IuLmmumumwwyuwmw L

  
 
 
 
  

OVERDUE FIRES:
25¢ per day per item
RETURRIIE LIBRARY MATERIALS:

Phce 1n book return to remove
charge from circulation records

 

. M’iflfim
[A $51,114- 1 1
2 mi); ‘1 a: $555

 

MENTAL HEALTH AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS AMONG
URBAN NATIVE AMERICANS

BY

Frederick Wise

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1981

m 9...» I. «O

ABSTRACT

MENTAL HEALTH AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS
AMONG URBAN NATIVE AMERICANS

BY

Frederick Wise

The present study stemmed from two well-documented
assumptions concerning contemporary Native Americans: (1)
they have a high incidence of mental health problems; and
(2) their subculture provides strong familial and informal
support networks. In ‘view* of recent research indicating
that the absence of informal supports for coping with
stress may precipitate psychological distress and patholo-
gy, this investigation explored relationships between help-
sources utilized for ”personal“ problems and the mental
health and well-being of an urban (Grand Rapids, Michigan)
Native American sample.

Data were collected from 88 adult Native Americans (74
female/l4 male), all parents of currently enrolled school
children. They reported affiliations with the Ottawa,
Chippewa, and Potawatomi tribes. One respondent per family
completed a 90-minute survey interview designed to assess

current mental status, feelings of well-being, and the

Frederick Wise

nature and extent of their support systems.

The mental status/psychopathology measures were
derived from a widely used twenty-item symptom checklist.
Scales tapping psychological and physiological distress
included: Psychological Anxiety, Ill Health, Immobiliza-
tion, Drinking, Drug-taking, and a “Zest“ measure. Well-
being measures addressed satisfaction and happiness in
their lives, with themselves, and with such major life
roles as' parenthood and marriage. Brief Anomie and Self-
Esteem measures were also included. The nature and extent
of support networks were analyzed by assessing the number
of help-sources, both formal (professionals and/or
agencies) and informal (family, friends, neighbors, etc.),
that were contacted for personal problems. Ancillary data
regarding who was sought, the outcome of that interaction,
and its perceived reciprocality were also examined. Their
scores on the pathology measures, well-being scales, and
number of help-sources utilized were compared with data
from a nationwide survey using similar instruments and
conducted within the same time-frame (1977-78).

This urban Indian sample differed from the national
sample by manifesting: (l) greater psychological and
physiological distress; (2) greater Anomie (alienation);
and (3') substantially fewer informal supports. Evidence of
familial disorganization was also noted as approximately

half the sample were currently unmarried and represented

Frederick Wise

single-parent families. Few linkages were observed between
their pathology and/or satisfaction measures and either the
number of help-sources contacted or outcome of their help-
seeking interactions.

What emerged were significantly weaker than expected
traditional familial and informal support systems accompa-
nied by minimal reliance on formal supports. Considering
the relatively high degree of pathology observed and its
lack of correlation with help-sources, there appears a
marked discrepancy between the help they need and obtain.
This disparity may be both a precipitant in the etiology of
psychological impairment as well as a manifestation of the
stresses faced by Native Americans coping in an urban
environment. Implications of these findings for future
research and programming efforts to strengthen support

networks within an urban Indian community were discussed.

For Diane

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to
Professor John Hurley, dissertation and guidance committee
chairperson, for his support, encouragement, and friendship
throughout the work of this thesis. I am also grateful to
the other committee members; Dr. Terry Allen, Dr. Gary
Stollak, and Dr. John Humins for their participation and
continued help. I wish to thank William Cross for his
guidance and insight into Native American issues.

I am indebted to Dr. Paul Weikert for his assistance
in data analysis and Dr. Nora Evers for her editorial
efforts. A special word of thanks is due Dr. David Klingle
at the University of Michigan Survey Research Center for
his help in formulating constructive methods of dealing
with the voluminous data gathered in this study and willing-
ly providing comparative data from a national sample. I am
also grateful tolBeverly Newson for her organizational and
typing skills, and for her loving support.

I would like to especially acknowledge William Church,
Director of the Title IV program in Grand Rapids, for his
assistance in laying the groundwork for this study. The

Indian participants of this study also deserve my heartfelt

iii

appreciation for their cooperation and sharing’ of their
lives.

And finally, if there was one person without whom this
work would not have been completed, it is Diane. Her limit-
less source of energy, encouragement, and faith in this

work were true inspiration.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER

I THE PROBLEM O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . .
Focus and Justification . . . . .
Purpose of the Study . . . . . . .
Contributions and Implications . .
Overview of Thesis . . . . . . . .

II LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . .

Who is an Indian . . . . . . . . .
Urban Indians . . .
Mental Health and Related Problems

Alcoholism . . . . . . . . . .
Suicide . . . . . . . . . . .

Acculturation . . . . . . . . . .
Help-Seeking . . . . . . . . . . .

Who Seeks Help . . . . . . .
Who Provides Help . . . .
Ethnicity and Support Systems

Ethnicity and Utilization Patterns

Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . .

III “THODOLOGY O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Data Collection . . . . . . . . .

Page
vii

viii

\lmmmH H

on

13
14

16
21

23
29

30
31
34
37

39
41
41

44
46

Instrumentation . . . . . . .

Well-being . . .

Psychological and Physiological

Distress . . . . . . . .
Help-seeking . . . . . . .
Demographic Data . . . . .

Data analysis . . . . . . . .

Iv RESULTS 0 O O O O O I O O O O O 0

Descriptive Statistics . . . .

Demographic Data . . . . .
Help-seeking . . . . . .

Community and Social Support

Satisfaction . . . . . . .
Future Well-being . . . . .
Past Distress . . . . . . .
Worries and Unhappiness . .
Sample Comparisons . . . . . .

Well-being . . . . . . . . .

Psychological and
Physiological Distress . .

Help-Sources . . . . . . . .

Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . .

Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 3 . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 4 . . . . . . . .

V DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . .

The Sample . . . .
Mental Health and Well-being.
Support Systems . . . . . .

Hypotheses . . . . . . . .
Summary and Implications .
Limitations . . . . . . .

APPENDICES

BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O C O 0

vi

Page

LIST OF TABLES

Table

1.

2. Sample Comparisons of well-being Measures

3.

4.

Schedule of Interviews . . . . .

Sample Comparisons of Psychological

Distress Measures . . . . . . .

Sample Comparisons of Help-sources

vii

Page
’ 46
77

79
81

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page
A - Survey Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
B - Items Included in Analyses . . . . . . . . . . 174
Bl. Well-being Items . . . . . . . . 174

B2. Psychological and Physiological
Distress Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
B3. Demographic Data Items . . . . . . . . . . 178
B4. Help-seeking Items . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
C - List of Twenty Sympton Items . . . . . . . . . 182

viii

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

Introduction

Until approximately the last ten years, research on
the American Indian has largely consisted of cultural
studies conducted primarily by anthropologists (Waddell &
Watson, 1971) and historians (Vogl, 1972). Their foci was
generally a documentation of traditional tribal customs and
belief systems. While historically important, this kind of
research yields little information on the problems faced by
today's Indian populations and provides little insight into
how contemporary Indians cope with their everyday exis-
tance.

Recently, however, there has been an increased
interest on the part of behavioral scientists in examining
American Indians and in particular, the problems that face
them. Among numerous problems are employment, education,
family adjustment, and economic issues. Although such
matters present difficulties to most persons from time to
time, an overriding cultural factor often magnifies or
intensifies the process of adjustment that confronts the
American Indians. Thus, for reasons of employment, Indians

often move into cities where they are likely to encounter

prejudice, a weak system of social supports, and an
unfamiliar cultural environment.

In addition to the few studies on Indian populations
and their problems, there has been a concurrent increase in
the number of governmental programs designed to improve the
Indian's condition. Federal and state programs such as
Manpower, Indian Health Service, Relocation aid, and
educational assistance are just some examples.

The obvious question that arises is: Why, if so much
economic and technical assistance has been provided, do
American Indians in general continue to show up in social
statistics as having the highest unemployment rates,
highest alcoholism and substance abuse, highest suicide
rates, and lowest educational achievement of any ethnic
group? These statistics are staggering and in many cases
the magnitude of such problems is five to twenty times the
national average (American Indian Policy Review Commission,
1976).

The answer maypartially reside in the poor transla-
tion of social science research into viable and effective
programs designed to alleviate their Specific problems. For
example, these programs are often politically determined,
sometimes dictated by economic considerations, and in some
cases evolve to the deteriment of the people who supposed-
ly have benefited (i.e., Federal relocation and termination
policies, educational boarding schools, etc.).

Part may also lie in the focus of the programs and

3

research. Governmental programs tend to be aimed directly
at alleviating problems with distinctly less interest in
ascertaining their underlying causes (i.e., if Indians do
not have jobs, government has tended to allocate funds to
welfare or job-training programs such as Manpower or CETA).
Social scientists on the other hand, have characteristical-
ly been preoccupied with building theoretical relationships
between some aspect of Indian culture and their problems.
Unfortunately the cause-and-effect relationships that are
drawn from such studies are rarely translated into the more
difficult task of effective program design and implementa-
tion. A classic example of this type of research is seen in
studies attempting to explain specific problems found among
Indians in terms of their degree of assimilation or adapta-
tion into "white" culture. Little of this research has
pragmatic utility, however, as evidenced by the dismal
failure of attempts to alter rate of acculturation as seen
in Federal termination and relocation policies (Chadwick,
1972; Officer, 1971; Chadwick & Bohr, 1973; Graves, 1967).

To view Indian problems as a result of inadequate
assimilation also seems only to mask our ignorance of
underlying processes. Perhaps it is more useful to view
many of the aforementioned problems from a closer perspec-

tive, one that examines from within the culture the ways

 

that this population attempts to cope with life stresses.
Rather than assessing the failure of the Indian culture

within the context of the dominant white culture in

4
relation to economic and social levels or lack of assimila-
tion, this study attempts to investigate the support
systems that are used within the Indian subculture to cope
effectively in a white culture.

There is growing body of research that emphasizes the
strong relationship of mental health and well-being to
social and community support systems. Essentially, these
studies posit that the number and nature of supports
available through family, friends, neighbors, etc., may
have a significant impact on coping with mental health
problems (Clifford, 1974; Gurin et al., 1960; Litwak &
Szelenyi, 1969; Quarentelli, 1960; Liem & Liem, 1976;
Tolsdorf, 1976). Other research has found support systems
to be of special importance within ethnic minority communi-
ties (Glazer & Moynihan, 1963; Giordano, 1973; Liebowitz et
al., 1973; Suchman, 1964).

Much of the literature dealing with American Indians
and their culture also seems to imply that they provide
strong familial and ethnic support systems. In fact, many
of the "acculturation" theorists have posited that their
failure to effectively assimilate into majority "white”
culture is largely due to the strong kinship bonds that
exist and a related enhanced resistance to change tradition-
al Indian values (Graves 1967; Chadwick & Strauss, 1975;
Ablon, 1964). It seems paradoxical that Indians who
supposedly have such strong support systems continue to

manifest such extensive mental health and mental health

5
related problems. It is hoped by examining the nature of
the support systems within one urban Indian community and
their relationship to mental health, that a better under-
standing of how Indians cope with their problems will
emerge.
Focus and Justification

Several factors influenced this study's direction.
First, the rapid increase of American Indians moving into
rural and urban areas from reservation communities necessi-
tates adequate social statistics to effectively' identify
needs for remedial programs. Present demographic infor-
mation on this ethnic subgroup is notoriously poor (Murdock
8 Schwartz, 1978) and the most often used sources of infor-
mation are census data which may grossly underrepresent
this population by as much as fifty percent (Levitan &
Hetrick, 1971).

Second, there has been very little research concerning
the mental health problems of the American Indian.
Moreover, to the author's knowledge, no data has been
collected concerning helping networks and their relation-
ship to mental health variables among Indians.

Third, there are a great number of mental health and
mental health related problems found in this population.
These include alcoholism, suicide, unemployment, child
abuse, and marital and family discord.

Finally, there is a definite need to develop new ways

of looking at Indians and their problems. Despite the

6
targeting of Indian problems by social service delivery
agents and the considerable amount of money allocated to
this area, their problems of adjustment continue and in
some cases have increased (Fahey & Muschenhiem, 1965;

MacGregor, 1966).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to examine the relation-
ship between the mental health of American Indians in an
urban environment and the nature and extent of their formal
and informal helping networks. Of special importance are
the helping networks or support systems that are indigenous
within the Indian community. Specific foci of analysis will
include not only the quantity of helping resources an
individual has, but the quality of these contacts.
Variables such as relationship to respondent, whether or
not the helping relationship is reciprocal, and the outcome
of their help-seeking’ interactions will be examined. To
clarify the general demographic characteristics of this

population, descriptive statistics will be emphasized.

Contributions and Implications

This study is an attempt to further knowledge in the
area of Indian mental health, particularly as it relates to
an urban Indian population. Considering the magnitude of
their problems, there is clearly a dearth of pertinent

literature and especially in the area of how Indians

.7
attempt to cope with these problems. It is this author's
contention that the nature of coping mechanisms and
specifically how they seek help, from whom, and the
extensivity of their support relationships are extremely

important variables in resulting mental health status.

Overview of Thesis

 

This chapter includes a presentation of the general
problems, foci and justification for the study, and
purposes of the study. Chapter II is divided into three
sections; (1) a review of the literature relevant to
Indians and their mental health problems, (2) a review of
relevant social-support studies, particularly as they
relate to Indians, and (3) a development of hypotheses.
Chapter III consists of the methodology used in the study
including instrumentation, data collection, and the design
of the analyses. Chapter IV contains the results of the
analyses of data gathered in this study with relevant
tables. Chapter V is a discussion of the results, conclu-

sions, and implications for future research.

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

Who Is An Indian?

In contrast to any other cultural group in our
society, a person is not a "real" Indian for purposes of
Federal assistance unless s/he fits into categories defined
by the Federal government, including blood degree and
tribal status. To qualify for Federal Indian programs, a
person must be able to prove that s/he is at least one-
quarter Indian "blood", and his/her tribe must be one that
is officially "recognized" by the Federal government. For
other benefits and services, s/he must also reside on a
Federally—defined reservation.

American Indians are generally perceived as a
homogeneous group, a composite of certain physical and
personality characteristics which have become stereotypes
reinforced by the media. Trimble (1974) noted that the
common view of the American Indian is the media portrayal
of a person with black hair, brown skin, high cheekbones,
and most often dressed in. clothing typical of Indian life
one-hundred years ago. Bromberg and Hutchinson (1974) noted
petsonality characteristics of stoicism, nature/ecology

orientation, and non-competitiveness. History has seen

9
Indians alternately described as savages, nuisances,
objects of curiosity, research subjects for social
scientists, and people to be pitied and helped. More recent.
land, fishing, and water rights litigation have generated a
new view of Indians as persons to be feared, despised, or
envied (for oil moneys). ‘

Obviously, the idea that there is an "Indian" stereo-
type that could fit all or even most Native Americans today
is naive and simplistic, no more valid than any similar
attempt to describe a "white" person. Vine Deloria, an
Indian leader and author, sums up the frustration among
Indian people of this stereotyping: "People can tell just
by looking at us what we want, what should be done to help
us, how we feel, and what _a 'real' Indian is like.”
(Deloria, 1969).

There are, however, some important distinctions
regarding Native Americans which must be noted. One is the
wide disparity among tribes with respect to such variables
as size, geographic location, language, traditions and
customs, and fiscal and natural resources. There are over
400 tribes recognized by the Federal government, about 280
of which have a land base or reservation. There are also
tribes which have never been recognized by the Federal
government and tribes which have lost trust-status through
termination policy.

Just as tribes represent a wide range of characteris-

tics, so do Indian individuals. About half of the more than

10

one million Indians in the United States today live on
reservations, with the other half living in urban and rural
areas. Clearly, the social and cultural influences that
come to bear on these populations are very different. For
example, while the reservation group may have the benefit
of a number of Federally-supplied services, such as health
care, the urban group is often isolated from these
services. Indians living on reservations also continue to
have regular access to traditional customs, while those in
urban areas are generally cut-off from many Indian cultural
influences. Conversely, opportunities for employment and
higher education are often greater for Indians living in
urban areas.

Another difference among Indians is "quantum blood" or
biological "Indianness", referring to the degree of Indian
ancestry an individual possesses. Many Indians believe that
the arbitrary blood requirement of the government is a
dominant culture policy that has produced divisiveness and
dissension among Indians who have had to fight for limited
funds and services. In addition, it has provided an
economically advantageous excuse for not recognizing
certain individuals for trust-status benefits. Indeed, the
idea of legislating who is an ”Indian" is very foreign to
the Indian belief system; Indians "know" who is and is not
an Indian. While this is not to say that a universal
definition exists among tribes, or even among individual

Indians within a tribe, it points out that the issue in

11

most cases has not been theirs to decide. Indians also
represent a wide range of phenotypic characteristics with
respect to body size, skin and hair color, and facial
features. The conflict of cultural identity is often
increased for those Indians who do not fit the traditional
physical stereotype, as they may encounter prejudice and
rejection from both Indians and non-Indians alike.

Also to be considered is the degree to which an
individual has been assimilated into the dominant society.
Many Indian people live in isolated reservation areas with
little contact with the dominant society, often in very
primitive living conditions, and retaining their tradition-
al language and customs. Other Indians have "melted" into
the dominant culture and retain few if any traditional
beliefs, while still others have acculturated to the degree
that they exist comfortably within the dominant society,
but retain many of their original beliefs and practices.
What is emerging, particularly among urban Indians, is an
increasing pan-Indian identity, both as a means of
establishing ties with. those: of similar backgrounds and
experiences, and as an instrument for acquiring’ greater
political strength (Ablon, 1972; Price, 1972).

Thus, there are vast differences among Indian people
which challenge the stereotypes held by the dominant
culture. Yet, there is a pervasive view that Indians are
the way they were a century ago, and that an Indian is not

an Indian unless he lives on a reservation with a marginal

12

existence and maintains all traditional beliefs and
customs. Consistent with this belief is the view that for
an Indian to possess or desire the artifacts of our modern
world seems, in some way, to diminish his "Indianness". In
addition, there is still a tendency to view such traits as
education or affluence as antithetical to being Indian. In
fact, other than the romanticism of the "simple" life-
styles of Indians, rarely" does the dominant cultural
attribute success or positively valued behavior to Indians.
These views have obvious detrimental effects, not only on
the perpetuating aspects of stereotypes, but also on the
self-concepts of Indian children who often see economic and
educational advancement as a threat to their identity.

Paradoxically, there is also a belief that all Indians
want to be assimilated and supposedly "equal". This view
appears to be based on the assumptions that: (1) all
Indians are alike; and. (2) the dominant culture is better
and, therefore, Indians should want to be part of it. It is
as if the prerequisite for change is assimilation.

As Steiner (1968) noted, however, there is a great
deal of change occurring within Indian cultures. Many
Indians are becoming educated and are improving their
economic status despite the hindering aspects of negative
stereotypes. Concurrently, there is a: strong resistance to
assimilation, both among Indians- on reservations and in
urban areas (Ablon, 1972; Bowman, et al., 1975; Chadwick

and Strauss, 1975). This resistance attests to the strength

13

and belief in the values of Indian culture and traditions.

Urban Indians

A 1970 Census Report showed that 45% of all American
Indians lived in urban, off-reservation settings (Scaler,
1972). This was a 25% increase from 1960 and equalled an
urban population of 340,000. The total Indian population in
Michigan is 16,854 according to the 1970 census, .02% of
total Michigan residents. Estimates based on Manpower
surveys and school census figures, however, indicate the
actual number is closer to 35 to 40,000 (Crane, 1974).
Approximately 45% live in rural areas, 50% live in urban
areas, and 5% live on reservations.‘ According to the
American Indian Policy' Review' Commission (1976), Indians
have come to the cities in substantial numbers because of
acute problems on their reservations. They came in hope of
finding employment and to establish themselves successful-
ly, but unfortunately, many have been unable to find
security in the cities. In addition, Federal policies, such
as the Relocation Services Program (1952) and Termination
Act (1953), have encouraged Indians to move to metropolitan
areas since it was believed that relocation would assist
Indians in assimilating into the dominant white culture.
Another Federal policy that attempted to foster assimila-
tion was the removal of Indian children from their homes
and their relocation. in off-reservation boarding schools

(Brophy & Aberle, 1966; Goldstein, 1974; Chadwick, 1972).

14

In a review of rural and urban non-reservation
Indians, the American Indian Policy Review Commission
(AIPRC) stated:

“Federal program policies dedicated to the assimi-

lation of Indian people have created a situation

in which half a million people now' present a

cultural or legal paradox; they are neither

reservation nor urban, and neither culturally
stable nor assimilated. Government policies meant

to assimilate, if not eliminate, a portion of an

entire race of people, have created a large class

of dissatisfied and disenfranchised people who,

while being subjected to all the ills of urban

America, have been consistently denied services

and equal protection guaranteed under the Consti-

tution as well as by their rights as members of

Federal Indian Tribes... These Indian people are

predominantly located in Alaska, California,

Oklahoma, and Michigan.“ (Report on Urban and

Rural Non-Reservation Indians, 1976).

The fact that increasing numbers of urban Indians
encounter stresses such as unemployment, undereducation,
and maladjustment to a social and cultural environment that
is foreign and often contrary to their traditional belief
systems has led to an increased interest on the part of
social scientists in examining not only their problems, but

also how they deal with them.

Mental Health and Related Problems
Mental health problems among American Indians are
receiving increasing recognition. At the Third National
Conference on American Indian Health (1965), it was
reported that mental health was emerging as one of the

major health problems among American Indians. It was

15

estimated that "possibly 20-25% of the American Indian
population may be affected by some type of mental health
problem, ranging from major psychoses to personality
disorders.” Factors cited included disintegration of
American Indian culture, the transition in the way of life
from. previous predominant Indian culture to the present
social order of American society, and generally poor levels
of education, poverty, and disturbing childhood experiences
(Fahey & Muschenheim, 1965). At another conference
Alexander Leighton stated: ”There is scarcely a problem of
mental health in childhood, adolescence, family relation-
ships or community psychiatry that is not found among
them..." (Leighton, 1968).

Shore (1973) conducted an in-depth analysis of
psychiatric epidemiology in an American Indian tribe of the
Northwest coast. He examined over half of the adult
population by gathering information from a psychiatric
interview, a self-rating symptom checklist, impressions of
local physicians, and behavior ratings from significant.
others. He found high rates of psychiatric impairment with
the most common disturbances being alcoholism, depression
and anxiety, and psychophysiologic reactions. He also noted
the importance of tribal-specifice patterns, especially in
the area of psychophysiologic adjustment.

Using the Cornell Medical Index and the Langer Scale,
Martin et al. (1972) assessed emotional disturbance among

Indians in eastern Oklahoma. He found 29% of the population

16
to be psychiatrically impaired. This compared to the 23%
rate of impairment for whites that was found in the Midtown
Manhattan study (Srole et al., 1962).

Borunda and Shore (1978) cited a 1972 survey of
Indians living in the Portland, Oregon area. They reported
that 32% of the respondents regarded mental health problems
as serious in their population. They also found that 78%
reported alcoholism as a major health problem while 48%
viewed drug abuse in the same category. The respondents
stressed the need for mental health education and for
direct services to counter alcoholism, drug addiction, and
general mental health problems --such as anxiety ,
depression, and maladjustment.

Bryde (1970) hypothesized that the poor educational
achievement found among Indian students compared to white
students was the result of personality problems caused by
"psycho-cultural conflict" during adolescence. Using the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), he
compared these groups and found that the Indian students
had greater personality disruption and poorer adjustment,
especially on dimensions judging depression, anxiety,
tendency to withdraw, feelings of rejection and alienation,

and social and emotional isolation.

Alcoholism

 

A mental health related problem that has received a

large share of publicity and research attention is

17

alcoholism. Interest has been focused on this problem not
only because of its severity and alarming magnitude among
the American Indian population, but because it continues to
exist in spite of concentrated efforts by Federal and state
government agencies to deal with it. The "drunken Indian”
is probably one of the most common stereotypes given to
American Indians. While this view may be detrimental to a
more holistic and accurate perception, it is sadly not
without foundation. The American Indian Policy Review
Commission stated:

”Nowhere is the effect of alcohol and drug misuse

more prevalent and visible than among the

American Indian and Alaska natives... The Indian

people, individually, and through their tribal

leadership and health boards, have identified the
destructive use of alcohol and drugs as the most
important and pressing problem which they face
today. It has an adverse affect upon all aspects

of their health, cultural, social, and economic

existence" (AIPRC, 1976).

Mail and McDonald (1977) presented an extensive
annotated bibliography of studies relating to alcohol use
and abuse among American Indians. They categorized it into
four areas that included: (1) the identification and
exploration of native American drinking patterns, (2) the
investigation of biological/physiological aSpects of Native
American alcohol consumption, (3) the history of alcohol
use among Native Americans, and (4) the development of

treatment/therapy programs aimed at alleviating alcohol

abuse among Native Americans. While it is beyond the scope

18
of this paper to revieW' all the literature relevant to
alcohol use among American Indians, at least some of it
should be mentioned to highlight the problem.

Death rates due to (alcoholism, alcoholic psychosis,
and alcoholic cirrhosis on 24 Federal reservations were
6.9% of the total deaths seen in the population in 1973.
This equalled 4.3 to 5.5 times the 0.8. average for all
races (AIPRC, 1976). Sievers (1968) found the rate of
"heavy drinking" among Southwest Indians to be 52.5% for
men and 24.4% for women compared to 14.0% and 3.9%, respec-
tively, for the ‘white population. Shore (1973) reported
that 27 out of 100 Indians studied in a Northwest tribe
were considered alcoholics. Another Northwest tribe was
studied by Swanson (1971), who concluded that alcohol was
estimated to present serious social and physical problems
for 75% of the reservation Indians.

In addition to death rates attributable to alcohol
consumption, there are a number of other serious problems
related to alcohol among American Indians. Stewart (1964)
found that in Denver, American Indian arrest rates due to
drunkenness were twelve times higher than those for other
' minority groups. Ferguson (1970) studied Navajos in Gallup,
New Mexico. She found that 118 subjects in her study
accounted for 1196 arrests in eighteen months. She further
reported that 92% of all arrests in Gallup were of
intoxicated Indians. A( report. of Price (1975) indicated

that for the United States in 1968, Indians had an

l9

alcohol-related arrest rate 21.7 times that of Whites and 9
times that of Blacks. He also noted that of all Indian
arrests, 75% were for drinking related offenses. His
statistics revealed that although the majority of these
arrests were for ”drunkenness", multiple arrests of
individuals were common. He found the urban Indian rate to
be 38 times greater than the rural rate. Wax (1971)
reported that in South Dakota one-third of the prison
population was Indian (many for alcohol related crimes),
although Indians accounted for only 5% of the state
population.

The AIPRC report (1976) linked a number of other
problems related to alcohol abuse among Indians, including
child and wife abuse, juvenile deliquency, and family
discord. Other researchers also reported high rates of
alcoholism and alcohol-related problems (Honigman &
Honigman, 1968; Ferguson, 1968; Whittaker, 1962; Graves,
1969; Brod, 1975; Sorkin, 1971).

A number of explanations regarding the etiology of
alcohol abuse and related problems have been posited. Among
them are: (1) problems in developing adequate and culture-
fair definitions of alcohol abuse (Keller & Seely, 1968;
Brod, 1975; Savard, 1968; Westermeyer, 1974); (2) prejudi-
cial arrest rates (Stratton, 1973; Brod, 1975); (3)
predisposing psychological variables (Hoffman & Jackson,
1973; Kline et al., 1973; Williams, 1975); (4) physiologi-

cal predisposition or innate lack of tolerance for alcohol

20

(WOlff, 1973; Fenna et al., 1973; Bennion & Li, 1976); and
(5) its functional social adaptative qualities (Waddell,
1971; Devereauxq 1948; Heath, 1964; Ferguson, 1971;
westermeyer, 1974; Brody, 1971; Rohner, 1970; Hamer, 1965).
The focus of most studies, however, is the relationship
between alcohol consumption or alcohol abuse and the
stresses and anxiety endemic to Indian populations. The
bulk of this research focuses on stresses associated with
acculturation or assimilation into white society
(Whittaker, 1962; Ferguson, 1968; Honigman & Honigman,
1968; Graves, 1967; Hamer, 1965; Query & Query, 1972;
Stull, 1973; Topper, 1973). These studies essentially
attribute alcohol abuse among Indians to such factors as:
(1) lack of access to the economic means of the dominant
culture, (2) lack of traditional tribal controls and
sanctions against drinking, (3) the stress encountered in a
transition from one cultural system to another, (4) lack of
familiarity with urban environments, and (5) the absence of
positively reinforcing social situations.

Not all researchers, however, support the blanket
notion that Indians have serious alcohol problems or that
their consumption of alcohol should be termed maladaptive.
For example, Westermeyer (1974) reviewed the literature
relevant to alcohol usage among Indians and noted that: (1)
theme are considerable inter— and intraftribal differences
in alcohol usage with some groups both higher and lower

than national averages; (2) the relationship between

21

alcohol and the social problems of Indians is not clearly
cause and effect, (3) studies dealing with physiological
predispositions to alcohol usuage suffer from methodologi-
cal problems, and (4) there is a problem with defining what
constitutes alcohol abuse. Rohner (1970) reported that
among the Kwakiutl of British Columbia, alcohol was used to
relax normally constricted interpersonal communication.
Daily (1968) observed similar behavior with the Huron tribe
and concluded that alcohol served an important function in
Indian societies which valued vision-quest, dreams,
trances, and related experiences. Heath (1964) reported
that alcohol contributed to social integration among the
Navajo, and Brod (1975) cited a number of studies that
posited that drinking among Indians serves an important
social function and, in some cases, contributes to their
feelings of ”Indianness'.

Although the research on the alcohol usage of American
Indians is varied in its focus and conclusions, the magni-
tude and severity of alcohol and related problems noted by
many authors underlines its importance as a mental health
problem. This is true whether or not it is a cause of

problems or the effect of internal or external factors.

Suicide
Suicide is another major and sometimes related
problem. Resnick and Dizmang (1971) found that for some

reservations the suicide rate was five to ten times the

22
national average. Cutler and Morrison (1971) studied sudden
deaths in British Columbia and found Indians to have almost
three times the number of suicides that non—Indians had. .
Shore (1975) also reported high rates of suicide for a
number of Indian tribes, but stated that there were
significant differences among these groups. Conrad and Hahn
(1974) also noted wide differences among tribes. In their
study of suicides among the Papago, they found suicide
rates to be higher than other ethnic groups and that those
involved were usually of the 20 to 45 age range group. They
also speculated that since nine of the ten victims were
men, males may have greater stresses due to their poorly
defined social role as a result of acculturation (i.e.,
Anglo priests have replaced spiritual leaders, physicians
replaced medicine men, and welfare has replaced the male's
role as breadwinner). Further support for the acculturation
hypothesis was seen in the fact that 80% of the suicides
were commited by people living in or near urban areas and
thus exposed to greater acculturation stress. This view was
echoed by Bynum (1972) in a review of recent trends in
suicide among American Indians. He concluded that the
Indian, especially young males, is a classic example of
Stonequist's "marginal man" (1937). That is, he is a member
of two different cultures and yet not totally committed or
accepted by either. Attempts at bicultural loyalty often
result in tension and maladjustment. In turn, this has led

to a sense of alienation, isolation, and aggression which

23
often is turned inward and ends in suicide.

In a review of the literature pertaining to suicide
among American Indians, May and Dizmang (1974) noted that
most current studies show suicide to be a behavior of
younger persons. They cited causes as social disorganiza-
tion, cultural conflict, and breakdown of family structure.
This last cause is of particular importance as it has been
noted in other studies as a precipitating factor in
suicide. Dizmang et a1. (1974) studied case histories of
adolescents who had. committed suicide and compared them
with a control group from the same tribe. They found that
most suicidal adolescents came from an unstable and chaotic
family background. Levy (1965) supported this finding by
noting that marital trouble was a frequent motive for
suicide among Navajo adults. He also reported that in
forty-seven percent of the suicides he studied, alcoholic
intoxication was a factor. Mindeland and Stuart (1969)
examined twenty-five suicide attempts on the Pine Ridge
Indian Reservation and reported similar evidence for family
variables as precipitating stresses. Specifically, they
found that fifty-two percent felt rejected by a significant
other and sixteen percent blamed interference in family

matters by relatives.

Acculturation

 

Why do Indians have these problems? The bulk of the

research concerning causes deals with acculturation

24

(Linton, 1940 and 1963; Vogt, 1957; Chadwick & Strauss,
1975; Graves, 1969; Jessor et al., 1960; Dohrenwend &
Smith, 1962; Walker, 1972; Spindler, 1955; Paredes, 1973;
Hallowell, 1960). This is probably due to a widely held
assumption that many of the problems of an ethnic minority
can best be explained by cultural dynamics. It seems
elitist, however, to define as deviant or pathological
those behaviors and attitudes that do not conform to those
of the dominant culture. Basically, most of these studies
sought to relate certain problems such as alcoholism,
delinquency, and unemployment to level of acculturation.
These levels are usually operational definitions that used
variables such as number of white friends, acceptance of
white culture, or marital assimilation as criterion
variables.

Wagner (1976), for example, examined the role of
inter-marriage in the acculturation of urban Indian women.
She posited that intermarriage with whites was a valid
measure for estimating extent of acculturation. Her study
showed that acculturation level linked strongly with
frequency of contact with other Indian community members.
This acculturation level appeared to depend on such factors
as the influence of Indian parents' wishes for their
children to become assimilated, family relationships, and
personal identification as an Indian.

Lefly (1976) studied two Florida tribes, the Big

Cypress Seminoles and the Miccosukee Tribe, with different

25
levels of acculturation (the latter being less acculturat-
ed). She found that the less acculturated Miccosukees
showed a higher sense of positive self-regard. Her
conclusions were that when social disintegration occurs,
positive self-regard becomes milieu-specific rather than
culture-specific.

An intensive study of the adjustment of Navajo
migrants to Denver, Colorado by Graves (1970) provides some
valuable insights into some of the correlates of accultura-
tion stress. He studied 259 male Navajo Indian migrants to
Denver, many of whom were part of a "relocation" program
designed to train Indians for off-reservation jobs. The
focus of his investigation was their alarmingly high arrest
rates (20 times that of whites), and especially those for
alcohol-related offenses (93% of all Navajo arrests). He
concluded that the high drinking rates observed in Indians
compared to other urban ethnic groups was due primarily to
their poor preparation for successful and unstressful urban
living (acculturation stress). He also stated that as many
as 50% of the Indian migrants did not have drinking
problems and that this was primarily accounted for by
social and psychological factors that helped them deal with
the stress of adapting to a new socioeconomic environment.

Stull (1973) proposed that rapid modernization
produced increased levels of psychological stress in the
Papago Indians residing in Tucson, Arizona. Accidental

injury and alcohol use were assumed to be valid social

26

indicators of psychological stress. ”Modernity,” or level
of acculturation, was operationalized in terms of the type
of occupation that these urban Indians held. Correlations
between ”modernity“ and the psychological stress indicators
proved non-significant, leading the investigator to
conclude that not only is modernization a multidimensional
process, but that the social indicators of stress (alcohol
use and accident rate) are probably inadequate and may be
only partial manifestations of a much larger group of
stresses found in the urban environment.

Acculturation stresses have also been linked to
mobility statistics for Indians living in urban environ-
ments. Ablon (1965) estimates that as many as 50% of the
Indians she studied in San Francisco eventually returned to
their reservations. Bigony (1975) examined reasons for
Indians moving into the Detroit, Michigan area. She report-
ed that those Indians with vocational skills found steady
employment, lived in nuclear housholds, had optimistic
attitudes toward white society, and, consequently, remained
in the city. Conversely, those migrants without such skills
did not find regular employment and tended to move in and
out of poverty areas of the city with many also moving back
and forth between city and rural or reservation areas. In a
similar study of Indians living in Chicago, Garbarino
(1971) noted that families with a stable background,
employment, and a strong family head had relatively few

adjustment problems, while those families characterized by

27
divorce, excessive drinking, illness, or unemployment did
not adapt well to the urban environment.

The theme of loss of traditional culture and a
concurrent inability to embrace or fit into the dominant
culture is also seen in the work of other researchers.
French (1976) concluded from his study of the social
problems of Cherokee women that they experienced a loss of
their traditional heritage and a lack of access to the
substitute white culture that led to cultural and social
normlessness and a confused role identity. Typical
consequences cited included violence, alcoholism, physical
illness, mental disorders, and family disorganization.
Meyer (1974) pointed out that these stresses are especially
powerful on young Indians who have left the reservation and
are thus caught in conflicting value systems. Symptoms of
stress often result from conflict with an earlier identity
that was equally valid in an earlier context.

Not all studies regarding acculturation or assimila-
tion are clearcut, however. As Leighton (1963) noted,
change is not necessarily a predisposing factor to psycholo-
gical distress, although sociocultural disintegration might
very well be. Barger (1977) studied Eskimo and Cree Indians
in a Northern Canadian settlement and reported no universal
relationship between change and adjustment (or maladjust-
ment).'He concluded that any relationship between them was
case-specific and due to the situational and cultural

contexts of change. Clinton et al., (1975) has even posited

28
a positive relationship between change and adjustment in
their research on "relocated” Indians. They found that
urban relocation was related to an improvement in employ-
ment, income, housing and perceived quality of life.

Further confounding this issue is the fact that
despite considerable efforts to acculturate or assimilate
Indians into the dominant culture, there remains a large
segment of this population that is very resistant to such
efforts (Ablon, 1972; Bowman et al., 1975; Chadwick 8
Strauss, 1975). It should not be forgotten that Indian
culture has withstood removal from traditional lands,
attempts at extermination, boarding schools, assimilation
attempts such as federal ”termination” and "relocation"
policies and other direct attacks. Busnell (1968) underlin-
ed this concept in his research on the Hupa by noting that,
although their culture is largely American, an unique sense‘
of ethnic identity endures.

Regardless of the research correlating specific
problems with acculturation, it is clear that many
researchers believe it to be an important factor bearing on
the mental health of the American Indian. This is perhaps
summarized best in a report to‘ the Office of Economic
Opportunity on American Indian mental health:

"It is the thesis of this report that the

cultures of American Indians have been overwhelm-

ed, leaving the people stunned and disorganized

because they must adopt to and live within the

context of surrounding American society...The
pressure for assimilation which the Federal

Government has exerted on the Indians and the

29

imbalance between their acceptance of ‘material

aspects of American life and their confusion

about American social institutions and values,

have led to serious psychological problems"

(MacGregor, 1966).

Help-Seeking

A number of studies have investigated the prevalence
of psychological problems in the American population and
its relationship to’ seeking help. The Midtown Manhattan
study (Srole et al., 1962), the Stirling County study
(Leighton, 1959), the national surveys of mental health and
quality of life conducted by Gurin et a1. (1960) and Veroff
et al., (1981), and the Phillips' study (1966) of mental
health hospital admissions all concluded that as much as
50% of the American public who are ”psychologically
impaired“ never seek help from a professional source. These
statistics are often magnified for lower socioeconomic and
ethnic minority groups (Hollingshead & Redlich, 1958; Gurin
et al., 1960; Rosenblatt & Mayer, 1972; Sue et al., 1978;
Overall & Aronson, 1963; Crawford 1966; Miller, 1966;
Andrulis, 1977).

Barriers to utilization of mental health services are
varied and include such variables as sex, age, race, socio-'
economic status, personality factors inhibiting help-seek-
ing, lack of availability of sources, degree of impairment,
and awareness of problems (Gurin et al., 1960; Mechanic &

Volkart, 1961; Suchman, 1964; Landy, 1960; Brown, 1978;

Kadushin, 1969; Tolsdorf, 1976; Gottlieb, 1976).

30

Who Seeks Help

Considering the large percentage of the population who
could use professional mental health services but never
find their way into that delivery system, who then does
seek out help? The key variables that differentiate help-
seekers from non-seekers are sex, age, race,and social
class. Gurin et a1. (1960) found that females more often
have sought help in the past and were also less inclined to
adopt a self-help position when considering future alterna-
tives to deal .with stress. These investigators also
reported that as people get older, they are less likely to
seek help. Murdock and Schwartz (1978) confirmed these
findings related to age for a Native American population.
They also cited family structure as particularly important
in that. elderly with fewer social contacts tend to seek
help less often than both younger persons and elderly with
strong family ties. Brown (1978) examined the relationship
of help-seeking behavior to such variables as personal
resources, social networks, demographic background, and
psychological barriers to seeking help. He concluded that
the only demographic variables that consistently
differentiated help-seekers and nonseekers were age and
race. Both the elderly and ethnic minorities showed
significantly fewer help-seeking behaviors, particularly
with respect to informal contacts. Other researches have
found help-seeking more prevalent among Whites than Blacks

(Gurin et al., 1960; Rosenblatt s. Mayer, 1972; Crawford,

31
1966) or Chicanos (Rogaski & Edmundson, 1971; Karno &
Edgerton, 1969).

Social class is another variable that has been linked
to help-seeking and one that also often relates to ethnici-
ty. Several investigators have noted that the higher ones'
social class, the more likely one is to seek help (Asser,
1978; Rosenblatt & Suchman, 1964; Kadushin, 1969; Imber et
al., 1955; Hollingshead & Redlich, 1958; Fisher 8 Cohen,
1972). This is consistant with the findings of Gurin et
a1. (1960), Kammeyer and Bolton (1968), and Srole et a1.
(1962) reported that the majority of those who seek
professional help for psychological problems are white,
middle-class, educated, and female. As Ideberman and
Glidewell (1978) noted, however, the severest life strains
are found among young females of 123g; socioeconomic
status, indicating the dissociation of use and need for

service.

Who Provides Help

In their formulations of theories of community mental
health, Blackman‘ and Goldstein (1968) posited that the
likelihood of a person becoming "disabled" or psychological-
ly impaired is related to their patterns of interaction
with their social community. This has been supported by the
many studies addressing the role of community, neighbor-
hoods, and social networks in the epidemiology and

management of mental illness (Warren, 1963; Warren &

32
Clifford, 1975; Sharp & Axelrod, 1956; Gans, 1962; Stack,
1974).

Specific causal relationships are difficult to
pinpoint because of the many possible social factors
influencing mental health, but some researchers have
theorized it is not so much inclusion in these networks,

but exclusion from them, that generates psychopathology

 

(Levy & Visotosky, 1969; Meyers & Bean, 1968.; Blackman &
Goldstein, 1968; Gans, 1969). As Gans states:

"... my findings suggest that the major sources

of stress are not to be found in the community,

but in being left out of it, excluded from activi-

ties and relationships... social isolation is the

main source of stress.” (Gans, 1969, p. 239)

One can argue that the plight of minorities and economical-
1y disadvantaged people is in part accounted for by their
social isolation.

Therefore, it follows that the individual's social
network is an important variable affecting how the person
experiences stress. It not only helps define the nature of
that stress, but it is the most immediately accessible
resource to help deal with that stress. As Clifford states:

"The community and its support systems can be

seen to be an important causal factor in the

differential prevalence and incidence of problems
among various segments of the population and an

important component in explaining differences in
coping patterns." (Clifford, 1976, p. 59)

The majority of people perceive their social network

33

to be a primary source of help for ”problems”, especially
those of a psychological nature (Wellman, 1971; Gurin et
al., 1960; Litwak & Szelenyi, 1969). As defined here, the
social network consists of informal sources of help such as
family, friends, and neighbors as opposed to formal sources
of help that might include physicians, clergy, psycho-
logists, psychiatrists, and social workers. The importance
of these informal social support systems is underlined by
the findings that most people initially consult informal
sources for help (Gourash, 1978), that they rely on
informal more than formal sources of help (Brown, 1978;
Gurin et al., 1960), and that formal sources of help tend
to be contacted only after informal sources have proven
inadequate (Kadushin, 1969; Quarentelli, 1960).

The functions of these informal helping networks are
varied. In reviewing recent help-seeking literature,
Gourash (1978) posited that social network members affect
help-seeking in such ways as: (l) buffering the experience
of stress to obviate the need for help; (2) precluding the
necessity for professional assistance through the provision
of instrumental and affective support; (3) acting as
screening and referral agents to professional services; and
(4) transmitting attitudes, values, and norms about
help-seeking.

Who constitutes these informal social networks? Gurin
et a1. (1960) found that for general worries, 56% turned to

spouses for help. Lieberman and Mullan (1978) studied a

34
sample of Chicago area residents and reported mates were
chosen most often, followed by friends and relatives. They
noted that neighbors were rarely turned to for help. Sharp
and Axelrod (1956) expanded the sphere of helping
relationships to family and extended family. In a Detroit
study, they found that 70% of the couples interviewed had
exchanged aid with relatives outside the immediate
household. The relationships that these people reported
with neighbors and friends were viewed as less important in
terms of mutual aid. Brown (1978) classified a sample of
people who had sought help for a range of problems into
those who sought formal, informal, or both sources of help.
He found that 48% contacted only family and friends
(informal) for help or advice regarding problems. Although
these studies varied in terms of type of problem for which
help was sought, what was viewed as help-seeking, and
categorization of help-sources, it appears that families,
and especially spouses are important and often-used sources

of support.

Ethnicity and Support Systems

The importanoe of social networks for ethnic minority
communities is well-documented. Their extensiveness was
underlined in Beyond the Melting Pot (Glazer & Moynihan,
1963), a study of ethnic neighborhoods in New York City. In

a review entitled Ethnicity and Mental Health, Giordono

 

(1973) also stressed the importance of community support

35

systems and their relevance to future programming efforts
designed to deal with mental health problems. Stack (1974)
described elaborate networks of supportive relationships in
her study of a poor, black community. Liebowitz et a1.
(1973) studied Portland (Oregon) Jewish families and found
that the nuclear family was by far the most often relied
upon help source for diverse problems (personal, financial,
emploment, etc.). Suchman (1964) reported similar findings
for medical problems.

Much of the literature dealing with American Indians
has also implied that these social networks, and particular-
ly family support systems, play a central role. In a paper
on the strengths of the Indian family, Attneave (1977)
stated that all tribes are based on the family unit and
that this unit's destruction (i.e., by children leaving for
boarding schools) was a threat to the integrity of future
cultural values. This concept was echoed by several authors
in a book entitled The Destruction of American Indian
Families (Unger, 1977).

Ablon (1964) studied urban Indian migrants in the San
Francisco area. She noted that for those new to the city,
Indian organizations were important institutions in that
they helped the migrant adjust to the new environment in
such areas as employment, residence, and developing social
contacts. As these people became adjusted, the‘ formal
institutions were less important and. were replaced. with

kinship/friendship networks.

36

Snyder (1971) also noted the importance of informal
social interaction patterns within an urban Indian
community in Denver, Colorado. One interesting finding was
that 52% of his sample had social support contacts before
moving to the city and an additional 16% were followed by
their reference group. Once in Denver, 66% of their interac-
tions were taken up with members of their tribe (Navajo)
and an additional 14% by other Indians. He concluded that
social support networks were primary factors in their well-
being and continued existence in the urban setting.

In a description of Indian family networks, Redhorse
(1978) emphasized the family's importance in preserving
mental health. Specifically, he posited that the indivi-
dual's mental health is related to a sense of selfhood that
is transmitted primarily through family socialization and
depends on a strong adherence to traditional cultural
values.

Molohon (1977) studied Indian students and their
families in San Francisco. She reported that the solidarity
of these families, their linkages to kin on reservations,
and the emotional support provided by the family, indicated
that a strong kinship affect was their primary motivation
for behavior. This affect not only assured kin allegiances,
but helped them deal with the pressures of migration,
geographic separation, and rapid social change.

The social support networks indigenous to Indian

cultures have also been linked to therapeutic outcomes. Fox

~37
(1960) examined the continuity of psychiatric care in
Indian cultures and hypothesized that the strength of
informal social supports provided a means for continous
reinforcement of "cure" after treatment and reduced the

incidence of relapses.

Ethnicity and Utilization Patterns

Informal social networks become even. more important
when one considers how ethnic minorities relate to
professional agencies. Despite the fact that one of the
stated purposes of community mental health centers is to
provide services for traditionally underserved groups, such
as ethnic minorities and lower socioeconomic clients, these
groups continue to underutilize such resources (Andrulis,
1977). For example, Crawford (1966) found that low income
and poorly educated blacks did not use conventional treat-
ment resources. Rogaski and Edmundson (1971) reported that
Mexican Americans, infrequently use mental health facili-
ties. There is also evidence that minorities, when they are
admitted to such institutions as mental hospitals, tend to
present more severe psychopathology than white populations
(Kramer et al., 1973), or are diagnosed as more disturbed
than dominant culture clients with equivalent pathology
(Weclew, 1975; Bergman, 1977). The reasoning behind this is
that minority groups may tend to wait as‘ long as possible
and exhaust all informal resources, before asking for

outside help.

38

Relatively few studies have addressed how Indians
utilize mental health facilities. Anecdotal evidence for
strong familial support systems, coupled with a distrust of
dominant culture institutions, have often been presented as
reasons, for underutilization (Suchman, 1964). While these
are seemingly reasonable assertions, hard empirical support
is lacking. As noted by Murdock and Schwartz (1978) who
cited a 1971 Special Senate Committee on Aging report, ,“We
are appalled to discover that statistics for many matters
of vital concern to Indians and those who work with Indians
are inadequate, inaccurate, or not available at all."

Murdock and Schwartz (1978) examined the relationship
between social support available to elderly Native
Americans (Pueblos) and their utilization of social
services. They found that although usage was tied to
extensivity of family contacts, few used these agencies
despite clear needs.

Miller (1978) documented similar underutilization
patterns for Indian parents of developmentally disabled
children in Los Angeles. It seemed to stem from institution-
a1 barriers, lack of transportation, dissatisfaction with
services, and cultural factors.

Sue et a1. (1978) surveyed seventeen community mental
health centers in Seattle in an effort to account for the
utilization patterns of ethnic minorities. They reported no
evidence of inferior treatment for Indians, but a much

higher rate of failure to return for therapy than held for

39
Anglos. They concluded that the mere fact that there was an
equality of services did not necessarily indicate a

responsiveness to the needs of ethnic and minority groups.

Hypotheses

If the family and social networks are major forms of
support, as suggested by prior research, why is there still
such a high incidence of mental health problems among
Indians in general? Utilization figures suggest that
contemporary mental health delivery systems are not meeting
their needs. Should it be inferred that the family and
social networks are also not functioning well? Considering
the extreme importance of kinship bonds among Indians, and
their isolation from majority culture values, one would
assume that there would be a strong reliance upon each
other within the community. Despite the research that
emphasizes the high stresses that Indians face in urban
settings, some Indians appear to adjust successfully
without developing either alcholism or psychopathology. It
is this study's purpose to examine one factor that may
contribute to their ability to "cope" with urban stresses,
the nature of support-seeking and support availability in
their community.

This study has two major foci: (1) a general
assessment of adjustment, mental health, and well-being;
and (2) an exploration of support systems. Jointly

considered, they permit investigation of the relationship

40

between adjustment problems and help-seeking patterns. The

following hypotheses will be examined:

1.

There is a positive correlation between the number
of helping-resources and satisfaction or happiness
in each of the principal life roles (marriage,
parenthood, employment).

There is a negative relationship between the
number of helping-resources and the psychopatho-
logy measures.

Urban Indians rely more on informal than formal
sources of help.

Fewer helping-resources will be reported by
persons who perceive the outcome of help-seeking
as negative than by those who report more positive

outcomes.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

This chapter will describe the sample population used
in-this study, the staff that assisted in data collection,
the data collection procedures, the instruments and their

previous use, and the design of the analysis.

Sample

The population selected was a group of American
Indians living in the urban area of Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Because of the difficulty of selecting a true random sample
or a stratified random sample, a special note about the
selection procedure is needed. The data base for a random
sample was almost non-existent, or at best under-representa-
tive for Indians. Census data are notoriously poor, in many
cases approximating only 50% of the actual population
(Levitan & Hetrick, 1971). Additionally, Indians are
characteristically wary of question-asking strangers and a
fear of prejudice often affects their willingness to even
be identified as Indians. A compounding problem is that
many community census figures indicate only white, black,
or other.

In light of these problems, and short of conducting a

41

42

very expensive complete survey of the total community, this
study used a sample of Indians taken from a list compiled
by the Title IV (Part A) Indian Education Program in the
Grand Rapids area. The list included all Indian parents who
had children in school in the Grand Rapids area in 1977.
Estimates from the Grand Rapids Inter-Tribal Council and
the Title IV Indian education director indicated that this
comprised approximately 80% of all Indians in Grand Rapids.
These records were up-to-date at the beginning of the
school year, although data collection was in the summer
following that school year. The criterion for inclusion in
these records was a self-reported ethnic identification of
at least one-quarter Indian by the parents of children
enrolled in the Grand Rapids public school system. This
self-report data was gathered during enrollment of the
children in school.

Initially the sample was stratified by dividing the
city into five sections, according to relative density of
Indian population. Each household in the five sections was
assigned a number according to their position in the
central list of families. Using a random. number generator
in a pocket caculator, 85 household numbers were chosen
which represented the target sample of 75 plus 10 extra to
make up for attrition. However, as data collection
proceded, it became obvious that an adequate sample size
would never be obtained due to a number of factors, includ-

ing: (1) refusal to be interviewed; (2) difficulty in

43
reaching subjects at home; and (3) subjects moving with no
forwarding address. It was then decided to modify the
sample by including everyone that could be contacted in the
total group of one hundred and fifty-one families. Eighty-
eight families were finally contacted in the two and one-
half months of data. collection. There 'were twenty-three
families who had moved with no forwarding address or moved
to a place where it was not feasible to contact them,
eleven families who could not be reached after five
attempts (interviewer going to their house), six families
who had been incorrectly identified as Indians, eleven
refusals to be interviewed, and twelve interviews excluded
from the analysis because of unreliable data. It is assumed
that this attrition of sample size did not bias the results
since none of the factors contributing to the attrition are
logically related to help-seeking behavior. It. could. be
argued, however, that the subsample with a high mobility
rate and those who refused to be interviewed. may have
different help-seeking behavior or perhaps different rates
of pathology than the rest of the Indian population. The
results then, should be reviewed with this in mind since
little can be done to alter mobility or refusals and this
study made every conceivable effort to contact those
people. A special note concerning those subjects who
refused to be interviewed is included in the Data Collec-

tion section of this chapter.

44

Conspicuously absent from this sample are the single/
away-from-family, and married with no children groups.
These groups are extremely difficult to locate because of
their high mobility as noted in other studies (Stanbury,
1975; Ablon, 1964) and frequently have little contact with
other Indians.

As has been noted, prior research seems to point to
the conclusion that if mental health problems occur, help
is usually sought within the confines of family and
friends. This provides further justification for using a
sample of families, although its generalizability may be
somewhat limited. It is also important that this sample is
of an urban population, since the majority' of American
Indians fit into this category and their numbers are
increasing (Scaler, 1972).

This study was funded by the Indian Education Program
who provided initial information about the sample. In
exchange for demographic information regarding the sample,
they supplied the interviewers for the study. All coding,
data analysis, and interpretation were the responsibility

of the author.

_S_t_a£§_
Because of the difficulty in getting Indians to answer
survey questions, and especially those of a personal
nature, initially only Indian interviewers were used. The

three interviewers were all Indians living in the Grand

45

Rapids area and all had some previous experience working
with the Indian population there. For example, two of the
interviewers had worked with an Indian education program-
supervising Indian children during summer programs and one
interviewer had been an Indian education consultant for the
five previous years. To minimize possible bias, inter-
viewers did not approach any families with whom they had
previous contact.

Unfortunately, one interviewer proved to be thoroughly
unreliable and was replaced after approximately one month.
He had completed only nine interviews and since his work
performance was so poor (i.e., did not report to work; pro-
duced incomplete interviews), it was decided to exclude
those interviews from the final data analysis. His non-
Indian replacement was a trained survey interviewer, and
had worked on four previous large-scale surveys. Perhaps
due to her knowledge of, and contact with, Indians in this
area, she proved an excellent interviewer. She had been
recommended by the President of the Indian Parent
Association, a group of parents who provided input into the
education programs of Indian children in local schools.

Staff training consisted of two weeks of instruction
on survey techniques and practice with the instrument used
in this study. The author supervised all training. The
interviewers were then instructed to complete three
interviews in the field. After each of these, there was a

thorough analysis of responses, a discussion of any

46
problems that had arisen, and considerations for future
interviewing. To maximize learning, this was done
individualLy with the author and in a group context in the
presence of all interviewers. The replacement interviewer
received only one week or pre-field training, but that
seemed entirely adequate in view of her substantial prior
experience. The author was also present for six to eight
hours each day of the data collection and supervised each

interviewer on a daily and individual questionnaire basis.

Data Collection
Data collection began on July 6, 1977 and concluded on
September 20, 1977. A summary of who was and. was not
interviewed and the reasons for no interview is presented

in Table 1.

TABLE 1

Schedule of Interviews

Respondent Interview Outcome
88 (total respondents) Completed interview
74 females
14 males
11 Refusals
11 Not able to contact
after 5 attempts
12 Excluded from analysis
6 Not Indian
23 Moved with no forward-

ing address

47

The sample was highly skewed in the direction of
females, seventy-four females (84.1%) in comparison to only
fourteen males (15.9%). Most interviewing was conducted
between the hours of 9:00 am and 8:00 pm, times when
working males were unlikely to be at home. This was done
primarily for the safety of the interviewers since many
interviews took place in lower socioeconomic neighborhoods.
Another reason for the predominantly female sample is that
only forty-seven (53.4%) respondents were presently married
leaving forty-one single parent/guardian households which
were almost always headed by a female. In addition, even if
both husband and wife were home at the time the interviewer
called, the husband usually asked his wife to answer the
survey questions. Because of this, separate data analyses
were conducted on the male and female subsamples as well as
for the total sample.

Twelve interviews were excluded from analysis. Nine of
these were conducted by the interviewer that was replaced
because of unreliability. It was decided that these data
could not be trusted for accuracy or completeness so they
were set aside. Three interviews from the field training
phase were also either incomplete or had mistakes that made
them invalid and thus were excluded.

Of the other possible respondents in the total group
of one hundred and fifty-one families, six had been
incorrectly identified as Indians and so were not included.

Thirty-four households were not contacted. Twenty-three of

48

these had moved with no forwarding address and eleven
others could not be contacted after five attempts. It was
thought that five attempts was a reasonable cutoff point
and the effort was discontinued thereafter. Those who could
not be reached may have moved or may have been passively
declining to be interviewed (i.e., not answering the door).
The high proportion of respondents who had moved underlines
what other researchers have noted about the high mobility
of urban Indians (Ablon, 1964; Bigony, 1975; Garbarino,
1971).

There were also eleven direct refusals to be inter-
viewed, seven of which were incurred in a two-week period.
In fact, almost all of those households contacted in that
period refused to be interviewed. From information given to
the interviewers, it was discovered that one highly visible
member of the Indian community had spread a rumor that the
survey was being used for ”negative” purposes, although it
was never ascertained what those purposes were supposed to
be. All interviews were suspended for one week while the
principal investigator met with the Indian Parent Associa-
tion (IPA) to discuss this matter. After the purposes of
this study were again explained to the relevant IPA
committee, they agreed to formally endorse the research.
Although this group's president had previously agreed to
the survey, it had not been formally presented to the total
group, and once that was done the refusals stopped. It

seems notable how quickly word spread throughout the Indian

49
community. This appears to confirm the existence of
extensive informal networks, since all communication about

this matter was on an informal basis.

Instrumentation

 

The instrument used was a modification of a survey schedule
developed by the Institute for Social Research at the
University of Michigan. It was used in essentially the same
form in both their 1957 study, Americans View Their Mental
Health (Gurin, Veroff, & Feld, 1960), and in their 1976

replication study, The Inner American (Veroff, Douvan, 5

 

Kulka, 1981). Adaptations for the present research were
developed in consultation with their staff. A copy is
included in Appendix A.

There were many advantages to its use for the present
research. It had been thoroughly field-tested, refined and
used in two nationwide studies of the mental health and
quality of life of the American public. There were national
norms with which to compare the present data and, although
extensive analysis was beyond the scope of this research,
some comparisons will be made to highlight basic
differences or similarities between a national sample and
this Indian sample.

Although the survey instrument yielded a wealth of
data, only certain parts of it were analyzed and reported
in the present study. The data has been broken down into

four relevant groups; (1) feelings of Well-being,

50
(2) measures of Psychological and Physiological Distress,
(3) measures of Help-seeking, and (4) Demographics. An
index of items included in each of the four groups is
provided in Appendix B. Each subgroup of items will be
discussed, including any relevant research.

A mmltiple criterion approach was selected because of
the complex and :multi-faceted. nature of the human
personality. Although a number of studies have investigated
a variety of diverse criteria in assessing psychological
well-being or distress (Campbell et al., 1976; Meyers et
al., 1974; Andrews & Withey, 1976), few have used more than
a single indicator to appraise psychological adjustment
(Gurin et al., 1960; Veroff et al., 1981). So for the
purposes of presenting a more comprehensive, and
presumably, a more accurate picture of how Indians view
their lives, a number of variables were analyzed.

The first two areas of measurement, (1) feelings of
Well-being and (2) Psychological and Physiological
distress, represent an attempt at measuring subjective
feelings of how people view their lives and their mental

status.

Well-being

 

These items and scales were designed to be subjective
indices of adjustment' that tapped not only how the

respondent felt about his/her present life situation, but

51

also how they viewed past and anticipated future well-
being. No attempt was made here to equate these views with
clinical diagnosis, although it could be argued that some
relationship may exist. Rather, they represented general
feelings about how the repondent experienced the stresses
and strains of everyday life, their satisfaction with
themselves and their life roles, and their present situa-
tion. Help-seeking seems likely to ,be prompted by such
subjective feelings, as much as anything.

A general assessment of well-being was asked in the

question: "Taking all things together, how would you say

things are these days -- would you say you're: (1) very
happy (2) pretty happy (3) not too happy”.

 

 

A related group of questions was designed to evaluate

satisfaction with their lives and their major life roles.

 

This is central to the analysis of reports of subjective
well-being. Its importance was underlined by the research
of Campbell et a1. (1976) and Andrews and Whithey (1976),
who found that evaluations of life satisfaction showed few
noticeable changes across age groups. The first two items
asked not only how they felt about the way they spent their
lives, but a future assessment of their perceived ability
to change some of the things they were not satisfied with.

In general, how satisfying do you find the way

you are spending your life these days? Would you

call it (1) completely satisfying (2) pretty
satisfying or (3) not very satisfying?

 

When you think about the kind of person you are
now, how likely do you think it is that you could

52

change some of the things about yourself that you
don't like or are not satisfied with? Would you
say that it is (l) veg likely, (2) somewhat
likely, (3) not too likely, or (4) not likely
at all?

 

Satisfaction with major life roles was considered an
extremely important variable in overall satisfaction with
life. There is usually a great degree of psychological
investment in one's life roles and consequently, they are
related more generally to how a person views her/his
adequacy and self-worth. Initially, three major roles were
examined: parenthood, marriage, and employment. The latter
was subsequently dropped from the final analysis because so
few respondents were employed. The items for parenthood and
marriage were:

Overall, would you say that in your case, being a

(father/mother) has nearly always been enjoy-

a_bl_e_, that it has been usual]; enjoyable, that

it has sometimes been enjoyable or that being a

(father7mother) has hardly ever been enjoyable?

How much satisfaction have you gotten/would you
get/did you get out of being a (father/mother)?

What about being married? How much satisfaction
have you gotten /would you get/ did you get from
being married?

Taking all things together, how would you des-
cribe your marriage--would you say your marriage
was very happy, a little happier than average,
just about average, or not too happy?

 

An item related to perceived worries and unhappiness
was also included. It was an open-ended question designed
to provide descriptive data as to what people worried about

most in their lives.

53

Everyone has some things he worries about more or

less. What kinds of things do you worry about?

Another measure from the Inner American study was
labelled Anomie. It appears to tapl a. general sense of
alienation from society. It was included in this study on
the assumption that a feeling of alienation from others can
have a profound effect on psychological well-being and is,
therefore, important in an analysis of distress factors and
their impact on mental health. The Anomie items were:

I have always felt pretty sure my life would
work out the way I wanted it to.
No one cares much what happens to me.

I often wish that people would listen to me
more.

I often wish that people liked me more than
they do.

These days I really don't know who I can
count on for help.
The scoring categories were: very true, pretty true,

not very true, and not true at all, with the higher

 

scores indicating a greater degree of alienation.

Veroff et a1. (1981) also used a 3-item Self-esteem
scale adapted from a scale developed by Rosenberg (1966).
As its name implies, it was designed to be an indicator of
general feelings of self-worth. The items included:

I feel I am a person of worth, at least as much

as others.

I am able to do things as well as most other
people.

54

On the whole, I feel good about myself.

In summary, the well-being items and scales were
designed to tap the subjective experiences of everyday
living. A number of different aspects were examined includ-
ing both satisfactions and dissatisfactions with one's
major life roles such as being a husband/wife or parent. In
addition, questions reflecting general satisfaction or
happiness with life and, conversely, worries and unhappi-
ness were also included to enlarge the window of perceived

adjustment.

Psychological and Physiological Distress

While the items assessing' well-being' possessed face
validity, the psychological distress items have an exten-
sive history bearing on their validity and reliability. The
core of items designed. to measure psychological, physio-
logical, or psychosomatic symptoms was a twenty-item
symptom checklist (see Appendix C). It was included in the
1957 and 1976 nationwide studies of quality of life carried
out by Gurin et a1. (1960) and Veroff et a1. (1981). This
_symptom checklist is a conglomerate of their items plus
others selected from the Health Opinion Survey (MacMillan,
1957) and the Ianger Scale (1962). The two latter instru-
ments had been used in previous community surveys, the
Sterling County Study (Leighton et al., 1963) and the
Midtown Study (Srole et al., 1962). Both studies used these

scales as general indicators of psychiatric impairment or

55
mental illness. Their basic purpose was to detect patterns
of mental disorder, especially untreated impairment, within
the general community. Their obvious utility' resided in
their purported ability to quickly and efficiently identify
psychological disturbance in the general population.
Because of their practical usefulness and careful
preparation, many investigators adopted them as screening
devices to assess untreated psychiatric disorder (see
Dohrenwend & Dohrenwend, 1974).

Validity data on these scales were essentially of a
construct nature. In the Sterling County Study, psychiatric
diagnoses were made based on psychiatrists' short inter-
views of the respondents in the study. The Midtown Study
employed psychiatrists' judgements based on the total
survey schedule. Despite this considerable use and presumed
validity, however, recent research has questioned both as
general measures of psychological disorder (Dohrenwend,
1975: Seiler, 1973); Schwartz et al., 1978). For example,
Dohrenwend and Dohrenwend (1969) suggested that they were
contaminated by response biases due to the diverse views of
ethnic and social groups of how desirable or undesirable
the content of the symptom items may be within specific
cultures and lifestyles. Phillips and Segal (1969) noted
sex differences in responses to symptom items. They inter-
preted these to mean that women, who usually score higher
in distress on these scales, may be more willing to admit

the presence of undesirable symptoms. Other researchers,

56
however, have posited that, although sex differences occur,
they are not wholly due to response bias (Gove & Gerken,
1977; Gove et al., 1976). In addition, they reported that
such biases have little impact on relationships between
these measures and the demographic variables commonly used
in community mental health surveys. Their questionable
ability to identify psychiatric impairment in the general
population does not, however, entirely obviate their
utility. The ways in which people respond to symptom check-
lists remain important pieces in the mosaic of how people
view their lives. While there is continued controversy over
whether or not such measures accurately diagnose mental ill-
ness in a population, they at least provide some measure of
how people feel about the ways they are coping with the
stresses of everyday life. More importantly, they may be
informative when used in conjunction with other measures,

as in this study, and notably in the Americans View Their

 

Mental Health (Gurin et al., 1960) and Inner American

 

(Veroff et al., 1981) studies. In this manner more atten-
tion to symptom patterns can be given rather than attempt-
ing to develop absolute indicators of psychopathology.

The notion of defining absolute mental illness within
a population bears heavily on this study. The primary
purpose of the preceding literature review of Indian mental
health problems was to underline the complexities of
studying Indian culture and lifestyles. As such, the focus

of this study is to provide descriptive data on how one

57

urban Indian population views their lives. Instead of
establishing absolute incidence of mental illness, it seems
more important to identify' relative patterns of coping.
That is, how do segments of this population compare to each
other with respect to subjective reports of symptoms, help-
seeking patterns, and demographic variables? In addition,
the previously mentioned data from a nationwide sample
permits interesting comparisons with the urban Indian
sample in this study.

Congruent with the goal of a multi-dimensional
approach to assessement of psychological and physiological
distress were efforts to factor analyze the twenty-items in
the symptom checklist. Gurin et a1. (1960) found four
distinct clusters of items within the instrument. They
included; (1) Psychological Anxiety, (2) Physical Health,
(3) Immobilization, and (4) Physical Anxiety. These resear-
chers thought that the scale tapped more than one dimen-
sion, particularly in light of the fact that the content of
the items clearly had physiological. as well as psycho-
logical connotations. Other researchers have also factor
analyzed these items, and while the factors were rarely
identical, heavy loadings have consistently been found on
two basic dimensions; physiological and psychological
distress (Tousignant et al., 1974; Crandall & Dohrenwend,
1967; Seiler and Summers, 1974; Phillips & Segal, 1969).
This relationship appears logical in that both psycho-

logical and physical symptoms could coexist and also figure

58
in each other's etiology.

Veroff et a1. (1981) again factor analyzed the symptom
items in their replication of the 1957 nationwide survey of .
Gurin et al. (1960). Three very similar factor loadings
emerged which they labeled; (1) Psychological Anxiety, (2)
Ill Health, and (3) Immobilization. The earlier fourth
factor (Physical Anxiety) was dropped because it did not
prove a distinct factor in their later analysis. The three

consistent factors are described as follows:

(1) Psychological Anxiety--a general factor
appearing to tap anxiety reactions. Items
include; (a) trouble sleeping, (b) nervous-
ness, (c) headaches, (d) loss of appetite,
and (e) upset stomach. They appear to involve
psychosomatic reactions to anxiety.

(2)1mmobilization--a factor that was difficult
to describe in both nationwide studies but
seems to tap an ”inability to get going”.
Items include; (a) difficulty getting up in
the morning, (b) can't take care of things
because couldn't get going, (c) drinking more
than one should, and (d) troubled by hand
sweating. It was included because of it's
relative high factor loadings and internal
consistency. Since the first two items have
such strong face-validity for this scale, a
two-item composite was also analyzed along
with the four-item version.

(3) Ill Health-~a factor previously named Physi-
cal Health but renamed because it rather
addresses ill health. Items include; (a) ill
health interferring with work, (b) shortness
of breath, (c) heart beating hard, (d) pains
and ailments in the body, (e) healthy enough
to carry out things, and (f) any health prob-
lem. They concluded that it was a relatively
pure and stable measure of ill health.

In addition to the three factors, three other items

59

were added in the 1976 Inner American study. They concerned
drug and alcohol usage and were: (1) When you feel worried,
tense, or nervous, do you ever take medicines or drugs to
help you handle things?; (2) When you feel worried, tense,
or nervous, do you ever drink alcoholic beverages to help
you handle things?; and (3) Have there ever been problems
between you and anyone in your family because you drank
alcoholic beverages? Face validity was claimed and another
dimension was added to the symptoms already mentioned. New
items 2 and 3 (above) were summed because of their similar
content. Because some researchers have used the whole 20-
item checklist as an overall indication of distress
(Sieler, 1973), that global index was also included in this
study.

A further addition was an adaptation of a scale
developed by Zung (1965). It is named ”Zest", although it
has been posited that it reflects depression. Veroff et a1.
(1981) found that many' of Zung's items correlated
positively with the items in the twenty-item symptom
checklist, especially those relating to tension,
nervousness, and other psychosomatic complaints. One group
of items, however, appeared to address a positive outlook
on life and did not correlate highly' with the sympton

items. Labelled the ”Zest" scale, its items included:

My mind is as clear as it used to be.
I find it easy to do the things I used to.

My life is interesting.

60
I feel that I am useful and needed.
My life is pretty full.

I feel hopeful about the future.

Responses were coded so that the higher numerical score on
each item was in the direction of negation of the state-
ment. Thus, the lower one scored on the scale (summing
across items), the more "zest" for life one has. Converse-
ly, high scores reflect a more depressed attitude, lack of
energy, and pessimism about the future.

A final question related to mental health, scored
"yes" or "no", was: "Have you ever felt that you were going
to have a nervous breakdown? Although general in nature,
this item assessed past feelings of psychological distress.
It can be argued that memories of past ”bad times" are
rarely clear, and thus a question encompassing general

feelings of distress is most appropriate.

Help-seeking

Central to the present study is an analysis of what
people actually do when they experience personal problems.
More specifically, do they seek out help, and, if so, what
kind of help? Specific units of analysis included; (1)
number and nature of formal help-sources sought, (2) number
and nature of informal help-sources sought, (3) total_
number of help-sources sought, (4) a series of items

dealing with community and social support systems, (5)

61
outcome of help-seeking interactions, and (6) the perceived
reciprocity of help-seeking behavior.

The first two measures of help-seeking, formal and
informal help-sources sought, were derived from two similar
matrices (formal and informal) of items (see instrument,
Appendix A) relating to who the respondent had seen concern-
ing problems of a personal nature. Beyond identifying who
they contacted, reSpondents were asked to indicate; (1) if
they felt that person would talk to them if they felt that
way (reciprocation), and (2) how much the interaction

helped them (a lot, some, not much). The respondent

 

filled in the matrix in response to the previous three

items in the survey schedule:

Over their lives most people have something bad
happen to them, or to someone they love, like
when someone important dies, leaves, or dis-
appoints you. Or something awful like getting
sick, losing a job, not having enough money,
being in trouble with the police or at school. Or
maybe just something important you wanted to
happen didn't happen. Compared. with. most. other
people you know, would you say that these sorts
of things have happened to you more than to
others, less than to others, or what?

When things like these have happened to you, have
there been times when you found it very hard to
handle? When you couldn't sleep, or stayed away
from people, or even felt depressed or nervous
and couldn't do much of anything?

When things like that happen some people like to
talk it over with other people. Did you talk to
any of these people about that matter? For each
person, choOse the ppg description that fits them
best. If more than one person you talked to fits
the same description (like friend or relative),
please tell me.

62

The possible categories included in the informal
sources of help matrix were; (a) husband, (b) pipe, (c)
Egg, (6) daughter, (e) father, (f) mother, (9)
brother, (h) sister, (i) other relative, (j) friend,
and (k) neighbor. Separate descriptive analyses of who
was sought were performed. The mean number of informal
help-sources was also computed. Identical analyses were

completed on the formal sources of help matrix, except that

 

the possible choices for person sought included; (a) Psy-

chiatrist, (b) Psychologist, (c) Social WOrker, (d)

 

 

 

Counselor, (e) Doctor, (f) Nurse, (9) Clergyman, (h)

 

Teacher, (i) Police, (j) Lagyer, (k) Union Steward,

 

and (1) other.
In both matrices, the respondent was asked to indicate

whether the interactions helped a lot, helped some, or

 

wasn't much help. A mean of scores across help-sources
sought was computed and represented an overall indication

of the "quality of outcome” in help-seeking interac-

 

tions. In addition, there was a question in the informal
matrix only regarding whether or not they thought that the
person from whom help was sought would also approach them
concerning a personal problem. Because this item permitted
only dichotomous answers, a ratio of "yes" to "no” answers
was computed, respectively, for each respondent's choice of

help sources and used as an overall measure of "recippoca-

 

tion". Its purpose was to add an extra dimension in the

description of help-seeking behavior, namely, to ascertain

63
if the respondent perceived his relationship with the
help-sources to be mutual. It seems logical that if the
help-seeker felt that s/he would be depending on someone
who didn't feel the same way, help would be sought less
frequently.

Another treasure of help-seeking behavior was how the
respondent viewed his/her community and social support
networks. The respondent's relationship» to two ,potential
support _groups, neighbors and friends, was examined. The
questions regarding neighbors asked how many neighbors they
felt they could call on or visit, how often they visited
them, and how often they talked over problems with them.
For friends, they were asked to indicate how often they
visited friends, how many they felt free to talk with about
their problems, and how often they talked over their
problems with them. Finally, a general question was asked
regarding how often they talked over problems with someone
they trusted. In a sense, these are additional measures
related to informal help-seeking. Descriptive statistics
were computed for them. They were included as variables
which would contribute to a better overall picture of the
person's social network, and especially his perceived inte-

gration into that network.

Demographic Data

 

Finally, a number of demographic items were included.

The primary reason was to give the reader a fuller picture

64
of the participating Indians. As stated before, it is
extremely difficult to generalize about Indian groups since
great variations occur regarding Indian tribes, rural
versus urban populations, and among Indian individuals.
These data are provided to move fully identify the present
sample.

Included were: marital status and whether or not this
was their first marriage; age; where they were born and
raised; family size while growing up; whether or not they
lived with their natural parents; education of respondent,
spouse, and their parents; household income; and number of
people over and under 21 years-old living presently in
their household.

Data Analysis

 

The data analysis had three major foci. They included:
(1) descriptive statistics such as frequencies and means;
(2) ‘p-tests to compare certain results from this
population with the national sample used by Veroff et a1.

(1981) in their Inner American study; and (3) Pearson

 

product-moment correlations to test hypotheses regarding
relationships between help-seeking behavior and measures of
well-being, psychological distress, and satisfaction in
life roles. All analyses were performed for both the male
and female subsamples as well as for the total sample. This
precaution was taken in answer to the previously mentioned
research indicating possible response bias due to sex (Gove

& Gerken, 1977; Dohrenwend & Dohrenwend, 1969; Phillips &

65

Clancy, 1972). In most cases all statistics are reported,
aside from instances in which separate analyses by“ sex
yielded no significant deviation from total sample results
(noted where appropriate). It should also be remembered
that only 14 persons constituted the male sample as opposed
to 74 females. The male findings must, therefore, be inter-
preted with caution.

The first focus of analysis was descriptive statis-
tics. Because of the dearth of basic background information
regarding urban Indians, this may be the most important
feature. These analyses consist of frequencies and means
for such variables as demographic data, satisfaction with
life roles, community and social support perceptions, and
persons sought for help. It illuminates special qualities
of the present sample, including some of their perceptions
about their social environment and aspects of their help-
seeking behavior.

The second focus of analysis concerns comparisons
between the present sample and a national sample surveyed
in 1976 using a similar instrument (Veroff et al., 1981).
Essentially a "quality of life" study, the Inner American
provided excellent reference data in approximately the same
time frame. Tetests were employed to assess mean
differences across samples cm: the following variables; (1)
the number of sources of informal and formal help sought,
(2) the scales included in the well-being measures, and (3)

the psychological and physiological distress scales. The

66
purpose was to establish relative states of well-being and
distress rather than absolute measures of pathology.
Findings that reached the .01, .05, and .10 levels of
statistical significance by the two-tailed test are
reported, although the .01 differences were given only for
ancillary information.

Finally, zero-order and partial correlations (con-
trolling for age, sex, income, and education) were comput-
ed. These analyses were used to test hypotheses regarding
the relationship of help-seeking to the measures of well-
being, psychological and physiological. distress, and
satisfaction with life roles. As with the p-tests, levels

of significance are reported at the .05 and .01 level.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics

Demographic Data

The sample consisted of eighty-eight respondents,
seventy-four females (84%) and fourteen males (16%). Age
ranged from 21 to 71 with a mean age of 40. Almost 70% of
the sample was in the 30 to 50 age range with equal numbers
in the 31 to 40 and 41 to 50 ranges. The distribution was
somewhat skewed toward the upper range with 22.6% over 50
and 18.4% between the ages of 21 and 30. The major tribes
represented were Ottawa (29), Chippewa (19), and
Pottawatomi (9). Blood quantum ranged from one quarter to
full-blood (4/one-quarter, 10/one-ha1f, ll/three-quarters,
30/full-blood, 33 unable to state exact amount). Approxi-
mately one-third were of mixed tribal heritage.

Since this sample was derived from a population of
parents with children in school, marital status seemed
especially important. Only forty-seven (53.4%) of the
respondents reported being currently married and it was not
the first marriage for fifteen of them. Twenty-five more

were divorced and eight others were currently separated.

67

68

Four each were widowed and single. Thus, nearly half of the
sample represented single-parent households. Ancillary data
suggested that often only one adult was raising the
children, since thirty-three respondents (37.5%) reported
being the only person over 21 years-old in the household.
The average total number of household members was
approximately five.

A number of questions focused upon the respondent's
background. Considering the large proportion of single-
parent families in the sample, data concerning the
respondent's family background was also analyzed. A surpris-
ing number (34/38.6%) had not been raised by their natural
parents. The reasons included death of a parent (9/10.4%),
parents separated (6/6.8%), and divorce (9/10.4%).

Four items dealt with the education of the respond—
ents, their spouses, and their parents. The respondent's
education ranged from 3rd grade to 5 years of college with
the majority falling in the high school education or less
categories (72/82.8%). Of these, twenty-five (28.7%) had
finished high school. Their spouses' education was similar,
as thirty-nine (27.1%) of the forty-three respondents had a
high school or less education. Thirteen (14.8%) had finish-
ed high school. Their parents were somewhat less educated,
for only eleven (12.5%) head of households had. finished
high school and 54.0% had completed eleventh grade or less.
These figures are probably higher than reported, since

twenty-four people did not know what that person's

69
education was. The educational attainment of the other
parent was similar, eleven finished high school and 51.7%
finished less than high school, but the proportion of those
with no formal education was higher (ll/12.5%) than for the
head of household (3/3.4%).

The distribution of household income level was
bi-modal. The greatest number of respondents reported
annual incomes between $3,000 and $5,000 (22/25%). The next
most often reported income level was $12,500 to $15,000
(10/11.4%). The majority of the others were fairly evenly
distributed in the $5,000 to $10,000 range.

Almost all of the respondents were born (73/83%) and
raised (71/81.6%) in Michigan. The majority came from the
country (38/43.2%) or small towns (12/13.6%). Twenty-five
of the respondents were from small cities while only ten
(11.4%) had been raised in large cities. To assess mobil-
ity, a question was asked about how long they had resided
at their present address. The responses were widely distri-
buted, ranging from 1 to 52 years with a median of 16

years.

Help-seeking

This section contains analyses for help sources sought
for personal problems, who was sought, the outcome of the
help-seeking interaction, whether or not the respondent
judged the helping relationship as mutual (reciprocation),

and the community and social support variables. Means and

70
frequencies are presented. National sample means are also
reported when pertinent, although p—test comparisons are
given in this chapter's second section.

The number of help-sources sought by the respondent
for personal problems was divided into three categories;
formal, informal, and total (informal and formal). For the
present sample, the mean number of total help-sources
sought was 1.8 (informal = 1.34; formal =- 0.48) versus 2.8
(2.14 informal and 0.65 formal) for the national sample.
The majority of help—sources were informal. Thus, there was
a clear difference in the number of informal sources
contacted, but no significant difference for formal
sources. Similar results were obtained for the male and
female subsamples, although the males reported slightly
fewer contacts than females (see Table 9). It is also
important to note that a large number of respondents
reported having pp informal or formal help-sources. Seven-
teen persons (19%) had neither an informal nor formal
source of help, twenty-one (24%) had no informal help-
source, and fifty-nine (67%) had no formal help-source.
Further analysis showed that approximately 86% had two or
less informal sources and 88% had one or less formal
sources of help.

Of those informal sources who provided assistance with
personal problems, the majority (35 mentions) were spouses
or friends (22 mentions). Twenty-six of the women in this

group also reported relying on other family females

71
(daughters and mothers). The most often reported formal
sources were clergy, doctor, and social worker (in that
order), but it should be remembered that only twenty-seven

people mentioned any formal source.

Community and Social Support

 

Community and social support variables were thought to
indicate the respondents' perception of, and integration
into, his/her social environment. Specific variables in
this analysis were perceptions of friends, relatives, and
their neighbors.

Questions for the neighbor group related to how many
they knew well enough. to call on, how' often they' were
visited, and how often they discussed problems with them.
Only twenty-seven (30%) reported having my or several
neighbors that they felt they' could call on. Sixty-one
(69.3%) reported page or §_e_w_. While it. appears that the
majority had few neighbors to call on, the frequency of
contact with those visited was fairly high. Approximately
55% reported visiting with neighbors from Lug to a f_e_!
times weekly. Talking over their problems with these
neighbors, however, seems to be a different matter and one
that reflects a: greater degree of intimacy. Discussions of
personal problems with neighbors occurred peygp or rarely

by thirty-six (61%) of the fifty-nine, sometimes by

 

fifteen (25%), and often or very often by only eight

 

(13.6%). Over half (eleven) of 21 respondents in the never

72
category would not ever feel free to talk over problems
with their neighbors.

Similar inquiries were made regarding friends and
relatives. An overview of these results suggests a greater
amount of contact and sharing with their friends than with
their neighbors. Fifty-six (63.6%) reported visiting with
friends and relatives at least weekly. Only eleven (12.5%)
visited their friends less than once a month. This
frequency of contact, however, does not appear to carry
over into their perceptions of how many friends they could
count on for advice or help. Fifty-nine (67.1%) reported
£993 or _fgw, sixteen (18.4%) reported several, and twelve
(13.6%) reported my. A related question asked how often
they actually talked over their problems with their friends
or relatives. Again, many (41/46.6%) were in the rarely and
pgygp response categories. Thirty (34.1%) answered

sometimes and only seventeen (19.4%) reported talking over

 

problems with friends often or very often. When asked if

 

they had as many friends as they wanted, sixty-three
(71.6%) responded affirmatively and twenty-five (28.4%)
said they would like more friends. A final general question
concerned how often they talked over their problems with
someone they trusted. An equal number reported sometimes
and pgppp (29/33%) while twenty-five (28.4%) and five
(5.7%) respectively, said they rarely or p_e_ve_r_ talked over

problems with a trusted person.

-73

Satisfaction

 

The satisfaction items were intended to tap the res-
pondents' perceived satisfaction or happiness in major life
roles (parenthood and marriage), with themselves and their
lives, and with their friendships. The parent happiness
item asked how often they found parenthood enjoyable. Most

of the respondents answered usually or nearly always

 

(77/85.2%), ten (11.4%) stated sometimes, and only one

 

(1.1%) reported parenthood as hardly ever_ enjoyable. The
marital question asked how happy they would characterize
their marriage. Of the forty-seven married respondents,
forty-six replied with almost equal numbers reported their
marriages as average (13/14.8%), a little happier than

average (16/18.2), and very, happy (12/47.7%). Only two

 

people described their marriage was not too happy.

 

An additional two items assessed satisfaction with
marriage and parenthood. Both questions asked directly how
much satisfaction had they gotten /would they get/ did they
get from each of these roles. They differed from the other
role satisfaction items in dealing more with satisfaction
than with happiness or enjoyment. It. was also asked of
everyone whether or not they were presently married or with
children. Results showed both roles to be satisfying for
most respondents. For marriage, 78.4% reported gpggp
satisfaction and only' two said their marriages provided
little or no satisfaction. The distribution was wider for

satisfaction with parenthood, although most respondents

74

reported great satisfaction (34/43.6%) or some

 

satisfaction (29/37.2%).

Three more general items dealt with the respondents'
personal happiness and satisfaction with their lives. The
first concerned their overall present happiness. The
majority of responses were in the getty happy category
(60/69.0%). It is interesting to note that of the remaining
respondents, more than twice as many reported not too happy
(l9/21.8%) compared to eight (9.1%) who said they were yggy
pgppy. A similar question concerned how satisfied they
were with the way they were now spending their lives. The
results were almost identical to the happiness question,
with the majority responding that their lives were pretty

satisfying, (59/67.0%), nineteen (21.6%) feeling not too

 

satisfied, and ten (11.4%) saying their lives were com-

 

pletely satisfying. Finally, a question asking whether
overall, they were satisfied or dissatisfied with them-

selves found them much more satisfied (71/83%) than dis-

 

satisfied (13/14.8%).

 

Another satisfaction variable concerned friendships .
This item related to the community and social support
variables previously mentioned. It offered a seven-point

Likert scale, with one defined as completely satisfied and

 

seven defined as completell dissatisfied. The mean was

 

’2.3, with 78.4% responding in the top three categories
(toward satisfied), suggesting that most of the sample

was satisfied with their friendships.

75

Future Well-being

One item asked how likely’ it was that they could
change aspects about themselves with which they were
dissatisfied. The majority of respondents optimistically
reported that it was somewhat likely (44/50%) or likely
(l6/l8.2%) that they could change. Yet approximately
one-third felt that it was not likely (10/11.4%) or _r_1_o_t

too likely (10/20.5%) that their lives would change.

 

Past Distress

 

The one item from the symptom checklist that was
included as a past distress measure was the question regard-
ing ever feeling like they were going to have a nervous
breakdown. Although the majority reported pg (SI/58%), a

substantial proportion (35/40%) responded affirmatively.

Worries and Unhappiness

A final well-being item asked what they worried about
most. The three most often mentioned categories, in order,
were; (1) economic and. material worries (30/34.1%), (2)
current family-related matters (23/26.l%), and (3) general
life problems (i.e., many things, my life in general;
12/13.6%). The comparable national sample response rates
were; economic worries (561/26.6%), general non-personal
(i.e., national and world affairs, societal problems,
interracial relations; 341/16.3%), family-related. matters

(270/12.8%), and job-related matters (247/11.7%).

76

Sample Comparisons

 

This section contains mean comparisons between the
Indian population in this study and a national sample sur-
veyed by Veroff et a1. (1981). Comparisons were made for:
(1) the two well-being scales (Anomie, Self-Esteem); (2)
five psychological and physiological. distress scales
(Psychological Anxiety, Immobilization, Ill Health,
Drinking, Zest) and the one-item Drug-taking measure; and
(3) the number of help-sources sought for a personal
problem (Formal, Informal, Total). Data for both samples
was collected in approximately the same time frame
(1977-78). Two-tailed petests were performed and the

results are shown in Tables 2,3, and 4.

Well-being

 

Two scales, composites of separate items, were includ-
ed in the Well-being section of the survey. They were the
Self-Esteem scale and the Anomie scale. The Self-Esteem
scale was designed to tap general feelings of self-worth
and included such items as: (l) I feel that I am a person
of worth; (2) I am able to do things as well as most other
people; and (3) On the whole, I feel good about myself. The

items were scored one to four (never true, rarely true,

 

 

sometimes true, often true) with the higher score

 

representing more self-esteem. The Anomie scale appears to
be a general indicator of feelings of alienation, especial-

ly from one's social contacts. It offered the same coding

77

He. am.~ mm.H H~.~ so.q mm.m mmm\va

m: we. sm.H ~m.a m~.¢ va.v msma\¢s

m: om.H mm.a HS.H GH.v ~v.¢ HH-\mm smmummumewm

mo. om.H sm.~ sm.~ mm.s «H.m mmm\va

Ho. cc.m Hm.~ cm.~ sc.s mm.s os~H\qs

Ho. oH.m mm.m mm.~ s~.s sa.m mm-\mm mhsocm
.umz .m.w .umz .m.o .umz\m.o. mason

m m .o .m zamz z

mchmnnaamz .N magma

78

categories as did the Self-Esteem. scale, but they' were
scored oppositely so that higher scores represented a
greater degree of alienation. The items included: (1) II
have always felt pretty sure of my life and what happens to
me; (2) I often wish that people would listen to me more;
(3) I often wish that people liked me more than they do;
and (4) These days I really don't know who I can count on
for help.

No statistically significant overall differences were
found between the national and. present samples (x1 Self-
Esteem. Only the male subsamples differed significantly
(p < .01). Although this finding may support some of the
notions about male-pride that have been. posited for an
Indian population, this 14 male sample is too small to have
much meaning.

On Anomie, significant mean differences were noted for
both the total sample and the male/female subsamples. The
total sampLe and females in the Indian population showed a
greater degree of alienation (p_ < .01), while the male

results were also in the same direction (p < .05).

Psychological and Physiological Distress

Four composite scales and one single—item indicator of
distress were compared. Derived from the twenty-item
symptom checklist (see Methodology), these four scales
were: (1) Psychological Anxiety, (2) Ill Health, (3)

Immobilization, and (4) Drinking. The single item indicator

79

mo. m~.~ mm.m «m.m ms.ca A HS.~H «waxes :

me as. es.m oa.m mc.HH A stHH Hmmaxms m

as. ma.~ mm.m ma.m om.°H A so.HH asawxsm a umms

m: MN. mc.H mm. me.a v ~q.a ¢«m\qa z

m: as. H~.H o~.H vs.a A mm.a msms\¢s m

m: ma.s mH.H mH.H mm.H A ma.~ --\mm a schemenmsna

Ha. em.~ «G.H o¢.~ mm.~ A ~m.4 memxea 2

Ha. ~m.m sc.H mm.H ~4.~ A m~.m Hmmaxss m

as. mc.q Gm.fl mo.~ qw.~ A sm.m m-~\mm a mcflxchno

ca. mm.H -.H o~.H om.m A ~a.m smm\qa :

as. ms.e SN.H sq.a sm.m A mm.v mmmflxqs s

as. Hm.m m~.H o~.H om.m A m~.e mo-\mm a coaumNAHmnossH

as. cq.m Hm.m mm.~ HQ.HH A m~.va msa\va 2

as. 4H.s mm.m om.m cm.~H A ~m.mH mm~H\Hs a

so. «a.HH m¢.m ~v.~ H~.~H A ms.m~ Hmmmxmm a assume HHH

Ho. qs.~ ~m.~ cm.~ mm.» A om.oa msmxsa 2

Ho. «m.m s¢.~ os.~ oo.m A ma.oa sm~axqs a sausage

Ho. mm.m q«.~ ms.~ me.» A ma.oa mm-\mm e HmoamoaosUSmm
.umz .m.w .umz .m.o .um2\m.o mamom

m m .o .m 252 z

nonhuman HMmeoaooohmm .m manna

80
of distress, Drug-taking, was also) part. of the symptom
checklist.

Significant mean differences were found on all symptom
checklist scales except Drug-taking. The .01 level of
significance was reached in all cases for both the total
sample and male/female subsamples compared, except for
males on Immobilization. This indicates that the Indian
sample appeared more pathological on virtually all of the
psychological measures. On the Zest scale, the total
samples compared had mean differences significant at the
.10 level (unacceptable for this study), and. the :males
differed at the .05 level. The diminutive male sample
suggests that the Indians were somewhat more depressed than

the national sample.

Help-Sources

The Indians reported significantly (p < .01) fewer
informal help-sources than. did. the national sample. For
formal help-sources, only the males differed significantly,
but the small sample and narrow range of scores makes this

finding dubious.

Hypotheses
This final section deals primarily with the hypotheses

of this study. Supplemental analyses were also performed to

81

Ho. m~.G an. mm. as. so. omm\qH new: no
me oc.H. as. am. mm. mm. qm~H\ss mmonnom
we as. ea. mm.H mm. as. mav~\mm scenes
as. ~o.m mm.H mm. ma.~ sc.H omm\¢H saw; no
so. 54.4 ~m.a o¢.H m~.~ mm.H me~H\¢s mmousom
Ho. m~.m vs.a mm.a «H.~ «m.H GHH~\mm Aneuooca

.umz .m.w .umz .m.o .umz\m.w mason
m w. .o .m 2%: z

moousomlmaom .¢ THQMB

82

provide related information. The hypotheses were:

1. There will be a positive relationship between
the number of helping resources sought for
personal problems and satisfaction or happi-
ness in major life roles.

2. There will be an inverse relationship between
the number of helping resources and the psycho-
logical and physiological distress measures.

3. There will be a higher degree of reliance on
informal than formal sources of help.

4. The more negative outcomes when help was

sought (both formal and informal), the fewer
the help resources will be.

Hypothesis 1.

 

Pearson product-moment correlations were determined
between the number of help-sources contacted (informal,
formal, total) and each of the satisfaction variables. The
latter items included parental and marital satisfaction and
happiness, satisfaction with one's self and life, general
happiness in one's life, perceived ability to change things
one is dissatisfied with, and satisfaction with one's
friendships.

Little support was found for the hypothesized positive
relationship between the number of help-sources and satis-
faction or happiness in life and its major roles. Of
twenty-four correlations among the variables, the only
statistically significant were: (1) between satisfaction
with the number of friends one has and the number of
informal sources of help (p = .25, p < .008); and (2)

between the number of formal sources and satisfaction with

83
one's self (5 = .21, p < .027). The relationship
between satisfaction and informal sources seems as expected
and banal. Although the correlation was negative, the
satisfaction measure was scored with a higher score indicat-
ing more dissatisfaction. The correlation of formal sources
and self-satisfaction was contrary to expectation, that is,
greater degrees of self-satisfaction were associated with
lesser reliance on formal sources of help. Both of these
relationships were significant for the female subsample,
but not for the males. Partial correlations that controlled
for sex, age, income, and education (individually and all
permutations thereof) also confirmed the friend—satisfac-
tion relationship to informal sources, but did not support

the self-satisfaction linkage.

Hypothesis 2.

Hypothesis 2 suggested an inverse relationship between
the number of helping resources and measures of psychologi-
cal and physiological distress. This hypothesis was clearly
unsupported by the data. Of thirty correlations, the only
statistically significant linkages obtained were between
the Immobilization scales of two and four-items and the
number of informal help-sources (_r; = .28 and .21; p <
.02 and .03) and with total number of help-sources (g =
.17 and .22; p < .06 and .02). There was also a
significant correlation between the use of drugs or

medicines to help one through tense or nervous times and

84
the number of formal help-sources (5_ = .18, p_ < .05)
and the total number of help-sources (5 = .18, p <
.05). The female subsample confirmed these results, but the
data for the males did not. The above correlations were
not, however, in the expected direction and indicated that
the greater degree of Immobilization and use of drugs was

accompanied by more help-sources.

Hypothesis 3.

Hypothesis 3 was supported in that for personal
problems there was a higher degree of reliance on informal
versus formal sources of help. The mean number of informal
sources was 1.34 while the mean for formal sources was .48
for the total sample. Females reported a slightly higher
number (1.39) of informal sources than did males (1.07), a
finding that also held for formal sources (.55 vs. .08). As
earlier noted, the total Indian sample and the male/ female
subsamples had significantly (p < .01) fewer informal
sources of support than did the national sample. The number
of formal sources contacted revealed no similar differences
between Indians and the national sample, except for the

small male subgroup.

Hypothesis 4.
This concerned the relationship between the number of
one's help-sources and the outcome of such interactions. It

was posited that the more positive outcomes (i.e., helped

85
the person deal with his/her problems), the greater the
number of sources sought. This was inferential in that it
assumed that as a person seeks help, positive outcomes will
foster a further seeking of help from other resources.
These data did not support this linkage. The only signifi-
cant correlations were between the number of formal sources
sought and the outcome means for informal and formal
sources (g = .23, p < .04; p = .45, p < .02). Thus,
for formal help-seeking interactions, the more positive the
outcome the greater the number of formal sources of help.
The majority of both formal and informal helping interac-
tions were judged to have positive outcomes (helped a lot

or helped some). Of one hundred and three cited informal

 

helping interactions, only seventeen were reported to have
helped not much. Of the thirty-five formal help-seeking

interactions, only seven were judged as not helping much.

 

When help was sought, the outcome generally appeared
positive.

Correlations for another aspect of the help-seeking
interaction, reciprocation, were also computed to test the
hypothesis that the greater the number of informal sources
sought (reciprocation scores were only for informal help),
the more the person viewed the helping interaction as a
mutual one. This hypothesis was rejected. It should be
noted that an extremely high percentage of respondents did
view their help-seeking interactions as mutual (i.e., the

helper would feel free to also ask for help from the

86
respondent). Out of the one hundred and three informal
interactions that were reported, only seven were judged by

the respondent as being non-reciprocal.

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

The final chapter will review the findings in
relationship to relevant literature. ' It includes both an
examination of results, focused around the hypotheses, and
a discussion of the sample's help-seeking behavior and
mental status. It begins with a review of the population
studied and concludes with a summary, implications for
future research, and some of the study's limitations, and

suggestions for future studies.

The Sample

 

The sample consisted of 88 Indians living in Grand
Rapids, Michigan. All were parents of children in the Grand
Rapids public school system and had a self-reported ethnic
identification. Thirty-three did not know their degree of
Indian blood, 30 reported that their heritage was entirely
Indian, 11 described themselves as 3/4 Indian, 10 as half-
Indian, and four as 1/4 Indian. Major tribes represented
were Ottawa (29 respondents), Chippewa (19), and Potawatomi
(9), while 31 did not identify any tribal affiliation. Sex
distribution was skewed toward females with 74 females

versus 14 males. Their ages ranged from 21 to 71 with a

87

88
mean age of 40. Most respondents were born and raised in
Michigan with the majority coming from the country or small
towns. The median length of residence at their present
address was 16 years.

Of particular importance, considering that the sample
was drawn from a population of families with children, were
the findings relating to family structure. Only 47 of the
respondents were currently married and for nearly a third
of them it was not their first marriage. An additional 38%
of the sample was divorced or separated indicating that
approximately half of this group represented single-parent
households. This is clearly not what one would expect from
an Indian sample with its supposed strong familial ties and
extended family orientation (Redhorse, 1978; Attneave,
1977). The familial disorganization evidenced by the nearly
half of the sample that was currently unmarried was also
unexpected. It seems especially alarming when compared to
the 87% of all family households in Michigan who have a
husband as head of household and a wife present, although
this 87% figure appears somewhat high (Second Annual Con-
ference on Michigan Foundations, 1974). It also restricts
the possible support sources, since the most often relied
upon help-source was a spouse, both in this sample and in
other research (Gurin et al., 1960; Lieberman & Mullan,
1978).

Familial disorganization is, however, not a new

phenomenon to this sample. Approximately 40% of the

89

respondents reported that they had not been raised by their
natural parents. The majority of this group cited such
reasons as death, divorce, or separation of parents.
Because the family is a primary conduit for transmission of
cultural values and traditional belief systems within
Indian societies, this disorganization seems of special
importance. In addition, successful role models become
exceedingly difficult to find for the children of broken
families.

As has been noted for other Indian populations (Price,
1978; Bryde, 1971; Chadwick, 1973), the educational attain-
ment of this sample was below that of the dominant culture.
This sample's mean number of years of education was 10.7
compared to 12.1 for Michigan's total population (Civil
Rights Commission, 1973). Over half the sample had eleventh
grade educations or less. Similar results were obtained for
the spouses of married respondents. Their educational
achievement was an improvement compared to their parents,
however, a finding that is likely similar for the general
population. For the respondent's parent who had been the
head of household, only 52% had completed as much as the
eighth grade and less than 33% had gone beyond the eleventh
grade.

This seems especially unfortunate in light of the
importance that our society has placed on education. In
fact, many Indian leaders view education as the best path

to a better way of life (Chadwick, 1972). It is also in

90
spite of the fact that the Federal government has spent
more money per capita on Indian education than for any
other group (Levitan s. Hetrick, 1971). The large number of
Indians with less than high school educations also
adversely influences their prospects for employment.

Seventy percent of the sample reported annual incomes
of less than $10,000 and one-third reported less than
$5,000 per year. This is clearly insufficient money to
support the average five-person family of this sample. In
addition to the obvious stresses associated with poverty,
many studies have established that persons of lower
socioeconomic status are less likely to use professional
mental health resources (Asser, 1978; Rosenblatt & Suchman,
1964; Kadushin, 1969; Imber et al., 1955; Hollingshead &
Redlich, 1958).

The sex distribution of the sample deserves notice.
Due to the apparent reluctance of males to be interviewed
if there was a female present in the household, and perhaps
because most interviews occurred during the prime working
hours for males, the sample was predominantly female. This
has implications for interpretation of the results,
'especially those derived from the symptom checklist scales.

To help control for possible sex-linked response bias,
the present symptom checklist data were analyzed separately
for females, males, and the total sample and compared with
the corresponding national sample data. There seems no

entirely satisfactory way, however, to ascertain how much

91
of the results are due to bias versus "real" differences in
pathology. The fact that there is continued controversy in
the literature regarding its effects on results provides
little consolation. The present findings should be reviewed
with this in mind.

Confounding interpretation even further is the possi-
ble response bias due to interviewer differences. Although
it is impossible to determine exactly how interviewer
attributes (age, sex, etc.) affected responses, it can be
argued that some systematic bias existed. For example,
older Indians who view themselves as examples for, and
teachers of, younger generations may have been reluctant to
admit their perceived inadequacies to interviewers
appreciably younger than themselves. These situations are
difficult to control for and become less important as
sample size grows and variables such as age and sex
approach a more normal distribution. This was obviously not
the present case which had a skewed sample toward females
and interviewers who generally were younger than most
respondents. It was assumed that the use of Indian
interviewers would reduce bias, but a general examination
of the completed. surveys revealed rm) obvious difference
between the data generated by the Indian interviewers and
the one ‘white interviewer (i.e., there were I“) apparent
differences in completeness of response to the open-ended

questions).

92
Mental Health and well-being

On four of the symptom checklist scales (I11 Health,
Psychological Anxiety , Immobilization , Drinking) this
sample proved significantly (p < .01) more pathological
than did the national sample. This held for the total
sample and for the male and female subsamples (except for
males on Immobilization scale,where p < .10). Suggesting
that this Indian sample was slightly more depressed than
the national sample, the Zest scale also yield marginally
significant (p < .10) differences. The solo Drug-taking
item yielded no differences of note. Beyond their higher
psychopathology scores, many respondents (40%) also
reported that they had in the past felt like they were
going to have a nervous breakdown. Sadly, these results
suggest a group having quite serious problems coping with
life's stresses, although this. may partially be due to
their low socioeconomic status and level of education. As
Andrews and Whithey (1976) noted, these measures can be
viewed as largely a judgement on how well they are coping
and to what degree their needs are being satisfied.

More positively, most of the respondents also reported

a high degree of satisfaction with their lives, friend-

 

ships, and roles as a parent and marriage partner. The
results concerning how pappy they were with their lives
showed more variance. Most (69%) reported their lives as
”pretty satisfying", but almost twice as many of the

remaining 28 stated that they were "not happy" versus

93
"feeling very happy”. The majority, however, seemed
optimistic about being able to change those things with
which they were dissatisfied.

At first glance, these results appear contradictory.
How could they exhibit higher degrees of pathology presumab-
ly related to stress, yet report being in general satisfied
and happy in their lives? One possible explanation is that
although they have faced many stresses linked to living in
an urban setting and being Indian, they possess an optimis-
tic outlook that enables them to survive. Perhaps, as some
investigators have posited, the strength of their cultural
identity and past experiences of coping with adversity have
enhanced their capacity to cope with stresses. Some of this
is probably true.

Another explanation relates to the characteristics of
the pertinent survey items. First, those items assessing
satisfaction were single items that directly requested
perceptions of present states of well-being. Considering
the research underlining the importance of family to Indian
culture, they were perhaps reluctant to admit problems in
these areas. Secondly, it has been argued that there is
less likelihood of such obvious response biases in the
symptom checklist (Gurin et al., 1960; Veroff et al., 1981;
Clancy & Gove, 1974; Gove & Geerken, 1977). Although these
items also assume face validity, response bias appears a
lesser issue because the sympton checklist measures are

scale composites and pose issues in a manner that requires

94
greater sophistication to foil. For example, it seems
easier to perceive the socially favorable response to a
question asking how happy a person is (satisfaction) than
to one that addresses how often nervousness or tension
bothers them (symptom). It is the author's view then, that
the pathology/satisfaction discrepancy is probably morenan
artifact of these instruments than it is a reflection of a
group of people who are "satisfied” with their lives while

simultaneously experiencing a great deal of distress.

Support Systems

 

As hypothesized, there was a greater degree of
reliance on informal than formal support sources. Yet this
sample relied on significantly fewer informal sources for
help with personal problems than did the national sample
(p < .01). This was unexpected in view of extensive
literature that depicts strong familial networks of support
within the Indian culture (Ablon, 1964; Snyder, 1971;
Redhorse, 1978; Molohon, 1977; Fox, 1969).

It also seems unlikely that this Indian sample was
effectively coping with their life-stresses alone. Brown
(1978) posited that self-reliant persons (those who do not
seek help) are perhaps supported by friends and family
without having to ask for help. He added that those who
relied on formal sources did so because their informal
supports had proven inadequate. Yet for this sample, the

questions regarding support-sources were phrased so that

95

the respondent answered who he/she talked to about a

 

personal problem rather than who he/she sought out,

 

although seeking support may have been the avenue to
receiving help. Additionally, very few contacted formal
supports. It appears then, that these urban Indians were
neither self-sufficient nor did they seek formal supports
when informal supports proved inadequate.

A closer analysis of the nature of their support
systems revealed that spouses were the most often relied-
upon person. This is similar to the findings of Gurin et
a1. (1960) and Lieberman and Mullan (1978), but for the
present sample mates were often the pH support person
mentioned. Coupled with the fact that about half were
unmarried, it appears that one particularly important
source of help was unavailable to many of them. It can also
be argued that help-seeking outside the family confines was
an even more difficult task, leaving these urban Indians
with a unique sense of helplessness.

Another notable feature concerns their relationships
with friends and neighbors. The majority of respondents
reported that they visited with both groups once or more
times weekly. This frequency of contact did not, however,
carry over into their perceptions of how many they felt
that they could count on for advice or help. Most respon-
dents reported discussing personal problems with very few
friends or neighbors. Among those respondents who ”never”

confided in neighbors, over half reported that they would

96

not ever feel free to do so. A question representing a
greater degree of intimacy asked how often they actually
talked over problems with their friends and neighbors. The
findings were similar, with the majority of respondents
reporting that they ”never” or "rarely" discussed their
problems with friends or neighbors, although there appeared
to be a somewhat greater reliance on friends than
neighbors.

What emerges then is a picture of serious isolation
from informal support systems, especially those that might
be counted on for help with personal problems. The elevated
Anomie scores provided ancillary evidence for this social
isolation hypothesis. If Anomie represents a sense of alien-
ation, these findings suggest that the present sample
harbors a pessimistic-outlook on their lives and integra-
tion into their community. The social isolation that
Indians may encounter in urban environments because of
their cultural background adds another dimension to the
already difficult taSk of coping. Also, these data fail to
support the notion of strong extended family support
systems noted in other research. It appears, then, that
these urban Indians not only avoid formal support sources,
but that they have access to distinctly fewer informal

support sources than does the general population.

97
Hypotheses

Hypotheses l and 2 predicted that there would be: (1)
a positive relationship between the number of help-sources
(formal, informal, total) and satisfaction or happiness in
major life roles; and (2) a negative relationship between
help-Sources and the measures of psychological and/or
physiological distress. Both hypotheses were refuted by the
data from the present sample.

Of twenty-four correlations computed to support the
expected linkage between help-sources and the satisfaction
measures, only two were statistically significant: (1) the
more informal sources of help, the greater the satisfaction
with the number of friends one has; and (2) the fewer Egg:
£1 help-sources, the greater the satisfaction with one's
_s_e_l__f_. The first of these seems banal, in that a person is
likely to have more informal contacts (i.e., with friends)
if satisfaction is derived from friendships. The second
finding suggested that self-satisfaction was a facet of
self-reliance, and thus linked to the avoidance of formal
supports. Both relationships held only for the female
subsample. The males showed a broader general avoidance of
help-sources, as expected.

There were also only two statistically significant
linkages, of a possible thirty, between the help-sources
and the pathology measures. Both were contrary to the
hypothesized negative direction and indicated that greater

Immobilization and drug usage were associated with greater

98
access to help-sources. These linkages make little sense
and may represent spurious correlations. There are no
ancillary data which would help explain these relationships
and so no attempt is made here to speculate their meaning.

Hypothesis 3 assumed there would be more reliance on
informal than formal sources of support, based upon the
assumption of strong familial ties within the Indian
culture (Redhorse, 1978; Molohon, 1977; Snyder, 1971;
Ablon, 1964) and from previous research reporting similar
findings (Gurin et al., 1960; Brown, 1978; Sharp & Axelrod,
1956; Gourash, 1978). It was clearly supported with females
reporting slightly more informal and formal sources than
males. Yet, as noted before, the sample's reliance on
informal help-sources was appreciably' below 'that of 'the
national sample.

Hypothesis 4 assumed that there would be a greater
degree of reliance on help-sources if the respondents
viewed their interactions as having positive outcomes and
as being mutual. These assertions were only marginally
supported. Although outcome correlated very modestly with
number of formal help-sources, very few' respondents had
sought the aid. of formal sources. It. may‘ be that they
perceived strong barriers to seeking formal help, but when
they did go they viewed it to have a positive outcome. The
majority of respondents reported feeling helped by their
support interactions, whether formal or informal. Most

(93%) also felt that the informal sources they talked with

99
about their problems would ask them for similar assistance,
although this “reciprocity” measure did not correlate with

number of help-sources.

Summary and Implications

 

The principal findings were that these urban Indians
showed: (1) a greater amount of psychological and physiolog-
ical distress than a.nationa1 sample as evidenced by their
scores on a number of scales designed to measure Immobiliza-
tion, Ill Health, Psychological Anxiety, and excessive
Drinking; (2) significantly fewer informal support sources
than the national sample; and (3) few linkages between the
pathology and/or satisfaction variables and the number of
help-sources, their outcome, and perceived reciprocity.
Some of these findings were unexpected.

For example, previous research led to the expectation
of a high degree of reliance on informal support networks
for Indians. Contrarily, this sample of urban Indians
reported substantially fewer informal sources than did the
majority culture. This may reflect a disturbing disintegra-
tion of urban Indian family ties. At least for this sample,
the stresses faced in an urban environment may have weaken-
ed familial ties that appear more intact within a tradition-
al cultural setting, such as on a reservation. These family
breakdowns were further evidenced by the high proportion of
divorced, unmarried, and single-parent. households. A

picture of social isolation emerges when one also considers

100
their strong avoidance of formal help-sources.

Could it be that this familial instability and social
isolation were precipitants of the pathology reflected in
the physiological and psychological distress measures? The
data revealed few significant correlations between the
number of help-sources and the pathology or satisfaction
measures. It is this author's contention, however, that it
is precisely this lack of correlation that could exacerbate
pathology or distress. In other words, regardless of the
degree of distress felt by this sample, they do not
generally, seek or get help for their problems. The
barriers to seeking help seem varied, including lack of
social ties, no spouse, or reluctance to disclose distress
(perhaps Indian culture-based). Whatever the reasons, this
sample unfortunately appeared unable to seek much-needed
help. Even though their reported helping interactions.
seemed beneficial, there were apparently too few. Their
elevated scores on the pathology measures also suggest that
self-reliance was not an effective coping strategy. As
Brown (1978) noted, reluctant non-seekers of help are a
dangerously handicapped group. He added that they have the
least effective coping repertoires, the lowest self-esteem,
comparatively ineffective informal networks, and a severe
reluctance to discuss their problems with others. Previous
researchers have also posited that the lack of these
informal support networks may lead to greater psychological

distress and pathology (Gore, 1973; Liem & Liem, 1976;

101
Hessler et al., 1971) and a greater reluctance to seek help
from formal sources (Booth & Babchuk, 1972; Lieberman,
1965).

These findings have direct implications for the
delivery of mental health services to Indians. Many writers
have belabored the limitations of present delivery systems,
particularly their inability to transcend cultural
differences. In fact, most articles addressing the mental
health of Indians conclude with the recommendation that
therapists and agents of social change should make their
services more culturally relevant. Yet the present findings
imply that even if these services were more sensitive to
ethnic differences, few Indians would take advantage of
them. It could be argued that formal sources of help are
not used because of their insensitivity to cultural
differences. Closer analysis, however, appears to refute
this, since it seems doubtful that they would use pro-
fessional agencies any more than the informal support
systems that they plainly use less than did the national
sample. Exceptions may occur, for example, in the case of
physicians for health care, but dealing with such ego-p
linked and status-bound issues as psychological distress is
probably more in the domain of informal support.

This is not to say that services should not be made
more sensitive to the Indian culture. It is the responsibi-
lity of all those in helping professions to deliver

effective services to those who will use them. Rather, it

102

is this author's view that it is erroneous to believe that
offering effective services is £11 that is needed to
alleviate social and psychological problems. The results of
this investigation imply that coping effectively with life
problems may be more related to an individual's integration
into his/her community than it is to the availability of
services. For example, there was an Indian community
organization within the area immediate to most of the
respondents in this study. Yet even though supposedly
sensitive to cultural issues, it was rarely mentioned as a
source of help for personal problems. This could have
partially been accounted for, however, by a special image
problem of this agency in the local community during the
period of this survey (as reported by some respondents).
Future programming efforts then, should strive to develop
more effective services that are both more culturally
relevant and responsive to the community's particular
needs.

Future efforts should also be made to help strengthen
the Indian community and the integration of individuals
into it. Considering the central importance of the family
to transmission of cultural values and to mental health,
one important intervention may be to involve parents more
in the education of their children. In fact, the Title IV
Indian Education Act provides for just such a concept.

Pow-wows, feasts, and ethnic gatherings may be other ways

103
to accomplish this. At present, they seem very effective in
many Indian communities in that these events provide not
only social contact, but a strengthening of cultural
identity. Reports from the local Indian center indicate
that turnout for these events in Grand Rapids is usually
high, but that funding limitations curtail their frequency.
Door-to-door contacts may be necessary to reinforce the
value and availability of such events. It is unfortunate
that for many Indians, this intrusion into other's lives is
antithetical to their traditional belief systems encompass-
ing non-interference. Perserving mental health, however,
would seem of overriding importance and the present dearth

of social support highlights a pressing social need.

Limitations

 

The present research had a number of limitations. The
first concerns the sample. The Indian sample in this study
was representative only of one metropolitan area in
Michigan and thus, any generalizations must be limited. As
noted before, there are vast differences among Indian
groups and individuals. The present research then, was
meant primarily as a descriptive first step in providing
sorely needed background data for subsequent studies. The
sample was also predominantly female and, therefore,
reflects only a portion of how this population viewed their
lives. It also did not include single/away-from-family

respondents because of the difficulty in contacting them.

104
Future research should address these issues to present a
better overall representation of the population.

The second limitation deals with instrumentation.
Response biases due to sex differences, ethnic identifica-
tion, and socioeconomic variables appear unavoidable in
survey research. Attempts were made to control for their
influence by analyzing the data using separate male and
female subsamples and partialing-out sex, age, income, and
education in the correlational analyses. It remained
impossible, however, to precisely determine their influence
on the results. Moreover, self-report data is often criti-
cized for limited validity and reliability. Unfortunately,
to obtain some of the kinds of descriptive data presented
from this research, there is no more appropriate way than
to use self-report measures. Although the scales included
in the survey to assess well-being and psychological
distress have been employed in a number of other studies
with a range of populations, they have not been used with
Indians and thus, their validity for this sample is
uncertain.

A'major limitation concerned the sample comparisons.
The total Indian sample and male/female subsamples in this
study were compared to their respective groups in the
national sample. No adjustments were made for comparing
samples with similar ages, socioeconomic status, education,
or rate of "declining to be interviewed". It is likely that

although the age distribution for both samples was

105
comparable, socioeconomic status was not. The national
sample's presumed higher levels of education and income
could largely account for its lesser pathology. Future
research should control for socioeconomic status.

Future research should also consider the relationships
between help-seeking and type of problem that help is
sought for. This study used a general rather than specific
problem, but it seems logical that help-seeking may vary
according to the type of problem experienced. Additionally,
respondents with high rates of pathology or help-seeking
behavior should be compared to those who score lower on
these measures.

A final limitation is that the present data were
cross-sectional rather than developmental. Therefore, they
provided only a very limited time perspective, rather than
the broaden time frame of a longitudinal analysis. Ideally,
data should be collected at different points in time to
provide an overview of the processes of change. This is
especially important considering the informal feedback from
the respondents that the local Indian agency was in a state
of political turmoil during the period that interviewing
was conducted. Conceivably, reliance on that organization

(a formal support) could have been greater.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A
Data Instrument

Section A - Community and Social Support

First, I would like to ask a couple of questions about how you feel about

your community and neighborhood. (HAND R CARD A)

A1

A2

A3

How do you feel about the quality of the public schools that the
children from around here go to -- would you say it is very good,
fairly good, neither good nor bad, not very good, or not good at
all?

 

 

 

5. VERY '4. EAIRLT 3. NEITHER GOOD
GOOD GOOD , NOR gm 1:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. NOT VERY 1. NOT GO‘OD
coop AT ALL

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now a couple of questions about neighbors. About how many of your
neighbors do you know well enough to visit or call on? would you
say you have many, several, a few, or none that you know well

enough to visit or call on?

 

 

 

_—

1. MANY 2.: SEVERAL 1+. AEEV 5. NONE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. IR— SAYS HAS y; NEIGHBORS .GO TO A5

 

 

 

 

 

 

(CARD B) About how often do you visit with any of your neighbors,
either at their homes or at your own? Would you say more than
once a week, once a week, a few times a month, once a month, or

less than once a month?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[3. MORE THAN 2. ONCE A 3. A FEW TIMES
ONOEA wEEK . WEEK I A MONTH

 

 

106

A4

A5

A6

107

[7». ONCE A_ E. LESS THAN ONCE 6. NEVER‘]
MONTH A MONTH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(CARD C) How often, if ever, have.you talked with any neighbors
about your problems when you were worried or asked the. for advice
or help? Would you say very Often, Often, sometimes, rarely, or

never?

 

 

 

 

5. VERY OFTEN 4. OFTEN 3. SOMETIMES 2. RARELI ~

GO To A5 //

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘1. NEVER

I

 

 

 

 

 

Aha Would you ever feel free to talk with one of your neighbors

about such things?

5- YES [3- DEPENQE

 

 

 

 

_ (CARD B) Here are a few questions about your friends and rela-

tives. First, about how Often do you get together with friends

or relatives -- I mean things like going out together or visiting
in each other's homes? Would you say more than once a week, once
a week, a few times a month, once a month, or less than once a

month?

 

 

 

 

1. MORE THAN 2. ONCE A 3. FEW TIMES h. ONCEng
ONCE A WEEK WEEK A MONTH MONTH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. lESS THAN ONCE [—6. ”NEVER-1
A MONTH

 

 

 

Now, think of the friends and relatives you feel free to talk with
about your worries and problems or can count on for advice or help. '
Would you say you have many, several, a few, or no such friends or

relatives?

A7

A8

A9

A10

108
r__
l. MANY 2. SEVERAL {4. A FEW 5. NONE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(CARD C) How Often, if ever, have you talked with friends or
relatives about your problems when you were worried or asked them
for advice or help -- very Often, Often, sometimes, rarely, or

never?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. VERY OFTEN [2. OFTEN] 3. SOMETIMES h. RARELY 5. NEVER

 

 

 

 

 

DO you feel you have as many friends as you want, or would you

like to have more friends?

1. AS MANYF'RIENDS AS WANTS 5. VOUIDLIEEMORE FRIENDSj

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, could you tell me how satisfied you are with your friendships
-- with the amount of time you can spend with your friends, the
things you do together, the number of friends you have, as well

as the particular people who are your friends. If you are com-
pletely dissatisfied, you would say "seven." If you are com-
pletely satisfied with your friendships, you would say "one." If
you are neither completely satisfied nor completely dissatisfied,
you would put yourself somewhere from two to six; for example,
four means that you are neutral, just as satisfied as you are dis-
satisfied. Which number comes closest tO how satisfied or dissaie-

isfied you feel?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

("_‘1 ‘
COMPLETELY 1 [a 3 L» 5 . 6 i 7 COMPLETELY
SATISFIED ""4 ' DISSATISFIED

In general, how Often do you talk over a big problem in your life
with someone you trust? Would you say Often, sometimes, rarely,

or never?

A11

109

4. OFTEN’ [5. SOMETIMES 2. RARELY 1. NEVER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now could I ask you this -- who are the people in your life that
you really depend on? You don't have to tell me their names, but
just who they are to you -- like your friend down the street or

someone like that. (IF ONLY ONE PERSON MENTIONED, PROBE FOR MORE

'TRAN ONE) Is there anyone else? (ENTER TO FIVE PERSONS IN THE

SPACES BELOW) Now I'd like to ask a bit more about each of these

persons.

ASK ITEMS Alla TO Al9f FOR THE FIRST PERSON MENTIONED, RECORDING ANSWERS

IN THE FIRST ROW BELOW. THEN REPEAT FOR SECOND PERSON, THEN FOR THIRD --

Alla-(IF NOT CLEAR) Is the first (2nd, 3rd, etc.) person male
or female. (RECORD IN COL. a BELOW)

Allb-Does (he/she) depend on you? (RECORD IN COL. b BELOW)

Allc-(IF NOT)ClEAR) Does (he/she) live near you? (RECORD IN COL.
c BELOW

Alld-(IF NOT ClEAR) Is (he/she) a relative of yours or not?
( IF "YES" RECORD IN COL. d BELOW) (IF NOT RELATIVE)
._____1________

 

A11e- How did you first get to know (him/her) --
through work or school, as a neighbor, through a
church, club, organization, or through other friends?
(RECORD ONE OF THE UNDERLINED WORDS IF POSSIBLE IN e)

 

Allf- How many years have you known (him/her)?

 

 

 

 

 

Alla - Alld (a) (b) (c) (d)

DEFEND LIVE RELA-

SEx ON YOU? NEAR? TIVE?

PERSON (M,F) (Y,N) (Y,N ) (Y,N)

1. _____ ____. _____ _____

2. ____ .____ .____ ____.

3. _____, ____. ____. ____’
4.

 

 

. 110

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A11e - A11f (IF NOT RELATIVE)
(e) (f)
KNOWN
HOW You FIRST HOW
PERSON GOT ACQUAINTED? LONG?
1. YRS
2. YRS
3. YRS
a. YRS
5. YRS

Section B - Worries and Unhappiness
Another one of the things we're interested in is what people think about
these days.
B1 Everybody has some things he/she worries about more or less.

What kinds of things do you worry about most?

 

 

 

B2 Do you worry about such things a lot, or not very much?

 

 

 

 

 

5. A LOT 1. NOT VERY Much]

 

 

B3 If something is on your mind that's bothering you or worrying you,

and you don't know what to do about it, what do you usually do?

 

 

(IF DOESN'T MENTION "TALK IT OVER")
B3a' Do you ever talk it over with anyone?

-H--- ,______q
I
5. YES . 1. NO (CO TO Bu)

 

 

 

['(IE NOT MENTIONED) B3b Who is that?

BS

111

 

B30 Is there anyone else? (Who is that?)

 

 

(IF MORE THAN ONE PERSON MENTIONED IN 33b and 33c)

B3d Whom do you talk to most often?

 

 

B3e What generally happens when you talk to that person?

 

 

B3f How much does it help to talk to that person? Would
you say that it's a lot of help, some help, or not

much help?

 

 

 

 

 

GT”; LOT OF HELP [Sing—SOMEREL'P‘] [1. NOT MUCH HELP

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everyone has things about their life they're not completely happy
about. What are some of the things that you're not too happy

about these days? (PROBE FOR FULL RESPONSES.)

 

 

 

 

Taking all things together, how would you say things are these
days -- would you say you're very happy, pretty happy, or not too

happy these days?

 

 

 

 

5. VERY HAPPY 3. PRETTY HAPPY 1. NOT TOO HAPPY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One of the things we'd like to know is how people face the unhappy
periods of their lives. Thinking of the unhappiness you've had to
face, what are some of the things that have helped you in those

times?

112

 

 

 

Section C: Self-Perceptions

Now I am going to hand you a sheet which tells about some of the ways
in which different people describe themselves. After each statement,
would you please check the category that applies to you. Please let me

know when you are finished.

(HAND R THE INTERVIEW SCHEDULE TURNED TO Q. C1. AFTER R FILLS OUT AND

RETURNS IT, GO TO C3)

 

INTERVIEWERI IF R HAS A READING OR SEEING PROBLEM, USE THE QUESTION-
NAIRE AS USUAL: READ EACH STATEMENT AND THE RESPONSE CATEGORIES AND

CHECK R'S CHOICE.

 

 

 

C1 How often do you feel:
a. My mind is as clear as it used to be.
b. I find it easy to do the things I used to.
c. My life is interesting.
d. I feel that I am useful and needed.
e. My life is pretty full.

f. I feel hopeful about the future.

C2

C3

C4

05

113

A LITTLE OR SOME OF A GOOD PART ALL OR MOST
NONE OF THE TIME THE TIME OF THE TIME OF THE TIME

 

a.

 

b.

 

Co

 

 

 

f.

 

 

 

 

 

 

How often are these true for you:

a. I feel that I am a person of worth, at least as much as others.
b. I am able to do things as well as most other people.

c. On the whole, I feel good about myself.

OFTEN SOMETIMES RARELY NEVER
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you make plans ahead, do you usually get to carry out things
the way you expected, or do things usually come up to make you

change your plans?

 

 

 

1. THINGS WORK OUT {EHHAVE TO CHANGE 8. DON'T
AS EXPECTED PLANS KNOW

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some people feel they can run their lives much the way they want
to; others feel the problems of life are sometimes too big for

them. Which one are you most like?

 

 

 

1. CAN RUN I 5. PROBLEMS OF [BTDONTT‘
OWN LIFE _._ LIFE TOO BIG I KNOW ,

 

 

 

 

In general, how satisfying do you find the way you're spending

C6

C7

CB

114
your life these days? Would you call it completely satisfying,

pretty satisfying, or not very satisfying?

 

 

1. COMPLETELY 3. PRETTY 5. NOT VERY 8. DON'T
SATISFYING SATISFYING SATISFYING KNOW

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you think about the kind of person you are now, how likely
do you think it is that you could change some of the things about
yourself that you don't like or are not satisfied with? Would
you say that it is very likely, somewhat likely, not too likely,

or not likely at all?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m mm lSWWMT [szTm 1.mTumm
[_ umm LHMY umu ”Am

-v—s — -—.———o

 

 

 

 

 

Overall, are you more satisfied or dissatisfied with yourself?

 

 

 

5. SATISFIED 1. DISSATISFIED

 

 

 

 

 

Here are some interesting comparisons people sometimes make about
their lives. For each pair of statements I read, please tell me
which one you would rather overhear about yourself.
C8a First, which of these two statements would you rather over-
hear about yourself? (CHECK ONE)
(1) (He/she) if a fine (father/mother).
-or-
(5) (He/she) is excellent at the work (he/she) does.
C8b How about these two? Which would you rather overhear about
yourself? (CHECK ONE)
(1) (He/she) is a fine (father/mother).
-or-
(5) (He/she) is a fine (husband/wife).

C80 Which of these two would you rather overhear? (CHECK ONE)

C9

115

(1) (He/she) is a fine (husband/wife).

(5) (He/she) is excellent at the work (he/she) does.

Now I would like to ask you some questions about how you see

yourself.

different times.

1.

2.

In terms of

yourself

We are interested in how you identify yourself at

(HAND CARD X)

your heritage or birth, how would you see

?

 

In terms of

In terms of

your job ?

the organizations or clubs you may belong

 

 

 

 

to ?

The way you relate to your friends ?
The way you relate to your children ?
The way you relate to your husband/wife ?
The way you think others see you ?

In terms of
life

Card X

 

the values you hold as important in your
?

A. Indian

B. more Indian than White
C. more White than Indian
D. White

116
Section D: Marriage

Now I'd like to ask you some questions about marriage.

D1 Are you married, widowed, divorced, separated, or never married?

 

 

1 . MARRIED 2. WIDOWED 3. DIV ORCED lb. SEPARATED
GO TO D9 GO TO D5 GO TO D7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. NEVER MARRIED, SINGIE
GO TO D12

 

 

D2 Is this your first marriage?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. YES 1. NO
E23 How long have you been E2b Did your last marriage
married? (YEARS) end by death or divorce?
GO TO D3 3. DEATH 5. DIVORCE

E2c How long hays you been
married to your present
wife/husband?

(YEARS)

' D3 Thinking about your own marriage, what would you say were the

nicest things about it?

 

 

 

D4 Taking things all together, how would you describe your marriage -
would you say your marriage was very happy, a little happier than

average, just about average, or not too happy?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. VERY . LITTLE HAPPIER 2. JUST ABOUT 1. NOT TOO
HAPPY THAN AVERAGE AVERAGE , HAPPY
[GO 'TO Duoj

 

 

 

 

Dha Even in cases where married people are happy there have

often been times in the past when they weren't too happy--

 

117

 

when they had problems getting along with each other. Has

this ever been true for you?

 

 

5. YES 1. NO‘ GO TO SECTION E

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dub What was that about?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GO TO D15

Dhc What are some of the things you're not too happy about?

 

 

GO TO D15

IF R IS DIVORCED OR SEPARATED (ASK FOR MOST RECENT MARRIAGE):

D5 How long haye you been ( divorced/separated)?

 

D6 How long were you married and living together?

 

D7 Thinking about your marriage before you were (divorced/separated),

what would you say were same of the nicer things about it?

 

 

 

D8 What were some of the problems in your marriage?

 

 

 

GO TO D15
IF R IS WIDOWED

D9 How long ago did your (husband/wife) die?

 

118
D10 How long had you been married?

 

D11 When your (husband/wife) died what helped you the most?

 

 

 

GO TO D15

IF R IS SINGIE, NEVER MARRIED:

D12 Are you planning to get married in the near future?

 

 

 

 

5. YES 1. NO
1_

D12a When do you plan to get
married?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

D12b What would you say are
your main reasons for
getting married?

 

 

 

GO TO D15

 

 

 

 

 

D12c Would you eventually like to be married?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

' 5. YES 1. N0
D12d What would you say D12e What would you say
are your main are your main rea-
reasons for want- sons for remaining
ing to get single, or not want-
married? ing to get married?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

h“ g

 

 

D13 What are some of the problems of living in this area as a single

person?

 

 

D14

119
All in all, how happy are you these days about how you get along

with the people who are close to you -- would you say very happy,

pretty happy, or not too happy?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. VERY HAPPY 3. PRETTY HAPPY 1. NOT TOO HAPPY
1 l l
D14a Even in cases where people 1 Dlhc What are some of the
are happy there have often things you're not too
been times in the past when happy about?

 

they weren't too happy - 1
when they had problems
getting along with other
people. Has this ever
been true for you?

 

 

 

 

‘1

 

 

 

5. YES 1. NO - GO TO D15

D14b What was that about?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

J
L_{‘c;OTOD15

D15

to talk it over with other people.

120
Sometimes when people are bothered by things like that they like

(HAND R CARD E) (Did you

talk/Have you talked) to any of these people about that matter?

For each person choose the one description that fits them best.

If more than one person you talked to fits the same description

(like friend or relative), please tell me.

 

 

 

 

 

D1§a D1§b D150
( ) CHECK HERE IF (IF NOT CLEAR) (IF NOT CLEAR) ,Would he/she
R SAYS "TALKED Is that person Is he/she older talk to you
T0 NO ONE" ON male or female? than you are, if he/she
THE LIST. THEN younger, or felt that way?
GO TO D16 about the same? I
(A) Husband YES NO
(B) Wife YES NO
(C) Son YES NO
(D) Daughter YES NO
(E) Father YES NO
(F) Mother . YES NO
(G) Brother OLDER YOUNGER SAME YES NO
(H) Sister OLDER YOUNCER SAME YES NO
( ) MALE FEMALE OLDER YOUNCER SAME YES NO
(other G-H or
( ) MALE FEMALE OLDER YOUNGER SAME YES NO
other relative)
(I) Friend MALE FEMALE OLDER YOUNCER SAME YES NO
(J) Neighbor MAIE FEMALE OLDER YOUNGER SAME YES NO
MALE FEMALE OLDER YOUNCER SAME YES NO

 

other (I-J)

 

 

 

 

 

121

 

 

D1§d
Which of the things on

this card happened when
you talked with him/her?
You can choose more than
229-

a. just listened to me

21.52

How much did it help to
talk? Would you say it:

helped a lot?
helped some?
or was it not much

 

 

 

b. cheered or comforted help?
me
0. asked me questions
d. told me who else to
see
e. showed me a new way
to look at things
f. gave me advice
g. helped me take action
(A) Husband a b c d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
(B) Wife a b 0 d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
(C) Son a b c d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
(D) Daughter a b c d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
(E) Father a b c d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
(F) Mother a b 0 d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
(G) Brother a b c d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
(H) Sister a b 0 d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
( ) a b 0 d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
(Other G-H or
( ) a b c d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
other relative)
(I) Friend b c d e r g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
(J) Neighbor b 0 d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
( ) b c d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH

 

other (I-J)‘

 

 

 

122
D16 Now, how about these people? (HAND R CARD F) Did you talk to

any of these people about that matter? Again, for each person,
choose the one description that fits them best. If more than

one person you talked to fits the same description, please tell me.

 

 

D16a D16b D160

( ) CHECK HERE IF Is that person (IF YES TO D163) How did you
R SAYS "TALKED connected with Do you remember know to go to
T0 NO ONE" ON any place or the name of the that person?
THE LIST. THEN agency? place or agency,
GO TO SECTION E or the kind of
place it was?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(K) Psychiatrist ’ YES NO DK
(1) Psychologist YES NO DK
(M) Social worker YES NO DK
(N) Counselor YES NO DK
(P) Nurse YES NO DK
( ) YES NO DK
(other’KeP)
(R) Clergyman YES NO DK
(S) Teacher YES NO DK
(T) Police YES NO DK
(U) Lawyer YES NO DK
(V) Union steward YES NO DK
( ) YES NO DK

 

 

(other R-V)

 

 

 

 

 

123

 

 

 

 

D16d Digs
Which of the things on How much did it help to
this card happened when talk? Would you say it:
you talked with that
person? You can choose helped a lot?
more than one. helped some?
a. just listened to me §:1w:s it not much
b. cheered or comforted P
me
0. asked me questions
d. told me who else to
see
e. showed me a new way
to look at things
f. gave me advice
g. helped me take action
(K) Psychiatrist a b c d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
(L) Psychologist a b c d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
(M) Social worker a b c d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH .
(N) Counselor a b c d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
(P) Nurse a b c d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
( ) a b c d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
(other K-P)fi
(R) Clergyman a b c d e f g A LOT .SCNE NOT MUCH
(S) Teacher a b c d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
(T) Police a b 0 d e f g ALOT SOME NOT MUCH
(U) Lawyer a b 0 d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
(V) Union steward a b c d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
( ) a b c d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
(other R-V)

 

 

 

 

 

And now I'd like to ask you some questions about children.

 

 

 

 

 

124
Section E: Parenthood

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E1 Do you have any children?
1. YES 5. N0
L
E1a DO you expect to have any children?
1. YES 3. MAYBE, DEPENDS 5. NO
'—_-‘J PROBABLY
GO TO SECTION F
E1b How many children have you had? (NUMBER OF CHILDREN)
E10 Would you tell me whether they're boys or girls, how old

they are, and whether they're living with you or away from

home?

WRITE DOWN IN ORDER OF MENTION)
1___________fl_______

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘CHILD NUMBER SEX ACE CHILD LIVES WITH R, AWAY, OR IS DEAD?
1 1. WITH R 2. AWAY 3. DEAD
2 1. WITH R 2. AWAY 3. DEAD
3 1. WITH R 2. AWAY 3. DEAD
it 1. WITH R 2. AWAY 3. DEAD
5 1. WITH R 2. AWAY 3. DEAD
6 1. WITH R 2. AWAY 3. DEAD
7 1. WITH R 2. AWAY 3. DEAD
8 1. WITH R 2. AWAY 3. DEAD
E2 In what year did you first become a parent? YEAR

Do you expect to have any more children?

 

1.YES

 

 

 

3. MAYBE; DEPENDS; PROBABLY

 

 

 

 

 

 

ELL

ES

E6

E7

125
Most parents have had some problems in raising their children.

What are the main problems you've had in raising your child(ren)?

 

 

 

1,

Ella What (did/do) you do when things like that (came/come) up?

 

 

 

Compared with most other children, would you say that your (child/
children) (has/have) given you a lot of problems, some problems,

only a few problems or haven't they given you any problems at all?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lu. A 3. SOME 2. ONLY A FEW 1. HAVEN'T GIVEN
ANY PROBLEMS

 

 

 

 

 

Some people say that having children brings a husband and wife
closer together. Others feel that having children makes a husband
and wife less close. Thinking about your own experience, how do
you feel about that? Do you feel that children (have) brought you

and your (husband/wife) closer together or farther apart?

 

 

 

 

1. CLCBER 3. SOME OF 5. FARTHER 6. NO
TOGETHER BOTH APART DIFFERENCE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overall, would you say that in your case, being a (father/mother)
has nearly always been enjoyable, that it has usually been enjoy-
able, that it has sometimes been enjoyable, or that being a

(father/mother) has hardly ever been enjoyable?

 

 

 

 

4. NEARLY ALWAYS 3. USUALLY 2. SOMETIMES 1. HARDLY EVER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

126
Section F: Employment

I now have some questions about your work.

F1

F2

F3

Fh

F5

F6

F7

F8

Are you working now, unemployed, retired, (a housewife, a stu-

dent), or what?

 

 

 

1. WORKING NOW; ON 2. TEMPORARILY 3. UNEMPLOYED
STRIKE: SICK LEAVE LAID OFF

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GO TO F8

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. RETIRED 5. PERMANENTLY . HOUSEWIFE' 7. STUDENT
DISABLED
GO TO F10 GO TO FIO GO TO F15 GO TO F15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is your main occupation? (What sort of work do you do?)

 

Tell me a little mnre about what you do.

 

What kind of (business/industry) is that?

 

Do you work for yourself or for someone else?

 

 

 

 

[1. SELF-EMPLOYED 2. SOMEONE ELSE

 

 

 

(DON'T ASK IF CLEAR, BUT MARK ANSWER)
Where do you do this work -- at home or away from home.

 

 

'1. AT HOME 2. AWAY FROM HOME

 

 

 

 

 

 

About how many hours do you work on your job in the average week?
HOURS A WEEK

GO TO F16

Have you ever done any work for pay?

 

 

 

 

F———1
1. YESJ 5. NO GO TO F143

 

F8a What was your occupation on your last regular job? (What

sort of work did you do?

 

127
F8b Tell me a little more about what you did.

 

F80 What kind of (business/industry) was that?

 

F8d Did you work for yourself or for someone else?

 

 

 

 

1. SELF-EMPLOYED 2. SOMEONE ELSE

 

 

 

 

F8a About how many hours did you work on your last job in the

 

average week? HOURS A WEEK
GO TO F 40
F9 Have you ever done any work for pay?
1. YES GO TO SECTION C

F10 What was your main occupation before you (retired/became dis-

abled)? (What sort of work did you do?)

 

F11 Tell me a little more about what you did.

 

F12 What kind of (business/industry) was that?

 

F13 Did you work for yourself or for someone else?

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. SELF-EMPLOYED 2. SOMEONE ELSE

 

 

Fin INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT
( ) 1. R IS RETIRED—>GO TO Fun

( ) 2. R IS DISABLED

 

 

F14a Xge you doing any work for pay at the present time?

 

 

 

1. YES 5. NO GO TO

 

 

 

 

 

GO BACK TO F2
"WORKING NOW"

128
F15 Are you doing any work for pay at the present time?

 

 

 

 

1. YES 5.NO

 

 

 

 

GO BACK TO F2
"WORKING NOW"

F15a Have you ever done any work for pay?

 

 

 

 

1. YES 5. NO GO TO F15d

 

 

 

 

F15b When did you leave your last regular job? (IF LESS THAN
TWO YEARS, GET MONTH.)
YEAR MONTH

F150 What happened -- why did you leave it?

 

 

F15d INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT

 

( )1. R IS HOUSEWIFE—e GOTOF 49

( ) 2. R IS STUDENT ———> GO TO SECTION C

 

 

 

ASK ALL PEOPLE WORKING FULL OR PART TIME.

F16 How long have you been doing this kind of work? YEARS
F17 Taking into consideration all the things about your job, how

satisfied or dissatisfied are you with it?

 

 

 

F18 What things do you particularly like about the job?

 

 

 

F19 What things don't you like about the job?

 

F20

F21

F22

129

 

 

Regardless of how much you like your job, is there any other kind

of work you would rather be doing?

 

 

LYLE 5. N0—-———- GOTOF21

 

 

 

 

 

 

F20a What is that?

 

 

Taking everything into consideration, how likely is it that you
will make a genuine effort to find a new job within the next

year -- very likely, somewhat likely, or not at all likely?

 

 

At- 4....-.m.

 

 

 

1. VERY LIKELY 3. SOMEWHAT LIKELY ENNOT AT ALL LIKELY

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you didn't have to work to make a living, do you think you

would work anyway?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_.t-“- .1.r
1. YES 3. MAYBE} 1 I 5. NOJ 8.DON'T KNOVU
* __PROBABLYJ ‘ '"‘ ' I
i, EL GO TO F23
F22a What would be your F22b Why would you not
reasons for going on continue to work?
working?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have you ever had any problems with your work -- times when you
couldn't work, weren't getting along on the job, or didn't know

what kind of work you wanted to do?

 

E. YES 5. NO GO TO qu

 

 

 

 

 

F23a What was that about?

 

 

 

130
F24 Do you feel that the demands of your work ever interfere with the

demands of your family?

 

 

 

 

 

5. YES: 3. SOMETIMES , 5. NO

 

F25 Next are some things that might describe a person's job. First,
how much does your job allow you to make a lot of decisions on
your own? Would you say a lot, somewhat, a little, or not at all?

1. A LOT 2. SOMEWHAT 3. A LITTLE?J 1., NOT AT ALL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F26 How much say do you have over what happens on your job? Would you

Say a lot, some, a little, or none?

 

 

 

1. A LOT 2. SOME 3. A.LITITE 4. NONE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(CARD F-A) Here are some more things that might describe a person's job.
Please tell me how true each is of your (main) job, using one of the
answers on this card.

F27 The first one is: The work is interesting. Is this very true,
somewhat true, not very true or not at all true of your job?

F28 The next one 181 I am given a lot of chances to talk with the
people I work with. Is this very true, somewhat true, not very
true or not at all true of your job?

F29 I am given a chance to do the things I do best. Is this very

true, somewhat true, not very true or not at all true of your job?

 

 

VERY SOMEWHAT NOT VERY NOT AT
TRUE TRUE TRUE ALL TRUE
(1) (2) (3) (4)
F27
F28

 

F29

 

 

 

 

 

 

131

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F30 What does it take to do a really good job at the kind of work
you do?

F31 How much ability do you think it takes to do a really good job
at the kind of work you do?

F32 How good would you say you are at doing this kind of work ~-
would you say you were very good, a little better than average,
just average, or not very good?

1. VERY 2. A LITTLE BETTER 3. JUST E. NOT VERY
GOOD THAN AVERAGE AVERAGE 1 GOOD
F33 Do you have any people working under (for) you?
[1. YES 5,NO GO TOF34
__..__.J
F33a, How many? NUMBER OF PEOPLE
F34 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT
( ) 1. R IS SELF-EMPLOYED GO TO F37
( ) 2. R IS NOT SELF-EMPLOYED GO TO F35

(IF R IS NOT SELF-EMPLOYED)

F35 Do you work under anyone -- a supervisor or anyone in charge of
your work?

F35a Just how much does (he/she) have to do with you and your
work?

F36 Outside of the people working over you or under you, do you work

132

with any other person or people?

 

 

1. YES 5. N0 GO TO F 37

 

 

 

 

 

 

F36a How do you like the people you work with?

 

 

 

F37 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT

 

 

()1.RISMALE >GOTOSECTIONG

()2.RISFEMAIE

V

F38 Different people feel differently about taking care of a home --

 

 

 

I don't mean taking care of the children, but things like cooking
and sewing and keeping house. Some women look on these things as
just a job that has to be done -- other women really enjoy them.

How do you feel about this?

 

 

 

 

WOMEN WORKING FULL OR PART TIME

 

 

 

F39 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT

 

( ) 1. R HAS CHILD(REN) UNDER 12 LIVING IN HOUSEHOLD

( ) 2. R HAS N9 CHILD(REN) UNDER 12 LIVING IN HOUSEHOLD
GO TO SECTION C

 

 

 

VI
F39a How (are the children/is the child) taken care of while you

are at work?

 

 

F39b (IF R MENTIONS SCHOOL ONLY)

isn't) (they aren't)

133

in school?

What about the time (he/she

 

 

 

 

R IS UNEMPLOYED

 

 

F40
F41

F42

F43

When did you leave your last job?

GO TO SECTION C

 

What happened -- why did you leave it? (DON'T PROBE IF R IS

RESISTANT . )

 

 

 

Do you expect to have much trouble getting another job?

 

1. YES

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. N0

 

Have you been looking for work during the past month?

 

1.YES
'11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. NO L—CO TO F43b

 

 

' F43a What haVe you been doing in the last month to find work?

 

 

 

GO TO SECTION G

F43b Do you want a regular job now, either full or part-time?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8. DON'T KNOW

 

 

 

U

W

W

 

 

[1. YES! 3. MAYBE - IT DEPENDS 5. NO

F430 What are the reasons
you are not looking

for work? (DON'T

 

 

 

F43d Do you intend to look
I for work of any kind in

the next 12 months?

 

 

 

134

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PROBE IF R IS RESISTANT.) 1. YES ’ 5. NO
3. DEPENDS Fla. 112133;? A
L - i
GO TO SECTION C
R IS RETIRED

 

 

F44

F45

F46

F47

In what year did you retire? (IF LESS THAN TWO YEARS, PROBE: In
what month was that?) YEAR MONTH

Why did you retire?

 

 

F45a (IF NOT CLEAR) Did you have to retire, or is this something

that you wanted to do?

 

 

In what way has retirement made a difference in your life?

 

 

 

F46a Could you tell me more about these changes and what they

have meant in your life?

 

 

 

When you think of the days when you were working, what do you miss

most?

 

 

 

135
F48 Are you doing any work for pay at the present time?

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. YES 5. N0~—$GO TO SECTION C

 

 

\

TURN BACK TO F2
"WORKING NOW"

 

 

l; IS A HOUSEWIFE

 

F49 Different people feel differently about taking care of a hom --
I don't mean taking care of the children, but things like cook-
ing and sewing and keeping house. Some women look on these things
as just a job that has to be done -- other women really enjoy

them. How do you feel about this?

 

 

 

F50 Have you ever wanted a career?

 

 

 

 

1. YES 5. NO--‘- GO TO F51

1

F50a What kind of career?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F51 What are the main reasons you aren't working at present?

 

 

 

F52 Are you planning to go to work in the future?

 

 

 

““1
1.YES 5. NO — —---"-‘- GO TO SECTION G

 

 

 

 

F52a Women have different reasons for working. What would 113A

 

136

your main reasons for working? (PROBE FOR FULL.RESPONSES)

 

 

 

 

F52b What kind of work do you think you will do?

 

 

 

F520 Are you looking for work at the present time?

1. YES 5. N0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GO TO SECTION C

 

G1

G2

137

Section G: Role Comparisons

(CARD C) Here is a list of things that many people look for or
want out of life. Please study the list carefully, then tell me

which two of these things are most important to you in your life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(CHECK TWO)

r" -_ ,- [ _ ._____,
i SENSE OF BELONGING 1 6. FUN AND ENJOYMENT IN LIFE

1 l

.2. EKCITEMENT .1 L7. SECURITY

'3'. WARM RELATIONSHIPS WITH fa SELF-RESPECT

LIFTER. F

i 1 _._._......___ .
‘4. SELF-FULFILLMENTJ 9. A SENSE OF ACCOMPLISHMENT

 

 

 

"5. BEING WELL-RESPECTED]

_bun-n—a—‘gn—

 

(CARD G) And of these two, which g§§_is most important to you

in your life?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(CHECK ONE)
E. SENSE OF BELONGINGT L6. FUN AND ENJOYMENT IN LIFE
'2. EXCITEMENT ) fl- SECURITY
_____--.,.L._.____J
?3. WARM RELATIONSHIPS WITH LB. SELFQRESPECT
L OTHERS
I ..... “fl
_4. SELF-FULFILLMENTJ L9. A SENSE OF ACCOMPLISHUENT

 

 

 

 

- *-—-- .—

, 5. BEING WELL-RESPECTEDL

.w—Pn . a

 

 

A

 

 

NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: COPY HERE THE VALUE SELECTED BY R IN GZ

. SUBSTITUTE THIS PHRASE FOR

 

"MOST IMPORTANT VALUE" IN QUESTIONS G3a-G3e.

 

 

GB

138
(CARD C) Now I'd like to ask you how much various things in your

life either have led or would lead to (MOST IMPORTANT VALUE).

QUESTIONS C3e-G3e SHOULD BE ASKED 0F EVERYONE.

G3a First, how much have the things you do in your leisure time
led to (MOST IMPORTANT VALUE) in your life -- very little, a
little, some, a lot, or a great deal?

G3b How much has the work you do in and areound the house led to
(MOST IMPORTANT VALUE) in your life -- very little, a little,
some, a lot, or a great deal?

G30 How much (has/would/did) work at a job (led/lead) to (MOST
IMPORTANT VALUE) in your life?

G3d How about being married? How much (has/would/did) being
married (led/lead) to (MOST IMPORTANT VALUE) in your life?

C3e What about being a (father/mother)? How much (has/would)

being a parent (led/lead) to (MOST IMPORTANT VALUE) in

 

 

 

 

 

your life?
VERY A A A GREAT
LITTTE LITTTE SOME LOT DEAL

_gi) 42L 0) (ti :5)

G3a

G3b

G30

G3d

G3e

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

139

(CARD I) Some things in our lives are very satisfying to one

person, while another may not find them satisfying at all. I'd

like to ask how much satisfaction you have gotten or would get

from some of these different things.

QUESTIONS G4aPG4e SHOULD BE ASKED OF EVERYONE

G4a

G4b

First, consider the thiggs you do in your leisure time. All
in all, would you say you have gotten great satisfaction,

some satisfaction, a little satisfaction, or no satisfaction
from the things that you do in your leisure time?

How about the work you do in and around the houggz (Would
you say you have gotten great, some, a little, or no satis-

faction?

How much satisfaction (have you gotten/would you get/ did

you get) out of work at a job?

What about beigg married? How much satisfaction (have you

gotten/would you get/ did you get) from being married?

How much satisfaction (have you gotten/would you get/ did

you get) out of being a (father/Mother)?

 

 

 

 

 

GREAT SOME LITTLE N0
SATISFACTION SATISFACTION SATISFACTION SATISFACTION

(1) (g) .13) (u)
G4a
04b
G40
G4d
G4a

 

 

 

 

 

 

140
Section H: Symptoms

Now, some questions about your health.

H1

H2

H3

H4

H5

Do you have any particular physical or health trouble?

 

 

GO TO H2

 

 

 

r-..”
1. YES 5. NO1
W

H1a What is that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

(P. 3, RESPONDENT BOOKLET) Here is a list which tells about
different troubles and complaints people have. After each one
would you check the answer which tells how often you have had this
trouble or complaint. Please let me know when you have finished
the page. (HAND RESPONDENT BOOKLET. AFTER R FILLS OUT AND
RETURNS BOOKLET, TURN T0 H3.)

Here are some more questions like those you've filled out. This
time just answer "Yes" or "No". Do you feel you are bothered by

all sorts of pains and ailments in different parts of your body?

 

 

 

 

11.“. EU V 5. NO

 

For the most part, do you feel healthy enough to carry out the

things that you would like to do?

1. YE? 5. NO?

--m.-—‘

 

 

 

Have you ever felt that you were going to have a nervous breakdown?

H6

H5b

How

H6a

H6b

H6O
H6d
H6e

H6f

141

 

 

 

1.YES 5. NO‘--’GO T0 H6

\I/

Could you tell me about when you felt this way? What was

 

 

 

 

 

it about?

 

 

 

 

What did you do about it?

 

 

 

often have you had the following?

Do you ever have any trouble getting to sleep or staying
asleep?

Have you ever been bothered by nervousness, feeling fidgety
and tense?

Are you ever troubled by headaches or pains in the head?

Do you have loss Of appetite?

 

 

 

 

 

 

How often are you bothered by having an upset stomach?
Do you find it difficult to get up in the morning?
ALMOST ALL FAIRLY NOT
THE TIME OFTEN VERY MUCH NEVER
r__________L _:
H6a
H6b
H6O
H6d
H6e
H6f

 

 

 

 

 

 

H7

How

H7a

H7b

H7O

H7d

H7e

H7f

H78

H7h

H71

H73

H7k

H71

142

Has any ill health
affected the amount
of work you do?

Have you ever been
bothered by shortness
of breath when you were
not exercising or work-
ing hard?

Have you ever been
bothered by your heart
beating hard?

Do you ever drink more
than you should?

Have you ever had spells
of dizziness?

Are you ever bothered
by nightmares?

Do you tend to lose
weight when_you have
something important
bothering you?

Do your hands ever
tremble enough to bother
you?

Are you troubled by your
hands sweating so that
you feel damp and clammy?

Have there ever been times
when you couldn't take
care of things because you
just couldn't get going?

When you feel worried,
tense or nervous, do you
ever drink alcoholic
beverages to help you
handle things?

Haye there ever been prob-
lems between you and any-

often have you had the following?

MANY
TIMES

SOME-
TIMES

HARDLY NEVER
EVER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H8

143

MANY SOME- HARDLY NEVER
TIMES TIMES EVER
r-——-—w—-——r—-’

 

one in your family
(spouse, parent, child,
or other close relative)
because you drank alco-
holic beverages?

 

H7m When you feel worried,
tense or nervous, do
you ever take medicines
or drugs to help you
handle things?

 

 

 

 

 

 

(CARD J) Now here is something different. I have some statements
here that describe the way some people are and feel. I'll read
them one at a time and you just tell me how true they are for

you -- whether they're very true for you, pretty true, not very
true, or not true at all.

VERY PRETTY NOT VERY NOT TRUE
TRUE TRUE AT ALL

TRUE
_QL__(Z) (3) (4)

 

H8a I have always felt
pretty sure my life
would work out the
way I wanted it to.

 

H8b No one cares much
what happens to me.

 

H80 I often wish that
people would listen
to me more.

 

H8d I Often wish that
people liked me more
than they do.

 

H8e These days I really
don't know who I can
count on for help.

 

 

 

 

 

 

144
Section I: Formal Helpseeking

Problems often come up in life. Sometimes they are personal problems --

people are very unhappy, or nervous and irritable all the time. Some-

times they are problems in a marriage -- a husband and wife just can't

get along with each other. Or, sometimes it's a personal problem with

a child or a job. I'd like to ask you a few questions now about what you

think a person might do to handle problems like this.

II

For instance, let's suppose you had a lot of personal problems
and you're very unhappy all the time. Let's suppose you've been
that way for a long time, and it isn't getting any better. What

do you think you'd do about it?

 

 

 

 

(IF "OUTSIDE PROFESSIONAL SOURCE" MENTIONED
Ila If this didn't work, is there anywhere else you would go to

get help? (Where is that?)

 

 

 

(IF NO "OUTSIDE PROFESSIONAL SOURCE" MENTIONED)

11b Do you think you would go anywhere to get some help with

these problems? (Where would you go?)

 

 

 

145

(IF OUTSIDE PROFESSIONAL SOURCE STILL NOT MENTIONED)

11c Suppose these problems didn't get better no matter
what you tried to do about them yourself, and you
felt you had to haye some outside help. Do you
know of anyone or any place around here where you

could go for help.

 

 

 

5. YES (ASK I1d-e) 1. NO (ASK Ilf)

 

 

 

 

 

(IF "YES" TO Ilc) I1d Where would you go?

 

 

Ile Suppose you didn't know of any
places yourself. DO you know of
anywhere you might go or anyone
you might talk to, where you could
find out where to go for help?

Where is that?

 

 

(IF "NO" TO 11c) Ilf Do you know of anywhere you might
go, or anyone you might talk to,
where you could find out where to

go for help. Where is that?

 

 

 

 

Sometimes when people have problems like this, they go someplace for
help. Sometimes they go to a doctor or a minister. Sometimes they go to
a special place for handling personal problems -- like a psychiatrist or

a marriage counselor, or social agency or clinic.

12

146

How about you -- have you ever gone anywhere like that for advice

and help with any personal problems?

 

N
E

1. NOB—GO TO I3

 

 

 

 

 

 

I23

I2b

I20

I2d

IZe

What was that about?

 

 

 

 

Where did you go for help? (PROBE FOR SPECIFIC NAMES OF

SOCIAL AGENCIES.)

 

 

How did you happen to go there?

 

 

 

 

What did they do -- how did they try to help you?

 

 

 

How did it turn out -- do you think it helped you in any way?

 

 

GO TO I4

(IF "NO" TO 12)

I3

Can'you think of anything that's happened to you, any problems

you've had in the past, where going to someone like this might

have helped you in any way?

 

I4

147

 

 

 

 

 

5. YES ! 5. NO "—-—' GO TO I36
1 —-—.—-_.._J

 

 

13a

I3b

13c

I3d

What do you haye in mind -- what was it about?

 

 

 

 

What did you do about it?

 

 

 

 

Who do you think might have helped you with that?

 

 

Why do you suppose that you didn't go for help?

 

 

 

GO TO I4

 

(IF "NO" TO I3.)

 

 

Ije

Do you think you could ever have a personal problem that
got so bad that you might want to go someplace for help --
or do you think you could always handle things like that

yourself?

 

 

Now suppose that you or someone you are close to had a problem

with drugs or alcohol. What do you think you'd do about it?

 

 

 

 

148

 

I4a INTERVIEWER CHECK POINT: TO Q. I4'R MENTIONED:

1. OUTSIDE PERSON AND AGENCY -- GO’TO J5

2. OUTSIDE PERSON BUT NO PLACE OR AGENCY -- GO TO J4b

 

 

3. NO OU'ISIDE PERSON OR PLACE -- GO TO J4d

 

 

14b Is this person connected with some place or agency?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. YES 5. NO'--GO TO I5 8. DON'T KNOW _--GO TO I5

1

14¢ What is the name of the place or agency?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GO TO 15

(IF NO OUTSIDE PERSON MENTIONED IN J4)

 

I4d. Do you know of anyone or anyplace around here where you

could go for help?

 

 

 

 

1. YES 5. NO

 

 

 

 

I4e Where would you go? 14f Do you know anyone or

anyplace where you

 

could find out where

 

to go for help? (Who/

 

L where is that?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

149
(ASK EVERYONE)
There are a lot of other kinds of places that people go to with their
problems. I'll read them off to you one at a time, and you tell me
whether you've ever gone to a person or place like this with any personal
problems. .

I5 How about a lawyer, I mean for a personal problem, not a legal

problem?

 

 

 

. 5. YES 1. NO GO TO I6

 

 

 

 

 

 

15a What was that about?

 

 

15b What did he do about it -- how did he try to help you?

 

 

I5c How did it work out -- did he help you in any way?

 

 

16 How about a policeman, judge, or someone in the courts?

 

 

 

5. YES 1. NO‘ GO TO I7

 

 

 

 

 

16a What was that about?

 

 

I6b What did they do about it -- how did they try to help you?

 

 

160 How did it work out -- did they help you in any way?

 

 

I7

150
How about an astrologer, fortune-teller, or paslmist?

[5__._Y_E_s.[ ,1. NO

17a What was that about?

 

 

GO TO I8

 

 

 

 

 

I7b What did they do about it -- how did they try to help you?

 

 

I7c How did it work out -- did they help you in any way?

 

 

(IF R HAS EVER HAD CHILDREN)

18

I9

Did you ever talk to a teacher or someone else at school about

any problems your child was having?
_u___j.
[Lg—£34

I8a What was that about?

 

 

“IL—CO TO 19

 

 

 

 

18b How did it turn out?

 

 

 

Have you ever gotten any help from reading a book or a newspaper

columnist who advises on personal problems?

__ A ___:_I
[5. YES , 1. NO L-—-—CO TO 110

 

 

 

 

I10

I11

I12

I13

151
I9a What book or newspaper columnist was that?

 

 

 

 

I9b How did they help you?

 

 

 

Do you have a family doctor?

 

 

 

 

5. YES 1. NO

 

 

 

 

Do you know a clergyman (priest, minister, rabbi, ect.) with

whom you would feel free to talk over a personal problem?

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. YES 1. NO

 

 

Over their lives most people have something bad happen to them,

or to someone they love, like when someone important dies, leaves
or disappoints you. Or something awful like getting sick, losing
a job, not having enough money, or being in trouble with the
police or at school. Or maybe just something important you wanted
to happen didn't happen. Compared with most other people you know
would you say that these sorts of things have happened to you more

than to others, less than to others, or what?

 

 

r-"“ "' ...-.. '"'"""l
: 5. MORE THAN 3. JUST ABOUT 1. LESS THAN
TO OTHERS THE SAME TO OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

““.1
[63. OTHER (SPECIFY)

 

 

When things like these have happened to you, have there been times

152
when you found it very hard to handle? When you couldn't sleep,

or stayed away from people, or even' felt depressed or nervous

and couldn't do much of anything?

‘51“YES"—‘ 1. NO

 

 

 

 

 

113a Would you say you felt 113c We are interested in how
that way many times, or people handle these
just once in a while? difficult events when

 

5. fiANYu' 1. JUST ONCE they do occur. Think

 

 

 

 

TIMESJ IN A “HILE about the last time
113b Now think about the last something really bad
time you felt that way. happened to you. What

What was it about? was it about?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

114

other people.

153

(HAND R CARD E).

When things like that happen some people like to talk it over with

Did you talk to any of these

people about that matter? For each person, choose the one

description that fits them best.

talked to fits the same description (like friend or relative),

please tell me.

.‘

If more than one person you

 

()

CHECK HERE IF
R SAYS "TALKED
T0 NO ONE" ON
THE LIST. THEN

I14a

(IF NOT CLEAR)
Is that person
male or female?

I14b

(IF NOT CLEAR)
Is he/she older
than you are,
younger, or

Il4c

,Would he/she
talk to you
if he/she
felt that way?

 

 

 

 

GO TO D16 about the same?
(A) Husband YES NO
(B) Wife YES NO
(c) Son YES NO
(D) Daughter YES NO
(E) Father YES NO
(F) Mother YES NO
(G) Brother OLDER YOUNCER SAME YES NO
(H) Sister OLDER YOUNCER SAME YES NO
( ) MALE FEMALE OLDER YOUNGER SAME YES NO
(other G-H or
( ) MALE FEMALE OLDER YOUNCER SAME YES NO
other relative) -
(I) Friend MALE FEMALE OLDER YOUNCER SAME YES NO
(J) Neighbor MALE FEMALE OLDER YOUNCER SAME YES NO
( ) MALE FEMALE OLDER YOUNCER SAME YES NO

 

other (I-J)

 

 

 

 

 

154

 

 

IIHd

Which of the things on
this card happened when

you talked with him/her?
You can choose more than
9.1.19-

3..

just listened to me

Il#e

How much did it help to
talk? Would you say it:

helped a lot?
helped some?
or was it not much
help?

 

 

 

b. cheered or comforted
me
c. asked me questions
d. told me who else to
see
a. showed me a new way
to look at things
f. gave me advice
g. helped me take action
(A) Husband a b c d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
(B) Wife a b c d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
(C) Son a b c d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
(D) Daughter a b c d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
(E) Father a b c d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
(F) Mother’ a b c d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
(G) Brother a b c d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
(H) Sister a b c d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
() a be de fg AstmENmMmH
(other G-H or
( ) a b c d e r g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
other relative)
(I) Friend b c d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
(J) Neighbor b c d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
( ) b c d e r g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH

 

other (I-J)‘

 

 

 

155
D16 Now, how about these people? (HAND R CARD F) Did you talk to

any of these people about that matter? Again, for each person,
choose the one description that fits them best. If more than

one person you talked to fits the same description, please tell me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

115a I15b ' Iiso

( ) CHECK HERE IF Is that person (IF YES TO D16d) How did you

R SAYS "TALKED connected with Do you remember know to go to

T0 NO ONE" ON any place or the name of the that person?

THE LIST. THEN agency? place or agency,

GO TO SECTION E or the kind of

place it was?

(K) Psychiatrist * YES NO DH
(10 Psychologist YES NO DK
(M) Social worker YES NO DK
(N) Counselor YES NO DK
(P) Nurse YES NO DK
( ) YES NO DK

(other*K-P)
(R) Clergyman YES NO DK
(S) Teacher YES NO DK
(T) Police YES NO DK
(U) Lawyer YES NO DK
(V) Union steward YES NO DK
( ) YES NO DK

(other R-V)

 

 

 

 

 

156

 

I_15d

Which of the things on
this card happened when
you talked with that

person? You can choose

3..

more than one.

just listened to me

IlSe

How much 533 it help to
talk? Would you say it:

helped a lot?
helped some?
or was it not much

 

 

b. cheered or comforted help?
me
o. asked me questions
d. told me who else to
see
e. showed me a new way
to look at things
f. gave me advice
g. helped me take action
(K) Psychiatrist a b c d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
(L) Psychologist a b c d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
(M) Social worker a b c d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH .
(N) Counselor a b c d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
(P) Nurse a b c d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
( ) a b c d e r g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
(other K-P)
(R) Clergyman a b c d e f g A LOT .SOHE NOT MUCH
(S) Teacher a b c d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
(T) Police a b c d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
(U) Lawyer a b c d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
(V) Union steward a b c d e f g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH
( ) a b c d e r g A LOT SOME NOT MUCH

 

 

(other R-V)

 

 

 

 

157
I16 Suppose that someone you knew had some personal problems which

they couldn't handle and asked your advice about a place to go for
help -- a place that didn't cost more than they could afford.

Where would you suggest that they go?

 

 

 

 

 

INTERVIEWER CHECK POINT:

 

 

1. R HAS MENTIONED 2. R HAS‘NQI,MENTIONED
AGENCYIOR PLACE AGENCY fiR PLACE
Y @
I16a How do you happen to 116D Do you know of any-
know about that place? where you might go or

anyone you might talk

 

to who might know

 

about such a place?

 

(Where is that?)

 

 

 

Sometimes when people feel unable to handle the things that come up in
their lives they use various kinds of medicines or drugs. Thinking back
over the times when you have found your life somewhat difficult to handle,
have you ever taken:

11? Tranquilizer medicines or nerve pills?

J18

I19

I20

 

158

N,___._1
,1' Nor—GO To 118

 

117a Have you taken them often, or only once in a while?

 

 

5. OFTEN

 

 

I17b Where did you get them?

 

1. ONLY ONCE IN A WHILE

 

 

 

 

 

How about sleeping pills?

 

5. YES

 

 

 

 

1. NOr-—-—GO TO 119

 

 

 

I18a Have you taken them often, or only once in a while?

 

5. OFTEN

 

 

 

118b Where did you get them?

 

1. ONLY ONCE INVA WHILE

 

 

 

 

 

Pain pills?

 

 

 

5. YES

 

 

 

1. NO

 

GO TO I20

 

119a Have you taken them often, or only once in a while?

 

5. OFTEN

 

 

 

Il9b Where did you get them?

 

1. ONLY ONCE IN A WHILE

 

 

 

 

 

What about alcoholic beverages?

 

 

 

5. YES

 

:1. Moe—Go To 121

 

120a Have you used them often, or only once in a while?

 

5. OFTEN

 

 

 

 

 

[1». ONLY ONCE IN A WHILE

 

I21

I22

123

159
Pep pills?

 

 

 

 

 

 

L—_-—J

 

I21a Have you taken them often, or only once in a while?

 

 

[ET DETENT [1. ONLY ONCE IN A WHILE

 

 

 

 

IZib Where did you get them?

 

How about diet pills?

 

 

 

 

 

5. YES 1. NO --GO TO I23

 

 

 

I22a Have you taken them often, or only once in a while?

 

r_iu_.__1
L5. OFTEN; 1. ONLY ONCE IN A WHILE

 

 

 

122b Where did you get them?

 

 

Have you ever taken any other drugs or medicines?

 

...._._____‘

5. YES I 1. NO A—-GO TO I24

 

 

 

 

123a What was that?

 

 

I23b Have you taken them often, or only once in a while?

 

 

5. OFTEN. 1. ONLY ONCE INIA‘MHILE

 

 

 

 

 

I230 Where did you get them?

 

 

160
I24 Now for one final question about getting help with personal prob-

lems. We have asked a lot of questions about how you have handled
various problems or difficulties in your life and whether you've
talked with family, friends, and people in different places or
agencies. Just one final check. (HAND R CARD F) Aside from

the people and places you have mentioned already, are there any
gthg£_people on this list that you gig;_had an occasion to talk

with about a personal problem or a difficulty you‘ve had to face?

 

I24a 124D

Is that person con- (IF YES IN a) Do you remember

nected with any the name of the place or
Person place or agency? agency or the kind of place
it was

 

 

 

(K) Psychiatrist YES NO DH
(L) Psychologist YES NO DK
(M) Social worker YES NO DK

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(N) Counselor YES NO DK
(0) Doctor YES NO DK
(P) Nurse YES NO DK
(Q) YES No DH
(Other K-P)
(R) Clergyman (S) Teacher (T) Police
(U) Lawyer (V) Union steward ( )

 

(Other R-V)

 

 

Now we have finished the regular part of the interview.

 

161
Section J: Personal Data

We need a few

facts about you, like age, education and so on, so that we can compare

the ideas of men with those of women, older people with younger people,

and one group with another.

J1

J2

J3

J4

J5

J6

First, what is your date of birth?

/___/.__

 

MONTH
Where were you born?

STATE (OR COUNTRY IF NOT U.S.A.)

DAY YEAR

 

And where did you live mostly while you were growing up?

STATE (OR COUNTRY IF NOT U.S.A.)

 

Were you brought up mostly in the country, in a town, in a small

city, or in a large city?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. COUNTRY 2. TOWN 3. SMALL CITY 4.

 

LARGE CITY

 

 

 

What was your religious background when you were growing up --

Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish, or something else?

 

 

 

PROTESTANT 200. ROMAN [EOOTHJENISH‘

CATHOLIC 'w”‘“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

800. NONE, NO
PREFERENCE

 

 

 

GO TO J6

OTHER: SPECIFY

 

 

\/ GO TO J6

J5a What church or denomination was that?

 

What is the original nationality of your family on your father's

side? (IF R SAYS, "AMERICAN," PROBE: What was it before coming

J7

J8

J9

162
to the United States?)

ORIGINAL NATIONALITY

 

How many brothers and sisters did you have while you were grow-

ing up?

 

 

 

 

J7a Were you the oldest, the youngest, or what?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. OLDEST 5. YOUNGEST 3. IN BETWEEN

 

 

 

 

NUMBER [59: NONE .—-- GO To J8

Did you always live together with both of your real parents up to

the time you were 16 years old?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. YES 4 5. NO ‘
GO TO J9 ‘L

J8a What happened?

 

 

 

J8b How old were you when it happened?

YEARS OLD

J8c Who was the head of your family or household most of the

time while you were growing up?

 

 

1. FATHER 2. MOTHER OTHER MALE:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

—(SPECIFY)

 

 

 

 

OTHER FEMALE:

 

 

(SPECIFY)

 

(ASH J9-J13 ABOUT FATHER OR OTHER HEAD MENTION IN J8c.) Now a

few questions about your father (the person who was head of your

family while you were growing up). First, what kind of work did

(he/she) do for a living while you-were growing up?

(his/her) main occupation?)

(What was

 

 

 

J10

J11

J12

J13

163

Can you tell me a little more about what (he/she) did on (his/

her) job?

 

 

What kind of (business/industry) was that?

 

 

Did (he/she) work for (himself/herself), or for someone else?

 

[1. SELF-EMPLOYED

 

 

 

 

2. SOMEONE ELSE

 

 

What was the highest grade of school or year of college (he/she)

completed?

 

 

GRADES OF SCHOOL

00 01 02 O3 04 05 06 O7 08 09 10 11 12

 

 

 

 

GO TO J14

 

DON'T KNO

 

W

 

 

Y

COLLEGE

13 14 15 16 17+

 

 

J13a Would you guess that (he/she) had less than seven years of

school, between seven and twelve years of school, finished

high school, or had some schooling past hi school?

 

1
1. IESS TRAN
SEVEN
YEARS

 

 

 

2. BETWEEN SEVEN
AND TWELVE
YEARS

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. SOME SCHOOLING
PAST HIGH SCHOOL

 

 

3. FINISHED!
HIGH
SCHOOL

 

164

J14 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT
J9-J13 WERE ASKED ABOUT:
( ) 1. R'S FATHER
( ) 2. OTHER MALE HEAD
( ) 3. OTHER FEMALE HEAD

 

( ) 4. R'S MOTHER 2> GO TO J17

 

 

 

N \ W
J15 Other than being a housewife, did your mother have a job while

you were growing up?

F--'r-
1. YES 5. NO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

J16 What was the highest grade of school or year of college your

mother completed?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GRADES OF SCHOOL COLLEGE
00 01 02 O3 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17+
GO TO J17
DON'T KNOW

 

 

 

\
J16a Would you guess that she had‘lgss than seven years of school,

between seven and twelve years of school, finished high

school, or had some:§9hool;nggpast high school?

 

 

1. LESS THAN 2. BETWEEN SEVEN 3. FINISHED
SEVEN AND TWELVE HIGH
YEARS YEARS SCHOOL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. SOME SCHOOLING
PAST HIGH SCHOOL

 

 

 

165

J17 What is the highest grade of school or year of college you have

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

completed?
GRADES OF SCHOOL COLLEGE
OO 01 02 03 O4 05 O6 O7 08 O9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17*
J17a In what year did you J17e In what year did you
complete this highest complete that year Of
grade of school? college?
YEAR YEHR
J17b Did you get a high J17f Do you have a college
school graduation diploma degree?
or pass a high school YES NO

 

 

 

 

 

 

equivalency test? \L GO TO J18

 

 

7
YES NO J17g What degree is that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

J17e Have you had any other

schooling?

YES Ifififl

\L GO To J18

 

 

 

 

 

J17d What other schooling

have you had?

 

 

 

J18 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT

 

( ) 1. R HAS NEVER WORKED GO TO J21

( ) 2. R HAS WORKED

 

 

 

J19 Now, think back to your first, regular job, aside from military

166
service or any temporggy jobs you may have had, like when you were

going to school. What kind of work were you doing?

 

 

 

J19a In what year did you begin that job? YEAR
J20 About how many hours did you work on that job in the average week?

HOURS A WEEK

 

J21 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT

 

( ) 1. R IS MARRIED

 

 

( ) 2. R IS NOT CURRENTLY MARRIED GO To J24

 

J22 And what is the highest grade of school or year of college your

(husband/wife) has completed?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GRADES OF SCHOOL COLLEGE
00 O1 02 03 on 05 06 O7 08 09 1O 11 12 13 14 15 16 17+
'1! \1'
J22a Did (he/she) get a high J22b Does (he/she) have a
school graduation college degree?
diploma or pass a high YES {Egij

 

 

 

 

school equivalency

test?

‘YESMT NO

 

 

 

 

 

GO TO J23

167

J23 Is your (husband/wife) doing any work for pay at the present time?

J23b

J23c

J23d

J23c

(IF R

J23f

 

 

1. YES 5. NO

W

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

J23a Has (he/she) done any work for

pay in the past twelve months?

 

 

VV 1. YES 5. NO GO TO J24

 

 

What kind of work (does/did) (he/she) do? What (is/was

(his/her) main occupation?

 

Please tell me a little more about what (he/she) (does/did)

on (his/her) job.

 

 

What kind of (business/industry) is that?

 

(Does/Did) (he/she) work for (himself/herself) or for some-

one else?

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. SELF-EMPLOYED 2. SOMEONE ELSE

 

 

IS MALE WITH CHILD(REN) UNDER 12 LIVING IN HOUSEHOLD)
How (are the children/is the child) taken care of while

your wife is at work?

 

 

J23g

(IF R MENTIONS IN SCHOOL ONLY) What about the time (he/she

isn't) (they aren't) in school?

 

J24

J25

J26

168

(CARD J) In this survey of people all over the country, we are
trying to get a clear picture of people's financial situations.
Taking into consideration all sources of income, about what do
you think your total income will be this year (1976) for your-

self and your immediate family? Just give me the letter on the

card.

01 A. LESS THAN $1,000 10 J. $9,000 - $9,999

02 B. $1,000 - $1.999 11 H. $10,000 - $10,999
‘03 0. $2,000 - $2.999 12 L. $11,000 - $12,499
04 D. $3,000 - $3.999 13 M. $12,500 - $14,999
05 E. $4,000 - $4,999 14 N. $15,000 - $17,999
06 F. $5.000 - $5.999 15 0- $17.500 - $19.999
07 G. $6,000 - $6.999 16 P. $20,000 - $24,999
08 H. $7,000 - $7.999 17 Q- $25.000 - $34.999
09 I. $8,000 - $8,999 18 R. $35,000 ANDOVER

(CARD J) How much of this total will you yourself earn this year?

(Just give me the letter on the card.)

 

 

01 MEN? 10D313E116El
02KB] 055:] 08- 11 DE 19 17E]
03 06-09-123] 15 [<11 18@

 

 

Is your current religious preference Protestant, Roman Catholic,

Jewish or something else?

 

 

CST

F

 

 

 

PROTESTANT 200 ROMAN 00 JEWISH 800 NONE, NO
‘¢ CATHOLIC PREFERENCE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GO TO J26a ,
OTHER: SPECIFY GO TO J27

 

169

J26a What church or denomination is that?

J27 About how often do you usually attend religious services?

 

 

1. MORE THAN 1 2. ONCE A 3. TWO OR THREE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ONCE A WEEKgJ WEEK TIMES A MONTH
4. ONCE A 5. A FEW TIMES A 6. NEVER
MONTHZ YEAR OR LESS

 

 

 

 

 

 

J28 How long have you lived in (INSERT NAME OF PRESENT COMMUNITY OR
OF TOWNSHIP IF RURAL) ? (IF LESS THAN TWO YEARS,

GET NUMBER OF MONTHS.)

YEARS MONTHS, OR SINCE '

 

J29 And finally, how many telephones, counting extensions, do you have
in your (house/apartment)?

7'7

0 [L14 2 3 4 5

MORE THAN 5, SPECIFY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TIME NOW

 

This completes the interview. Thank you very much for your help. When
we have finished this survey we would like to send you some of our
findings as a way of thanking you for your time. (HAND R A REPORT
REQUEST CARD AND EXPLAIN ITS USE. BE SURE TO WRITE IN "MODERN LIVING"
AS THE PROJECT.) We may also want to come back in a few months to talk
with you or another member of your family to see if any of your opinions

or your situation have changed.

K1

K2

K3

K4

K5

K6

SECTION K:

Respondent's sex is:

170

 

1. MALE

INTERVIEWER OBSERVATION

 

2. FEMALE

 

 

 

Respondent's racial or ethnic group is:

 

 

 

1. WHITE

 

 

 

2. BLACK

 

 

 

5. AMERICAN
INDIAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. ORIENTAL

 

 

 

 

4. CHICANO: PUERTO

RICAN; MEXICAN OR

' SPANISH-AMERICAN

_4

 

 

OTHER (SPECIFY):

 

Other persons present at interview were (CHECK MORE THAN ONE BOX

 

 

 

 

 

IF NECESSARY):
NONE CHILDREN
GO TO H5 UNDER 6

 

 

 

 

 

OLDER
CHILDREN

 

 

 

OTHER
ADULTS

 

 

 

 

SPOUSE

 

 

 

OTHER

 

RELATIVES

 

 

How much do you feel the presence of other person(s) influenced

the answers given by respondent?

 

r_

 

Ll: A GREAT DEAL 2.

 

SOME

 

 

r“-«-- _o.

 

 

Overall, how great was R's interest in the interview?

3. VERY LITTLE : 4. NONE

 

 

 

1. VERY
HIGH

 

 

2. ABOVE
AVERAGE

 

 

3. AVERAGE

 

 

 

 

 

4. BELOW

 

AVERAGE

 

5. VERY
LOW

 

 

Did the respondent seem to find the interview too long?

 

1. YES

 

 

 

 

 

5. NO

 

 

 

 

171

K7 Type of structure in which family lives?

01.

02.

030

04.

05.

TRAILER

O6.

DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY

HOUSE

07.

2-FAMILY HOUSE, 2 UNITS

SIDE BY SIDE

08.

Z-FAMILY HOUSE, 2 UNITS

ONE ABOVE THE OTHER

DETACHED 3-4 FAMILY

HOUSE

09.

10.

HOW HOUSE (3 OR MORE UNITS
IN AN ATTACHED ROW)

APARTMENT HOUSE (5 OR
MORE UNITS, 3 STORIES OR
LEss)

APARTMENT HOUSE (5 OR
MORE UNITS, 4 STORIES OR
MORE)

APARTMENT IN A PARTLY
COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE

OTHER:

 

(SPECIFY)

K8 Number of stories is the structure, not counting basement:

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

 

 

3

 

 

 

IORE THAN 3:

fl,

 

 

TSPECIFY)

 

K9 COPY INFORMATION FROM COVER SHEET

172

 

(a) (b) c) (d)
Household member by Enter "R" to
relationship to Head Sex Age Identify Respondent

 

 

 

 

PERSONS
21 YEARS#
OR OLDER-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PERSONS
UNDER

 

21

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

K10 THUMBNAIL SKETCH:

 

173

K11 Interviewers Comments:

APPENDIX B

174

TABLE Bl.-WELL-BEING

 

ITEMS ALTERNATIVES
Satisfaction

Taking things all together, how Very happy, little happier
would you describe your marriage than average, just about
--would you say your marriage was average, not too happy.

very happy, a little happier than
average, or not too happy?

Overall, would you say that in Nearly always, usually,
your case, being a (father/mother) sometimes, hardly ever.
has nearly always been enjoyable,

that it has usually been enjoy-

able, or that being a (father/

mother) has hardly ever been

 

enjoyable?

Some things in our lives are very Great satisfaction, some
satisfying to one person, while satisfaction, little satis-
another may not find them satis- faction, no satisfaction.

fying at all. (1) What about
being married? How much satis-
faction (have you gotten/would
you get/did you get) from being
married? (2) How much satisfac-
tion (have you gotten/would you
get/did you get) out of being a
(father/mother)?

In general, could you tell me how 7 position Likert scale:
satisfied you are with your friend- 1 - Completely satisfied;
Ships--with the amount of time you 7 - Completely dissatisfied.

can Spend with your friends, the
things you do together, the number
of friends you have, as well as
the particular peOple who are your
friends. If you are completely
satisfied with your friendships,
you would say ”one". If you are
neither completely satisfied nor
completely dissatisfied, you would
put yourself somewhere from two to
Six; for example, four means that
you are neutral, just as satis-
fied as you are dissatisfied.

175

TABLE Bl continued

Which number comes closest to how
satisfied or dissatisfied you feel?

General Well'Being

Taking all things together, how
would you say things are these days
--would you say you're ygry happy,
ppetty happy, or not too happy_
these days?

In general, how satisfying do you
find the way you're Spending your
life these days? Would you call it
completely satisfying, pgetty sat-
isfying, or not very satisfying?

Worries

Everybody has some things he/she
worries about more or less. What
kinds of things do you worry about
most?

Self-Esteem Scale

How often are these true for you:

I feel that I am a person of worth,
at least as much as others.

I am able to do things as well as
most other peOple.

On the whole, I feel good about
myself.

Anomie Scale

 

I have always felt pretty sure my
life would work out the way I
wanted it to.

No one cares much what happens

to me.

I often wish that peOple would
listen to me more.

I often wish that peOple liked me
more than they do.

These days I really don'

I can count on for help.

Very happy. Pretty happy.
not too happy.

Completely satisfying,
pretty satisfying,

not very satisfying,
don't know.

(Open-ended question)

(all items coded)
Often true,
sometimes true,
rarely true,
never true.

(all items coded)
Very true,

pretty true,

not very true,
not true at all.

176

TABLE 32. PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL DISTRESS ITEMS

 

Symptom Checklist Items

Alternatives

 

 

Psychological Anxiety Scale

How often have you had the following:
(a) Do you ever have any trouble get-
ting to sleep or staying asleep?

(b) Have you ever been bothered by
nervousness, feeling fidgety and
tense?

(c) Are you ever troubled by head-
aches or pains in the head?

(d) Do you have loss of appetite?

(e) How often are you bothered by
having an upset stomach?

Immobilization

Do you find it difficult to get up
in the morning?

How often have you had the following:
(a) Do you ever drink more than you
should?

(b) Are you troubled by your hands
sweating so that you feel damp and
clammy?

(c) Have there ever been times when
you couldn't take care of things be-
cause you just couldn't get going?

Ill Health Scale

Has any ill health affected the amount
of work you do?

Have you ever been bothered by your
heart beating hard?

Have you ever been bothered by short-
ness of breath when you were not ex-
ercising or working hard?

Do you have any particular physical
or health trouble?

Do you feel you are bothered by all
sorts of pains and ailments in dif-
ferent parts of your body?

(all items coded)
Nearly all the time,
pretty often,

not very much,
never.

Nearly all the time,
pretty often, not very
much, never.

(all items coded)
Many times,
sometimes,

hardly ever,
never.

(all items coded)
Many times,
sometimes,

hardly ever,
never.

yes/no

yes/no

177

TABLE BZ continued

For the most part, do you feel healthy
enough to carry out the things that
you would like to do?

DrinkingVScalg

When you feel worried, tense or
nervous, do you ever drink alcoholic
beverages to help you handle things?
Have there ever been problems be-
tween you and anyone in your family
(spouse, parent, child, or other

close relative) because you drank
alcoholic beverages?
Drug-Takingiscale

When you feel worried, tense or
nervous, do you ever take medicines

or drugs to help you handle things?
Past Distress

Have you ever felt that you were going
to have a nervous breakdown?

Zest Scalg

My mind is as clear as it used to be.

I find it easy to do the things I used
to.

My life is interesting.
I feel that I am useful and needed.
My life is pretty full.

I feel hapeful about the future.

yes/no

(all items coded)
Many times,
sometimes,

hardly ever,
never.

Many times , sometimes ,
hardly ever, never.

yes/no

(all items coded)

A little or none of

the time,

some of the time,

a good part of the time,
all or most of the time.

178

TABLE B3. DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ITEMS

 

 

 

 

Item Alternative

fi w
Where were you born? State (or Country if not U.S.A.)
Where did you live mostly while State (or Country if not U.S.A.)
you were growing up?
Were you brought up mostly in the Country, town, small city,
country, in a town, in a small city, large city.

or in a large city?

How many brothers and sisters did
you have while you were growing up?

Did you always live together with Yes.
both of your real parents up to No. What happened?
the time you were 16 years old? How old were you when it hap-

pened? Who was the head of
your family or household most
of the time while you were
growing up?

What was the highest grade of‘ O - 174 .
school or year of college head of
household completed?

What was the highest grade of 0 - 17+ ,
school or year of college your
mother completed?

What is the highest grade of O - l7+ .
school or year of college you
have completed?

What is the highest grade of 0 - 17+ .
school or year of college your
husband/wife has completed?

In this survey of people all over 18 income ranges. (See Instru-
the country, we are trying to get ment, Appendix A)

a clear picture of people's fin-

ancial situations. Taking into

consideration all sources of in-

come, about what do you think

your total income will be this

year for yourself and your immed-

iate family?

How long have you lived in the Years.
present community?

179

TABLE 34. HELP-SEEKING ITEMS

Item

m

i

 

Formal and Informal Help-Sources

Over their lives most people have some-
thing bad happen to them, or to someone
they love, like when someone important
dies, leaves or disappoints you. Or
something awful like getting sick, los-
ing a job, not having enough money, be-
ing in trouble with the police or at
school. Or maybe just something impor-
tant you wanted to happen didn't happen.
Compared with most other peOple you know,
would you say that these sorts of things
have happened to you more than to others,
less than to others, or what?

When things like these have happened to
you, have there been times when you
found it very hard to handle? When you
couldn't sleep, or stayed away from peo-
ple, or even felt depressed or nervous
and couldn't do much of anything?

When things like that happen some peOple
like to talk it over with other people.
Did you talk to any of these people about
that matter? For each person, choose the
gng_description that fits them best. If
more than one person you talked to fits
the same description (like friend or rel-
ative), please tell me.

Reciprocatign

Would he/she talk to you if he/she felt
that way?

Outcome of Helping-Interaction

How much did it help to talk?
say it:

Would you

Alternatives

_—

More than to others,
just about the same,
less than to others.

Yes. No.

Informal Help-Sources:
husband, wife, son, daughter,
father, mother, brother,
sister, Other relative,
neighbor, other.

Formal Help-Sources:
Psychiatrist, Psychologist,
Social Worker, Counselor,
Doctor, Nurse, Clergyman,
Teacher, Police, Lawyer,
Union Steward, other.

Yes. No. (Answered for each
informal source mentioned)

Helped alot, helped some, or
not much help. (Answered for
each formal and informal help
source mentioned)

180

TABLE B4 continugg_
Community and Social Support

Now a couple of questions about neigh-
bors. About how many of your neighbors
do you know well enough to visit or
call on? Would you say you have many,
several, a few, or none that you know
well enough to visit or call on?

About how often do you visit with any

of your neighbors, either at their homes
or at your own? Would you say more than
once a week, a few times a month, or
less than once a mongh?

How often, if ever, have you talked with
any neighbors about your problems when
you were worried or asked them for ad-
vice or help? Would you say very often,
often, sometimes, rarely, or never?

Would you ever feel free to talk with
one of your neighbors about such things?

Here are a few questions about your
friends and relatives. First, about how
often do you get together with friends
or relatives-~I mean things like going
out together or visiting in each other's
homes? Would you say more than once a
week, once a week, a few times a month,
or less than once a month?

Now, think of the friends and relatives
you feel free to talk with about your
worries and problems or can count on for
advice or help--would you say you have
many, several, a few, or 32 such friends
or relatives?

How often, if ever, have you talked with
friends or relatives about your problems
when you were worried or asked them for
advice or help--very often, often, some-
times, rarely, or never?

Do you feel you have as many friends as
you want, or would you like to have
more friends?

Many, several, a few,
J
none.

More than once a week,
once a week, a few times
a month, once a month,
less than once a month,
never.

Very often, often,
sometimes, rarely,
never.

Yes. Depends. No.

More than once a week,
once a week,

a few times a month,
once a month,

less than once a month,
never.

Many, several, a few, none.

Very often, often,
sometimes, rarely, never.

As many friends as wants.
Would like more friends.

181

TABLE 34 continued

In general, how often do you talk over a Often, sometimes,
big problem in your life with someone rarely, never.
you trust? Would you say often, some-

times, rarely or never?

APPENDIX C

182

TABLE c 1.. LILST OF TWENTY SYMPTOM 1%

Items

Alternatives

 

1.

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

Do you ever have any trouble
getting to sleep or staying

asleep?

Have you ever been bothered by

Nearly all the time. Pretty
often. Not very much.

Never.

Nearly all the time. Pretty

nervousness, feeling fidgety or often. Not very much.

tense?

Are you ever troubled by headaches
,or pains in the head?

Do you have loss of appetite?

How often are you bothered by
having an upset stomach?

Do you find it difficult to get up

in the morning?

Has any ill health affected the

amount of work you do?

Have you ever been bothered by
shortness of breath when you were

Never.

Nearly all the time. Pretty

often. Not very much. Never.
Nearly all the time. Pretty
often. Not very much.

Never.

Nearly all the time. Pretty
often. Not very much. Never.
Nearly all the time. Pretty
often. Not very much.

Never.

Many times. Sometimes.
Hardly ever. Never.

Many times . Sometimes .
Hardly ever. Never.

not exercising or working hard?

Have you ever been bothered by
your heart beating hard?

Do you ever drink more than you

should?

Have you ever had spells of

dizziness?

Are you ever bothered by night-

mares?

Do you tend to lose weight when
you have something important

bothering you?

Do your hands ever tremble enough

to bother you?

Many times. Sometimes.
Hardly ever. Never.

Many times. Sometimes.
Hardly ever. Never.

Many times. Sometimes.
Hardly ever. Never.

Many times. Sometimes.
Hardly ever. Never.

Many times . Some times .

Hardly ever. Never.

Many times. Sometimes.
Hardly ever. Never.

183

Table Cl continued

17.

18.

19.

20.

Are you troubled by your hands
sweating so that you feel damp
and clammy?

Have there ever been times when
you couldn't take care of things
because you just couldn't get
going?

Do you feel you are bothered by
all sorts of pains and ailments
in different parts of your body?

For the most part, do you feel
healthy enough to carry out the
things you would like to do?

Have you ever felt that you were
going to have a nervous break-
down?

Do you have any particular
physical or health problem?

Many times. Sometimes.
Hardly ever. Never.

Many times. Sometimes.
Hardly ever. Never.

Yes. No.
Yes. No.
Yes. No.
Yes. No.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ablon, J. Relocated American Indians In the San Francisco
Bay Area: Social Interaction and Indian Identity.
Human Organization, 1964, 24, 296 - 304.

 

Ablon, J. Cultural Conflict in Urban Indians. Mental

Andrews, F. M. 8 Withey, S. B. Social Indicators of
Well-Being: Americanis Perceptions of Life. Quality.
New York: Plenum, 1976.

 

Andrulis, D. P. Ethnicity as a Variable in the Utilization
and Referral Patterns of a Comprehensive Mental Health
Center. Journal of Community Psychology, 1977, pg,
231 - 237.

Asser, E. S. Social Class and Help-Seeking Behavior.
American Joggnal of Community Psychology, 1978, 6
(5), 465 - 475.

Attneave, C. The Wasted Strengths of Indian Families. In S.
Unger (Ed.) The Destruction of American Indian
Families. New York: Association of American Indian
Affairs, 1977.

Barger, W. K. Culture Change and Psychological Adjustment.
American Ethnologist. 1977, 5(3), 471 - 495.

Barter, E. R. & Barter, J. T. Urban Indians and Mental
Health Problems. Psychiatric Annals, 1974, 1(9),
37 - 43.

 

Beiser, M. Indian Mental Health. Psychiatric Annals,
1974, 4(9), 6 - 9.

 

Beiser, M. A Hazard to Mental Health: Indian Boarding
Schools. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1974, 131
(3), 305 - 306.

 

Bennion, L. & Li, T. Alcohol Metabolism in American Indians
and Whites . New England Journal of Medicine , 1976 ,
294(1), 9 - 13. a

184

185

Bergman, R. Panel Participant Issues in Contemporary
Psychiatry. Audiotape produced by Smith, Kline, &
French Laboratories, 1977.

Bigony, B. A. Migrants to the Cities: A Study of Native
Americans in Detroit and Michigan. Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan, 1974.

Blackman, S. & Goldstein, K. Some Aspects of a Theory of
Community Mental Health. Community Mental Health
Journal, 1968, g, 85 - 90.

Booth, N. & Babchuk, N. Seeking Health Care from New
Resources. Journal of Health and Social Behavior,

Bowman, B. & Carlin, W. Native American Families in the
City: American Indian Socialization to Urban Life.
San Francisco: Institute for Scientific Analysis,
1975.

Brody, H. Indians on Skid Row. Ottawa: Department of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, 1971.

Bromberg, W. & Hutchinson, S. Self-Image of the American
Indian: A Preliminary Study. International Journal of
Social Psychiatry, 1974, gg,_39 - 44.

Brophy, W. A. & Aberle, S. D. The Indian: America's
Unfinished Business. Norman, Oklahoma: University of
Oklahoma Press, 1966.

Brown, B. B. Social and Psychological Correlates of
Help-Seeking Behavior Among Urban Adults. American
Journal of Community' Psychology, 1978, 16(5), 425 -
439.

Bryde, J. F. The Indian Student: A. Study' of Scholastic
Failure and Personality' Conflict“ Dakota. ‘Press,
University of South Dakota, Vermillion, 1970.

Bushnell, J. H. From American Indian to Indian American:
The Changing Identity of the Hupa. American
Anthropologist, 1968, 19(6), 1108 - 1116.

Bynum, J. Suicide and the American Indian: An Analysis of
Recent Trends. In H. M. Bahr, B. A. Chadwick, & R. C.
Day (Eds.), Native Americans Todaya Sociological
Perspectives. New York: Harper & Row, 1972.

 

Chadwick, B. A. The Inedible Feast. In H. M. Bahr, B. A.
Chadwick, & R. C. Day (Eds.), Native Americans Today:
Sociological Perspectives. New York: Harper 8 Row,

1972.

 

 

 

186

Chadwick, B. & Strauss, J. The Assimilation of American
Indians into Urban Society: The Seattle Case. Human
Organization, 1975, 35(4), 28 - 40.

Clancy, K. & Gove, K. Sex Differences in Mental Illness -
Analysis of Response Bias in Self-Reports. American
Journal of Sociology, 1974, §Q(l), 205 - 216.

Clifford, D. A Comparfitive Study of Helping Patterns in
Eight Urban Communities. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, University of MIchigan, 1976.

Clinton, L., Chadwick, B. A., & Bahr, H. M. Urban
Relocation Reconsidered: Antecedents of Employment
Among Indian Males. Rural Sociology, 1975, 29(2),
117 - 133.

Conrad, R. D. & Kahn, M. W. An Epidemiological Study of
Suicide and Attempted Suicide Among Papago Indians.
American Journal of’ Psychiatry, 1974, 131(1), 69 -
71.

Crandall, D. L. 5 Dohrenwend, B. P. Some Relations Among
Psychiatric Symptoms, Organic Illness, and Social
Class. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1967, 123
(12), 152.

Crane, L. The Health Status of Michigan Indians.
Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University,
1974.

Crawford, F. Lower Class Values and Attitudes Relevant to
Mental Health. In K. Miller a C. Grigg (Eds.), Mental
Health and the Lower Social Classes. Tallahassee,
Florida: Florida State University, 1966.

Cutler, R. & Morrison, N. Sudden Death. Vancouver:
Alcoholism Foundation of British Columbia, 1971.

Dailey, R. C. The Role of Alcohol Among North American
Indian Tribes as Reported in the Jesuit Relations.
Anthropologia, 1968, 10, 45 - 57.

Deloria, V. Custer Died For Your Sins. New York: Avon
Books, 1969.

Devereaux, G. The Function of Alcohol in Mohave Society.
Qgsrterly Journal of Studies on .Alcohol, 1948, ‘2,
207 - 251.

Dizmang, L. H., Walson, J., May, P. A., & Bopp, J.
Adolescent Suicide at an Indian Reservation. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 1974, 44(1), 43 - 49.

187

Dohrenwend, B. P. Sociocultural and Social-Psychological
Factors in Genesis of Mental Disorders. Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, 1975, 44(4), 365 -
392.

 

 

Dohrenwend, B. P. & Dohrenwend, B. S. Social Status and
Psychological Disorder: A Casual Inquiry. New York:
Wiley and Sons, 1969.

 

Dohrenwend, B. P. & Dohrenwend, B. S. Social and Cultural
Influences on Psychopathology. Annual Review of
Psychology. 1974, Q, 417 - 452.

 

Fahey, A. & Muschenhiem, C. Third Conference on American
Indian Health. Journal of the American Medical
Association, 1965, 194, 1093 - 1096.

 

 

Fenna, D., Mix, L., Schafer, 0., & Gilbert, J. A. L.
Ethanol Metabolism in Various Racial Groups. Canadian
Medical Association Journal, 1971, 105, 472 - 475.

Ferguson, F. N. Communtigg Treatment Plan for Navajo
Problem Drinkers. Gallup: McKinley Co., 1968.

 

 

Ferguson, F. N. Navajo Drinking: Some Tentative Hypotheses.
Human Organization, 1968, 21 159 - 167.

 

Ferguson, F. N. A Treatment Program for Navajo Alcoholics:
Results After Four Years. Qgrterly Journal of
Studies on Alcohol, 1970, 44, 898 - 919.

 

 

Fox, J. R. Therapeutic Rituals and Social Structure in
Cochiti Pueblo. Human Relations, 1960, 4;, 291 -
303.

Gans, H. The Urban Villagers: Group and Class in The Life
of Italian Americans. New York: The Free Press, 1962.

 

 

Gans, H. The Levittowners: Ways of Life and Politics in a
New Suburban Community. New York: Vintage Books,
1969.

 

 

Garbarino, M. 5. Life in the City: Chicago. In J. O.
Waddell & O. M. Watson (Eds.), The American Indian in
Urban Society. The American Indian in Urban Society.

 

Giordano, J. Ethnicity and Mental Health. New York:
Institute of Human Relations, 1973.

Goldstein, G. S. The Model Dormitory. Psychiatric Annals,
1974, 4(9), 85 - 92.

188

Gottlieb, B. H. The Development and Application of a
Classification Scheme of Informal Helping Behaviors.
Canadianl Journal of Behavioral Science, 1978, 14,
105 - 115.

Gourash, N. Help-Seeking: A Review of the Literature.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 1978, ‘4
(5), 413 - 423.

Gove, W. R. Sex, Marital Status, and Mortality. American
Journal of Sociology, 1973, 11, 45 - 67.

Gove, W. R. & Geerken, M. R. Reponse Bias in Surveys of
Mental Health — Empirical Investigation. American
Journal of Sociology, 1977, 11(6), 128 - 1317.

Graves, T. D. Acculturation, Access, and Alcohol in a
Tri-Ethnic Community. American Anthropologist,

Graves, T. D. The Personal Adjustment. of Navaho Indian
Migrants to Denver, Colorado. American Anthropolog-
.1812, 1970' 12., 35 - 54o

Graves, T. D. Drinking and Drunkenness Among Urban Indians.
In J. O. Waddell & O. M. Watson (Eds.), The American
Indian inggrban Society. Boston: Little, Brown, and
Company, 1971.

 

Gurin, G., Veroff, J., 8: Feld, S. Americans View Their
Mental Health. New York: Basic Books, 1960.

Hallowell, A. Culture and Experience. Philadelphia,
University of Pennsylvania, 1955.

Hammer, M. Influence of Small Social Networks as Factors on
Mental Health Admission. Human Organization, 1963,
11, 243 - 251.

 

Heath, D. B. Prohibition and Post-repeal Drinking Among the
Navajo. Quarterly Journal of Studies of Alcohol,

Hoffman, H. & Jackson, D. N. Comparison of Measured
Psychopathology in Indian and Non-Indian Alcoholics .
Psychological Reports, 1973, 11(3), 793 - 794.

Hollingshead, A. & Redlich, F. Social. Class and Mental
Illness: A Community Study. New York: Wiley and Sons,
1958.

Honigman, CL. & Honigman, I. Alcohol In a Canadian Northern
Town. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association, 1968.

189

Hunt, J. J., Stevens, J., Bojorcas, R. V., 8 Tomer, G.
Final Report to the American Indian Policy Review
Commission. thhington, D. C., U. S. Government
Printing Office, 1976.

Imber, S. D., Nash, E. H., 8 Stone, A. R. Social Class and
Duration of Psychotherapy. Journal of Clinical Psycho-
logy, 1955, 11, 281 - 284.

Jessor , R. , Graves , T. , Hanson , R. , 8 Jessor , S. Society,
Personality and Deviant Behavior. New York: Holt,
Rhinehart, and Winston, 1960.

 

Kadushin, C. Why People Go ‘to IPsychiatrists. New ‘York:
Atherton Press, 1969.

Kammeyer, K. 8 Bolton, C. Community' and Family Factors
Related to the Use of a Family Service Agency.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1968 , 11, 488 -
498.

Karno, M. 8 Edgerton, R. Perceptions of Mental Illness in a
Mexican American Community. Archives of General Psy-
chiatry, 1969, 14, 233 - 238.

 

Keller, M. 8 Seeley, S. R. The Alcohol Language. In
Understanding Alcoholism. New York: Christopher D.
Smithers Foundations, 1968.

Kline, J. A., Rozynko, V., Flint, G. 8 Roberts, A. C.
Personality Characteristics of Male Native. American
Alcoholic Patients. 1nternational Journal of the
Addictions, 1973, 1(4), 729 - 732.

 

Landy, D. Problems of the Person Seeking Help in Our
Culture. In Social Welfare Forum. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1960.

Langer, T. A Twenty-two Item Screening Score of Psychiatric
Symptoms Indicating Impairment. Journal of Health and
Human Behavior, 1962, 1, 269 - 276.

 

Leighton, A. My Name in Legion: The Stirling County
Studies, New York: Basic Books, 1959.

Leighton, A. H. Mental Health of the American Indian.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 1968, 125(2), 113 -
132.

Lefly, H. P. Acculturation, Child-Rearing, and Self-Esteem
in Two North American Indian Tribes. Ethos, 1976, 4
(3), 385 - 401.

190

Levitan, S. A. 8 Hetrick, B. Big Brother's Indian Pgograms
- With Reservations. New York: McGraw - Hill, 1971.

 

Levy, J. Navajo Suicide. Human Organization, 1965, 14
(4), 111 - 124.

Levy, L., 8 Visotoky, H. The Qualtiy of Urban Life: An
Analysis From the Perspective of Mental Health. In H.
Schmandt 8 W. Bloomberg (Eds.) The Quality of Urban
Life. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1969.

Lieberman , R. Personal Influence in the Use of Mental
Health Resources . Human Organization , 1965 , 14,

Lieberman, M. A. 8 Glidewell, J. C. Overview: Special Issue
on the Helping Process. Amegican Journal of Commun-
ity Psychology, 1978, 4(5), 405 - 411.

Lieberman, M. A. 8 Mullan, J. T. Does Help Help? The
Adaptive Consequences of Obtaining Help from
Professionals and Social Networks. American Journal
of Community Psychology, 1978, 4(5), 499 - 517.

 

Leibowitz, B., Fried, J., Madaris, C. Sources of Assis-
tance in an Urban Ethnic Community. Human Organiza-
tion, 1973, 11(3), 267 - 271.

Liem, J. H. 8 Liem, R. Life Events, Social Supports and
Physical and Psychological Well-being. Paper present-
ed to the meeting of the American Psychological
Association, 1976.

Linton, R. Nativistic Movements. American Anthropologist,
1943, 41, 270 - 279.

 

Litwak, E., 8 Szelenyi, J. Primary Group Structures and
Their Functions: Kin, Neighbors, and Friends.
American Sociological Review. 1969, 14, 465 - 481.

MacGregor, G. Culture Change and the American Indian
Problem: A Report to the Office of Economic
Opportunity. Springfield, Virginia, NTIS, PB -
180308, 1966.

 

Martin H. Correlates of Adjustment Among American Indians
in an Urban Environment. Human Organization, 1964,
2;, 290 - 2950

 

Mail, P. D., 8 McDonald, D. R. Native Americans and
Alcohol: A Preliminary Annotated Bibliography.
Behavior Science Research, 1977, 1, 169 - 196.

191

May, M. A., 8 Dizmang, L. H. Suicide and the American
Indian. Psychiatric Annals, 1974, 4(11), 22 - 28.

Mechanic, D., 8 Volkart, E. Stress, Illness, Behavior and
the Sick Role. American Sociological Review, 1961,‘
2Q, 51 - 580

Meyers, J. 8 Bean, L. A Decade Later: A Follow Up of
Social Class and Mental Illness. New York: _Wiley and
Sons, 1968.

Miller, K. Mental Health Treatment Services and the Lower
Socio-Economic Classes. In K. Miller 8 C. Grigg
(Eds.), Mental Health and the Lower Classes.
Tallahassee, Florida: Florida State University, 1966.

 

Miller, N. B. Utilization of Services for the Develop-
mentally Disabled by American Indian Families in Los
Angeles. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
University of California, Los Angeles, 1978.

Mindell, C. 8 Stuart, P. Suicide and Self-Destruction
Behavior in the Ogala Sioux: Some Clinical Aspects and
Community _Approaches. Washington D. C.: U. S.
Government Printing Office, 1969.

 

Murdock, S. H., 8 Schwartz, D.- F. Family Structure and the
Use of Agency Services: An Examination of Patterns
Among Elderly Native Americans. The Gerontologist,
1978, 11(5), 475 - 481.

Myers, J. K., Lindenthall, J. J., Pepper, M. P. Social
Class, Life Events and Psychiatric Symptoms: A
Longitudinal Study. In B. S. Dohrenwend 8 B. P.
Dohrenwend (Eds.) Stressful Life Events. New York:
Wiley and Sons, 1974.

 

Officer, J. E. The American Indian and Federal Policy. In
J. O. Waddell 8 O. M. Watson (Eds.), The American
Indian in yyban Society. Boston: Little, Brown, and
Company, 1971.

 

Overall, B. 8 Aronson, H. Expectations of Psychotherapy in
Patients of Lower Socioeconomic Classes. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1963, 11, 421 - 430.

Paredes, J. A. Toward a Reconceptualization of American
Indian Urbanization - Chippewa Case. Anthropology
Quarterly, 1971, 44(4), 256 - 271.

 

Phillps, D. The True Prevalence of Mental Illness in a New
England State. Community Mental Health Journal.
1966' 2' 35 - 40.

192

Price, John A. An Applied Analysis of North American Indian
Drinking Patterns. Human Ogganization, 1975, .14
(1), 17 - 26.

 

Price, (L. A. Native Studies: American and Canadian
Indians. Toronto: McGraw - Hill Reyerson, 1978.

Query, W. T. 8 Query, J. M. Aggressive Responses to the
Holtzman Inkblot Techniques by Indian and White
Alcoholics. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
1972, 1, 413 - 416.

 

Quarentelli, E. L. A Note on the Protective Function of the
Family in Disasters. Journal of Marriage and Family
Living, 1969, 11, 263 - 264.

Redhorse, J. G., Lewis, R., Feit, M., 8 Decker, J. Family
Behavior of Urban American Indians. Social Casework,
1978, 11(2), 67 - 72.

Resnick, H. L. P., 8 Dizmang, L. H. Observations of
Suicidal Behavior Among American Indians. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 1971, 127, 882 - 887.

 

Rogawski, A., 8 Edmundson, B. Factors Affecting the Outcome
of Psychiatric Interagency Referral. American Jour-
nal of Psychiatry, 1971, 127, 925 - 934.

 

Rohner, R. P. The Kwakuitl Indians of Brit_ish Columbia.
New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, 1970.

 

Rosenberg, M; Society and the Adolescent Self-Image.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966.

Rosenblatt, A. 8 Mayer, J. E. Helpseeking for Family
Problems: A. Survey' of Utilization and Satisfaction.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 1972, 11, 126 -
130.

Rosenblatt, D. 8 Suchman, E. The Underutilization of
Medical-Care Services by Blue Collarites. In A.
Shostak 8 W. Gomberg (Eds.), Blue Collar WOrld.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1964.

 

Savard, R. J. Cultural Stress and Alcoholism: A Study of
Their Relationships Among Navajo Alcoholic Men. Unpu-
blished Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Minnesota, 1968.

Sclar, L. J. Participation by Off-Reservation Indians in
Programs of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the
Indian Health Service. California Indian Legal
Services, 477 15th, Oakland, California, Memeo, 1972.

 

 

193

Second Annual Conference of Michigan Foundations .
Mictggan's Minorities of the Mid-Seventies: Indians,
Blacks, Chicanos. Charles Stewart Mott Foundation,
1974.

Seiler, L. H. 8 Summers, G. F. Toward An Interpretation of
Items Used in Field Studies of Mental Illness. Social
Science and Medicine, 1974, 1(8), 459 - 467.

Sharp, H. 8 Axelrod, M. Mental Aid Among Relatives in an
Urban Population. In R. Freedman, A. Hawley, W.
Landecker, G. Lenski, 8 H. Miner (Eds.) Principles of
Sociology. New York: Holt 8 Company, 1956.

 

 

Shore, J. H. Psychiatric Epidemiology Among American
Indians. Psychiatric Annals, 1974, 4(9), 56 - 63.

Shore, J. American Indian Suicide - Fact and Fantasy.
Psychiatry, 1975, 3_8_, 86 - 91.

 

Sievers, M. L. Cigarette and Alcohol Usage by Southwestern
American Indians. American Journal of Public Health,
1968' §_8_' 71 - 780

Snyder, P. Z. The Social Environment of the Urban Indian.
In J. O. Waddell and O. M. Watson (Eds.) The American
Indian in Urban Society. Boston: Little, Brown, and
Company, 1971.

Sorkin, A. American Indians and Federal Aid. Washington,
D. C.: Brookings Institute, 1971.

Spindler, G. D. Sociocultural and Psychological Processes
in Menomini Acculturation. Berkely and Los Angeles:
University of California Press, 1955.

Srole, L., Langer, T., Opler, M., 8 iRennie, T. Mental
Health in the Metropolis,, the Midtown Manhattan
Study. New York: McGraw - Hill, 1962.

Stack, C. B. All Our Kin, Strategies for Sury1va1 in a
Black Community. New York: Harper and Row, 1974.

Stanbury, W. Poverty Among British Columbia Indians Living
Off Reserves. Canadian Welfare, 1974, 11(1), 20.

Steiner, S. The New Indians. New York: Dell, 1978.

Stewart, 0. Questions Regarding American Indian Crimi-
nality. Human Organization, 1964, 11(1), 61 - 66.

Stratton, J. Cops and Drunks: Police Attitudes and Actions
in Dealing with Indian Drunks. International Journal

of the Addictions, 1973, 1(4), 613 - 621.

 

194

Stull, D. D. Modernization and Symptoms of Stress:
Attitudes, Accidents, and Alcohol Use Among Urban
Papago Indians. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Colorado, 1973.

 

 

Suchman, E. Sociomedical‘ Variations Among Ethnic Groups.
American Journal of Sociology, 1964, 319 - 331.

Sue, S., Allen, D., 8 Conway, L. The Responsiveness and
Equality of Mental. Health Care to Chicanos and Native
Americans. Ameyican Journal of Community Psychology,
1978, 1(2), 137 - 146.

 

Swanson, D. W. Alcohol Abuse in a“ Population of Indian
Children. Diseases of the Nervous System, 1971,
a, 835 - 842.

Tolsdorf, C. Social Networks, Support, and Coping: An
Exploratory Study . Family Process , 1976 , 11, 407 -
417 .

Topper, M. D. Navajo Culture, Social Pathology, and Alcohol
Abuse: A Broad Interpretation. Paper presented at 32nd
annual meeting of the Society for Applied Anthropo-
logy, 1973.

Tousignant, M., Denis, G., 8 Lachapel, R. Some Considera-
tions Concerning Validity and Use of the Health
Opinion Survey. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 1974, 11(3), 241 - 252.

Trimble, J. Value Differences Among American Indians: Con-
cerns for Concerned Counselors. In P. Pedersen, W.
Lonner, 8 J. Draguns (Eds.) Cross-CulturaLCounsel-
113. Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press, 1975.

 

 

Unger , S . The Destruction of American Indian Fami lies .
New York: Association on American Indian Affairs,
1977 .

Veroff, J., Douvan, E., 8 Kulka, R. A. The Inner American:
A Self-Portrait from 1957 to 1976. New York: Basic
Books, 1981.

Vogel, V. (Ed.) This Country Was Ours: A Documentary
HistorLof the American Indian. New York: Harper and
Row, 1972.

 

Voget, F. The American Indian in'Transition: Reformations
and Accomodations. American Anthropologist, 1956,
11, 27 - 36.

 

195

Waddell, J. O. 8 Watson, 0. M. (Eds.) The American Indian
in Urbap Society. Boston: Little, Brown, and Com-
pany, 1971.

 

Wagner, J. K. The Role of Intermarriage in the Accultu-
ration of Selected Urban American Indian Women.
Anthropologica, 1976, 11(2), 215 - 229.

Warren, D., 8 Clifford, D. Help Seeking Behavior and the
Neighborhood Context: Some Preliminary Findings on a
Study of Helping Networks in a Community. Paper
presented at the 70th Annual Meeting of the American
Sociological Association, San Francisco, California,
August, 1975.

Warren, R. The Community in America. Chicago: Rand
McNally 8 Company, 1963.

Wax, M. L. Indian Americans. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:
Prentice Hall, 1971.

Weclew, R. The Nature, Prevalence, and Level of Awareness
of "Curanderismo" and Some of its Implications for
Community Mental Health. Community Mental Health
Journal, 1975, _1_1, 145 - 154.

Wellman, B. Community Ties and Support Systems: From
Intimacy to Support. In L. Bourne, R. McKinnon, 8 J.
Simmons (Eds.) The Form of Cities in gentral Canada.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1973.

Westermeyer, J. The Drunken Indian: Myths and Realities.
Psychiatric Annals, 1974, 4(9), 29 - 36.

 

Whittaker, J. 0. Alcohol and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.
Qparter1y Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 1962, 11,
468 - 479.

Wolff, P. Vasomotor Sensitivity to Alcohol in Diverse
Mogoloid Populations. American Journal of Human
Genetics, 1973, g, 193 - 199.

"I1111111111111111