He still generally lives at home and is partially involved in his normal subculture. It is presumed that the attitude-behaviors of this group are slightly less positive toward illegal drug users than those of the incarcerated addicts. 3. Heroin addicts in NARA II treatment. These addicts have been convicted of a crime, have been committed to the custody of the Attorney General, have been examined and considered likely to be rehabilitated through treat- ment, and have been confined to a prison where they will receive treatment. 'Treatment' includes confinement and treatment in an institution and under supervised aftercare in the community and includes, but is not limited to, medical, educational, social, psychological, and vocational service, corrective and preventive guid- ance and training, and other rehabilitative services designed to protect the public and benefit the addict by correcting his antisocial tendencies and ending his dependence on addicting drugs and his suscepti- bility to addiction (Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act of 1966, Sec. 20, Title II, p. 5). Since these addicts are not involved in their former subculture but are living in a protected community where they are receiving therapeutic treatment, it is postulated that their attitude—behaviors will be less positive than addicts in categories A and B. 84 4. Heroin addicts in NARA I and III treatment. Addicts in the NARA I and III treatment program represent those who have civilly committed themselves in lieu of prosecution (Title I) and those who have civilly committed themselves for treatment and are not charged with any criminal offense. The NARA law states regarding Title I: If the United States district court believes that an eligible individual is an addict, the court may advise him at his first appearance or thereafter at the sole discretion of the court that the prosecution of the criminal charge will be held in abeyance if he elects to submit to an immediate examination to determine whether he is an addict and is likely to be rehabilitated through treatment. In offering an individual an election, the court shall advise him that if he elects to be examined, he will be con- fined during the examination for a period not to exceed sixty days; that if he is determined to be an addict who is likely to be rehabilitated, he will be civilly committed to the Surgeon General for treat- ment; that he may not voluntarily withdraw from the examination or any treatment which may follow; that the treatment may last for thirty-six months; that during treatment, he will be confined in an institu- tion and, at the discretion of the Surgeon General, he may be conditionally released for supervised after— care treatment in the community; and that if he suc- cessfully completes treatment the charge will be dis- missed, but if he does not, prosecution on the charge will be resumed (NARA Act of 1966, Title I, p. 2). Although the addict under Title III receives the same treatment as the addict under Title I, there is a difference in his type of commitment: . . . whenever any narcotic addict desires to obtain treatment for his addiction, or whenever a related individual has reason to believe that any person is a narcotic addict, such addict or related individual may file a petition with the United States attorney for the district in which such addict or person re- sides or is found requesting that such addict or 85 person be admitted to a hospital of the Service for treatment of his addiction (Section 302a, Title III, NARA Act of 1966, p. 6). The court shall also advise such patient that if, after an examination and hearing as provided in this title, he is found to be a narcotic addict who is likely to be rehabilitated through treatment, he will be civilly committed to the Surgeon General for treatment; that he may not voluntarily withdraw from such treatment; that the treatment (including posthospitalization treatment and supervision) may last forty-two months; that during treatment he will be confined in an institution; that for a period of three years following his release from confinement he will be under the care and custody of the Surgeon General for treatment and supervision under a post— hospitalization program established by the Surgeon General; and that should he fail or refuse to c00per- ate in such posthospitalization program or be deter- mined by the Surgeon General to have relapsed to the use of narcotic drugs, he may be recommitted for additional posthospitalization treatment and super- vision (Section 303, Title III, NARA Act of 1966, p. 8). It is postulated that the addicts in treatment under NARA I and III have exercised more self determination to recover from their addiction than those in addict categories A, B, and C, and would, therefore, evidence less positive attitude-behaviors than those categories. Mental Health Therapist Sample Two mental health therapist categories have been identified as being involved in the treatment and rehabili- tation of illegal drug users. The professional therapists are those who have a professional and/or academic degree, yig,, Ph.D., M.D., M.A., M.S.W., and R.N. The paraprofes- sional therapists are those who do not have a degree but 86 have experience and training so that they are equipped to treat narcotic patients. 5. Mental health therapists--paraprofessional. The paraprofessional category of therapists in the field of illegal drug use treatment are often ex—addicts them- selves. The ex-addict therapists not only have the experience of what it means to be an addict and to go through rehabilitative treatment, but also to be committed to rehabilitating their fellow addict. It is postulated that this category will have a high degree of empathy, genuineness, positive regard, and concreteness toward the heroin addict as well as a personal dedication to rehabilitation. Thus it would be expected that the category of paraprofessionals will have more positive attitude—behaviors toward drug users than the professional category, but less than any of the heroin categories. 6. Mental health therapists--professional. This category of therapists are professionals by virtue of their academic degree and their employment for the purpose of treating and rehabilitating individuals who have maladies resulting from physiological and/or psychological bases. The professional therapists in this study were selected from drug treatment hospitals or clinics, as well as general and psychiatric hOSpitals and clinics that include heroin addicts as part of their population of 87 treatment. It is postulated that the professional therapist group will have the least positive or the most negative attitude-behaviors toward illegal drug users. First of all, they are the most removed category from addict population of any sample included in this study, and secondly, pro- fessionals are reported in the research literature as sometimes having non-sympathetic behaviors toward narcotic addicts. Sample Size Attempts were made to identify at least 50 indi- vidulas in each of the six categories. Categories were obtained from the Michigan area (Detroit and Lansing), and from the National Institute of Mental Health Clinical Research Center at Lexington, Kentucky. Since this study was dependent on volunteers, it was difficult to obtain a pure random sample. Selective procedures were as inclusive as possible and were coordin- ated with the participating NARA agencies. Since a pure random sample could not be obtained the results of this study are dependent on the Cornfield-Tucky argument of known groups. Data collection was by group administration wherever possible. A standardized set of procedures has been developed for the administration of all instruments (ABS: DU and Personal Data Questionnaire). All interviewers 88 were instructed beforehand with the procedures to be fol— lowed. In all instances the ABS: DU was administered before the personal data questionnaire. Major Research Hypotheses The major emphasis of this study is substantive, regarding the attitude-behaviors of heroin dependent per- sons (addicts) and mental health therapists toward illegal drug users. The secondary emphasis of this study is to lend support to the methodological study conducted by Kaple (1971) on the development of the ABS: DU and the normative data. Theoretical Hypotheses H—l: The six Levels of the ABS: DU will form a simplex for each of the research groups, i.e., the obtained Q2 values for each group shall equal or exceed .70. H-2: The six research categories will rank order at Level six, as hypothesized in Table 12. Substantive Hypotheses H-3: There is a positive relationship between illegal drug use and favorable attitude—behavior toward illegal drug users on Levels, 3, 4, 5, and 6. H—4: The four addict categories will have more un- favorable attitude-behaviors on Levels 1 and 2 than the two therapist categories. Rationale.--The addicts will view others as being more opposed to illegal drug users than therapists who feel that society is now spending considerable effort to rehabilitate illegal drug users. 89 H—S: The addict categories (C and D) who are involved in the NARA treatments will have more unfavorable attitude-behaviors toward illegal drug users on Levels 3, 4, 5, and 6 than addict categories (A and B) who are just incarcerated or on methadone maintenance. Rationale.--NARA treatments I, II, and III include a sheltered environment (institutionalization) away from the active illegal drug scene. Persons in these treatment programs have had to demonstrate a willingness to stop their addiction. Therefore, they would evidence less acceptance of illegal drug users than addicts who are incarcerated or in the methadone maintenance treatment. H-6: The paraprofessional therapists who are ex-addicts (Category E1) will have more positive attitude- behaviors on Levels 3, 4, 5, and 6 than the para— professional therapists who are not ex-addicts (Category E2) and the professional therapists (Category F). Rationale.--Paraprofessional therapists who are also ex-addicts have personal experience with the problem of addiction in their own lives and it is expected that they would have more empathy for illegal drug users than para- professionals who are not former addicts. H-7: The addict categories (C and D) who are involved in the NARA treatments I, II, and III will have less favorable attitude-behaviors on Level 4 than on Level 6. Rationale.--These two groups are institutionalized and therefore not in contact with active illegal drug users. Level 4 will indicate future behavior whereas Level 6 will indicate past behavior. 9O H-8: Importance of religion will be negatively related to favorable attitude-behaviors toward illegal drug users on Levels 3, 4, 5, and 6 for addicts (Cate- gories-A, B, C, and D). Rationale.--Religion would generally be Opposed to drug use and an individual who felt his religion was impor— tant to him would be morally opposed to drug users (Level 3), but his hypothetical behavior (Level 4), feelings (Level 5), and his overt behavior (Level 6) would be more positive toward drug users. H-9: Amount of education will be negatively related to favorable attitude-behaviors toward illegal drug users on all six Levels. Rationale.-—The more education a person has the less favorable his attitude—behaviors will be toward illegal drug users. H-lO: Age will be negatively related to favorable attitude-behaviors toward illegal drug users on all six Levels. Rationale.—-The older a person is the less favorable his attitude-behaviors will be toward illegal drug users. H-ll: Addicts who score high on change orientation will have less favorable attitude—behaviors on Levels 3, 4, S, and 6. Rationale.--A high score on change orientation is an indicator that the individual believes he can change his behavior and is dissatisfied with his relationships with illegal drug users. H-12: Addicts who score high on political activism will have less favorable attitude—behaviors on Levels 3, 4, 5, and 6. ‘ 91 Rationale.--A high score on political activism is an indicator that the individual believes society can change and that political action is a meaningful expression in his life. H-13: Addicts who score high on Efficacy (environmental control) will have less favorable attitude- behaviors on Levels 3, 4, 5, and 6. Rationale.--A high score on Efficacy (environmental control) is an indicator that the individual believes science and technology can change the world. The environ- ment is therefore important to him. H-l4: Addicts define illegal drug users in the ABS:DU as heroin users. Rationale.--Addicts will define illegal drug users from their own experience, which in this study will be experience with heroin users. Analysis Procedures The Control Data Corporation computers (CDC 3600 and 6500) at Michigan State University“wereused to analyze the data. Correlational Statistics In the CDC MD-STAT program (Ruble & Rafter, 1966), a great amount of data can be employed in one analysis. Separate analysis can be done for a total category and for any number of sub-groups or partitionings of the data. For each specified group, e.g., total, male, female, etc., 92 a number of statistics can be requested. Those used for each partitioning in this research will be means and stand- ard deviations for each variable and the matrix of simple correlations between all variables. Partial and multiple correlations are also outputs of the general multiple regression model used in the CDC program at MSU (Ruble, Kiel & Rafter, 1966a). One advantage to the use of partial correlation is that a number of vari- ables which are assumed to have some relationship to a criterion, or dependent variable, can be examined simul- taneously. The use of multiple regression analysis has been recommended by Ward (1962) because it "not only reduces the dangers in piecemeal research but also facilitates the investigation of broad problems never before considered 'researchable'" (p. 206). The multiple correlation pro- gram yields the following statistics: (a) the beta weights of all predictor variables, (b) a test of significance for each beta weight, and (c) the partial correlations between each predictor and the criterion. Analysis of Variance and Multiple Means Statistics The UNEQl routine (Ruble, Kiel, & Rafter, 1966b) was used to calculate the one-way analysis of variance statistics. This program is designed to handle unequal frequencies occurring in the various categories. 93 A two-way analysis of variance design for unequal N's is available to analyze group—item interaction (Ruble, Paulson & Rafter, 1966). Multivariate Analysis of Variance Multivariate analysis of variance were cal— culated by the Finn (1970) Univeriate and Multivariate Analysis of Variance and Covariance: A FORTRAN IV Program. The multivariate program.will perform univariate and multivariate linear estimation and tests of hypotheses for any crossed and/or nested design, with or without concomitant variables. The number of observations in the subclasses may be equal, proportional, or dispropor- tionate. Simplex Approximation Kaiser (1962) has suggested a procedure for testing a simplex approximation. KaiSer's approach may be seen as performing two functions: (a) the "sorting" and rearranging of all possible arrangements of adjacent pairs of correlation coefficients so as to generate the best empirically possible simplex approximation from adjacent pairs, and (b) the assignment of a statistic, Q2, to the original and re— arranged matrices. The index 93 is a descriptive one, with a range of 0.00 to 1.00. A computer program has been developed at MSU which will (a) reorder the obtained Level member correlations of 94 each ABS: DU matrix by Kaiser'slprocedure to generate the "best" empirically possible simplex approximation, and (b) will calculate the g: for both the obtained and the empirically best ordering of each matrix. Significance Level The .05 level is prOposed as constituting signifi- cance beyond chance for both correlational and analysis of variance statistics in the present research. lAs documented elsewhere by Jordan (Harrelson, Jorday, Horn, 1972) Guttman has pointed out that the Kaiser procedure is limited to a simplex of the form rjls=aj/als(j<15) and alternate methods of simplex analy51s are being explored by Jordan and Guttman. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA The purpose of this study was to investigate dif— erences of attitude—behaviors toward illegal drug users mong two principal groups; heroin users and mental health herapists. This chapter presents the statistical analysis f the specific research hypotheses stated in Chapter III. dditional findings and implications for future research ill be discussed in Chapter V. Research Population The 240 item scale (ABS:DU) plus the 40 item ersonal data questionnaire was administered to all the roups described below (depicted in Table 13). The \. aspondents are divided into six main cateogries, A irough F, shown in Table 13. Each category is then ivided into "responding" groups (i.e., l, 2, etc.). This arminology is depicted in Table 13 and will be employed iroughout Chapter IV and V. itegory A: Heroin Addicts 1carcerated——No Treatment Category A consists of inmates from two county 1ils from large metropolitan areas in Michigan. All were 95 96 .mHQMHHm> xmm 0H Ucommmu on muommndm mEOm Ho mHDHHMH on map 2 HMHOH Hmswm mmmsz uoc op mESm mHmEmm paw mHmE umgH muozm mHHm_o so H o H m mmHmmn< moq .OHQHHO UHHHMHnommmonsmz Hmsonmmmoum 2mH w H HH N mchcmH .Hmpcmo ngmmm Hmwcmz --mpmHmmeae zmH MH MH mm H Hmucmo Soummwmm HMOHQHHU mEHZ SHHmmm HMHGmZ .m zmH m MH mm N Hchwo soummmmm HmoHcHHo msz ngonmmHoum ImsmmllmumHmmumge mHHm_O so v n HH H HmuHmmom mmnm pHonpmo guHmmm Hmpcmz m soumcmeq HHH sum H 4mmH m Hm>mH v Hm>mH m Hm>mH N Hm>mH H Hm>mH QSOHU muommpmo .Hm>mH Nb so mmm How mucoHonmmoo NHHHHQHHHmm mssouo11.vH mHmme 103 TABLE 15.——Correlation Matrices and Q2 Values for Original and Best Simplex Approximations, Category A. Original Simplex Matrix: Category A, Group 1 Slwptsr ”ATRIX 1.0001‘ [.0F5‘ 3.1513 b.UF9f (.1576 0.1290 “,11nn51 1 “mph =-771v 1.580C 1.fi27t 0.1620 0.051“ $.77f1 1.1016 1.4(51 “.F250 8.5830 _ 0.0590 5.5upr M.Afisr 1,b1uf 1.3270 0.3960 0.1371 W 097‘ HihP5L 1.3?7C ‘.t0'0 3.9040 0.120“ (.152? ..u870 1.3165 ”.QL4C 1.00C0 "1.2: 0.7310617869 Best Simplex Matrix: Category A, Group 1 SIHPLEV ”ATHIX .0991 1.1256“ 1.1571 1,nnun 1.n51' 1,1955 I H.051“ 1.0"Uw '.77‘u 0.4161 T.‘530 U.5950 ‘ } 0.111151 11.7711 1.11111 1.5?‘01‘ H1590 0-“270 . 0.11591 71.4113: - .‘58'11. 1.01M M3090 30527" 0.1200 1.033“ ”.1520 fio310‘ 1,1020 3°9n40 -m91157d 1.125- 1.1211 11.12211,.310140 1-001‘0 1 .1! 1..9= 1.7391774793 ‘1" 104 YABLE 15.—-Continued. Original Simplex Matrix: Category A, Group 2 110003 0.5950 1.1813 0.3230 0.3050 0.3110 0.5850 1.010: 1.1550 0.4070 0.3990 0.3650 0.3810 0.3551 1.1010 0.4200 1.4510 0.5800 0,3230 0 4371 ”-4910 1.0000 0.0560 0.4230 0.3060 3.3991 4.4510 0.8660 1.0000 0.5060 0.3110 0.365u 1.5300 0.4230 “.5060 1.8000 Ott2= 0.8851412704 VMI Best Simplex Matrix: Category A, Group 2 1.0000 0.5850 1.3810 U.SZSL 0.3050 0.3110 _ 1.5850 1.0101 =,1551 0.4070 0.3990 0.3650 3.3810 1.355w 7.0010 0.4200 “.4510 0.5000 113230 ”.437: 0.4?10 1.0000 4.8560 0.4230 _ 1.3051 0.5991 2.4510 0.8“60 1.0030 0.5060 1.5115 0.3“SN 1.5800 0.4?31 ".5060 1.0000 ——4—_________.__.___ fi+2= U,8851412704 TABLE 15.--Continued. 105 Original Simplex Matrix: Category A, Totals SIMPLE! MATRIX 1.0000 0.7220 0.4830 0.1250 0.0340 0.0880 007220 1.0000 0.5880 0.2330 0.1730 0.2050 0.4830 0.5000 1.0000 0.3520 0.3610 0.3940 0.1250 0.2330 9.3520 1.0000 0,8790 0.5770 0.0340 0.1730 0.3610 0.8790 1.0000 0.6270 0.0880 0.2050 0.3940 0.5770 0.6270 1.0000 7”"""”"”7 o..2= 0.9491500393 Best Simplex Matrix: Category A, Totals SIMPLE! MAifiIx 1.0000 0.7220 0.4330 0.1250 0.0880 0,0340 ’7” 0.7220 1.0000 0.5080 0.2330 0.2050 0.1730 0.4830 0.5050 1.0000 0.3520 0.3940 0.3610 0.1250 0.2330 0.3520 1.0000 0,5770 0,8790 0.0880 0.2050 0.3940 0.5770 1.0000 0.6270 0.0340 0.1730 0.3610 0.8790 0.6270 1.0000 0.12: 0.9593628359 106 TABLE l6.--Correlation Matrices and 02 Values for Original and Best Simplex Approximations, Category B, Category C, and Category D. Original Simplex Matrix: Category B, Group 1 1.0000 0.5040 0.5640 0.6710 0.6670 0.6730 0.5040 1.0000 0.3840 0.2830 0.3890 0.3290 0, 1-0000 0.7510 0.5500 0.6670 0.8710 0.2830 0.7510 1.0000 0.7530 0.8290 0.6870 0.3890 0.5500 0.7530 1.0000 0.8590 10,0-82304000.3290“ 0.6570, 0.8290 0.8590 1.0000 0002: 0.7655281283 Best Simplex Matrix: Category B, Group 1 -~-_ _ SIMPLE! MATRIX -“11.0000 0.5040 0.3840 0.2830 0.3290 0.3890 0.5040 1.0000 0.584 0.8710 0.8730 0.8870 -..__0l38A0___0T58A0___1l0000___0+1510___0l0010___0+5500____________. 0.2830 0.6710 0.7510 1.0000 0.8290 0.7530 0.3290 0.8730 0.8870 0.8290 1.0000 0.8590 - 0.3890-w-0r65101”w0.5500-em0+l53fl___0+fii20___l+flflflfl___________u_ 0002: 0.9331616906 107 TABLE 16.-—Continued. Original Simplex Matrix: Category C, Group 1 sIvPLEw “ATRIX ...—...._—.— .___ 1.0090 0.457; 1.5000 0.1350 1.0950 0.0190 0.4570 1.0300 1.2470 0.0930 0.1250 0.0510 0.3080 0.2470 1.0110 1.5020 0.5700 0.4040 0.1860 0.0981 1-5320 1.0000 _iliiln 0-0990 ,- 0.0950 0.125: 5.5710 0.8330 1.0300 0.5370 0.2190 0.0510 0.4040 0.4993 0.5370 1.0000 __ 0..35 0.9384448784 Best Simplex Matrix: Category C, Group 1 ..1.00£L__ Lia: :i_ 1.2010___0.0980 0.1200. 0.0510 0.4570 1.00ct (.3080 0.1880 0.0950 0.2190 0.2470 0.5(6r 1.0600 0.5920 0.5760 0.4040 0.098: 0.1980 1-3820 1.030; 3.0330 0.4990 0.125r 0.0951 {.5700 0.8330 1.0000 0.5370 0.0510 0.219: r.4040 0.4990 0.5570 1.0000 0002: 0,966§g48710 TABLE 16.——Continued. 108 Original Simplex Matrix: Category D, Group 1 1.0000 0.8810 0.1910 0.0430 0.1420 0.1940 0-0810 1.0000 0.3240 0.1520 0.1330 0.3040 0.1910 0.3240 1.0000 0.3030 0.3110 0.2400 0.0430 0.1520 0.3830 1.0000 0.6490 0.5530 -011020_H_011130_ 0.3110 0.8490 1.0000 0.7290 0.1940 0.3040 0.2400 0.5530 0.7290 1.0000 0..2= 0.9197309529 Best Simplex Matrix: Category D, Group 1 1.0000 0.6610 0.1910 U.1940 0.1420 0.0430 ,0.6010 ,,,,, 11.0000H,,0.;240 0-3040 0.1330 n_1520 0.1910 0.3240 1.0000 0.2400 0.3110 0.3830 0.1940 0.3040 0.2400 1.0000 0.7290 0.5530 10.1020 0_1310 0.3110 0.7790 1.0000 0.8490 0.0430 0.1520 0.3830 0.5530 0.6490 1.0000 0902: 0,9519858299 TABLE l7.--Correlation Matrices and Q2 Values for Original and Best Simplex Approximations, Category E. 109 Original Simplex Matrix: Category E, Group 1 1.0000 0.3‘2r ".5190 0.0050 0.0180 0.1130 0.3390 1.0'01 0.4240 0.1970 0.1600 6.2430 0.5190 0-4940. 1.0000 0.0510 0.1550 0.1080 0.0060 (.137: {.0510 1.0000 0.9600 0.9460 0.0150 0.101: 0.1550 0.9000 1.0000 0.9440 0-1130 1.2011 :.1080 0.9d00 0.9440 1.0000 00‘2: 0.91003?6596 Best Simplex Matrix: Category B, Group 1 1.0000 0.5191 0.3320 0.1130 0.0180 0.0050 0-5190 1.01;: 114g40 0.1500 0.1550 0.0510 0.3320 0.4?40 1.0000 0.2430 0.1600 0.1970 0.1130 0.1:6! 0.2430 1.0000 0.9440 0.9460 _._11010100___0112511_11.1000__,0-3440 1.0000 0.9600 0.0050 {.0511 7.1970 0.9460 0.9690 1.0000 0002: 0.9334371487 TABLE l7.--Continueg, L A— 110 Original Simplex Matrix: Category B, Group 2 1.000“ c.613H [.5090 0.3830 0.4900 0.3530 0:6;3L 1gb L; Ltflflé; CASIZL Qiblin Bp4960 0.500“ 1.8fbw r.voJc u.445t (.5110 0.4410 0.383L n.5'?’ ”.4430 1.0F0L 0.8840 0.7480 m_mwi0¢490u tihi;~ refill; L.BP&L ilcutn L57P90 8.353t n.4V6F “.441L L.748£ 0.7890 1.0000 th2= b.94779°8067 Best Simplex Matrix: Category E, Group 2 -‘ 1.000“ n.5fi91 0.6130 0.4099 6.3830 0,3530 0.509“ 1.0NU‘ “.Rcén 0.5116 0.4430 0.4410 .li- 0L613n gid'h‘ lijsin nihiii n.6029 c.4960 0.499“ 9.511v ”.ulit 1.0wCL r.nu4o 0,7890 0.3816 5.443. v.502c 3.884P 1.~uwc 0,7480 or”_lolfifilh_m_4-fliiiwmill32gri_mu.ZH9? F.74RD 1.0000 UttZ: 0.9601976834 *---1—....-77-._ , 111 TABLE l7.—-Continued. Original Simplex Matrix: Category E. Totals SIMPLEX MATRIX 1.0000 0.5000 0.3940 0.1990 0.3170 0.1290 0.5000 1.0000 0.5410, 0.3630 0.4390 0.3540 0.3940 0.5410 1.0030 0.1680 0.1670 0.1340 0.1990 0.3630 0.1680 1.0000 0.9130 0.8460 0.3170 0.4390 0.16701 0.9130 1.0000 0.8450 0.1290 0.3540 0.1340 0.8460 0.8450 1.0000 0..2= 0.9074594923 Best Simplex Matrix: Category E, Totals SIMPLEX MATRIX 1.0000 0.3940 0.5410 0.1670 0.1680 0.1340 0.3940 1.0000 0.5000 0.3170 0.1990 0.1290 0.5410 0.5000 1.0000 0.4390 0.3630 0.3540 0.1670 0.3170 0,4390 1.0000 0.9130 0.9450 0.1680 0.1990 0.3630 0.9130 1.0000 0.8460 0.1340 0.1290 0.3540 0.8450 0.8460 1.0000 Qi¢2= 0.9715526321 112 TABLE 18.—-Correlation Matrices and 02 Values for Original and Best Simplex Approximations, Category F. i Original Simplex Matrix: ht Category F, Group 1 1.0000 0.699! 0.0989 0.1190 0.2410 0.2490 0.6920 110:0; 0.0410 0.2010 0.4130 0.3710 0.0985 0.040f 7.9630 J.Ufi7( 9.0540 0.070? 0.1190 0.291. ".0870 1.000r 0.0440 0.8520 ”012110. L.511; 1.0540 3.9440 110000 0.8690 0.2490 0.3?1« 1.070. 0.8520 0.8690 1.0000 00:2: 0.6312280427 Best Simplex Matrix: Category G. Group 1 1.0000 0.098! 0.0400 0.0700 9.0540 0.0870 0.0980 1.0300 0.6990 L.2490 0.2410 0.1190 _1 “110.0400 411699" 110000 0.3111 6.4130 0.2810 ._ 0.0200 1-11259111-_.321011 11100L11l£18920 0.8520 1-1111 0.0540 1.291: $.f130 L.8!9! 1.0000 0.9440 0.0870 ;.;?9: 1.?810 0.892: 0.9440 1.0000 08.2: 0.9466534654_M TABLE l8.-—Continued. 113 Original Simple Matrix: Category F, Group 2 It..- on uA-nnv DIHVLCK MATHIA 1.0000 0.7840 0.0910 —AI ‘ I I 0.0910 0.4430 1.0000 0.4910 0.2560 0.2430 I n I 0.1520 0.0490 0.2070 0.4910 0,2090 0.1520 I I 0.2430 0.0900 0.2070 1.0000 0.9120 0.8370 I I I 0.8370 0.9190 1.0000 Q992- 0.8227Q70566 Best Simplex Matrix: Category F, Group 2 sanLE= 0023:: “'fi. . 9 0.0910 0.7540 1.0000 0.2430 0.26?0 0.4910 “7 I I 0:2070 0.0490 0.1520 0.2430 0.0900 0.2070 . 0.4910 0.2090 0.1520 1.0000 0.9120 0.8370 I 0:0370 019190 1.0000 0..2= 0.8752847706 114 TABLE 18.--Continued. Original Simplex Matrix: Category F, Group 3 SIMPLE! "Afflix 1.0000 0.0070 0.2730 0.1490 0.1290 0,0930 0.0370 1.0000 0.6230 0.0990 0.3610 0.2010 0 I I I I 0:1490 0.0990 0.6330 1.0000 0.0970 0.9570 0.1290 0.3610 0.6610 0.0970 1.0000 0.8890 0 a I 0 0 I 0002: 0.88105611l6 Best Simplex Matrix: Category F, Group 3 SIMPLE! MATRIX ———170000———070040———0Te960———0T1290———010900———0T1490 0.0870 1.0000 0.6230 0.3610 0.2010 0.0990 0.2730 0.6250 1.0000 0.6610 0.7340 0.6330 . _ . ' ' _ 0.0930 0:2010 0.7340 0.8890 1.0000 0.9570 0.1490 0.0990 0.6330 0.0070 0.9570 1.0000 e0+.2.A 9018840943050;— 115 TABLE 18.--Continued. Original Simplex Matrix: Category F, Totals IIMPLEI HAfRIX 1.0000 0.6300 0.0310 0.0520 0.0840 0.0820 0.6300 1.0000 0.0730 0.1960 0.2670 0.2430 $.03 I I 0 0.0520 0.1900 0.1490 1.0000 0.9390 0.0400 0.0840 0.2670 0.1480 0.9390 1.0000 0.5750 ”##00 o o I 0 0002- 0.8324840653 Best Simplex Matrix: Category F, Totals SIMPLE! MATRIX 1.0000 0.6300 0.0310 0.0840 0.0820 0.0520 0.6300 1.0000 000730 0.2670 0.2430 0.1960 0 0 0 0 0.0840 0.2670 0.1480 1.0000 0.0750 0.9390 0.0820 0.2‘30 0.0930 0.8750 1.0000 0.8.60 .— 0 0 r 0 0 I 0002. 0.6302016429 116 for the "best approximation" for every group and for every category. Although Kaiser's (1962) simplex approxi- mation test does not take into account the occurrence of negative correlations, few of the groups or categories had any negative correlations in their simplexes. Chapter III stated that a 02 value of .70 is accepted as reflecting a satisfactory simplex approximation according to the Jordan-Hamersma 6 reversal criteria (Hamersma, 1969). Only one correlation matrix failed to exceed this criteria (Category F, group 1). It is not known why this group failed to achieve the 02 value of .70. When the adjacent pairs were reordered to form the "best simplex" this group Q2 value rose to .94. When the category totals were analyzed all of them exceeded the required 02 value of .70. The data of Tables 15 to 18 therefore support Hypothesis 1: that the ABS:DU does form a simplex. The simplex structure obtained here is also viewed as a measure of construct validity. H-2: The six research categories will rank order at Level 6, as hypothesized in Table 12. Hypothesis 2 was analyzed by rank ordering the means of Level 6 for the six categories. Table 12 rank cardered the categories so that F Hm.He mm.me mh.ms m HV.HA mw.os mm.ms om.ms em.ms mo.mm m H».Hh Hm.os om.mn mv.Hs om.ms mm.Hm v vm.ms sm.mm mm.ms om.ms mm.ms 00.0» m av.om om.wm mm.mm ss.mm oo.mw vo.wo m _om.mm os.mm mm.mm ma.mm ma.mo Hm.mm H AHMQOflmmwmoum AHHH Ugo Amoamcwwcflmz Aucmfipmmue oz Aamcoflmmwmoum Imnmm H «mdz AHH wq mcmwz mnommumo .Hm>wq an mammz ooumono Mcmm cam huommum01|.ma mqm<9 118 .Doumm< ogp mo Hm>mH some so oma on ow Eoum mmcmu mouoom smog Q Hmcoflmmmmoumllmumflmmuwne Spammm Hmuawz .m choflmmmmoummummllmpmammswze swammm Hmucoz .m usmfiummue HHH mam H ¢m<21|muoflwo¢ afloumm .o ucmsummue HH ¢moq m m 00mm mcflaomm Hmopo¢ m Hm>0q 4 ommom Hmoflpwnuommm v Hm>mq < 0mm m m Hmuoz m Hm>0q 4 om m om w>HumEHOZ m H0>0q < om mom UHQmuomHmum a H0>mq om mm om mm on mm om mm wanmuo>mm magmuo>mmcb .H0>0q an Doumma no uwcflmpno chmmzwmuommpmo mo Hmouo Mcmm m>flpmfluomflall.om mqmma mUQMOHwHQmHmm Amm.v NH.I Amo.v no. Am>.v mo.| Amm.v hH.I Amv.v ma. Amm.v co. m Hm>mq Amm.v Hm.| AMd.V mm. Amm.v mo. Amm.v ma. Amw.v ma. ANH.V ma. m Hw>mq Avm.c om.- Awm.v om. 1mm.v sm.- Aoa.v mo. Ama.v Hm. Amo.c mm. a H0>0q Amuse mm.- Asfi.v mm. me.v mm.- Aom.v SH.- Amm.v Ho.- Ams.v so. m Hm>0q Aav.v o~.| Amm.v NH.| Aah.v mo.| Amo.v nm.| Amm.v NH. Amm.v HH.I N Hm>mq Abm.v HH.I Amm.v mo. Amo.v mm.l Amm.v mH.I on.v hH.| Aom.v mH.I H Hm>mq Raccoflmmmmoum AHHH paw Amoomcopcflmz Auooaummna oz Aamaoflmmmwoum Imumm H fimaz AHH ¢m¢z mcoomnuwz IlompmumoumoaH Ilmumflmmnwnev Ilmumflmmumnev myofloofiv Ilmpofloomv Ilmpofioodv macaoodv m m D U m 4m 6 Hm>mq .muommpmo ma .saummm mo mam>mq m msu ou mm: mono HmmmHHH mo omam>mq mUQMUMMHcmHm pom wcoflumamuu00|l.am mqmmH N HmHm.HMHH H Hm>mH H mmmh.o NmHm.o mvmm.o mmmm.o Hooo.o mMMH.NH Hooo.o mMMH.NH cuss mmmH m m c3oo moum cane mmmH m m muMHHw>HGD .Um 2mm: cmmzpmm mHQMHHm> Hooo.o cosy mme m oooo.~om cam 0H 0 .m .o mmoo.m u mHOpom> smmz mo muHHmsvm mo Home wHMHHm>HuHDz How 0Hpmmlm Novm.vH omOH¢m.mom N HO>OH N mmmm.m hhmmmm.mm H Hw>mH H COHumH>mo oumocmum mUCMHHm> mHQMHHm> momo¢.om oooom.mm m momom.wm bmmmm.mm m oommm.mm ooomm.mm v mhnhH.mm mmmmH.mm m ooooo.mm mmmmH.mw N HummH.mm mN¢Hm.mm H m Hm>mH H Hm>mH mmHQMHHm> mum msEsHoo mHHmU mum mzomllmcmmz HHmU .N van H mHm>mH so AmumHmmumnev m .m mmHHommpmo ou AmuoHowmv .0 .0 .m .¢ .mmHHommumo Mo QOmHHMQEOU .mUCMHHm> mo mHmmHmcd OUMHHM>HMH52II.NN mqm¢e 123 therapist categories (E and F) and found to be significantly different at the .025 level. The estimate of comparison was kA+kB+kC+%D-%E=%F=24.66 and the confidence internal was : 17.65 (d=.025). A second Scheffe' test was performed between the federal prison addicts (Category C) and the professional therapists (Category F) and found to be significantly different. The estimate of comparison was C-F=6.65 and the confidence internal was :_6.58 (a=.025). A third Scheffe' test was performed between cate— gories A, B, and C and categories D, E, and F and found to be significantly different. The estimate of comparison was (A+B+C)-(D+E+F)=24.26 and the confidence internal was 113.0. Thus, it is apparent that categories A, B, and C do not differ significantly from each other, and that categories D, E, and F do not significantly differ from each other either, but that categories A, B, and C do significantly differ from categories D, E, and F. To summarize, it can be stated that the therapist's categories differ significantly from the addict categories on Level 1, but not on Level 2. It must also be stated that the direction of the difference is opposite from what was hypothesized. Hypothesis 4 stated that the addicts would have more unfavorable attitude-behaviors (lower mean scores) than the therapists. What occurred was that the addicts had more favorable (higher mean scores) than the 124 therapists. The rationale for the directionality of the hypothesis was that addicts would View others as being more opposed to illegal drug users than therapists who would feel that society is now spending considerable effort to rehabilitate illegal drug users. What the research showed was that the therapists view society's attitude toward the illegal drug user as being more negative than the addicts' view of society's attitudes. Implications of what this means will be discussed in Chapter V. Thus, it must be stated that although there was a significant difference between therapists and addicts on Level 1, the directionality was the opposite of the hypothesis, and therefore the hypothesis as it was stated was not accepted. H—S: The addict categories (C and D) who are involved in the NARA treatments will have more unfavorable attitude-behaviors toward illegal drug users on Levels 3, 4, 5, and 6 than addict categories (A and B) who are just incarcerated or on methadone maintenance. Hypothesis 5 was tested by the Finn (1970) multi- variate analysis of variance program, the same program used for testing Hypothesis 4. The data (Table 23) indicate there was not a significant difference between categories A, B, and categories C, D, on Levels 3, 4, 5, and 6. Examination of Tables 19 and 20 indicate that categories B, C, and D are clustered together on Levels 3 and 4. Category A is separated from the other categories on all Levels. In terms of mean scores categories C and 125 hhH n uouum How Eocmmum mo mmmummo m n memauomwm How Eowmmum mo mmmhmmo mmnm.o Hwom.o mmHv.o mNmm.o Nmom.MNw m Hm>wH v Hmmm.o m~mv.o mNhH.o ommw.H Nmmm.mo> m Ho>mH m vao.o mmhm.m NmmN.o vHoN.H mvmo.mmv v Hm>mH N vomn.o vmvm.o womb.o vmvm.o mmHN.NHH m Hm>wH H Gaze mmmq m m c300 mmgm cone mmmH m m mpmHHm>HcD .wm cows cmmzumm mHQMHHm> Hmmm.o 60:0 mmmH m mmmm.omv cam NH 0 .m .a mHmm.H n muouom> 6602 mo mpHHmsvm mo 0609 006H06>H0H92 now oHummum momo.HN vmmmmm.vvv m Hm>mH v momm.0N hmmmom.HNv m Hm>wH m mmmm.mH mmwNmN.hvm v Hm>wH N mmvm.hH vavmo.NNm m Hw>mH H cOHHMH>mD wumwamum OOQMHHM> OHQMHHm> oomhm.mm ooomm.mh oooom.mn oomhm.Nh v mhhhh.wm oooov.hm oooom.mm NNNNo.mh m mOMNv.m5 mommm.Nh oooom.Nh vawm.Nh N vaHm.Nh mehH.mh oooow.mh memw.mm H m Hm>mH m Hm>mH v Hm>mH m Hm>mH mmHQmHHm> mum mcESHoo mHHoO mum m3omllmcmmz HHmU .m pom .m .v .m mHm>mH so a .O mmHuommumo on m .m mmHHommpmo mo GOmHummfioo .mosmHHm> mo mHmemcd mHMHum>H0HSZII.mN mqmoH m ommm.o bmmm.o hmhm.o Nwwm.o vaN.ow m Ho>oH N mHHm.o m¢mv.o mHHw.o mvmw.o mmww.nv w Hm>wH H asz mme m m c309 mwwm cmsfi mme m m opmHHm>HcD .Wm cmw: cmosbmm mHQMHHm> wmom.o swap mmmH m oooo.¢wH Uzm m H mHON.H H mHOHoo> com: HO NHHHmsvm Ho Hmme GHMHH0>HHH52 Hm HQ HOw OHpmmlm mOHm.m mmonH.oa m H0>0H m ommH.OH mmmmmn.mOH m H0>0H N Hman.m Hmommo.wm H H0>0H H QOHHHMHNVQD UHMUCM#W QOQMHHMNV @HQNHHMN/ mHmHm.am momow.HH mmHOH.HH m HHHH®.H@ oooom.am wmmmo.mm N Hmom0.mH mmmmm.NH oooom.HH H m H®>wfl m H®>®1H w H®>®HH meQmHHm> who mQESHoo mHHoO mum mBOMIImemz HHoo mH .m pom .m w mH®>wH co m paw Nm mmHHommpmo OH H mmHuommHmo mo QOmHHmmEOU 1OOGMHMmS HO mHmemcm mumHHm>HHHDZII..¢N MHmmH N HNhH.o 55mm.H HNhH.o hh¢m.H mMNm.va v Hm>mH H cone mmmq m m c30o mmpm case mmmq m m mHMHHm>HGD .vm ammz cmwzumm wHQMHHm> mmmm.o swap mmmH m oooo.Nm can N u .m .o mNmo.H I mHOpom> sow: mo muHHmsvm mo umme mHMHHm>HuH52 How oHHMMIm mmmN.hH mmNmmH.mmN m Hm>mH N mNmo.mH «NOHhm.mNN v Hm>mH H COHHMH>mo onwonmum mocMHHm> mHQMHHm> oomhm.mm oooom.mn N mhnn>.mm oooom.mm H m Hm>oH v Hm>mH meQMHHm> mum mCEsHou mHHmO mum m30MIImcmmz HHmU .0 com 0 mmHHommumu How m Hm>mq 0H v Hm>mq mo cOmHHmmEOU .mUGMHHm> mo mHmmHmcm mHMHum>HHHDEII.mN mqmde 130 H—8: Importance of religion will be negatively related to favorable attitude—behaviors toward illegal drug users on Levels 3, 4, 5, and 6 for addicts (Categories A, B, C, and D).. Hypothesis 8 was tested by correlating variable 11 (importance of religion) to Levels 3, 4, 5, and 6. Variable 11 asks the subject to rate the importance to him of his religion in his daily life. Table 26 shows the resulting correlations for the four addict categories by Level. Category C was the only addict category having a significant correlation, and that was for Level 6 (.33). The correlations for the therapist's categories E and F were also analyzed and a significant pattern of negative correlations appeared for the professionals (Category F) on Levels 4 and 6 and very close on Level 5. The pro- fessionals had consistently high scores for importance of religion and low scores for attitude-behaviors toward illegal drug users. Therefore, although none of the addict categories had a pattern of significant correlations, causing Hypothesis 8 to be rejected, the professional therapists (Category F) did have a significant pattern of correlations, indicating that Hypothesis 8 may apply to professional therapists, but not to any other category. H—9: Amount of education will be negatively related to favorable attitude—behaviors toward illegal drug users on all six Levels. Hypothesis 9 was tested by correlating variable 12 (amount of education) to all six Levels. Variable 12 asks .mmmmnpcwumm CH mHm>oH mocmoHMHcmHmm 131 H0H.0 60.- Alm.0 mm. 16H.0 60.- H60.0600.- 6 H0>0H HH6.0 60. 106.0 60. HH0.0 0H.- H00.0 60.- 6 H0>0H H06.0 60.- Asm.0 0H. Hmm.0 HN.- H66.0 N0.- 0 H0>0H H00.0 00.- H00.0 6H. HH6.0 0H.- H60.0 mm. m H0>0H 1H0.0 6H.- 100.0 00. 106.0 0H.- H66.0 00. m H0>0H H66.0 60. 166.0 00. HH6.0 HH. H00.0 00. H H0>0H HHHH cam AmocmcmpsHmz HpcmfipmmHB oz H mmmz HHH Hmflz maoomflpmz IlpmpmumoumocH 600H60¢0 -600H60<0 -mHoH66<0 mHOHuwmv Q U m HH. Ho>oH .0 com .0 .m .¢ mmHHommHmu How Dmuwmd mo mHm>mH 6 may 0H GOHmHHmm mo mocmpHogfiH mo omHm>mH mocmoHHHcmHm can chHHMHmHHOOII.mN MHmde 132 the subject to indicate the amount of education he has had. Table 27 shows the resulting correlations for the six categories by Level. There were no significant correla- tions between variable 12 and six Levels for the four addict categories, indicating that this variable is not predictive of attitude-behaviors for addicts. A definite pattern of significant correlations appeared for both the therapist categories (E and F) on Levels 4, 5, and 6. The paraprofessionals (E) had correlations of .42, .50, and .53 for Levels 4, 5, and 6. The professionals (F) had correlations of .30 and .32 for Levels 4 and 6 respectively. Thus, there is a strong relationship between the amount of education for therapists and their attitude- behaviors toward illegal drug users on Levels 4, 5, and 6. Since the data only partially supports Hypothesis 9, the hypothesis cannot be accepted. H-lO: Age will be negatively related to favorable attitude-behaviors toward illegal drug users on all six Levels. Hypothesis 10 was tested by correlating variable 8 (age) to all six Levels. There were no significant cor- relations (Table 28) occurring for any category or Level, indicating that the age variable by itself is not sig- nificantly related to attitude—behaviors toward illegal drug users. Thus, Hypothesis 10 is not accepted. This may indicate that attitude-behaviors toward illegal drug 133 .mmmmnpcmumm CH me>mH woconchmHmm H60.0 mm. HH00.0 66. HHm.0 6H. H06.0 00.- HOH.0 60. H60.0H00. 6 H0>0H HH0.0 Hm. 1600.0 06. H66.0 H0. H06.0 50.- H66.0 00.- Hom.0 6H. 6 H0>0H HHH.0 06. HHN.0 N0. H00.0 6H.- H00.0000.- H06.0 NH.- HHH.0 HH. 0 H0>0H HH0.0 NH. HHm.0 6H.- H60.0 HH.- H6H.0 mm.- HH0.0H00.- H00.0 H0. 6 H0>0H H00.0 NH.- Hms.0 60.- HHH.0 mm.- H00.0 6H.- H6m.0 6H.- HHH.0 0H. N H6>0H H6H.0 mm. H6N.0 0H.- Hmm.0 06.- HHm.0 6H.- HNH.0 Hm.- Hm6.0 60.- H H0>0H AHmQOHmmmmoum HHHH cam Hmocmcouchz HucmEummHB oz HHMGOHmmmHOHm Iwumm H «MHZ HHH 4mmH .mmHHommumo wn .ooummH Ho 6H0>0H 6 map 0H COHumosom mo unsofid Mo mmHm>mH mocmoHMHcmHm cam mCOHumHmHHOUII.hN mam/NH. 134 .mmmmCHCmHmm CH mHm>mH GUCMOHHHCmHmM 160.0 HH.- H6m.0 6H.- H06.0 HH.- 1H0.0 N0.- H0m.0 mm.- H66.0 m0.- 6 H06H 106.0 60.- H66.0 0H. 166.0 H0.- H00.0 ~0.- HNH.0 06.- H60.0 Hm.- 6 H0>0H 166.0 00.- H6H.0 00. H66.0.60. 100.0 H0.- 100.0 H0. H60.0 0H.- 0 H06H H66.0 00.- 16H.0 mm. HHH.0 60.- H66.0 m0.- 106.0 NH.- Hm6.0 60.- m H6>0H AH0.0 NH. HOH.V mN. Amm.vvoo.- How.v mH.- HmH.v 6N.- HHm.v mo.n N H6566H 106.0 60. Hum.0 H0. H60.0000. 166.0 0H.- H00.0 HH.- HH0.0 H0.- H H0>0H HHMCOHmmmHOHm HHHH pr HmoCMCmHCHmz HpCmEpmmHB oz HHmCOHmmmHOHm Imem H mmfiz HHH «MHZ oCOUMCme InpmpmHmOHHOCH -606H0600300 -606H0600090 mHoH6600 -600H66¢0 -600H6640 mHoH66¢0 m m D U m HH. Hm>mH .moHHomoumo HQ .Daummm Ho mHm>mH m mCu OH mm< Ho mmHm>mH mOCMOHHHCmHm UCM mCoHHwHoHHOOII.mN HHmNB 135 users is correlated with groups of variables and not single variables by themselves. H-ll: Addicts who score high on change orientation will have less favorable attitude—behaviors on Levels 3, 4, 5, and 6. Hypothesis 11 was tested by a multiple correlation program which produced a multiple correlation between responses to the six change orientation questions and Levels 3, 4, 5, and 6 for the four addict categories (A, B, C, and D). The multiple and partial correlations for these variables, by category, are presented in Table 29. Examination of these variables indicates that the combined variance of these variables are statistically significant on Levels 3, 4, 5, and 6 for each of the four categories. Partial correlations permit simultaneous examina- tion of a number of variables with the dependent variable (in this case, Level scores of the ABS:DU). When a series of Pearson product moment correlations are examined between predictor variables and a dependent variable, spurious conclusions might be drawn if the predictor variables are themselves interrelated. However, partial correlations take into consideration the relationships among the predictor variables and partial out the "unique“ correlation of each variable with the dependent variable. This permits examination of the relationship between two variables while holding the others constant. 136 1N0.0 00. H00.0 00. H60.0 00. H 0.0 00. 0H6m0 m 0H0H0H02 H66.0 HH.- H6N.0 6H.- H6N.0 6a.- 166 0 0H. 60Hsm 30HH00 6H Hm6.0 HH.- 166.0 6H.- H06.0 60.- HNH 0 60.- 00Hsm 0>00000 HH 16H.0 «6. 160.0 Hm. H66.0 0H. H60 0 00. 00H000o000 6H H00000000H02 H60.0 0N. Hmm.0 Hm. H60.0 6H. H60 0 H0. H000000 000Hm 6H 00000000: 100.0 00. HH6.0 6H. H0m.0 6m. HaH.0 0N. 00H000m 0H000 0H -m0000000 HON.0 0m.- HHN.0 6m.- H60.0 HH. H66.0 6H. 6H0: 0H 006 6H m H000000o 1600.0 66. H 00.0 06. H600.0 66. H600.0 60. 0H000 m 0H000H02 HHN.0 6H. HHm.0 06. HH00.0 66. HHm.0 H0. 00Hsm 30HH06 6H H6H.0 6H. 166.0 HH.- 106.0 HH.- HmH.0 0H. 00Hsm 0>00mao HH 60.0 Hm. H00.0 0H. H06.0 6H. 166.0 HH. qOH0mso000 6H H000s00000 oz H6N.0 0H.- Hm0.0 H0. “00.0 H0. AHH.0 00. H000coo 000Hm 6H -00000000000H H66.0 HH. A0bb.0 66. H6b-.0 06. 166.0 60. 0000006 0HH00 0H 000H00<0 HHH.0 00. 160.0 mm. A60.0 Hm. 00.0 HH. 0H0; 00 006 6H m NC000000 m Hw>®1H m HO>®H v Hm>OHH m Hw>®fi OHQMHHM> NAHOGTHMU .0 6C0 10 .m .d mmHHOmemo Ho mH®>wH Cmmsumm MHw>wH 0 00H00H00> aoH00000H00 000000 600 000600 00 6 000 6 .0 .6 mmOCMOHwHCmHm 6C0 mCoHHMHonHoo mHmHHHCE pCm HmHHHmm-.mN HHmCH .mnommumu 00H 2 n .mmmmnucmumm CH mHm>mH m6OCMOHHHCmHmm 137 mH. OH.I mH.I NH.- mo. 0H. vm. NN. mo. mo. mo. wN. 60. 0H000 m 0H0H0H0z No. mmHCm 3oHHom mH mo.- mmHsm 0>Hmmoo NH Nm.- CoHumEousm 6H vo.| HOHHCOO CHHHm mH NH.- mCHummm 0HHno 0H «m. mmmz CH Hmm MH 00. 0H600 m 0HCH0H02 6N. mmHCm onHom mH mo. mmHCm m>ummao NH HH. COHfiMEOHDfi mH mo. HOHHCOO Canm mH mo.l OCHHmmm UHHSU vH OH. m%03 CH #mm ma HHHH pCm H ¢m¢z InmuoHchV 0 %0000000 HHH «642 -m00H00¢0 U whommpmu 138 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 to determine which variable(s) is contributing most to the variance at a given Level. Examination of the partial correlations (Table 29) indicates that categories A and C both have patterns of significant correlations for variable 18 (following rules) for Levels 3, 4, and 5, and category A for Level 6. Variable 18 states "I find it easier to follow rules than to do things on my oWn." Four responses are available, from agree strongly to disagree strongly. Categories A and C both scored very high on the "disagree strongly" response, indicating that they do things on their own rather than follow rules. Variable 18, therefore, is the only partial correlation that has a pattern of significant correlations for categories A and C. The fact that the multiple correlations do not vary widely across Levels for all categories suggests that the variables chosen for inclusion in the multiple correlations do not differentially correlate with different Levels of attitude-behaviors as measured by the ABS:DU. In summary, the multiple correlation data indicate. that the combination of change orientation variables do account for a significant portion of the variance, 139 therefore affirming Hypothesis 11 that the change orienta— tion variables are significantly related to attitude- behaviors on Levels 3, 4, 5, and 6 for Categories A, B, C, and D. H-12: Addicts who score high on political activism will have less favorable attitude—behaviors on Levels 3, 4, 5, and 6. Hypothesis 12 was tested by the multiple correla- tion program which was used to test Hypothesis 11. Nine political activism variables (Variables 19 through 27) were correlated to Levels 3, 4, 5, and 6 for the four addict categories (A, B, C, and D). The multiple and partial correlations for these variables, by category, are pre- sented in Table 30. Examination of these variables indi- cates that the combined variance of these variables are statistically significant on Levels 3, 4, 5, and 6 for each of the four categories. Examination of the partial correlations (Table 30) indicates that there are no significant patterns on Levels across categories. The only significant pattern for category A was variable 26 (political change) on Levels 4 and 6. Category B had a significant pattern for variable 23 (civil disturbances) on Levels 4, 5, and 6. Category C had a significant pattern for variable 24 (political revolution) on Levels 3, 4, 5, and 6. Category D had a significant pattern for Variable 23 (civil 140 Hmmm.0 6H. ANNN.0 06. H 0.0 06. H 0.0 60. 0H6N0 m 0H0H0H02 HNN.0 06. HNH.0 Hm. H0N.0 0N. H66.0 NH.- 00H>00m 00004 0N HH0.0 60. “N0.0 60. H00.0 00.- 60.0 00.- 000000 H00H0HHom 6N H00.0 N0. H60.0 00. H60.0 0H. H66.0 NN. 0OH00Ho>0m H0Hoom 6N Hmm.0 60.- Hmw.0 NH. Hbm.0 00.- H60.0 H0.- 0OH00Ho>0m H00H0HH00 0N H60.0 00.- HHbI.0 H6.- H60.0 60.- H6m.0 6N.- 0000000006H0 HH>H0 6N :H; 06.- 60; H6.- $0.0 6H.- 66; NH. 00H0o> NN H6H.0 66.- H6N.0 6N.- HN6.0 6H.- HNO.V 0N.- 0oH0000m H00000000H02 ICoEmQ HMOHHHHom HN 0C0©0C0®E H60.0 6H. HH0.0 N0. H00.0 00. H00.0 60. 60HHH06 H0000HHom 0N -m00H0000 H00.0 0H.- H6H.0 6m.- HHH.0 06.- H00.0 00.- 0000000000 H0000HH00 0H m 00000000 H600.0 60. H6 0.0 66. H 00.0 06. H 00.0 60. HHON0 m 0H0H0H02 H00.0 HH. IMM.0 NH. HMH.0 0H. HOH.0 HN. 00H>00m 00000 0N H66.0 00. HN00.0 66. H600.0 mm. H6N.0 0H. 000000 H0000HHo0 6N HH0.0 60. H66.0 60. H00.0 00. H00.0 N0.- 0oH00Ho>0m H0Hoom 6N HN6.0 6H. H66.0 00. H60.0 00. H00.0 60.- 0oH00Ho>0m H00H0HHom 0N H60.0 00. H06.0 HH. H6m.0 HH. HOH.0 00. 6000000000H0 HH>H0 6N 006.0 N0. 100.0 H0.- H00.0 HH.- 100.0 00. 00H0o> NN H66.0 00.- H06.0 00. H00.0 HH. H00.0 00. 0oH00006 H000000000 oz lCoEmQ HMOHHHHom HN IlpwumumoHMOCH H00.0 N0. H6m.0 NH.- H66.0 60.- H6H.0 00.- m0HHH0m H00H0HH00 0N 000H00<0 H00.0 00. HNH.0 0N. HNH.0 0N. H66.0 00. 0000000000 H00H0HH00 0H 0 00000000 m Hw>mH m Hw>mH v Hw>mH m Ho>®H mHQMHHm> huommumu .0 0C0 .0 .m .< mmHHomwpmo How mmHQmHum> EmH>Huo¢ HmoHHHHom 0C0 Donmmfl H0 0 0C0 .m .0 .m me>mH CmQBme mH0>wH MQOCMOHHHCmHm UCm mCOHHMHmHHOU mHmHuHCE UCm HMHuHmm-|.om mqmda 141 .muom0u0o 000.2 0 .00000000000 00 0H0>0H 0000000000000 mo. Ho.l 00. HH. OH. ma. no. ma. ON. «0.: 00.! am. ow. no. ma. om. om.l ma. Amm.v “Hm.v Amm.v AMH.V Amo.v Amo.v 000.0 0H0.0 Amo.0 hm. OH. vo.l om. hm.l mm. Hm. NH. mo. 0m. 00.! 50.: am. am. No. mo. Ho.l mo.l mm. Ammm.v AHH.V Amm.v AHN.V ANb.v AHb.v AHo.v 000.0 AAAAAAA mrquwmrar~m mcnuwocuuam O vvvvvvv mm. 00. mm. mm.| 00. m0. no.l mo. 0H. mo. NH.I ho.l Hm. mm. oa.l 5H. 0H. Ho.l mm. Am 0.0 AmH.v 0H0.v 000.0 0000.0 ANN.V Amm.v Aom.v Avm.v AHN.V hv. 0H. HN.I «0.: ma.l mm. NH. mo. no.l om. om. mm.| va.l 0H. vv. om.| mo. na. ma.l am. 00000 0 0H000Hsz 000>00m 00800 000000 H00000Hom 00000H0>0m H0fioom 00000H0>0m H00000H00 000000000000 HH>HU m0flpo> 000000000 100000 H00000H00 000HH0m H00H00H00 0000000000 H0000HH00 mm mm mm 0N mm mm Hm om ma 00000 0 0H000H00 000>00m 00600 000000 H0UHuHH00 00000H0>0m H0floom 00000H0>0m H0000HH00 000000000000 H0>HU 0000o> 000000000 100800 H0OHuHH00 m0HHH0m H0owuHH00 0000000000 H00000H00 hm mm mm 0N mm mm Hm om ma AHHH 600 H deZ --00000000 0 muommu0o AHH ¢m4z uu00000000 U muom0u0u 142 disturbances) on Levels 3, 4, and 5. These data indicate that future research may need to look for different pre- dictors of drug related attitude-behaviors for different groups, as well as looking at the interaction of predictor variables. The multiple correlation data indicate that the combination of political activism variables do account for a significant portion of the variance, therefore affirming Hypothesis 12 that the political activism variables are significantly related to attitude-behaviors on Levels 3, 4, 5, and 6 for categories A, B, C, and D. H-l3: Addicts who score high on Efficacy (environmental control) will have less favorable attitude- behaviors on Levels 3, 4, 5, and 6. Hypothesis 13 was tested by correlating variable 38 (Efficacy) t0 Levels 3, 4, 5, and 6. Efficacy is measured by an adaptation of Wolf's (1967) Life Situations scale. Table 31 depicts the actual size and direction of the correlations obtained for this variable for Levels 3, 4, 5, and 6. No significant pattern of correlations appeared. Thus, Hypothesis 13 is not accepted. H-l4: Addicts define illegal drug users in the ABS:DU as heroin users. Hypothesis 14 was tested by item 7 of the ABS:DU Definitional Supplement. This supplement was included so that respondents would indicate how they defined an illegal 143 .00000000000 00 0H0>0H 000000000m0m0 o o o o m>®nH 000.0 mm.- Aho.v Hm.- Amw.v HH. Amm.v mH.- Ame V mo I Ham v mo 0 H . . . . 0>0 A00.v NH.- 000.0 mH.I 000.0 00. Anm.v 0H.: Hum 0 mm I Ava V Ho m H 0 ANN.0 0H.- ANm.V HH.- 000.0 mH.- AHm.0 0H. 000.0 00. 000.0 00.- 0 H0>0H 000.0 00.- 000.0 H0. Amm.0.mm.- AmN.0 0H.- “00.0 NH. Am .0 0N. m H0>0H AmN.V 0H.- A00.v mo.| Amm.v 0H. 000.0 mo. Amm.v 0H.- Hnm.v no. N H0>00 000.0 00.- 000.0 00.- AmN.0 0H. «Mm.v 00.- 000.0 mo. 000.0 NH.- H H0>00 AH00000000000 AHHH 000 A00000000fl0z A000Eu0008 Oz AH000H0000000 u0000 H 0002 AHH 0002 000000002 1-000000000000 -00000000000 --00000000000 000H0000 -0000000v -000H0000 000H0000 m m 0 U m 4 H0>00 .0000000000 m0 .000000 00 0H0>00 m 000 00 00000000 00 00H0>0H 000000w00mHm 000 000000H000001|.Hm 00008 144 drug user. The SUpplemunt was administered two to five weeks after the administration of the ABS:DU to category B; category C; category D; category E, group 1; and category E, group 2. Category B, group 3, answered the supplement at the time of the ABS:DU administration. Groups 1 and 2 of category A were the only groups not available to answer the supplement. In all cases the attempt was to have the same persons answer the supplement who answered the original ABS:DU. Comparable individuals in the same jail for category A, group 2, provided the results for category A. Item 7 of the ABS:DU definitional supplement asks the respondent, "In answering this questionnaire I have defined illegal drug users as:" Seven choices were pre- sented. The instructions were to circle only one answer. Table 32 presents the results of this question for the two therapist categories as well as for the four addict cate- gories. The first observation is that only 3 per cent of the total listed "soft drugs" (hallucinogens, amphetamines, and barbiturates). None listed marijuana users. Of the remaining sample, 1.8 per cent listed cocaine users, 11.1 per cent listed heroin users, 17.2 per cent listed multiple users, and 67.1 per cent listed any illegal drug user. Thus, 95 per cent of the addicts and therapists grouped together defined illegal drug users on the ABS:DU as heroin users, multiple users, or any illegal drug user. 145 o.ooH me c.00H we o.OOH Hm o.ooH ow o.OOH ms o.OOH om o.OOH om deBOB H.hm mvH m.on Hm m.mm mm m.mh mm m.mm em m.mo mH n.0v vH mummo mama HammHHH was .5 m.nH hm H.mH m m.m H 0.0m m m.vm HH m.m H n.0m m mummD mHmeHsz .m H.HH em v.HH m ~.m H m.n m H.HH m m.mm m m.MH e mummo cHonmm .m m.H v 0.0 o 0.0 o 0.0 o m.v m mm. H m.m H mummD mchoou .v m.m m 0.0 o 0.0 o 0.0 o m.m m 0.0 o h.@ m mummo mummsuHQumm H0\©cm mcHEmumcmfid .m m.o H 0.0 o 0.0 o 0.0 o 0.0 o 0.0 o m.m H mnmmb ammocHosHHmm .m o.o o 0.0 o 0.0 o 0.0 o 0.0 o. 0.0 o 0.0 o mummo mcmsflHumz .H w z w z w Z w 2 w Z w Z w z m m D U m 4 mHmuOB wuommumu huommumo wuommpmo muomwumo muommumo muommumu mumfimmumas mcngHchmo anmmm Hmucmz mumm: msuo HmmmHHH .mummb msuo HammHHH mo chHuHcmeoll.mm mqmda 146 The totals for the four addict categories resulted in the following responses: marijuana users, 0 per cent; hallucinogen users, .7 per cent; amphetamine and/or barbiturate users, 3.5 per cent; cocaine users, 2.8 per cent; heroin users, 12.8 per cent; multiple users, 19.8 per cent; and any illegal drug user, 60.5 per cent. What can be concluded is that neither the addicts nor the therapists included in this study selected use of "soft drugs" in their definition of the illegal drug user. The majority of addicts and therapists defined the illegal drug user in general terms (all illegal drug users). Therefore, although this data presents some interesting results, Hypothesis 14 is not accepted. Further research is needed to clarify the definition of the illegal drug user. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This study was designed to gain insight into the attitude-behaviors of heroin addicts and mental health therapists. Chapter V will present a brief summary of the project, expand on the results of the data as it per- tains to the various addict and therapist groups, and make recommendations for future research. Summary The growing abuse of drugs and the need to more fully understand the illegal drug user promoted the interest in researching attitude—behaviors toward illegal drug users. Social attitudes have profound effects on both the patterns and the consequences of drug abuse and on the treatment of compulsive drug users. A public concern which focuses on social drug dangers or drug abuse without also focusing on the drug user himself is incomplete if not misdirected. The attitudes of society and particularly of the psychotherapists committed to treating drug dependent persons have profound effects on the direction and quality of drug abuse treatment programs. 147 148 The present study was part of a comprehensive attempt to research attitude-behaviors toward the illegal drug user and to search for causes, determinants and/or correlates of drug abuse and dependency in the United States. Studies focusing on heroin users and attitudes toward illegal drug users are very few and have not generally employed measure- ment scales based on a workable theoretical framework. This particular study was concerned with two principal groups, the heroin user who is considered drug dependent, with his attitude-behaviors toward himself, others, and fellow drug users; and mental health thera- pists, both professional and paraprofessional. Heroin addicts were selected because they represented individuals with the most serious illegal drug problem, both in terms of the consequences of the addict's life and the difficulty of rehabilitating them. Mental health therapists were selected because they have been given the responsibility of treating the illegal drug user and attempting to change his behavior. Guttman facet theory and scaling offers the most comprehensive approach to measurement of attitude-behaviors. Guttman's definition of attitude as "a delimited totality of behavior with respect to something" extends the common_ definition of attitude as a predisposition to perceive, think, feel, and behave, thus making it possible to measure 149 a continuum of human behavior. The continuum extends from verbal-cognitive orientation to overt action. Attitudes and behaviors are therefore not dichotomized but are viewed together as a totality of human behavior. Utilizing the Guttman-Jordan paradigm of a five facet-six Level structure, the Attitude-Behavior Scale: Drug gsers (ABS:DU) was developed to measure six Levels of attitude—behavior: what society believes about illegal drug users (stereotypes), how society generally acts toward illegal drug users (norms), what is considered to be right or wrong behavior concerning illegal drug users (moral evaluation),how the person believes he would act toward illegal drug users (hypothetical action), how the person feels toward illegal drug users (feeling), and how the person has overtly acted toward illegal drug users (personal action). The ABS:DU scales according to a specific statisti— cal structure (iLQL, simplex joint struction) which provides not only multidimensional measurement, but also a means of assessing construct validity. The content of the ABS:DU was designed around five content facets: causes of illegal drug users, character- istics of illegal drug users, reasons for treatment, types of treatment, and consequences of illegal drug use. Added' to this was a "personal data questionnaire" which gathered information in four areas: demographic, sociopsychological, political activism, and contact with illegal drug users. 150 The ABS:DU was administered to a total of 254 sub- jects, of which 177 were heroin dependent persons and 77 were mental health therapists. The heroin addicts were selected on the basis of their present state of treatment: incarcerated addicts receiving no treatment; addicts living in the community who were involved in methadone maintenance and group therapy; addicts who were convicted of a federal crime and serving their sentence in a federal prison that included intensive psychological treatment; and addicts who civilly committed themselves to a treatment hospital in lieu of prosecution, as well as addicts who civilly committed themselves but were not charged with any criminal offense. The mental health therapists were selected on the basis that they were involved in the treatment and rehabili- tation of illegal drug users and were separated on the basis of being professional and paraprofessional therapists. Various statistical measures were applied to the data which indicated a high degree of construct validity and reliability of the scale. Interpretation of the Results The following results of the research study are outlined according to each category of the research popu- lation and each Level of measurement of the ABS:DU. This will provide a framework for understanding the total results as well as the specific research hypotheses that 151 were tested. Table 20 which appeared in Chapter IV is dupliCated here as Table 20.1 because it illustrates how each category relates to another on a given Level, as well as seeing how a given category scored on each of the six measurement Levels. Additional data from analyzing par- ticular items of the scale will also be included through— out this section to illustrate where the categories differ and agree. Since the ABS:DU measured attitude—behaviors on six Levels (Stereotypic, Normative, Moral Evaluation, Hypothetical, Actual Feeling, and Actual Action), the most appropriate means of analyzing differences between categories was multivariate analysis of variance. The multivariate program provides an analysis of variance of all categories as well as univariate analysis of variance between selected categories. Stereotypic (Level 1) The purpose of the first Level is to provide a measure of how each category views society's stereotypes toward illegal drug users. The higher the score, the more favorable the attitude toward illegal drug users. According to Table 20.1 the addicts who were incarcerated and receiving no treatment rated society's stereotypes as being more positive, while the paraprofessional and pro— fessional therapists and the addicts in a residential 152 d m 00mm GOHHO¢ Haduod m Hw>mH 4 m Qumm mcHHmmm Hm5p0¢ m Hm>mH d ommom HMOHumfiwommm v Hw>mH < 0mm m m Hmuoz m H0>$1H m>Humau0z m Hm>mH 4 om mom 0Hmmuomumpm H Hm>mH om mm om mm on mm om mm memno>mm mHano>mmcD 0.Hm>mH wn Donmmm co UmcHMHQO mammz mmnommpmu mo Hmpuo Msmm m>HHmHHomHotl.H om mqmms Q 153 hospital viewed society as being more negative. The fourth hypothesis in Chapter IV was formulated to ascertain if there were significant differences between the four addict categories and the two therapist categories on this Level. Significant differences were found between the addicts grouped together and the therapists grouped to- gether. To determine exactly which categories were sig— nificantly different from other categories the Sheffe' post-hoc comparison test was employed. Referring to Table 20.1, one observes that the six categories clustered them— selves into two groups. In the first cluster are the addicts incarcerated receiving no treatment, the addicts in methadone maintenance, and the addicts receiving treat— ment in a federal prison, all with very similar scores, liéix no significant difference between these categories. In the second cluster are the paraprofessional and professional therapists and the addicts who civilly committed themselves to a residential hospital, also with very similar scores, ligix no significant difference between these categories. But the first cluster differed signifi— cantly from the second cluster. It was originally hypothe- sized that the addicts in the first cluster would see society's stereotypes as being more negative toward illegal drugiusers, a feeling that society rigidly categorizes the drug user, while the therapists in the second cluster would View society as being more positive, particularly because 154 of the recent efforts by society to rehabilitate drug users. What resulted was the exact Opposite. Perhaps one explanation for this reversal might be the fact that the therapists and the addicts who civilly committed them- selves have a more realistic understanding of society's stereotypes because they are in more contact with what society believes about the illegal drug user. The incar— cerated addicts and the addicts on methadone maintenance may be naive about society's stereotypes, and consequently have a more simplistic view of society. Doctor and Sieveking (1970) stated in their assessment of attitudes about drug addiction, addicts, and treatment that addicts tend to minimize the seriousness of their own problem in terms of duration and extent of treatment required. What may have been found in the present study is that addicts also tend to minimize society's opposition to illegal drug users, and see society as being more favorable than it really is. gprmative (Level 2) The purpose of the second Level is to provide a measure of how each category views society as generally acting toward the illegal drug user, £LEL’ society's normative behavior. Referring back to Table 20.1 one notices that three of the six categories have essentially the same score for society's norms (Level 2) as they had 155 for society's stereotypes (Level 1), 21%;! the incarcerated addicts receiving no treatment, the civilly committed addicts in a residential hospital, and the paraprofessional therapists. The professional therapists saw society's norms as being slightly more favorable toward the illegal drug user than society's stereotypes, whereas the addicts on methadone maintenance and the addicts in the federal prison saw society's norms as being less favorable than society's stereotypes. Thus, these three categories see a discrepancy between what society believes and how society generally acts. The professional therapists may be reflecting here that although they see society's stereotype as being negative, some segments of society are acting more posi— tively toward the drug user. As professionals they have consequently had more participation than the other cate- gories in proposing and activating drug abuse treatment programs, and this may have contributed to their view of society's norms. The methadone maintenance addicts and the federal prison addicts had identical shifts in rating society's norms as being less favorable than society's stereotypes. This shift toward a more negative view may be reflective of their experiences with certain segments of the society such as the police or the particular treatment program that they are involved in. They may be seeing their 156 particular treatment program as being forced upon them. The addicts in the federal prison were convicted of a fed— eral crime and put into a treatment program against their will. It is possible that the addicts on methadone mainten— ance see methadone as the only form of treatment available in their community and one with which they are not in complete agreement. Thirty-seven per cent of the addicts in the methadone maintenance category indicated that drug users did not need a permanent drug substitute like methadone to permanently kick the habit (see Appendix 8 for analyses of specific items of the ABS:DU). Hypothesis 4 in Chapter IV was devised to test to see if there were significant differences between the addicts grouped together and the therapists grouped to- gether on society's norms (Level 2). The reason why addicts and therapists were not found to be significantly different on society's norms (Level 2) as they were on society's stereotypes (Level 1) is due to the shift of the profes- sional therapists toward a more positive view and the methadone addicts and the federal prison addicts toward a more negative View, resulting in the fact that these three categories had very similar views of society's norms. There was still a significant difference between the posi-' tive view of the incarcerated addicts receiving no treat— ment and the negative view of the paraprofessionals and the civilly committed addicts in a residential hospital. 157 Moral Evaluation (Level 3) The moral evaluation Level is a measure of how each category personally views society's perception of right or wrong behavior toward the illegal drug user. All six categories made significant shifts from their views of society's norms (Level 2) to their views of society's moral evaluation (Level 3); to a more favorable relation- ship toward illegal drug users. This says in general terms., that all the subjects see society's moral stance toward illegal drug users as being significantly more positive than they see either society's stereotypes or society's normative behavior. This follows the general pattern established in previous attitude-behavior research that persons who had contact with the object under study saw society's moral evaluation being more positive than it's stereotypes and norms. What is particularly significant here is the extent of the shift on this Level (See Table 20.1) in comparison to the other Levels. The moral evaluation Level is a transitional Level-5‘ between the negative View of society's stereotypes (Level 1) and norms (Level 2) and the more positive relationship indicated in personal hypothetical behavior (Level 4), personal feelings (Level 5), and personal actual actions (Level 6). This implies that individuals generally regard society as more conservative (negative) in comparison to 158 their own position of what society "ought" to do, saying that their personal feelings and personal overt behavior is a little more liberal (positive) than their moral stance. The incarcerated addicts receiving no treatment again stand out from the other categories as seeing society's moral position as being the most positive or accepting stance toward illegal drug users. The other three addict categories are clustered together with almost identical scores which are slightly less positive than the incar- cerated addicts. The fifth research hypothesis in Chapter IV utilized multivariate analysis of variance to see if there were significant differences between the addict categories on the moral Level and found no significant differences. Since the differences between the addict categories are not statistically significant, one could generalize by stating that the addicts studied here all observe very similar moral positions in society's rela- tionships toward illegal drug users. The therapists see society as reflecting the least favorable moral position toward illegal drug users. The professionals are half-way between the cluster of addicts and the paraprofessionals. It is interesting to note that the paraprofessionals, many of whom are ex—addicts, see society as having the least favorable moral stance. This may be a reflection of a common attitude seen in both ex-addicts and ex-alcoholics of an extremely negative 159 stance toward drugs and alcohol and those who use them. This also raises the question of how facilitative para— professional therapists are in treating addicts since their own moral positions are significantly different. In response to the statement "I have seen that drug users can best be helped by ex-drug addicts" 35 per cent of the paraprofessionals answered "yes,' 40 per cent were "uncer- tain,’ and 25 per cent answered no, indicating consider- able variation among the paraprofessionals (see Appendix 8 for analyses of Specific items of the ABS:DU). Personal Hypothetical Action (Level 4) The purpose of the fourth Level is to provide a measure of how each category would act toward the illegal drug user, or an indicator of future behavior. The results on the hypothetical Level are particularly interesting because it is the only Level where there was virtual agree- ment among five of the six categories. All the categories clustered together with similar scores except the incar- cerated addicts receiving no treatment, who were again evidencing significantly more favorable attitudes on how they would act toward illegal drug users. The fifth and sixth research hypotheses in Chapter IV, designed to test for differences between the categories, were therefore not confirmed since there was no difference between five of the six categories. There was significant difference, 160 though, between the incarcerated addicts receiving no treatment and all the other categories combined as one group. The incarcerated addicts receiving no treatment consistently stand apart from the other categories on all the six measurement Levels, reflecting perhaps attitude— behaviors most similar to the addicts who are "shooting-up" on the street. Since these addicts are not in any treat- ment program there is no group attempting to change their life style except the police by incarcerating them. Incar- ceration alone has proved to be ineffective in changing the lives of addicts. Most of them have been arrested frequently for breaking and entering and larceny, and simply serve their short prison terms and immediately return to drugs once they are released. The addicts who are receiving some form of treat- ment, whether it is methadone maintenance, treatment in a federal prison, or in a resident hospital are reflecting similar scores to those of the therapists, indicating that all these treatment modalities are having an "effect" on how they will act toward illegal drug users in the future. It seems probable that this is a reflection of the fact that these addicts have therapists who are making an impact on their attitudes and that the addicts are modeling after their therapists, regardless of the type of treatment program they are in: thus the importance of therapists attitudes. 161 One of the most controversial issues today concerns the use of paraprofessional therapists for treating drug addicts, particularly if the paraprofessionals are former addicts. Hypothesis six in Chapter IV was designed to test for differences between ex-addict paraprofessionals, non ex-addict paraprofessionals, and professionals. The paraprofessionals were divided on the basis of whether or not they had been ex-addicts and the multivariate analysis of variance was used to test for significant differences. No significant differences were found between them on the hypothetical Level (Level 4), the feeling Level (Level 5), and the actual action Level (Level 6). Thus, it did not make a difference if a person was an ex-addict paraprofessional, a non ex-addict parapro— fessional, or a professional in terms of how he would act, how he feels, or how he has acted toward illegal drug users, according to the responses given to the ABS:DU. Personal Feeling (Level 5) The fifth Level measures how each category report they "actually feel" toward illegal drug users. The incar- cerated addicts receiving no treatment were again set apart from the other categories with essentially the same score for "feeling" that they had for "hypothetical" behavior. The methadone maintenance addicts shifted to a more favorable position with feeling, reflecting perhaps that 162 their feeling toward drug users is stronger than how they think they will act toward drug users in the future. The question arises if this is perhaps an indicator that the methadone maintenance addicts are making some progress in their therapy, as reflected on the hypothetical action Level, but are still evidencing strong feelings toward fellow drug users, due to the fact that they are living in their same environment and relating with their same friends and acquaintances. Although the methadone mainten- ance addicts are involved in a particular treatment modality, they are at the same time still eXperiencing the effects of drug subculture membership. The remaining four categories are clustered to- gether with essentially the same scores for feeling (Level 5) that they had for hypothetical action (Level 4). two addict categories here are treatment environment (federal hospital) and are consequently their familiar surroundings or undoubtedly contributes to the The both involved in a controlled prison and residential not in contact with either This the drug subculture. fact that their feelings toward illegal drug users are so similar to those of the paraprofessional and professional therapists, and quite different from the methadone maintenance addicts and the incarcerated addicts receiving no treatment. 163 Personal Actual Action (Level 6) The purpose of this Level is to measure how the subject categories report they have actually acted toward illegal drug users. Referring to Table 20.1 one sees that the categories had very similar scores regarding how they acted (Level 6) to how they feel (Level 5). There are some slight but not statistically significant shifts by all the cate- gories. Five of the six categories are consistent in how they would act, how they feel, and how they have acted toward illegal drug users. Hypothesis seven in Chapter IV used multivariate analysis of variance to test for differences between future hypothetical action (Level 4) and past actual action (Level 6) for the two addict categories in residen- tial treatment (federal prison and residential hospital). The rationale behind this hypothesis was that these two addict groups are institutionalized and not in contact with the drug subculture, and this would contribute to a difference between how they would act in the future (Level 4) and how they had acted in the past (Level 6). This difference was not found, indicating perhaps that the treatment modalities were not having an effect on changing attitudes, or that the ABS:DU was not detecting changes in. attitudes due to treatment. Since these two addict cate- gories had essentially the same attitude—behaviors as the two therapist categories for hypothetical action, personal 164 feeling, and past action, it may be that these addicts have already changed their attitudes and behaviors due to the type of treatment program they are in. Having looked at the effects of each of the six measurement Levels, it may now be helpful to look at each of the six categories separately as they are reflected on each of the six Levels. This will provide a profile of attitude—behavior change or differences for each of the categories. The categories were originally selected because it was hypothesized that they would reflect a continuum of attitude-behaviors from favorable to unfavor- able, and because this categorization is consistent with the current categorization of federal and local govern- ments. Heroin Addicts Incarcerated—-No Treatment This category of addicts, as stated previously, had been arrested on a drug or drug related offense (usually breaking and entering) and were incarcerated in a county jail. Typically they were awaiting bond, trial, or were serving a short sentence. They had gone through detoxification and were not receiving methadone or any form of therapeutic treatment. It is presumed that their attitude-behaviors are the closest to the addict out in the street since they were in jail against their will and generally were not participating at the time of their 165 arrest in an active treatment program. Their profile of attitude-behaviors is presented in Table 20.2. The most outstanding characteristic of these addicts is that they stand apart from all the other cate- gories, reflecting the most positive attitude—behaviors toward illegal drug users. They see society's stereotypes and norms as being more favorable than any other category's rating of society's stereotypes and norms. Their view of society's stereotypes and norms are not as favorable as their views of society's moral position, or their Own View of how they would act, how they presently feel, or how they have acted in the past. Their attitude-behaviors are statistically different on all six Levels from the two therapist categories as well as being statistically dif- ferent from the two institutionalized addict categories (federal prison and residential hospital) on society's norms (Level 2), their personal hypothetical action (Level 4), their personal feelings (Level 5), and their past action (Level 6). This suggests that their incarceration without any treatment is ineffective in changing their attitude- behaviors toward illegal drug users, as compared with the other addict categories. This raises the question of reevaluating the current practice of incarceration without treatment in county jails across the country. The National Institute of Mental Health has recently funded some eXperimental treatment programs 166 .DDummmw mfiu. MO Hm>mH 30mm CC ONH On“. 0v EOHM GOCMH meOOm Gmmz n HmconmwmoumllmumHmmumne cuHmmm Hmucmz . HmcoHmmmmoummummllmumHmmumse :pHmmm Hmucmz .m ucmsummue HHH can H ammz-umuOHee< cHoumm .o ucmsummue HH amaz:-mu0Heea aHonwm .O mocmcmuchz mcopmcuszanOHpod cHoumm .m ucmEpmmuB OZnupmumumoumocH muOpr< cHoumm .mm m m 00mm coHu0¢ Hmsuom ‘\ m Hm>mH H d m ovum mcHmem Heapod " m Hm>ma _ d/ ommom HMOHpmnuomwm .// v Hm>mH // ml/ omo m m Hmuoz / //// m Hw>mH I] a um m om m>HumEu0z “ m Hw>mH _ 4 om mom OHmmuOmumum H Hm>mH om mm om mm on mo om mm memuO>mm mHnmuO>mmcD --muoHeea .chfiumwue Oz GHOHmm UmpmumoumocHllm whoomumu mo mHm>mH mmouum mHHwOHmII.N.om mHm¢B 167 in county jails to see if this will cut down on the degree of recidivism of drug use and incarceration. Since one of these experimental treatment programs happens to have recently been initiated in one of the county jails that participated in this study, it will be interesting to see if the addicts in this jail who are currently receiving treatment will have different attitude-behaviors from the group who received no treatment. Heroin Addicts--Methadone Maintenance This group of addicts were actively involved in a methadone maintenance program in a large metropolitan hospital as well as receiving individual or group psy- chotherapy. They were still living in their regular place of residence and were consequently still in varying forms of contact with the drug subculture. Many of them had previous arrests for drug or drug related charges. Their profile (see Table 20.3) of attitude-behaviors forms a zig-zag pattern which is similar to the federal prison addicts, but quite different from the other two addict categories and the two therapist categories. They begin on the stereotypic Level as seeing society's stereo- types toward the illegal drug user to be slightly less positive (but not significantly different) in relation to how the incarcerated--no treatment addicts viewed stereo— types. Their view of society's stereotypes were significantly 168 .Doummm mcu mo Hm>mH some so omH on ow Eoum mmcmu mmuoom cams HmconmmmOHmunmumHmmumne nuHmmm HmcoHmmmmoummummlnmumHmmumce nuHmmm ucmEummue HHH tam H «mdzulmuoHpom ucwEummHB HH 4MmH mcHHmmm Hmsuoé m Hm>mH HmoHumauomsm v Hm>mg Hmuoz m Hm>mH m>HumEqu m Hm>ma OHmprmumum H Hm>mH memno>mm mHnmuO>mMco .00CMC®#CHMZ esopmaumzllmuOHp©¢ CHOHmmIIm xhommumu mo mHm>mH mmOH0¢ mHHmoumI|.m.om mHmmB 169 different from the more negative view scored by the resi- dential hospital addicts, the paraprofessionals, and the professional therapists. This may be due to unrealistic views of society, or a personal expression that society is not as hostile in its beliefs as the other categories think. There is a significant shift to a more negative position for their rating of how society generally acts (norms) toward the drug user, perhaps reflecting some of their personal experiences with the police and the methadone clinic staff. There was definite dissatisfaction expressed by many of these addicts toward the administration of the methadone clinic as well as a considerable degree of agita- tion in the neighborhood due to black militant efforts. These addicts again make another significant shift, this time in the positive direction in their rating of society's perception of right and wrong behavior (moral evaluation). For hypothetical action they shift slightly in the negative direction, and then to their most positive position for their own personal feeling and past actual action. This zig-zag or inconsistent profile is different from four of the five other categories and is perhaps reflective of the confusion and mixed motives that are found in many methadone maintenance programs. 170 Heroin Addicts—-Federa1 Prison Treatment Program This category of addicts had been convicted of a crime, had been confirmed addicts, and were examined and considered likely to be rehabilitated through treatment. They had been confined to a federal prison to receive intensive treatment under the guidelines established by the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act of 1966, Title II. Since these addicts were living in a protected community away from the drug subculture, it was postulated that their attitude—behaviors would be less positive than the incarcerated addicts receiving no treatment and the methadone maintenance addicts. What resulted in the study was a zig-zag profile (see Table 20.4) very similar t0»\ that of the methadone maintenance addicts except less positive toward drug users on the personal feeling Level and the actual action Level. This may be an indication that their intensive treatment is having a beneficial effect on their own personal feelings and their actual action. There is a general consistency with these addicts on their perception of society's moral view, their own hypothetical action, their own personal feelings, and their reported past action. Heroin Addicts—-Residential Hospital Treatment This group of addicts were receiving treatment at the National Institute of Mental Health Clinical Research 171 .Donmmd ecu mo Hm>mH comm co omH Ou ow Scum mmcmu mmuoom cmmz HmconmmmoumllmumHmwumca :uHmwm HchHmmmmoummummunmumHmmuch nuHmwm ucmEummuB HHH tam H ¢m¢ZIImuOpr¢ pcmEummuB HH «Mdzllmwoflppm mocmcmuchz wsOUMQumzlanOHUp¢ usefiummue OZunomumumoumucH mHOprd Q Hmpcmz Hmucmz cHoumm cHoumm cHoumm cHoumm “SEQUDLIJEH m om mm 4 m womb a on mom om mm on mm ow mm coHuoa Hmsuoa m Hm>ma mcHHmmm Hmsuod m Hm>mH HMOHumnuommm v Hm>mH Hmuoz m Hm>mH m>HumEqu m Hm>mH OHdwuomumum H Hm>mH mHnmuO>mm mHQmuo>mmcD .ucmsummue HH «maznumHOHoea cHonmmuuo suommumo mo mHm>ma mmouoa mHHmoumuu.v.om mamae 172 Center at Lexington, Kentucky. They had been accepted into treatment through their own civil commitment, either on their own will or in lieu of persceution, and were con— sidered by the hospital to be likely candidates for reha— bilitation. This treatment program is also outlined by the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act of 1966, Titles I and III. It was postulated that these addicts had exercised more self determination to recover from their addiction than those in the other addict categories, and that this would be reflected in less positive attitude-behaviors toward illegal drug users. The profile in Table 20.5 indicates that this occurred, that their attitude—behaviors on all six measurement Levels were less favorable than the other addict categories. Their view of society's stereotypes was essentially the same as that of the paraprofessional and professional therapists. This similarity also occurred for society's norms, their hypothetical action, their personal feelings, and their past actions. Their pattern did take a more positive shift on the moral evaluation Level which made them significantly different on that Level from the paraprofessional therapists. This shift, though, brought their moral perceptions of society in line with their hypothetical action, their personal feelings, and their past actions. The goals of the NIMH Clinical Research Center are that their patients remain drug free, and become productive in their personal lives. These \‘I-l‘u‘ 173 cm mm .DQummd om may we Hm>OH some co 0 m mm NH OH ow Eoum Oman HmconmmmoumilmumHmmumne guHmmm HmsOHmmmmoummumm11mpmHmmum£B nuHmmm pcmspmmue HHH cam H ¢m¢z|nmuoH©p4 unmanmmue HH 4m<21:mu0Hee< mocmcmuchz OcoomaumzuanOprd usmsummue ozinompmumoumqu muOpr4 ommm \ \ \ moms on mm 00 mm m wmuOOm cmmz Q md mcHHmmm Heapod m Hm>mH HmOHumsuomsm v Hm>mfl Hmuoz m Hm>ma O>Humauoz m Hm>mH OHmmpOmumum H Hm>mH mHanO>mm memnO>mwco HHH Ufim H .mpcmapmmwe mm¢ZIImHOH©U¢ GHOHOEIID whommpmu mo mHm>mH mmosod mHHwOHmII.m.oN MHmmH some so omH Op ov Eonm mmcmu mmuoom cmmz HmconmmmoumnlmumHmmumce cuHmmm Hmucmz HmconmmmoummummllmpmHmmumnB nuHmmm Hmucmz usmSummue HHH 8cm H amaznumuOHeem cHoumm ucmsummue HH 4m<2unmu0Hoea cHoumm mocmcmuchz maocmnuOSIImuOprd cHoumm ucmEummHB oznnpmumumoumocH mHOprd cHoumm n ‘CmUQE-IJCH M om mm om mm on mm coHuoa Hmsuom m Hm>mq mcHHmmm Hmsuoé m Hm>mH Hmoflumnuoasm v Hm>ma Hmuoz III M Hm>mH m>HumEuoz . m Hm>ma _ mom onmuomumum H Hm>mH 00 mm mHQmuO>mm mHnmuo>8mcD .mumHmwumce HchHmmmwOHmmnmmllm mnemmumu mo mHm>mH mmonom mHHmOHmII.m.om MHmme .Doummd map mo Hm>mH some so omH Op ow Eoum Omcmu mmHOOm smmzn HmconmomoumllmumHmmumgB nuHmmm Hmucmz HchHmmmmoummummllmpmHmmumge ngmmm Hmusmz usefiummue HHH one H «mHZIthOHopfi quumm usmSpmmue HH amaziumuOHeea aHonmm mocmcmchmz esopmgpmzlnmpOHpc¢ cHoumm pcmEummue OzlnpmpmumoumocH mpOprd cHoumm «moomm f0 7 . a m oomm QOHpoa Hmsuoa l \ m HO>OH \ x 4 m QUmm 3 fl _ _ thUm / / / 4 one mg m Hayes /,1 m Hm>mH msHHmmm Hmsuo< m Hm>mH HMOHumsuommm w Hm>mq 178 d d om 1m om m>HumEuoz / m Hm>ma d um xmom OHmmuomumum H Hm>mH om mm om mm on mm om mm mHhmno>mm mHnmuo>mwsD .mpmHmmmmge HMQOHmmmwOHmllm wuommpwo mo mHm>mH mwonog OHHmOHmII.n.om MHmHB 179 relationship or effectiveness of treatment is an open question and one that needs to be explored in future studies. It may be that a therapist with too negative or too positive attitude-behaviors would not be as effec— tive as the therapist who is somewhat in the middle. These are questions that ought to be explored along with therapist effectiveness. Predictor Variables Another part of this research study was to study the relationship of other variables to attitude-behaviors in an attempt to isolate certain variables that may be determinants or causes of drug use. Forty variables were selected for the "Personal Data Questionnaire" that inquired into demographic areas, contact areas, political activism areas, and sociOpsychological areas. Where a single variable was being correlated with another single variable, such as age to personal feeling (Level 5), a simple pro— duct moment correlation was calculated. When more than one variable was being correlated to another variable, such as political activism to personal feeling, a multiple correlation was calculated as well as individual correla- tions. Six possible relationships between variables were selected for hypothesis testing on the basis of being characteristic of the four areas of predictor variables (demographic, contact, political activism, and 180 sociOpsychological) and on the basis of significant rela- tionships found in previous attitude—behavior research. These six research hypotheses measured the relationship between importance of religion and the attitude-behavior Levels, amount of education to attitude-behavior Levels, age to attitude—behavior Levels, change orientation to attitude-behavior Levels, political activism to attitude- behavior Levels, and efficacy (environmental control) to attitude—behavior Levels. Consistent significant relationships were not generally found between any single variable and any single attitude—behavior Level, indicating that single variables by themselves were not predictive of attitude-behaviors. For example, hypothesis 3 in Chapter IV investigated the relationship between personal illegal drug use and attitude— behaviors toward illegal drug users. It was hypothesized that personal illegal drug use would be highly related to positive attitude-behaviors toward illegal drug users. No relationship was found between the amount of illegal drug use and the attitude-behaviors of the addict cate- gories, although a very definite relationship was found for the paraprofessional therapists on the hypothetical, feeling, and past action Levels. Why this occurred for the paraprofessionals and not for the other categories is not known. Before any conclusions are made concerning this relationship, further research should be conducted. 181 It was postulated in hypothesis 8 that the greater the stated importance of religion the more negative the attitude-behaviors would be for the addict categories. The data indicated that importance of religion was not significantly correlated with attitude-behaviors. Similar results occurred for amount of education (hypothesis 9), age (hypothesis 10), and efficacy (environmental control) (hypothesis 13). Two of the hypotheses measured the relationship of a number of variables to the attitude-behavior Levels. It was postulated in hypothesis 11 that a high score on change orientation would be related to less favorable attitude—behaviors toward illegal drug users. The ration- ale for this was that a high score on change orientation would be an indicator that the individual believes he can change his behavior and would consequently be dissatisfied with his relationships with illegal drug users. The data indicated that the change orientation variables taken to— gether had a significant relationship, but no one variable stook out as the contributing variable. In other words, it was impossible to establish whether this relationship resulted from their flexibility or their need to follow rules or be self directing. Similar results were found when the variables that composed the environmental control (efficacy) questions were related to the attitude-behavior Levels. High 182 correlations were found for the variables when grouped together, but not when taken individually. This indicates that the variables in the "Personal Data Questionnaire" did not produce significant patterns of relationship as was expected, and that the "Personal Data Questionnaire" failed to uncover correlates or predictors of attitude- behaviors toward illegal drug users. Although this was disappointing, it may be pointing out that attitude- behaviors toward illegal drug users are extremely complex and that single variables such as age, amount of education, and personal use of illegal drugs, taken separately, are not predictive of attitude-behaviors. It is suggested that the "Personal Data Question- naire" be revised and that future correlational testing employ multiple correlations to the multiple measurement Levels. This would provide a means of testing to see if a variety of variables are related to a variety of measure- ment Levels, while at the same time measuring to see if single variables are related to single Levels of attitude- behavior. The lack of significant correlations at least indicates that for the populations sampled their age, education, drug use, and ability to change did not predict what their attitude-behaviors would be toward illegal drug users. Since the "Personal Data Questionnaire" is a sepa- rate entity and not part of the ABS:DU, the failure of the 183 "Personal Data Questionnaire" to isolate predictors does not in any way diminish the fact that the ABS:DU differenti- ated between populations of addicts and therapists. A next step is to pursue the area of predictor variables, attempt- ing to isolate specific variables or groups of variables that are highly related to illegal drug use and attitude- behaviors toward illegal drug users. Content Item Analysis One aspect of the ABS:DU, not previously mentioned, is that it offers a great amount of clinical data that is pertinent not only to the researcher, but also to the therapist in his understanding and treatment of the heroin addict. Twenty—three of the 40 content items have been analyzed according to reSponses to demonstrate how indi- vidual categories responded to specific items. These items are presented in Appendix 8 with the hope that the results may be helpful to therapists and program directors in understanding the past experiences of addicts and therapists. Recommendations and Limitations The data of this study indicate that the ABS:DU is a valid and reliable instrument for the measurement of atztitude-behaviors toward illegal drug users. One of the rmext steps in the refinement of this study is further 5v WE?) 1411.3: Hula: ur.u-1w.l.fl....: .H. -. hc.‘ 1f 11‘. ...-ll . .1. . . ..y LI. . J . ...1. g... 111?. ..w . ...... . . . IP.1.... . 11......“ . ...uJ1.mlr.lu1.1hm.HtP ..I JIH ..1 v 1‘. .L 1 ... ..I 1 . ... 11.1}..14. ... ......hf1... .1ng .75...- $91. .-.urvs. .. is 4I1......l.‘l.ul.1'l Illl...l.1 I..Ilalll|.4 -\ -... . .--1. -... 1.155%. 4%.? I1... ..7 1.. . .. Illa J 184 research for predictor variables that will relate to dif— ferent Levels of attitude—behavior and to differential attitude content. The ABS:DU should also be used in conjunction with other psychological tests and measures in a clinical setting. This would provide an opportunity to see how the results of the ABS:DU compare with observable behavioral measures as well as providing a correlation between the ABS:DU and other psychological tests. Preparations are being made at the present time to utilize the ABS:DU as a measure of attitude-behavioral change in a training setting for college physicians and nurses. Subjects will be given the ABS:DU immediately prior to training, and then be given it again 4 to 6 weeks later to see if there has been a significant change in attitude—behaviors toward illegal drug users, due to the special training. Preparations are also underway to use the ABS:DU with addicts before and after a treatment program for heroin addicts. Consideration should be given to the possibility of using the ABS:DU as a prognostic instrument for addicts prior to treatment. The measures on Levels 4, 5, and 6 are giving an indication of a person's future hypothetical behavior, his present feelings, and his reported personal action toward illegal drug users. If those measures are extremely positive toward the illegal drug user, it seems 185 that it may be an indication that this person will not be a good candidate for therapy. If, on the other hand, the measures are negative toward the illegal drug user, par— ticularly on the hypothetical action Level (Level 4) and the feeling Level (Level 5), this person may be expressing a dissatisfaction with the drug culture or his drug using peer group, and consequently be a good candidate for therapy. The results of this particular research project give impetus to studying more addict and therapist groups. It is the desire of this author that this study be repli- cated in other areas of the country to increase the generalizability of the results. It is the hOpe of this author that this research project has contributed in some way to the body of know- ledge needed to understand and effectively treat the illegal drug user. The incidence of drug abuse is still on the rise in this country. We look forward to the day of its decline. REFERENCES 186 REFERENCES Allport, G. W. Attitudes. C. Murchison (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology, Worchester, Mass.: Clark University Press, 1935. Anastasi, A. Psychology of testing. New York: MacMillan, 1968. Ausubel, D. P. Causes and types of narcotic addiction: A psychosocial View. Psychiatric quarterly, 1962, 35, 523-531. Barclay, J. E., & Weaver, H. B. Comparative reliabilities and ease of construction of Thurstone and Likert attitude scales. Journal of social psychology, 1962, 15, 109-120. Bastide, R., & van den Berghe, P. Stereotypes, norms and inter-racial behavior in San Paulo, Brazil. American sociological review, 1957, 22, 689-694. Bennet, G. "L.S.D.--l967." British journal of psychiatry, 1968, 114, 1219—22. Blum, R. H. Drugs and personal values. Paper presented at National Association of Student Personnel Administrators Drug Education Conference, Washington, D.C., Nov. 7-8, 1966. Blum, R. H. Society and drugs; Social and cultural observations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1969. Bogg, R. A.; Smith, R. G.; & Russell, S. D. Drugs and Michigan high school students. The final report of a study conducted for the Special Committee on Narcotics. Michigan Department of Public Health, April, 1969. Borgatta, E. F. Some problems in the study of drug use among college students. Based on paper presented at National Association of Student Personnel Administrators Drug Education Conference, Washington, D.C., November, 1966. 187 188 Brehm, M. C., & Back, K. Self image and attitudes toward drugs. Journal of personality, June, 1968, 299-341. Carney, R. E. A report on the feasibility of using risk- taking attitudes as a basis for programs to control and predict drug abuse. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1970. Cohen, M., & Klein, D. Drug abuse in a young psychiatric population. Journal of orthopsychiatry, April, 1970. Comprehensive law enforcement and criminal justice plan for Michigan. Office of Criminal Justice Programs. Lansing, Michigan, 1970. Conrad, H. T. New directions in treating narcotic addicts. Mental health digest, 1970, 2. Dell Orto, A. E. A Guttman facet analysis of the racial attitudes of rehabilitation counselor trainees. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Doctor, R. M., & Sieveking, N. A. Survey of attitudes toward drug addiction. Proceedings of 78th Annual American Psychological Association Convention, Miami, Florida, 1970. Dole, V. P.; Nyswander, Marie, E.; & Kreek, Mary Jane. Narcotic blockade. Archives of internal medicine, 1966, 118, 304-309. Dole, V. P.; Nyswander, Marie E.; & Warner, A. Successful treatment of 750 criminal addicts. Journal of the American medical association, 1968, 206, 2708-2711. Dole, V. P. Methadone treatment of randomly selected criminal addicts. New England journal of medicine, 1969, 280 (26), 1372-1375. Dole, V. P. Successful treatment of 750 criminal addicts. Journal of the American medical association, 1968, 2062(12), 2708-2711. Drug dependence in Michigan. Lansing: Michigan Department of_Public Healthflfil969. Duijker, H. C. J. Comparative research in social science with special reference to attitude research. Inter- national social science bulletin, 1955, 7, 555-566. 189 Edison, G. R. Social and political aspects of drug use. Journal of American college health association, 1957, 18, 2744277. Feldman, H. Ideological supports to becoming and remaining a heroin addict. Journal of health and social behavior, 1969, 9, 131-139. Fenichel, O. The psychoanalytic theory of neurosis. New York: W. W. Horton, 1945, 375-380. Finn, J. D. Multivariance--univariate and multivariate analysis of variance and covariance: A FORTRAN IV program. Occasional Paper No. 9, School for Advanced Studies, College of Education, Michigan State University, 1970. Foa, U. G. Scale and intensity analysis in opinion research. International journal of Opinion and attitude research, 1950, 4, 192-208. Foa, U. G. The contiguity principle in the structure of interpersonal relations. Human relations, 1958, 11, 229-238. Foa, U. G. Convergences in the analysis of the structure of interpersonal behavior. Psychological review, 1961, 69. 341-353. Foa, U. G. A facet approach to the prediction of communali- ties. Behavioral science, 1963, 8, 220-226. Foa, U. G. New develOpments in facet design and analysis. Psychological review, 1965, 72, 4, 262-274. Fort, J. The pleasure seekers; the drug crisis, youth, and sociéty. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1969. Fort, J. P., Jr. Heroin addiction. J. A. O'Donnell and J. C. Ball (Ed's.) Narcotic addiction. New York: Harper and Row, 1966, 76-91. Gallup, G. Pot gains in college. The Detroit Free Press, January, 17, 1971, Vol. 140, No. 258. Gioscia, V. L.S.D. Subcultures--aCidOXy versus orthodoxy. American journal of orthopsychiatry, 1969, 39, 428-36. 190 Glick, B. S. Attitudes toward drugs and clinical outcomes. American journal of psychiatry, 1968, 124 (8 suppl.), 37-39. Guttman, L., & Schlesinger, I. M. Development of diagnostic analytical and mechanical ability tests through facet design and analysiS. Research Project No. DE—4—21-014. The Israel Institute of Applied Social Research, Jerusalem, Israel, 1966. Guttman, L., & Suchman, A. E. Intensity and a zero point for attitude analysis. American sociological review, 1947, 12, 57-67. Guttman, L. The problem of attitude and opinion measure- ment. In S. A. Stauffer (Ed.), Measurement and prediction. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950, 46-59 (a). Guttman, L. The basis for scalogram analysis. In S. A. Stauffer (Ed), Measurement and prediction. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950, 60-90i7b). Guttman, L., & Foa, U. G. Social contact and an inter- group attitude. Public opinion quarterly, 1951, 51, 43—53. Guttman, L. A new approach to factor analysis: the radex. In P. F. Lazarfeld (Ed.), Mathematical thinking in the social science. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1954. Guttman, L. An outline of some new methodology for social research. Public opinion quarterly, 1954-5, 18, 395-404. Guttman, L. A structural theory for intergroup beliefs and actions. American sociological review, 1959, 24, 318—328. Guttman, L. A facet definition of intelligence. In R. R. Eifermann (Ed.), Scripta hierosolymitana: volume 14! studies in psychology. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 1965, 166—181. Guttman, L. Order analysis of correlation matrics. In R. B. Cattell (Ed.), Handbook Of multivariate experimental psychology, Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966, 438—458. 191 Hamersma, R. I. Construction of an attitude behavior scale of Negroes and Whites toward each other using Guttman facet design and analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Hamper, T. S. Professional neutrality and the drug issue. American journal of orthopsyphiatry, 1969, 39, 370. Harrelson, L. E. A Guttman facet analysis of attitudes toward the mentally retarded in the Federal Republic of Germany: content, structure, and determinants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Harrelson, L. E.; Jordan, J. E.; & Horn, H. An Application of Guttman facet theory to the study of attitudes toward the mentally retarded in Germany. Journal of_psychology, March, 1972, in press. Hoyt, C. J. Test reliability estimated by analysis of variance. W. Mehrens, and R. Ebel (Ed.), Principles of educational and psychological measurement. ChiCago: Rand McNally, 1967. Interim report of the commision of inquiry into the non- medical use of drugs. Information Canada, Ottawa, 1970. Isbell, H. Medical aspects of opiate addiction. J. A. O'Donnell and J. C. Ball (Ed's.) Narcotic addiction. New York: Harper and Row, 1966, 62-75. Jaffe, J. H.; Zaks, M. S.; & Washington, E. N. Experience with the use of methadone in a multimodality program for the treatment of narcotics users. International journal of addiction, 1969, 4, 481-490. Jaffe, J. H. Drug addiction and drug use. L. S. Goodman and A. Gilman (Ed's) The pharmacological basis of therapeutics, 4th edition. New York: MacMillian, 19 70 , 2 76-313. Jones, 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. Jordan, J. E. Attitudes toward education and physically disabled persons in eleven nations. East Lansing: Latin American Studies Center, Michigan State University, 1968. 192 Jordan, 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). Jordan, 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). Jordan, J. E. Attitude—behaviors toward mentally retarded persons: A cross cultural analysis. Final report, U.S. Office of Education, Grant No. OEG-0-8-000126- D197, Project No. 7—E-126, 1970 (b). Jordan, J. E. Racial attitudes: A Guttman facet theory research design. Paper presented at the annual meeting of APGA. New Orleans, Louisiana, March, 1970 (0). Jordan, J. E. Attitude-behavior research on physical-mental- social disability and racial-ethnic differences. Psychological aspects of disability, 1971, 18, 1, 5—26 (a). Jordan, J. E. Construction of a Guttman facet designed cross-cultural attitude-behavior scale toward mental retardation. American journal of mental deficiency, 1971, in press (b). Kaiser, H. F. Scaling a simplex. Psychometrika, 1962, 27, 155-162. Kaple, J. M. Development of an attitude—behavior toward drug users scale employing Guttman facet design and analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971. Keneston, K. Drug use and student values. Paper presented at National Association of Student Personnal Adminis- trators, Drug Education Conference, Washington, D.C., November, 7—8, 1966. Kerlinger, F. N. Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966. King, F. W. Users and non-users of marijuana—some attitudinal and behavioral correlates. Journal pf American college health association, 1970, 12, 213—217. 193 Klein, J., & Phillips, D. L. From hard to soft drugs-- temporal and substantive changes in drug usage among gangs in a working-class community. Journal of health and social behavior, 1968, 9, 139-145. Levitt, L. 1.; Baganz, P. C.; & Blachly, P. H. A study of employees attitudes toward patients in a hospital for the treatment of drug addiction. Psychiatric quarterly, 1963, 37, 210—219. Likert, R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of psychology, 1932, 22, 5-43. Lindesmith, A. R. Basic problems in the social psychology of addiction and a theory. J. A. O'Donnell and J. C. Ball (Ed's.) Narcotic addiction. New York: Harper and Row, 1966, 91-109. Maierle, J. P. An application of Guttman facet analysis to attitude scale construction: a methodological study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Mehrens, W., & Ebel, R., ed's. Principles of educational and psychological measurement. Chicago: Rand McNalley, 1967. Merry, J. U.S.A. and British attitudes to heroin addiction and treatment centers. British journal of addiction, 1968, 63. 247—250. Middendorf, J. L. Changing attitudes about drug abuse and cigarette smoking. Audiovisual instructor, 1969, 14, 55—56. Milliken, W. Special message to the legislature on alcohol and drug abuse. Paper presented to the Michigan Legislature, March 4, 1971. Narcotic addiction rehabilitation act of 1966. Public Law 89-793, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969. New withdrawal costs. Time, 97 (June 7, 1971), 9. Nowlis, V. Drugs,the self and society. Paper presented at NASP drug education conference, Region 11, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, March 13, 1967. Nyswander, M. In Task force report: narcotics and drug abuse. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, 1967. 194 O'Donnell, J. A., & Ball, J. C., (Ed's.), Narcotic addiction. New York: Harper and Row, 1966. Pattison, E. M.; Bishop, L. A.; & Linsky, A. 8. Changes in public attitudes on narcotic addiction. American journal of psychiatry, 1968, 125, 160‘167- Pearlman, S. Drug use and eXperience in an urban college population. American journal of orthOpsychiatry, 1968, 38, 503—514. President's advisory commission on narcotics and drug abuse. Final Report, U.S. Gov. Printing Office, 1963. Proceedings, White House Conference on Narcotic and Drug Abuse, Washington, D.C., 1963. Robbins, E. 8.; Robbins, I. R.; Frosch, W. A.; & Stern, M. College student drug use. American journal of psychiatEX. 1970, 126:12, 1743—1751. Robbins, L.; Robbins, E.; Pearlmen, 8.; Philip, A.; Robinson, E.; & Schmitter, B. College students opinions of various aspects of drug use: A comparison of users and non-users. Paper presented at 78th Annual Convention of American Psychological Association, Miami, Florida, 1970. Rokeach, M. Beliefs, attitudes, and values. San Francisco: Josey—Bass, Inc., 1968. Rosenberg, C. M. Young drug addicts: Addiction and its consequences. Medical journal of Australia, 1968, l (24), 1031-1033. Ruble, W. L.; Kiel, D. F.; & Rafter, M. E. Calculation of least squares (regression) problems on the LS routine. Stat. Series Description No. 7, Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University, 1966 (a). Ruble, W. L.; Kiel, D. F.; & Rafter, M. E. One way analysis of variance with unequal number of replications permitted (UNEQI routineii Stat. Series Description No. 13, Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University, 1966 (b). Ruble, W. L.; Paulson, S. J.; & Rafter, M. E. Analysis of covariance and analysis of variance with unequal frequencies permitted in the cell (LS routine). 195 Stat. Series Description No. 115, Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University, 1966. Russo, J. R. Amphetamine abuse. Springfield, Illinois: C. C. Thomas, and Co., 1968. Selltiz, C.; Jahoda, M.; Deutsch, M.; & Cook, S. W. Attitude scaling. In M. Jahoda, and N. Warren (Ed's.), Attitudes, Penguin Books, 1966, 305-324. Schur, E. Attitudes toward addicts: Some general observations and comparative findings. American journal of orthopsychiatEY. 1964, 34. Special publication on drug abuse. Detroit Free Press, 1969. Suchman, E. A. The "hang loose ethic" and the spirit of drug use. Journal of health and social behavior, 1968, 9, 146-155. Symonds, P. M. The nature of conduct. New York: MacMillan, 1928. Task force report: narcotics and drug abuse. The President's CommisSiOn on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, 1967. Teacher resource guide for drug use and abuse for Michigan schools. Michigan Department of Education, 1970. Thurstone, L. L. Attitudes can be measured. American jpurnal of sociology, 1928, 33, 529—554. Torda, C. Comments on the character structure and psychodynamic processes of heroin addicts. Perception and motor skills, 1968, 27(1), 143- 146. Vaillant, G. E. A twelve year follow—up of New York narcotic addicts: In the relation of treatment to outcome. Americanyjournal of psychiatry, 1966, 123, 727. Vincent, R. J. A scale to measure attitude toward smoking marijuana. The journal of school health, 1970, 45’ 4-60 ‘Vundelja, D., & Jordan, J. E. Attitude-behaviors toward retardation of mothers of retarded and non-retarded in four nations. American journal of mental deficiency, 1971, in press. 196 Ward, J. H., Jr. Multiple linear regression models. In H. Borko (Ed.) Computer applications in the behavioral sciences. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1962. Warner, D. Drug dependence in Michigan. Lansing: Michigan Department of Public Health, 1969. Whitman, R. M. Attitudes of psychiatric patients toward the mentally ill: A Guttman facet theory analysis of their content, structure, and determinants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Wikler, A., & Rasor, R. W. Psychiatric aspects of drug addiction. American journal of medicine, 1953, 14, 566-570. Wikler, A. Opioid addiction. A. M. Freedman and H. I. Kaplan (Ed's.) Comprehensive textbook of psychiatry. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1967. Wolf, R. M. Construction of descriptive and attitude scales. In T. Husen (Ed.), International study of achievement in mathematics. New York: Wiley, 1967. APPENDICES 197 APPENDIX 1 GLOSSARY 198 GLOSSARYl Approximation--see "simplex approximation." Attitude——"De1imited totality of behavior with respect to something" (Guttman, 1950, p. 51). Attitude-behavior——the hyphenated term denotes that attitude is a subclass of behavior rather than an intervening variable or a "predisposition" to behavior. Content——situation (action, feeling, comparison, circum— stances) indicated in an attitude item; generally corresponds to "lateral struction." Definitional statement——specification of characteristics proper to an item of a given Level member, typically stated in phrase or clause form. Definitional system--ordered group of definitional statements or of the corresponding Level members; typically either the group constituting a "semantic path" or the complete group of 12 Level members in the "semantic map." Directionality——characteristic of an item, sometimes called positive or negative, determining agreement with the item as indicating favorableness or unfavorable— ness toward the attitude object. E1ement--one of two or more ways in which a facet may be eXpressed; in the present system, all joint facets are dichotomous, expressed in one of two ordered elements. 199 200 Facet—-one of several semantic units distinguishable in the verbal eXpression of an attitude; in the present system, five dichotomous facets are noted within the joint struction. Facet profile--see "struction profile." Joint struction--see also "struction," "lateral struction"-— Lateral "operationally defined as the ordered sets of . . . five facets from low to high across all five facets simultaneously" (Jordan, 1968, p. 76); that part of the semantic structure of attitude items which can be determined independently of specific response situations. struction--see also "struction," "joint struction"-- that part of the semantic structure of attitude items which is directly dependent on specification of situation and object; a more precise term than "content." Level—~degree of attitude strength Specified by thenumber of strong and weak facets in the member(s) of that Level; in the present system, six ordered Levels are identified: Level 1 is characterized by the unique member having five weak facets; Level 2, by members having four weak and one strong facet . Level 6, by the unique member having five strong facets. 201 Level member—-one of one or more permutations(s) of strong and weak facets which are common to a given Level; in the present system, 12 LeVel members have been identified: three on level 2, four on Level 3, two on Level 4, and one each on Levels 1, 5, and 6. Map—-see "semantic map." Member——see "Level member." Path——see "semantic path." Profile——see ”struction profile." Reversa1——change in a specified order of Levels or of cor— relations, involving only the two indicated Levels or correlations. Semantic—-pertaining to or arising from the varying meanings, grammatical forms, or stylistic emphasis of words, phrases, or clauses. Semantic map—-two—dimensional representation of hypothesized relationships among six Levels and among 12 Level members. Semantic path——ordered set of Level members, typically six, such that each member has one more strong facet than the immediately preceding member and one less strong facet then the immediately following member. Semantic possibility analysis—~linguistic discussion of the implications of the five dichotomous joint facets identified in the present system; of 32 permutations, only 12 are considered logically consistent. 202 Simplex-—specific form of (correlation) matrix, diagonally dominated and decreasing in magnitude away from the main diagonal. Simplex approximation—-matrix which approaches more or less perfectly the simplex form; existing tests (Kaiser, 1962; Mukherjee, 1966) reflect both ordering of individual entries and sizes of differences between entries and between diagonals. Strong(er)--opposite of weak(er)——term functionally assigned to one of two elements, to a facet eXpressed by its strong element, or to a Level member characterized by more strong facets than another Level member; the strong-weak continuum is presently examined as unidimensional. Struction--see also "joint struction," "lateral struction"-- semantic pattern identifiable in any attitude item, or the system of such identifications. Struction profile——specification, typically indicated by small letters and numerical subscripts, of the permutation(s) of weak and strong elements or facets in a Level member or a set of Level members; or of permutations of lateral elements or facets. 'Transposition--change in a specified order of Levels or of correlations involving a change in position 203 of one level or correlation and the corresponding one-place shift in the position of following or preceding levels or correlations. Weak--opposite of "strong" (which see). 1Credit is given to Maierle (1969) for most of the work in developing this glossary. APPENDIX 2 DIRECTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION 204 DIRECTIONS RE: Administration of ABS-DU with reSpondents circling answers in the questionnaire booklets. NOTE: It is recommended that reSpondents circle their answers on the answer sheet when they are not likely to have had previous contact with IBM answer forms. It is also recommended that respondents circle their answers when group administration is impossible. Materials needed — Sufficient questionnaire booklets and pencils for each respondent and a desk, table, or suitable surface for each respondent. Procedure - Say: "Do not write on these yet." Hand out one ABS-DU questionnaire to each respondent. Read the following after each respondent has received the questionnaire. (If the question- naires are not being group administered - e.g., mailed and personal contact is impossible, dispense appropriate written instructions with each booklet). "This booklet contains statements of how people behave in certain situations or feel about certain things. You, your— self, 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: 205 206 1. Chance of drug users being sick more often 1. less chance 2. about the same 3. more chance If others believe that illegal drug users have less chance of being sick more often circle the number one as shown on the cover of your booklet. Use a soft lead pencil and circle what you believe to be the correct answer for each question. There are no "right" or "wrong" answers and it is suggested that you respond with your first thought about each question. It is important that you read the directions at the top of each page carefully, since questions in this booklet range from what others think to the way you think, feel and act about various things. Please answer every question. Do not put your name or any identifying marks on these questionnaires. Are there any question?" After any questions have been answered say: "When you have completed the entire questionnaire, place your booklets here (designate)." If the questionnaires are not being group administered, make other suitable arrangements for collecting the questionnaires. "Who needs a pencil?" Dispense the pencils to those who need them and say: "There is no time limit. Place your completed booklets here (designate) when you have finished. Be sure to follow the directions at the top of each page carefully. You-may begin." After all the questionnaires have been turned in, clearly label the ngUp that has reSponded and the date and location of administration. (e.g., Clergy — April 15, 1971, Cobo Hall, Detroit, Michigan) Place all the booklets, with answer sheets inside, in a box. Put a copy of the label inside the box and seal it. Also, label the outside of the box as to content (e.g., April 15,' 1971, Cobo Hall, Detroit, Michigan) and mail to: Dr. John E. Jordan 444 Erickson Hall Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48823 {Thank you for your co-operation. 207 DIRECTIONS RE: Administration of ABS—DU employing IBM answer sheets. NOTE: It is recommended that the IBM answer sheets be employed only when respondents are likely to have had previous contact with such answer forms. It is also recommended that the IBM answer sheets be employed with a captive audience that will take the scale under supervision. Materials needed — Sufficient questionnaire booklets, answer sheets, and pencils for each respondent, (note — each respondent needs 2 answer sheets), a desk, table, or suitable surface for each respondent to write on. Procedure — Say: "29 not write on these yet" Hand out one ABS-DU questionnaire and two (2) IBM answer sheets to each respondent. Read the following after each respondent has received the questionnaire and 2 answer sheets: "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 1. less chance 2. about the same 3. more chance 208 If others believe that illegal drug users have less chance of being sick more often make a heavy dark line on the answer sheet between the two lines after the number as shown on the cover of your booklet. Use a soft lead pencil and completely fill in what you believe to be the correct answer for each question. There are no "right" or "wrong" answers and it is suggested that you reSpond with your first thought about each question. It is important that you read the directions at the top of each page carefully, since questions in this booklet range from what others think to the way ypu think, feel and act about various things. Please answer every question. Do not put your name or any identifying marks on these questionnaires or answer sheets. Do not write on the questionnaire booklets. Are there any questiOHS?" After any questions have been answered say: "Notice that the questions start on page two (2) and go from number 1 to number one hundred and sixty (160) on page 24. Put the answers to these first 160 questions opposite the appropriate number on one IBM sheet. Notice that page 25 starts over again with the number one (1). When you reach this point start on the second IBM sheet at number one and continue to the end of the booklet, marking your responses on the second answer sheet. Since two answer sheets are used, it is necessary to keep the responses to each person together. To do this we will start here (designate a person at the front of a row or some other convenient starting point) and number off. (Have each individual state his number, e.g., 1, 2, 3, etc., until all respondents have an identification number). Now, right the number you received on BOTH of the IBM answer sheets. Put this number in the space for your name. Do pop put any other identifying marks on the answer sheets. Every person should now have put his number on BOTH IBM answer sheets. The same number should be on both sheets for any given individual. When you turn in your answer sheets and booklets, place the answer sheets inside the questionnaire booklet and place the booklet with the answer sheets inside on a pile here (designate a place for the booklets and answer sheets to be placed). Are there any questions?" After questions are answered ask: "Who needs a pencil?" Dispense the pencils to those who need them and say: 209 "There is no time limit. Place your answer sheets inside the questionnaire booklet and put them here (designate) when you have finished. Be sure to follow the directions at the top of each page carefully. You may begin." After all the questionnaires AND answer sheets (two for each respondent) have been turned in, clearly label the group that has responded and the date and location of administration. (e.g., Clergy — April 15, 1971, Cdbo Hall, Detroit, Michigan). Place all the booklets, with answer sheets inside, in a box. Put a copy of the label inside the box and seal it. Also, label the outside of the box as to content (e.g., April 15, 1971, Cobo Hall, Detroit, Michigan) and mail to: Dr. John E. Jordan 444 Erickson Hall Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48823 Thank you for your co-operation. APPENDIX 3 VARIABLE LIST--CODE BOOK 210 ABS—DU: Basic Variable List by IBM Card and Column 21LL Type Variable Card Column Page Item Range 0 l. Stereotype 1 11-50 2-7 1—40 40-120 o.u 2. Normative 2 11-50 8~l3 41-80 40-120 55 3. Moral Eval. 3 11-50 14—19 81—120 40-120 1;: 4. Hypothetical 4 11-50 20-24 121-160 40-120 u 0 5. Personal Feeling 5 11-50 25—29 1-40 40-120 ‘0 6. Personal Action 6 11-50 30-34 41-80 40-120 0 7. Sexa 1-7 52 35 81 1-2 1; 8. Age 1-7 53 35 82 1-5 % 9. Marital 1-7 54 35 83 1-5 3 10. Religion - type 1-7 55 35 84 1-5 0 11. Religion - Import. 1-7 56 35 85 1-5 5 12. Education - Amount 1-7 57 35 86 1-5 o c 13. Set in Ways 1-7 58 36 87 1—4 .3 14. Child Rearing 1-7 59 36 88 1-4 w-u 15. Birth Control 1-7 60 36 89 1-4 2‘3 16. Automation 1-7 61 36 90 1-4 2 5 17. Observe Rules (rel) 1-7 62 36 91 1-5 O-: 18. Follow Rules l-7 63 37 92 1-4 G 19. Political Pref. 1-7 64 37 93 1-4 20. Political rallies 1-7 65 37 94 1—5 3 E 21. Political demonst. 1-7 66 37 95 1-5 3.3 22. Vote 1-7 67 37 96 1-3 H > 23. Civil Disturbances 1-7 68 37 97 1—2 :13 24. Political Revol. 1-7 69 37 98 1-2 8.2 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 11 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 *5 32. Amount of use 7 15 39 106 1-5 3 33. Avoidance 7 16 39 107 1-5 G 34. Gain 7 17 39 108 1-2 8 35. Enjoyment 7 18 39 109 1-5 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 Group 1-7 6-7 -- -- -- 5 42. Interest GroupC 1-7 8-9 -- -- -- 3 43. Card No. 1-7 80 -- -- -- aSex: l=female; 2=male b Same c Same as group numbers in Table 15. as category numbers in Table 15. APPENDIX 4 ABS-DU (INITIAL VERSION) 212 ATTITUDE BEHAVIOR SCALE 2g DIRECTIONS This booklet contains statements of how people behave in certain situations or feel about certain things.' You, yourself, or other persons often bebawe 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 less 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. 1 - 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 *t****************** by: John E. Jordan James M. Kaple William Nicholson College of Education . Michigan State University 31871"a ABS-I-DU Directions: Section I This section contains statements about ideas which 9thers 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. Drug users are genetically predisposed (born that way) to use drugs. 1. less often than others 2. the same 3. more often than others 3. Drug users take drugs because it is "the thing to do." 1. disagree 2. undecided 3. agree 4. As compared to others drug users deal with anxiety or worry: 1. less well 2. same 3. better than non drug users 5. Others believe that minority racial groups are more likely to be drug users than whites. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 6. People who use drugs are: 1. physically weaker than others 2. same 3. physically stronger than others '7. Others believe that drug users start taking drugs for medical reasons. 1. very seldom 2. undecided 3. more often than not 31 871 ‘3 f . Others believe the following things about illegal _dr__l_1g users as empared ABS-I-DU non—drug users: 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: l 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 others believe that drug users are: With regard to sexual practices, 1- more sexually loose than non-drug users 2. same 3. 1888 sexually loose thanfnonvdrug users 318 71 -a ~4- ABS-I-DU Others believe the following things about illegal drgg_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: 1. 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 threat to society. 1. agree 2. undecided 3. disagree 31871'a —5— ABS—I—DU Others believe the following things about illegal drug users as compared to non—drug users: 24. Others believe that drug users are a threat to society. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 25. As compared to non-drug users, others believe that drug users are: . less fun to date . the same . more fun to date “NH 26. Others believe that drug users are beyond medical help. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 27. Others believe that drug users should be isolated from the rest of society in jails. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 28. Others believe that drug users should be isolated from society by hospit— alization. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 29. Others believe that drug users can best be helped by ex-drug addicts. 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree 30. Others believe that drug users are beyond help by psychologists. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 31. Others believe that the government should pay all costs associated with rehabilitating drug users. 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree 31371 -a 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 36. Others believe that drug users need a permanent drug substitute, like methadone, to permanently "kick the habit." 1. 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. Others believe drug users usually desire treatment becauSe they are in legal difficulty. 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 "kick the habit." 1. 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-a 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 928. users. Host peogle generally believe the following about interacting‘with illegal drug users: 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 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 Peeple 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 31871 -a -9- ABS-II—DU Most people generally believe the following about interactigg 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 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 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 31871 -a n... ._ 10.. ABS-II-DU Most people generally believe the following about interacting with illegal drug users: 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 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 sexually loose. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree PeOple generally believe that religious lives: 1. less often than non-users 2. same as non-users 3. more often than non-users People generally believe that 1. less mature than others 2. same as others 3. more mature than others People generally believe that antisocial. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree People generally believe that "good friends." 1. disagree 2. undecided 3. agree others others others others others would would would would would Peeple generally believe that others would interested in unusual sexual practices: 1. more often than non-users 2. same as non-users 3. less often than non-users 31871-a find find find find find find drug that that that that that users to be drug drug drug drug drug users users users users users lead act: are make are -11- ABS-II-DU Most people generally believe the following about interacting*with illegal drug users: 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 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 non—users 2. same as non-users 3. more often than non-users People generally believe others would find drug users to be an econOIdc 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 Peeple 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 from the rest of society in jail. I. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 31871 -a -12- ABS-II-DU ggag_nggplg generally believe the following about interacting with illegal drug users: 68. PeOple generally believe that others would find that drug users should be isolated from society by hospitalization. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 69. People generally believe others would find drug users can best be helped by ex-drug addicts. 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree 70. People generally believe others would find that drug users are beyond help by psychologists. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 71. 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 72. People generally believe that others would find that drug users only require hospital detoxification (drying out). 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 73. People generally believe that others would find that drug users respond well to group therapy. 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree ‘74. Pe0ple generally believe that others would find legal restraints on drug users should be: 1. more strict 2. remain unchanged 3. less strict 131.8T1'3 -13- ABS-II-DU Most people generally believe the following about interacting with illegal drug users: 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. Peeple 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 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 Peeple 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 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: 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 flborn 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 35. For others to expect most drug users to be from a minority racial group 1 usually right 2. uncertain 3 usually wrong 36. For others to believe that drug users are physically weak is: 1. usually right 2 undecided 3. usually wrong 87. For others to expect that drug users usually start to take drugs for medical reasons is: 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 3H371-a -15— ABS-III-DU In respect to illegal drug users, what do you, ygurself, believe others think is right or'wrggg: 88. For others to expect that drug users take drugs to "escape reality" is: 1. usually right 2. uncertain 3. usually wrung 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: l . usually right 2. undecided 3. usually wrong 91. For others to espect 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. For 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: 1. usually right 2. undecided . 3. usually wrong -16- ABS~III-DU In respect to illegal 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 righ t 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 31871-a -17- ABS—III-DU In respect to illegal drug users, what do you, yourself, believe others think is right or wrong: 106. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 31871 For For others to expect usually right uncertain usually wrong others to expect usually wrong undecided usually right others to expect usually right uncertain usually wrong others to expect usually right uncertain usually wrong others to expect ization is: For 1. 2 3. usually right uncertain usually wrong others to expect usually wrong uncertain usually right others to expect usually right uncertain usually wrong drug drug that drug drug that users to be a threat to society is: users to be fun on a date is: drug users are beyond medical help is: users to be isolated from society by jail is: users to be isolated from society by hospital- users to best be helped by ex—drug addicts is: drug users are beyond help by psychologists is: For others to expect the government to pay all costs associated with rehabilitating drug users is: 1. 2. 3. usually wrong undecided usually right -13— ABS-III-DU In respect to illegal drug users, what do you, yourself, believe others think is right or wrong: 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. For others to believe that all that drug users need is hospital detoxification (drying out) is: 1 2. 3 For 1. 2. 3. For of l. 2. 3. For usually right undecided usually wrong others to expect drug users to respond well to group therapy is: usually wrong undecided usually righ t others to expect legal restraints on drug users to be too strict is: usually wrong uncertain usually right others to think drug users seek treatment only to lower the amount daily drug intake is: usually right uncertain usually wrong others to think that drug users need a permanent drug substitute, like methadone, to permanently "kick the habit" is: For For usually right uncertain usually wrong others to think that drug use leads to physical damage to the user usually right uncertain usually wrong others to believe that drug users usually desire treatment because they are in legal difficulty is: l. 2. 3. 31871 '8 usually right undecided usually wrong -19- ABS-III-DU In reapect to illegal dm mg 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 1 2. uncertain 3. usually right 120. For others to believe that drug users need help with emotional prdblems l . usually right 2. uncertain 3. usually wrong 31871"a -20- ABS-IV-DU Directions: Section IV This section contains statements about how you think you would act talard illegal drug users. Choose the answer that indicates how you think you would act. In respect to illegal drugguserS‘would you yourself: 121. I would expect that drug users come from: 1. unhappy homes 2. undecided 3. happy homes 122. I would expect that drug users are genetically predisposed (born that guy) to be that way. 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree 123. I would expect drug users to take drugs because it is "the thing to do." 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes 126. I would expect that drug users deal with anxiety: 1. poorly 2. uncertain 3. well 125. I would usually expect drug users to be from a minority racial group. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 126. I would expect that drug users are: l. physically weak 2. undecided 3. physically strong 127. I.would expect that drug users usually start to take drugs for medical reasons. 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree 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 10088- 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 1L36. 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-DU 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 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-a {Lug lJlt'E. In respect to illegal drug users would you yourself: 166. 147. 168. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. I would expect that drug users are beyond medical help. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree I would expect drug users to be isolated from society by jail. I. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree I would expect drug users to be isolated from society by hospitalization. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree 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 the government to pay all costs associated with rehabili- tating drug users. 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree I would expect that all that drug users need is hospital detoxification (drying out). 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree I would expect drug users to respond well to group therapy. 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree 31871 -a 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 156. I would expect that drug users need a permanent drug substitute like methodone to permanently "kick the habit." 1. 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." 1. 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 25 £2: V ?M 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: 1. I feel drug users case 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 4. 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.. ABS-V-DU How do you feel toward illegal drugyusers: 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. 1. 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. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 31871 I feel drug users are immatdre. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree I feel drug users are usually anti-social. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree feel drug users make "good friends". I 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree I feel that drug users are involved in unusual sexual practices. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree I feel drug users 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree I feel drug users 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree I feel drug users 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree I feel drug users 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree go to the university as often as others. are less faithful to their spouses than non-drug users. are an economic burden. are a threat to society. I feel that drug users are fun on a date. 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree -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 from society 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 31871 -a -29- ABS-V-DU 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 treaument 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". 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree I feel that drugusers need help with emotional problems. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree ~a 40— ABS-VI-DU Directions: Section VI This section concerns actual experiences 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 gg_experience or contact with illegal drug users, omit the next 40 questions and begin again at question on page 34. If you have had 32y experience or contact with illegal drug users answer all questions to the best of your ability. Experiences or contacts with illegal drug users: 41. I have found that drug users come from: 1. unhappy homes 2. undecided 3. happy homes 42. I have found that drug users are genetically predisposed to (born that way) use drugs. 1. disagree 2. undecided 3. agree 43. I have found that drug users take drugs because it is the thing to do. 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes 44. I have seen drug users deal well with anxiety. 1. no 2. uncertain 3. yes 45. I have seen that drug users usually belong to a minority racial group. 1. yes 2. uncertain 3. no 46. I have experienced that drug users are: 1. physically weak 2. undecided 3. physically strong 47 I have seen that drug users usually start to take drugs for medical reasons. 1. no 2. uncertain 3. yes 31871 - a -31- ABS-VI-DU Experiences or contacts with illegal drug users: 48. I have seen drug users take drugs to escape "reality". 1. yes 2. uncertain 3. no 49, I have experienced that the intellectual ability of drug users is: 1. less than mine 2. equal to mine 3. more than mine 50. I have trusted drug users. 1. no 2. uncertain 3. yes 51. I have been frightened by drug users. 1. yes 2. uncertain 3. no 52. I have experienced that drug users plan for the future. 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes 53. 1 have found drug users to be: I. undependable 2. undecided 3. dependable 54, I have seen that drug users are usually "followers" rather than'leaders". 1. yes 2. undecided 3. no 55, I have seen that drug users are sexually loose. 1. yes 2. undecided 3. no 56. I have seen that drug users lead "religious lives" more often than non users. 1. no 2. uncertain 3. yes 32 ABS-VI'DU Experiences or contacts with illegal druggusers: S7. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 31871 I have seen that drug users are immature. 1. yes 2. uncertain 3. no I have found that drug users are anti-social. 1. yes 2. uncertain 3. no I have seen that drug users make "good friends". 1. no 2. uncertain 3. yes I have seen that drug users are involved in unusual sexual practices. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree I have experienced that drug users go to university less often than non users. 1. agree 2. uncertain 3. disagree I have seen that drug users are unfaithful to their spouses more often than non drug users. 1. yes 2. uncertain 3. no I have seen that drug users are an economic threat to society. 1. yes 2. uncertain 3. no I have seen that drug users are a threat to society. 1. yes 2. uncertain 3. no —_———' -33- ABS-VI-DU Experiences or contacts with illegal druggusers: 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 ___—i -34- ABS-VI’DU Experiences or contacts with illegal drugyusers: 73. 74. 75, 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 31871 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." 1. 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_gf all persons are important. Part of the questionnaire has to do with personal information about you. Since the questionnaire i§_completely anonymous 2; confidential, you may answer all of the questions freely without any concern about being identified. . . It is important to the study to obtain your answer_£g every question. Please read each question carefully and_gg not omit any questions. Please answer by circling the answer you choose. 81- Please indicate your sex. 1. Female 2. Male 82. 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? I. 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 I 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 VII-\LQNH 86-About how much education do you have? 1. 6 years of school or less 2. 9 years of school or less 3. 12 years of school or less 4. Some college or university 5. A college or university degree 87, Some people are more set in their ways than others. How”would you rate yourself? 1. I find it very difficult to change 2. 1 find it slightly difficult to change 3. I find it somewhat easy to change 4. I find it very easy to change my ways 88. Some people feel that in bringing up children, new ways and methods should he 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 be tried out whenever possible." Strongly disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree . Strongly agree bWNH o 89.Family planning on birth control has been discussed by many pe0ple. What is your fuPllhg 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 waP-J 90.People have different ideas about what should be done concerning autanation and otner new ways of doing things. How do you feel about the following statement? "Automation and similar new rocedures should be encoura ed (in P government, business and indust.‘“ .ince eventually they create new jobs and raise the standard of liting." . Strongly disagree Slightly disagree 8 lightly ag roe Strongly agree bUJNr—J 91 In reapect to your religion, about to what extent do you observe the rules and regulations of your religion? I prefer not to answer I have no religion Sometimes Usually Almost always MDWNH 31571- a 92. I find it easier to follow rules than to do things on my own. Agree strongly Agree slightly Disagree slightly Disagree strongly «(>me 93. What is your political preference? Republican Independent :hsnOCTEIC Other buNr—J 94. How many pOIitical rilr'ss nave you attended? None One or two Three to six Seven to 15 More than 15 mwar-I 95. How many political demonstrations or marches have you taken part in? None One or two Three to six Seven to 15 More than 15 mwar—J O 96. Did you vote in the 1963 Presidential election? 1. No 2. Was too young to vote or unable to vote ’3 J. Yes 97. Have you ever been arrested or taken into custody for taking part in a civil disturbance? I. 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? I. No 2. Yes 31871—a 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 a. 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. . ‘Harijuana users . Amphitamine and/or barbiturates . Heroine or opium users . Multiple users . No contact U'Iwav—I 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 wt‘ri-fi 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. . I have read or heard lectures or seen movies about drug users A friend or relative is, or was, a drug user I have counseled, dated or worked intensively with drug users I, myself, am or have been an illegal drug user 5wNv—I O 0 31871 - a 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 LanNr-J 106. How many times have you used the drug(s) circled above? If you have not used any illegal drugs, leave your answer blank. 1. Only once 2. Two to five times 3. Five to 10 times 4. 10 to 50 times 5. More than 50 times 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? 1. No experience 2. I definitely disliked it 3. I did not like it very much 4. I liked it somewhat 5. I definitely enjoyed it 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 4. Strongly disagree 114. Some day most of the mysteries of the world will be revealed by science. 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Agree 4. Strongly agree 115, By improving industrial and agricultural methods, poverty can be eliminated in the world. 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Agree 4. Strongly agree 116. With increased medical knowledge it should be possible to lengthen the average life span to 100 years or more. 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Agree 4. Strongly agree 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 bump-a 118. Education can only help people develop their natural abilities; it cannot change people in any fundamental way. 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4 Strongly disagree 31871 - a 119. With hard work anyone can succeed. I. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Agree 4. Strongly agree 120. Almost every present human problem will be solved in the future. 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Agree 4. Strongly agree 31871 - a APPENDIX 5 ABS:DU DEFINITIONAL SUPPLEMENT 254 Michigan State University John E. Jordan, Ph.D. East Lansing, Michigan William N. Nicholson College of Education ATTITUDE BEHAVIOR SCALE: DRUG QSERS W This questionnaire is interested in how you define "illegal drug users." Each of the seven questions is somewhat different. Please read each question carefully. Circle only one response for each question. This is an: anonymous questionnaire and you do not need to give your name. Thank you. * a * * 1. Other people define illegal drug users as: 1. different kinds of users depending on which illegal drug they primarily use 2. anyone who takes any illegal drug 3. people who are dependent, habituated or addicted to an illegal drug 2. Most people generally define illegal drug users as: 1. different kinds of users depending on which illegal drug they primarily use 2. anyone who takes any illegal drug 3. people who are dependent, habituated or addicted to an illegal drug 3. People ought to define illegal drug users as: 1. different kinds of users depending on which illegal drug they primarily use 2. anyone who takes any illegal drug 3. people who are dependent, habituated or addicted to an illegal drug 4. I would define illegal drug users as: 1. different kinds of useres depending on which illegal drug they primarily use 2. anyone who takes any illegal drug 3. people who are dependent, habituated or addicted to an illegal drug 5. I personally feel that illegal drug users should be define as: 1. different kinds of users depending on which illegal drug they primarily use 2. anyone who takes any illegal drug 3. people who are dependent, habituated or addicted to an illegal drug 6. I have personally defined illegal drug users as: 1. different kinds of users depending on which illegal drug they primarily use 2. anyone who takes any illegal drug 3. people who are dependent, habituated or addicted to an illegal drug S E OTHER SIDE 255 256 7. In answering this questionnaire I have defined illegal drug users as: CIRCLE ONLY ONE ANSWER marijuana users hallucinogens (LSD, mescaline) users amphetamine and/or barbiturate users cocaine users heroin users . multiple users . any illegal drug user \IQUIQWNH 8. Please indicate your position: 1. patient 2. paraprofessional staff (no academic degree) 3. professional staff (Ph.D., M.D., M.A., M.S.W., R.N.) Return to: William N. Nicholson Department of Counseling, Personnel Services and Educational Psychology 444 Erickson Hall Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48823 APPENDIX 6 N'S, MEANS, AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS BY CATEGORY AND GROUP FOR ALL VARIABLES 257 2538 ooo.« Illlllllitb.-lllowfi~il l- E. ..... - a. -5? 0°C.: on a. as) ~sa.¢ moo.a~ mo on «(p va.s awe.» .00 an ma> mam.o ~mv.a me an ma> mam.” anm.n am an aa> nsv.o son.” no em ma> ane.a:;ywli¢onPthllzlas:alltlamTaaslllllaamalllllixzt+luxullasallllzlmm1aaaIIIllmssvwlllllimSDslluiv:Imalntlzllwmisrr ¢n¢.; sac.» as an xa> ooa.a ovn.v mm om a<> mflo.o ana.o No o~ ma> cnc.o ocm.u me am x<> ama.« nom.~ vo ow m<> on..= omn.« om m~ ma) -mnepa» :i:nwan>a.lltsx «4:: . - . e.ua:ats-!ca>- can." ”no.“ co “m m<> Hen.“ ~o°.a mo am aa> ova.) ans.» no ea c.) was.“ vmo.~ no a” a.) ”an.” ~ow.~ mo as a<> can.“ mom.~ no on ¢<> wand-9111.1naarxllgt:,me.aII:I¢+I¢4?1|I:1:$L«IIIIIdsohwlllsllmaz.:1:i+al¢5?IIIIAb¢kHIIIII&mmkWIxxllanotiiizlnri:;x mnx.c ano.o mo NH ma> vac.” ma~.n mm as a<> m~n.« nmd.o me as ma> ..~.a moa.~ me o m.> ~.A.° moo.“ mo a aa> non.o mam.a so a m<> .amapua12.--aaa»waw as a ma» nwm.«n www.mu mu Alma» \«mm.o« ammunm mm rwxmasn mo..ma nn..oa co m za> a.¢.~s osa.mo mo m as) nos.~s .Ho.aa an a a.) >mo ohm zamx z wzazxill sun new 74m: z m:«: >nm cum 74m; 2 mz ooc.o oco.s om as m<> omn.v o~¢.m~ aw an as} so..u «as.» am an a.) loam.o I mmm.a ‘ on an m¢> onm.a moa.n cm mm as; ear.r o¢¢.H am an ma) ago.“ mmm.~ on rm 1.); oao.a\ z; ham.c om; um c<> mxfl.fl moa.n am an ma> sao.a can.» om an m¢> can.” vas.v ox as “(a e~1.« and.» am am as) mn..° new.“ on s~ ma> omo.fl “mm.“ mm cm as; one.. ocn.a om m~ x<> eac.a oko.d a“ «mime, «a..q‘ canqa am \am as» man.. hamva on am 14> one.“ ovv.~ as .m ma) can.” cno.m cm on a<> use.» was.“ ow on «a, wamo.clln;z oa~.n - on «a za> new.“ use.“ em as a.> sea.“ www.~ on on ma) ooc.a mmm.m oa , n ma ma>1,llwvmoqa...:w «no.w om. «a as». an".4 -mmm.u ‘ am ma m<> «ma.o cam.» om ma z.> mmc.H «an.» ox ”H 14> mug.“ sou.n on as ma> omm.o mom.” on o m<> «an.o sow.“ am a a<> c3;.0 ass.m nm a xa> oov.m« mmaaoa on o m<> mon.0H d;v«Wn an m a<> «mq..a umw+~u an \d may: snm.sa Doo.on on n m¢> moo.na n»c.oc cm m m<> soo.fla soa.a~ on a z<> >mo chm zamz z mzaa new :«w: : mauc ram 24w: a wee; - ‘11, Ncmmomma.summmdmmaucH--muuavuclcwdwoMIlaaxsnowmaao: cam-: mma-a «a «q a<> cac.a coo.“ me a. ma) Hoo.c .ao.sa an on ma: oflo.a “mm.“ on an a.) .am.° one.“ an (n as) mma.o own.“ an mm e<> «35.9 can.“ on «n m.> .q-.a th.« an pnxm<> vuo.a «meow ancllallimnnmqa|u|||-u+quillllaaa+alnlulilmanilinllanFmas oo¢.o ova.“ mm c» m<> Hoo.o can.“ on om as) can.a ~H0.fi an c~ ea, anc.o new.“ an em as) cad.” amm.~ an om a<> oa«.a can." cm mm «a, mcn.a mwm.a mm am ma) sun‘s mason an mu «4: aaaom am<+a av om a mum.o VH5.“ an on «a, ova.“ ona.~ an as z¢> “on.a cos.~ an A” a<> has.“ ona.~ an as a.» oma.«‘ oka.~ an as ea, aqa-a «swam an as m<> ass-“ v«m«~ an \ma\a can.“ cos.» an as aa> oom.. omv.~ an o m4> scu.o oawnm an e «a» sav.o connd an n m<> oasqaa .m«¢ao an a ma) ~u~.aa xxaam.aa on m :4) nnm-va «harms an q «as wo~.~a sma.mo an n m4> oun.~a nno.oo «c m ma> omc.o ~ao.nm on a a.) >mo new zmn new zam: z mxaa o»m zmo UHMUGMpw can .mcmwz .m.zll.mm mqmde . m . . 2559 ooo.o . aam.a ”mm." a. «a sac.“ Haa. an a :«a aAa.v imma.a m A a m<> . ama.a~ mmo. n , a?” H . ow o: . com.c n o M» m<> . new.» on o o o . amn. v a nca.a ma a<> ma . aa m vam.a was.“ as Am m<> one.” ”MAHV a. mm aaa aMMuml:Ji::¢.A.n MM ma «(a D0 ..— «> a N v , NM. m< Mliapl--| Ill.l- AAA.“ aa z<> . amv.~ am ma .m A m H. an 11:- Aaa.~ Hm mam a a. a aao.a A a an aaa aaa.a . an m<> cow.” am~.« am a<> mAfl.n a. an Irma.a mAa N a as «(a . naH.~ as am «A..a a. . a. ma) Ana.“ n a. m m<> . aaa.n am ma .A a a . an aan.~ «a mmm a aa > As .a me a m~ m<> ovn.o av ma> ca . nod.» AH m< A - mmo. ca Nov.” a a an > ANA. .e.1:[-.w1. mm a.) Ama.a A an a aaa . amm.» as a a -Jljba mNn-N 0 QCQ O Q? m<> on . mh N cll- {Old m<> awa aam A as m.> a . mmn.w as aa a a sum. as as zamz n ¢a> A n as am . as > osm.a -. m an m<> z mzaz awn.m mmm.nA aw c a<> vom.a mom.m aa ma ma) >aa a an m a<> . aaa.a as raw: m a<> . aa».» 2 Ill. Dom N o 5 CV N m<> are; an -:-+l:abmmpmm a «(a aa . a saw . - as a.a aaa.a H maOHu . z.w. J9. Jay- ,|:;H;wwer one a ana. wv a HHH new H «ma mxaz n a « IIIJIIIIaMiJ: av v ma> mam.v Zumuoflnpm caouwm . NVA.a mam.m .«v zen 14> Aam.a Han.m~ a . . .o amoomeao a... .. J... J. A .. a“... - “an.a a. . a> vaa.a ma.v mm a.) . ama.v A. , we ma) gas.“ aaa.a A. AA aa> a . AaA.a a. an A., aaa a aaa.H a. A» aaa.a .N x mm H . a. - . Aam.a a. aa> sea.a «a <> aa . aaa N aA aaa aaa. an aAa.~ . am a a a A . a. mam.a . a an «(a oov. . . OH N H . Hv anv.a on m<> «wa.a m as ; n<> ow . mom H mm m<> omo.a ow - MN@- MW ‘I.\\J - uN d u H? Dflmiq I: H $4) Asa a m as - ma) Id .- mNA N am m<> . maA. a mw mao.m «a z o.« a -- . ow Hoa.o A Hair: . . ¢<> ma~.A aa a> ma . aaa n AH a<> _ aAa.m mm . maa.H. a a m a . a. Aaa.a - A. ma) vmv n H <> . mug m ca m< mma. E 2a... A A... we.” A... .. ...» an A... a a» Itln.:::--|.l a> .. cam. a . a . a J -- z mAa nA aaa . aa a ma :szwa as AaA.ma ma m aa> aaa a aaa.m a. an ma) ;-. ohm we NAa.oa 1 J av m<> z J :47! JI>DQ :Au ea or ea c m<> coo. H Q ., z 9 . 50H A . mz< aaa a 0 HH am I . z moana aaa.a am A. a «z Jasonaaa aoumm . man. an m . H40 lEac N0¢am ON 2 m<> Ned-H OONuDN 0V oaooo an . man a an m<> amA. . ma .III. a m a. aA IMMh.a owm.w cm "W m<> mma.a ”mane a» mm z<> mam.” aav.H -II11MM an ma> «ca.a mm <> Na . m N . am ma) mac. an I . mac-N «N x v o N - mN vowao n vm md> “00.0 ON <> omoa o.“ d 0N m<> vmflcm a anA.~ ca H . aw mnv.a - m n m<> ktoc 0N m<> c . vmo H ”N m< . can...“ 0 aa«.» mu m a a . am > aAm.a - aw maa cow-c mN , 14> nno. N00 N 0N m<> thad mn mN com.“ «a m a a a on «No.0 om m<> OHN-DH m <> - m H M h." K< o o H. E... “NH. ..M. M ... mm.” ”2“. MW .. ...» mm.” new mm m m...» aaa aAa A aw m<> ans. A» N -. Ha aaa .. a.n.m as z NH coo. mm mmn H o . om m<> mo . mA a m<> am n I ma az.z >wm a. ....A. A. A ... ...n. ..a.. A. a. m“. , mam . am aaa.ma am > 2am: z N m<> aam.a« aam.~A am A ma> Q UGM mxno 5m vma 00 cm v S; H macaw .mocmcmuamz mco z - m o a eumznmaoawea caouom .m smoowme o s U Am meH . nawmw smflhm 260 Ann.¢. mmm.m mm «w «a» aaa.a aaa.» an s. as) sma.¢ aaa.- as an «(a nam.s aaa.~ .ma An as) a...a am~.s sa an ms) ana.s naa.n as an Asa csa.a mma.s as .n a.) nm0¢d naflnw mm. rm m aam.a asm.s sn a~ Asa cam.a an<.s mm. «m.m aaa.s nsa.» Na ss as) asm.s aaa.~ mm as as> sas.s amA.s «a a a.) mAa.a aaa.a No a aaa ~av.a mma.s ms A as) daa+dsu|IIIAAm¢aA an a as» mmw.ss aAm.aA ma m.m«a mua.ss Jasm.aA \am w ««»J amo.as aAa.aa an a «.> aca.a nas.an so A a<> saa.as Aaa.am an s as) in cam 23: 2 $22 33 a; ED: .2 mi... >3 a; 251 2. mt; deuOB AmHMCOMmmmeHQMHmmlmumflnmmuwnm. SUHMOE kucwz "N flmoumfidnv aaaqq aaa.n mm «a as) aaa.a aaa.m mm s. as) AAs.a asa.m~ Am as as) mAa.a san.s sm A» a.) ,aaana aas.s am an maa ama.a Ava.» as an as) Awa.a aAA.s as an «(a «mm s aAaJAI as ma-m<> smA4s .mnn.~ .a ezlillima.mg> «AmaalgllleAmasl, -1A;.ilgiinsn-M<>- aaa.s amm.~ am an ea) amv.a maa.v as am as) maa.a san.n sm aw a.) asm.a amc.s aA Am ma> maa.a aav.m am aA aaa n:m.a aav.s am mu ms> AAm.a asn.s sm s~ a.) ”Aa.a aas.s sm aA a<> .mom.a aaa.~ an N .masl aaa.a aaa.s aA sm aaa ae~.s aaa.s am aA a<> aaa.a aAm.A as as «(a .msm.a aaa.m aA as a.) sa~.s aa~.n as As as) mAa.a ams.n am as as) aaA a ..aa~.a-1lllleaA. ,wstmaxz. aamia maa.a-tlzllusm:lzll!:a.-a aon.s Ama.n sm ss as) was.s asA.m sN as as) aas.s .sA.s sm a ma) aAa.a sAm.n sm a a<> mav.a oso.s s~ A as> samJa sA~.aa Am a a.) ~A0.ss AAAJAa Am a a.) sma.as vcnwae NN a as»: Amo.o ono.no mm m m4> Ncm.A soo.mn mm m z<> «no.ss nan.om mm s ca) 19mm|me zanz z mzsz >um|aAm raw: mass ana CAm Zamz u mxaz N msouw Amassesmmowoummudmlmumsmmuwna guano: amuse: um wmouwedu a:a.c dcc-fi As we m4: aaa.a aaa.m ss s: A.) ava.s ~as.n~ ss an a<> Nca.s ~as.» ss An ms> -a.a mam.s ss an ms> am~.s asa.n ss an «(a -m.a mmv.s ss an ¢<> nma.A aamaw as AnJma> aaa.a \aaa.m a ma m4) saa.s mmc.n d1 sn.m<>a «ma.a msm.a ss an a.) ~aa.a aaa.. ss as a.) mam.a ana.a ss am a.) mwm.a mam.s ss AA ms> aaa.s aaa.» ss aw as) maa.a asa.s ss m~ msa wam.a. ana.s ss am x<> aaa.a aaa.s ss am msa naa-a «Amos s. «m msaJ a~a.a mam.s ss sm ms> aao.a mmq.s ss am a<> aam.a aao.~ as as as) aaa.a asa.~ ss as ms> Naa.a Nos.» ss As «(a sAA.a was.» ss as as) oaa.s aA~.a ss as m.) «AaJa .tanasn ss as;m<> .waxa.a meawwm. ss as as» smA.a asa.a ss As «s> ass.s men.» ss ss a<> ~an.s can.» ss as Asa amA.s asa.s ss a «s> sna.a saa.n ss a a<> mam.a ano.s ss A as> AAn.A nAu.aA ss 4 as) usa-A massAA ss m m<> man-A aaa.AA s. dJmsa omn.n~ ono.ao ss n ms> v~¢.o ANA.an ss m msa vAs.A mam.om ss s maa >mc can zwa cum 24m: wxuo GAm zamx wxmo Unopcmum new .mcmwz .m.ZII um Mmoumfidu .mm mqmfifi 261 aaa.a Ivav.a I. mam.» ss AwA.s .: a .s .I III s. a.) ovmac ”co.m W"? .IIIbn 14>. anmmn Iaa pa owa.n v ., sow. nAAsnm vs IIIIIImosws vv an ¢<> A Ia ass.v vv aa... van.a IIIIilI on m > mv.« . w an «<> r _ . ma . ovs.s vaIIIIIIAm v sacs vAnwm v m» mA~.s aaa v .Imvwwm A-.n mv v~IW«»IIIiImoumm moosv NH ~m m«» oon.s MAo.s MM «v z<> - I-I.IIavs. v a I III- .vasw ca .. vm.s a~a.a I InIIIIII sa x<> aa.a av aw «4) a . m . on As ava . can. IvaIIIII. oa s cases I a sac. An s vn smv a ANA." nv aw «as ..... ammms msmss nv mm m<> 0cm.“ aw~.n as sn z<> A «ksIIIIIIvso as Is) .Is II I vv ~ u<> . ,Izws . vv as) ms~.o m AnIIIIIIIMH Au x<> mmA.o “Mvmm vv a x<> www.u aam.m . I nv am 14> an. IIIIIIIII I w m I ms; _ .mm as“. 5....” s. ”...,AIIIAAAMI A" ...“ Mg , AMA. ..." “a zsmz v a sasso .IIIAhaIA. I. ss m< soa.a I n n as m<> z m<> I Gov... Ifbv . I > An . wom.m v . I are; ”no.0 oavsWA vv .m ¢<> Imam.m mva.» vv MM w<> II . IIIIIIIII ma «Cm I o m q<> .. .II . vs. m<> l. | 2 9? H . monlIH I o: A I I I m A utmc asm aamhmm v" v zva aaa.N aaa.sI- II: A s. a.) - AIImumsmmsoee y 7 s.zs> Oxnao coo.» k I. Ifln m<> I I vanm “Km... I ZHHMOE Hmucmz u u£ '00.0 h.w mm T<> CC... 0: . . vnsso onn.a IIKI II .IAm -4 mnnso covum A mm a<> ccm.s n o.o o IAAAAW amv.s M v~ mu» III «Amss. “Mala w mm as) an.a vmm.m a av as> I:.III I II I vsm I am v a.” An ma aaa.s can.» IIIIIA s~ m<> aaa.a aa A as) aa . A a . II. .I I ads a ass.s v s . v» t woman one a A ¢«2¢(>.I non.a a . A m ¢<> oxm. m .<> . I- I. “mum . wvmab m an I III. I. s avsum a nAm.a m s mw ma maa.v aa~.m.IIIIIIAI ms «AA asa.a “a A A a<> . was. a a 1 . IIII I 0 Own RH CHio) N mm Id> Avoso «Aw we $.Im<> . mum-fi ... A 14> I one. A aua as aa~.aa A a m > .msmus amv a A vs «4) mAn.: Ama.~ A mm as) m zamz A n a“) man.A Amaam A ss a<> mam.a aAv.m A as 14> z praz smasa vMAon A a as) Man.s amv.~ A as as» I >na asm . Aqaa A m as> .aa.a II aaa. A as Asa 066.0 0 a M Q _ wr<2 Ckk.v ”win-Q6 N IN IC) IIvmop ,II aa m :oso .m aco >m: Lam aa v as) a I . ss s smmw o z A saa.a as v I I as a A aAAHN I . ensmmz smucm . uzsz I. saa. as s A umv.Am : .a wmo KovmoIII W n» m > No.“ .. Ha OHE «owsw ooo.A as mm n<> vas.m ooo.v s 0.0 a D II W.(> I .n 0 4) Mm. - H soasa I ”mm." s“ cm as) ”va.a “mmmm ss mm as) “wwnw mAm.m ss mm Is) mmvna ace.» I ,ss I IIwm 14> swunm aaaws as chMu> mam.m nmn.s M vn ”N” a.” a .. a» .3, A... a .. a as g .. . I a. . - N . s»... I- . III as I .. .. ...A as A. A a Is A ..A» . one.» ss <> nmas nAwwn s mn».s m.m.m Nu >aa asm A ss 0 a.) a I ss .s asa ass. ss . a.> IIIIIIIIII. zsm: n z aaasa aaAsA ss as aaA.s a as as I.) IIII. III 2 . <> aaAs aaasAA as m > nas.s AAA.~ as m IIIIIIIIIIII. Ins: aaa a saasan ss m asa cso.s mav.a ss as «a III. I aAm ss as) aav. ss as) III.IIII III 24m: A z<> mar.A s .s .as as as) III E 2 u kccauI on QB d N Ii) aaa. N m. , . r42 >m. msm.aa s O - SOHO Am II JI‘I. a. Lhm Ha V 11> |I O O . muoumlm I‘ .7 H I<> smmsIIII mea.s sv II- umsmmuo II 7 d N as VN 14> v a .1 £9 Suflmwm utqz mvv. v A an aa a IIIIIIIII. sascwz . o N - VN I I I¢¢> H . Ova-MN . ....“ WMOU ~av.a ~am.m am an m¢> -mA.a amv.v aw IIIIIIImnmflanIIIII memo mum.c o s oI on ma) own a oo .. vm mm aqa . addIdIllll aas.a AAa.s am As ms) ssv.a mam.s a as as) “MM W amA.s IIaIIIII IINs a . aaa. ams. v as .. . am <> IImmw w IIII ass.“ mm ”W mu» aaa.w wmwhw MM aw mu» “wa.a “mm.“ as MM a.) IIII IIIIII s on m.o m a<> . I I5 . .dWIIIEEA . A.; Am¢.a vaa v ow ms «4) .I-.mmm.s vm . am a . . c m As can 0 Jo .II :mm an) AAA.a msa.aa a a a.) ass a s .. cm I ass .. AAa.~ A 3a is Sub“. om M 3; MN.” mm.“ as w m“. Ivan.” Mass, mm mm Mu» z as> . asa. am a vA . ma.m as z 532 vwm as ccm.oA om m m<> cafe 027m ow n." m<> zvmz m as> mnv.a de4.IIII ow as «<> 2 was oaa.A m;a.mm IIIam A m<> : an: as a a. v ms> v st am 2 z s m<> wtmo pamcnmum can Amcmm we mw. bAII H mnouo A mamcosm . mwwoumImumsmuuoss guam mm sauce 2 .m smoomeao I.am mamas 0 ......da ......i. ..1.?........mw.wfl....vnadav... “I. ....» Afiu..I..-..Ia.'-.I.nJ l I ‘II‘IOAJ' 1‘3””. I. a a%' It . . ., .. .. EWWI .... wdpfllkfiia ”as? APPENDIX 7 CORRELATION MATRICES BY CATEGORY AND GROUP 262 263 TABLE 37.-—Correlation Matrix for Category A, Group l. n -n.r27 -u in: VA I M t I. flIll‘ n.3v‘ -n as: n.xna n ‘01 “I . ' .u a. ‘ ...A.Ai .-. II. ’ 0.;ua v.4): 0.3!: nInan ' .1 van Inn" '. I I. a.|u-..n.au_sa.ua..ll.m._.n l“— V“ ' n I l ' 3 Sc :1 an ' 37 n u. a v.1xn 0.1;: a.:1¢ II’ p a u Ln. n on -I In . -o m n In II 114 v. ‘1: .u 'u 'n 'u '17' n.m.. mu- Lin—LAN. _n.lu_, - I _ - II I 'l‘.0lfl ‘0 00. II I". '9 U" I H. uh u m":- n ".1! a “If a. In AA ' 3L ' 1L ' u ' u 0,’JI I’JI! G.I.. H.570 0.5’l D..‘l file“. In!!! n.176 MV—WWML. )1 :7 u 34 u u :7 31 :1 :1 In“ um mm mm 0."! 0.9!: 0.5“ aJu nun mm 0.1“ 0.9" mm :7 :7 V‘ll‘ ll 'l...‘ Lilo 0.5.0 0.!‘6 ".l19 0.1.5 0.259 Infill U l! M II 37 J7 ll x7 . LI". 4.: mt u vo.u! Lin 9.x!“ -o.u‘ «an -o.|n1 4.209 ~o.onl Ln“ 0.." mm mu ‘ mu v.7“ 5.": 9.3“ anI uIla 0.1" III"! 0."! 0.“! Lu! 0.: u- n - - :1 u n J. :7 av :7 l7 :1 I :1 0.117 Lu! 0 III mm Mn mm o. III III!" a. H mm 0.171 vnu mm Jan «an mm «1.301 an" -o.m v.0" 0.”! dam mm mu can 11.0 n :1 u u u u :1 n :1 n :1 n 'Itll. O O - l! a)- i l I . A . H :7 ..IIO LID. IJII hl 0.3.7 Mill Hill? 0.." in!“ III II 0.0" 'LIOI "I 'DIUI 'Illl' 'hlll BIO-W flulfll 0.“! 4.0:. 0.143 0.34. _ l 37 z i; 37 ‘ I I M u n . M n :7 37 31 7 :7 l7 l7 :1 3 0.015 0.!” 0.107 on" 5.634 qua 0.“! 0.“: 0.1!) m 0.0" 0.!" mm Id!) 4.319 37 . I \I IJJB I. VII ll 'lIl" -E.u° vOIOI. on" «.00 In!!! v0.00? 'flnflll '0'”? ‘DIOIO 'BIIN 0."! M07! '0117. 'Oull' SI 37 36 J! I‘ ~ 37 31 .57 37 37 37 '7 37 o.ll7 0.0 I 3' )1 3. M l, 37 H 37 3 l? 7 0.!” 0.0“ (1.975 mm 0.1x: o." 0.1" mm 0.590 0.0" mun I. -fl.ll‘ IO.“ 0,1“ «LIN! flu“. HI.“ I u N I HI '1 o.I1I LN: v.1" con-W can -u.079 -o.ud o,|lu -a.n°{ wan Jinan 0.17! man u u u u u u u u u u u u u 0 is v 94 1 Lin mm mm "In -I.Il| LI“ 0.!“ 0.on -n.Iu -o.xn «In! mm -o.u{ -n.1u an“ man can «an 0.1" ...... 'IIIOI I .I.‘ n :1 n u N 0.07 was mm mm GI!" 0.171 0.1" 0.0m ‘ " ' In ' ‘ u 6.3;! mm hm . . .. . - . . .. I- - I I J . . :7 u u a n u u :7 v v La“ 0.3“ II“! on 0 «MN 0.x“ III!" m can -n.u7 0.11;: ' v I u -|.ul -i.nl -n.nl -O,lll -o,oau 0.0" -a.fll7 0,!" 0.14:. 41,”: 4.151 um”) .aflfa' MIT] olflg -o.ofl 5.“; I) a! 3. n. u M u as a! J! u u l! :l u 3! 3! _.___a.au_a.in_aim~jilL__Llui_Lm_Lm_Lz « u- "I I, -fl.l7| 4.!" 0,!“ 8.110 ..dl' hill n :1 n :5 OJ" Imus an" Mn mu - n 9 D A .A n 7 l! 3‘ M M ’7 37 .‘7 1 37 5 huh $3 has? L!!! 6.9" an?! III”: 0.": an“ 0.321 H.519 0,317 o u- n mu Lm mu um mm mm mm on” mu «1.041 Mn -o.nn -n,ooi -l.6:I mu mm «.m -o.m -IH u )7 :4 u u :7 u n :7 av 37 u n :7 37 3' I “1 km . s w I 1.1 v v A an o 1 M ....u 6.4-! “an ..cu mm 0.104 nus. man. «.026 0,116 6.015 Ima- ...au 4,”: 4,." ....av Lou mm mm x l 34 l l w w [m in I III II a , . 30 ll 5.!" 0.47! “.9" . a.“ - a - 1| ‘ u I GIVIM 9.!“ 0.!" 0.1" 0.1” "I“! a I. 'I IJIV I 1.111 0.0,? -u.nn -uIM! rm”! 3.1 u 3.1 M :5 a Tr -o.x a . n 0 a - I - ‘1' . g; u 5 I! 5" 0.”! a in In a 100 III!" 0 792 . n ‘97 fl'fin n I" u U I u- ll -I.ul ..1" u :9 I n I an v a... . 3 I III n.11- mu! co m -o all nIoIa I on -o.m -u an . all a. u _ 1 I. I u H! 'l-N’ ' u 1 l a l J I u ’ I i S! I u I ' Il . n In” H I ll H‘ I 1 I II- In . . . I mm mm III"? 0v" . I « . -n.u u 3 - o u S N ' use mun omz mm om: Imus emu .lu nan II.!!- 0.!!! 0.!!! "’l _ “vim T?“ bit a IETTqu‘ -o‘ZI!i 0.0?! 0.051' Lo‘ Ii: '-o M - "a . - um um" mu - u- u :5 u .u I u _ u u a II n I I 6.15“ mm I. n u :4 _ _ 1.111_0_I39LJIL°9_115_“, [mg a :40 c an a an o m m g «I ...m - ul :0 was. id” In" 'UIflfl "J75 0.22% -u-ZU -a.zan -n.xu 0.15:6 «.qu mm on" ’ I *rfl—Ifli 5J1! Inga: 6.“! 0.300 «TIE—“‘1‘”. - . IL. 1.111;.wgsnALL—fl.lli_,il.fl5_l - . a u. I, u l u u is u so u u a. 3 a.” [52191) M" m MW 0.5-” mo: Am «.157 mm 6.”! My ..m hm ...". ...nz‘ 4.327 -v.lot cal” III!“ “mm -u.2‘: mm «.111 um” -o.l’u 9,, d . 7—‘r Tl’ . g -l.nn -o in -n.‘l‘ ' ""' u a: n :z u u ' u a: u 'u m 5 Mn ”I“ u ' u II.Im 0.9-0 n. s 6.105 JIJL a L52. __nIil‘ Lug mm mm mu LIL—0‘ _-n.aa 0.1:! mm -u.m -o no h". Jan m" m“ ' «In: -o.m‘ . . ..u I" - 4.10... n Mg; I u 4.071 wail -o.nn -|7I|°’ "III“ ul :1 4.11! mm -I.u' -u.ou an” v.3“ in W m . a ' . . . WLMJMJMALflfl—Aflmmfl an n. . ' "a J! 0 3 N 3, 34 so so u an n 3.. o ”A II I ' u I u u :0 mm M“, 0,7.7 can m mun our 0."! 0.7.1 0.!!! ad" 0..“ can mil an- OJ“ 'rg’“ a...“ mm a can mums mu” c.nan «.ann «.000 moon mm: Mnon LO“ 9 no :1 I101 o m . Ha (I one 0-0" "a l x. a ' n a. u so :7 n v v :1 :7 ' :7 ' n ' :7 1 "3; I 0” ~ 3’ " . ,I 5 11 I nm In 1 man been i nan 1mm 4 m : an 1 Mn 4 am: 1 an JAM JAIL .munW . 1.II 1 1.330 II u! w m -n 17’ -n on! o n“ u 17!! mm II In I , o .n . .107 - "I ' n- u H mm“ an n . n I u - n . n - .u I ‘7 n I n 0 oz" 9 4:] am}, 4.01;, "‘"i. mm a I n.1v7 Inna nmv om: v.17: on” 01995 n.7H mm mu 0.)" nah 0.1:: 0.1" can nun! VIII, hm II" u- ” VIII 1' "I, , nu 2 ‘vn'J' ‘V‘il-(T “7|? 'v'm a “In 7 'vn I “II II “I. u VII u I“. “ HI: ,3 "I. u I“. II V”, U V". l’ I 1“I F 264 Notes: 1. See variable list (Appendix 3) for names of variables. 2. In variables where all responses were constant (i.e., same response cate- gory), the computer "print out" lists the correlation as 0.000 and the significance level as 1.000. 3. Significance levels of .000 indicate .0005 or more. 4. Interpretation: 0.443 Correlation 26 Sample Size 0.018 Significance level 0,100 36 _ .RJSQJ_.n_ 0.011 0.105 0.947 0,530 0.140-- n‘lin___J¢21Q_,, 37 I 37 0.307 m 0,000 -0.210 -0.200 -o.020 -0.310 35 34 1 35 ,- 0.200 . n.099...n.§0§.. 0.nzll_i -o.109 -o.404 -0.o74 -o,260 0.010 .i_- _1L__ 1 072W my ‘o-m Hm Imp: n.032..-0.191___0.091l“_n.111__94111i__2.220___ 17 30 37 37 1! 34 0,754 0.547 0,090 0,471 0.395 0.114 ‘o.205 “ 0.000 0.205 -o.197 0.094 0.111 -0.171 07 ,30 37 07 15 34 17 ,n,0.100 1.000 0.100 0.220 0J119__ 0.510 0.290 0-15‘ '0I300 '0.682 0.059 0.0“ ~O.140 43.136 -o.110 J 4 4 ' 34 J! .__ 5 1i _ 0.2 J o. 0 0.031 0.520 0.007 0. . J . 20.2.10 0.216 0.071 0.050 0.015 10.275 .04000 0.041 0.050 00 35 10 00 4 30 30 36 04 0.154 0.?00 0.672 0.767 0.795 0.110 0.960 0.609 0,772 0.065 0.116 0.301 0.003 0.197 ’0.084 '0.107 0.173 0.047 6.30. J 32 3 5 4 J . ..-.Q;ZQl__.QpZQI__.nJRZn__ 0.920.. 0.217 0.630 0.510 an05 0.700 0.004 -0.230 -o.162 0,070 ~0.451 0.000 0.305 0.006 0.101 0.031 -0.070 0.151 34 3 34 3 a s . 0.170 0.209 0.050 0.962 0.550 0,001 0.040 0.37: 0.017. '0.1“ 0l091 'DIOZZ ,_,0I2i.°, rails: ,91199 9°12.‘_6,,,.919.°_9.__3Q1L‘.~.L. 9’ LnAL 5 36 36 I 33 36 36 34 3 1 5 0.700 0.304 0,500 0.090 0.091 0.440 0.230 0.130 0.010 0. 0.014 0.133 $.10 0.115 0.120 -o.116 0.186 -0.027 -0.320 0.106 0.294 mar 037 ...“. ......“ 30 35 so so 4 . J 3 15 36 1 30 o o 0.4]: 0.109, ,,0.295 Wang” ,M,,_0i52_am_0.ngp-_ 0.11.1. 0.1u__n.2111 ___ 0.030 -0.00: 0.001 0.120 -0.090 -0,.51 1.150 .1,060 111 u. 30 0.300 0.121 -0.151 -0.032 0.107 0,105 -0.204 -o.oo2 _.__ :__._ _00 50 34 LL 0.433 0.051 0.921 0.559 0.120 0.590 0.622 0.707 0.050 0.073 0.596 0.1.0 0.549 0.721 _0.101__0.0z!i__n.nzzlil 0.111,__1.001__J.302__20.020___ 30 .0 0.070 0.000 0.191 0.025_ ~0.050 -0.103_ -0.245 0.22;, 00 35 10 so 34 31 30 so :0 as 15 00 0.040 1.000 0.251 0,744 0.747 0,055 0.130 0.176 [111]] 0.071 0.074 0,491 0,055 [E2323] 0.000 -o.507 -0.001 0.232 0.117 0.110 0.210 0.074 -c.043 -0.309 0.01! 0.112 0.200 -0.094 0.000 0.004 -0.210 1 J 35 51 :1 32 2 30 11 33 0.012ii04009i_.0.11Ll_0.£11.l0.121.i 4.unaiipnjszll_p.inL_l0.111._0.211i__i 0.071 0.007. 0.100 ,0.502 0.521 00.240 0.003 0,273 .0,107 -0.139 0.09! 0.069 oc.[d! ‘.105 -c.00° ill 1‘ 1: 11 0.323 0.441 0, 77 0,007 0,330 0,33; 0,684 0.079 0.509 0.169 -n.2]3_ y0.0:0 rn.znz_ -0.L‘?__ 0.010- _Q.011_._0.212__:n.179 -o.040 -o.001 -fl.!32__. 2.211.__5.505___0.122___L.ann._;n.011___n.1£2___0.112_._ 00 15 so 30 04 31 10 so 4 so . 3 mm 0 3 35 15 so 10 so a: 0.090 0.732 0.209 0.310 0.924 0.740 0.202 0.252 0.019 0.047 0.2.. ".43: 0.050 0.332 0.000 0.000 0.000’ I,.Io ....n 0,000 0.000 0.000 0.ooo 0.000 0.000 34 so 35 15 no 30 so 36 33 35 36 _ 1.40;___1.00i___1.pnp_l_1.nni__-1.000...;.0an.__1.000___i.nnn_____ 0.000 -0.004 0.274 -o.100 0.190 -0.110 0.292 ~0.113 0.241 3! J! 3 35 35 32 0.040 0.105 0,524 0,240 0,494 0,724 0.102 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 37 so 37 37 ‘5 3‘ 37 37 _liinnn 1.nnn_ _p.0nn___1.nnn-_i1.000” _Lpnnn,4.1.000__.1.nnn.__1- -o.102 -o.o76 0.112 . in, 11 0.422 0,040 0.190 0.720 0.440 0.007 0.702 [_1qo -u.27” 0.117 -o,379 0.000 -0.141 0.197 ‘0 Pa in 3: 35 0.019 1.000 CH“ 0.236 1.000 0,050 ~0.070 -o.0o° 0.050 0.094 -o.232 0.003 oo.247 -0.?1- :7 11 14 0.907 0.17‘ 0.‘20 0.1‘1 0.195 1.739 0.091 CI‘05 v.0 20"Vié‘21”'v10"22‘7010'23 71§H24~ 0A0 29 VI» 20 vnn 27 v1» 20 v00 20 v10 00 VIn 31 VAR 12 v10 3: v1» 04 v.0 05 v10 30 VII 07 v.0 30 vpn I. 265 VAR I ‘ QED TABLE 3 8 . ——Correlation Matrix for “I I 0.101 ...”!‘1 Category A I Group 2 . VAR 0 0.07! 0.107 7.430 JUL! .... LLM‘ ‘ JL‘ 103v flbflpdb 20 710 7 0.001 3.001 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.000 10 11 01 00 20 1.100 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 ‘ V 20 ll :0 l‘ 20 . 20 00 0. 0.700 0.002 0. 01 0.000 0. 1.000 010 0 0.117 0.057 -0. 000 -u.lll -0.Itn -0.|I7 0.000 -0.109 )0 20 20 20 20 VII 1. '0. Hg. 000 -1I.!7‘ did!” '0.‘M '0-‘17 0.000 01'”? 4107} 20 0 20 17.0 EL 20 11 20 0.;01 0.272 0.100 0.007 1.000 0.024 0.701 n ‘ ' - I d D 20 20 20 20 20 50 20 20 05 36 B-‘ll 0.“! 0.070 0.007 0.110 0.9“ 1.0“ 31H! 0.“? in“! v1: 10 -0.101 Jan 0.000 "1.012 0.070 «1,051 0.000 0.000 -0.100 0.000 0.100 70 n 20 20 :0! 00 00 a :9 1 v 0 V“ l! 0.1" -i.n0n 4.015 0.200 0.301 «1.00: 0.000 -n.000v -0.100 -0.200 -0.005 0022 10 41 . ~ 'I 5 5 I 7 VI 3' I? I9 8 I? 2 9 0.305 0.761 0.“? 0.!!! 0.377 1.0" 0.965 0.!“ 01110 0.1" 0.0“ 0.1.” VII 1! 4.002 4.107 -0.120 -0.020 -0. 071 -0.2°2 0.000 0.07! «1.002 40.070 0.001 0.001 -0.000 0.10! 1 n 20 20 01 00 20 00 :0 29 20 n 09 n 0 7 v 007 0 0 00 70010 0.021 0.107 0.15! -0.100 -0.140 0.133 0.000 -0.0ol 0.114 0.102 0.271 0.010 0.31: 7.!!! W.,, , . 13....20 ...!I.. .59. . .13 .10 N ,99 1 . 1. ., _, 2V 1. , 0.201 0.010 0.110 0.000 1.000 0.001 0.040 0.512 0.100 0.000‘ 0.00 0.;07 .... ’ . 57 I . 0.200 0.751 0.050 0.020 -0.001 -0.17° 0.000 0.250 «7.000 0.177 0.002 «1.16! -0.110 011” 20 20 20 20 20 29 00 20 20 20 29 l 00! 10! 11 0 0 07 . . 7 . u - .‘ 7 . . 29 27 1° 35 I- 23 ED 29 L'OB 0.570 71.335 01‘70 1.000 0.3!? 6.91! 17.952 Gulll I. "In 70.100 _i. 001 0.0007 0.200 0.150 -0.101 0.000 0.120 -0.017“ 0.100 0.200 0.057 0.102 0.10! 0,221 -0.101 6.200 -0.100 n L 2.1 20 L0 7.9 29 217 _2L 1! J3 ’ 0.100 0.0:» 000 0.107 1.000 0.521 0. 027 0.717 0.121 w 0.110 0.071 0.000 0.701 0.150 0.570 III 00 0.1M! 0.110,.0.an 11.101.50.009, 0. 002°. JAM? 31.23 - 0 - ‘ 00 20 10 20 20 MWMWMML 29 29 20 29 20 n ' 70 70 _ 27 79 1050 0.005 0.201 0.000 0.010 0.740 1000 0.110 0.147 0.001 1.000 1.101 1.101 1.110 mg. 0.501 1.070 0.742 0.070 . 01.11? 4.107 0. 0 .000 . 0.000 .11! 0.077 «1.005 .0,122 0.070 0.055 0.057 0.472 0.02! 5.000 0.0139 0.75;9 . 20 av 20 27 25 20 20 n 20 20 20 19 n z: 2 2 1.1.010 0 51: 11.070 0 002 0 000 0 "1 1 000 0 542 1.1102 0 011 0 514 L708 0 769 0 0" 0 0 7 710 20 ~11. 207 -fi.207 «1.000 -0.‘2'| -0.105 -0.192 0.000 -0.1N 0.000 -0,001 n. 201 0.200 -0.090 0.100 0.007 1.140 H.000 0.043 0.0“ ' :0 2L 1 0 2L 20 77 117 v 20 20 09 20 n 7 0.110 0.101 1.1.00 (0.010) 0.02.: 0.011 1.000 1.001 0.004 0.095 0. 21:- 17.20, 0.021 00 0.004 1.427 71.020 047“ ,WiaMfiMAL - MAIL .JL.) IE, _JJDJI_D .040 ,JWLA mMugwl—Lfil— u _ 20 90 20 :70 20 29 20 20 20 29 29 0 20 20 29 3' 7' 0.700 0.0 0.00! 0.000 0.000 0.519 1.000 0.020 0.170 0.020 0.120 0.790 0J0. W 1,". 0.000 9.2“ 0.020 0.102 "I 00 0.100 -I'1.100 0.1‘0 0.100 0.005 “1.007 0.000 0.022 0.200 -0.120 0.000 0.090 0.070 0.10! 0.120 1,109 5.220 0.105 0.0“ 10 , 2o 20 20 70 21 27 20 :0 20 11 20 :5 In 20 21 2 P 1' ., 1.110 ,14011. ,L501/D1JJL 17.100 0371 1.000,, 0.700. 41.100701!” 0 1.1 0.750 0 101 0.000 0013:0111 ° VII 21 0.072 -n.170 0.000 «1,007 0.000 0.1115 0.000 0.7105 0.007 -0.045 -0.105 4.010 .71.“! 0.020 0.000 0.007 "1.102 41.000 -0.107 - i r )1 EL 20 20 .25 20 70 2; 2° :0 ’u’L—fl— 1.7.0 ....770 ".731 0.057 1.000 0. 501 1.000 0.000 0.704 0.072 0.0.): 1,022 0.001 0.01.1 1,000 0,171 0.520 0.701 97’” 010:0, . -0.u.L40.10L.11.001._0.211_.0.001_M75__01000_u.000-:0112,Lu -,n. 0110 04 1% 0112.14 _Wn ”WA—M u 20 20 20 . 27 27 20 2 20 ' n 71 20 20 20 0.1 0 1.504 1.000 0.211 m; 0.02! 1.000 0.751 1.422 1.1: 7 0. 11: 0. 201 1.700 0.007 mg. 0.017 0.707 0.6” “7’” . 7107:? V 70.017 «1.11? 0.1.0:: -0 170 .0. 0m «.7207, 0.000 0.107 0.101 0.02.. 7:207‘0._000——-o.000 “w“ WM!“ .7971 1.01:“ 1.. 29 70 20 20 20 20 20 20 2° 20 00 20 29 29 7° ,, -, 0.920, 2115.1 1.771J.052 ‘02”, 1.000, 0.471 -.0.712,,1.179ia,.102 1.900 0.101 [Ail—0.112;-.. 7 44mm ~0.1on 0.401 0.105 -u.010 0.204 0.105 -0.00‘ ~ 0 0 - - ”__zn_,L0__ZI— 0.7% 1.002 0,501 @0400 .1751 0.270 0.519 0.5" In 2! -u.000 -E.002,0.1zn 0.100 0.120 0.07" 0.000 0.125 0.02L ,Lnfl,‘ 711-1501111115 ' 20 70 29 :70 70 2o 20 29 70 79 2., I I ‘ ,._.0 «.70 0.12? 71! 20 -o,010 -i.100 -n.015 -0.»10 —0.074 -0.15.\ 0.000 0.000 1,157 1.201 5...... .0 000 2.0-, , 21 ,, 2L , 20 .2 2 1L 27.. . __ 0.700 0.100 ‘32 00 .051 ...401 0.500 0.000 1.000 0.502 0.000 0.011 1,100 0. 009 0, 400 mvéA—LHL— ”629:2 n .51‘mfi 0.507 I ' 001: 00' 0. 02 70.#¥ szoTsivfi 70.717077 0.00? 71707-0. 0M 00! .03; u .211‘7 0. ‘33 0. ““v -. 20 >0 20 - 7 20 20 20 70 29 20 , 0.471 11.002. 1.0004331 0.000, 1.000 47.190 - 1.051 0050-10.31.00!” ‘ ‘3' 010 01 0,107 -a...s 0.220 0.57! 0.?7‘ 0.351 0. 000 -0.107 -.0 021’ -0.047 .0300 .n_300 0,115 «.420 -0.002 m 201 --'.,2110 .11.:190 41.000 1 __..,. 10- _21, 10,. ' 23) 7 _20~17___L__U . " V ' 29 20 20 29 an: 0. 01.1 ".227 m 0.105 w 1.000 0.500 0.012 0. 001 0.27: 0.1 w W 1.15:. 0.20! 0.6“ “"°‘ .1. " ....110 “Luz 1.012 0.222 0.10- 31.00", 0.000 0.210, 10.053.,.0flLJ.fli_1fiLfl&G_L__JJ_L_AAAA_04”—AM 70 20 20 70 27 20 20 20 n 70 20 20 9.11. ...750 0.01.. 0.171 0.174 1,00. 1.000 0.250 0.770 0.201 0.200 1,141 a 000 QB a?“ 7: 0. 070 ‘w 0. 5;” ___—fl.— 1117 .10 DJ" 3...... 4.009 ..1...” -o,0w 0.090 0.000 0.077 0.011 -0.207 71.005 4,140 1.1.1w .11.",0° .g,no 1.1.11 -7\ 100 -0.100 -‘h"“ 20 20 20 20 27 20 20 20 we 70 29 20 z 20 1' , ---, 1.2117)_-111 .4. '1 . 0 7 Lgmmwmcln 0 7H 0 190 0 052 0 011 0 007 0 140 0 204 Luv—(LN 0 50" 0.002 0.207 0,100 «1.007 0.400 .0300 .0301 .0,017 ...117 .0 100 .0 1:0 17. 01! “1.002 41.121 -0. 8'3 P'l 211 410 29 u u 20 20 40 429—20—2112—3—4— 0.004 0.171 1.000 0.000 0.0 0.100 77,270 0.000 0.000 F010 000 1.0;. 1.021 0.510 .9" ‘1.“ _ 0 102 _uWuML . 000 ..1 212 1 1111 ~0 221 ... z“ . 0 ' ' 20 70 20 =: 20 20 20 av 29 >0 :0 20 IO 20 20 no 2' g, 9.9.; ...051 0.000 0.201 m 0.305 1.000 0.190 0.010 0.200 0,210 0,051 1.720 0,000 0.202 0.000 0.019 0.072 II. ___f "* . , . .._.17n ......» 0.2"? 0.10! -n.127 “.000 0.007 0.000 .0.209 0.2170 0.007 0.5 5 0 100 200 n 2.204 0.121 0.101 010 fl a “lo 70 20 2v 29 70 20 20 n 10 0 29 ‘ ' 70 0 y 0 0 ' 20 P' 77 Wrij‘hguL n 0.17 .. 21. n 010 1 u: 1 000 n 17.. 0 10. u 119 0 .... 0 .... (‘12:). 00 0 1" 0 100 01 .1107 ...17 1.704 1.07" -n.057 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.101 «1.100 1.140 1,100 0.004 .1 1110.100-c 121 71 20° 0.150 "1' V" '" " g n. w ~17 a 711 20 29 23 27 20 27 17 ' 09 0% g' ‘— 0'73? .24“ ..1.- ..707 0.707 0.000 1.007 1.101 0.171 71.007 0.421 0.501 0,701 07‘“ 0.400 .402 0.100 0. 000 0.1 111011 ,,:0.1.L1._.1Jr 1, ‘_0‘ZLL_.1.ZLA_.011 0 M 5 1., 1.. 70 20 2». 77 77 20 20 70 70 00 2 >11 20 0.405 gm 0.092 ...m 0.77» 0.412 1.000 1.049 0.770 0.1740 0.120 0.421 0.020 0.111 0.070 0.002 0. um» 010 01 1.11.7. ....vun 0.007. 0.0M 7.00:1 0.000 0.300 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00:. 0.000 0.000 0.000. 70 7.. 21 79 20 20 20 10 n :0 10 20 20 20 2 7' 2 . .. . 7... 11' :1 4.0110 11 00 0 000 41000 J 000 1 000 1 m, ... .1...- 1,111.70 1,017.1 0.007. 0.100 1,000 0 001 0.000 0.001 0.000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0.000 4.000 0.000 W‘" tbs—i u ‘1 20 27 111 2.0 17 ' n 20 21 .20 ' 40 ' J0 ' u—__2.0_u——J-|——”; 1 :m.1 1..-n. 1.700 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.100 1.060 1.000 |-“ “i"..fl .... 2 .10 1 vm 0 010 5 010 0 710 7 711. 0 71ft v v00 10 v10 11 v10 11 0.0 T3 7117—0. W 1T .... 10 v1.1 11 v1» 10 7A! 1' 266 Notes: 1. See variable list (Appendix 3) for names of variables. 2. In variables where all responses were constant (i. e., same response cate— gory), the“ computer "print out" lists the correlation as 0. 000 and the significance level as 1.000. 1 3. Significance levels of .000 indicate 0005 or more. 4. Interpretation: 0.443 Correlation 26 Sample Size 0.018 Significance level _31009' -0.101 -o.101 ___0.501 ' 0.500 1 .0.242___0.101_ .0.227 29 20 20 0.100 0.323 0.220 0.106 0.260 0.661" oo.016 20 0.577 0.164 0.072 0.927 -0.046 0.124 -0.177 ~o,509 0.17? -. . _%L_ '0 .__._ 26 ‘. .20._ -- . . . 7 , 1 o 10 0 31 0 36 an» 0 30 . -0.111. dJlZ _ 0.10.1 -0.103 0.101.- 0.127. _ 20 26 2 20 26 0.560 0.067 0.390 0,569 0.500 0.000 0.004"'-'0_.—1'5'7_‘d'.i44 ' 0.110""-T.'o'1'.1"ifs—5:770:76? ' 29 29 29 29 20 26 26 -0190} ..01592-- 01‘}? 0.051. -019“. _QLDQl_ £4}211__1 0.290 0.281 0.219 0.426 0.594 -o.260 6.050 0.243 .. _ ..__21__.2.29- . ' __ =_____1A______ _— o.102 0.126 0.207 0.110 0.76? 0.100 0.1314011“ .-0.200 0.222 0.510 0.001L_-01277.-. 0.000.. .0101: 29 29 : 26 26 29 1 0,402 0.096 0.202 0.230 w 0.975 0,110 0.060 Q, 0.009 0.249 £0.033' 0,061 0.351 0. 023 0.221 '-0. 009 0.11009 0. 7o! 29 29 29 2° ' 7a 29 0.962 0.176 0.002 0.710 60.909 0.210 0.960 m‘- -o,194 -0,192 -o.409 .0'109 0,106 «1,110 -0.136 0.019 0,077 -0,1dl 0,243 9 29 1 29 26 26 20 29 2o 29 20 0.297 0.301®0.100 0.970 0.106 0,460 0.910 0.662 0.445 0.100 AA!LJ.20¢ 0.10:-.0.z11. 0.3.07 .-0.10L.0.1z1. 0-179 _0.‘12_ .0.17_=__0.101_ 0.001 29 20 29 2 2 2° - 9 > 9 4 6 ll 29 9 3.814 0.267 0.466 0.207 (m 0.353 0.166 0.615 m 0.115 .0 161 .0 264 .o,1so 4.251 0,117 41,213 -0,210 -0.10? -0.026 40.07? 4,220 0.16" ...150 9 9 29 29 2 79 29 29 29 28 26 20 >9 9 01102_ 0.122__ 0.107 0.111. 0.252. -0..22.?-__0.200 1116.2 _.Q.P_Q1..J4flL__D_..2iLi 0.161 0.104 0,174 0.160 -0 06500.29'1 0,304 0,090 -0,n47 -o.02? 0.289 -°.02‘ 0.107 0.009 0.010 0.000 79 2 _, 9 211 2A 1A A 19 Q 2! 11 2Q Li 0.350 0.3.13 0. 720 0.106 0.071 0.614 0.606 0.905 0.11! OJ" 0.!“ 0.59% 0.021 0.016 D.ZZ&_.O,HLD_. 0.21! 0.222- 41125.1 7.111211. ”101:0.115“. 0.121.. Lin—0.4L-1040- .‘1 .125 .0 2dLi_n.Zi;6* 29 29 7B 26 0.216 w 0,164 0. 210 0.110 0. 216 0 234 w 0.4% ”(W 1.100 - 2.12.1 0.174 0.1329 0. 297'— '.0 15159 —'-0.295 0.1266 0.0426 0.16‘ -o 140 *0. 01‘ 0 213 0. 70‘ 1039 -.:7 1.1 .02 -0.3039 -0.037 29 2 2 9 29 29 .‘o 79 29 29 2 0.4.00 . -0.106 0.102 0.100 _ 0.507 . 01.631 .0..32!_ 0.154 . 0.959 0.220.___11ZJ.1_ _. 1.:05 0.142 .1511: 01031141011 '0.09‘ 0.12? '0,?75 ‘0.O47 0.300 0.229 '0.05‘ 0.077 '00167 0135, 0.206 {.397 ‘.‘55 ".06! {,27A 11,},‘9 -D.097 Z 9 9 ' 9 . 9 9 20 ° 20 JL 2L_.z__ _L__20__ _ 0.615 0.512 0.1.10 0.004@0,242 0.779 0.662 0.370@0.109 mam m 1.7.. 0.111 0.425 0.604 41.001 ...0.10_1 __0.1.1*._ 0.00}- _.0.20:.7-_-.012515__0-2]7_. 10.1128. 1011125-. 0.124121% 0.01! .--105 ~ .2102011_._1.212._0.219_.11.1000__ 2 a 2 27 0 20' 26 26 2 . :0 .2. h :6 26 0.736 0.336 0,471 0.657 0,111 0,207 0,141 0.356 0.105 “0.150 3.1;; ‘.6.012 0.039 0.260 0.203 0.000 0,000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 «,33- 1.1.1.. ;ov:.;1.0009 2.:00 0.00"9 0 000 0.000 29 2 29 29 B 2 2 29 29 29 29 v.) 'u, 29 9 2 ._.1.000.._11000-_ 110M_._l.J.QL_L100.0__LJM__11.QDJL“11099- _L10M.-- AM “-31 -1100) . i 0.1;— n00w04100__11000-_11000_ 0.000 0,000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -_;g- v_~;... ...3 11.000 1,000 0.00" 9.000 0.000 0.000 9 29 29 29 an 26 211 29 29 £2 29 , _u‘_ _. ;_q___~;9___ 19 29 2L 29 211 1L 1.000 1.090 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.3 1.001 1.13; 1.can 1.033 1.000 1,000 1.000 1.000 'VA_R 20' vi'n _21— vm 22 77021—71077 v00 21‘W0—23'Wm _2'7"_v'm_'20"770‘25 v60 30 .... 3 {... 5.2 0.001 HS 63' 717215 715377 'vin—JT' via .10 MR 71"“ 267 ‘940 2 0.7.17 45 . TABLE 39.-"Correlation Matrix for In“ Category A, Totals. m 042 4 0.121 1.2.13 0.352 - 59" -0 —«--- — [ 0.115 0.050 [my Vll 9 0.039 511H~0;301- —0.079—7 0 mm mm mm mm VIN | 0.06! 3.20! 0.39‘ 0.577 0.627 5‘ 63 Egg] g3 gg 04417 0.255 1.295 0.417 0.100 0.054 0.001 0.20‘ 0.672 0.549 H 04 02 54 04 41 04 0.411 0.513 0.923 0.429 0.004 0.003 0.044 “'0 0.027 0.012 0.000 -0.109 -0.105 -0.004 0.057 0,397 05 44 42 44 44 4.1 04 VA! 10 ~0.024 -4.073 -0.077 40.044 -o.157 -0.209 0.034 -0.034 0.045 ‘4 A. 45 AA AA L4 AL AK A! 0.4.17 0.532 0.534 0.530 0.507 0.094 0.744 0.759 0.710 M-11-—— wW—flrflg—WHHMM— _ 0 7.4 04 44 03 04 5 5 5 0.450 0.041 0. 047 0.042 0.495 0.950 0.504 0.514 0.413 0.210 "R l? 70.026 9.196 0.210 0.170 0.159 0.007 0.257 -0.042 0.001 0.169 0.225 09 04 02 04 44 0.1 4 05 4! 0! 05 __ ___, .. | “R 13 0.090 0.013 .0.032 0.159 0.1.50 -0.029 -0.109 «1.035 -0.o.14 -0.01! 0.072 0.269 AL . A; A4 _L A1 ‘5 A5 Al I 0.437 0.919 0.739 4.201 0.297 0.417 0.174 0.770 0.744 0.902 unwi— ‘WWHMW—MTOQ WWI—400M124!!— 04 . 44 44 40 44 45 45 45 45 45 1 0. 000 0.004 m 0.702 0.070 0.402 0.444 0.274 0.007 0.150 0.404 0.793 m 740 15 -0. 211 -0.100 .0.140 -0.213 40.254 -0.329 40.111 0.041 0.244 -0.033 40.023 0.222 0.074 0.22! 44 02 44 04 33 04 45 g; 05 45 45 45 45 v40 14 0.014 0.003 41.010 -0.112 -0.100 0.109 -0.090 0.027 0.143 0.042 0.054 0.142 -0.027 9.024 0.241 4. 4 44 44 44 44 05 4 4 4 4 0.095 0.510 0.000 0.370 0.134 0.404 0.473 0.020 0.149 0.737 0.453 0.149 0,031 0.455 740 17 0.104 0.025 0.105 .0,123 -0.153 0.015 .0.009 0.116 0.054 0.070 0.597 0.230 0.154 0.229 0.892 W 0 04 02 04 44 05 04 45 4 . O! 6 05 4. 401 0.045 0.144 0.324 0.214 0.904 0.943 0.342 0.490 0,475 0,204 0.474 0.07. 7471 10 .0. 4345 ~04044 4.022 0. 255 0.100 0. 009 0.071 -0.092 -0.091‘ 0.077 40. 042 o. 291 0.025 «.119 0.063 0.150 .0.040. 04 02 44 55 05 GI 05 45 . , . ~_ .7,” 1h!” .7069 .w— 9.145 a 0.439_go,:;1 —ow43l.——ofill——0v34l— 9;“ m W-M . 740 _'°‘ _101 «.021 4.003 0.107 0.134 -o.070 0.040 0.107 0.041 0.139 0.274 0.347 0.010 0.152 0.130 ”.024 0.274 0.135 9.495 0.049 0.952 0.130 0.292 0.5§1 0.719 0.390 0.743 0.240 0.440 0.!“ 0.899 0,040 0.295 717' 1r“ 7 0. 19r0.144~-10—000— ~17. 527~‘0.14-3—-41094— m14—~0.144—~o.144—0T094—)4.09L ~h050——4.01:5— , . 45 4. 44 40 44 45 45 45 » .5 45 45 I! 4.123 0.103 0.514 0. 02—9 .191 0.940 0. 042 .104 0.125 0. 449 0. 557 0. 490 0. :79 0. 400 m 0.171 0.470 0.944 9.204 740 21 0.434 0.147 41.440 0,142 -o. 009 -0.1o¢>z 0. 047 .0. #111 -o. 054 -0.131 .0 .054 0.140 0.002 4.020 0.214 0.0" .0.003 4.229 0.13! 44 0 0 03 08 N 4 44 44 49 44 04 41 ,1 4-.765~-—0.244 "'03576" -—o.257 ~9“N5---*O1‘06-—-0~H6’“--01349—07:M—h995—fim—ATH8——0W ' . van 22 -0 027 0.004 0017 .0. 355 -0.__145 -0.210 -0.004 «7.172 -0.092 -0.100 0,241 0.091 -0.015 -0.041 0.242 0.047 0.242 -4.04' -°.¢” .'...,.__m_ ' -42—~—'—— . ...—__14_._4.1__. . 4.427 0.972 0,407 0.104 i 0.505 0.143 0.441 0,305 i 0.444 0.907 0.425 m 0,00 0,472 9.6“ " rn9*nW*—W—m‘—'W°_'°1”' '97 (”H—'h’“, '90-“! "0““ ‘ ' ‘ O 45 44 62 44 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 99 0 443 0.477 4.952 0. 435 0. 497 0. 955 0. 429 0.100 0. 353 0. 504 0.501 0.709 0.597 0.114 0.304 ...”. 0.544 0.453 9.!” “a 2. .9J73 40.147 40.949 0.0.57 0.047 0.050 40.109 0.191 0.213 -0.110 .0,o72 -0.090 41.054 0.279 0.073 47.0“ 5.112 4,095 0.“! . g. 5 4 40 4 42 42 42 42 42 42 6! 42 42 61 “ . .— . 7.- .10»__—hm——h744—~4.Jn~4r142~—M 9‘41.” . VII 25 -0.102 .0.794 0.005 0.011 0.190 0.116 04043 0.104 0.133 -D.169 00.022 0,005 .0'010 0.23. ”.02” _0'00. -0.182 -I.°52 .qLoQ. --.”- ~ » 9 3¢—~ 56 9% 5L_ 511 so 59 An 00 11 an an II 59 g; 5: . [ 4.141 0.049 4.534 0.935 0.247 0.340 0.745 0.423 0.307 0.193 0,004 0.770 0.434 0.070 0.441 ...," ..1... 0.419 0.714 VII I. 'V}Y’°"rfl;fEO‘—itj'54— “i-OJQ- ~—o—§§Q~—flflT}¥:~—o91¢w——.91o;4__.oto‘.__.° 3;; ‘ II . ' . 63 61 OJ - 62 O.) 64 64 . 6‘ 61 .. .. 6. 6‘ 6‘ 6‘ ‘5: 0-963 °-°7° ° “3 um: ° 1” o. “‘0 0.915 0.49? mm 0.211 0.474 0.347 0.154 0.044 ...” 0.424 0.252 0.7 ml 27 0.141 4.117 0.103 -0.!61 “7.?" “3.?“ “HO" 0.?“ 0.227 0.104 0.232 -0.010 -0.097 «7.017 0.204 -0.054 0.197 -4.043 0.0“ ‘ °3 °‘ °" °‘ 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 .5 .5 45 43 ’ m ' *t’h ‘74”— __ .... 29 .0‘139 «.144 .0.104 0.055 0.100 ~0.144 -0.09o -o.090 0.070 0.100 0.000 0.024 -0.104 9.529 1‘ A“! A) _AJ _Ll A1 A, 4) AL 412 A9 0.064 3.071 '4.1777 0.1" 0.415 ‘ 043.0 -0.104’ 0.1“ m w. w v _ 0.209 0.1;5 0,130 0.007 0.482 0.259 0.092 0.442 0.501 0.404 0,030 0.092 0.1.90 . WW .3 45 42 41 43 42 42 43 4.1 43 43 44 43 43 . ' 4.1 43 ' ' . 0,247 0.490 0.397 0.303 0.551 0.421 0.122 0.410 0,003 0.444 0.935 0.125 0.945 0.930 mm 0.0.1 0.“: m 0.29 0.10. 0.13. ‘3 0.227 0.057 0.007 0.134 0.014 -o.o11 0.001 .0.057 -0.000 0.144 0.131 -0.051 0.291 4 42 41 41 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 ' 34 0.092 -0.021 0.04) 0.207 42 42 41 42 0.025 41 -|.219 cfl.oll 04197 0.150 01196 '0.?05 0.103 0,162 0.0)7 .0.062 00,244 0.10. 0.00. c0.1°. .0'25‘ -.).023 '0013’ 4.. 4.1 AJ 4A; Al _Al Al ‘1 L1 A; A1 _L 63 6 0 C., '_ o 749 31 40.05, —‘w ’—V?i Vl’ W vv Ir“ r vv— vv— -_‘__ 0.052 0.444 0.931 4.117 0.151 0.140 0.104 0.112 0.191 0.490 0,424 m 0.394 0.495 0.141 1B1" 0.457 0.209 WW WWWqJ" 3'": 9.397 0'," , I.‘ 65 62 63 03 61 62 65 l.) 63 6.! OJ .3 . 63 Q} 6’ . . LS“ 0.354 0.744 °'°’° “42‘ "~97! 0.452 0.371 0.249 4.543 0.414 0.591 0.1.75 Eb 0.320 0.774 , 04063 N 43.! -0 059 .0.006 -0 053 -0 020 0 096 -0 077 0 213 0 051 40 150 0 109 40 023 o 220 -0 109 0 003 . g ”a 4. 147 '04' VII 53 0. 6 4 6 4 62 4 2 4 Gt 4 o 4 62 4 ‘2 4 A 0 6 . 4 1 . 4 63 0.02.3 04 62 4 6! .. 9.794 0.644 0.006 0.79.! 0.829 0466‘ OJ”! 0.091 G.Il‘ 0.210 0.102 0.054 0.070 0.39! 0...! . 4 4 u . . M "I 54 9.103 1,2,10,0111 0'0111 MMZL 0.1 3' 0.0121 0.009” 0.223‘ 0.071‘ 0.12:“ 0.063 0.02! 0.1.5:L 0.069 ”.070 ”.000 0.00° '°9' 'r 4.930 0.410 0.701 0.253 0.940 0.445 0.075 0.54: 0.320 0.417 0.441 0.214 0.593 ...,” ....g 0.944 0.!" 0.145 v40—45———~0;444— hth‘F—W‘ 9.42%— 0544*»;155: 4.11.3__0 994 0 901 0 111 0 020 1 II I ’ . 41 4 41 4140 41 41 01 41 41 41. 41 41 .1 41 61 ’, 5.512 0.520 0.447 0.501 0. 074 0. 24.7 m o. 304 0.470 0.992 0.144 0.493 0.700 0.195 0.998 0.!" 0.024 0.514 9.“ _ ____ —/—_ ___—__d—fl . . 9477 0.045 -4.006 0.075 «MW? -o.090 0.151 0.123 0.190 ~o.050 0 013 0.144 0 424 0.109 0 252 . g 174 0 027 9.0" |H , 42 02 1 2 42 41 41 4 42 42 ' 42 42 ' 41 ' 4 °'° :; °' .3 ' 42 ‘0 .—»+.442~—+.747-—M44—7~41m- 0.cu~0.4!5—4.u0——0.332.~—0. V“ 37 .0407 .;.000 0.003 0.040 0.090 0.122 -0.14140.012 -0.002 -o.000 4.114 0.004 0.2" 0.030 0.044 0.1" ' ‘ -.., __ ‘ n... In 40 An ‘71 L11 All In .11 . 04‘1’ 0003' 392’. ’- 4 -— . o—-—‘»4— . f - - . W” M" M“ °"“ °- W "131° 0.214 W27 mm 0.441 0.070 0.405 0.045 0.47. 0.420 0.444 M" ”,1 9- 5'0” 0‘2" '-0 027 0 010- 0 991~--W‘0r0M— M°HYMMW-—-0 o" O I“ . "I U I" I ’W - "1“ ’9 1 7 2 4 6 4 6 I l 61 01 02 6 62 62 . .1 .‘ ‘ 4 63 . .2 I I 0.151 0.544 0.434 0.907 0.093 0.120 0.545 0.117 0.403 0.154 0'00, 0...; 0..“ my 0‘... mp ‘ 4:- 0.000 0 000 0 000 0.000 0 000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 000 n 00., 0 000 0 000 0 009 0 000 0 0 09 '4'" F“ ' b ' ‘ ' °’ °‘ °' °5 45 ' 45 ' 45 ' 45 ' 45 ' 44 ' 45 “"35 0.0 :5 ' :4 ‘3 ___--. - «~1-.044~—+w444——2~.—444—4144+-5.4444— . - . . 49 v44 42 0. No 1-Ile 0.213% 0.10:1 0.113‘ 0.02:! 0.331‘ 0.441- ""3". 0.03:" ".01:- 0.21:I -0.002 0.054 0.094 ...“. 0.004 4.249 01' 0.451 0.33.4 0.344 4.142 0.333 0.427 0.004 0.000 0.011 0.774 0.444 0.040 0.444 0.445 0.404 0.93! ....1 ..010 0.!“ ~_~_ !____,.__ v4.2 1 V4! 1 V“! I 7440 4 9474 9 4M 0 m1 7 VAR l VAR 9 van 10 "a 11 VM 13 HR 13 “a 14 V” 15 VAR H “R 17 VI! 1. V414 1' 268 Notes: 1. See variable list (Appendix 3) for . names of variables. 2. In variables where all responses were constant (i. e., same response cate- gory), theh computer' 'print out" lists the correlation as 0. 000 and the significance level as 1.000. 3. Significance levels of .000 indicate .0005 or more. 4. Interpretation: 0.443 Correlation 26 Sample Size 0.018 Significance level 0.900 ~0.0.10 -0.000 —~—00 ___H_ 0.505 0.931 —0—en——0—009—0.20+ _mwlilwih -0. 009 -0. 007 0.020 -0.172 01 02 02 “”"0140“'—°Tn’3——"97“* —4v011—— — -o.1.10 -0.100 -0.119 -0 .009 0 170k 4:» —————Ju 0.003 0.437 0.000 WEED W —0.039— 0.0314. 0.01; 0.051__—01004—-~a .300— M 00 00 00 02 ' 0.063 0.699 o. 590 0,000 0.003 m 0.150 -0. 065 0. 20.1— 0.071 0.050 -o.000 -o.17:‘ 0: 0 __M¢;_-_4 ,491_c 1,00 4.56L11MAAL_.WL_&45L_ 0.101 0.200 0.129 0.309 0 21:“ oo. .01: 0.072 0.007 ——0~2 ----- —'——u— . - 0.020 0.105 0 011-0 072— 0. 921 0.570 0.711 W—MJL—4QMHMO—klu— 00 - 00 00 97 02 00 02 0. 012 0.005 0.200 @3333 0.775 0.120 0.520 0.000 0.001 0.070 .0.100— Z0700; 0.204 0.101 0.290 0.002 0.000 0.300 02 01 02 02 so 0 02 @— _0..u0_4.140—0TML10 _AW 0.10? 0.030 0.010 -0.090 0.22: -0.01:’ 0.350 6 . -0.103 -0.201 -0,002 -o.100J 6 ' (1 6 6 0.100 ‘QJ—fifl 0.100 0,270 0.022 0,000 0.000 0.070 0.001 m ~o.090 0.150 41.052 0.009 0.307 0,097 0.100 0. 052 o. 5092 009033 0. 00: 0.7260— 0 .1 0 0 OJ 1 0 J 2 6’ 0.000 1.290 0.070 0.00110000] 0.005 0.209 0°“mmm 0.05 0 10° ‘0 132 ‘00031‘ -0.007 -0.0J° -0.o91 0.1“ o0.0JY ~0.000 0.00! -0.063 0.22, ...”, ' 02 ' 0 0 9 so 0 u 02 02 01 ,3 6 0.”! 0.30.1 0.001 0.950.7-0,105_ 0.195 _L251 0.109 ._ 0,152___0 __ 1mm, _ 01000—- _ ___. ,_. _ 1- __ ___... - _- r. ~0.711_0:000'0.007 °I°°5Ejfi7 0.109 0.070 0.057 0.110 0.070 0.216 0...... ...“. 0.402 -..“: _ 0.30: _ 41.10:“ 0.y0_—0.010;—~0104:6—a 4.10.1”..04511 “ML—0W0 :10L—“0mzoaa 'W 0.007 0.000 -0. 0.11 0.220 0.310 0.173 0.113 -0.020 0.20: 0.000 0.156 0.10:r_0.o°33_0.10’ y ’ - 0 70 0. 01 0070 .0017 -0.100 0.150 0.126 -0.022 0.111 0.020 0.007 0.009 O 109 0 195 O. 000 0.0’ 001 '9 0 5° 0 61 0 03 51.253 62 61 62 03 6 . _._.'599 --fi“‘@- 9'151__ 9,1‘9. __o.n‘...-41004._...0,u0__0,u:._.0 zu_0.m.._1 4°, . . . - J . 0 110 0201 -0071 -0.100 0.000 00.005 0.000 0.211 0.300 '1.sz 0.0221’ 0.02:" 0.09:11 0.20“ 0:00 3.?» 0.00 0. . . 1 _ . v __ _ l ' {.54 0.9}: 0.002 0.070 0.102 m 0.002 0.050 0.000 0.077 0.117 0.375 m 0.070 0.809 0.120 0.590 ' -— Hn—fi W—"hOJL—MOL‘WHWflfiWt—Wfir—cv 0le raw—wrea— . 02 . 00 01 00 0' 0331 0.30 0.235 .....i, 0.150 0.110 0.700 0.709 GEE 0-"2 00.10 0017 0.112 0.270 0.000 0.001 00° 0 00° 0 “0° . 0000 0000 0000 0000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 062 I .3 0 62 0 002 0 63 0 62 I 63 0 6t .2 .0 ‘1 — —— O——hfl§4— _41wf—G-rMW—Mn—tmt—Lr“ 11000 17000 1.0w—17m—WHvfl0—hfl 0100 0.125 0.031 0.200 -o.100 4.022 0.200 -0.o10 “7.001 000” '0-0“ -o.2oz -0.000 «1.130 0.097 00190 00‘" ”0°" "I'"2 °'°°° ' _.‘... 0.070 1.000 ~_0 201 0.000 0.000 0.00: 0.101 0.000 0.100' 0.0.10 0.7" fl-"0 0.7” 0.020 0.500 0.270 0.001 0.150 001-.“ 0.330 0.000 '1 000 0 000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0022 ,9 0 64 0 65 HR 20 HR 21 HR 22 VAR 23 VAR 20 VAR 29 HR 26 VAR 2’ HR 2! HR 2° HR 00 0... J1 “a .0; “q 33 van 50 HR 35 van :0 Mn :7 Mil .10 HR 00, 269 TABLE 40.——Correlation Matrix for Category B, Group 1. iii? 70 u 05 VII 0 0.107 0.300 0.550 0.753 0 050 25 0.093 010 7 0.031 0.021 0.005 0.361 0. 321 0.201” 25 25 25 2: 0.0 n 000 0.!!! 0.015 0.101 0.152 110 I -u.100 -i.200 ~0.123 0.010 -0.305 -0.212 0.072 7 25 25 25 25 0. 0 0. o. . . . 0. 1 .' 5 . .0 0 0 - 0 0 -o 00 n 230 H 25 2! 25 25 2 0.707 0.200 0.52! 0.907 “Nov 0.505 0.237 0.005 V171 10 -0.131 -n.10o 0.0115 -0.037 -n.0u -0.002 0.002 0.019 ”1.220, I! 25 I! 25 2! 25 2! 25 0.510 0.000 0.070 0.001 0.731 0.700 0.700 0102‘ 0.257 -0.057 2! 0 VII 11 0.113 -i.190 -n.103 -0.200 -0.103 -0.06’ 0.006 0.362 25 25 25 25 25 . . 0 7 Y -. > . I 7 - 0 2! 25 25 5 7 5 3.1“! 0.347 0.97! 0.5!! 0.70‘. 00500 0.1J7 0.5“] 0.525 VIII 13 -0.109° —fi13 0.11? 0.1“? 0.111 0.10‘ 70.1" 0.102 0.080 0.003 -0.350 0.135 20 20 20 25 2.: 25 25 25 25 25 25 0.007 1.510 0.315 0.503 0.007 0.3.13 0,012 0.002 0.000 0.071 0.502 7711 10 0.11! -i.130 0.217 0.201 0.332 0,331 0.200 0.017 0.200 0.330 0.207 -0.135 0.002 20 20 20 20 25 25 25 25 15 25 25 25 26 0.537 0.510 5.205 0.702 0.001 0.092 0.230 0.733 0.307 0.093 0.301 0.50F 0.033 1 0 03 . 3 21 20 20 20 2 5 2 2 5 2 25 2 2 0 0.100 0.795 0.057 0.750 0.0201 0.970 0.202 0.710 0.291 0.071 0.000 0.000 0.300 0.009 v10 11 0.111 -i.10o 0.000 0.100 -0.000 0.063 -0.130 0.202 0.150 ~0.3v3 -0.032 0.020 ~0.120 -0.00' 0.270 10 20 20 20 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 20 20 20 0.573 0.070 0.010 0.500 0.000 0.755 0.000 0.311 0.055 0.070 0.000 0.531 0.001 0.151 -i.201 0.020 -0.051 0. 005 0.064 “.029 -0.090 -o.1ol 0.170 0.307 0.007 -0.351 «1.00. 0 350 41.222— 2 20 ,7 [F25 25 25 25 :5 25 25 25 0 70 100 0. 01 n. 07 .213 0.751 0."! 1.311 0.3 0. 0.0011 Iii 0 0.257 2 11.105 «1.319 -n.1311 -n.0n7 n 077 -a.300 0.100 n 110 0 210 an“; 0.21! 0.317 0 11316 0.17“ 21 20 20 25 25 25 0.15 25 25 25 10 0.070 0.705 0.300 0.105 0.519 (m, 0.032 070 0.011 0.553 0.273 0. 301 0.177 (m L.,.QJ... -fi 007 a u. .0 -0.000 -0.ov0—..070 -0.n11 0.000 0.101 75 25 25 25 ‘120 20 24 20 1’20 a20 5 25 __12.__25_25r. I1’l5 I ‘56 01", 0.100.110”. 9.3710 0.021 11.072 0.109 0.1"! “.601 0.0 0.0 1 0.705 “.957 HJII “I“ 0.371 -0 027 —0.107 -0.313 -o.007 0.217 -u.217 0.002 10.101.10.102—1412 '0 ‘7‘ 1 25 "Mini—6 ’6 2° 3‘ 11m) 0.". 0.000 0.112 0.02 0.207 0.100 0.751 0. 507 0. 350 0. 005 ‘flfi' .201 -0.137 -0.100 ~0.31¢ 70.3“ 0.00; [_MLJJMLG..uL_-1JLQJM_L0LLMPM n 0.00 0 052 0 150 0 100 .0 001 ...-0,15: ._ 7015 0. 201 -n. m 21 25 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 25 25 25 2’ 0.010 0.150 0.003 0.700 0.201 0.052 0.251 0.002 0.000 0,010 0.101 0. 350 @000 I”? «1.035 -0.211-.0 000 -0. 210! 0. 003 11.025.11.15: 40.117 2007 0.100‘ -0 .01;—ufi;‘l o 202 -n.101 a. 351 0.007 20 21 25 25 {In 25 25 2> 20’0__11_L_L 0.042 0.360 0 292 0.917? 02Vlfl 0.:2) 0.106 D 563 D [‘7 a; 70 [1,500 o 705i0.103.397 0. 061 D. 600 -0.l7' .i.100 .|.100 -0 230 -0 205’ -0.066 -n.055 0.074 0.300 -0.020 0.000 .0.207 0.253 0.330 0.030 ,0.003 A.JJ£__:J.DBJ——:l2ilL—— __ [5 2L 2. “2‘ 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 I6 20 26 20 26 0.375 0.510 0.303 .227 0.300 0.0“ 0.157 0.101 0.065 0.720 0.027 0.10r 0,100 0.000 0.050 0.751 0.502 0.707 (w 1‘! 11 .I .12 .5 151 112‘ .0 g 0 4,090 -0.202 4.250 0.19 2 n 110 0 2 1 .0 102 n 1 0 0 2 7 0 150 0 320 70,110 -i.122 0.161 0.1" 20. 20 20 25 25 25 05 ' 2! — 25 25 10 20 20 70 20 20 15 0.357 0.510 0.702 0.022 0.313 0.207 0.000 0. 750 0.210 0.137 0.555 0,000 0.03» 0.000 J19LLAM_LM§5— VII 1! 0.005 -0.035 -0,011 0.013 ~0.nnv 0.020 0.0035 0.003 «1.000 0 ... ...... 9.22. ..5. 41.100 0.171 0.020 0.?" ' 25 25 25 5 5 25 25 25 25 . 1 . . . 25 z 2 25 25 ‘ 0.070 0.002 0.000 0.7017 0.057 0.099 755 0,754 0.711 0.017 0.000 0.101 («70153 7.10? 0.331 «In, 0. ‘ -0.220 -0.137 0.055 0 516 -0.017 -n.n30 0.050 0 101 0 321 0 100 .D-mi—V -n_..0_5.0_, 25 25 ' 5 7 25 ' 25 ' 15 ' 5 75 25 25 N . 0.1.0 0.701 0.100 0.010 0 00 35 v 0 77 0 0 7 1 3 0 0 . w "CulfimflS—“fi 21 z. 20 20 25 25 25 25 25 25 20 00 20 3‘ ‘2’ “_021 0.1" 0.501 0.000 0,790 0.501 0.033 0.112 0.001 0.100 GD 0.730 0.020 r 0.123 W ... 20 ..1“ 0.512 0,000 0.220 0.121 0.117 0.020 ~0.1.10 -0.100 0,071 .0.200 .0.100 -0 071 .0 200 0.... .. .0. .0 120 0.027 M" n 20 20 25 2: 25 25 25 25 25 25 ' 20 ' 20 21 __211—2L ‘_L1__25v_ 0 011 0.201 0 525 0.550 0.000 0.517 0.352 0.720 0.227 0.013 0.700 0.10: 0.015 0. 705 0.515 0.390 0.15 111120 -0.302 -II, 201 4.1” -1.17‘ -0. 260 -0. 230 00.150 0.121 «1.20715 .0 .010 -0 .320 .0.113 -0, 371 .0 110 0 00: ALIA—L21gTAAJJ—JJA-g’. 25 20 20 #407?- 0.3:“ aju‘w 0.550 0.11; 0.7;! 0.531 0.517 ' .131— 4W‘mr—n’r 0. 507 0105 my 0.717 _____._. -0.000 .101 0.117 -0-‘“ 0- . u 20 20 25 05 u 5. 20 21 ..1“ 0.010 0.152 1.370 0.150 0 517° 0.083 0.093 0.700 0.705 0.310 0.071 0,053 11. 005 111 ' . 57 71.130 4.320 ”.06 -0.132 ”.201 0.233 0.151 0.220 -0.017 0.000 .I,au 10 . 0 . 07 -0_231 .i. 001 .0. 201 4.3" ml “ ' ' 20 24 20 23 23 23 23 :3 20 23 21 "' 30 0.1 0‘0 "‘2 20 2. 2!. ”I‘ll—"57 0.107 0. 741 1.530 0.315 0.201 0.057 0.191 0.937 0 907 0.073 0.001 0.070 3.107 0.750 0. :00 0.100 0.00 WIS-MIL u 20 20 0.170 0.527 0.107 _4/ - 0 1 -.101 0.120 4.101 0.155 0.203 0.077 0.103 0.305 -0.170 0.232 -n 270 0.1” 0"I -0 0071 -.300 -0.217 -0.213 -0.102 0-0‘ V.” 0 2. 20 20 20 25 25 25 25 15 25 '20 25 'fl. ' 1. ° 20 21 20 1’ 0,. 0.502 0.101 0.002 0.311 0.702 0.417 0.001 0.323 0.203 0.11: 0.3.11 ‘0...“ @Mifll— 0.150 0.000 VII 12 0.171 LII' 'hfll’ 905“ 0.157 0.000 0.117 0.101 0.102 41.103 -0.007 0.317 -n.037 -0.302 : 3 .1 5, ,1 I 4 0. 00 . 1130 0.10 0.31.0 0.300 0.377 0.170 0.532 0.000 -0.011 «1.200 0.025 -0.100 0.000 0 my .0 305 -0.001 “.111 5.222 -0.123 “Ml" ' ' .1 25 (0’97. .21 (rfimrr‘inrrfib 25 25 20 2: ' 15 ' 15 21 —“———“—-“——§'}r 0 0 1 0.120 .0 .01 . .o . 0.100 0.701 L074 0.010 0 722 0.125 0.051 0.000 0.207 0.5" “- 7 .3075 0.121 0 207 .0 007 0 007 .0 .51 0 007 -0 115 -v.201 0 071 .0...“ . 1 1 . . 1 ‘ 0 °‘ 010 05 0.022 0 2 20 . 20 . 25 . 2: . 25 . 2, . 15 15 . 20 25 0.7“ 0.00%° 0.11;. :1 20 20 25 0.117 0.002 0.010 0.113 .0.055 .0.072 47.725 Bum - 20 20 20 25 0.270 0.700 I 2°_ 0 7 5 255 0 107 0.161 0.005 Wu" -0.157 -0. .07; 4.0” 4.156 571” “N” 0.3“ 0.0505 17.12 "7100 .0101 -0.112 I1, I .lfina 0102 0111 -0.113 00°”! 1 ’ . . TI . . 50 21 70 75 (3319 mg 25 25 10 00 21 4M ...“; 0.010 0.110 0.707 0.101 mg“ 150.530 0.001 {“73 0.350 0.511 0.000 010 0. 0- 110 u 0.03! 4.000 0.121 0.0“ -0.219 '0. 002 0.000 0.30;, -0.320 -0.050 "1.257 -0.192 0.005 -0.1n\| 0.1M ’ 71 W - a g 55 70 20 20 75 55 25 25 25 0 2. 0 . .nr—mu‘r‘T rv‘nrl'r‘. . . . . . .2 :WW—‘HTSTF “J" “1‘" 0.707 0 0 000 0000 1 000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0 n 0 0... .. 000 0 000 0.000 0 000 0.010 01! L———" ' 1. ' u 70 75 15 17 15 55 15 2! If I v" . 10 . 2| ' 20 2. :0 15 h 1.0 1.000 1.107 1.000 1.000 ""5 "W” 110” 1.000 1001. 0 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.100 1000 1 000 100.0 A.” "'0” 0 a” ("r 7' 1'” ° 000 D "W 0 our 0.0077 0. 0 0a . n 0 7.000 0.000 0.000 711 W 0.00;. ‘21 20 1 :0 ' 27 7 25 ' z: ' 15 1 25 25 1 0 an}, 0.00% 0.00:. .0 0 1.000 1.005 1.000 1.000 Lana lpofll 10“" 1100'! 1.5” 1.3” 10090 11000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.00“ 1.000 I.“ n VII I VII I VII 3 VII 4 VAR 9 VI“ 0 VI“ 7 VIE 5 VII 9 VII 10 HR 11 VII ll VII 1! VH1 1‘ VII I! V774 1‘ V” I, "I x. I 270 Notes: 1. See variable list (Appendix 3) for names of variables. 2. In variables where all responses were constant (i.e., same response cate- ; gory), the computer "print out" lists the correlation as 0.000 and the significance level as 1.000. 3. Significance levels of .000 indicate .0005 or more. 4. Interpretation: 0.443 Correlation 26 Sample Size 7 0.018 Significance level 0,011 .o.0s0 0.900 0,070 Q..21]__ Ml _Q1QZIL _ _ 25 26 20 0.100 0.105 0.920 0.250 -o.aao 0.070 0.on 2: 20 20 0.100 0.070 0.707 0.057 _ __g 0.020 0.071 0.143 0.272 0.351 20 25 25 ___2 _ 0.920 0.730 0.075 0.170 0.03! 0.114.411.211§7_.n1129_i114 LBS—LL11? .9 ragga- _ 2 0.072 0.022 a. 0.101 0,235 0.200 ‘ 0.001 -0.o7o 0.311 -0.105 -o.130 -o.o30 0.200 “ 2 o 20 0 25 2 9.219__1L7.16#9_.1_07_i0fi‘k ,J,.219 _Lflu “ML“ _ , 0.205 -o.o17 -o.192 oo.130 0.101 -o.100 .n.o57 0.005 b 0.210 0.0.15 0.329 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.770 0.1722— 2 20 0.701 0.293 0.293 0.970 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.210 0.930 (LIMA—-11 .210__1.m__-0.nm__:n.021_; _91300 -0 .015. 0.212__-0. 017 o 2 o 00 25 25 20 0.366 0.356 0.006 0.201 .0.121 0.000 0.127 0.208 0.100 0.353 . 25 2 20 00 2 2 ' 10 @Jiigz___0.zu__ 0._1_Lz__ 0.140 01"lo__0.529 0.1M 0.1_u,_0.995_-__ 0.253 0.151 .0.520 0.190 00.210 41.250 0.051 .0.192 0.300 00.121 0.027 . 20 20 21 2 0 0 0.211 0.071 W 0.303 0.500 0.210 0.000 0.300 0.071 0.552 __ 090 7.0.99! 0.751 0.1°_0_ _511112_‘_ _90.zz7___0.1 L°.__:QV.1,9_4__ i013.._,_01312._01000_._0 ___ 411225—— 20 23 20 20 :0 73 21 20 10 ~ _ 7 0.352 0.910 0.206 0.070 0.022 0.159 0.101 0.015 w 0.055 .00 W 0.100 0.205 0.210 -0.780 0.170 -o.077 0.176 0.102 0.319 -o.o70 0.230 110.1 .0.250 26 23 26 26 25 25 - 20 6 6 20 20 -_£._3_‘_3___°_11QL_0.333__ _G_Ll1?_,___Q1A9§__91_’.Q‘_Jdl° 4Q) 1L&,._LJLLJ-_w_ 0-‘58 0.216 0.002 0.131 «7.229 -o.130 -o.0oo 0.145 -n.535 0.000 0.300 0.129 0.052 0.000 M230 0.007 0 __ _2L_ ___._'_ ___ng_ 23 2.1 25 0.757 0.527 0.251 0.5Womeo‘mm 0.129 0.521 0.797 0.127 0.201 0.702 1211.09...-.91321.__._9_.1.12...__0.115 4.176 43.195 0.015 70 74 _ _20 20 25 0.2.62_ 410L119. _ 5011122.._tn1010_:11412_3_ :91391 “0.11%- _LZOA 2 25 20 21 :76 25‘ 26 0 V _ ___- _ __ fl __ _ 0.10.; 0,571 0.700 0305—67371 0.339— ?5 0.167 0.575 0.913 0.956 0.531 0.122 0,417 0.301 U.SJO 0.009 4.120 .0.027 -o.150 4.300 70,777 0,020 0,022 0.100 0.091 0.070 0 293 0.221 0.217 0.000 0.239 20 25 20 20 - 25 25 < 20 20 20 20 0 ....°..‘.’£‘_.____PJ_’.i7_ _MED _. 21‘1". ®__91i°_°_ .280! _.mb J..,‘1,7___°_.‘3,” _l‘lo_’_!‘!_~ 0-14" 0.279 0.207 0.730 0.221 0.210 -0.130 -0.112 0.170 0.017 00.025 0.315 0.213 -o.110 0.052 0.702 0.101 «.100 0.002 -0.203 0.020 0.003 20 2 20 26 20 75 25 20 26 20 20 20 20 20 25 20 20 0.230 0.073 0.571 0.376 0.751 0.702 0.110 0.277 0.500 0.793 0.215 0.000 0.601 0.090 0.221 0.000 @ 0.22: 4.29.5 q 197 9 9.2.5 0 gin-1.950 9 501 g 053 _q _292 _J.187d_g 0£1______n.165 0.270 0.152 ~o.132 0.326 0.107 0.152 20 25 l 20 1 20 L 0 2' 20 ‘ o 50 ' 20 ____,. > __;0___..g_ 25 20 20 20 0.250 0.105 0.315 0.009 0.170 0.709 w 0.791 0.131 0.307 0.001 0.01? 0.170 0.030 0.511 0.071 5.121 0.056 10.000 P.flflfl 3.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 01000 0.000 ’0 2d 26 20 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 c.000 O.fl00 b 75 25 ?0 26 26 26 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 20 25 20 26 _ _ . 1.000 1.000 1.uoo 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 __1.000 1.000 1.000 1.300 1.000 1.000 1.000 3.000 5.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2 2 o 0 20 ’0 20 20 . __1111L_,11001 L1000 11000 1.000 10°00 1.000 10000 1.0004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 26 29 0 20 6 ‘5 5 6 70 k 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 VTr‘yfi‘“vaTIWY—VITYS—’VW_ZI" “17177 Z'r‘Wl 76 710 27 _VW—il "‘7 2‘ WV” ""__ __ _A____,____ V10 31 710 32 v10 33 770010 v10 35 V10 30 710 37 7177 30 v10 01 271 “"‘L TABLE 4l.--Correlation Matrix for 0100 cablmzi Category C, Group 1- 0100 0.100 1.0 0. VII’ hll 09 0 0.100 0.401 1‘ v10 1 0.0 -n.0l1 0.104 0.4 v 0.901 0 01 010 1 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 In ll 00 00 SI ill 1.100 1.0l0 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .110. 40 4| 40 10 40 10 0.114 0.1 0 0 0.041 0.001 0.111 1.000 100 0 0.111 0.111 0.000 0.000 -0.010 -0.010 0.000 0.101 40 4| 40 00 10 :0 49 19 Vll 1. l! ‘I ‘0 ll H 4.070 0.111 0.010 -0.000 0.000 0.000 0.177 -0.0Ji I Cl C! II ‘I 0 0 0.401 0.100 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.001 0.100 ‘I ‘l l. 9 49 III 1! 40 0.100 0.111 0.00: m 1.000 0.090 0.110 0.110 100 11 - .100 4.101 - .00! - .0 -0.011 -0.0 0 0.000 0.007 -0.100 -0.z0! 0.071 - 4 ‘0 3‘ :0 fill 90 ‘33 ‘0 :fl‘ . «1.007 0.000 0.00! l O 0.110 -0.ovs { -. 9 0.1" 0. 7:4 0. 0!: 00.0“ 0.030 43.017 6.500 0.0" “1.0" 0000: 0.064 .9.1N '01“. 0,91! 9 49 .10 09 19 09 193:9 09 49 09 09 0 a 0 5 700 a 00 0 I70 . 5 . . l I? ll ‘ 0.93! ..‘ll 0.821 1.0" 010 10 -0.l11 .0.001 ‘0 ll MI 10 0.001 [.010 0.000 0.001 0.07! 0.144 0.000 0.100 0.000 -0.100 0.100 0.10, -0.110 , 0 I 40 40 . 00 40. ..00 40 40 40 40 40 00 0.011 0.001 0.140 0.140 0. 001 1.000 0.29: 0.100 0.00: 0.290 0.021 010 11- _AJ!1_zl.|u_n.lu_0.14J_0.ln0 uLL 0.100 mu . 047—1 _0.110 0.101 -0.1.0_'_0..0J_' 4 00 00 01 00 10 40 00 40 1 40 00 0 40 0.70: 0.1!! 0.001 0.105 0.!" 1.000 0.300 0.921 0.0.0: I . . 0.400 0,001 0.000 0.000 0.104 000 10 .0 -I,iu ...‘n ...107 «.391 4.117 5.300 '0'"! -0.36| 41.172 ch!“ 0129 -0.000 -0,00 .11.“! “.941 41.130 l| l‘ ‘l 0‘ II ‘0 I I. 4 L MHJHLIEQ— u: .....meu ...—1.4L 1.11.- l. 4.002 0.000 0.077 0.000 "1.07“ 0.15i -0.045 4.07! -0.190 -0.010 0.10' 0.10: -0.100 -1‘n.104 ”1.123 u 40 01 10 10 10 00 00 10 10 00 00 -.._10__10——41—— 0.102 0.001 0.520 0.022 0.300 0.770 0.070 0.114 0.071 0.000 0.004 0.107 0.511 0.132 u. -0.m 41.204 1.000 01.010 «1.050 -0.000 .0.“- 1.101., 0.201 50.0 0.110.211.0110 WM 00 01 40 00 10 19 49 10 40 1.. 19 41 41 0.15: 0.000 1.000 0.040 0.154 0.003 0.00-1 [£01117 11.090 0.402 0.010 0.000 110 01 Qfifin' $0.077 0.000n -0.111’Ta’.011 -0. 23770.90}; 7.315 9.1T:n -E211 I991 4.231 41.001 0.070 40 ‘1 40 00 40, 40 40 ‘9 1 41 41 .0322 0.555 1.000 0.052 0.010. 0.150 0.051 0.070 0L:}75770J1_147704.101 . 9.125 4.1.1; 00! n '41.?" “.2“ 0.000 -0.061 -0.021 -0.4.11 -fi.919n 9.140 0.001 «1.290 9.4017 0.210 11.151 0.101 41.!“ 1L. WAJL 4] ”Al O 417 I 7 [7 :07 ‘9—0_ ' 0.071 0.000 1.000 0.101 01 m 2 0.101 0 02. 292 0.122 0.114 In a “.151 4.1.0.1 -0..020 20.000 0.000 . 0.10! 0.090 . 0.177 A. 01 00 41 1 0 10 3:9 0207 0.010 0.0:: 1.000 0.247 6.135 0.202 :3 . 0.000 .9_ 03:“ mm -0.00'4’?.102 «1.100 «1.014 4 I 1 ‘H ‘l ‘U 40 40 U ‘0 ID 4U 1.000 1.011 . 0.10L 0.01.2 . 0.111 - 0.101, 1.001 0.01! 0.100. 0.60.1 0.1110 1.2.10-0.1Lfilm 00! a - .1" 4.25! 4."! 0.004 21 0.110 0.000 -0.031 00.104 0.000 6.020 -9.o1v -a.z70 0.0" 0. 000 -0.00! "1.114 0.190 0.101 - . , - ,. _q ._u_._u,_ufi 4g- .11.. .410. _10___10 0 10- 99 50 1.. __19___11_J_ 0.001 0.010 0.900 0-"4 0 34° 1. 000 0.001 0.10% 9,090 9.000 0.077 0 030 0.0 0. 001 0. 172 0. 20: 0.517 a u 0.21L_w2_m.002_0.un_rwz_1.0MuL 10.00: 4.1.07 0.112 0.110 0 911_.0 11-4.3420. ....17—0‘115— ' 40 39 ‘9 3° 99 :0 30 :0 ' )0 10 50 'J . 10 40 4° 0 101 l u! 0 '00 0."! 1.000 0.577 0.000 0.007 0.907 0.007 0,090 9.001 11.071 1.201 0J5! ,7 ___—f u. :7 - .210 4.0 . 7 0. '11.“! 0.000 0.000 -0.032 0.071“ 0. 014 0.001" .54 0.110 0.0:! have 4.00! 0.290 - a. 4 41 .9 4a 1.. 1., 1.. 11 ‘1 0.1.12 -1412_.0..21L.J.211_J.100_.0.910 LJML‘L 0.141. 0.0LL. 0 931 41.3.7 0.111 .110 1M .040 .6.02: 0.100 0.000 4,115 0.001 «.217 0.000 -0.0‘5 ~0.106 0.016 -0.002 -0.025 10 1A .10 11 .10 J8 40 an 10 0.472 0.000 0.174 1.000 0.701 0.200 0.02: 0.707 0.070 -0. 0'2 -1.211 -1.100 -n.101 0.100 - +J__AA__JD———u— 9,000 9.191 a. 200 n. 101 0.219 11 0111 .0 1151 11.1100 -0 219 .n 400 .0 000 ' ‘ v “I 20 JMILJMIJ ‘ .ML-.04110_‘L1u__41.Lifl_-Mn]_-u.1u._w:_n.1fl_lnfle— 4 1 0 40 49 19 10 10 00 00 ‘0 ‘0 ‘ ‘ 0.111 0.002 0.730 1.000 0.109 m 0.757 0.142 0.211 0.100 0.075 9.011 0.101 1.105 W 0.1” mm_7___”1 4.004 0.000 -0.010 0.000 0.150 0.130 0.230 «1.000 0.000 v0.00! 0.104 0.000 1.024 1.1111 «1.00! 0.022 0 0 1 10 0 3 1 30 n 30 3 ” #4110.me z 1.1 ,9 1.. .. 2 z 9 “4 9 H1 0 012 04111—11me ...111 41.070 )1 "' " '4” "-'" "J” '0" 0.000 0.010 0.000 -0.104 0.000 .0.002 .1410 0.170 0.111 0.1 1 0.000 0 - 11: “’3, .03ng I > 10 .0 0.712 0.40! 0.300 0.141 n. I‘ MWLAMMJLL ‘ n2: 1“ H" 'II ”I I! n - ' .1 .. 41 40 41 c0 40 .0 19 40 10 40 10 00 19 40 ‘ “ 0,070 0.306 0.090 0.200 0.200 1.000 0.500 0..19 9.542 9.097 9,705 9_999 9.999 9.509 0.973 ....“ 9.090 0.907 ___(J... 010 u 1.“! I-fl" '1‘“ "J” "W" M” '0-0“ 'M" 41.371 0.014 0.100 0.101 «1.111 -0.071 -0 214 i 001 -0-14‘ mm 11 1 10 40 4 00 4 1 ‘4 l ‘1 ° 1h. 0 00 40 19 ' .9 ' 11 ‘1 “ .411 1:10 0019 1011 1m am 01771 00:: 0205 0107 11% 0111 awn—3m 00! u ...," 1.004 4,.“ -0 207 41.100 -0 251 0.000 0.201 0.07» -l.050 -0.012 -o.110 0.001 -0.145 0.1" .1900 0.104 0.025 0.02! 1 7777‘ 9“ l 111 A HAS .nJSL IA ADJ n 000 11120” 0 097 J ‘74 I I]! In 112 -n I!“ n “I n 010 0101:.— 4L1— “ . . 00 40 40 ..1" ..1”; 9,111 0.107 0.041 0.”! 1.000 0.145 0.210 0.404 0.091 9.001 9.300 0 00! 0. - .175 "'10; ...196 -0.009 -0.042 0.14! 0.000 «1.051 0.091 «7.704 d 010 0.011 -0.11: n- u 0 q 4. 41 1. 19 40 40 ' ‘0 ‘0 .202 2.1.1 _ 410 0.09.0 0.11: 1 000 0 7:7 11 119 J 101 04 0 “I 07 -0.707 "1.004 9.101 - 4 Mil—40.11134 13’ 00006;0.019..__0 ”_‘0 0 7 . . - 110 n 0.11.-..0024 «1 .. :0 1 ‘1 0. .1!Lo:0.0_.0.01fi . 0 0 ‘0 ‘0 11 41 Ed?) .,m ... m 0.10’ 0.1.0 0.10" 1.00.0.1 0.;17 9. 0:. 0.110 ....0 9..., 0.501 «.120 4.... 0.110 "" r ~.-vw 0.10!- u.uuo .000" 0 00.70.1100 0.000 0.000 0.000 4 0 0 . _ 0.1.. . .100 0.00" n- 41 0.0077 42 . ‘1 ‘7 . r -0 .0 10 ‘0 . U40 0 000 0.00: 0.000 0 000° n 000H 0 :. 01 41 1‘ I 4,001 . 0|: 1.105. 1.000 .11"W JAIN I.ML..A1JM..11|LM _.l - 0 1.; I: 0.000 0.000 0 001 0.000 0,100 0.000 0.00» 0 000 1.000 9.9 9 9.9 9 000 000 ...... 9 999 0. 000 "I 40 J“... '11 u 41 ' :0 11 40 4.0 40 ' 40 1.. “19 0....a ”0:9 0. M ' ’ .,-,.... 1.101 1,000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.00? 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.060 1300 {Tm 1.000 1.00.! 1. 000 .... . 0... 1 'u. 1‘ ‘ ml r v10! 01-; 1“ 111.- 14710 10“ vifiTVflTr—m—s—nrn—my—i—M 1 v—r—K’Tn 1 v n 1 V“ “ 272 Notes: 1. See variable list (Appendix 3) for names of variables. 2. In variables where all responses were constant (i.e., same response cate— gory), the computer "print out" lists the correlation as 0.000 and the Significance level as 1.000. 3. Significance levels of .000 indicate .0005 or more. 4. Interpretation: 0.443 Correlation 26 Sample Size 0.018 = Significance level 031E 0.000 0.020 0.052 r _ ._ 4 _- 0.900 0.741 0.122 _ 0.011 rfi.161 ‘1 ‘l ‘1 0.435 0.945 0.300 0.163."_0.150'—:o.102 0.203— 1 1 4 41 0.225 0.310 0.2L7 0.195 0.194 -0.230 -0.212 0.190 -0.055 .. .1 _fi _1 , __ ..1 0.212 0.125 0.171 0.222 0.704 0.141 0.254,.-0.191 0.011 0.420 -0.140_ 40 4 40 4a 4 0.007 0.130 0.225 0.040 0.350 0.150 #07117 16.05‘ 40.103 30.173 0".33—7'362' 41 41 41 41 4 41 40 04319 00‘56. 0159? 01225 00251 91329 91505 0.130 -n.271 -c.075 0.342 -0.0>5 0.155 -0.150 0.075 . :21 - _ ,_._ _ ' -_ .12_.,__ ___ . -_ 2 0.410 0.007 0.040 [11157 0.732 0.334 0.304 0.040 0.037_ 20.102- 10.091. 0.085 0.0/7 0.166 -0.102- 0.121__ 0.029- ‘1 ‘1 41 OX 41 41 4 41 . 0.710 0.502 0.500 0.500 0.025 0.233 0.250 0.335 [1(111 0.131 -0.542 57115 01134—_:0.137_‘ 0f1§6"-B,140 0.007 -o.100 0.390 39 39 J9 39 39 39 39 39 37 39 0.247 0.120 0.475 0.402 0.150 0.421 0.302 0.617 0.300 m. ,_ ".102 -0.055 0.23? -o,362 0.000 -0.136 ".054 0.000 -O.?70 01000 0.000 10 9 4 0 3 7 so 3 _ 3 09 0 0.525 0.731 0.144 IIIII7 1.n00 0.300 0.741 1.000 0,004 1.000 1.000 0.091._:0.210_.:0.1211,-0.101i1:0.101_ 0.111_ -0.101__0.02!_ ”01511 ..01101._201011___ 0.000 4 4 41 41 4. 4 9 4 39 19 1 «In em ...... 1176;?) mm 1.1:. mm mm M44 ....- -0.§Zh__ 0.104 0.100 -o.010 -0.156 40.077 -n.av0 4 4 9 01 J 5 0.101 0.312 0.005 -0.042 -0.041 -0.110 41 4 41 41 4 41 9 41 .-L255.__‘_._n.,m1 0.711111 114.57, 0.0111. -0120? _ .01209_,1.111_,_1.21L 0.025 0.221 0.152 0.017 0.160 0.200 0.054 0.009 -0.123 0.010 -0.202 -0.00' 0.097 -a.707 -i.232 0.030 41 41 41 41 u _ 11 .__, __ 11 19 4 .11121, _____11 .____11_,- _. 11n_._ 0.501 0.912 0.200 0.100 0.702 0.500 0,400 0.940 0.200 0.055 0.540 n..0~ 1.114 0.011 0.019 10.121__,0.012_ .0.241 .10.030_ -0.110,..0.001_,_0.109.._0.001__40.010_n.01201__.-c.051 -5-123 0.212 .04120 .. 4 4 41 4 4 4 4 41 39 41 3’ 1; 41 41 41 0.014 0.418 0.305 0.125 0.047 0.405 0.004 0.2’7 0.600 0.‘27 0.201 0,751 ..454 0.172 0.410 "0?: ' "071—13"’-71W1“ 0.050 0.004 .n_127 0.020 0.203 0.220 0.255 .._133' :_.51 0 41 39 4 39 10 41 41 41 41 0.‘2‘ 0.}?9 0.097 0.14? 0.19! 0.402 1.030 0-011 0.104_1_0.100 u 7.124 0.106 0.200 0.210 4 1 41 4 41 4 0.‘Zl .0.‘99 0.051 0.17Q 0.797 0.590 0.004 -0.072 -0.118 0.226 0.200 0.110 40.023 01.233 1_UQ§ 0.070 0,145 4 4n, 1111, l9 ‘1 39 3 V .11 41 .11 3.185 0.109 0.063 0.0‘6 41 41 41 1 1 ‘1 ___ . _ 1 0.230 0.405 0.000 0.772 0.002 0.04! 0.457 0.1‘6 0.095 0.401 0.550 1.111 7.075 J.01< 0.352 0.791 0.700 0.042 0.050 41 41 .0.292___n.204__"0.2211_10.1nl__:0.101___0.022_1-0.209_v-0.101_n 01111_._010§!_r:0.:10___-c,25; 0.155 3.012. ~0.u45 31.012 . 0.255.. 0.291 4 41 4 4 4 41 40 41 9 41 34 19 41 41 41 41 4; 4 0.007 0.144 0.510 0.410 0.000 0.004 0.205 mg 0.813 (312) 1.147 1.321 1.015 1.774 0.014 0.005 0.00: 0.000 "_13. {.100 0.110 1.0Jn 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.000 4 4 ‘0 31 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005__'n.000 0.000 ‘1 C 4 41 I I ‘1 ‘1 4‘ ‘1 ‘ t 1 _ 1.001. .1.000,,.11501., 1.000_..1.000___1.000, ”11000.. _ 4 39 _“1.njfi_l_lifl£fi__.lifllfl___111lQ_uHLLQQQ___lLl£ni-"JLinn___11299 __J.!11_._L1!9Q.._l111£_ 1.43" 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 '.qgw ._.n1 .,,Jr ;,uJa {.ngn 0.003 :.000 0.000 0.006 41 41 41 41. 41 .1 4n 41 39 1:1 11, H _ 10 _ __ 41 1 41 41, 41 41, 41 41 42 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 ...J. ...3. y_131 1.~ga 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Vii—13‘"VIN”7T__VIN"Y!—”VTN'23_"VTH‘77—"VIH_7!_”V1fi_7T_—VTF_77__VTV_§UT_VTW—TV"VTN_IU_—_vAu‘11 01} J) 040 13 ‘afinJT'hvau 05 040 30 vii'37 VAR 30 040 41 “‘ VAR 2 ...:r’“, at}. iiiii' 'E'fi: "-T.1T0- 03 ml 0.14: $.10: 0.111 0.047 I 0 4 I. II “MOI 273 TABLE 42.——Correlation Matrix for A 7 3| ‘qfibmm 110 7 7.004 0.111 -0.017 -o.:7l -0.120 4. 40 40 40 lv 0 OIL 0 “1 0."! II 011 0.90 01- I .h.004 .I.oso 0.000 -n.07n -n.1nv 0.104 0 0. II 0.71: 0.070 n. .400 0.04: II I 40 00 40 ‘0 1T n"Ilia—4 0.7!. 0.111 H.706 “I”. 0.7.9 0.8!]! 0.350 In!“ VAI II 0.131 5.0!. —I.17l -0.106 0.000 4. 40 40 40 In I IJ‘” “I ll —i.Il' 0.‘I5 -n.271 .0.013 I I 0107‘ 0.011 -0.07 0.231 0,100 30 00 ‘0 l0 7 I H" I Category D, Group 1. WWWWLQTLJQT ab ' ° 4:31» 0.11! 0.0.) D 05 0.62! 0.5.7 0,000 0.000 0.20: 0.307 VII I! “1.!!! -II.¢3' I.I73 0.1" 0.7“ VI. II uqJQI II .0181 0.170 .....40 0,301 0.370 0.207 1' 50 39 39 59 ll 5' )9 39 IV 7 I I no I 7 a 104 IV 0 .0!1 10 40 00 ‘0 0.107 0.1?“ 0.001 0."! ".160 0.11! 0.114_ 0.4109 In 4“ l9 9 0.0.5 0.1)! 0.!“ G.Ilfl u- 14 -o.1«o -n.0°! ‘0 3V n.57n,,,0.5N "I H 0.0!. 0.1“ Q 3' "1.04.1.0.qua 0.000 0.100 0.30 0.77! w . Dull” 0.150 OMOJI fl-Edl I 40 I I 0.30! 0.191" 0.1!! 0.27: 0.3" 0.227 0.30 0.0:. ‘— 0.°5l hill 77.37! 0.!" 0.06! 0.309 M ' 5 9 3' l! I-III 0.57? 77 71.001 5 . 10 $1 Jag—*0: '—mm lLLll—ghlq '41.:11; LL “..1-.041“ JEDO 0.7:7 507 .000 l I a!“ «.1271 naii o. 4 4 v 7;) I.‘ :7 0.050 an. 10! I: III l.2 I 0.327 {Li _L, .1 0.100 M- 00 39 .10 0.001 0.01 I. 029 0.70. -0.251 —T.: o" 30 "7.13! 'lfl“ LIL? Id”. 4.’ 4. c 4 0 212 . I! 10 10 .4de n on 0 110 L14" ' 0 I v - 0 0 0.107 0.470 0.302 0,410 0.137 0.077 0.701 0.557 T 2 ’ 0.141 0.411 0.170 0.310 -0.012 0.007 .... na! 0.!“ SP ‘9 II 7 7 (a An “I“ . 007 0.102 9.107 135 0 371‘ .057 MA 07 . w _ 1. N. am- m m . 0 0.21.10 0,131° 0.054 00 -0.217 71.127 7, 10 ,1, in 50 10 30 01W «FT 0 Wm?” n “‘7 ' 0.1 0. . 0.1 BAZQQE‘JDILDJHJH‘erQA “13343 L‘}_ 0.,“ 0 4'31 0.9511?“ a . 50 a 9 _ML.._0_;° ° F]1_2’flt_1]_v_fl_u‘_z,r 9‘“ ‘ 9 0 0.00 ,292 0.43.. 0.10.. 0,10. 0.227 0.752 0.527 “J“ 0.12! 10.031; 70.030 ‘-n.fii ’ i .1070 (...... .....20 ~0,ou o.g42 -..,2n -n.n77 0.010 H.130 4o 40 In 40 30 n 40 4.. 4a .70 40 (E1) - 00° 0 660 0.7100 0.700 a :14 0,400 0.050 0.151 0.790 0.105 0.029 0.971 0.161 k 0. UK 6. m 6.5710 11.1079 0.0” “3.101 -0.:04 an 47 -n.2u 41.207 nanny-0.001 -o.1:4 -0.z7z «3.074 4.109 ~11. 2’2 H7 10 40 4g 4g 70 0 0.005 ...Womn 0.701 0.190 0.001 0.511 . 0.17? 0 172 -n 0‘6 '0 270 ~o.zz4 175 )0 10 .79 0.207 0.3“ 0.767 ...qaa 005 0.191 0.1.51 0.2.12 .79 0.270 as 0 ”L 0 0 0.717 0.370 0.730 0.505 11; :7 n .07 —j 002 1.1" a I” ...g 0. 4| ‘0 ‘0 0.791 0.577 0.210 0.9“ II on; 0.000 0.73 I LII! 40 . I I 0AA 4 ‘l .30: 4.17:. -0.05.7 0.0147 waif ”7.117.? ’-u..4’a ' 0 144"” {n JV 4 1 40 40 0 0. 0.40: “.15.. (mm 1| 0 w 0,100 0,035 . o o 0.004 0.0.” -n.105 JV 0 237 . J7 7 .{00 30 10 01‘}? idAPL A, .....n ~0.252 “.154 9,130 0.151 W ‘D 0‘, 3.107 Q 0J1? 117—“l FhISL.,a1fl2_2\: 91.13—20.115151- ‘0 0.1721,;00 0,402 0.72” '11,le ”.170" 0.13:“ 0,107 ‘0 471903 40 a “N5 l-ijb °' ° ’2‘ 0.9.7 0..“ 0.541 M" ~-\ 30‘ —o 291 ‘0.00‘3 3.220 ... 15. -n 04.. -‘ z: 0 5! -9 l” 19 30 39 311 30 70 :0 an .‘m’ u. 0:065 0.215 ”.15 ' 5!) av ‘27 v a 2n n 2:. n m I 53' «1.00: 0.001 0.240 0.170 0.012 .0...” .i.077 0.0:: 0.17} 41 , 740 30 n 40 —‘"———}“1——g%r-rrl1' 0.550 0.1777 0,11! (WSW 0.71! 0.001 0. : fl. . mm...” 00 “1.1"“ .in 04.04- 4. 40 v . . ‘0 v 0 .110 0 774 0,411 ® 0.077 3,000 0.100 ’7 “0,37l' ‘0.)07 T,nn «.21 0.1‘" ‘1. ' 30 1 a 4a .774 0.01 mm 0.x 1 J7 ".107 0.1.1: 0,171 0.504 0,120 ..1“ 71.090 131‘ 5.": 5 V . .. 0 0 00 ...:02 0.0" hm SD " mm 0."! 0.704 W 0. :12 “y... 3}#_.U.ZI‘ ...,750 4.204. -0.290 41.00! -0.0M ~0.207 «1.253 -n.071 0.112 n 40 40 40 39 ‘0 40 40 40 09 0 001 0 0;: 0.111 0.510 0.00.! 0.1” n 10‘ 0 M9 0.102 a 39: 0 217 0 nu 0,310 0.00: w 0.0;: 5 -1,709 0.0" 4.055 1 u '03 -i.09° 4 4 4 4.10 4 4 1 ' — .ono ' 0.71. 0.19: m 0.7,:— T7,”! (0.015 025%! 0.131: -0.130 «1.101 0.110 0,200 1 0.1410 0.19!“ 0.000 93 0023 ..1“ «.014 0.2! 0,11‘0' JO ‘0 I" -fi.uz: 4 “.3." 4.027 0.106 3 4 77 ‘ “.307 0.249 (1.1710 0.21! 0.105 ‘0 .19 4 1 1 01 A n. 0 1.21.. 0.170 :‘ll 0!! 7.211 10.00: «.217 0 000 mm -o.m 0.1:!7 -0.w 0 u: a an -o m WAT—Mgr "' ” .7 n ‘ 17 07 n n ' :7 17 17 17 ' ' lo ' 37 n 1 m 0.007 0.044 0.074 0.151 0.907 1" 0.720 0.”) 0.!07 0. 491 0.017 c.1100) 0.70! 0.000 0.707 0.972 0.521 0. .070 0.153 n can u 733 0 14‘ -0 020 0 1J6 -0,0vn -o.250 .sz - :12 -n,a at . 0 . .'. a -0 2" '010" “I. u I .70 u ' so ' 7° ' M ' :0 ‘ n w 10 :0 0' :0 730 0.0 u "“23. ‘7'”; " 2 :9 ' :0 5' 0 no 0,7;7 0,727 0.021 0.1” 0.5” 0.”! 1,!" 0.7” 0,101 0.007 0.127 0.74: 0.507 0.411 n W “I l, i ,1” 0.100 0, 215 a. 410 0.0910,:06 ~0. Ho 0, 224, 0. 070 0,106 .0...” -n.10: 4,047 .a_“n ...“. "3.111 0.01! 01:". ”W0 10 :0 an n :7 11'" '1 W‘BJHfirJi‘l‘ 0.!!! T. . 0.010 0.311 31 77 g 00 - ’ ' a n ' 30 59 0.210 0.007 0.027 0.19» 0.0M 0.709 0.71! 1.5" 0.007 3 3 0.952 0 on 0.0:0 0.34 0.197 0.711 0,710 ...... 0..., _,,.,¥,,, "” 7 W . 1~ 7 -0.141 mm? -0.0u 4.700 “mus -0,01’Y 4...? .0 01¢ .o.gl. 0.074 moo: 0,141 0 076 0 70' 0 090 0.004 .11“ -0.05 Ill ’ u 10 30 19 .w 70 n :v 30 19 av ' u ' 50 v ' 8' “ 3:. n "7 0 091 0 ”a 030° 0.520 .771 0.0! 0. 20 0.797 0.041 Low bloc 0.100 0.19. 0.577 W v n J. 5.1.... ; .07 .0. I" 4.159 .000 {—0—§21 Gib: 1’ i‘l‘mégmr‘g 0,500 ~0.127 .0.110 0,310 40 4a 40 4 0.270 I 0,114 0.001 0,201 0.306 0.120 0.2:: -0.15°_"-“2 4|) 39 39 31 ‘ ~ ‘ a n 0 II . . 0 0 . - . . . . . . 1 40 4| . . . . . . . . . .0 4° 10 1 000 ....u 1.»:a I...” 1.007 7.1100 mm .../00 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.400 1.000 1.000 . . 0 u 00; was 0.000 0.000 7.000 0.000 0.107 n 000 [011710.005 M700 0.000 n 000 r000 0.000 .. ..noo 0 000 0." " 2 ' . a u 40 1a 17 1.7 ' 40 ' In .. 4o ' 19 ‘ w 40 "mg A. 'v n ‘0 11": “01: “an 1.1“ 1.000 1.000 1.000 ..000 1.000 14000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 m: 7 vn 7 ya 0 ma 9 “a .0 ya .1 vu 12 v10 11 m4 .4 wt 17 v4 4 1 ‘ "‘ ' “11' g v ("I [In 4 ‘Vlfl 7 274 Notes: . 1. See variable list (Appendix 3) for ' names of variables. 2. In variables where all responses were constant (i.e., same response cate- gory), the computer "print out" lists the correlation as 0.000 and the significance level as 1.000. 3. Significance levels of .000 indicate .0005 or more. 4. Interpretation: 0.443 Correlation 26 Sample Size 0.018 Significance level 9 1 00 .000 0.079 0.277 o0.151 39 4 0 7 _ WW' KT‘F" o 007 0 209 o 00 0 «rs 0.595 0.007 0,390 (3:333) «1.000 0.120 0.017 0.0009 0.359 30 59 19 J 3 0,700 0.07 0.010 0.000 m 0,274 0.307 .0.000 0.001 -0.001 -0.100 39 0 4 39 'W TNT—0:615?" 'TJTWF —OTWT'_ s .o ,9 - so 22 011°. 0.05: 0 005 3 39 10 0,925 0.709 0.‘12 0.“1 0.290 0.751 0.682 50:537. -0,122 -o,1¢6 .olsil’ .0:263 :6]Ei€“fn,051 -0,110" 39 0 0 39 .9 no 40 0,6L8 0.“?! 01350 101 0,093 0,779 0L7" 0‘00: 0.114 0.097 ~0.151 -0,329 -0,143 0.131 0,101 -0,179 0,300 39 G I _ 3 ___"_ .. , 0 _ " '6.773“1:7‘n—0T. 1 am. W». 71 mm UTXOI—“d. 71 0,007 0.090 .q.29:n 0.520 0.120 1' 10 4 . . 0.209 0.009 0,545 0.000 W 50.150 .0,100 -0.153 -o.136 0,120 0.27! .0,21: '0'1130 0.21:0 0,523’ 0.502; 30 00 40 40 19 39 0 0,390 0.505 0,200 0,502 0.120 0,002 0.170 0,102 0.101 (0.000) ‘lllllp 0.119 0.117 0.052 -0.214 -0.001 0.055 -0.015 -0,¢01 0.203 0.595 0.753 0.070 3 ‘ 39 9 0 4 . 9 O 40 A 77777 _ 7 ..1“ 4 __Q.”_ _*_ _ 01_ 0.73? 7.127"37TY"077T‘E037 0.73? 07°21 m 0.100 0.000 m. 3 ' l v 0.91? 0.015 00‘59 - ~ J - ’9 50 - 9 0.12? :01013 -0102 - ___ .0101§3"_0101§7ni01126 ' 36mm T6__.11.0.,S.,___11.12v 37 57__ 7 37 0.037 0.907 0.595 0.156 0.150 0.720 0.610 0.161 0.14! 0.930 0.62? 0.301 0.195 0063 " 0715": 00.033 0.270 0.123 '-0'.'1'20_"n.'21; "0.7100" F03?! 407256“:0‘.1To ~0.sa1 5.000 0,107 ' JD 39 39 39 38 .‘B .39 (’45 39 393 3;. 1 13798 3:5 0.900 9.303 01020 0.000 0.050 0.402 0.170 1.000 (0400;) _0L1g__ ‘0, ___ 0 004 -0.051 0.209 -0.107 0.004 ' 0 1 0 3 50 0.070 0.550 0.202 0.013 -0.00I 00.041 90.025 -0.213u 0.ng6 0.13: 0 ' 0,030 0.101 011805 " '07??? 0.0‘63'—‘ETST1’ '73“ ~ 3 _ _ _ . . 1.60? at” 0,1“ _‘0.°35_ 0.7.77 170.501 0.575 0-1‘“ . . . . 53 - 250 -0 051 -0 252 - 4 - 40 . 55 002 fl_172 .9 972 9.958 0,040 0,09; 0,2g;6“_0.0109 0.2 o. L__jv__ii._jv__l_010_§3__0. 3° 3, 9 J 0.;59 0,034 0.055 0.700 0.070 0.107 0.920 0.110 0.101 0.'54 0.115 1.000 0.774 0.340 0.746 0.2)! b.23g; ~0f0°§; 30.0i§;’;6{17§;‘-0.16;° o0.09:; 10.103v 30:25g; 0.10;9 0.00;; 0.1113)9 0f>0§; ”'2‘: 0.11;, -0.22;° -o.1owg‘ 0.:sgz‘ __21111___11221___01£91___21i1l__.01215__-94211_ 9.?)!.__£.1£3_ 10.?11__"QL?EK .-01‘?!____11;ll?r__9i127 01503 °-l°° 0.? . 0,257 0,227 -o.139 0,102 0.020 «1,0439 .n,01: -0.210u 0.25:0 0.2’20 0,20: __.3'{{:0 :.0J: ‘#0.0032 0.00: 0.204 :::01;' '0.0039 ___ 0.100 0.?40 0,;00 0.203 0.035‘“’B[V03”_‘0731i”*0;f03“ ETT00““0107€“"0f003 0.400 0,101 3,000 o;75§‘—'07073 07V17”"37175 . _jinlfl___nlnll 0.0013__&inn§3__11000__.0.nn%6__011003__0100}a__010006.___:.11%.. 2.0106__0100§7__ 3 10 .0 1.030 1.000 1.330 1.030 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1,000 1.000 1.000 1.00" 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 "“‘"""”"__"_“—'“"‘___ _—__"_‘___”"f_"—' A 7"_'"""__" 000 0 000 0.000 0.000 0.000 V‘ 0 0 .0 D 0 000 0 00) 0.000 1.30) ...on 0.000 0.000 0, . 0.00n9 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.003 0.0039 . 0‘0 0 0‘0 . ‘ . ‘0 ‘0 ‘0 ‘0 37 39 :0 :30 1 3:0 ‘ 3:. i :00 ii113nn 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.uon 1.000 1.300 _1.000___11299 1.000 1. 00 147 1 . 1 VAR 20 v10 21 v10 22 v.0 23 v40 21 vnn 20 v10 20 v10 277_y33>20 .111 g3 hide 30 0.. £1. v:n_3? 010 33 van )4 v10 35 V10 00 v10 17 VAR :0 van 0; HI I VII I I 4 H H 0.3“- 5.5" VI. Q ‘I...‘ “"Tfi-‘Tfiv—Tflv— VAR I 275 TABLE 43.-—Correlation Matrix for Category E, Group 1. "I I II H H 11 H 0.!“ 00"! 0.0“ 0."! 015" “I 0 0.107 -0.111 4.101 «1.157 -0.070 0.001 1| H. H II I H 010 10 . 0.511 MGJT nu . 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 0.011 0.005 0.111 0.711 0.010 0.170 0.107 "I n «.511 -l.107 «.170 0.100 0.101 0.001 .0.101 “1.111 mug .0.110 0.107 11 _ 11 11 11 11 11 11. 11 i1 11 11 . . . I II II ‘1 H H H t 1‘ I! H I III 0.100 0.070 0.301 0.001 0.010 0.770 0.500 0.010 0.150 ul 1! 0.111 I «.111 -0.100 -0.‘1l - 0.01. “.011 -0.0u 0.110 0.011 .0.501 0.100 0.053 11 11 11 11 1 11 11 11 11 1 11 11 m 10 I 0.00: 4.150 0 I" 0.000 0.0“ 4.07: 0.101 0.100 0.110 4.11“ ..."0 0.707 71 11, 11. 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 _ __11 11 ..i" L011 CI 0.105 LII! 0.3!! 0. ll. 0.1!! 0.." I.I|I 0 0 n a“ 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 1 1 1,. 0.711 0,005 0.011 0.017 0.001 0.177 0.501 m 0.117 0.571 0.001 0.100 ..." n- 10 4.115 0.000 «.007 .0.011 0.001 -0.100 .0.170 0.020 .5.011 .0405 0.115 0.100 0.157 .g 001 .1 702 11 11 1: 11 1 11 11 11 11 11 11 I1 11 I 1 0 0 1 lTIh'l 0 704 0 105 11 141 n 010 0 5H 0 157 0 In 1 L" L013.“ 41111—1- W 11 u 11 11 11 1: 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 0.507 I 00 0.311 0.000 0.0:! 0.0 0 0.751 0.050 0.010 0.001 0.110 0.1” 0.1.0 6.5" 0.570 "I ll 1.101 5.075 0.001 031171.155 -0.19| 0.017 0.470 0.10: 0.070 -0,100 ~0.110 .0. 000 .0 110 .°_gu 1.1.. 4.217 4.115 :1 .11 11 11 11 11 11 11 1 11 11 11 11 “11 11 11 I “ 1- .0 1 1: 1.1.1; 0 110 I 500 1 017 0 020 n 00 n 101 0 700 0 010 n .W .0.100 .0.101 II 2 u_ MILL n_flJu_nam_Mfl_1JM_n.1u_LIM_AJM—JJ“— 1 11 11 11 1 11 11 11 11 11 . 11 11 11 H “ 1.0 0 1.100 1.000 1.101 1. 00 1.010 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.0110 1.000 ..1,” 1,.“ 1.0" 1.000 n- 00 0.077. 0.001 0.110 0. 210 -n. "0 41.171 0.217 30.117 0.100 -0.100 -0.01l -0.175 -0.110 41.757 M“ «.152 1113 u {1 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 “ 9.1“: 0.1954.w‘n.wum__..__11111_° 1‘5 9” 01- II -0 407 0.110 .11.“: -o.120 41.210 -0.111 0.114 «1.007 4.111 0.0“ “1'" 7.107‘ 0.201'm 11.037 0.105 0170 0'.“ W .-101 [my 0-77‘ Inn 1" -L1!L-n.zl‘1..:0m§. 1.40 200 200 0 1 1 0 0 0 00 . 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 n 11 11 _ 1‘ H 0.710 0.701 0.002 0.027 0.011 11.020 11.700 0.112 0.100 0.177 0.1171 1.000 0.707 [.000 0.5 0 0.711 ‘0':- 17"" 1.101 4.71. --,011 50 4.10. 4.110 I]. 51 11 11 ____I 0.020 0.105 -0.1.h .0,020 .0_100 .11.:1: «1.014 0.051 0.1119 41.270 J ‘0! 0.015 «.511 11 11 11 I 11 11 “ 0 11 7 7 11 11 11 11 0 I. 0.904 0191 0040 7‘ 0."! 071 0.057 0.100 -0. 002 0.101 0.110 «1.030 -0.120 -n.175 -o.111 71.051 .0. 70: 41.531 mHH: mHHk-u—mw - .1 050 -- :01 -0 502 0 I16 0 II! -o 0‘0 -1 199 -1 15‘ -0 000 0.221 a '0' 0.090 041W 11 11 11 11 11 1g 11 11 11 11 11 11 1 11 0.90! 0.000 0.010 0.110 0.510 0.115 0.1 5 0.117 0.171 0.177 0.0.11 11.700 11,.” m 0.771 6.791 0.501 n. n 0,017 5.107 0,201 - .000 ~0,002 "1.0“ 0.009 0.505 0.171 0.190 -n.55¥ «1.742 0.101 0.511 0.1109 0.407 . .001 0.215 1.137 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 .. 11 .. 11 111 ”l g 004 0.710 4.31 7 0.100 . 1'0"“? 0 170 0 m 0.015 1 ‘ u. a. 0,010 0.005 0.007 -0.270 -0.000 - .100 050 0,190 . J .‘17003. LUL 1.175 4.210 1.115 0. 1 «1.141 0.200 0.101 0.101 0.007 -0.747 0.717 0.00 0.100 0,": .1,nu 11.001. 095' .I . - 1 QTAMEJAJIE‘ fl 9“; fl any 0. LIIQ.._.IL..MAV f1 ' . 1 I 0 0 _ 1.100 1.0" 1.000 1.100 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.100 1.000 1.000 1.05 L9" 41201210312 «1.... 0.011 umr 0:51; mm, «17101;.0311l W 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 10 :00 0.1125 0 700 3 111_1._‘11Li0.0fi7_0 107 11.072 0.1210,:II_.flL JAM— 0,119 0.110 0.507 0.15l 0,111 «.155 .11."; 0.107 4.1.11 -0.010 -0.170 1.211 0.511 41.111 4.517 W Wan—H” «h—rrh—u‘ ‘ W .1 10 0.31 0.011 0.151 00.1" 0.530 0.10: 0.057 0.111 4.010 0.10! 1 11 11 ' 11 11 ' 1 ll " I v . . . . . . . . . . . . .107 u I! 51 11 11 11 11 11 11 1 11 11 1 11 1 0 0.100 0.115 0.120 0.701 0.505 1.51: 0.100 0.110 0.104 0.101 0.000 0.010 0.!" ... n 9,001 ”1.000 0.021 4.550 471.552 -u.500 0,000 9.110 11.171 0.115 4.001] ~0.712 0.105 0.11 1‘ 0.5" 0.21: 4.0.0 1.011 .0.151 11 1. 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 H ' 0.114 0.021 1.411 . .061. 4111‘, .1 16L,.0.107 41711! “L n YMW “- ’1 0.071 6.000 0.291 4.210 -0.101 41.1“ 0.500 11.711 11.100 11..” .037. ”J., “'0" [Ml-l 1,700 -. 15 v1 .540 n. 4 1 ul )0 -0. - - ' ' ‘ - - 17.41%:sz - - 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 H 117 ..1” 0,... ..577 1.170 0.101 0.312 0.514 0.012 0.170 0.270 0.071 0.120 11.119 0.701 0.011 0.000 0.011 0.7“ '- 71: 01 0.000 77.000 0.000 0.0ch 0.100 0.000 0.010 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0 000 11.11“ 0000 0.1100 1.!" 1‘ 11 11 H H H H H I H H l K‘ 4.10 0 00'! 0 00!! 0 000 0.000 0.0071 0.000 0.000 0000 “1900 5.000 0.000 LIED "I II I 000 i. 0.000 0.0" 1.000 11'" 1.0“ 1.0 71.500 1.. 0 50000 v10 5 710 0 VII 5 VAR 5 ml 7 710 1 711 0 Mn 10 110 11 wk 17 v1: 11 HR 11 v1! 15 m: 11 v1! 17 ml 11 V“ “ 276 Notes: 1. See variable list (Appendix 3) for - names of variables. . 2. In variables where all responses were constant (i.e., same response cate- gory), the computer "print out" lists the correlation as 0.000 and the significance level as 1.000. : 3. Significance levels of .000 indicate .0005 or more. 4. Interpretation: 0.443 Correlation 26 Sample Size 0.018 Significance level 0.400 1 -0.201 0.221 0.101 0.009 11 I 11 11 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.210 0.000 -0.219 0.000 11 11 Li}! 0.007 0 h9g9 o0.011 0.027 -0.107 0.000 0.021 1 0.910 0.920 0.027 1.000 _01152 'fl.‘°5 on 1.9 “I 11 11 11 11 1 11 0.011 0.001 0.500 1.000 0.100 1.000 0.070 -0.064 -0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 -F.101 11 11 1 11 . _ 0.005 0.010 000 0 1 0 07 0.100 0.520 0.200 0.090 0.000 .o.173 ~o.150 0.190 .0.111 1 1 11 1 0.000 0. 0 . 1 1.0 0 0.057 0.212 0.510 0. Ifl'zol .0'20! polo!“ ulna“ 'nlzéz -Q.149 “Inna 01:5! On.1l. 11 11 11 11 11 11 1 0.105 [11111 1.000 0.112 0.027 1.000 0.240 0,412 -O.2os 0.170 -o.209 0.000 -0.111 0.001 o5.191 0.207 -0.311 0.100 1 11 1 1 ___1.znz_lln.!79 0.509 1.000 0.102 0.609 0.931 0.376 0.101 0.000 -0.002 0.267 0.000 0.000 -0.291 ~0.101 -0.000 -0.210 -0.370 0.000 0.050 - , 9 . ., __9 .9 _ B . 0 . P - _ 9- -, ___ Illihll 0.455 0.101 1.000 0.012 0.090 0.107 0.040 0.002 1.000 [!:333:] _n.nnn___n.00_0__n.Inniwnmanwnnmufl.0.000__.j.000ii,0.000flliuunLfijluLwhnL.__JL.101L~ 0 - 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.600 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 {.000 1.000 0.200 0.101’ 0.211 0.000 -0.011 -o.022 -0.I0! 0.106 -°.03‘ -i.3“’ -°.‘11 «0.401 0.000 1 11 11 11 i1 11 11 11 11 11 0 “_Hn.113. _n.£12._ufl.£$l___1.0!1___011l!__il.!1l_l-9.11! J.!§!,l_1129£__i£.£9 5A.... ...070 ...001 -0.106 0.000 0.11i 0.010 0.101 0.100 -0.¢00 0.000 0.100 -0.170 0.000 -0.100 .11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 1.1 u 11 0 0 T1;— 0.000 0.172 0.200 1.000 0.002 0.142 0.100 0.705 0.120 0.010 0.700 0.200 1.000 .011 00.011. 0.100- .0.217__.n.000__:n.110 10.072._20.21:. 0.01:1 0.201_.:0.§1!_ -0.!22 ,__10,111._.5.00 11 11 1 11 1_ . 0.071 0.720 0.070 1.000 0.700 0.010 0.010 0.961 0.009 0.097 0.005 1.030 0.010 0.900 '0.203 0.1’0 ~0.Zl° 0.000 '0.311 0.0‘3 -5.’74 0.633 -0.31: 0.310 0.033: 0.051 5.000 4.2121 47.26:t “.13:1 1 , _ I l 1 11 I. .LGL Lm____n.:19____1.000_ _0.112-_0.19_9_m1w —°.792____q.y.0__ _i 0.505 «7.15! 0.01! 0.790 0.370 6.000 4.292 .0.105 -0.000 0.790 0.000 0.211 .o,101 0.000 -0.190 0.050 .0.001 0.750 0.000 0.221 1.000 0.107 0.001 0.000 0.021 0.117 m 0.202 1.000 0.111 0.731 0.111 mm :n.211_ -n 1n0__:n.111___n.nnn_i_0.11 ___Qllnx__:fi.152 _"0.2!?___QLXIA___!1£§1__:lllli____-n.101___i.nnn___n.hn - 1 ‘ 11 11 11 ‘1 11 11 11 11 11 11 0 0 11 11 11 11 11 0.111 0.005 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.117 0.010 0.011 0.904 0.720 0.009 0.052 1.000 0.792 0.101 0.517 0.077 0.510 ' 0 000 o 000” o 000 0,000 0.000 0.000 6.000 0.000 0 000 o 000 0.000 0.300 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0' ' ‘ ' 11 11 11 11 11 ' 11 ' 11 :1 11 :1 11 11 11 11 0 ___1.nan__ 1.010- 1.000 __1.010 . 1.000 1.001 _ 1.100“ _1.090 .1.000 1.900 .-1.010. ___1.001___11101__ 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 A A 11 11 11 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.i00 v10 10 VII 10 010 16 v10 17 700 10 VA: 0. . . 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.600 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 11 11 11 1 1 11 11 1.1 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 vii 30“'Vii’51_"Vii’55__V1i—i1 van 20 v10 25 v10 21 ‘v10 27"???"30“V1§ 20 v10 10 710—11 V1» 12 VA: 11 277 HI I DIIU TABLE 44.——Correlation Matrix for Category E, Group 2. WI":- mm MI“ VIM 4 0."! flan: 0."! nu I I.Iu. _Lm_.n.3.u_n.nu_ VII I 0.:I: A. I 0.1.1 n.7II o.7l' l VII 1 I.IIJ I.III -I.II n.l I n.1vl 0.101 _ JI )I l IL 11 I1 I.I|I I. II 0.!An 0.57I 0.1:! In I .--— II ' 21 a: l I; 21 I: I III 6.!II 0.017 I.II3 0.17: 0.909 n.1II III I -I.III I.IlI .I.III n.2II n.3II n.194 0.311 v.0!) ll ‘1 II I1 I: II II 21 ———————‘.‘Il———h.a:A—~Jn1::———n¢l“_—_nal1;___n¢i12___‘¢11’...nleA___.‘ '1 H II ll H 31 lt 31 ’1 h“! 0.1!) 0.3“ IIIGH 5.1!. how, 0.”! DIUO 0.019 "I 1| "..1. LII! I-GII ll!!! 0.“! 0.“! H.010 ‘DINQ DID“ IOJ’O DIN! M II It '1 I :1 :65 I1 2 H "I u 0.“! LII! h"! 9.5.. 0.3!! 0N3? 0.1‘ 0.515 0.1" 0.009 5.073 '0.fl1° ll 2: I) ll 11 h ll 31 2L 1: ll 21 6.5.. L7}! lufll‘ H.130 DIED. 0.“? [EFE‘EI 0.411 01'" In“? III". IAL ' u - I . . ll 21 H II n It ll 21 ll 21 h 21 fl ‘I’II I 5“ ln‘.‘ VIII. 3:37' 0.110 OHIO 011'? OIIII 0.1!! 0.95! 0.030 DJII Ii 2! 9 In I! -I.ul —I.III -I.3n «2.3.4 «1.5.5 4.3:! «1.351 -o,anI wan -o.uYI dd“ 0.0!! -n.!4l In!“ ll ll 1| '0 3: U :0 In all. In :0 1 I u: -I.In ~I. «1 mm mun -o.uI n.37n nan -u.:Ia mun BM" 0.!“ «.23 and. II {a II H 7" 1 an” Loan o.n S In!!! '00. 0.7!! ' 0 t_m.L|_-I..ni_:m”_.hxu_ v II II N II II I In In I _ II II mu I.III 5.172 0.”: LI" mono 0.30: Lu: 0.9" mm 6.!" VII II -I ”I 4.!!! “.53: «.30! «.533 no I 0.03! «.10: 0.0“ -u,oa: .EJAI -n.xu I an u,ur 0,1” 0.!" 4,”: I II II . ‘ N 20 IO 10 20 In II II III . . . . I . . . . 2 ll I.III I.I:I I.II7 ‘ n ‘ 2n n NI on" 0."! n.145 on" LI“ Loui Luau numb and anon I on 5m ilno I lo I M 79 n ' Ia ' II '_II “"3. ‘ z ' u 'u 1 W“ 4°__.0_°D_L_U°_1.Ann __LJiL—LMJ—mfl «.HI 0.“! mm Luv: ..1“ M" Ill [1' "I“ m!" 4.!“ 4.3!! I.II! I. n In" I.III mean mono un.u: .532: 0.1“ 0.0“ . . m .n u. .n ”I .5 .. . . . II II n a n 2: 2:1 I 2 2' 9 us:- I In nun 9.1" mm 0.95! I. on @ (1:33 ' 1 ‘ ' I.i 0 Mn! hm HI n -I.III hall «.25! “1.9" 0.073 4.“; -6.I¢! 0.05! «1.05! -a.3 was! 45.1” 4.!” .I.27l II n 2 $115, II II N , 7,77 , l a 7 I u. n .151 “.at; . ” mwufirto Inn- . ' I v u. o u 1 ‘ n 7 II n 2' 20 2a to 2 20 I L?" 6.!!! I ”I L!” hzu v.12! 0.!" 0.756 0.320 0.9“ 0,330 a.I I G.I.! Lug 6."! 5.511 I I“ .I,Iu . .137 «.35! I 1" We I mm «.312 6,259 o.ou ”7.70! an“ -o.nln mu! .5 “I «.010 “J" :I II n [Ta-I 20 In 2a 2a 20 an II n n n u i' In" Ian 0.55: I 0.757 0.47: may v.25! H.717 n :u u.us In" I I)! I !M 0.170 H.015 0,511 afla’ ll 2 .DJSJ .fl.oflC 0.150 “I110 21 n l I I31 ...zzr way 4.”! .n ‘6“ .g 1“ 9.15! . II I . I I MI 57 - ' II u II II 19 x9 I9 xv » 1 19 I II II u u 1' I,III I. :22 9.va 0.“: 0.4" Luv e.gn 0,7” mus 1:,sz IJo'I I.I7I I. 1“ Lin 0.!“ on,“ ...“? u.uI 0."! 1:.an mus mm n.2u man mm BM“ -o.on! 0.690 ~n.m 4.194 v.17! ":1" 1| 2| :I n an n :o an In an In as “ ". 7 In .6 I .II .157 a I g“, I o "1 .a 9 - s I ‘ -6. 2II man I m II mu mm «.3757 5.3" ”“7 M", ..." .,_ ... Lm Mu I m, . ..o . .. on n - - d.xo7 5.!” 0. In 7 5 7 6 I 5 n I - - . I I I I e I I 0 o 9 s I l I 1:! IJJI I 5“ I no 0."! 1.0" mm a. an an“ I. an 0.097 n.1u e. In“! 0.”! 0,0“ 0.x" 0.7" wind? 'EIIJB' um LIII' I151 -.h! I." t9 1:, :I .02 7 19 XI 0. m was mm FIB" I a u . v I ‘ W I II II II II to u w IV 19 II ! 1- II I r. ”“9 gnu 3.514 Lu: 0.124 0.3“ v.10! 0.901 mm M have 0."! a. l 6.7“ h.lI7 " ‘ .i.ou I.Iza on I” -I III 0.sz 4.40! -n I!» -I an «1.2” 4,“; 5.”; ... Id. .I Inc .g “I .31.“: . .Iu 0.027 an!!! 26 2| ' n ' 2: 2n :0 ' ' In 10 fl ' ' ' u H II 1' 11.1.11 .JJLL IIOIL_JJJL_ ' ¢ u o1 ' .o,aII V" I. III II [WWII—ALAN» m than: n m I “I I m n “I .a :4. N If 2; n 22 2x 2: u n u n I II I I II 1' " I.III 0.52: I. 017 «.au mu ml 6.2m mun 0.!» mm 0.1” om” 0.31 «ms! H.634 Ltgl 6.1!! Lu! M" I 5."! Low 11..» n.m 0 III In" 0.000 moon 0.9M onion Loco a.non I cos a III I in Leon Lin “' ‘ 22 n 22 n ' n a: 21 n n u u ' n ' M 'V II III I VII 41 0."! In"! 1.0" 1.000 1.0" m I “I 3 VII J VII l VII 5 VII I VII 7 VII I VII I vAI In VII :1 VII 11 VII II “I “fin—u nu u VII 11 VII II III II 278 Notes: 1. See variable list (Appendix 3) for names of variables. 2. In variables where all responses were constant (i.e., same response cate- gory), the computer "print out" lists the correlation as 0.000 and the significance level as 1.000. 3. Significance levels of .000 indicate .0005 or more. 4. Interpretation: 0.443 Correlation 26 Sample Size 0.018 Significance level _37333_ 20 -0.070 0.000 0.704 1.000 20 0 00 1.000 1.000 1.000 -0.300 0.000 0.000 0.001 70 20 20 a 0 -0.204 0.000 ~0.100 0.000 0.707 0.2 0 1. 0 . 00 1.000 . 4 20 0 20 20 00 20 0.000 1.000 0.077 1.000 0.000 0.103 0.071 0.000 -0.109 -0.200 -0.020 0.010 0.010 19 0 20 9 10 117‘1 11MB ‘06:. 0435. 00.0, 916‘, 0193. '03.‘ 00°00 '00‘95 .0'393 .002“, 000’, “00‘1; 000.30 00“ 2 10 0 0. 011 ‘ a. o. 2! on 0 00 1 0 90 300 00 7 10 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 0.!" 1.000 1.000 0.011 0.010 0.411 0.100 0.003 0.040 -0.157 0.000 0.256 0.000 0.200 0.040 0.029 -0.701 -0.000 -0.10( 20 00 0 20 19 00 10 0.400 1.000 0.201 11000 0.077 0.110 0.000 0.240 0.70: L”! 0.00: 0.000 00.000 -0,200 -0.190 0.500 0.500 0.0917 0.0007 0.0009 0.000. . 7 0:00: 1.000 0.400 0.002 0.170 0.207 0.107 0.015 0.001 1.000 0.000 a :22 og.!73 cg.g01 1Lg11>#¥j.;95 fllfiflfizw-0.1.}°flifi 0 G t 7 g.q5. 5 5 ’ 6 5 1.000 1.000 0.001 0.000 0.010 (JIYLI 0.070 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 ___..1..____ 9,.07 ....00 .0.040 .0.000 .0.400 0.707’ -0{503 0.15' .0.210 -0.000 0,107 . 10 0 '0009‘ 0.000 1 10 10 9 0 10 1 7 . 11.030. -JimrmhflLJJZLrL{ALFDALQU‘ _ 345—7:. "0433M 0.001 0.730 -0.¢00 0.000 0.210 0.072 0.000 0.041 6.200 -0.z17o -o.401 0.301 0.107, 6 5 17 0.’90 0.23‘ 0.252 0.000 1.000 - . .. , -r V: 4 __s .n_-0.120_.:0.010._.0.101_..0 zzzr.-0 05' __l.1 0 0.000 6.407 .0 057 0 011 .l21_. 0.000. I‘llgi .11.!99 niilfe 10 10 1° 1 ‘9 .__i7. QII‘“ ’ 0 . 10 0 1. 0.100 1.000 0.020 0.091 0.421 0.040 0.407 0.317 0.'00 0.074 -0.37i 0.00‘ 0.310. -0.000 0.201 -0.051 0.700 o0.000 0.190 00.120 0.000 0.020 0,000 0.0YK' 0.270 -0.11° 4.2939 in ‘0 19 19 1 _Lu0_1.000.._._1rv_17_m_132111.9.01 Jim 0.009 0.719_ 0.101 0.207 0.000 0.032 WWW. 7 0 10 0 19 20 0.227 0.101 0.300 m 0.000 0.004 0.000 ~0.101 0.001 0.001 0.295 .0.000 .0.770 -0.100 0.100 0.200 0,000 1.000 0.000 0.073 0.103 0.700 0.220 0.074 0.560 10.011_._n.000__11.110 -.0.110__gn.104_~_1.101___1.111___1.111___0.121__ 14101___0411J___ 0.700 0.400 0.002 .0.320 0.420 -0.091 -0,229 2. 29 2 20 20 20 21 19 1'0 7 0 19 10 2 2:. 0.700 1.000 may 31.1] [1%) 0.400 0.100 0.300 0.001 0.401 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.600 0.000 0.60 0.0" .000 .000 0.000 0.000 6.000 0.000 5.000 0.000 0.000 0.0009 0.000 0.00: 2 a 2 21 1 20 20 20 11 10 20 _____ z 0.___1L_40____1_..__1L__L__.3_ ,_ ,0 0 D 0 1.000 1.990 1.099 1.099 3.999 1.00 1.00 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.090 _._1.000___JLJuu1__.0.100___0.011___01000___01000___1.001___01000___ 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ,0.000 0 0.00:0 0.00 0.000 7 9 ‘9 8 ‘9 2° ?‘ 1000 1.00 1.000 3.000 1.000 1.000 |.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 10000 t. 00 23 :2 1.900 I. 00 VH1 31 V”! 3? VAR 33 VIII 5‘ VIP 35 VA“ 36 VII 37 VAR 30 VII 00 v00 20 000 21 v00 22 van 2! v00 20 v00 2! v00 20 van 2’ vii 20 val 51 vi} )0 'MI I 0.700- .\0 mi TABLE 45.-—Correlation Matrix for Category E, Totals. v10 4 0.110 0.010 0.100 . 0.000 "*tmfi'fi um: 0.127l 0.004 0.104 I! 7107 0.21! -0.134 0.024 0.102 0.110 0.0!! , 0.720 0.330 0:“: 0.457 0.157 0.071 . . 02 33 02 0a 02 .12 0.100 0.100 0.700 0.000 0.094 0.004 "I! -0.010 0.200 0.155 0.100 0.10! 0.097 0.110 0.1“ I" 32 30 01 02 02 02 02 VIII .7. 146—7“ .“ ."L "' mu 0.001 0.010 0,100 0.021 0,172 0.000 -0.0 , . -0 .004 0.121 I Jr I v- fir ‘5; I 0.104 0.041 0.010 0,107 0,002 0.102 0.020 0.040 0.100 ' 00 02 ' 02 - 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 0.100 0.170 0.010 0.011 0.510 0,090 0.220 0.175 0.000 0.470 41012 -0.172 40.001 «.170 0.424 0.500 0.502 -0.000 -0.172 -0.110 -0.100 n 110 04 02 00 02 a! Ii 33 v4! 10 0.100 0.101 .0,010 0,190 0.150 0.000 0.110 0.044 0.107 0.107 0.000 40.207 ‘ . ‘ 'I II 1; l1 ‘2 I! In ‘1 ‘2 0.74! 0.007 0.070 0.27! 0.171 0.771 050'! m 0.700 0.740 0.007 0.241 , :- 9“, f 9 .-. u _ ...... J“ ' .. .....n .L . .1. 1 ..1 .. an 4.1 02 02 02 02 02 0a 02 02 02 02 02 02 0.01 0.714 0.400 0.700 0.072 0.047 0. 0.504 0.190 0.407 0.000 0.7” 0.! l “I 1! -B.N! l -0.015 4.054 4,202 .n,:05 31 ll .0,202 .0.204 31 3 l ~0.100 -0.140 0.000 .0.107 -0.240 -0.004 0.2 01 :1 01 11 01 01 717414 -0.110 «.072 -u.100 -0.204 -0.005 -0.270 -0.217 0.007 0.000 0.070 0.000 ”7.000 0.2_019_ 0.41! 0.202 ‘ 31 4 :1 01 015 01 7 . g. __. 1: 51 31 ll- - - 81' - 0.7 1 0.401 0.120 0.045 0.000 mm 0.447 0. 040 0.175 0.111 n- 17 0.170 0.000 -0,140 0.2351m0.195 no.404 0.01.0l 41.01! 0.107 0.04! 0.201. 0.140 -0114I 'culli . , 11 01 010.01‘01 01 0 :1 l1 l1 :1 01 0.274 0.000 0.117 0.120 0.000 0.047 [17103 0.142 0,400 0.12! 0.111 3,101 v40 10 “7.354 70.574 0.115 «1.171 ”7.379 “nu-0.2" 0.200 -u.176 -0.007 0.150 -0.!15 -0.100 0.044 0.224 0.75! 0,207 -0.504 ~ 0. 11 01 01 01 01 a1 01 I1 41 11 1 11 7 7 7 ,,, . 7&770.0207 70.1017 70.001 70.095 70.134 r MAMM’L - - 1 1 ' - . 0.331 01510 0.210 0.420 0.346 0.3“ 70.107 0.5?“ "1.120 0.240 0.041 -0.151 0.000 0.20: 0.23:. 0,107 0.145 4.010 _ .. . a. n no .0 20 so :0 n H 0.047 0.001 0.2;7 0.004 0.544 0.077 0.411 0.107 0.010 0.417 0.000 0077 0.1713 .340 0.400 0.175 00000» '0 FF0137770.Q¥ 0; 051-, 7 0.4027 70.001 7 0.100 7 0.W010:—-0,1017r0.0404”0,1 up.“ MW 01 11 01 01 01 01 01 01 20 ”‘TW .170 0.0711 m, 0.15! 0.404 0.110 0. 47 5 0.: 00 0,120 0. 501 0, 402 0. 000 g [13 0.711 ‘44“ 71 0 020: .05: 100 n 040 n, 0 w.11r1‘-0.124lo,007 0, 011 .0,071 0,070 .092” .0,140 40,244 0 ..." 0,140 .0 140 .0.01;' 1- 0; 01 01 01 01 0 ' 3 0 ' 01 ,9, .. 1W, ”:E'h m 701x07 0.40 0.4: t—on 440 44:10—04” "I I! 70.124 -0.020 -0.049 0.113 -0.005 0.1“ -0.104 -0.007 -0.0zc -0.104 0.000 0,000 0.29! -0.190 0.140 002! 0.219 “01“" 0,174 W; , 1 1 1. n 14 1. 11 11 . . . - 3‘ 3‘ #H—i—h—‘LM—Lw' 0,451 0.0‘7 1,707 0.500 0.4770 0,5X0 254 0.071 0.404 0.770 0.000 0.400 0,152 000' 0 000 9‘." 9,"; 0,001 0.3“ ‘VAW”V* . .uhnm—awtrhuy—oo—ug—ozz 74”:- 0T3.“ “0‘41”"? 0,“; ... :01 ... 3., 0 ...z 9 3., 9 9,9_ P9 "9 I 1 ,9: 9 9.9_ 12 12 0.720 0.700 0.071 0. 400 0. 097 0.107 0.072 0. 410 0. 090 i 0 070 m 0, 407 i m mm mm m u 0 0 027317.067 -0. 0072 -0, 000 411.0212 -,0 050 .0, 205 0,000 -0,404 «1.200 -0.057 -0.241 4.102 0.100 -0. 1’1 40'?— !2 02 02 0 11 31 3| ,. .0. ,, 70'EEHQV 21477 0.40., 0 ”aim 11.11. 0.10.1. WW ~0,001 .0.070 0,207 0,102 0,154 0,777 0,004 -0.440 -0.110 0.117 -n,070 0,100 41.441 0.004 0.247 -0 .4. ...104 0220 -0.“" _ , 9 u u u u 14 ‘1 1. u 01 11 , i 9., .. \1 ‘ L.——03————u———» 0,720 ..140 0,071 0.101 0.000 0.711 0.012 0.050 0.004 0.070 0.1 .,417 0.0 1 0.101 M" ~0.N¢ 001“ ..,.¢1.:.,,, 0,“: 0,140 “1,210 “1,111: A an n m- n nu 11 1 7 n 011 0 4n n 110 n K“ W 11 01 1 01 01 :1 :1 01 :1 01 01 :1 01 ' 11 01 M 1', 1.7! 0.004 0.“! 0. 702 0.407 0.222 m 0.700 0.070 0,001 0.277 0.010 0.000 0.427 9,“. 9,1,. 0,771 0.04 3,142 .00020 -0,110 -0.14 -0.157 0.707 0.090 41.141 -0.101 0.024 -0.024 -0.1« 0.100 0.000 -0.104 ...“, 0,111 «.107 , 11 11 31 01 01 01 01 31 01 01 01 I1 0 10 00 II " .11 70.041 7 «417770.304 -—74.m—70.411_0.m_1 0.014407400411477 07.104 0.147 090 0.1” 07151 70.002 -0.120 0.000 0.101 0.217 0.077 0,147 0.000 0.040 41.005 "1.039 “,4" -a,!17 0.020 5% 7749.777 0.2 11 r77 '17. 41—77 .117 ..42__.1L ..1;— . . 3,400 97 066 n. 569 0.925 ".306 01°90 fl. ‘7' 0.051 0,!99 0.213 7 0.4.» M , 0; ‘~ " n 4 0 212171 .1 11742 n mu :1 4n. 0 114 0 0n A an 0 “a u 0“ WW. . 17 00 00 00 S 30 00 )0 I 00 00 - 27 20 20 20 27 1 0.000 0.7907 0 927 m 0.070 0.591 0.110 m 0.057 0.010 m 0.771 ...}. ",3.“ 9,470 0.5" ‘ V _ f 777 A H ‘ xa“ 04 "I 00 -0.171 -010°4 11.011 -0.004 70. 025 0.247 0.027 -o.074 0 200 0.00: 0,210 0.000 .9...” -0 21,, 0 310 .n.0 . ' L .11 31 01 01 31 01 ' 01 01 01 01 3. ' ' 01 27 r‘ ,,,, U, 7247 411 07 H.411 .0 111 .10 0.0114,.“ 9. "I u 9',” “3.. 1.409 0.440 0.421 0,041 0.0.17 0.507 0.240 0.000 0,010 "1,190 ",5“ 0,707 0,14; 9..., .9,,.. “31‘ 0,400 . I ,7 , 14 ‘ I” ' .504 172 .0749-0.147 0.415 0.021 HMH‘WFW‘JMMMMW“ 10 14 10 14 14 14 14 14 10 10 14 14 u u 10 [40 0.!" 9,95. ..174 m 0.000 0.224 0.250 0.004 0.000 0,004 0.290 0.400 0.120 0.009 .701 0.370 0.114 '- r , , . , 77 7 . 7 . ,. . ..——’—’—’ , .. .. 422 l 142 0 047 -0 0 015 0 105 -0 107 -0 120 0.010 -0 040 0 170 -0 000 0 024 0 04! 0 114 0 0‘4" "7‘” "' 3’ ° ° 00 ' . ' 0 ' 10 .0 ”:00 ' 00 ' 00 ' 00 ' 00 00 ' 00 ' 00 ' 00 ' 10 ' °"7 0- ' 7' " hug . . 0 701020 0.1704 0.411 0.407 0.712 0.717 0.011 0.000 0.000 4.010 0.011 a wfiH—W ... 14 ....” .....w ..,.7.. .0,177 -0.m 0.007 021;a -0.445 70.110“ 0.010 -n.205 0.041 -..,4.7a mu; 0.124 0.014 ...124 0.011 '01?" ,9, ,V I V - 7A 211 2 0 W ...01 0 257 0.707 0.040 0.100 0.707 0.274 m 0.000 0.704 0.270 0.797 1.104 0.200 9.... 9,000 0,079 1.1“ 7 .7 0 I an” mm? 0.097 v0. 019* “1.1007, nun» . .. 7 - 'ul 1'.“ , 1171211 0. a“ 00 00 00 00 I- 00 n )0 w 1 0. 0 7 .3 2 0,10 W 70 00 o 00 0 .0 ' 20 ' 39 20 0.701 0.100 0012 0,710 0.130 0.702 0.701 0.720 0.711 0.100 0.070 0,010 0.777 0.720 0170 0.001 0.744 M" 7, _ / 1 0 01 :1 01 01 :1 01“ 01 0 01 0 3| ’ 7 ‘ . 7,01 9,10; .1... .. 7. .. ‘IL .1110. an ,6 . 141104 -0, 1.0 ”.001 0.144 0.070 0.010 0.20:‘ 0.019 40.20410.170 0.077 «1.000: -0.100 -0.010 0.170 0.12: -0.011 .0.140 0.0" '“Iflg' ”'7 i9_, 0.904H014e 770.100 ,. . v ...-1 .0.017 -0.112 .000 0.10.1 0,707 0.250 0.205 0.377 0.057 "7.120 0.270 0.124 "1.270 0.000 -0.110 0.147 -0.020 .0,100 :17 712 ~ 0:7 0:7 a? "1h‘“3?~$3~— new—4H— 0. 04 0.401 0.177 0.117 Manama 0.02. 0.407 0.122 0.400 0.000 Em 0.720 .... .,.. v0.10: w.” 0.. 0 17.14 fiwkww . 1. 11 1 10 02 02 12 02 02 02 00 12 11 ' 1 01 31 0.701 0.51" 0.400 0.070 0.401 0.501 0.770 0.100 0.201 0.424 0.001 0.100 0.774 0.32 0.240 0.“4 0.000 0.000 0.070 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 000 0 001 0 000 .000 0 000 0.000 5.0" 01 00 0: 70 02 02 02 02 02 02 ' 02 ' 02 ' 01 ° 11 ' 01.31 20 . 1 u. ..v v . «M , . ... 1'”. 1 Mn ..M . 9|“; .0 104 'V-“Lflgr—H .. 4.03? -0.50\ "7.1" -fl 5" -°.017 0.200 .0.041 .11.!” 0.100 -0,040 -0.014 -0.010 n0.042 9 . . a . .1 n ‘a n 0,410 0.002 0.010 0.000 0.421 0.100 0.010 0.141 0.000 0.044 0,700 0.007 0.017 ..017 0.017 0.“: '7‘" VAR 0 VIN 4 v40 5 v10 0 v4: 7 v17: 0 VA! 7 HR 10 v17: 11 VAR 12 VAR 10 VH1 10 VAR 1! ,9 71171 10 V4! 17 V" ‘5 0111 _L, 280 Notes: 1. See variable list (Appendix 3) for names of variables. 2. In variables where all responses were constant (i.e., same response cate- gory), the computer "print out" lists the correlation as 0.000 and the , significance level as 1.000. ; 4. Interpretation: 0.443 Correlation 26 Sample Size 0.018 Significance level 0.040 31 -0.004 0.041 0.047 0.410 ~0.1|4 0.200 00,144 0,000 11 0 0 .0304 0,204 «7.219 0.400 0.731 ___3: 1: H 7 9 0.144 0.294 0.252 am" 01111) “40—4“me 31 1; 00 11 01 0.021 0.7 7 0.501 mm 0.040 0.000 0042 0000 -0 00¢ -o177 0024 0.242 .0.101 '10' '00'01'01 00 so 0.394 0.175 -o.341 -0.170 “7.2042 0.0221 0.00:9 -0.02g mm ”0597 157117 aim-7 0.247 0.000 0.004 0.440 30 29 20 20 00 00 20 20 29 0.790 0.24! 0.040 0.700 0.744 0.940 0,200 0.194 0,790 - 41 o 419 o 120 40 094 -o 421 -4.014 0.14;; 0.04; 0.0439 0.000 0.2 0: . 0 . ,1 . 00 . 10 14 95 o 2 0 0 000 0 450 ~0.079 0,427 00,070 .o,:10g .o,204’ 0.299‘ 0.14:. 0.1 1 . 1 . . 9 4 4 1 0.771 0.307 0.740 0.210 0.004 0.241 0.944 0.474 0.411 0.070 0.004 0.004 ~o.304 .0.470 .o.o!3. 0.410 0.009 0.20:. 0.401 0.000 0.403 "T¥*"” 0 14 1 13 4 ‘ . 4 0.271 0.271 0.271 0.040 0.4” Eb 0.174 0.402 0.124 mm mm flTh'D ‘ . . 4 0 - 77 0 04! -0 210 -o.311 -0 191 .0.02:’ 0.12;“ 0.10;. 40.00;. -o.2o! 0.2199 0. 1! 0.1029 0.1 9° . 9. . 9. 10 , 10 7.74.124—740314777 -—41‘00-—-ovJ¢J-—0.20#———4.1247—m41204———4.24&—7 4.303777 , . - 4 00 95 - , 0 - 210 -0 250 10.240 70.104 0.026 0.471 on" 00‘" M” 0"" °'”. ”'2 M... °’* °' ' _ 037 0.16: 0.402 mi]; m [m]: 0.215 0.472 um 0.120 «nevi 0.400 0.172 0 v07244-~414¢0—-0717 . ~— 0 0 29 20 00 00 29 2 30 0.299 0.004 0.040 0.044 0.100 0.779 0.400 0.599 0.240 0.507 - 9 -0 1" 0 ‘9' ° 50‘ 0 091 0 047 .0 047 0 111 -o.174 .o,1cg° 0.370 40.10:“ 0.1139 0.01:t 0.12;o 0.1:;o 0.1 :0 . 31 0 .’ . a . 1. . 93 , 2° . 2. 2, 7+———4.441———4.204—7 . O I 27 10 14 0 20 0.735 9,020 0.517 0.220 0.904 40.029 0.0'4 -o.200 0.104 .00106 0.562 0.682 0.077 0.477 0.1,: -°.U:° “.17. 0.5., O..3, 10661 0.024 'w 0.121 0.244 0.171 .0.000 0.494 0.100 m 0.410 0,410 .o.z71 0.137 0.000 0,047 0.001 J 32 ' 0 I l t' "" "l'! " ' ' ' ' 01 ' 00 31 ' .5 1. 00 20 00 1 I0 3:0 030003105) 0.34 0.201 0.227 0.370 0.474 0.270 0.00.. 0.042 0.071 0.073 0.204 0.441 0 4 _ ' 000 0 000 o 000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0,000 5.000 0.000 0.000 0.00: 0.0031 0.0032 0.00: 0.000 0'0“. 0.000 0. 02 ' 02 ' 11 0 01 02 so 0 15 14 30 20 0 3‘ J; ‘ 0———tfsgo———+Tono———&Tooa———1Tuso—«—0r560~———rfiHHr——+Tooo_——1Tooo-——+1000—~. ,JaJ———&7000__—_ - o I 9 0 007 0 4|! 0 154 0 100 .o.250 uo,4op .o,205 .o,001 -0.17! 40.01' -0.464 -0,701 -1.7d4 -o,ooo 0.260 0.011 0.407 0.970 0.0 5 0.000 4 ' I 0 4 0.413 0.331 0.'24 0.007 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.154 0.052 0.004 0.000 0.547 1.000 0.020 0.001 0.392 0.464 0.130 0.020 0.107 014 39 VAR 50 v1: 07 01! 04 v1n 41 VAR 20 VAR 21 VAR 22 VIR 23 VA“ 34 VA“ 25 VAR 20 VII 27 V.“ 25 V‘" 2' Via 30 V1R J1 VAR J? VAR 53 Via 54 281 VII I . 1 TABLE 46.——-Corre1at10n Matrlx for _________‘___________ v11 0 ~o.nvn .ila4g .. .. Cate ory F Grou . um“ g 7 P 4|" 0 -0.110 ~fi.211 0.011 0.01! 0.110 0.000 Ill I__4,An.lLL_JJ.AL1__J.313,_JLJAA___ l1 :0 0.117 0.700 ————-———————_<——______________....________.___________ 71! 0 -0.z01 -h.!71 0.010 0.051 0.009 70 :1 VII 7 0.100 -a.011 -0.oz: 0.070 0.0!! 0.227 1.11! 0.010 0.110 0.701 1.779 0. 11 .111 . - . . 11 7. 71 z 1 20 0.001 0.151 0.791 m 'flflg 0.011 ______________________________________________________~__________________ VII 0 -0.llu ~i.100 -0.112 -0.200 -0.105 -n.2°n -n.!0‘ 0.109 01 2 21 20 70 21 20 0 0 10 1:1 VII 10 0.000 5.145 -0.120 ~0.007 -0.200 0.00: 0.201 0.07! -0.nvs 11 21 21 20 20 21 20 20 20 0 n Ia: 1.51! 0.700 0.200 0.000 0.100 0.701 0.0l0 . . . . A 5 . 9 7: n -n a la 26 21 21 21 21 21 10 70 n.l77 0.211 0.001 0.100 0.130 1 o 53 f 0.110 0.301 0.150 0.005 vlk ll 0.1IY -n.012 0.12! 0.200 0.101 0.033 0.500 -a. 7506 -u.0os 0.11! -n.lvv to 21 21 21 20 :0 - 0 :1 - . . . . 5 0 226 3:0 1 070 g. 0 11¢ ill I! 0.09! 0.010 —0.291 0.20! 0.004 0.001 0.121 0.050 0.130 0.271 .o.1o’ 6 .0.117 20 63 7 6° 7 It 20 25 26 IO 16 2. 16 :5 Lin! 0.51! 0.17? LES! 0.117 0.177 0.!!! HAVE 0.!!! '1' 1! 0.010 5.107 .0.201 .0.110 -0.213 -n.110 -u.155 -n.122 0.201 00 u 20 u 20 u 20 20 go [)0 0 :14 0.301 0.301 0 202 0.077 0.12: 0.000 “Jinn 14 0.151 0.105 710 10 -0.100 E. 00! 0.20! -0.I00 ~n.451 -0.z77 -0.0Vfl 0.270 'fl-IDS 0.100 0.22! -0.000 -0.?00 20 20 20 20 2- 20 20 20 lo 20 20 26 20 1 11.111 0.212 m7 my 0.154 0.021 0.105 0.10: 1.19: 0.2" 1.101 In 11 .- .111“,,i.uLu me(:n.ul.,_-_0.Ml -n.1b 1 -n.Lv0_:n.nnz_ 5:1.1021‘ 0213‘ 1.502 was: mug! -n 19. 4.105 1.111— . 11 0.071 0.215 0. 92: 0.100 0.055 o.-11 0. m o. 002 0.175 0.221 1.101 1.1“ 0.110 0.101 77:10 «.207 -i.n: «.121 1.020 -0.0M «.01“ 0.27! 0.171 1.141 -o.uu 45.110 -0.005 0.205 0.4!lioua7 1.111 .5171 l! 25 20 25 25 a 25 as 20 2! 25 z! a! II 1, Lin 1.701 1.517 0.5!" 0.101, 0.92! Jug! 013i?" 0.400 0.020 0.571 0."! 0.130 l.|177 0.5" , {1.00 VII 10 «.610 6.17: 1.1 1 0.256 0.207 0.002 0.1" -0.u! -0-30l “1.200 0.1!! ._ , l ZA__ .__lL_..4421_44441£_444. a 1“ 0 1‘1 11 010 1 111 41.001 0.1100 0.000 0.000 1 000 n 000 0 010 0.100 0 000 a 001 a 000 1,000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 {.000 1.0flfl 1.000 1.000 loll! VII ‘2 LI!!! 'vu1 vuz 7110 v 1 v 282 Notes: 1. See variable list (Appendix 3) for 1 names of variables. ‘ 2. In variables where all responses were ‘ constant (i.e., same response cate- ' gory), the computer "print out" lists the correlation as 0.000 and the Significance level as 1.000. 3. Significance level of .000 indicate .0005 or more. 4. Interpretation: 0.443 Correlation 26 Sample Size 0.018 Significance level “3.096 2‘ ___flilzl “.l, 0.0.6 '0.‘.. 0063. L3 _— 2. ’C 26 1.000 1.000 1.000 ~0.130 «.050 0.050 0.000 20 20 , _0.404._0.1n__ 0.110. __LlfllL__ '0.007 '0.105 “3.210 0.000 0.022 _ 0.97:_- 0.340 .270‘_ 1.000 0.400— 50.321 .-fl.lll_. 11.11.17--2J.m_'l¢222_.1ndu1__ 2 2‘ 30 2 ,6 26 0.0.0 0.... 6,940 1.000 04”! 0.956 40.12: -0.000 0.090 0.000 -0.x44 40.250 0.309 0 20 20 0 0 0.1]! -02511_,hfl4°31_. lzflflfl 0.472 0.201- Q.fll1 _ ,_ ~o.000 0.1" 0.021 0,000 0.204 0.010 0.320 -0.152 _' 0.:59“‘0.440——o,001 0.000 0.271 0.950 0.000 0.439 n.llfl_.M”._:l._fl13 - n2lflg__3.07!6__9.fi 1:6 _-G.2l.g ___.H‘MLIRL 2 0 0 26 0450. 00703 0.703 1.000 0.690 0.723 0.130 0.500 0.299 0.042 0.47! -0.247 0.000 -0.009 -0.272 «0.012 0.043 -0.377 -0.024 2 20 20 20 20 20 I , 04°11, -MM.._1.9M_ -021Q2_-JLml_lJ2° ._ 0.211;--— 0.000 ~0.250 0.250 0.000 -0.255 -0.400 0.704 1.000 0.290 0.250 -0.250 2 a 5 1.000 0.502 0.709 1.000 0.000 0.303 mm- 0.004 0.904 0.504 L00%_m00;4uu%4,0m4mmf0 .4n;_0222_4_-0+220,_l0.210__ 0.220._i.mi_ - 0 . 2: 0 s 2 a 1.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.009 0.003 0.022 0.509 0,904 0.000 E!:!!!) 0.9.9 0,120 0.375 -0.:2: 0.000 -0.u: 0.400 .0354 .0.013 0.324 «.372 0.070 ...... 5,40.‘ 20 24 20 I‘ 2‘ g 5 .-__n.1u__w1s._fi.u.1-.__ 1.000—1-120., JAIL _anx, _ 0.210.- 1.111.- _0423__ 0.021. 0.1.04 0.20: 0.092 «.922 0,592 0.000 0.074 -o.:sa 4.090 0.104 -0.124 -0.o70 4.592 0.250 «.000 -0.:7J 20 24 )4 2: 1L J4 11 __ _ 0.002 [m [m 1.000 0.702 0.441 0.402 0.343 0,940 0.707 m 0.909 W 0.000 0.122~__n.120wijn.012___0,0n _:Q.ZAz_mgn.211M__n.101__:n.nll___nigll___nllnn_ll 0.230. .jszsn .0.000, ,0.001_ _ 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 5 24 24 0.540 0.459 0.922 0.000 0.409 0.204 0.240 0.617 0.775 m 0.43! 0.009 0.900 0.000 0.749 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 24 04 24 5 5_ 24 24 24 _ "02.101 __ x .000 “mawwpim __ 1.001,- _ &. ALML__M_°11L__141M_ M1.“ 0.__i.nnL_1.nnn_.iinu_mm__ 0.206 0.250 5.250 0.005 -0.174 0.001 0.000 C 24 11 24, 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 '°.225 0.100 0.205 0.000 0.204 -0.011 0.010 0.102 -0.004 0.12! . 4 11, 04 4 a 0.200 0.313 6.134 1.000 0.32: 0.930 0.940 0.373 0,740 0.!40 0.315 0,000 0,850 0.752 0.399 0.070 1.000 4 0 . 4 s . 0 .0,421 .0.155 __0,204___a.1L5__zn.20:__nn.unn_.:n.ill__ 5 s 24 24 24 24 24 _' 1 20 20 20 20 20 20 2o 20 o 20 4 0.202 0.770 0.701 1.000 0.424 0.250 0.790 0.307 mg. 0.013 0.209 0,352 0.001 0.102 0.070 0.194 1.000 0.370 x.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.001 0.000 1.000 0.0000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 ..noo 1,000 1.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _Lw—WE °°° ° 0° ° 9° 0 ° 0 .:.000._..n.nnn._0.an0_,n.nnn_n.nnn_2.nn_.0im __mu__ 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 ...“ 5,000 1,000 1.000 1.000 0.000 1,000 1,000 1.000 Q n a n n n l 0 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0,000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 046—30 ‘573’32__VTE"33"VIE'34 v40 35 v42 30 vnn 57 v00 30 042 41 VII 20 VIN—li VII 2! ' A 283 m“_‘" TABLE 47.——Correlation Matrix for a...“ «3:. Category F, Group 2. VAR ! 0“" “Jib -0.1‘! 11 H H 0.004 n.I74 -0.070 "0 0.4I4 ‘ 0.440 u I 0.“. 0."! 001*! V‘R 7 fly"! 0,“! MOI: 0.1" 045'. 04070 10 III ID H H .0.444 0.00I “I!“ 4.444 043(I III” II", II 1| 1| I0 1! H fl ‘0 0.5]. oll’h hill 041’. 0.11. 0.0" In". “‘0‘ V" ‘. Ihllfl 40“!) IOII‘S ODIllI IBIIQJ ...iil aflll 40.047 'OflNI u u H H H _II N H H III" 0.200 .0.III 0.:II 0.2I0 IDID" Ii'" 0.4II I0 1.000 0.0;4 II II "I“ hill :0 ll IIIOI 'flulbl II II I4400 4.254 II ll I400| ~0.2II II. It ‘40“ 4.004 11 l OI!“ u VII I! .4.III .4.III In!!! .120 VIIQI’ ht" I‘ll. 0,000 I‘d!) In!!! I I n J! 04680 04!!) Ill‘l “0'! “III! QI'IU‘ 941:. ”“00 l”:7 II H ll 10 II I! ll II 1.0 Ill 04'" III" II"! 0‘4" 0]!“ 0;!40 um “III “In "I" .45I ".727 0.1“ 0.!“ 0.1:! h“! I 414 0.000 0.2" I‘ll! - . I0 I0 II II II II I0 In an; 404:4 0.007 "I" “III 4.404 4:000 03500 4.727 I. 40 4.1" 4.444 -4.III 0.04! 0.44:“ 0.420 4.24I III! 0.": 0454! II II II II II 0.414 0.444 0.0II 0.407 (11% 0.IIO "no .I "um um Eb; II—Iym—wm—ImI—nwr—fim—Mu—mq WW I II I 0 0 I I I I I I ‘ I ' 4334 4331 4.424 4.744 4.4! ":47 I4 77 "[47 0:030 4130 I003» 0:034 4.4}! ml 0.34 0.4:: 0.0!: I.III "III «.004 - .2" 40.00 44.2" «.270 0.0“ In" -I.'.7u I In 0.2“ "I!” 0.!" In“! an!" 0.!“ II II In I II I II II H "i." '4"' .l". O I II II II II II I I II II I I0 WOM%"IIWHOHWWfl . , IIIII 4.4“ 0.I47 ‘-0.m 0.010 4.404 0.0" ' m 0.974 on I 0.740 W ‘ II II I . m 0.341 M": I. H .0.294 0.447 .040" -I.IN - . .0 II II. II II II", . I" 0|... '0II.“ "A"! "I"! ' lflh) 4.330 0 ' ‘ I 0.3?4 “330 -0.407 -I.lI7 mm 4.240 «.302 4470 0.040 II I 40 40 III II II H.040— \ 04°04 H.000 0.000 mu 4.004 I "I I 0" I I" 0 I u | . “ u n “—““ lf‘l'd ISBN {IUIU INFO I'M" “000 1.908 [.00] ‘ HWWHWWWW I II I I - II I II In II II 4. I41 0.;4; II 40 I.I14 nub “5:1 “040 ”I24 "III I III 0.3:; {THU 4.4!: 0.000 4.2 4.020 4.404 0.347 4.272 4.III 4.040 44.020 4.00 0,74- -0.m 0.17:4 04444 0."! II II 10 u . II II III 7.0 I "II II wk—MH 0.440 4.III «.442 40.044 ".5” 0.04 ...“. .0,400 0.174 -|.°ll I. I 0 . 12* u -- L .r w 0II4I 0.4" ”000 0x0“ 0.240 0.2" 0.24: 0.III 0.!" I- H II II I ‘l ' In ‘ I0 I: n H 0:744 m 41000 UII’! mil!) 0.4.“ 0.20: 0.004 0.“! '4'" BIII' I"'7 I'IQI u u 4r '4'3‘ IIIG' nHmo—Inu 4.”: 4.3:7 ul :4 4.440 4.0;. m 0.024 4.444 «.044 nm 0.344 «.244 0.37! 4.44: 4.040 0.044 4.040 0.044 mu 0.340 0.04: —4.III “ H II II II II I0 I _II ’11 .H I II II u n L...” 4.II4 4.I74 4.272 4,": 4.4!! 0.409 «.44! um 44.474 4.000 40.3.4 0,440 0,444 -0.m an" In!“ 'I‘“ .. .. .. i: A; .. .. . U ..1" 0,2‘! 0.". '4!!! 0436! "’I7 “7". I00 0H- 0.040 1:000 0:207 0.39 ":30 “2:0 0:“7 IIuI 11:34 0:34 4.“: m 0.3"” 0.30 hu‘ ““7 444 n 4,414. 4.420. 4.724 «.m. Inna-042:6 4.III.-0.m. «.240. 0.144. 4 . 4040‘ 4.4". mu 0. 040 "mm. 0.72: 0.447I 4.4" .... "“l . ‘, ‘ H“ 4:“: ‘- ' . . ‘r- m L._._.- J" “' 0.425 ...", 4,024 4,424 0.4“ 0.440 2.294 44.012 .17.I4IL 44.-lu- vhuv‘ -I.4u‘ IL 4.0" III 0 l|. -0 "7 .0 4.40 0.577. 44.4". 4.341. 0.140 0.4" 0.477 04207 0.454 0134: 0:0:- 0.zII 13000 — 0.5;0 0.3.; 0,1 . 0.94 0.!" “I .I.I4I 4.III 0."! [.193 0.92, -I.Iu -0.Iu -0.I91 «.247 - 4.040 4.000 0.004 0.444 ,0 II II II II I0 I 4 0 10 . In 4 I0 1' ' . .953 4,554 Id" 0.1:. 0.444 H1" 0.7II 04044 0.440 0.005 ”000 0.054 0. 4 0.”. 0,704 0.44! M 3! ____/ 4 0.! I I H7 0.171 fl ‘1! I4"! M" H 0.247 4.474 -0 I40 I l" I 000 '0 III -0 III 40 I I 0 III 0 :00 -0 4:4 0.“! III! 2.4. ‘4‘ . I .' . .I"'.Ilal I'l.. ..u.-' . 442: 0."? "7.!" '0'!" "412‘ BAIL-0.15!- -|hlIl -I.Il| no" 0.040 40.": I. 0 40.III 0.010 -0.070 an" "I!" ' .r .. .r r 0.994 0.42I 0.277 0.440 nun 0.0“ 0. ”000 “n'y m 0.4.; fl-“IIl 0.II|I 0,“: III" II II I I II II EL?!) um “44" m!- 4.474 um on}: 4 4.": I-"‘ 20.7” mm mm 0.104 0.14 - .204 I4 VII 0.," II II 4.7:! 0.700 I} :0 II 0.44 0.40I 0.074 0.! Mm II.II4 40.417 0.0" 0.220 .0'34: 43.444 IUI:" II 'II II II II II H III I7 40.7” r0342 0.004 -n,IsI 11 i H 4.427 -0.044 «.422 44.47- 4.!" -0.14 -I.040 4.344 -I 0.240 40.447 0.4" 0.4“ 40 I 0. 47 Id" ' u u -r v 4 h u ‘ ‘ 7! MM 0.I2I 0.I02 0.057 0 0|!" 0.7II 0.40: I. II ‘-‘ I... . . ' I. ”4.; IL... . ... _.. . -. ,W I II II II II III 10 a 1.1730 Imn I.4I0 mm 1.004 Ima 1.000 ”0'0 15“! 13030 I4 ““0 4.030 II“! III" ”:44: 0.0” 0.000 0.000 0,004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.040 0,040 0.". III“ [I H II 11 u N H I H I II II II I . 0 , II I 4 II I 444 I... I. In 44 u“ u .... u ...... I. . ...-W 284 Notes: 1. See variable list (Appendix 3) for . names of variables. 2. In variables where all responses were constant (i.e., same response cate- gory), the computer "print out" lists the correlation as 0.000 and the significance level as 1.000. ; 3. Significance level of .000 indicate .0005 or more. 4. Interpretation: 0.443 Correlation 26 Sample Size 0.018 Significance level h..’—._ 11 0013. 'I.023 I435, 11 I1 I.U°9 009'. .4... 10000 10009 IIIUO .1t49~—’fr§*‘~—“OT.§.———IVIQ"' 10 3| ‘0 1° 0,6I7 00'33 II’7‘ 1.000 ol‘31 000,. .l4"' 04000 00327 II. II II 10 I0 mn-——-M~--m4+~47007~- — 0.044 0,240 0.0" 0.0" Inn I05" ..- __1k,__ . 1,k__ 'H—AFM 0.274 0.004 "074 14000 on 0 0.001 H.;—ow“ II 81 1 Id I I 0060. 04,1. IT’20 ‘0000 014:3 0:900 G.III 3:039 .IIIO7 'I0.’l 04°30 040.0 912': "03': .031: II II II In . . --Ow4i3——~IvII6-——O¥!3§———&+OO¢- =32!!!~—41‘J4———0.I30———#T3ot—m—— 0.027 “so: 40.009 0.000 4.040 0.000 4.009 0.200 0.400 ”0929 0.010 00320 I.000 m 0390 0.240 0:400 0:142 'hIHQMM—cfim HM— +01 Isa-Aron; - 6149:: — hflt—hflk — I I0 I 'I .. _ 0.330 01:0 0:434 I.ooo 070.0 0.031 0.570 0.120 0.730 0.200 0.200 0.000 0.000 -o.IIo 0.240 4.740 -o.2006 0.447.410.407° 00.000 6 A l 0.00-.7 0.405 03440 0,000 0.190 0.000 m 0:007 0.207 0.207 0.440 0.104 0.004 0.442 0.040 0.612 0.307 0.70: "o3“6 °-°°° °I"°°'°"“ . 0 ' ~0.367 “‘2‘ 03:37 1.030 001:7 oguv 0.146 ““3 mm W“ “"°‘ “4’35 .l04{___,1§§;__..ng§__mo.499~——o.ooo— -.1‘.."‘—.T..’"—..'Q’4_'..‘a‘3""‘or"6'—..T."*—— o.419;—-03101; [In—”HE 0.34 00:77 1.000 000:0 0.100 0.0" 0:449 0:"? 0.002 70"?" 033°6_ P-Zfi‘m-fi 0.007 #4220777I00‘.07I“0.000 7:000. «hum-0.84 4.1—4: 44.070 00.03“a WW 0.2505 ~°n°” 04‘", ---004:3-——4y4u —Om%-—-I¢OOO— M——ma—-0.04I--n_0;4u« rmqp—Iwu— » 9.934;- Wk- 0."; ”0.170 _-0.220 .0.sz 00.070 ___ 0.400 mm 0.040 mm W“ "N" "'"g. “23;. “'3{:.__"3a_:._ _ _ 0.30 "Lagfi—IIIII— “how—0.5:“ 03’“ 0.493 05‘” "3°“ "’7’ '4‘" °-°“ °"” °'"‘ °'"° Idea-whan—uhau» how—04.0.41“ 4.09177 «‘40 40.030 40.1“" “In“ 0.6}: v0.200—~0,-007—- ImE—ofiwa—onm— I 4 II II 0.3:! 0.3:: 0335 1.330 ”“3 007;: 0.11! 0;“6 0:29’ 040” "0’9! 0.005 0.040 0H0 1.000 m . _ 70 0 I .0109 .015 0000 .0104 -0 I00 0I04 ".303 ..°2° .000.‘ ..:°a 0.000 u,J71 00.30: I'll." 0.0353; I005. 0 11.11 4 11 . J b . 6 4 1° 4 I 4 11 11 I I —Hm—1i000 1.000 1. 000 1. 00063¥1.400: 1.:003 , 1.000—”'1—0001.10101.1~0051.tma 1.0131,”: 1.000 1. :00 —' M '.9”’ ‘ ‘1'.9'V ’ VI!” "90099— 0:96" '70”“ 11m ”m— “m— W— fiHW—W—MQ—QTm—hw — 00.0.. 40009- 0000; Wu» 07 0000-. 700004 ~vM—J~-~4M»4W——Mw.u.w_“V—W%WIW- Notes: 1. OHM-— 'I.496 '0.107 7 7 -——§rt”—-W— 3.000 0.000 0.0" 10000 10000 1:000 007924—— OrOW—OM—Orudm- 0 0 0 00101 1.000 “092 10000 0.100 0.000 l.‘41 0,000 0.090 6 O —-0.uo— shook—N34: — -mN——4NI°-— D.CVS H.190 I303I’ 0.030 Up”! 0.0.0 _y a 1 1 A A 286 See variable list (Appendix 3) for names of variables. In variables where all responses were constant (i.e., same response cate— gory), the computer "print out" lists the correlation as 0.000 and the significance level as 1.000. Significance level of .000 indicate .0005 or more. Interpretation: 0.443 Correlation 26 Sample Size 0.018 Significance level 0.075 0.010 0:700 1.000 00300 1:00: 0.000— MOF—fiylMO— —0.000— 0.000.410“— ~ hour—~— 1 r 1.000 1.000 noon 10000 11030 1.000 1.000 0.000— 3.530 7.503 "0.000 0.052 0.009 0.400 0.0007 7 O ——Or4aJ—-4T«0-— 0.100-— 0.-000. « 0H,“. 0.24;” wan—“mam _ '0.766 01.000 0.101 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.190 0.000 00.203 — ._.1_ - -L- ___.4____ . . .- _ ______..0 0.000 0:000 1.000 1:000 1.000 0.0.0 1.000 0.000 “Mo—401%.!“ 0.000—4.409014% no.0u;—mAT—u.nu— 0,4017‘ 7 7 7 7 o 0.642 0.600 01000 1.000 or”! 0;“, 0.703 0.000 m 0.008 -o.0x2 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 on", 0.000, 0.0005 0.4505 0.000 00.2005 0.1“ 1.000 1.000 0.301 1.000 1:000 0:303 1.000 0.509 0.193 0.000 0.070 0.000 0,070 0.4.0 0,000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0" 0.073 ‘ 0.743 1.000 00407' 1.000 00407 0.30' 0.090 1:000 1:000 10000 0.407 0.‘07 01000 -.0.«3--—..1“0-’- 0.0007 «0709—01000. «.0907 - 0.00070010007- C]‘H"'°r°§.—V0|975 4.900, 1.000 0.235 03209 1.000 0.000 0.295“ 11000 _00434 a._2_s_S_ 1:000 —__0._u_o_ _ 01—27—9- 0.200 moan 0.000 0.500 0.000 -O.‘99 0.000 0.709 o0,2:0 00,005 once5 41.1025 -0.3427 - 0.00;w {proof-«hog: 11000— _, Heb 0.070 40000- m - 00002— 4.000» 0.903 — 0;020——o.000—— 0.279 0.250 0.250 0.000 0.500 0.707 __ 0."! _ '_'E'_°,__3‘:.3 Jon”; 0.0.03 0.400, 0.000 _ 00.003, 0,000, , , "0.407 0.500 0,300 1.000 -52.,” 0.270 1:000 0.502 0.000 0.003 0.000 0,000 0.000 OINO' ‘ 00000—11900— MNQ 7 10000 £0.00 13“” 10000 $1090 HOOJ—“hooo - 01000— - 01099 — 100907— I --91HO———010”—r roTuoe 4.000— -- 01 ooe—u-rrrow—«wwo—I MW, 7 7 7 7 s 5 noon 1:000 new 1.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 _ “m7 - 0,100 -0.217 0.0.0 '0.0.6 0000‘! . 0.0” 0.003 0,200 'l.6‘7 00".” 0.8.8 0.000 0.211 0156! 'lo‘OZ g 5 01‘5‘6 6 ‘ o 6 6 6 5 0 ~--010N-— —hm— — -11000—o+0:0— —+.&2& - o.aN——4+Mo—~»— H440 - --h?N—~ —110M~— 0:009 >91+&0-——hM0——wu——0m+——+YHO— . . l -o.700 o0.2oo 0.040 0.000 0.050 0.2" «.402‘ 0.000 0.200 “1,000 «1.510 0.619___o._xo:5__a.30_o+'n_.twflown 0.000 0.0: ‘ L 0:057 0.009 0.200 1.000 0:405 0.000 0.526 0.022 0.423 0.011 0.011 1.000 [mg 0.000 1.000 +1 —1"r9 0—1 —— M—- 0— — -— 000—0 Mo——Hu——1.ooa » 0.000-7 1.000 0.000 --0Tu0—-—§voo0——0TOM—014u— .... H“ .000— 0.» . 0.00 170»; 11+”; *1 0 1 0 0 0 o n 0 c a 0 9 5.000 0"“, 53“” 0'0“) 0,000 0.003 0.900 (3,000 0:000 00000 0.000 0."UO 0.030 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 .I.Ofl 900°. 000 ~00 x :00 1 000 1 000 1 000 1 000 1.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.090 1.000 1. 1.0 o . . L . o ... . 0.000 9.000 — thG- v. oM—Meo—omo—WHMHMF 0 _ . “110:0 ——01030———07000—07000——+tm~-0r009—- h"*—-HOF_WN0“ - “7°“ 4"“— vm—uu-ow—u—umm. 400—410—0004qu “a. a; . “Ho—mob um 30L- IAI_JG——vA-i u 000 03 out :4 “a u “Lu—0W-” _ua—u—_m_44_— l V!“ I VAR Q 4414 4 L4"- 287 ”Mo TABLE 49.-—Correlation Matrix for Category F, Totals. -o.ol1 0.011 44 44 0.414 «.410 VII 7 0.I'l D.D$| 0-11' 0.1!! H.11V 0.217 44 1 :0 a; 4: v u . ‘1 vy ' . u 1 . w Vlfll 11.!" 0.11‘ “1.0" Wm" “.053 '01“! I010" 0.591 D.‘lt 0.549 “.541 0.507 D1453 D1646 1! ...” .... .. - .... .. ... ... “L 1 . v. . ... ‘- . . . 7 ' 41 41 40 41 4.1 0.051 11.251 0.447 0.045 m 0,050 1114 11 0.107 0.0.14 ~0.040 ~0.112 "7.195 -0.007 0.200 «.173 -0.004 44 44 44 44 44 44 4.1 44 j 144 11 «1.044 0.147 .0.104 -0.704 -0.272 40.010 0.144 0.051 0.102 0.141 _4;__.44___ 0.072 0.204 0.220 m 0.007 m 0.544 0.740 01204 sun .4 41 44 44 1 A. 44 0.140 0.411 0.417 (FEE) 0.074 [5314) 011:4 0125»: 1.151 1441 10 0.077 0.002 41.010 1.004 0.000 0.045 0.10! 0.045 0.17” 0.307 0.015 “.092 44 44 44 44 44 44 I: u 4| ,_1.0_X 44 44 4.. AIL n. .1111. .1 4.4 n u. n 44.. 4m; 40 ABL nun, 1 1pm.. 11 045 111-145 l—J 1 L 144 14 «1.107 0.114 0.102 0.211 0.245 0.104 -0.041 0.115 0.055 0,004 7.00! 40.200 0.400 . .. . .. u . AL 4.. 1L 1. 0.304 0.451 0.202 0.140 0.104 0.200 0:791 0.452 01090 0.071 0.54! 0.14‘ . M 1 4: 4: 4a 40 4o 41 41 4o 4) 4o 41 44 41 ‘1 0.974 0.054 11.004 4.401 0.410 0.10: 41790 01701 01047 03044 0 454 0:704 0:341 0.40.1 1411 14 -0.140 0.001 0.101 41.454 «.400 40.514 -0.047 0.232 0.000 0.147 4.1011l -0.2ool 00.115 «1,027 .0.070 4: 41 4: 4 4: 4.1 41 41 .1 1., 13127 0.507 0.501 m - mm 4105: 0.125 0152: 01524 0.174 014 :07 01450 a. a: 0 0,404 — 144 17 -o.115 0.110 .0.000 ~n.147 -0.127 -0.170 0.407 -0, 040‘) 0.117 4.102 4.711 40.104 “1.020 4,072 “1.241 44 44 44 44 44 44 4.14; 44 44 44 44 4.1 0.440 0,444 0.0011 0.207 0.4112 0.212 0:404 0. 754 01240 “202 1 . . 01040 0.541 0.044 [file—1H «fin—a T‘W—‘M‘t‘w .ou—ofla- ll 0‘ —4.4.10—4.4«Tn442—0.04kdw-440— urea—— MW: ’r‘ ‘3 I); I! Q. ‘3 I: I: I) 0. 070 0 I 274 0.225 11440 0.1111 0.444 01424 @ GE 0.124 0. 70- 0.204 I.llfl "417' 0.V9¢ '015I1J .0101“ 0.0., -I.IYU H.430 00.002 3410! n .151 0.03fl 0.028 0.222: 4 0.01: 0.045 0.240 I. U I ‘0 .0 M l I) I! l4 l4 1‘ MI I) ‘( ——-——rw:—n«:—»E0$—o.4e+wwnu—4wn 41.04 7-~—omo\rayner 'fhl‘iWWF—Mflr'fiiefiffi 0.107 4.177 0.12! 0.221 2.252 7 0.1.14 41.040 «1.171 -| no [.045 4.101 0.247 0.150 .0.241 .0.054 0.100 4.17! , rw——«—--~»«7 44» ”744‘“ Rea-v77+eaq——w—-r«_«—«—44———u—— A 4.214 0,210 0.100 0.141 0.140 0.001 0:052 0.372 01702 0.252 0.127 01017 0:404 0.140 0.015 0.110 0.550 m 0.410 4.1” one! fitter-flnfllt mrv'tvdfl- ‘hwonox— wuita- v4.0.2 40.942- 4.020 he H; 4.4Hf0rli é—vorofin—W I I. 1‘ I 0.240 4 040110 1.451 01151 0:475 01an 0. 411 1.414 m _ 0 21: 0 11 9... 0 020 0.2” .11..” ...“7 40.100 .0. :443 «1.1100 0.210 4.100 0.112 0.004 0,000 0.050 -n.202 0.103 0.350 -0.120 -II.02| 4 44 44 1 44 44 44 44 4.1 4: 44 44 4.400 ‘ozoo hwkamvihm—fiHL—oflH—Oufl—ofi—oflagflgip m 1. . "1.. 0 000 4 044 0,000 0.040 4.040 4.1100 0.040 0.000 0.000 01000 0.000 I I u 0 I 0 o 740—» 407~ ‘6--—“ —‘ Wt’~‘&-.“*—“-—W~—-—-H-——uiA—flvi——4+——u—.fl——fl—*F ‘ ‘° 1.000 1.000 4.0“ 1.Iol 1.000 1.002 1:000 1.000 11000 1.000 2.000 1.000 m 000 00 1 000 1 000 1.0110 4.0 I rmrua I'QWfiitV—rWHthAO' vwwkflym—flfiiH-HHJ—‘WWW—‘HWMHW . W- 4: 4: 4o 42 42 42 42 42 4| 42 42 4: 42 42 4; 4* 42 11 4s 0.007 0.451 0.400 0.042 4:100 0.444 01440 0.404 0;112 01450 0.542 0.10.1 0.4;. 11.4 0 0.444 14; 257 7:14.102 «7.100 -0.045 0.02: ha" min 0.0" '0-1" 0.105 0.133 ~o.150 0.174 5.240 0,331 0.!“ ”7.251 41.200 0.402 0,022 41 ‘l u u 4: 43 I2 41 41 4a 44 4: 4o 42 43 4.1 ,_ _m. , “ago—vofin- 4.300 'hlflvrrom*'thm—ilflkoflkfifi ' N—Hewafiflk 'WR [VII 26 0.041 'Dgllz 44229 “.1” 'l4137 '01'" In!" “1‘70 010.7 I041" NJ" “.2“ "Mn! "hill 0.”! 40.1)9 ”’1‘“ .11.“: -I.NI 0.044 0.1714 0.130 0.104 4.220 0.415 mg m 1:570 ‘ '- Vla-E’—4* *1.’1:—*01910‘flvi’.'_‘*v“"".t.t"‘iVOI’tt VAR 25 . 1 ' '... .. .... . . ._ .‘ . .... ...... W "I'll. ' 44 44 44 . 41 4o 44 44 44 44 4.1 l 41 ‘ 0m2mm muomxflmlmavmvmuvmm wh°~1°w=nflfl°M°°m=“m‘"”’““ IA! 01 VAI ll IMWhW—wa—ROWMTHW‘MW W“ 44 44 44 44 44 4: 4.1 4: 44 44 41 44 44 4.1 4: 44 4.1 44 0.441 0. .144 0.502 0.705 0.020 0.010 4:207 0.110 D1707 0;!“ 0.700 0:074 01554 0.405 0.441 0.279 0.040 0.265 0.514 40.014 0.40: 0.140 -o.150 41.092 -0.402 0.147 0.147 -0.022 0.071 4.445 20.440 0.125 0.10: 40.1" 0.111 0.112 0.10:I ”1.35: I N #0 4! N 04 H I I4 I! I A! I: ll ‘4 7 . ._ .... . . ... .. rrflfi .. .2 _.. r4471 .... .... .. . . . ... w—o—«r—erF—W 4 " \__J «1.214 «.151 -o.114 4.002 -0.100‘ .11..” «.045 0.212 44.010 -0.170 14.143 40.110 -0.020 0.054 0.156 2011" u . 1. . .1 LL 0.154 0.511 0.444 0.550 0.514 01444 0.575 0.150 0:44: 012.10 0.170 0.254 0.745 0.704 0.3“ 01‘" 0.075 0.113 .0,105 “a flag; “a .1. ans 11.01.. 2. 4n 0.411 0.405 0.300 -o,109 41.100 -o.24o -o.441 0.11: -0.120 0.104 0.450 ...410 1,1" 0.4;; .1...“ “,0" 0,010 0.44 14 . 14 7:0 40 10 10 10 u—oaJ-A—W—WW o 0. 14 1° ‘° ‘° 14 10 15 14 W 0.010 0.541 0.715 .0.204 «.210 .4.122 mm .0.125 0.102 0.045 man ".211 ...... ...... “'3” 41.112 -0.124 0.0" «.410 I‘ .. .. ”1‘ ‘L 4* u 14 15 14 00:5! 0035‘ 9403‘ “EXXO “4620 "4511 D;UD\ H.30, HIIVO u;”¢ III." °.|.. “...! 0.52, an" n-I'l I“ .4,200 .4.527 -o.140 . 0.417 _. 2.. ...”. 0,127 0,557 0.140 0.444 0.115 -n.044 0.150 0.155 ~o.o14 1.105 40.072 0.107 0.101fl "I J' I WWI.“ II | 41 . 4 41 40 - 40 41 4 41 41 4o 41 " I II 040': 9 I10 9.11: '0 100 '540’0 90.1QV “.937 “430° 0,120 'fillIo 57"! 'I 1" '0 0'1 ‘fl “.7 'fl “5 D II: I 335 'UIUJ, "4'fl. ' I 10 ' 10 10 ' av 10 n 10 “.11., 19 :4 00 ' n ' 10 ‘ 10 ' o ' so I 49 5' 09—ku ... . .51 v... . . . . . . v .“ 1“- :-.‘ - 4 “.‘2‘ ... ”W " v14 09 -0.144 0.144 0.1170 «1.042 1.047 .mu 0.057 0.115 -o.uon '°“°3.l°'m 44.215 40.170 1.005 40.070 0.000 0.244 0.020 m1" / _ . .. 1L 4. ”_4r———40—74r7~ 42- — 42 -40— ~ w—W r .172 0.272 0.420 0.40: 0.700 0.504 017.14 0.557 02440 0.201 0.147 0:125 0:011 0.5.10 0.027 0.074 0.410 e-——¢b————“‘ 4‘ 00. 444 -4 42 42 0.402 0.244 nut-<- 0.522-- .4.140— 4.471» -l.¢W—.¢1000——-h|~64~ 0.400._4..4a4_41".._4rn;_.0.4n— «Tow—MP 41 44 4; 4a 42 42 42 4a 44 44 41 ‘L (um Us"! 1.014 11549 0.254 0.500 0:44: 0:40: 0.5.14 0.407 m, 0.077 0.171 M ___—— .‘R. 44 .77 .0 140 u on 40.017 ... “11 ..1 .40l 40.104 40.004 -0.041 0.259 0,140 4.424 0 124 o 017 0 041 40 240 do 057 0 041 40.4:I Ml" ' ' 41 ' 4. 41 41 ‘..,4.o_| 1-1-‘44-1 41. 41 ' 41 ‘ u ' 41 ' 4o ' 4o ' , . . . . ... ... ...... .... .. ..1 21 ... 4% __fljow—flh 40—— n . 7 E2' 41 40 i: 0.047 -o.102 -o.117 -o.252 -0.200 07 0.120 0.2.15 4.010 0.017 no.0.” «.141 0.317 -0.010 .11.“! 51““ .4 44 — 4r -— 4 H.,. 5———.7«4|—w A; n 4L__«__4&———“- 0 ..501 0.220 0.440 0.002 0.144 0.7400 7.41: 0.114 0.040 01470 11:44.. 1.441 0,041 11,014 0,044 0.0" 0.!" ...—2.», 0.400—-4—.444- — "004— 4.004 4.040» 0.04». o.440——-0.m---4.au—4.4 fl ' 11 14 11 11 11 40 10 1.0 11 11 11 11 n 11 10 11 11 1.000 1.000 1:0“ i-W“ i-W’ 1.000 17000 1.000 11000 4.000 4.000 unoo 1:000 110011 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.040 .1. 42 ”:0“ 0.000 0.00. 0,004 0.000 0.000 0.00» 0.000 0.000 0.040 0.040 4.040 0.0" 0'... 1,... 0,... ...... 0.004 0 1.11 11 11 11 17 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 1o 10 H 11 h‘no—rluom 4.4» 1.400 14000 . ‘ 2“ ' - .. -_--4 4:444 v... :4... ...... ' EWF vR—y—JAI-Fvvll 1 1404.. 444 I Ill-pvaLJu 4414-». “4.4—0... It .... 11 n 12 u n I I I III II 288 Notes: 1. See variable list (Appendix 3) for names of variables. 2. In variables where all responses were constant (i.e., same response cate— gory), the computer "print out" lists the correlation as 0.000 and the significance level as 1.000. 3. Significance level of .000 indicate .0005 or more. 4. Interpretation: Correlation 0.443 26 Sample Size level 0.018 Significance 0159* 4 111004 0.037 0.073 44 44 "“flTfitfl‘——07fi51‘“— 3.000 0.00. 00000 _ l _ — _ _ ,____ _._3_ 1.000 14000 1.000 «470907 71.7199—7 r7004— 70.0007 4 42 43 o. 53.1 0.220 01109 1.000 0.195 0.040 41.000 0,000 0.117 4 45 4 4a 7 074947 or;447——-0;545— 1.000-w 43““ _, ~ 40. 0.52 o. 004 40.474 0.000 0. 000 0.077 —--- 40—77m—- ref 0— - 0. 014 o. 505 0.020 1.000 01010 0:627 -4.1a0— ~0r041— 0.49:0.000 anus—44.117.— 4.475— 44 4141 01‘05 o. 990 D. 455 1. 000 032 6 0.592 0 063 -0.1—‘oo v0.127‘ -o.125 0 00o 0.091 a. 005 4.125 0.050 44 45 4g 43 44 J —o.+70-—~ 07400—7074 097-41000770+54 97— fi’k-HfiL—OP 1&— :‘00‘8 0.05‘ “'3‘7 4C 46- mm o m mu 56.321;-‘0r2t377 #100l7—-Or19J—_441&JO-7701844w» 4 I 0:198 0. 091 '0.178 '0. 244 40. 226+ 0.000 _ 4. .7 4 04237 0:102 0' 1‘? 1.000 0. 753 03721 4.00077 07244~ 401400-770. 000- 4444 4 44 _ 44 0. 900 0.070 a; 207 1.000 014:0 0'141 1.000 01109 0.390 0.116 -0.062 0.017 0.455 0.000 0.092 0.041 -0.045 0.341 0.341 00.092 40.207 0 10 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 0.740 0.040 01050 1.000 01715 0.071 0.660 0:222 0:141 0.715 0.26! —— 0.209 0.060 0.100 0. 0006 0.154 0.025 0.251 00.100 40.011 0.159 0.204 -0.120 10 0 10 0 0 :0 0 0 1a __r 1°__ 0.404 0.730 0:525 1. 000 0:54; 0.925 0.310 0:112 0:900 0.144 0.105 0.013 Grim—0.100- 40.050 0.000.540.142” 0.244 -0. 214 40.040 40.107- 40.35:“ smut—-0, 440 —o,—102- 1 41 4o 59 4010 10 0.291 0.742 1.000 07404 0.07? 0.174 c. 917 0: 200 m. 0,570 o. 003 o 007 0.090 0.027 0.207 0.000 oo.u45 -0.144 0.05; 0.10:9 0.ngv 41140940.“;9 0.102 .0. 405 .0 2796 so a 59 59 5 3 9 - 07550 7 701007” 41991 11709-07—7017-03770.174 7 0.724—705255—701'000— —0.e44—»4.0M— 07240 7% -070:t—— '04215 '04055 50.052 0.000 0.119 '01105 '04093I 6.146 0.502 0.‘51 0. I02 0.209 "0109’ '01515 0.123 - -4 42 41 40 - 744 —77- a————-—- ~ . 5-143 .. ..---——--. . ...,— 0.100 0. 725 0:710 1.000 0:452 0.354 0.555 0: 345 m [m o 204 0..” 0.70" m 0.451 01051- 4re49- 70.400— 0.000 -.0.4047 ‘9109‘-~*‘1*9°-' ‘10'9'7..161‘-‘¢1e‘°;—~013425—Vfi—jfli———fi-1t§;7~fi—21¢:—fih- 59 16 0.134 01220 1.000 01703 on“ 0. 201 0; 040 m 0.009 0. 014 a, 024 0.051 a. 177_ 1.. 000 [m ';_£;6 00.024 0.322 a. 000 0.510 D 0.0 '0712:0I.0101—'04271 001000 0 “I2; 0.359 0 .204 0.1121 50.0721 1 10 4o 41 115 15 —o.00+—-c.444» *4.000--—-u1040-— 1.000 —— hut—umu—uou— 44w:— 0.341» 0.104— —0 400770.5057—0w4 -0. 006 U. 016 0, 091 .105 ~0.123 40 58 ‘0400‘ ‘0435‘ 0.130 «.272 «.217 co.444 0.000 0.121 0.100 44.171 40.205 0.305 0. 000 «1.245 0.104 4:. 54 :4 -: 44. 44—— 447--~—10--- -71077——- 44777- 0. 007 0.111 01742 1.000 in: 0.242 0:107 mm 01991 0.112 0. 213 0.001 0.009 0.752 0.990 0.404 0.0007 0.000 7 0 004—- 01-4007—M04—0mo—ovu0—- 6 611 1.000 1. 000 1. 400 1.000 0. 004 0 000 o. 000 0. 040 1 11 1111 4.000— 0400.— MIL—HOYNM— 0.04L_ —4.040——-0.0M—¢TM——4~0w— 5100‘1— 47°W—70 010906 0 1. 000 1. 000 1: 000 1100" 14 00° 1. 000 1.000 1.00: 1.000 a. 000 0. one a. 000 o. 0.0 0,000 0,000 0.000 1 .000L, o. 000 1111 0 0 1a hM0———~rroro—-—7xr400—h4 05— ——4-r440-—4m0 11o 1:000 1.000 1:040 1:001 0.000 in 000 0.000 0.040 7.0000 19 l1 :1 14°00 10°00 0. 000 0000' 1111 7771.004 "iVOOO———§TJOO-744£00777¢1G00—7—+t30477—$1.00-——414l°———&v49¢<5—41503—-—$'593~ '*1;609 13000' 1400? 7 , . 4 _ . -1 m 1_-¥4&—J‘——¥#&-4&—— 04s~ag 013.3.» v4a_aa v4u—aim~4afi.84_cv4xrzseq014w30__04£_31__143.3s..uLu.;sn UAR.13~——VAB 54 v44 0% 704i.50 .40 44 «4a 45» 045514- 343—} APPENDIX 8 CONTENT ANALYSES OF SPECIFIC ITEMS ON LEVEL 6 289 APPENDIX 8 One of the important aspects of the ABS:DU, is that it offers a great amount of clinical data that is pertinent, not only to the researcher, but to the therapist in his understanding and treatment of the heroin addict. Twenty- three of the 40 content items on Level 6 (personal action) have been selected by this author to demonstrate this dimen- sion of the ABS:DU. Level 6 is the Level that measures actual experiences that persons have had with illegal drug users. If a person had no experience or contact with illegal drug users, he was instructed to omit the entire sixth Level. Therefore, the responses on Level 6 repre- sent what persons have actually experienced. The content items, as stated in Chapter III, were selected on the basis of an extensive review of the litera- ture on drug abuse, as well as personal consultation with drug abusers, professional therapists, police officers, and other resource persons. The 40 content items were cate- gorized into five facets: causes of illegal drug users, characteristics of illegal drug users, reasons for treat- ment, types of treatment, and consequences of illegal drug use. The responses of the six research categories to 23 290 291 of the 40 items of Level 6 are presented in Table 50 in percentages. Items 1, 4, and 5 relate to the "causes" facet; items 8, 10, l4, l7, and 18 relate to the "charac- teristics" facet; items 24, 37, and 40 relate to the "consequences" facet; items 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, and 33 relate to the "treatment type" facet; and items 34, 35, 36, 38, and 39 relate to the "treatment reason" facet. Thus, one is able to look at an item, such as item 1, and see that incarcerated addicts who were not receiving treat- ment (category A) reported that 44 per cent of them felt from their eXperience that drug users come from unhappy homes, and 35 per cent were undecided. This varies con- siderably from the responses of categories B, C, E, and F. The items that have the greatest differences (40 percentage points) between categories are items 1, 4, l7, 18, 24, 29, 33, 36, and 39. Both differences and similari- ties are important to look at and can be studied within a category as well as between categories. For example, while there is considerable agreement (63 per cent to 90 per cent) among categories that drug users take drugs to escape "reality" (item 8), there is considerable disagreement (22 per cent to 86 per cent) on the maturity of drug users (item 17). While there is considerable agreement among. categories that drug users are not trusted (item 10), there is disagreement on how well they deal with anxiety (item 4). 292 While there is considerable agreement among categories that drug users are usually "followers" rather than "leaders" (item 14), there is disagreement on whether drug users are anti-social (item 18). While there is considerable agree- ; ment among categories that drug use leads to physical damage (item 37), there is disagreement as to whether drug users are a threat to society (item 24). j i There was very strong agreement among categories that drug users do not need to be isolated from society by jail (item 27), but the categories were all split within on whether drug users need to be isolated from society by hospitalization (item 28). Most people in all the categories indicated that just hospital detoxification (item 32) was not enough, that drug users need help with emotional problems (item 40), and that drug users are not beyond the help of medicine (item 26) and psychology (item 30). There was considerable disagreement both within categories and between categories on the strictness of legal restraints (item 34), on the need for methadone to permanently "kick the habit“ (item 36), and on drug users being helped by ex—drug addicts (item 29). The majority (approximately 60 per cent) of the addicts (categories A, B, C, and D) all felt that the legal restraints were too strict, but the remaining 40 per cent (approximately) either felt the legal restraints were all right or too easy. Are the remaining 40 per cent (approxi— mately) indicating that the law is right and addiction is 293 wrong, or is this a way of "working" off their guilt? Perhaps part of the attraction of being an illegal drug user is that it is illegal, and that more tolerant laws may take some of the thrill away. The item (36) concerning the need for a permanent drug substitute like methadone was answered most favorably (63 per cent) by the addicts on methadone maintenance (category B), but even 37 per cent of these responded no to this item. This may be an indication that this 37 per cent is not pleased with methadone maintenance and would prefer another type of treatment. A number of factors may be Operative here. Category B was composed of only one methadone maintenance group. Methadone mainten— ance may have been the only treatment available to these individuals. Or as item 14 indicated, they may be more followers than leaders and simply going along with the majority of the addicts in their neighborhood. The majority of the addicts in categories C and D indicated "no" to methadone. These addicts are institu— tionalized while they are receiving the NARA treatment which does not include methadone maintenance. How significant will this be when they leave the residential treatment program and return to their communities? The issue of using ex—drug addicts to help current drug users is a hotly debated issue today among therapists 294 and program developers. In response to the statement "I have seen that drug users can best be helped by ex-drug addicts" (item 29), the vast majority of addicts (72 per cent to 90 per cent) in categories A, B, and C answered "yes,' while 51 per cent of the professional therapists (F) answered yes,’ and a surprising 35 per cent of the paraprofessional therapists (E) answered "yes." One would expect that the paraprofessionals would have had a higher percentage in agreement with this statement. Examining the two groups of paraprofessionals that made up category E, significant differences were found between them. The first paraprofessional group were all ex-addicts who had very little training for their jobs and had very few professionals working with them. They were 82 per cent in agreement that ex—addicts were the best help for the drug user. The second paraprofessional group had only 27 per cent who were ex-addicts, who had all been off drugs for over a year. This second group had received extensive training for their jobs; they worked together with the professionals, and were given constant supervision. Their responses were 35 per cent "yes,' 40 per cent "uncertain," and 25 per cent no. Although these two paraprofessional groups had very similar scores on most items, this is one item where they differed considerably. The professional therapists (F) scored between the addict categories and the 295 paraprofessional therapists (E) on the issue of ex-drug addict therapists. Their score was 51 per cent "yes," 30 per cent "uncertain,' and 19 per cent no. The issue of ex-drug addict therapists is, therefore, a very open issue for both the paraprofessionals (E) and the professionals (F). The differences among all the categories on this item may also reflect differences in goals or expectations for treatment. The addict who wishes to get off heroin might consider this his primary goal. Although he acknow- ledged that drug users need help with emotional problems (item 40) and that drug use leads to physical damage (item 37), he was not willing to admit that drug users couldn't deal well with anxiety (item 4), or that drug users were immature (item 17). This may indicate a lack of under- standing in the dynamics of human behavior and the effect these factors have on the addiction problem per §§° The ex—addict therapist may appear less demanding to the addict in terms of the need to completely change his whole life style, but maybe more demanding on the behavioral objective of no drug use. There is a possibility that the differences between the paraprofessionals (E) and the professionals (F) and between the groups that make up these categories may be related to goals or expectations for treatment. The 296 professionals having the most education and supposedly the greatest understanding of human behavior may have goals and expectations for their patients that far exceed just the behavioral objective of no drug use. Consequently they may feel that professionals are better equipped than paraprofessionals in helping an addict arrive at a whole new life style. The one paraprofessional group that worked closely with professionals and had considerably more training and supervision than the other paraprofessional group had responses to item 29 that were very similar to those of the professionals. In summary, it can be said that the vast majority of the addicts favored ex-drug addicts as helpers while the therapists were uncertain. Group therapy as a treatment modality for drug users was considered effective for addicts of categories B and C (78 per cent and 88 per cent) and to a lesser extent for addicts in categories A and D (61 per cent and 59 per cent). Paraprofessionals (E) were the most favorable (75 per cent) and professionals (F) the least (44 per cent). Group therapy may be the primary form of treatment that the paraprofessionals provide, while the professionals use other treatment modalities. Reasons for seeking treatment varied considerably. While there was general agreement among the categories 297 (45 per cent to 77 per cent) that drug users desire treat- ment because they are in legal difficulty (item 38), there was disagreement as to whether or not they seek treatment primarily to "kick the habit" (item 39), and disagreement as to whether or not they seek treatment only to lower their daily intake (item 35). Legal difficulty as the reason for seeking treat— ment was considered very high among addicts in categories C and D (NARA programs) and among both professionals (F) and paraprofessionals (E), but addicts within categories A and B were Split almost half and half on the "yes" and "no" reSponses. This may indicate that only half the addicts who are incarcerated and receiving no treatment (category A) are concerned about treatment, or it may mean that their primary concern at the present time is getting out of jail, and that treatment for their addiction is of secondary importance. The addicts in methadone maintenance (category B) were similarly Split, indicating that legal difficulties are a primary motivating factor for half of them, while the other half were motivated for other reasons. The other reasons may be reflected in their responses to items 35 and 39. The patterns of reSponses to item 35 (seek treatment only to lower daily intake) and item 39 (seek treatment primarily to "kick the habit") are very similar when compared 298 side by side. Half or more of the addicts in categories A, B, C, and D and the paraprofessionals (E) indicated that they have eXperienced drug users seeking treatment primarily to "kick the habit," while only 30 per cent of the pro— fessionals said they had. Half the addicts in NARA I and III treatment (category D) said they had seen that drug users usually seek treatment only to lower their daily intake (item 35), while 69 per cent of the addicts in NARA II (category C) said they had, but only 28 per cent to 30 per cent of the addicts in categories A and B said they had. It must be noted that these items are not asking for their personal motivation for treatment, but what they had eXperienced with drug users. Therefore, these responses may or may not reflect their own personal motivations. While 30 per cent of the professional therapists (F) said they had experienced drug users seeking treatment primarily to "kick the habit" (item 39), 40 per cent of them reported they had seen that drug users usually seek treatment only to lower their daily intake (item 35). It becomes apparent that reasons for seeking treatment are complex and varied and the one motive reported that received the most support was the legal difficulty motive. This type of descriptive analysis of specific content items of one of the six Levels of the ABS:DU is an indication of the varied use of the ABS:DU. Additional 299 analyses can be performed on the remaining five Levels as well as on the 40 items that make up the Personal Data Questionnaire. 300 m whm wv wom m wom wo woo Q wmm wm wom 0 wow wm who m wmm wm woo w 4 wow wow wom .msoum amaoom wuflnocfle m on mcoamn >HHm5m5 whom: msut umcu comm 0>mn H .m oz Camunwocs mm% m woa wo wmo m wh me won a wmm on wao O wmm wma wom m wow wm wmm « wmm wow wmm .mpmflxcm sufls HHmB Homo muons mast comm m>mn H .v mow aflmwumOCD 02 m wo wwa woo m wm wmm wow 0 wam wmm wvm O on me woo m on wow wow ¢ me wmm wow "Eouw mEoo mumms mduc pony UCSOw w>mn H .a mmEom omoflomoca mmEom mammm >mmmcca whommumu m m H Eme mmmcommmm .DQummmN 05¢ MO @ H®>®1H CO mEmuL—H #CmUsGOU Umuwnumfimm Ofl mmmcogmmmll.om mqmdrfi 301 m wvH wow wow m w wHw won Q _wwH wvw wwm O me on wwh m wow wwH wmm « wom me wmw =.mumtmmH= swap Hmaumn =mHmBOHH0m=.>HHm5mS mum mumms msnp was“ comm m>mn H .wH oz omoflomocb wow m wwm wHH wmm m wmm on wmw Q wom wow wwo O wom wm wmo m wwo wo wow 4 wmm wMH wmw .mumms msut Umpwsmp m>ms H .oH oz campumocb mow m wv wn wow m wo wo wmm Q wm me me O on wo wom m wmw wwH wmo w whH wm wvh :.%uHHmmH= mmwomm Op mmsuo mxmu whom: msut comm m>mc H .w 02 QHM#HwocD mow muoompmo m w H EmpH mmmcommmm .UOSCHflflOUII.om mqmde 302 m me me woo m me www www Q me me wow O www wh th m wm wwH won w wHw wmm wom .mpmwoOm on pwmuap a mum whom: msuo wasp comm m>mg H .ww oz CHmpHmoaD mm% m www wwH wmm m whm wHw www Q wmw me www O wow wn www m wwm wm wow w woo wm www .HMHUOmIchm mum mumms mDHU pmsw oQSOM m>ms H .mH oz chwumocD www m wm wo wow m me wm won Q wmw wm wow 0 wwm on wmm m www on wom fl whm wHw www .mHSmeEH mum muons msnp pmnp comm m>ma H .oH oz chuumocb www whommumo m w H EmpH mmmcommmm .omscdemwll.om mqmwe 303 m wow wow wn m wmo wo me 0 wow wHH wHw O wHo wow on m won ww wnH w wmm wo wHH .mHmn HMOHowE ozommn mum muons mono pony comm m>mn H .ow oz chuumocD mow m wo wHH woo m wm wo wHo o wm ww wow 0 wb ww wHo m wo wo wwo 4 wwH wHw wmm .msmfinoum Hmcoflposm saws mHmB coma mumm: osuo umnu comm m>mn H .ow oz chuHmocD mow m me wn won m on wo wwo Q wmw whH wwo O me ww wwo m on wo wmn « www me wmm .Homs may cu momfimp HMUHmmcm Op mommH mm: oust pmcu comm w>mn H .5m 02 othomocD mm» wuoomwmu m w H Eme mmmcommmm .omDQHpCOOII.om mqmme 304 m me wom on m wmm wow wmw 0 wow wm wow 0 woo wo on m won wo wHw 4 www me me “mBOAUom osuouxm an omong mm #mma cmo mumms oDHc asap comm m>ms H .ow mow chpnmosD oz m wHw me wHw m wmm wo wom m wmm wMH wwm O wow wh wmm m www me wow .QOApmNHHmhflomog w wom me wmw so wpmHOOm scum wmmeOmH an ow toms mumms oDHo pmsg comm m>ms H .ow oz CHmpHmocD mow m wwo on wo m wmm we w G wmo wo wow 0 wow wo wwH m who wo me w www wm wMH .HHom mp mpoHOOm Eomm ompMHomH on Op tom: mumms most pmnw comm m>mn H .nw oz chpHmocb mow mnoompmu m w H EopH momcogmwm .UOSQHfidOUII.om mqmde 305 m www wow wow m wmw on w a wom wmw wwH 0 www ww wOH m www wo me w wHo wmw wHH .hmmnmsw QSOHo 0p HHmB ocogmmu muons mayo wasp comm m>ms H .mm mow sHmpHmocD 02 m ww wo woo m wwH wo www Q wwH wm www O me ww www m wow wm wHw .sto w www wHw wmm ozwwwov cowwwowwwxowmo wawomog mw toms whom: most HHm wasp comm o>mc H .wm mow ooUHooth 02 m www on wh m wHo on wo a wow wwH wwH O www wwH wwH m www wo wo w was me wwH .mwmwooHogowmm mg mam: wcowmn mum mumms most pong comm o>mn H .om oz ckuHmocD mow whoompmo m w H EmpH mmmcommmm .omscH#COOIl.om mqmde 306 m wom wmm w m wmo on on a wmm wwH wwm O wwm wm wHw =.anw£ m www wo wmo map onx= mecmcmfinmm ow macpmspma w wmm wow www mMHH mpSpHquSm onuo #cmcmayom m cows mummd mono pmap comm m>mc H .om oz :HMhumocD mow m wmm wmw wow m wow wwH wmm D wmm wHH me O wow wm woo m who wm www .mwwucw wawmo w wow wHw wom HHme HoBOH Op ch0 pamfiwmmnp mem wHHMSms whom: ocuo wasp comm m>mg H .mm oz sHmpHmocD mow m wow me wmm m wow wHw wow 0 wom wmw on O wwo wwH wow m wwo wwH wmw m woo wHw wwH "mum muoms mono co mchmupmoH HmomH wasp comm o>mn H .wm wowuwm waowm wmmm 009 HHw OOH whommumo m w H EmpH mmmcommmm .UODQHpQOUII.om mqmdfi 307 m wow www www m wom wmw wmw a wow wwH www O wwo ww wow m wwo wo www =.uHan on» w wmm wow wow wowx= ow wwwumswum wcoswmmuw xmwm mwmm: mznt umnu tmocmHuwmxm m>ms H .om mow CHMpHmOCD oz m wwH wHH who m me wm wow o wHw wm wHo O www ww woo m wwo wo www .wwwsowwwwo Hmomw cw a wow wwH www www mot“ mmsmomn pcmfipmmuu muwmmo mumms oswo waxy omocmwummxm m>mz H .mm oz chunocD mm» muommpmu m w H EmyH mmeOQmmm .omsowwcoouu.om mamwo mmmumnummuumwwmnmwllwww ’