313 2 an .2309

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

,,_ - -
.. -.
an-.-

" ' n.

 

 

 

.
" ...,."
. _
" —Il-._..
~ .- _. _
2 . _v~ r‘
..... "“'--v
.
-, .. .v‘ ‘2
.. n
s... .H‘ .,_
~-.._' .
2- — r 1
‘;---o -..
I _'~
' 4
‘ D ~11
.. .
.. _... >
H . ~ --
o, . ..
.o-.“'
.‘t.._
t
‘.“~ ‘ ‘_--
.."'4 b»._
C .y‘.
.~.
3 'v. :
. -.
on..'.‘ ‘ ,;
.._ ~
‘.
..
. ~' ._ ‘
‘|.‘ ':,~
. ‘. ‘
.L .' h.
2 .A
"on .- _
..
' v
s.‘
. -._.
. . _. ‘
l‘c, -
"
'0
. _-
\‘. ‘0‘!
"-.‘_ -,
._-
..
-
AA
. . ~_)
.‘ ‘-
.“‘
. .
'n
‘ ‘
~ .
‘v‘
-.
I-. .
u, I ‘
s,_ 3
.M
5.,
3
s
._>.
\. -<
.'-. ‘v.
u.“
,_
,
“ ‘
N. ' 2
'A
-
“I
~
”A
,.‘
.

ABSTRACT

MATERNAL ATTITUDES AND VALUES IN RESPECT TO
EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED AND PHYSICALLY
DISABLED PERSONS

by Birendra Kumar Sinha

The study was designed primarily to ascertain the atti-
tudes of mothers toward emotionally disturbed and physically
disabled persons. "Personal contact" with the emotionally
disturbed and the physically disabled was the basic variable
investigated in the present study. Precisely, the influence
of frequency and nature of contact on both content and inten-
sity of attitudes was systematically explored. In addition,
the present research aimed to examine evidence for predicted
relationships between value systems of the subjects and
attitudes toward the emotionally disturbed and the physically
disabled. Two other dimensions investigated in this study
were related to progressive versus traditional attitudes
toward education and change orientations. Finally, an
attempt was made to determine whether attitudes toward the
disturbed and the disabled stemmed from popular stereotypes
prevalent in the culture about mental illness and physical
disability.

Three groups (two experimental and one control) were
employed in this research. One experimental group was com-

posed of mothers of emotionally disturbed children and the

 

 

u-..
.. . u
..

.3...

 

. I'I‘
..¢w'
-
. ...
....

....,
..
..-
....
- '-~
. . .
... .
—
... .
.._

V .‘ .- .
..
-‘.l "-1.
..-_ _
"i‘-
3.. _
. C A
.I . ‘-.
' '2' s-
.I
'..-..

 

 

 

 

 

a. ‘
.,_.. ‘—
. 'I‘ --
v._
~_'. ‘
.. .."‘
"
~. .
o, ..
u. -
‘A.
.’ 4.
~_
n.. ‘ ‘
c,_ u
-_
o
’-
v. .
' -
\. .
' o
“. c
d
s.-
'v
a. -,
I ‘ a-
. -,‘~
-."..’ -
.-
s
g _
"‘
. .
s
-4
.
‘5
- ‘vl
, ‘
‘.
I.
-'_
.‘ .
‘-
y
~

BIRENDRA KUMAR SINHA

other experimental group of mothers of physically disabled
children. These mothers were utilizing professional help for
their children in.a.nmntal health clinic and a physical
rehabilitation center. Since "personal contact" with emotion-
ally disturbed and physically disabled persons was the main
concern for the study, it was considered important to select
mothers whose contact with the emotionally disturbed and the
physically disabled would be most intimate and frequent.

Such a population was ideally available at a comprehensive
community mental health, and a rehabilitation center located
on the campus of the Betty Jane Memorial Center in Tiffin, Ohio,
a.typical midwestern, middle-sized community. The out-patient

nmntal health services were provided by the Sandusky_Valley

 

Guidance Center, and the rehabilitation services for the

physically handicapped were rendered by the Betty Jane Rehabili—

 

tation Center. Mothers of "normal," that is, non-handicapped
children served as the control group. They were drawn from
the city of Mount Pleasant, Michigan which is comparable to
luffin in demographic composition. There was no statistically
Eflgnificant difference between the three groups in respect to
education, income, and age.

The sample consisted of 60 mothers of emotionally
disturbed children, 48 mothers of physically disabled children,
and 69 mothers of normal children. The sampling, however, was
not fully random on account of non-availability of apprOpriate

subjects in the two experimental groups.

BIRENDRA KUMAR SINHA

A battery of research instruments were used to measure
ammtudes, values, change orientations, and various demographic
(Karacteristics. They were: (a) the Handicapped Persons Scale,
(b) the Emotionally Disturbed Persons Scale, (0) the Education
Scale, (d) the Gordon Survey of Interpersonal Values, (e) the
Personal Questionnaire (general), (f) the Personal Question—
naire: HP, and (g) the Personal Questionnaire: EDP. The ques-
tionnaires were self—administered in all cases, and the estimated
time to complete the questionnaires was approximately three
hours.

Unlike the psychoanalytic orientation of most studies on
parent-child interactions, the theoretical framework of the
present research was mainly social psychological. Within the
purview of the social psychological framework, the nature of
intergroup attitudes was viewed as relating to interpersonal
values and contact variables such as frequency, enjoyment,
and ease of avoidance of the contact. In keeping with the
above theoretical orientation, 26 specific hypotheses were
formulated which were classified into four major categories:

(a) contact-intensity and contact—frequency interactions, (b)
attitude-value interactions, (c) change orientation and atti-
tude, and (d) general differences in attitudes reflecting
cultural stereotypes.

The main hypothesis relating to contact—intensity inter-
action was that higher frequency of contact with the disturbed
and the disabled produced greater intensity of attitude regard—

less of attitude content. In respect to contact-frequency

“.
\
I¢
.-
_
'-

 

‘n 1..

.
._.~
..
In.
u.‘
- ,
-..'
In
.‘ ‘ . ~
.'-I - .-
. . .'
u.
h.
. .. .
¥’_
.I. s -
.'.. ‘
--.
‘b
.’ .'.
v. _.
._.
'I
.
- 0
~ -
‘~. _,. .
' a
—‘
-.
.
‘0
'5 _v_
o '.~
~,
‘
.V
. \.
.
.‘x
.
.—

..-
..
. ,.
.
up...
..
' -
' .4
, '_
'- .v-
‘. ’V h
--n
“ ,. ,
. v;
. _ —
r..._,_.
v ‘_..
l.- ‘4‘
..’. -,
~.. '-
- -
~_-.
v. »
. I
.
.-
.

BIRENDRA KUMAR SINHA

hmeraction, the major hypothesis was that high frequency of
cmfiact with the disturbed and the disabled is associated with
fawnebleness of attitudes if, (a) there are other rewarding
mmortunities to engage, (b) the contact was enjoyable, and
(c)the interaction could be easily avoided. The hypotheses
pmwaining to attitude-value interactions attempted to deter—
mhm the role of "asset" and "comparative" value orientation
hithe maintenance of favorable or unfavorable attitudes. The
flange orientations selected for the study were: health prac-
Utes, birth control practices, automation, political leader-
Mup, and self-change. Finally, the main hypothesis in the
1mm category was that mothers of normal children would express
nmre favorable attitudes toward physically disabled persons
Hmn toward emotionally disturbed persons.

The hypotheses were tested by means of analysis of
vmflance, tetest, zero—order correlation, and multiple and
gmrtial correlations. The results were analyzed for the three
@mmps of mothers, and the total sample, regardless of treatment.

The analyses of the results confirmed, in general, the
hmmct of personal contact in the maintenance of favorable
audtudes toward emotionally disturbed and physically handi-
Cmmed persons. Amount of contact, however, was not the only
flumor which produced favorable attitudes. The nature of
contact, such as enjoyment and avoidance of contact, was ob-
Ewrved to be associated in some manner with favorableness of
mmdtudes, although the results did not indicate any clear and

defluflte correlational pattern between contact variables and

 

. .. "-
\ ‘_ an.
.“H
o
_ F -.
. ‘...o ‘
.aV—uourl “‘ -
..
. _’..-r
v', I I
..-."""
‘-
. - - .'
.y'r " “
.
.-.- o. ‘
. .
. .. y.
..- .‘X. “"

 

 

'-

,07."’
A

.. .. ud-""'

 

.. ‘0' I..‘ 5
.-
.-- I. ‘I'. ’
r ...o--.
.. .- I
. .. .ga- '
.. . _-..' _

»-.
.CC‘IQ'II'

-
u .-
‘. p -' o~
‘- c .. ..
. -u..
. I '-
‘O'uoo‘ . '
.,. -
__' u- _
-1 a — "F
. 'n.‘. _
o
a-. -
. . ._
>L .—.
.-..n
.oh-
. .. .
,_ n~ “
a, . \-' ‘
‘~“ "
.-
< .'~. _ .
.. _v .._
'In- .
or. .- v
‘ ‘—

 

 

 

BIRENDRA KUMAR SINHA

amitudes toward the disturbed and the disabled. Contact
'Mth education also did not per se produce favorable attitudes
award education.

Contrary to expectation, more frequent contact appeared
Maproduce low intensity of attitudes toward emotionally dis-
mubed and physically disabled persons. However, high fre-
mmncy of contact with education did not result in lower
knensity of attitude. No significant relationship was obtained
unween contact with education and intensity of attitudes
‘Mmard education.

It was hypothesized that mothers of emotionally disturbed
mm.physically handicapped children would be characterized by
miasset value orientation rather than a comparative value
mientation. The Benevolence sub—scale of the Gordon scale of
wflues was used as a measure of asset value orientation while
Hm Leadership and Recognition sub-scales were employed to
nmasure comparative value orientation. But the analyses of
‘Hm data did not yield consistent results to permit meaningful
gnmralizations. However, it was found that mothers of emotion—
aUy disturbed children had significantly higher scores on
‘Um value of Support when compared to mothers of physically
fmndicapped or normal children. On the otherhand, mothers of
Physically handicapped children expressed greater Conformity
\wlue orientation than did the mothers of emotionally disturbed
or normal children.

The majority of the hypotheses relating to change orien-

tatnxm, and attitudes toward education were not confirmed

BIRENDRA KUMAR SINHA

umsistently, and as such no definite conclusions can be made
mithe basis of the present investigation.

One interesting finding of the study was that mothers
ofnormal children had more favorable attitudes toward the
mwsically disabled than toward emotionally disturbed persons.
fins was regarded as a reflection of the cultural stereotypes
flmut mental illness as compared to physical disability.

The present research raised many further questions
mmarding theoretical and methodological issues inherent in
astudy of attitudes and values about highly complex social
dflects like emotional disturbance and physical disability.
Anmjor problem demanding serious consideration was noted to
bethe scaling technique. It was recommended that Guttman-
Idngoes Multiple Scale Analysis (MSA I), which allows for
mflti-dimensional analysis of data in addition to multi-
mudimensional analysis, be used in future studies. Guttman's
.fiwet theory (1959, 1961) appeared to be impressive in resolv-
ing problems related to dimensionality of attitude, concept
muuvalence, and item sampling. This theory suggests that the-
amfltude universe represented by the item content can be sub—
Mumctured into components which are systematically related
tothe number of identical conceptual elements held in common.
'Nm substructuring of relationships between various components
dfthe attitude universe thus allows for meaningful intergroup
comparisons.

It was also pointed out that a different conceptual

frammmHWIWas needed to measure values in View of the failure

 

 

 

 

D P
"4.-" .-
..l ‘
.. -
’ .hl. .
A
.‘1.»
.. .
. ..,-~..
U ..--‘--~
.. ..[.
V 4'
-..¢¢. ..
.

o >...4_
’~ 5'.
O‘ u....
'u
r‘.- .
-

BIRENDRA KUMAR SINHA

of the present approach (in terms of asset and comparative
value orientations) to provide consistent results.

The findings of the present research indicate a need
for longitudinal studies in this area. In the least, a com-
parison of groups before and after exposure to the attitude

objects was considered a preferable design for making mean—

ingful generali zati ons .

-u
o

MATERNAL ATTITUDES AND VALUES IN RESPECT TO
EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED AND PHYSICALLY

DISABLED PERSONS

By

Birendra Kumar Sinha

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Counseling, Personnel Services,
and Educational Psychology

1966

   

 

 

 

-. II "‘
u ‘.
, .
p I-
‘0’.
-v ‘v-
.- |
I 'v.1 5.1
v
-v- -p- n ’
v .
- an. ufiu

 

 

U. or
.. .
~._... :.
." - .,_'
N.

 

' -
' n
,o
-‘

.. .

._' a 9.

' ‘Q. ~

.

 

 

 

l
.n,
4"

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Since the research was mainly carried out at the
Sandusky Valley Guidance Center in Tiffin, Ohio, where
I was working as a Clinical Psychologist, the cooper-
ation and support of both the professional and secre-
tarial staff were indispensable for the successful com-
pletion of the research project. I am especially grate-
ful to Dr. William Moore, Acting Director of the mental
health clinic, and Mr. Paul Brown, Executive Director of
the Betty Jane Memorial Rehabilitation Center, who pro-
vided all possible help in encouraging mothers of the
patient-children to participate in the research. My
other professional colleagues at the clinic—-Mr. Donald
Haliburton, Director of Psychiatric Social Service, Mrs.
Ruth Chapman and Mrs. Vivian Sebeste, Psychiatric Social
Workers--were of great assistance in enlisting cooper—
ation of the subjects who volunteered to complete the
time-consuming research instruments. A respected friend,
Dr. Maurice Newberger, Director of the Psychology De-
Dartment at the Rehabilitation Center, provided distin-
S'Jished encouragement and help for which I am deeply

Oblised. I am highly appreciative of the invaluable

ii

 

 

 

 

 

 

...oo. 'v'

—......4.-.

   

 

.
h
’0' I. u y
. .’
\
-"" v.
.
.... .
¢.-
. - ~
‘.....‘._ U
.

 

 

 

 

. .
‘0‘ 1".
< n
. "o.
_“-. .
v ' tI-p.

   

 

 

-
‘
‘1‘.
u-
' “1.. .-
.. . ‘ ‘
‘.-.'
.'~.
I‘ x ':
1'.
'c
.
r.
. ‘-
-'.
.‘ u..
.'-‘ ‘
._.
' .fl.
: h
.‘ .
u. .
‘
.
u.
‘ a
-
:' '* ‘0
V‘. .
I . .
o
~

 

 

secretarial help rendered by Mrs. Lloyd Kelbley, Mrs.
mun Kieffer, Mrs. w. L. Fullerton, and Mrs. William
Tuthill.

Because the research was partly conducted in Mount
Neasant, Michigan, I have incurred further obligations.
Iam particularly indebted to Mr. Carlo Barberi, Superin-
1mndent of the Mount Pleasant School System for providing
mmjects for the control group. I also wish to express
aw gratefulness to Dr. Wilbur Moore, Vice-President of
Mmdemic Affairs at Central Michigan University for
financial support in the form of a small research grant.
Dr. Karl Pratt, Head of the Department of Psychology at
(kntral Michigan University was very kind in arranging
nw class schedule conveniently so that I could make fre-
mmnt visits to Michigan State University for computer
mmlysis of the data.

I want to thank Miss Katherine Morris for efficient
mm.accurate scoring of the raw data, and Miss Susan
finer for helping in the computer analyses.

I am also indebted to Dr. Norman Abeles, Dr.

(hegory Miller, and Dr. Cole Brembeck who served as

nwmbers of the advisement committee for this dissertation.
Dr.Abeles' critical and insightful suggestions have been
a.great asset to this research. My greatest gratitude is

to Dr. John E. Jordan, the committee chairman, who has

111

 

.a
n -' ‘
.
.n- ' '.
'-T;
u
no. “"
‘. -r-
‘-
n» n- O

 

r.
- .. '_‘
\. ~
’ O
"“ -.—...
.‘I ' .
" v.¢
' 5—. ~ ~
‘ ‘E' I-‘
-. ".A
v . ’ -
. -.--.

 

.,... ‘

 

 

 

 

accorded unstinted support, encouragement, and inspir-
ation at every stage of this research project. He has
shown unusual understanding and sympathy to a foreign
student who must encounter a multitude of problems in
a field research work.

Beyond these, I owe much to my wife, Asha, and
to my sons, Ani and Neel. My wife has endured a long
and arduous period of deprivations and hardships, for
she had to perform multiple and often conflicting roles
as mother, father, housewife, and student. Also, I
greatly admire the exemplary patience with which my six-
year old son, Ani, has looked forward to the completion
of the research so that he could again play his favorite

word-game with his daddy.

iv

 

-. --o..,—.--.
. .

-. .ch-‘c-h a-

 

 

 

 

 

u
.
\“.

. a
”in.
- A
..‘
-
U...
a.
Ina,
-,'
..._
.\
-
‘ .Nv.
‘ I
.‘ -

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
IJST OF TABLES
IJST OF FIGURES .
IJST OF APPENDICES

Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION

Nature of the Problem. .
Statement of the Problem.
Definition of Terms . .
Research Hypotheses .

Hypotheses Related to Contact Fre-
quency, Intensity and Attitude
Scores.

Hypotheses Related to Attitude-Value

Interactions. .
Hypotheses Related to Change Orien—
tation and Attitude Scores .
Hypotheses Related to General Dif—
ferences Between Mothers of Dis—
turbed, Handicapped, and Non-
Handicapped Children .

II. REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH AND THEORY

Attitudes Toward Emotionally Disturbed
Persons . . . .

Parental Attitudes.
General Studies.

Page
ii

xi
xxii
xxiii

10
15

15
17
19

19

21

21
30

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-
D.
_
out.
o
o
-
.
~
.-
-
..
.
i
-.
9-.
-
.'Iv-
I
I
e
.
I
I
.§
-
'II n
'1
'5
1-
"' I
\
‘."-~,
.‘ ‘_ -.
.“
u.
I‘
wp
b
‘ O
-
-..
u-
'-
a
V
~

Chapter

Attitudes Toward Physically Disabled
Persons .

Parental Attitudes
General Studies

The Relationship of Values, Personal Con-
tact, and Intensity to Attitudes.

The Role of Values .
Classification of Values
Personal Contact .
Attitude Intensity

Theoretical Considerations.

Psychoanalytic Model. .
Social-psychological Approach.

Attitude Organization and Measurement of
Attitudes . . . . . . .

Attitude Organization
Attitude Scales

Methodological Considerations.
Control Group . .
Selection of Variables
Measurement Techniques
Longitudinal Studies.
III. METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE

Research Population
Selection of Samples.

The Experimental Groups.
The Control Group.

Demographic Characteristics of Experi-

mental and Control Samples.

Selection of Variables
Description of Instruments.

Handicapped Persons Scale

Emotionally Disturbed Persons Scale.
Education Scale . .

vi

Page

51
51
5A
57
60
61
62
63
66

66
68

72
72

7A
75

77
79

79
81

83

86
87

88
89

 

 

 

 

.v . . .. :3 a 0. o

4‘ . I. 3. T. o. ..
v- I- ‘- “o . a Q‘v
. o .b- .u- .u- .b- 0: o
a... or. ... .p. . . s .
v . pp‘

p. o u

a u ‘8

 

v I
‘-‘.p.:

.

-O~‘- C n v

.

 

v0

-'.’ , s

.
,‘h-.

Chapter Page

Gordon' 3 Survey of Interpersonal

 

Values . . . . 91
Personal Questionnaire (General) . . 93
Personal Questionnaire: HP . . . . 97
Personal Questionnaire: EDP. . . . 98

Collection of Data . . . . . . . . 98
Statistical Procedures. . . . . . . 101
Descriptive Statistics. . . . . . 101
Inferential Statistics. . . 102
Relational and Predictive Statistics . 10A
Measurement of Attitude Intensity . . 106
Limitations of the Study . . . . . . 107
The Problem of Research Design . . . 107
The Problem of Sample Selection. . . 109
The Problem of Test Administration. . 109
The Problem of Statistical Analysis . 110

Research Hypotheses, Rationale, and
Instrumentation . . . . . . . . 112

Hypotheses Related to Contact Fre-
quency, Intensity, and Attitude
Scores . . . . . 112

H:1: Contact-Intensity Inter-

actions. . . . 112
Hypotheses Derivation (H: 1a1 —

H: lau) . . . 112
Instrumentation (H: lal - H: lau). . 113
Hypotheses Derivation (H: lbl -

H: lbg) . . . 113
Instrumentation (H: lbl - H: 1b2). . 113
H: 2: Contact-Frequency Inter-

actions. . . . 11A
Hypotheses Derivation (H: 2a1 -

H: 2a”) . . 11A
Instrumentation (H: 2a1 - H: 2au). . 115
Hypothesis Derivation (H: 2b). . . 115
Instrumentation (H:2b). . . . . 116

Hypotheses Related to Attitude—Value
Interactions . . . . . . 116

vii

 

Chapter Page

Hypotheses Derivation (H:3a —

 

H: 3b) . . . 116
Instrumentation (H: 3a. — H: 3b) . . 117
Hypotheses Derivation (H: Aa -

H:Ac) . . . . . . . . . 117
Instrumentation (qua - H:Ac) . . 118
Hypotheses Derivation (H:5a -

H: 5c) . . . 118
Instrumentation (H. 5a. - H: So) 118
Hypotheses Derivation (H: 6 - H:7). 119
Instrumentation (H: 6 - H: 7). . . 120

Hypotheses Related to Change Orien-
tation and Attitude Scores . . . 120
Hypotheses Derivation (H:8a -

H: 9) . . . 120

Instrumentation (H: 8a. - H: 9) . . 121

Hypotheses Related to General Differ—
ences Between Mothers of Dis-
turbed, Handicapped, and Non-

Handicapped Children . . . . 121
Hypotheses Derivation (H:10a —

H: 10b) . . 121
Instrumentation (H: 10a - H: 10b) . 121

IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
Section 1: Descriptive Data . . . . 122

Differences in Education, Income,

and Age Between Respondent

Groups. . . . 125
Differences in Some Other Demo-

graphic Characteristics Between

Respondent Groups . . . . 130
Summary of Descriptive Data in
Tables 3- 12 . . . . . . . . 13“

Section 2: Hypotheses Testing, Mean
Differences, and Correlational
Analyses . . . . . . . . . . 136

Hypotheses Related to Contact Fre-

quency, Intensity, and Attitude
Scores. . . . . . 136

viii

 

 

 

;

 

 

 

mmpter Page

Hzl: Contact- -Intensity Inter-

actions . . . . . 136
H1131 . . . . . . . . . 136
H2132. . . . . . . . . . 138
Hzla3. . . . . . . . . . 143
H:lau: . . . . . . . . . 145
Hzlbl. . . . . . . . . . 148
Htlbg. . . . . . . . . . 148

Summary of Contact and Attitude

 

Intensity Scores . . . . . . 153
H:2: Contact-Frequency Inter—
actions . . . . . . . . 153
H:2a1. . . . . . . . . . 153
H:2a2. . . . . . . . . . 157
H:2a . . . . . . . . . . 157
H:2a . . . . . . . . . . 164
H:2b . . . . . . . . . . 164
Summary of Contact and Attitude
Content Variables. . . . 171
Hypotheses Related to Attitude-
Value Interactions . . . . 172
H:3a . . . . . . . . . . 172
Hz3b . . . . . . . . . . 177
H:4a . . . . . . . . . . 180
H:4b . . . . . . . . . . 180
H:4c . . . . . . . . . . 187
H:5a . . . . . . . . . . 191
H:5b . . . . . . . . . . 193
H:5c . . . . . . . . . . 197
H:6 . . . . . . . 197
H:7 201
Summary of Attitude and Value Vari-
ables. . . 204
Hypotheses Related to Change Orien-
tation and Attitude Scores. . . 206
H:8a . . . . . . . . . . 206
H:8b . . . . . . . . . . 210
H:9 . . . . . . . . . . 213

Summary of Attitude and Change
Orientation Variables . . . . 216

ix

 

no.g...-.

onuov‘.-.

 

.
'.V
.-
._‘
-
,1
‘1
.
"- ‘5.
.‘ _
.
‘v
:‘
. .‘

 

Chapter

Hypotheses Related to General Differ-

ences Between Mothers of Disturbed,

Handicapped, and Non- -Handicapped
Children. . .

H:10a.
H:10b.

'V. DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND SUMMARY
Part I: Discussion of Results

Hypotheses Relating to Contact Fre-
quency and Intensity. .

Contact Variables and Content of
Attitude. .

Value Variables in Relation to
Attitudes

Change Variables as Related to
Attitude Scores .

General Differences in the Attitudes
of the Respondent Groups .

Part II: Theoretical and Methodological
Issues, and Recommendations

Theoretical Issues
Methodological Issues
Recommendations

Research Design and Sampling

Selection and Analysis of
Scales . .

Statistical Analysis.

Part III: Concluding Summary.
REFERENCES

APPENDICES

Page

219

219
220

223

223
226
232
238
239

241

242
248
253

253

254
258

258
261

281

 

 

Din-UIOvII

 

. . -
.‘~; .. ’
..-. ,. .
' \l
’r- .

.
find .._
‘5..,.'-, _

~......‘

..
..
v.
0--
...__
n -
" p...
-
...‘__..
.
.‘p.

§
'."v.’ .
. __ .
l In-n...-‘
—
. -.
_\n
.'l."
a
I a
A'Dr .
.. a“
v...__‘ .
I
p..'
u_‘
. I...”
.
.
~
. o_"v:
. ' ‘
v _~‘- .
-
u;._
. -fi.
‘
' I
.-'.'
Iv.‘_-‘
.
..
a...
c-
“-i
‘Q
'C
’v-
._..
.
..' ‘
' -
v
,_
0 ‘l
_
-.,
-
I -
a
. -~‘-
' .—
.,.
r-
-.
-.
o...
. I
.
‘l‘ .-.'
a- ‘
n...
-
u.
s
. .
.
a, ’-
v
.
‘fit
-
u
‘l
. ‘L.
'm
-
\
.

 

Table

10.

ll.

12.

13.

LIST OF TABLES

Selection of Samples

Size of Population and Income in Tiffin
and Mount Pleasant. . . . .

Distribution of Subjects According to
"Treatments". . . .

Occupational Composition of the Total
Sample by Respondent Groups.

Comparison of the Respondent Groups in
Terms of Actual Educational Attainment

Comparison of the Respondent Groups in
Respect to Yearly Income (Self-Family)

Comparison of the Respondent Groups in
Respect to Age . . . .

Comparison of Mean Differences, Standard
Deviations, and F Statistics in Respect
to Three Demographic Variables for the
Three Respondent Groups . . .

Comparison of the Respondent Groups in
Respect to Number of Children

Comparison of the Respondent Groups in
Respect to Marital Status

Comparison of the Respondent Groups in
Respect to Recent Residence.

Comparison of the Respondent Groups in
Respect to Current Length of Residence
(Mobility) . . . . . . . . .

Means and Standard Deviations of Intensity
Scores on the Attitude-Toward-Emotion—
ally-Disturbed-Persons (EDP) Scale Com-
paring High and Low Frequency of Contact
with Emotionally Disturbed Persons for
the Total Sample . . . . .

xi

Page
84

86

123

124

126

127

128

129

131

132

132

133

137

rm; ‘“
king.

 

', a. a-
. _ '. u
' ..‘. y‘-
‘ '
..'-
‘ :-
.vu-v
.‘ n
a. .
u. v-
-
r;V‘:'
av.u.
. u .
.'. - a.
I .
n..c v.4

 

 

’r- I
p
‘II‘

’v

n
U-..

.7-

u...

 

Table

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

Analysis of Variance of the EDP Intensity
Scores Comparing High and Low Frequency
of Contact with Emotionally Disturbed
Persons for the Total Sample .

Zero-order Correlations Between Contact
and Intensity Scores on the Attitude
Scales for the Three Respondent Groups
and the Total Sample. .

Means and Standard Deviations of Intensity
Scores on the Attitude-Toward-Emotion-
ally-Disturbed-Persons (EDP) Scale
for the Three Respondent Groups

Analysis of Variance of EDP Intensity
Scores for the Three Respondent Groups.

Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied
to Means of EDP Intensity Scale for
the Three Respondent Groups .

Means and Standard Deviations of Intensity
Scores on the Attitude-Toward—Handi-
capped-Persons (HP) Scale Comparing
High and Low Frequency of Contact with
Physically Handicapped Persons for the
Total Sample . . . .

Analysis of Variance of HP Intensity
Scores Comparing High and Low Frequency
of Contact with Physically Handicapped
Persons for the Total Sample .

Means and Standard Deviations of Intensity
Scores on the Attitude-Toward-Handi-
capped-Persons (HP) Scale for the
Three Respondent Groups. .

Analysis of Variance of HP Intensity
Scores for the Three Respondent Groups.

Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied

to Means of HP Intensity Scale for the
Three Respondent Groups. . .

xii

Page

137

139

142

144

144

146

146

147

 

 

 

Table Page

24. Means and Standard Deviations of Intensity
Scores on the Progressive-Attitude-
Toward—Education Scale Comparing High
and Low Frequency of Contact with
Education for the Total Sample . . . . 149

ET Analysis of Variance of Intensity Scores on
the Progressive-Attitude—Toward-Education
Scale Comparing High and Low Frequency of
Contact with Education for the Total
Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

26. Means and Standard Deviations of Intensity
Scores on the Traditional-Attitude—
Toward—Education Scale Comparing High
and Low Frequency of Contact with Edu—
cation for the Total Sample . . . . . 150

27. Analysis of Variance of Intensity Scores on
the Traditional-Attitude—Toward—Edu—
cation Scale Comparing High and Low Fre—
quency of Contact with Education for the
Total Sample . . . . . . . . . . 150

28. Means and Standard Deviations of Content
Scores on the Progressive-Attitude-
Toward-Education Scale for the Three
Respondent Groups . . . . . . . . 151

29. Analysis of Variance of Content Scores on
the Progressive-Attitude-Toward-Edu—
cation Scale for the Three Respondent
Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

“4 Means and Standard Deviations of Content
Scores on the Traditional-Attitude-
Toward-Education Scale for the Three
Respondent Groups . . . . . . . . 152

31- Analysis of Variance of Content Scores on
the Traditional-Attitude-Toward-Edu—
cation Scale for the Three Respondent
Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

32- Partial and Multiple Correlations Between
Contact Variables (in Respect to the
Emotionally Disturbed) and Content of
Attitude Toward Emotionally Disturbed
Persons (EDP Scale) in the Total Sample . 154

xiii

nu

 

 

.
'r
v-..
n"
”4..
'5.

A
t-v-

.

a
U.‘
...

"v

‘

a»

o

. ‘1

- o. ..

-_'

"v.
.-
.--

Table Page

33. Partial and Multiple Correlations Between
Contact Variables (in Respect to the
Emotionally Disturbed) and Content of
Attitude Toward Physically Handicapped
Persons (HP Scale) in the Total Sample . 155

34. Partial and Multiple Correlations Between
Contact Variables (in Respect to the
Emotionally Disturbed) and Content of
Attitude Toward Physically Handicapped
Persons (HP Scale) in the Three Re-
spondent Groups. . . . . . . . . 156

35. Means and Standard Deviations of Content
Scores on the Attitude—Toward-Emotion—
ally-Disturbed-Persons (EDP) Scale for
the Three Respondent Groups. . . . . 158

36. Analysis of Variance of EDP Content Scores
for the Three Respondent Groups . . . 158

37. Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied
to Means of EDP Content Scale for the
Three Respondent Groups . . . . . . 159

38. Partial and Multiple Correlations Between
Contact Variables (in Respect to the
Physically Handicapped) and Content of
Attitude Toward Physically Handicapped
Persons (HP Scale) in the Total Sample . 160

39. Partial and Multiple Correlations Between
Contact Variables (in Respect to the
Physically Handicapped) and Content of
Attitude Toward Emotionally Disturbed
Persons (EDP Scale) in the Total Sample. 161

40. Partial and Multiple Correlations Between
Contact Variables (in Respect to the
Physically Handicapped) and Content of
Attitude Toward Physically Handicapped
Persons (HP Scale) in the Three Re-
spondent Groups. . . . . . . . . 162

41. Partial and Multiple Correlations Between
Contact Variables (in Respect to the
Physically Handicapped) and Content of
Attitude Toward Emotionally Disturbed
Persons (EDP Scale) in the Three Re-
spondent Groups. . . . . . . . . 163

xiv

 

 

.
1,... 9"
.‘ \ a
10"” fl" '
. -
\"“J--.
Uvuhc- <
. .
A"'-. .
. :-
oat-OJ I
..
.
.-,..-
'u.
u..u--.-o.
U
l - l
,. ”a..- o‘
. , . ‘
U.‘ C. .
u
0"... s...-
O'. O...
. . n
7", a
‘
ou....... . .'
u
D. ..,
u-
-. ..‘.
..
r A-
“on- "
.-.‘.. 4
- nu ’
a a o ,'
' II n
""O‘. ‘..
a
p,o...
v......__
0.1,,
’--n...‘
‘-.1‘ ‘
""01“
-
a... ‘
n
"'-. s.
.
. g. .
'4‘ 2 or
‘fioc at
.‘O ‘b-
‘rb-,‘
.-
v....‘-'
e-‘l
. ’v

9".
.-

5“.

I
§
.- “a
.v
.
‘-
‘
’v

.
G'
-
,_.-
“v. I-
.v
I‘-
II n.
‘
--.‘
I
5
II-
. »
'I_~-
. A
n
,.
~

‘D

‘-

'Q

-

, c
’.
y‘a".

“" h“-

J

 

Table
42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

Means and Standard Deviations of Content
Scores on the Attitude-Toward-Handi-
capped Persons (HP Scale for the Three
Respondent Groups. . . . . . .

Analysis of Variance of HP Content Scores
for the Three Respondent Groups

Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied
to Means of HP Content Scale for the
Three Respondent Groups.

Partial and Multiple Correlations Between
Contact Variables (in Respect to Edu-
cation) and Content of Progressive
Attitudes Toward Education in the
Total Sample . . . . .

Partial and Multiple Correlations Between
Contact Variables (in Respect to Edu-
cation) and Content of Traditional—
Attitudes-Toward-Education in the
Total Sample . . . . .

Partial and Multiple Correlations Between
Contact Variables (in Respect to Edu-
cation) and Content of Progressive-
Attitudes-Toward-Education in the
Three Respondent Groups. .

Partial and Multiple Correlations Between
Contact Variables (in Respect to Edu-
cation) and Content of Traditional-
Attitudes-Toward-Education in the
Three Respondent Groups. .

Means and Standard Deviations of Content
Scores on the Attitude—Toward-Emotion-
ally—Disturbed-Persons (EDP) Scale
Comparing High and Low Scores on
Leadership Value for the Total Sample

Analysis of Variance of EDP Content

Scores Comparing High and Low Scores on
Leadership Value for the Total Sample

XV

Page

165

165

166

167

168

169

170

173

173

.o'

 

 

..
a. , _
.. - .
‘ .- u
~‘dov .-
u -
. _ .-
. -
“-a. .__
.
I- ,. _
.~ ‘ ‘
‘u-n... .

.

I - . “A

" u ' _v-

.u.. _.‘-.
- I
...."~

." -
.' -o-

- .n"

-
‘vn......
‘p-

n ’v'
0'. ._..
- . ~

.5.
p
‘v.‘- fin

 

 

 

4
:a p.
\
on '.

 

(H

I
‘

hble Page

51. Means and Standard Deviations of Content
Scores on the Attitude-Toward—Handi-
capped-Persons (HP) Scale Comparing
High and Low Scores on Leadership
Value for the Total Sample . . . . . 174

52. Analysis of Variance of HP Content Scores
Comparing High and Low Scores on
Leadership Value for the Total Sample . 174

53. Zero-order Correlations Between Attitude-
Toward-Emotionally—Disturbed-Persons
Scale (EDP Content) and the Gordon
Value Scale for the Three Respondent
Groups and the Total Sample. . . . . 175

TL Zero-order Correlations Between Attitude-
Toward-Handicapped-Persons Scale (HP
Content) and the Gordon Value Scale for
the Three Respondent Groups and the
Total Sample. . . . . . . . . . 176

EL Means and Standard Deviations of Content
Scores on the Progressive-Attitude-
Toward—Education Scale Comparing High
and Low Scores on Leadership Value for
the Total Sample . . . . . . . . 178

55. Analysis of Variance of Content Scores on
the Progressive-Attitude—Toward-Edu-
cation Scale Comparing High and Low
Scores on Leadership Value for the '
Total Sample. . . . . . . . . . 178

57. Means and Standard Deviations of Content
Scores on the Traditional-Attitude—
Toward-Education Scale Comparing High
and Low Scores on Leadership Value
for the Total Sample . . . . . . . 179
58- Analysis of Variance of Content Scores on
the Traditional-Attitude-Toward-Edu—
cation Scale Comparing High and Low
Scores on Leadership Value for the
Total Sample. . . . . . . . . . 179

xvi

 

 

I"
.I. -
' ’ C
a... u
g...
~
.n'
by,-
p
I--.
5,.»
.-
u...
v
.-
.-.
n
s:
I
‘r
on
‘7
u»
4
u
..'_
h- ~
---....
n
V.
-
.-
II.
o
o.
l n
u-
a
.h --
n
v
V
~.
-_’
H"
\
«
1
u
v.
‘ —
H..-
'v
-I
...
r

Table Page

59. Zero-order Correlations Between Progres-
sive-Attitudes-Toward—Education (Con-
tent) and the Gordon Value Scale for
the Three Respondent Groups and the
Total Sample . . . . . . . . . . 181

ML Zero-order Correlations Between Traditional-
Attitudes-Toward-Education (Content) and
the Gordon Value Scale for the Three Re—
spondent Groups and the Total Sample . . 182

EL Means and Standard Deviations of Content
Scores on the Attitude-Toward-Emotion-
ally—Disturbed- -Persons (EDP) Scale Com-
paring High and Low Scores on Recognition
Value for the Total Sample . . . . 183

62. Analysis of Variance of EDP Content Scores
Comparing High and Low Scores on Recog—
nition Value for the Total Sample . . . 183

61 Means and Standard Deviations of Content
Scores on the Attitude-Toward-Handi-
capped-Persons (HP) Scale Comparing
High and Low Scores on Recognition
Value for the Total Sample . . . . . 184

64. Analysis of Variance of HP Content Scores
Comparing High and Low Scores on Recog-
nition for the Total Sample . . . . . 184

55. Means and Standard Deviations of Content
Scores on the Progressive-Attitude-
Toward—Education Scale Comparing High
and Low Scores on Recognition Value
for the Total Sample . . . . . . . 185

66- Analysis of Variance of Content Scores on
the Progressive-Attitude—Toward-Edu-
cation Scale Comparing High and Low
Scores on Recognition Value for the
Total Sample . . . . . . . . . . 185

67- Means and Standard Deviations of Content
Scores on the Traditional-Attitude—
Toward-Education Scale Comparing High
and Low Scores on Recognition Value for
the Total Sample. . . . . . . . . 186

xvii

if

 

u'

U

u . a

, .- -

a u- ‘

‘finlv

~ A

e r
.“ ‘
4 .‘vu o
.

. . .‘
,. u-.- ..
I ‘ § \
---¢o'v-u a.

o

\q.“.- o“

u .,
’1--,r ,
A
"O'cuon t‘
' .

Pa
"_"'v‘-;r
""leu‘-'.

t
.
V‘ n... p.
. \ ' s ‘
u...~_-d v.
‘a.“‘~ .»
-\
V. ‘0“ .
., .
TT'F'Q "
'va ‘ K
‘ "dun-u . .‘

l
l"¢.

 

 

‘ ‘ .
“-o..- v
r .. '-
75-: d
0‘..-‘
'1
. .. .
'-".' :7.
.-"" no...

g
-V'

to
3,!
L).

 

 

Table
68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

Analysis of Variance of Content Scores on
the Traditional-Attitude—Toward—Edu-
cation Scale Comparing High and Low
Scores on Recognition Value for the
Total Sample

Means and Standard Deviations of Leadership
Value Scores for the Three Respondent
Groups . .

Analysis of Variance of Leadership Value
Scores for the Three Respondent Groups

Means and Standard Deviations of Recog-
nition Value Scores for the Three
Respondent Groups

Analysis of Variance of Recognition Value
Scores for the Three Respondent Groups

Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to

Means of Recognition Value Scale for the
Three Respondent Groups

Means and Standard Deviations of Content
Scores on the Attitude-Toward—Emotion-
ally-Disturbed-Persons (EDP) Scale Com-
paring High and Low Scores on
Benevolence Value for the Total Sample

Analysis of Variance of EDP Content Scores
Comparing High and Low Scores for
Benevolence Value for the Total Sample

Means and Standard Deviations of Content
Scores on the Attitude—Toward-Handi-
capped—Persons (HP) Scale Comparing
High and Low Scores on Benevolence
Value for the Total Sample

Analysis of Variance of HP Content Scores
Comparing High and Low Scores on
Benevolence Value for the Total Sample

Means and Standard Deviations of Content
Scores on the Progressive-Attitude-
Toward-Education Scale Comparing High
and Low Scores on Benevolence Value
for the Total Sample

xviii

Page

186

188

188

189

189

190

192

192

194

194

195

Table

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

Analysis of Variance of Content Scores on
the Progressive-Attitude-Toward-Edu-
cation Scale Comparing High and Low
Scores on Benevolence Value for the
Total Sample

Means and Standard Deviations of Content
Scores on the Traditional—Attitude—
Toward-Education Scale Comparing High
and Low Scores on Benevolence Value
for the Total Sample

Analysis of Variance of Content Scores on
the Traditional-Attitude-Toward-Edu-
cation Scale Comparing High and Low
Scores on Benevolence Value for the
Total Sample

Means and Standard Deviations of Benevolence
Value Scores for the Three Respondent
Groups . .

Analysis of Variance of Benevolence Value
Scores for the Three Respondent Groups

Means and Standard Deviations of Support
Value Scores for the Three Respondent
Groups .

Analysis of Variance of Support Value
Scores for the Three Respondent Groups

Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to
Means of Support Value Scale for the
Three Respondent Groups

Means and Standard Deviations of Conformity
Value Scores for the Three Respondent
Groups

Analysis of Variance of Conformity Value
Scores for the Three Respondent Groups

Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to

Means of Conformity Value Scale for the
Three Respondent Groups

xix

Page

195

196

196

198

198

199

199

200

202

202

203

 

Jn‘

 

 

Cl] [II
'I ' l

 

I (,0)

Table

90.

91.

92.

93.

94.

‘95.

96.

97.

98.

Partial and Multiple Correlations Between
Change Variables and Content of Atti-
tudes Toward Emotionally Disturbed Per-
sons (EDP Scale) for the Total Sample.

Partial and Multiple Correlations Between
Change Variables and Content of Attitude
Toward Physically Handicapped Persons
(HP Scale) for the Total Sample.

Partial and Multiple Correlations Between
Change Variables and Content of Atti-
tudes Toward Emotionally Disturbed Per-
sons (EDP Scale) for the Three Re-
spondent Groups . . . .

Partial and Multiple Correlations Between
Change Variables and Content of Atti-
tude Toward Physically Handicapped Per-
sons (HP Scale) for the Three Re-
spondent Groups . . .

Partial and Multiple Correlations Between
Change Variables and Content of Pro-
gressive—Attitude-Toward—Education for
the Total Sample.

Partial and Multiple Correlations Between
Change Variables and Content of Tradi—
tional-Attitude—Toward—Education for
the Total Sample. . . . .

Partial and Multiple Correlations Between
Change Variables and Content of Pro—
gressive-Attitude-Toward—Education for
the Three Respondent Groups

Partial and Multiple Correlations Between
Change Variables and Content of Tradi—
tional-Attitude—Toward-Education for
the Three Respondent Groups

Comparison of Mean Differences and Standard
Deviations in Respect to Five Change
Orientation Variables for the Three
Respondent Groups . . .

XX

Page

207

208

209

211

212

214

215

Table

99. Analysis of Variance of Change Orientation
Scores for the Three Respondent Groups

lML Means, Standard Deviations, and Critical
Ratio of Content Scores on the EDP and
HP Scales for Mothers of Non- Handicapped
(i. e., normal) Children

lmL Means, Standard Deviations and Critical
Ratio of HP Content Scores for Mothers
of Physically Handicapped and Non-
Handicapped (i.e., normal) Children

xxi

Page

218

220

221

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. A Mapping Sentence for the Facet Analysis
of Attitudes Toward Education. . . . 256

2. A Mapping Sentence for the Facet Analysis

of a Research Project on Cross Cultural
Attitudes Toward Education. . . . . 257

xxii

 

 

 

 

 

 

-”
n...
.c-
-...
.1-
-¢¢
~
'I
..,'
.
'-
.-
n
-.
.-
'u
0
'1
n.
-
.—
I'.
s
_
'-
"-
s
-.
a
—‘
«-
-
.
g.
1
-.
n
n
s
.—

Appendix
A-l
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7

A-8

B-6

LIST OF APPENDICES

Page
Handicapped Persons Scale . . . . . . 282
Emotionally Disturbed Persons Scale. . . 290
Education Scale . . . . . . . . . 297
Gordon Survey of Interpersonal Values . . 305
Personal Questionnaire (general). . . . 307
Personal Questionnaire: HP . . . . . 329
Personal Questionnaire: EDP . . . . . 336
Definitions of Physical Handicap. . . . 342
Definition of Emotional Disturbance. . . 344
Administration Procedures . . . . . . 346
Basic Variables of the Study . . . . . 350
Rationale and Procedures for Producing
Item Directionality . . . . . . . 355
Code Book . . . . . . . . . . . 360
(a) International Study. . 361

(b) Special Instructions for Tiffin Study. 407

FCC I and II Variable-Computer Print-Out
Code Forms . . . . . . . . . . 412

Data Transcription Sheet . . . . . . 419

xxiii

 

uh

o.-.-

 

‘ .
.. .
...
q. .
v .
...
~

 

 

 

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

The field of mental health and rehabilitation has
bemawitnessing a gradual but steady shift from treat—
mmuzof illness to preventive intervention by the com-
mmflty. Although the traditional psychiatric methods of
panent care have not proved to be completely unprofitable,
ymauu'faith is currently being placed on new approaches
to:h&erpersona1 behavior encompassing a host of social
pmyduflogical variables (Adams, 1964; Bandura, 1961;
Mary,1957; Rees, 1957; Szaz, 1960). This current trend
in flmeprofessional and academic approaches to emotional
cflsmumance and physical disability has manifested itself

in huneasing emphasis on the community mental health move—

ment.

Nature of the Problem
The comprehensive community mental health and rehabi—
Mtathx1programs have become the most exciting and worth—
Whtkaendeavors of the present decade in the fields of both
behavioral sciences and medicine. The concern for the
<mmmxuty treatment programs have been stated most succinctly
19 almbent publication of the American Psychiatric Associa-

tion entitled Training the Psychiatrist to Meet Changing
Needs:

 

 

,....- v
- .-
,,,.._. -I

, - .
......-~
... .. -.

. u-‘d

.... ,.
.....' v
.. ... .l
noun- --

 

......_
"" r.~,
' \
I. ._
"'v~
-.~...,
u.

. ' - ‘

 

.... ~
.‘ -~.
"'-.. _
“ o..

§

-.

~. . .
. "

.. .

I -v .

-.-
c.--

c
a.

_ r
I...
." .

'.. -
a

co.
~~.

. Its
r a

'Q

‘ c

Q
.‘~., ,

‘p.
.

u.

. .‘
". a. '
-.‘

§

;«

..~ ‘a
I
'-
‘.

. .

. —"

'-

-.

. .

, ' .

-. ~“
‘-

1

o
.

‘. "-
.‘,

. u

'-

5- ‘5'.
._‘h
u"

. -"

s

‘. q‘
o )-

. ~
I‘ v
‘c

N.

.

.‘~

.

‘. .-
‘ -
\

.fll
‘

n ‘-

\ n. ‘
.~‘
.--

In
Q

“.x.

n_. g
5
"~ A

. we have seen the favorable impact of milieu
therapy and group therapy, the introduction of new
drugs that relieve distressing mental systems, and
advances in genetics, biochemistry, and physiology
that are directly relevant for psychiatry. It has
become increasingly possible to treat mentally ill
patients in the community. This trend has encouraged
the study of family relationships and of the possi-
bility of constructive intervention in a period of
crisis in the interpersonal relationships of family
members. It has greatly enhanced interest in rehabi-
litation and aftercare. It has significantly
changed community attitudes toward the mentally ill.

The shift of treatment of acute psychiatric illness
fTom the isolated mental hospital into the community,
a shortening of the period for inpatient care with
day hospital and outpatient facilities providing
support after discharge, focus of attention upon
extramural resources for all types as a result of
earlier discharge of a hospitalized patient, and
recognition of the necessity of a continuum of
treatment in the community are some of the consequences
cfi‘these far-reaching developments in recent times
(American Psychiatric Association, 1963, p. 10).

The newer and broader perspectives concerning behavior
prdflems appear to be a reaction against the "disease model"
vmidlstarted about 150 years ago and is still popular with
smmapsychiatrists and clinical psychologists. The medical
mmkfl.has been criticized as being too restrictive when
Muflied to all forms of emotional problems. Frank (1961)

states:

Acceptance of the medical view of mental illness
has led to neglect of groups and community forces .
in production and relief of distress and maintenance
cfi‘beneficial changes (Frank, 1961, p. 221).

Apparently, public interest in this vital issue of
rmntalillness and rehabilitation has gained momentum after
thepublication of the findings of the Joint Commission on
Mental Health (1961) that was established by Congress under

the aegis of the Mental Health Study Act of 1955. The report

 

 

'
.
\
h
v
\
.-

 

 

 

 

 

‘ o
a
-d.
o

P“r

~‘4.-.'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

indicated, inter alia, greater flexibility in services
provided for the mentally ill with minimum disruption of
the patient's normal role in the community. In this con-
rwction, it is worthwhile to mention the testimony of
bflcholas Hobbs (1963) given before the Subcommittee on
labor and Public Welfare, 88th Congress, First Session:

Historically, a great step forward was made when
mental disorders were declared to be an illness,
and the sufferer to be in need of treatment rather
than punishment. But the concept of mental disorder
as the private illness of a person is no longer
sufficient. . . . They grow out of, are exacerbated
by, and contribute to family and community disorgan-
ization (Hobbs, 1963, p. 295).

However, greatest impetus to this public health
emproach of organized community planning for prevention,
tneatment, and rehabilitation of mental and physical dis-
mulities came from the epoch-making Message on Mental
IUlness and Mental Retardation to the Congress of the
muted States on February 5, 1963. The President's message
Lmderscored the community responsibility with all of its
ramifications. President Kennedy said:

Central to a new mental health program is compre-
hensive community care. Merely pouring Federal funds
into a continuation of the outmoded type of institu-
tional care which now prevails would make little
difference. We need a new type of health facility,
one which will return mental health care to the main
stream of American medicine, and at the same time
upgrade mental health services (Kennedy, 1963, p. 4).

President Kennedy's vision of Comprehensive Community
AMntal Health Services came closer to realization when

early this year, President Johnson signed into law new

mental health legislation expanding the scope of the state

 

 

 

 

 

.
_‘.‘-

‘ an

8 -'1.'

-

, -
~
...‘~!

.
.

,.. I‘-

.. .\

. . .o. -

u..-

.

H ..,...
I- fl
‘Ofi'I-I-
--~.~

-

--..-..a.

'r-

-.

0.. ‘
.

-.

.
.
r u.
an. _,

 

--
‘-
'7‘
"».5

 

 

. '-
s - .
‘s.

.‘v
.

‘ '. .
\, ~~
'-.

‘
§..
. a
u 9,
s
‘-
‘
Q.
“m
. .
. _y

and federal support given to the community mental health
services.

Thus, it is not surprising to find that the zeit:
ggi§t_has-led to the formation of various committees by
the American Psychological Association with a View to
developing a new multidisciplinary program of service and
training in the field (Bennet, 1965; Brayfield, 1965;

Smith and Hobbs, 1966; Yolles, 1966).

In this era of growing humanitarian values and
scientific innovations, specific problems associated with
physical handicap have also been given considerable recog-
nition both by the public, through legislation and appro-
priations, and professionals. Responsible civic leaders
in different walks of life are beginning to realize that
physically disabled persons need not be considered a burden
to the materialistic,achieving society requiring only
medical rehabilitation. Psychological rehabilitation is
most intimately connected with the problem of physical
handicap since it involves such complex personality factors
as self-image, identity, personal worth and sense of
belongingness (Wright, 1960).

Multidisciplinary approaches to the rehabilitation
programs for the physically, emotionally, and intellectually
handicapped have, unquestionably resulted in a significantly
advanced knowledge concerning the contribution of environ-
mental factors in producing illness or health. However, our

understanding of the specific variables, such as family,

 

 

   

.u‘

. .. .‘1...

. | ..
"-0.. 4.. ..
I

 

 

‘."":'g .:

a
~.--....‘

--...,;. ‘
.u., f' .
-

...,

. ~..-... .

 

 

 

 

 

home, social class, cultural expectations, and parental
and public attitudes are still very limited.

The development of a comprehensive community program
for the care of emotionally ill, mentally retarded and
physically disabled depends, at least partially, upon the
prevailing attitude of the citizen living in the communi-
ties. The imaginative leadership of President Kennedy in
the planning of community services characterized as the
“boldwnew approach" was, of course, instrumental in the
congressional grant of federal matching funds for con—
structing community mental health centers. Nevertheless,
as cautioned by Dr. Walter Barton, Medical Director of the
American Psychiatric Association:

The rejecting attitudes of the public (and of

professionals) will impede efforts to treat
seriously 111 persons living in the community;
for all that has been done to further acceptance
of the mentally ill, enormous improvement,
especially through structured programs of public
education, is still needed (Barton, 1965, p. 3).

As stated earlier, a precise knowledge of the attitudes
of different sections of the community would be highly sig—
nificant in planning and developing such centers. In spite
of the growing recognition of the value and importance of
the pervasive influence of the community on planning and
operation of mental health and rehabilitation centers, un-
fortunately, there have been few research studies in this
area attempting to uncover factors related to the develop-

ment, maintenance, and change of attitudes toward emotionally

disturbed or physically disabled persons.

 

 

 

 

.v
-

 

 

I“:

Generally speaking, parents have been a very im-
portant catalytic agent of social progress in a civil—
ized society. Parental attitudes and values not only
influence the development of the child's personality,
but they also serve as effective guidelines for establish-
ment of new programs for social change. Hence, an analysis
and scientific appraisal of parents' attitudinal structures
and value systems in regard to mental health and physical
rehabilitation would go a long way in meeting the needs of
the society.

Whereas it is necessary to determine the manifold
correlates of parental attitudes toward emotional disturb-
ance and physical disability, it is perhaps equally
important to assess the more or less crystallized attitudes
of parents who have been directly exposed to such disabili—
ties. Knowledge of these attitudes would allow for
structuring of comprehensive mental health and rehabilitation
programs and initiating desirable changes in the existing
service facilities. Moreover, the parents who have been
using such services under the force of circumstance would
be ideally suited to be the nucleus for any public edu-
cation program in this field of vital community interest.

The present research, therefore, has a defined popu-
lation of the mothers of children who are using the facilities
and services of their local community mental health and
rehabilitation centers. The Betty Jane Memorial Center in

Tiffin, Ohio, is an unique complex providing facilities for

,..
' \
.. '
.-
W, .a
,.. ,7.
a .
,3. .e.‘
... ,
- . -
.-..- .-
q
.. .o b,
I- a. ..

 

 

 

 

n
-c .. ..
" ‘- cu

-
..
.—
07..

.

- ..
W

" I. .
. '. .-
.-

.
u
v v

."--.,

.. -
'u.-‘
' .

- r.

‘-
n
0' -~
“.._
..
'-
..
.,
... ,
‘..
..'
s
".
-v
m.

k"

.c

‘.
n

o

.

v

a.
e

‘
.v
u»
.
~p

the out-patient treatment of various kinds of disabili-
ties. 'This is a growing institution particularly geared
mithe local needs of the community. Its service facili-
tfles are constantly expanding with a view to meeting the
needs of the community. The future planning of these
fmfllities, however, would profit from a proper evalu-
muon of the parents' attitudes and values.

The present research will be confined to the explor-
anon of relationships between specified variables per-
tahflng to personal contact, interpersonal values, change
mflentation, educational orientation, and attitude. The
underlying assumption is that both contact and value
vmflables function as determinants of attitudes.

Methodological problems will also be given adequate
mxmideration in measuring attitudes and values within a

xmcific theoretical framework.

Statement of the Problem
The purpose of this study is to investigate the atti—
tmks and values of mothers toward emotionally disturbed and
physically disabled persons. The mothers included in the
exmndmental groups are those using services of a mental
rlealthclinic and a rehabilitation center for their emotion-
alhldisturbed and physically disabled children, respect—

ive’ly- The control group consists of mothers of normal

Chfldren. Thus, the present study will attempt to assess the

d
ifierential attitudes and values of mothers who are receiving

' . . .'
‘....r- r‘;

 

a
b
.......4o ”'0'

"he“

 

t
.....-u v...

 

 

-| I

_.., .oogn
. -\
«poo-uo'll

 

. b
"‘ Ifi ,— .
D _“.

out wt» 1“ c . ~

.
‘ A
""'-v-. A-..,.
- Q
‘. - ‘ .‘
0‘ \. _\ “A
an. '.' "
Q
.
u. t.
' “ I. ‘V\-
.4 .1. ‘.. '5. .
U

 

"’ -’.._
.,; a “:51.

c.
I'V‘-'-‘

 

q-'._
..
t} v...

 

 

 

 

 

I
-
.-
. _.
I
‘w. _-‘-:_v-s_‘
~“-...:
I
‘\
-‘
1‘. ‘
'Q. \ "Q‘
' ’u
-c
.‘.
‘ ~ I
u ‘ _
' U
c
N"
. Al
.‘ _’.‘
' . ‘—
.
"~
Q
D. ‘
._| ,_
‘- P
l 1... ~
I
. 's
. _ ~
.-
., -r‘
'V‘
.
-
w
I
h'—.
‘.
..-
.
~~ -
I -.
'§
‘.‘ s
‘ s
‘1
s
. _‘
~ \
f.
s
' n
. V
I “
.. ‘_
n

professional help for their children either in a community
nwntal health clinic or in a rehabilitation center (for
wwsically disabled persons) toward mental and physical
cflsabilities.

The mothers' attitudes toward emotional disturbance
mm.physical disability will be measured by attitude
males. Selected interpersonal values will also be mea-
mued for all groups of mothers. Within the purview of
nus major problem, an attempt will also be made to relate
tMedegree and direction of attitudes to other variables
fmmia theoretical standpoint. In this manner, predicta-
mnlity of these selected variables will be determined.
Prmflsely, contact with emotionally disturbed and physically
dimflfled persons, value system, and educational orientation
ofthe parents will be given special consideration.

Assuming that the degree and nature of interpersonal
cmfimcts with particular social objects such as the sub—
grmum constituted by the emotionally disturbed and physi—
Wflly disabled, are significant factors in determining atti-
tudes, the present study will, thus, undertake to assess the
amomn:and kinds of experiences that the respondents have had
‘Hfih emotionally disturbed and physically disabled persons.

Another major problem is to investigate the value
System of the parents in relation to their existing atti-
tudes. It has been suggested by theory (e.g., Wright, 1960)
that persons who view others as having intrinsic worth should

hold favorable attitudes toward the disabled. Unfavorable

attitudes are likely to be expressed by those who judge
others in terms of more absolute comparative standards.

In similar vein, it will be determined whether the
amount and kinds of educational experiences of the
mothers are related to their attitude scores toward edu-
cation and toward emotionally disturbed and physically
disabled persons.

In addition to the above-mentioned Specific problem
areas, a more general purpose of the present study will
be to make maximum informational use of the ensuing
research data in the formulation of realistic guidelines
for a comprehensive mental health and rehabilitation
program at the community level. With the help of modern
computers, it is possible to analyze the various personal
and demographic data obtained through the study in explor-
ing interrelationships between diversified variables. This
might provide new insight and suggestive cues to the
planners of comprehensive community rehabilitation programs.

Thus the primary purpose of this investigation is
to study the relevant factors associated with maternal
mmitudes toward emotional and physical disabilities.

The current research project is also related to a
larger cross-cultural study1 of attitudes toward education

and toward disability or handicapping conditions.

_

1The larger study is under the direction of Dr. John
E-Jklrdan of the College of Education, Michigan State Uni-
iwrsitty. It uses national samples such as Costa Rica, Peru,
“flunflaia, England, Holland, Belgium, France, Denmark, Yugo-
Slavi a , and Japan .

 

 

'J,.. or; ’3‘? .

I..)l‘ 'u. u-...

,:.'.,-,.. “Arr
. ..

 

u..-.---¢ iv.....

...... ,. ., 4
'- .\\“ ‘

,..-.~-¢.: .g d
' ' no.

9“. ah V‘ ..

I " -- t-d

""“" g..-

 

~ a-
V.._\._
O~~\‘

"““v ...' ‘Ir -
" a V!”
I'. -.‘l . I

u . v-
_ Oilvo. Va
.7: .vps . FA
.. n “a
' ' u..- a 5.: ‘
. a -
‘oio '
. ~n- All-r

 

,' .u
"' -.-"‘"rc
o v...,‘.'.~
I "I
n. ‘ a _
“Ig. . ~V§
. _‘.
v
.. --,
«. on
-. '-_’ c
5.,

 

 

‘1.
-. 2 4.
”..- ‘
- I I
\

 

 

\_
F u
A a.
. - ‘
I‘- \’.n‘
y... ..
‘n
“'
L's
,_‘

 

‘t: "'n:
t.“.p
-._ V..-
d
._‘
h.‘
n. It. ’
~‘::C.~
u‘c
V;
.
‘Q “Q
§
-C ec-
., -
Q 1
‘I
. x
‘ a
I 4-
’2'
v

 

I
I.

10

Definition of Terms
Since the concepts and terminology used in this study
have different connotations in the psychological literature,
it is necessary to define these terms operationally.

Attitude.--The definition by Guttman (1950, p. 51) will,

 

be used in this research. An attitude is a "delimited totality
cn’behavior with respect to something.1 For example, the atti-
tude of a person toward Negroes could be said to be the totality
of acts that a person has performed with respect to Negroes."
Attitude component.--Various investigators have con-
ceived of components of attitudes in accordance with their
theoretical orientations (e.g., Katz, 1960, p. 168; Rosenbere,
1960, pp. 320, ff; Guttman, 1950, ch. 9). Although Guttman
defines several components according to certain mathematical
properties, the two components typically considered are those

of belief and intensity. In this study, therefore, item con-

 

tent (or belief) will be thefirst component whereas item
intensity will be the second (cf. Guttman, 1950, ch. 9; Such-
man, 1950, ch. 7)-

Attitude content.--The actual item statements within

 

an attitude scale has been referred to as the attitude content

component.

Attitude intensity.--This is another component of

 

attitude which refers to the affective statements that a
respondent makes regarding each content item. 'Operationally

it consists of a separate statement for each attitude item

 

1Author's italics.

 

 

 
 
 

. .
. . L. . s 4. .5 - . . r
i .. u. H. c .. _
. . i . ~ .. . n \ . u . s .—. .l s . .. .. . _
.. s . In . . .._ . Ln. ~ . o . A . ’4. s .
. . . ..
out n o .u. .- n . ~ v a..- . . . ~ g .4. Lo. h.~ s o .a.
. s . . . . v 5
u.. .x. . u. .s. _. . .u. ,.. v . .-. . . o .. . - c . .u.
I C Q I l O n u u n p . v I .u. I l
. .. . .. ... _. n L. .
I u 0 b u I I .. .
p e . O I I .I I
I l o I an. . n O V
i y .1 a . a :.t
~. .. . ... .. . . . .

 

 

11

on which the respondent may indicate how strongly or sure
he feels about the content statement.

Attitude scale.--As interpreted in this study, a
scale is a set of items which fall into a particular rela-
tionship in regard to the ordering of respondents. A set
ot items can be said to form a scale if each person's
responses to each item can be reproduced from the knowledge
of his total score on the test within reasonable limits of
error (e.g., Guttman, 1950, ch. 3; Stouffer, 1950, ch. 1).

Value.--According to Kluckhohn (1951, p. 411), "a

value orientation may be defined as a generalized and

 

organized conception, influencing behavior, of nature, of
man's place in it, of man's relation to man, and of the
desirable and nondesirable as they may relate to man-
environment and interhuman relations." Within the frame—
work of this general definition, the present study has
focused upon the value sub-set of "man's relation to man,"
or, interpersonal values. Essentially, two interpersonal

value categories are adopted-~(a) asset values and (b)

 

comparative values. Asset values predispose a person to
swaluate others according to their own unique potentials
amicharacteristics. On the other hand, comparative values
inedispose a person to evaluate others according to
awernal criteria of success and achievement (Wright, 1960
PP- 128-133). Operationally, these values are defined by
three; scales on the survey of Interpersonal Values (Gordon,

19al). Asset values will be measured by the Benevolence

. o»rr
.' h
.- I.“
.o- I

u.-

.. '-
,-.

*.: ...

.th-v

r..,

n,

”A“ o. ch
. u

u.. I"

p.... .-
t

 

 

 

.r, .
a .- .
.Q‘l.
.-- .,
up" \ _
.»v 5,

*‘r‘.v

vvtn~ -.

 

n<-_‘ r
\—
v§vd n
0,...

p .
I..- J

—
a-
'r-«. '
A \~
.._,~_
.._ "‘-~.
--"o._ .
.‘v a...-"
-
., .-
P ‘.
.__ C

 

\ w -
.“
fi-Vr.

"oc.

 

 

 

-s
._' I
._.‘ .-
..
._.‘~
'I A n
_‘ -
“‘-" ”v ,
‘g.
.
\ n ., ‘
c. ‘
ҤI ~V
. -‘ .
Iv
‘
. -’.
._ ~,‘
¢,_ ‘- ‘
."_k
”s.
.-_
k '5:
.e'J I."
.‘. - -
‘g'h‘
-
v' ‘
‘. -‘ .
s .- -
s‘.:A
‘-
.
V,‘
.
~ , o_
"— ~ .'
‘~‘ g
“
\-
~>.

'~ 7. .
l‘~'\ .
'1

‘
’-
..
‘ s
v.‘ “
C.‘-‘ ~
v
s ..
. ‘.-
.‘c
‘.
n

 

12

Scale, comparative values by the Recognition and Leadership
Scales. These scales were judged by the researcher to have
acceptable construct validity for the measurement of the
values proposed by Wright. Additional value orientations
measured by the Gordon Survey of Interpersonal Values are
labeled Support, Conformity, and Independence.

Emotional disturbance.--This refers to those children

 

or adults whose behaviors, feelings or emotions cause them
to have difficulties with every day problems which they are
unable to solve.

Impairment.--This term signifies a defect in tissue

 

or in body structure; and as such it has no particular
functional connotations.

Handicap.--This refers to the social disadvantages

 

placed upon a physically impaired person as a result of
impairment. A handicap is a consequence of culturally
rmld values and attitudes which serve to define the
gflwsically impaired person socially.

Physical disability.--This is a functional term

 

vduch denotes some loss of the tool function of the body.
Anemproximate synonym for this term is "physically in-
cmpmfltated." The technical distinction between "handicap"
ami"disability" is, however, not very meaningful to the
mnhers used in this research. Therefore, throughout the

“mearch the term handicap was used with the mothers to

 

dflmte"what has been technically defined herein as

Eisabi lity.

c
. . ~ O;-
-I '_I‘

 

.g.

 

 

 

 

-

.....~ .-

.. '0'...
h

‘ O
.- .-..

.cacgu-

 

. .
'4
---4-

 

 

.. .V.
.-
I-.. -
.‘
‘5.’-'-.l
.,
.~ .....’..
o-n,"- a
a
.v-‘:‘J‘r .
. ..
"‘1 ‘ ,
"Ov..-‘ 1
' s.-.
.. .-~
-
. ,4
, ' fi'
‘-. ' rpm
'5
H...
.
n...
' v5 .
'--..T a“; a
. ‘.‘
U
. 'v...‘
- v
i .
..-.
s
'. ‘ "s I
I. ’
‘ns‘, .
.

 

 

 

-V-o
. "-_
‘\ -r.
- .-
“-—
,y’

. .
.‘_, ~~-
'-

._.'

— ~.‘,
‘o‘ I»!
‘v

‘d‘
~ .‘~
‘_‘ .
"u
I V
V.' r
‘
‘0
a- I
- -
-" 2 ‘
‘s.
0’ '.
‘
.5.
u

 

 

~ .
l .-
Tn‘I-
's'
-
\
.‘ '
-u -
..’ .
‘
1‘4
. .
. ’
~ .-
.-
.‘
\

" s
‘u
p
.‘

.

 

l3

Rehabilitation.-~As defined by Jordan (1964), this

 

term refers to "restoration of the disabled to the fullest
physical, mental, social, and vocational usefulness
possible."

Educational progressivism.--Kerlinger (1958) has
developed a ten-item scale of progressive attitudes toward
education.

Educational traditionalism.—-Another ten-item scale
of traditional attitudes toward education developed by
Kerlinger (1958) has been used in this study. These
measures do not constitute scales in the Guttman sense,
but rather are constituted of items which appeared in
factor-analytic studies, and which were characterized by
the terms that identify the scales.

Special education.--As defined by Kirk (1962, p. 29),

 

this term characterizes educational practices "that are
Lnnque, uncommon, of unusual quality, and in particular
are in addition to the organization and instructional pro-
cmhues used with the majority of children." Jordan
(HM4, p. 1) has elucidated: "The basic aims of special
eduundon is to prevent a disability from becoming a
handicap."

Demographic variables.--Certain statistical data
fiequently employed in sociological studies will be used
1nthe present investigation. These variables are age,
eflmatuion, income, rental, occupation, number of siblings,

Oacupational and residential mobility, and whether the

 

-r

v
no. A
a ..

V‘s

;
n...

 

 

9‘

.-
.u‘- ._..

nus

fir

v“

 

v
-....

....

 

 

‘
\
V

 

 

 

l4

respondent spent his youth in a rural or urban setting.
Information on these variables were secured through
responses of subjects on questionnaire items.

Institutional satisfaction.--This term is used to
describe a set of variables on which the respondents were
asked to indicate how well they felt that various kinds
of local institutions were doing their job in the community.
Specifically, the institutions were schools, business,
labor, government, health services, and churches.

Interest group.--Any group that, on the basis of one
or more shared attitudes, makes certain claims upon other
groups in the society to engage in particular forms of
behavior. Associational interest groups work as collect-
ivities to exert influence (e.g., Almond and Coleman, 1960).

Occupational personalism.--This term is operationally
defined by questionnaire items designed to ascertain:
first, about what per cent of the time people work with
cmhers with whom they feel personally involved; second, how
important it is to work with people with whom one is
pmmonally involved. A personalistic orientation to life
issometimes considered as a distinguishing characteristic

oftraditional social patterns (e.g., Loomis, 1960).

Relational diffusion.--This term is operationally
duhned by a questionnaire item designed to determine the
enent to which personal relations on the job diffuse into
aperson's non-job social milieu. A personalistic diffusion

MMWeeza the social milieu and occupational milieu is

 

$1:

. 1.
..¢..--

 

n
... _ ;‘
..u ,‘_‘
fl... .
.

 

 

 

 

--..,‘ ." ’-
.lc....\ , I.. ‘
u
.. .- .'- .
n— '_
" 'O a..- m
u.
— >. _
.‘c- . ‘
v, . ~
. "’.. ‘-
Us --‘. 1
H'.‘ ~.;
. . -
‘ -..
» ~.“ 1
. _. --
.‘-~"
'V. .
‘ ' o
'- ' §_
._--
- -., _ ‘
e.
v-__ -
' 5‘—
Q

 

‘
‘l
‘
5
- a. ‘
.
.“- -
I-
's
-.
‘—.
e
~ ‘-'
.§ “
n
- .
‘-
-
.-
“
.- ‘-
\.._
‘ ‘
--
- ,
-
c.
‘

 

l5

sometimes considered as a distinguishing characteristic

of traditional social patterns (e.g., Loomis, 1960).
Religiosity.--A term signifying orientation to

religion. Operationally, it refers to three aspects:

first, religious preference; second, the importance of

religion; third, the extent to which the rules and regula—

tions of the religion are followed.

ResearchWHypotheses
The research hypptheseélpresented hereunder are con-
cerned with attitudes and values toward emotionally dis-
turbed and physically disabled persons. Although it was
recognized that additional questions and hypotheses would

emerge in the course of investigation, the major hypotheses

of this research were framed as follows:

Hypotheses Related to Contact Frequency,
Intensity and Attitude Scores .

l. The more frequent the contact with emotionally
disturbed persons, the higher will be the scores on the
intensity statements of the attitude-toward-emotionally-
chsturbed-persons (EDP) scale, regardless of whether
amfltude content is favorable or unfavorable.

2. Mothers of emotionally disturbed children will
Imve greater intensity of attitude toward emotionally
fisturbed persons than will the mothers of physically handi-

‘meed or non-handicapped (i.e., normal) children.

\

1.
a For all hypotheses in which tests of significance
It irltnolved, the statement of the hypothesis is in the

Pseazrcfla form rather than the null form for purposes of
Clarity. .

 

- "
l I-
l a...
c
p
u
.
.0” -.n
.'.. . .
'0' bad
l
.. ... _.
-..
..-.-.. v.
-...'.. .
n .-
< - o..h.‘ ‘
“l_‘
‘ .
‘ c.-.
“' 1.....v
'. .-
.' "~av-.
"9.- '

...,l 'v
‘-c.... ..
' -

- O-

.—

" a.._

0' \D“ ..
“-L. 1‘

w 7. -

 

s ,'
.- |
c._
' ‘.’-,
~
‘-.‘ _~
-“-‘
'.
. .
. «A
'0 — 9.
’c
‘-
o
a J‘-
‘ I s
u.‘
c
'»
'. “.
u.“
M,
Q
s
v.
N.’ ‘_
‘n --
‘.
- .
-~'-._
...
's
.' "
'-
C‘-
‘

 

-
I
'.
.h‘
. '.
,~
~

 

 

L

 

 

16

3. The more frequent the contact with physically

handicapped persons, the higher will be the scores on the
intensity statements of the handicapped persons (HP) scale,
regardless of whether attitude content is favorable or

unfavorable.

4. Mothers of physically handicapped children will

have greater intensity of attitude toward physically
handicapped persons than will the mothers of emotionally

disturbed or non—handicapped (i.e., normal) children.

5. The more frequent the contact with education,

the higher will be the scores on the intensity statements
of the Education scale,regardless of whether attitude is

traditional or progressive.

6. Mothers of emotionally disturbed and physically

handicapped children will have greater intensity of
attitude toward education (traditional and progressive)
than will the mothers of non-handicapped (i.e., normal)

children.

7. High frequency of contact with emotionally dis-
meed persons will lead to favorable attitudes if high
fiequency is concurrent with (a) alternative rewarding

mmwrtunities, (b) enjoyment of contact, and (c) ease of

 

ggddance of contact.

8. Mothers of emotionally disturbed children-will

bane more positive attitudes toward emotionally disturbed
Imrscnis than will the mothers of physically handicapped

W’nCUI-handicapped (i.e., normal) children.

:
..- ‘p A_‘
, u
"" III 1.
.-«-——
.. \l
V \
‘ a
c" I. ..
'.‘v' u . .
' u
'u- . ._.
.
v... g._ .
. ‘ .
-. ,_‘ .-
H“ ’_II ,.
a, —
' >.. ._.
Q
..- ‘-
.. 'a ._ '
‘r-
..u.' .z -
.__-
' .
.-
._ a ‘ ~‘
- ‘ .
‘-
- ‘
.,...
, , -
.._.. ..
j ..
\-.“. I.
. ‘ _ __
~-_ -
\ .._
‘ \
- v.
“n. v._
‘n.. _
‘-
R
I
g.‘
.,_
7).
u.
' —
.‘ '_
*-
'.
. ~\.
., -
'o
a ‘l
.
I
u
e
.. -,
~
. -
.‘ ~
,
u
."
.
‘ s
‘-
v -
Q
\
. .-,

 

 

 

 

 

l7

9. High frequency of contact with physically handi-
capped persons will lead to favorable attitudes if high

frequency is concurrent with (a) alternative rewarding

 

opportunities, (b) enjoyhent of contact, and (c) ease of

avoidance of contact.

 

10. Mothers of physically handicapped children will
ham more positive attitudes toward physically handicapped
pamons than will the mothers of emotionally disturbed
ornon-handicapped (i.e., normal) children.

ll. High frequency of contact with education will
leaito favorable attitudes if high frequency is concurrent

with (a) alternative rewarding opportunities, (b) enjoyment

 

of contact, and (c) ease of'avoidance of contact.

 

Pmpmfimses Related to Attitude-
value Interacti ons

l2. Mothers who score high_in need for power and
armrol over others will tend to score $23.1“ acceptance
ofemmtionally disturbed and physically handicapped persons.

13. Mothers who score high in need for power and
cmuxbl over others will tend to score £93 in progressive
amfltudes toward education and high in traditional attitudes
toward e ducat i on .

14. Mothers who score high_in need for recognition
amiachievement will tend to score l2!.1n acceptance of
mmmionally disturbed and physically handicapped persons.

15. Mothers who score high_ in need for recognition

amiachievement will tend to score low in progressive

 

‘ I
.‘,..,,.'ao-,,
v

L. .an-o-o‘-

. Vans“:
.

I .uv-s-u.

 

 

 

~ 9-
. F
‘V' I
find a
.
5|:.-,.,~ 1 r
. I u- .-
Din-1". «I ‘. I v
n.
.q \.
’.'._V'
0' Aa-u..».

 

. . .-
- ,u .. ‘
'- A.....,‘.
' Q
’ .. ‘
.4... H ”J-
... F ‘
..n....: ‘-‘
‘I
o
I Ҥ,.
I-
at! ..__..'
....‘.__.‘ . J
' Q
~ fr

a...

’;“‘. -
J, ”r“; 5'-
'-~.."
in.
"u. fir: .
. .
'“‘A ”v

 

 

 

 

 

18

attitudes toward education and high in traditional attitudes
toward education.

16. Mothers of emotionally disturbed and physically
handicapped children will score lgggg on the values of
leadership and Recognition than will the mothers of non-

handicapped (i.e., normal) children.

17. Mothers who score high in need to help others,
nabe generous, will tend to score high in acceptance of
amnionally disturbed and physically handicapped persons.

18. Mothers of emotionally disturbed and physically
hmmncapped children will score higher on the value of
mnmvolence than will the mothers of non-handicapped (i.e.,
normal) children .

l9. Mothers who score high in need to help others,
‘mabe generous, will tend to score high in progressive
andtudes toward education and 12! in traditional attitudes
toward e due at i on .

20. Mothers of emotionally disturbed and physically
hauflcapped children will score higher on the value of

§§§5E§_than will the mothers of non-handicapped (i.e.,

normal) children .

21. Mothers of emotionally disturbed and physically
hauflcapped children will score lower on the value of Con-

flflfl!£1_than will the mothers of non—handicapped (i.e.,

rmrmal) children.

 

   

I A
" V»FP:H‘
:1. ......v...

'1 ' n.
I- .
.. .-.“6 P 2‘
' ‘ y gnu... .r--
'o-vvd

 

. . _
-~ ”g. :rn rru

.un-vd nan-i :na.'

A
\
O hovvcnbgu

:: ,4“an

 

‘Ar ‘Wf;:uu'
p
"" it‘s-a...
'n V"’;n:
" itvdn.—.~

 

 

.
""‘Ip.
- ~~

fi':-.:

u..-- ‘

>o..‘.."
.,

 

'01.. “ 1
‘ a...“ Cu.“ .,
O‘- - .;
-
-:.‘"':*-'~r ,
..,...,,__m’ l
..

 

.-
1. .' '
‘ 0‘s
4' "y
.lv'..:
.
.
i _‘
.
N 't .‘ ‘. ‘r-
'-
‘ 'v F."
.."
p.‘-
F V
“‘1 :V'A:
.
v . I _“
9..
r ..
.,_ ‘
._~.
-r
r' ‘
\‘. If‘r
.‘v 5..»-
C..-
.

 

o‘
c
6.
a
‘3...
\‘.-N a .
u“‘ i“.
v. a
‘ ~-
~‘.‘ '51.:-
‘-

 

l9

Hypotheses Related to Change
Orientation and Attitude Scores

22. Mothers who score high on change orientation will
also score high on positive attitudes toward emotionally
disturbed and physically handicapped persons.

23. Mothers who score high on change orientation will
also score high on progressive attitudes toward education
amd $2! on traditional attitudes toward education.

2h. Mothers of emotionally disturbed and physically
lumdicapped children will have higher mean scores than will
Immhers of non-handicapped (i.e., normal) children on the
fifllowing change orientation measures: (a) health practices,

UH child rearing practices, (0) birth control practices,

RD automation, and (e) self change.

Eflxmheses Related to General Differences
Between Mothers of Distrubedl Handicapped
and Non-Handicapped Children

25. Mothers of non—handicapped (i.e., normal) children
wtfl.tend to have more favorable attitudes toward

mwsically handicapped than toward emotionally disturbed

persons .

26. Mothers of non-handicapped (i.e., normal) children

WLU.have less favorable attitudes toward physically handi-

owned persons than will the mothers of physically handi-
Capped Chi ldren .

 

t-v-Iooo—. .

 

 

 

 

 

,-
‘O -“
.u—I-.. ‘

‘.
-”"VP sf.-
a
~-o---d‘:~.. ,_,_
v
. ' .'
'. . .. . _ '

.‘ _I ‘ p'\ ,.

-n.-o.-~--'~ "
‘ o

- .

-.\ :rh y.....,:,

._‘~- ~“ ‘-. H-

- \.

~' ‘ Q ‘

"“ as- _

‘ a -5 t; ,.

_., .

.~v.-,_‘ «KN».
.
C
.
...“.—: .
‘ s
C '. ~_"-
u'“. n.- __
¢-.: V..-"
"u
aԤ
-'
...
u.
U
a
'Q“" —‘,—‘
. ‘ .
d .--..
u. -.‘
- ~.. ._

I‘ .- vo—

' .‘4._ ‘4.
3 -

 

 

 

 

~- _‘
fl \ '3' pa
‘v u—
1‘-';
.0
“;.‘- ~
\
-._ h.
‘0
h
n..-
.-
.‘_ _
‘ Q
’\~ I ‘~'
-—.. v- ‘-
."
v O.
‘.‘
‘o
‘I l
.5 .- ~
' ~Plp -\
“v- _
u.‘
.
‘ :
y
s ‘v—
o. 4 .
'0
.‘<“
'I' .D"
Q V.
I“: 5‘ “
§
“ *
V d
'0
s
\1‘ I- I
, u h .
‘a- ~v '
" an
‘0
:‘ A
a.
u“
H, a
., “‘- . -
~ ~ I
4“
s
‘
u
‘\
'9
. A ‘1
' U
n‘ s
. ;.‘
o -A_

 

 

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH AND THEORY

Although there have been many studies exploring the
dmracteristics of parent-child relationships in mental
illness and physical disability, most of them have focused
Lmon isolated aspects such as relationship of selected path-
wmnic parental traits to psychopathological or undesirable
mnsonality development of the child (Barker, 1948; Bolles,
Imnger, and Pitts, 1941; Field, 1940; Kasanin, Knight and
$fim, 1934: Pintner, Eisenson, and Stanton, 1941; Putnam,
lWfih Radke, 1946; Tietze, 1949; Wood, 1946).1 In addition
totflm restricted nature of the variables investigated, these
cannrstudies have suffered from serious methodological
mfiects. The methodological problems will be discussed at
mmw length in a later section of this chapter. During the
hmt two decades, still greater attention was given to
.mmearch in the area of attitudes and values as related to
mmmional disturbance and physical handicap. In recent years
ahug the impact of the social environment on the devel—

ment, stability and changes in attitudes toward

 

 

For an extensive review of parent—child interactions,

‘Um reader is referred to Spiegel and Bell (1959)-

20

.,--"‘,L‘ r_,“\_
. ._' _
I .-J Gd
av
9"'.- '
I
...qr- P“":
‘ ..,4-.'—-~ vb.
.. v

.

'..o r‘b‘l-
a .4

l-a‘. ‘v'-"

 

 

 

 

 

 

..-~~ p-na a 4
.—~ .\ \
au-‘u u... .0...
I '\
no r.
r-
a...
l U Q g
-""' fl“»«finr ‘
‘ fl
,0..." v ‘v--- .
"' ~.... ,"._'_‘
n — .. _
“ "‘-.us...—...‘
‘49.: ~
' a " 'r—u a'
coo-n...‘, P ‘
. -4
., ‘

‘Q -.‘I- 6“.- ,
h. A .
Inn._ ,—

‘. .‘v
7“ ...
~\
"'I-‘.~'
p. _‘
u. n_ -._
a... A _
"-.A._
a fi-
- v- -
"- ~. 9...“.-
'-v.. -
v.4...
.-
p
-o-“ ’r-
n. r
c. ‘
.""-~
.I'
I._ \ u
.“h. 7'.
a ‘ a-
' "
. A
~l I ‘P- -
- —.
-..
v
.
.
'b-b
‘ . .‘
, ~ u
.‘v\ ‘-
‘I‘ '4
u c. .-
‘

 

 

 

\,
'-
Q...- ‘1
u ‘ -.I
u‘;
v
Nu.
~ — .-.
.
.t
»‘ y‘ap‘
‘I
"v.
' '2“,
~ \ ,
_ ~—
~,.—
‘
.-
‘ ~"
u .- g
’ r
I;
‘_‘
‘._
. ..
- <
‘- a4
‘w: -.~
.-
.
“
.-
I“
‘_. ,
:-. ~
on
1 '-
4 ~

21

handicapped persons have been studied rather extensively
by psychologists, sociologists, and rehabilitation experts.

That attitudes and values toward various social
objects are instilled early in life needs no documentation.
Interest has shifted from the study of the chronological
development of attitudes and values to a consideration of
certain crucial factors in the individual's life affecting
that develOpment. In general, social contact, exposure to
education, and interpersonal values have been found to be
amh crucial factors responsible for producing changes in
attitudes.

The related research to be presented in this section
wiILbe concerned primarily with reviewing those studies
thm:bear upon (a) attitudes toward emotionally disturbed
masons, (b) attitudes toward physically disabled persons,

mn1(c) the relationships of values, personal contact, and

intensity to attitudes.

Attitudes Toward Emotionally
Disturbed Persons

Egental Attitudes

The significance of parental attitudes in the accep-
taum of emotionally disturbed persons has been suggested
ID’many researchers and practitioners in the field of
Wflmal health and child development. The findings of early
IBychological researches have indicated that parental atti-

mums produce enduring impressions on the personality of

 

 

. q l‘rr'v‘ A“

 

 

 

.-
. ‘ ‘
- ‘ h I
Q... -.-..‘.d. .
. :-.. .9 .,
';" u .
-.!.v do w
’ 0
~‘.
.-.-‘.p;“: or ‘
“Oo"‘-.U .-I y .
. .
<‘5.
. .1 ,
o“
. ‘ r
n ';n Aar-
"‘ “'I vv-.¢ «1.
~ a

o
.. , _'_
' ‘- ’\

,.
r a‘
’o.-.... -.¢-' L “
I .
'.;‘--'., vr ’
” .“" .0. :

 

 

I- r:
‘......-..-. L‘
. n
’ ’ huh“: '
hl."‘ov’ ~‘K—

.
.
. ' Q
.- a -:‘;, 3 ~
I ‘v
v u.‘~‘-‘-
‘ l
.. ‘ I
‘ P s,
-.. . \ .I- "v
. .. ~v.,-~'.
-
..‘ _:
.' .‘ H'a-‘
' s F»u\
. "~b~
“ -
' A
, x: ”I"
0....» v
‘u. ‘-
"- n
" . 2". f
g.‘ '-
‘o ’-
a
'L'b.
‘
~,_-.' sh"
~~ ‘I .—
' Irv
" V
.“:
.. ‘ .
‘..I I. HT»:
‘g.:
V ‘u. ‘-
- I“ . .
....s,v~p n.
1“ ~
I‘Qll
\
'o c
,
.,,.' P5

 

- “.o
'-» ‘5”
“‘v' [‘0
v v‘
H ‘.
.h ‘P
~ .. .
h‘. a cl
“'.
.' l.’~ .
Q ‘1‘
.u :-
.‘ — "-
un“ ,.
“.1

'l—
.N
.
.";
a ‘.‘
‘n' . '
c, -m,
‘-

 

22

the child. however, as mentioned earlier, most previous
researchers were interested in determining the influence
of specific pathogenic characteristics in the parents on
later behavior symptoms in children.

Review of the literature reveals the preference of
researchers in studying parents of schizophrenic patients.
As early as 1934, Kasanin, Knight, and Sage observed that
sflxty per cent of the parents of a group of forty-five
schizophrenic parents showed parental overprotection and
mflection. In a similar study of twenty-five mothers of
sdflzophrenic patients, Tietze (1949) found the mothers to
beinsecure, superficial, rigid, and domineering. With a
‘wew to establishing patterns of parent-child relation-
flups in schizophrenia, Riechard and Tillman (1950) analyzed
sflxty-six cases from the literature plus thirteen of their
own. Three categories of schizophrenogenic parents were
idmfiflifled: (a) overtly rejecting type mother, (b) covertly
mflecting type mother, and (c) schizophrenogenic father
eflflbiting domineering, sadistic attitudes toward the child.
Afactor-analytic study of attitudes of mothers of schizo—
muenic patients by Shepherd and Guthrie (1959) indicated the
pmxmbility of several schizophrenogenic patterns of mother-
homL. The author was able to delineate five factors: (a)
«mached authoritarianism, (b) inadequacy and inconsistency,
H” pervasive control, (d) s0phisticated denial of inadequate

Immhering, and (e) annoyance and rejection. The data also

...--g
.. _

a
.,..---‘

 

. er.
.'.-

,p..-vu c
.

u-n Or»

in.

“I.

.‘-

'9'"

a
y"...

,
fr

‘
n
*.J

v.n~

'f1

'I

«b . - q
‘ V a D“
fill-“-VU

unnufi
5. v if 0

In ”‘6'-

‘I‘ m.'..,

 

'.. _:
-..'-v. p-.."

"“ 'A -...

n V'-
""“v‘F ..
_.

p
van a..-

-..’ .
_V\A
“‘

‘
...,’.

‘ ‘ “fir‘fia
..
‘ 'Uoo" ‘
u..
I ‘thfin‘.~
"~»...: h.“ A ~
'~
‘ G ...
r
“" pn‘ag.’
..,. __
v.-
V"
‘3 ..-A‘
‘ u
\ .
Q, ' Afr—r
’4. V

v.."

 

 

 

III

 

J

,
a.

I

 

 

23

indicated some relationships between maternal attitudes and
self-concept and social-perception of the schizophrenic sons.
From the point of view of research design, the above
mentioned studies were inadequate in that none of them used
a control group. A controlled study of personality rela-
tionships in mothers of twenty-five male, hospitalized
schizophrenic patients was conducted by Prout and White
(1951). Although very little difference was found between
the experimental and control groups, a more frankly critical
attitude toward their children was expressed by mothers of
the normal control group. Also, mothers of normal children
ckmonstrated a more gregarious and outgoing attitude toward
life. Interestingly enough, a similar investigation by
lurk (1953) comparing mothers of normal children with those
of hospitalized schiZOphrenics found contradictory results.
The mothers of schizophrenic children manifested restric—
tive attitudes in controlling their sons, and exhibited
both excessive devotion and cool detachment. Zuckerman,
Oltean, and Monashkin (1958) used the Parental Attitude
Research Instrument (PARI), a currently popular research
instrument developed by Shaefer and Bell (1958), to retest
the familiar hypothesis that mothers of schizophrenics
exhibit more controlling and rejecting attitudes in compar-
ison to nmthers of normal children. In spite of the fact
that significant interactions were observed between two

groups and levels of education, the study failed to

 

:
.-
g. .
u

 

 

-

l

I

q

. -
... .
a .
“u.

 

 

 

 

 

24

substantiate the main hypothesis. The results of this
study are very similar to the one mentioned earlier by
Prout and White (1951).

From a methodological standpoint, studies comparing
different types of mental disorders including a control
group of parents of normal children should enable more
reliable and valid conclusions. In this connection, it is
worthwhile to mention two studies reporting reSults in the
opposite direction. McKeown (1950) compared parental be-
haviors of schizophrenic, neurotic, and normal children,
and found statistically significant differences among the
three groups. The parents of schizophrenics having the
same sex showed demanding antagonistic behavior more fre-
quently. The same type of behavior pattern was exhibited by
both parents of neurotic children. But in the case of the .
parents of normal children, encouraging behavior was pre-
dominant. Klebanoff (1959) made a comparative study of
parental attitudes of mothers of schizophrenic, brain-injured
and retarded, and normal children with the help of Parental
Attitude Research Instrument (PARI). Interestingly, mothers
of schizophrenic children showed less rather than more patho-
logical attitudes in contrast to the mothersof brain-damaged
and retarded children. The author, quite legitimately, ex-
presses grave doubts regarding the commonly accepted hypo-
thesis that schiZOphrenia is caused by pathogenic parental

attitudes. However, it must be pointed out that the samples

 

 

-
.u a

’.

..< o
u
.4. I.
o-wl'

 

 

 

 

 

 

25

in this research were woefully small-fifteen mothers each
in the two experimental groups and twenty-six mothers in
the normal control group.

One of the few studies which used MMPI scales in an
attempt to establish definite relationships between
parental pathology and the kinds of behavior problems exhib-
ited by their children met with failure (Liverant, 1959).
Nevertheless, significant MMPI differences between parents
of disturbed (schizophrenic, neurotic, acting-out, and
physically complaining) and non-disturbed children were
observed and these supported the general clinical observa-
tion.

The pervasive influence of maternal attitudes has been
shown in studies investigating genesis of autistic behavior
and mental retardation. Despert's (1951) analysis of case
material led him to conclude that mothers of autistic chil-
dren were compulsive, perfectionistic, narcissistic, immature,
frigid, emotionally detached, and frightened by bodily con-
tact. Certain types of mental retardation have been consid-
ered by one researcher to be a by-product of neurotic
maternal attitudes (Goshen, 1963).

Parental attitudes have also been shown to be associated
with neurotic behavior in children. Field (1940), who studied
maternal.attitudes of twenty-five children with conduct dis-
orders and neurotic traits, found that inadequate parental
role, rejecting attitude toward children, poor marital ad—

justment, and infantile neurotic traits characterized these

 

...

, .
,7.-
.

-

 

 

 

 

26

mothers. Similar results were obtained by Bolles, Metzger,
and Pitts (1941) in a study where one hundred forty-two
neurotic patients were compared with a normal control group.
Probably, one of the better studies in this area is the one
carried out by Shoben (1949) who develOped a questionnaire
to measure dominant, possessive, and ignoring attitudes
cm parents in relation to child adjustment. When the ques-
tflonnaire was administered to the mothers of emotionally
(fisturbed children, whose children had been identified as
cflinical cases, juvenile offenders, or considered by mothers
.wsbeing problem and normal children, a significant differ—
ence was found in regard to the above-mentioned parental
attitudes.
There have been numerous studies that have shown
some sort of relationship between pathological parental
attitudes and school phobia (Estes, Hylett, and Johnson,
1956; Johnson, et al., 1941; Van Houten, 1948). Although
such studies indicate the existence of neurotic parental
traits only vaguely in cases of school phobia, a "careful
EWudy rmight define more sharply the unique features of the
'phObOgenic' mothers" (Kessler, 1966, p. 239).
Tunere appears to be fewer studies of parental atti-
MMes jJi the area of juvenile delinquency and acting-out
di~°i<>r'ders. At the Michigan Child Guidance Institute, a
larger- Study involving five hundred cases was conducted with

aviewr t<3 establishing relationships between behavior

 

 

- we 1. fly“... ,l, _"...

27

patterns in the child and parental behaviors. The correla-
tional analysis of the data revealed three patterns: (a)
parental rejection correlated with the child's unsocialized
aggression characterized by violence, cruelty, malicious
mischief,and Open defiance of authority, (b) parental
negligence and exposure to delinquency patterns correlated
with socialized delinquent behavior in which the child was
on good terms with a delinquent gang but Opposed the norms
of adult society, and (c) parental overcontrol correlated
with overinhibited behavior in the child marked by shyness,
zmathy, and seclusiveness. As expected, these correlational
patterns again, were not completely supported in another
similar study where mothers of twenty-one adolescent social-
ized delinquents displayed excessive control and very
inadequate understanding of child's feelings (Cass, 1952).
thing the Parental Attitude Research Instrument (PARI),
Fwdoff (1959) attempted to measure maternal attitudes of the
nmmhers of institutionalized delinquents and healthy adoles—
cents. More pathogenic attitudes and authoritarian demands
were expressed by mothers of delinquents. Winder and Rau
(1962) found that parental attitudes of ambivalence, puni-
tiveness, restrictiveness, and low maternal self-esteem
correlated with peer evaluations of preadolescent boys
Judged to be socially deviant.

Of continuing interest to many researchers is the

StUdY' of the influence of parental attitudes on children's

 

 

 

28

adjustment and behavior, in general. As is characteristic
of the literature, no consistent results were obtained by
the investigators on this tOpic. This is best illustrated
in two early studies reported the same year. Lewis (1945),
for example, found that more desirable scores were obtained
by the children on BPC Personal Inventory Scores whose
parents were rated as showing a "superior" attitude toward
the child and home. On the other hand, Read's (1945) con-
clusion was that no relationship exists between child
behavior and parents' views in respect of desirable child
behavior. However, child behavior was found to be positively
related to liberalism in views on parental control. Other
smudies, although differing in methodology, selection of
samples, and use of research instruments, arrived at similar
results regarding parental attitudes and child adjustment
Uthman, Eyman, and Windle, 1963; Peterson, Becker, and
Ikfllmer, 1959; Stern, 1964; Tamkin, 1964; Tolor and Rafferty,
1963) with the exception of one important study using PARI
where the author concluded that there was no invariable
r81ation between certain parental attitudes toward child
rearing and parental acceptance of the child (Medinnus, 1963).
A recent research explored some social-psychological
Variables influencing parental acceptance of residential
treatment for their emotionally disturbed children (Schuh-

mmi, Ccm, and Rae-Grant, 1964). Mothers who accepted

luacevnent differed significantly from mothers rejecting

 

 

. 1 - A “H‘.~

 

29

institutional placement. The latter showed feeling of
alienation and guilt about the child, and tended to be
rejecting of the child. 0n the dimension of authoritar-
ianism interpreted as "an inability to take on child's
role," there was a significant difference between parents
of emotionally disturbed children and parents of normal
children (Adams, 1965). However, when authoritarianism
was taken to mean fascism—conservatism, no difference was
found between the two groups of parents.

The studies reviewed thus far give the impression that
there is some kind of basic, perhaps qualitative, difference
tmtween the parental attitudes of normal and emotionally
cfisturbed children. But, as Law (1954) has pointed out,
nmthers of normal children are not completely free of
tensions nor do they possess infinite love and patience. In
fact, the difference between the two groups of mothers may
becxm of degree, rather than kind.

It may be noted that although the literature abounds
with research on maternal attitudes, this reviewer encount-
ered only one study which surveyed common parental attitudes
and reactions toward the "emotionally disturbed child" in
Salt Lake City (Cole, Shaw, Steneck, and Taboroff, 1957).
However, the researcher had a rather general purpose of
dehermining the assimilation of recent psychiatric concepts
incfllild-rearing practices. He found that the parents

enuixited a fairly good knowledge of symptoms and cause of

 

 

30

amnional disturbance; but this was not correlated with

umir desire to seek professional help.

(kneral Studies
Insofar as the public's attitudes toward emotionally
<flsturbed persons are concerned, the entire program of
cmmuehensive mental health planning and community psychi-
aMw rests upon the positive attitudes of the community.
{Mm following comment by Davis about the necessity of
assessing peoples' attitudes and values still hold true in
thepuesent decade:
Since mental health is obviously connected
with the social environment, to promote such
health is to treat not only particular minds
but also the customs and institutions in which
the minds function (Davis, 1938, p. 55).
Chamberlain and DeSchweinltz(l955) have suggested several
facuns in community acceptance of the mental health prob—
ikmm, such as, good public relations through news media,
aiVoidance of technical terminology, and helpful and under-
Stmuung person-to-person contacts. It would be no exagger-
ation to state that "by now mental health has become a
Sc>Cial goal and cultural value" (Ginsburg, 1955, p. 3).
Moreover, there have been several theoretical and
e'Tlpirical attempts to study attitudes of the public, in
BNWTal, and various categories of professionals, in

Daticular. The spurt of studies in recent years emphasiz-

1ngsocial-psychological aspects of the public attitude

 

 

 

31

toward emotional disturbance is particularly noteworthy.
A closer look at the network of influences operating on
those associated with the emotionally disturbed provided
new insight into the whole problem of change in attitudes
and beliefs, and pointed to new directions for further
research in the area.

Some of the most significant recent research have
been concerned with the measurement of attitudes and
opinions of the workers in the field of mental health. A
series of statistically sophisticated studies have been
published isolating factors responsible for differential
attitudes of professionals and non-technical personnel in
mental hospitals toward psychiatric patients (Cohen and
Struening, 1962, 1963; Struening and Cohen, 1963). A
SDecially constructed attitude scale, Opinions about Mental
Illness (OMI), was used which yielded five major factors
reflecting: (a) stress on patients' difference and inferi-
OI‘ity to normals, (b) desire to place strong social restric-
tions on them both during and after socialization, (c) moral
Sense of obligation to help unfortunates, (d) more profes-
S'ional attitudes toward their treatability, and (e) atti-
Wkdes toward etiology of psychiatric illness. Apparently,
the first two factors indicated negative attitudes and the
neXt two, positive attitudes toward mental patients. In
addition, these researchers have been able to determine

Occupational profiles and profile clusters for nineteen

 

 

-
.. ..a1.

«a.. -

 

 

32

occupational groups, and have investigated factorial
invariance and other psychometric characteristics. Thus,
their conclusion was that attitudes toward mental illness
vary with the respondents' occupations. Furthermore, atti—
tudinal responses were influenced not only by occupation,
but by amount of education as well. These studies, there-
fore, strongly suggest that different attitudinal patterns
can be traced even in those who are most intimately con-
nected with mental patients as voluntary workers.

A similar attempt at exposing the factors involved
in the organization of physicians' attitude towards the
emotionally disturbed patients was made by Taylor (1965).
The five factors discovered were: (a) self-confidence in
treating the emotionally disturbed patients, (b) general
dogmatism,and an authoritarian-repressive attitude, (0)
perceived status of psychology and psychiatrists, (d)
acceptance of the counseling role in general practice, and
(e) an unidentified factor with main loadings on questions
about psychiatric institutions. However, Taylor could not
establish any direct relationship between the personality
variables and negative feelings about the emotionally dis-
turbed patients. But in a most recent study by Wright and
Klein (1966), there are discernible indications that formal
education and training and experience with mentally ill
persons are conducive to favorable attitudes toward them.

An interesting comparison of a random sample of the

general public and psychiatrists concerning their conceptions

 

 

33

of mental illness was made by Manis, Hunt, Brewer, and
Krecher (1965). There was no significant difference be-
tween the views of the public and psychiatrists regarding
the acceptance of troublesome behavior as an indication
of mental illness compared to non-troublesome behavior.
This study might suggest that the public has become more
sophisticated in their knowledge of the symptomatology of
mental diseases, and are not apt to consider only trouble-
some behaviors as signs of mental disorder. 0n the other
hand, a random sample of two hundred forty-seven white
housewives revealed ignorance of contemporary ideas about
mental illness (Stewart, 1959). The author, therefore,
pointed to the need for education of the community by
appropriate agencies.

An ambitious project at the University of Michigan
Survey Research Center undertook to study a representative
Sample of two thousand four hundred and sixty Americans
OVer twenty-one and living at home with the help of exten-
Sive interviews regarding various facets of the mental
hcalth problems (Gurin, Veroff, and Feld, 1960). The
findings, however, quite expectedly, do not provide any
Clear-cut picture of the situation. In his recent work,
Nunnally (1961) has discovered a new dimension of "incon-
Sistency" in the public attitude. People seem to either
agree with inconsistent opinion statements or disagree

With apparently consistent statements.

 

34

Apparently taking cues from the oft-quoted study by
Ibllingshead and Redlich (1958) which attempted to corre—
late social class with the incidence, development, diagnosis
and treatment of mental illness, Stewart (1959) intended
to establish relationships between opinions about mental
illness and positions in the social class hierarchy among
mute housewives. The results were inconclusive in that
the pattern of responses failed to show any definite rela—
tionship. Another relevant research with a restricted
mmective of determining how rural residents differ from
Intan dwellers in their attitude toward mental illness
found no basic difference between the two groups insofar
mathe utilization of mass communication media was con-
cerned (Crawford, Rollins, and Sutherland, 1961). The
(fissemination of mental health information was able to
improve their knowledge of mental problems.

New insights into our understanding of the public
image of mental illness and mental health professionals
fmve come from a rather comprehensive cross-cultural
research consisting of two independent but complementary
Studies on samples drawn from the continental United
Skates, Hawaii, and England (Askenasy, 1963; Zavollani and
(mkenasy, 1963). The first study investigated the views
cn'mental health personnel whereas the second one dealt
lath attitudes of the general public. Socio-cultural

factors were found to be significantly related to attitudes

.u‘

 

o
I

o
. "
“an

a
-

 

 

 

 

35

toward mental illnesses, notwithstanding the training and
background of the respondents. Clusters of acceptance and
rejections of mentally ill persons were also found in each
cfi‘the three countries studied by these researchers. For
example, degree of favorableness of the perception of
mental patients was correlated with the degree of occupa—
tional trust.

A somewhat similar, but less sophisticated, cross-
cultural survey of popular reactions to mental illness in
the United States, England, and France was made earlier
by the Commission de la Ligue Francaise d'Hygiene Mentale
(1959). The results of this survey provided clear indica-
tdons of stigma attached to mental patients which carries
cwer even after their recovery.

In summary, there does not appear to be general
uneement as to the nature of popular attitudes toward
mental patients. While a number of researchers suggest
the prevalance of more or less positive attitude toward
emotional disturbance and mental health personnel (e.g.,
Iemkau and Corcetti, 1962; Nunnally and Kittross, 1958),
there are studies which have obtained contradictory
results (e.g., Cumming and Cumming, 1957; Joint Commission,
1961; Star, 1956). Perhaps, we might agree with Erikson's
Mmervations:

It appears that on the surface the public has

developed reasonably tolerant attitudes toward

the mentally ill and even a hesitant respect for
the practice of psychiatry. People understand

t" F

up"

I‘..‘

 

’a
..~--
.-r
1“.
...-
u
H...
,,,.
-
. ,,
-.
..

 

 

 

36

the need for increased psychiatric facilities,
appreciate the enormity of the mental health
problem, and agree that mental illness is a
condition requiring specialized treatment and
competently trained help. Yet underneath the
pleasant surface of these enlightened prin-
ciples, people have little idea how to recog-
nize the concrete problems that these principles

encompass (Erikson, 1957, p. 270).

Thus the only irrefragable conclusion in the present
confusing situation that can be made at this time is that
methodologically superior research under a comprehensive
theoretical framework is desperately needed.

Attitudes Toward Physically
‘Disabled Persons

Earental Attitudes
Research reports on the physically handicapped have

shown assuredly the pervasive influence of parental atti-
tudes. Consistent with many theoretical approaches to
child psychopathology, the research findings in this field
SUgg'est strongly that parental attitudes of hostility,
nglt and self-recrimination produce a feeling of differ-
ence auud inadequacy in the physically handicapped child.
IWost systematic studies, although less comprehensive
1n5n3<>;3e, have been conducted in the area of visual dis-
ahtt11;5,. Sommers (1944) who studied the influence of
Damnat;51l attitudes and social environment on the personality
dewfil<>lbrnent of the adolescent blind stated, ". . . the

ma“
JOITj-133r of mothers studied experienced frustration or

 

 

 

 

..m
-,
l
.o

37

feelings of conflict because of having given birth to a
child." The attitudinal reactions of the mothers of blind
children fell into five categories: (a) genuine acceptance,
(b) an attitude of denial that either parent or child is
affected by the handicap, (c) overprotectiveness and exces-
sive pity, (d) disguised rejection, and (e) overt rejection.
Significant relationship was observed between parental
attitudes and the adjustment of visually handicapped and
sighted individuals by Verillo (1958). Parents' attitudes
of acceptance and rejection had a marked influence on
their social and emotional adjustment. Additionally,
verillo (1958) also found that persons of high socio-
ecmkmuc status exhibited attitudes of overprotection,
ckmunance, anti-minority, and authoritarianism. In4a
similar vein, Underberg (1958), and Underberg, et a1. (1961)
noted that there was less understanding in the parents of
partially-seeing children than what was usually the case
with ‘the parents of normally seeing children. The research
mxuzlJided that this was due to the lack of proper under-
standing of the emotional factors of partially-seeing
children on the part of their parents. Much the same
“Stilts were obtained earlier in another study probing the
DSyCh(Dilogical problems of the congenitally blind (Cole and
Taboroff, 1956).
1kn.illuminating study in many ways was carried out

b
y CC>C>1<' (1963) regarding mothers' attitudes of children with

38

one of the following handicaps: blindness, deafness,
mongolism, cerebral palsy, and organicity. Their atti-
tudes differed significantly depending upon the type of
handicap of their children. The mothers of deaf children
and children having organicity were overindulgent, whereas
the mothers of mongloid and cerebral palsy children, were
punitive. Toward their blind children, the mothers were
found to be overprotective. In general, they expressed
the attitude of rejection for the mildly handicapped and
the attitude of overprotection for the severely handi—
capped.

In contrast to the studies reviewed above where the
reeearch problem was the determination of existing parental
attitudes toward the handicapped, Barclay and Vaught (1964)
were interested in maternal estimates of future achievement
in cerebral palsied children. The findings indicated that
wulxiren having low intellectual potential as rated by ex—

Derts were typically overestimated by the mothers regard-

lefis le the child's age or degree of physical handicap.

Ddore convincing results have been obtained in regard

tothee relationship of parental attitudes to speech defects.
wOmj C 3.946), in his investigation of parents of children
Suf’f’e‘lT’flLrlg from stuttering or other articulatory defects,
“Mnd t3hat the mothers were neurotic, submissive, and self-
“msci-C3118. The fathers of these children, however, did not

diff
e17 iffirom the fathers of normal children. Differences in

.
0"

". .0: l
nil-t

 

 

 

 

-'"‘-'.n
.. _

Doc... .1‘-

‘ I ..o--
n“:

"' —~v-.~. _

 

 

 

 

.
'
.
bus
o-ns
"‘0- .
_ . R's
cit-1.. ....
" 0- I
m, - .;~ I
""--‘
1
.‘1
'I
.. ._
,r 'A.~‘I-
h.‘ .,‘ \
v
.I.
o._: \ ’a.,
°~ «.:

 

 

-‘ J
u
o.,‘ "
--
'1'
I '_
..-
\..._ ‘J
I. . !
‘¢“
:5. .
- -v..'.
c
",v.
‘. \‘o
u.-.
g
is" ‘
a
‘u
‘ I
“V ’ n .
.'-, a..-
“
‘.
o . -
“..: _
U
...
c ‘_
\ n
D "-
“n -
._.
'-
.5
.
' _\ A
§ ‘ ‘v
C
u
'4
._ ..
.

I w
s... s
‘

. U
\
.
,
.._~ .
' -
‘
.!'~
-
'. n
u h‘
I Q

 

39

attitudes and personality characteristics of mothers and
fathers of stuttering children were studied by Holliday
(1958) in a matchedecontrol experiment. The experimental-
group fathers were matched with the control-group fathers
on the variables of age, education and occupation, and the
experimental-group mothers were matched with the control-
group mothers on the variables of age and education. The
data showed that the fathers of stutters were more compul-
sive and less exhibitionistic or outgoing than the fathers
of normal children. The mothers of stuttering children
also tended to be more abasing in their attitudes toward
tfiemselves than the mothers of children who do not stutter.
Thus, Wood's (1946) conclusion that mothers and fathers of
stmtters have similar personality characteristics was not
corroborated by Holliday (1958).

The influence of parental attitudes on the behavioral
merfestations of the handicapped child has been indicated
by.mau1y other investigators in reference to facial deformity
(MacGregor, et a1. 1953), acquired physical deformities

(Watscari and Johnson, 1958), cerebral palsy (Haring, 1959),
andmixedorganic handicaps (Carter and Chess, 1951). In
s°me manner, these physical disabilities "symbolize to the
Parents 8. transmission of 'poor biologic inheritence',"
according to Rome and Robinson (1959, p. 1267).

The above mentioned studies including several others

(B
Mme 3 et a1. 1960; Denhoff and Holden. 1954; Fliesler

 

-
.-
_‘..-.-o‘

.
,i

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

40

and Hebeler, 1960; Gurney, 1958; Reeves, 1962; Shere, 1956;
Worchel and Worchel, 1961; Wortis and Cooper, 1957) have
demonstrated in a general manner that parental attitudes
are responsible, to a great extent, for the successful ad-
justment Of the handicapped children and their acceptance
by the community at large. Parental acceptance appears
to enhance the self-concept of the disabled which, in turn,
motivates them to make efforts for successful adjustment
in the social life and in the world Of work.
The interpretations that have been advanced by
various researchers of the data on the relationship of
parental attitudes to the manifest psychological problems
(fl'disabled children clearly smack of a general bias in
favor of psychoanalytic approach. That is, less emphasis
has been placed on factors associated with ego-functioning
at conscious and reality levels than on psychOpathological
Luencesses Operating in the disabled and their parents at the
leverl of unconscious fantasy and feeling. In their review of
paycliiatric conditions associated with metabolic, endocrine,
and rutitritional disorders, Rome and Robinson have surmised:
In the presence Of gross genital anomalies
(:fllntersex, cryptorchism, infantilism, pubertas
E>IPaecox), the parents' response is in unconscious
Elc:cord with the success or failure with which they
have handled their own psychosexual problem and
‘Vfifth the repurcussions and consequences of this in
heir marital relationship. The threat to mature
psbfchogenitality is so realistically witnessed in
tzriesse syndromes that parents rarely are able to

§T<3<3ept with equanimity a deficiency of this sort
r1 their progeny (Rome and Robinson, 1959, p. 1268).

 

 

 

 

, .
,_0 P079 ‘
. n .
....u..--At
. v
u,
..
o
_, s.
.... e
.-
I~.~‘ -
.....' a.
. ‘\
>-~"II ‘V .
.
-’O .- .
_
~o.o....- .
l
.- .'
u-- a a .

 

 

"“oovov.

' .
‘4>-- .

 

 

 

 

. v.
- _
"I.~.‘... ‘ >-

O... . ’

--~..‘ " l

, c

a..

. ' n-c. -
_\-.-
I-~“

8"‘09.

., . _ '-

"--:_

. I
. ._
a ‘ '§

.'Q -
n.‘ ‘-

. ' T‘-.

..,~.‘
. v‘
-‘ -A.
’II-
' d I
1
.

. .‘D

. —
. a
~. -

w.

. . i

a. "‘
'1
.,..
‘n
.
‘

'.. c

"'
- -
C
‘t
.I-_
.' -
. .“
. F-
.5-
‘ f-‘
_ .
s, "s
u
.
. .
.' Q
h .
\ .
n
“ ‘

 

s
..
u
.
'.
‘\'-

 

41

Whatever theoretical orientation one might adOpt for
explaining the data, review of the literature points to
the fact that parental attitudes toward handicapped chil—
dren tend to be extreme with a preponderance of overpro—
tection as opposed to overt rejection (Wright, 1960). Most
frequently Observed attitudinal patterns are rejection,
oversolicitude, inconsistency, and inflated estimation of
accomplishments beyond the child's abilities (Barker and
Wright, 1954). Thus, there appears to be general concord
among researchers that the handicap Egg gg plays a less
decisive role on emotional adjustment than the personali-
ties and attitudes of persons to which the disabled child
is exposed continually.

However, we must not underestimate the role of other
psychological variables in the personality develOpment of
the disabled which might possibly prove to be far more

unisequential than attitudes of the parents. As Kessler

Puts it:

But it would be a mistake to conclude that the
Emersonality of the handicapped is determined solely
buy parental attitudes. A handicapped child, like
.auqy other child, observes himself and compares him-
Esealf with other children (Kessler, 1966, p. 342).

W Studies

 

lFor the most part, empirical research in the field
OfIDkllVESical handicap have been confined to the study of

spec:i.f?j_c physical disability in a Specific setting in the

42

United States. This has posited serious restrictions on
the generalizability of the findings. However, the impor-
tance of such studies cannot be attenuated.

The earliest psychological studies of physical
handicap reflected the view that each physical disability
gave rise to specific mental and personality characteris-
tics. Such a psychobiological approach is best illustrated
in the classic work, Psychology of the Physically Handi-
caphed by Pintner, Eisenson, and Stanton (1941). In recent
studies, however, greater emphasis has been placed on all
those factors which might function as intervening variables
between physical disability and its psychological mani-
festations. Wright (1960) who has reviewed the entire
anea Of attitudes toward physical handicap in her standard

reference work, Physical Disability: A Psychologigal

 

ggproach states that "somatic abnormality as a physical
fact is not linked in a direct or simple way to psycholog-
ical. behavior" (p. 373). The author further points out'
that: "there are far fewer psychological experiences pecu-
liar' 1:0 persons with physical disabilities than an offhand
guess might indicate" (p. 3).
In the literature on physical handicap, one frequently
encomllifters the term "somatOpsychology" which has been de-

flnec1 Ely Barker and Wright as referring to:
‘ . . those features of physique that affect the
psychological situation of a person via his body
:353 a.tool for behavior and as an Object with social
wFl-Eglnificance to himself and others (Barker and
right, 1954, p. 419).

43

Thus, in order to conceptualize the psychological aspects

of physical disability, differing experiences resulting

from differing disability should be emphasized.
Barker and his associates (1953), in an early study,

attempted a content analysis of attitudes expressed in
Considerable

religion, fiction and humor (pp. 74-76).
variation in attitude was revealed by the religious and

literary analyses. Generally Speaking, jokes relating to

the physically handicapped were more deprecating than
Similar

jokes about salesmen and farmers, for example.

tendency in the people to mask their negative attitudes

toward disability with the help of jokes were observed

by Barker and Wright (1955).

Of all the physical disabilities, visual impairment
A

seems to have been most systematically investigated.

series of studies regarding attitudes toward blindness

have been reported by Whiteman and Lukoff (1962, 1964,

They have been concerned particularly with the ex-

1965).
Dior-ation of attitudinal components, and their relation-

shiEDES with different personal values and differential

Sen551gtivity to methods of attitude change (Whiteman and

Lukcxfifg 1962). With respect tO attitude structure, the
autrICDJRS found that for a Specific component, correlations
are higher between disability groups. They also made

attempts to trace the self-concept of the blind person and

hi
S (D‘VTl attitudes to the sighted.

r- ‘ '

_ _ . ._ —d-.- We "
. .___.,__r v

44

In their factorial study of sighted peOple's attitudes
toward blindness, Whiteman and Lukoff (1964) were able to
identify five factors: (a) the degree to which the respon-
dmne.have a negative view of the emotional life and general
mmquacy of blind people, (b) the degree to which the respon-
dmfie see blind peOple as socially competent, (c) the degree
nawhich blindness is perceived as potentially threatening
mruniquely frustrating, (d) tendencies to be protective
ofblind people, and (e) readiness for personal interaction
luth blind people.

The area of employer attitude toward the blind was
reviewed by Clunk (1947). He discovered that many employers
mud negative attitudes in complete disregard to the true
mmfloyment potential of the blind.

The socio-economic level of the respondents was also
finmd to have a relationship with verbalized attitudes
Mmerd the physically handicapped. In a paper presented to
I\Ia‘cional Psychological Research Council on Blindness, Raskin
(HEM) set forth a cogent analysis of the attitudes of
sighed people towards blindness suggesting multiple deter—
minsults of such attitudes. The possible operation of psy-
Cr10dynamic, situational, socio-cultural, and historical
deBterminants were hypothesized by the author.

A search for deeper motivations underlying attitudes
onthe part of the seeing toward blindness was made by

Stmauer (1951) within the purview of psychoanalytic theory

 

 

v
,v.'- .'

':....L - -
.. _
.c' o.- -

 

..- .I

'f

4.. ‘0‘.- .
.“’>.
a,
I-‘I

 

 

..,... ....
. . .
. .., R.,

v“:-

.
a
On. - -

 

 

. q
a. .
l
' ‘ph- .
N 5,.
.—
' u...
-,. .-
_ -
.-
“ mu,‘
.
..
. I
‘ v
e .
. r
'h- --
..M

 

‘Q —

 

 

 

 

 

45

relating to intrapsychic or fantasy aspects of behavior.
&me Of the overt attitudes toward the blind as suggested
kw the author are: child like curiosity without restraint,
general fear to look at strange sights, and apprehension
cfi‘loss of one's own identity for having a feeling of
oneness with the blind person.

Threat to the bodily integrity and loss of identity
were also found to be present in peer group attitudes
toward the amputee child resulting in greater rejection
of the amputee by his classmates (Centers and Centers,
1963).

An investigation of uniformity and cultural varia-
bility of preference rankings of pictures of different

kinds of physical deviation revealed:

. . . remarkable uniformity in the hierarchy of
preference which the children exhibited for
pictured children with or without various visible
physical handicaps (Richardson, et al., 1961, p.

246).
It may be noted that the samples of the study included

b0th disabled and nondisabled of various ethnic and social
class groupings. Some sex variations were also found, in
'Hmat the girls tended to deprecate children with more
'%“3cial" impairments than the boys who seemed to have
g1‘eater concern for "functional" impairments.

An elaboration of this investigation by Goodman, SE
El;_(l963) concerned itself with the question of acquisi-

tion of the value pattern noted in the above mentioned

 

 

46

study (Richardson, et al., 1961). The children and adults
selected for the study came from subcultures with differ—
ent value organizations about visible impairments. These
groups were Jewish and Italian (because of hypothesized
variant values for facial characteristics and body weight),
and-retarded and emotionally disturbed (because of hypo-
thesized inadequate or distorted internalization Of social
norms). The data indicated that adults showed the same
preference pattern as the dominant children's pattern,
whereas the Jewish children gave higher ranking to both
facially disfigured and obese than others. In addition,
both retarded and disturbed children exhibited deviant
patterns. The authors suggest that differential response
patterns are acquired largely in the absence of contact
with disabled persons, and have an implicit character
c0mmunicated from parents to children without explicit
r'ules or awareness. The cultural values with respect to
disability, thus, appear to be related to cultural
uniformity.

A number of social-psychological variables were found
t“) be at the root of attitudes of non-handicapped persons
t(Ward the orthopedically handicapped (Nash, 1962). The
Subjects who manifested favorable attitudes most, as a

grOup, were younger, currently married, and of higher edu-

cational level.

 

47

Using some standard psychological tests (such as
ATDP, MMPI, and others), Siller (1964) found a general con-
firmation of the view that the acceptance of the disabled
is related to a positive self-image and stable object
relationships on the part of non-handicapped persons.

Preferences for different types Of physical disability
rmve been investigated by many researchers. Insofar as
lneference for teaching particular groups over others is
cmncerned, it was shown that the gifted were most preferred,
mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed children were
least preferred, whereas physically handicapped children
were placed in the middle (Badt, 1957; Dickstein and Dripps,
1958; Kvaraceus, 1956; Murphy, 1960). But, generally, there
yum a tendency to prefer to work with those best known to
the subjects. Force (1956), and Haring, et a1. (1958)
cmserved that cerebral palsied children are most difficult
‘Ubinteract with. Force has hypothesized an acceptance—
Iejection continuum based on "visibility," that is, obvious-
ness of the impairment.

When attitudes of different socio-economic groups
inward blindness were compared with other physical disa-
lfllities, blindness was overwhelmingly selected as the least
Eupferred disability (Gowman, 1957). Other physical disa—
btUties in order of perceived seriousness were leg amputa-

thnn deafness, arm amputation, and severe facial burns.

Ion-

n-av» I

 

 

..
R‘Ar
\-
4“...
.

.-.v a A a -
.'l “I- x ’
-'-b-v-~ ea-..

.

I
‘dn'rba p.‘ 7

\ ' V
..~.,..... d. b.
. .
9 .
--. . g
p, '_f '2. r:
—......‘ u“... L
I
O~.~.' ““ .
'81... ‘g
v ' , .v. .
‘ a 1 0
.\ " ‘R‘;-. .
....._‘_"“ .

n}.
u“ v' .
‘u‘v. -~“
. .-
n
.
~ .Q
n. x 2! ‘
"' a
‘ .
OP .
”“1 :H
‘ cu.-.

 

 

. .
-P~ r
-.‘ ..
~
“‘5 ‘ 5" ".-
" ‘-
a
_
‘ -
.~._.J
5““ .1
' ‘c, i I
l.
."n. .
1 -,~
"I F\ b
"Is. 5‘
‘

 

 

 

.
§
r-
V-.‘fi-
.
‘-
.u;
._ ,
‘ 5
‘.I ’u
.
,.
.._
-‘\..
\ -‘ :
~.-. v- .-
"- .-
U
1
.._ .
s n.
“. 2‘.
‘ a
fi
‘.‘\
s.
l»
deg,
.. ;_
.‘un
..
a
p I
I. -
Q
‘
,"
a
.‘ ‘.
.fin"
v \

 

48

Unlike the fortuitous theoretical considerations
evident in most previous studies on attitudes toward the
physically disabled, recently the researchers have attempted
uneXplore such attitudes in terms of basic psychOlOgical
mxmepts of "prejudice" and "ethocentrism." It may be
emsumed that physically handicapped persons represent an
<n¢group for the non-handicapped. Hence, the former would
Masubjected to the same intolerant behavior as meted out
'MJOther ethnic groups. In fact, Barker had already sug-
gested earlier:

The physically disabled person is in a position

not unlike that of the Negro, the Jew, and other

under-priviledged racial and religious minorities;

he is a member Of an under-priviledged minority

(Barker, 1948, p. 31).
Barker and his co-workers (1953) further point out there
exhfle an "irrational prejudice" in the minds of the public
regarding the employability and legal status of the disabled
‘Much has a striking similarity to the social rejection and.
cetracism experienced by members of ethnic minority groups.

Other empirical studies also support the general con-
Wfimion that common stereotypes place the physically handi-
CEippedin an inferior social role like various ethnic
outgroups (Handel, 1960; Himes, 1960). Cowen and his
ass0C1ates (1958) also reported significant relationships
Immween negative attitudes toward blindness, and anti-Negro,

antii-minority, and pro-authoritarian attitudes. Wright's

U960) recent summary of the psychological aSpects and

 

“ID.Q 5!- pt

 

". a p
“_....b.- 1' u -

 

9
A.
\
.. .
. . ‘
,».--uey.p '. R
. a g.—
“unfitfintvfihv A

 

 

.l ‘.
\‘-‘ 9‘

a
v-..“ -‘.

... . .
_‘\..‘;~ 5r

 

‘ I-"." '.
"lll‘

. ‘ ‘;:;:V\fi|
‘1‘.....--. '.

 

 

 

.-

Q‘ A

g. a.
“u“ . ,_

"‘—

 

 

49

efiTects points out that the physically handicapped are
mmmarable to other minority groups in many ways.

Sidney Jordan (1963) proposed that the label of
"disadvantaged group" can justifiably be applied to the
physically handicapped in order to conceptualize this
ingroup-outgroup relations.

Similar questions were raised by Rusalem (1950) who
underscored the need for highly organized social-psycholo-
gical research into the dynamics of extremely complex
attitudes toward the blind.

Both from theoretical and methodological points of
view, an excellent research on ethnocentrism and attitudes
toward the disabled has been reported recently by Chesler
(1965). The results of the study supported the earlier
findings that:

. for some purposes the physically disabled

can be conceptualized as a minority group subject
to many of the same attitudinal and behavioral
predispositions as are ethnic minorities (Chesler,
1965, p. 881).
AnOther important finding was:
ethnocentrism, or prejudice, is a general
IDhenomenon expressed towards a wide variety of
(outgroups and is not narrowly focused on one or
ianother particular minority group (Chesler, 1965,
I). 881).
Assuming that the physically handicapped persons are
perCleived as a minority group and treated as such, what
couldbe done to assuage this prejudice. Generally, the

research has suggested the beneficial role of social contact

and information in this regard.

 

 

. . . 1
..,.:.., :‘A n.-
:‘c::b.“ v...
. _ '\ - ‘
.u... -:.: g. ‘_
I.‘.""' d. it.
_.
1"
- I
.
‘
1“” 6';
..'_‘ ..._
' v
.”‘“OI..

r95.
os~vg 1“.-.—
. ' D.
.' '0

4‘
'~...-.

'

".‘F‘ .- ‘
.-

..-l--.L '4 .

V
‘pp . A
-' "A- V“

‘umo ¢-.. ‘
‘ Q n—

-

 

e -‘ 3 a .
-—'-p .
. ~N"~- -§

 

 

 

‘0
9‘ g._'.. ‘
3. 'c. K‘ _
‘ : ““-h“
o. g. a
- r5- ..
“"u" —
‘." v
. ‘ ‘. .
- lie."
\
' -
~ “~‘~
.-.
a" _ 7‘ - _
\. '-
'Q“..' -
\ ’ ..
c. .
L " -.:‘
‘
11AM“. \
-~~.
.- 5’
'C
5’ ’ ‘hn,.
". _
V.
‘e,
‘

 

'1.“ -“‘
a
: .,‘.
P‘ ‘
CK'I ’—
v ~
\‘ i
O
‘
..~“.
V ~‘ ‘-
HK.“I. I
a
‘a
.I ’-
‘. ‘§
9
vie-a".§.
"'
'..~
..
‘ ‘ R)
‘.. 2 ‘r,’
\g.
V “
q.
‘. I.
\. ’
h._ H_
Q
.v
._ a"

 

 

 

50

Roeber (1959) indicated that both social contact and

huneased factual information lead to increased acceptance

multolerance of disabled persons. In another study, it

was shown that when the teachers had regular contact with
the disabled children, workshop attempts to modify the
attitudes of teachers were more effective (Haring, et al.,

1958).

From the reaction of those teachers who had few
Opportunities for actual experiences with excep-
tional children, it appears that the threat of
having to modify behavior is more anxiety—producing
than the real process of change itself (Haring 32

al., 1958, p. 130).
Rehabilitation workers and other hospital employees

having disabled relatives or friends manifest greater

acceptance of the disabled than those without personal

ties to disabled persons (Bell, 1962). Genskow and

MaSlione (1965) investigated the relationship of familiarity
and-dogmatism to student attitudes toward the disabled.

More favorable attitudes toward handicapped persons were
ShOWn by those who were more familiar with disabled students.

HOWever, correlations between dogmatism and attitudes were

found, to be non-significant.

Somewhat unexpectedly, Cowen and others (1958) found
thEi‘ contact or lack of contact with the blind does not
relate significantly to verbalized attitudes toward blind-
nesss. The researchers had selected a group of adult educa-

tion students for measuring their verbalized attitudes

.«o: 3‘ «~'~
n-H‘R " V‘ r~\ \

1“ y.-eo‘alv\-U
.-

. .a. .mga a.
' \- ‘ .-
,_...- u‘v -

, b! a.
'= ' mt Kr";
-. Id-nu‘d‘ -.

.,..‘;" 4|“ ‘.
'0

nu...“ J. "‘v

.‘Z'J’v a0 41 pp
:e-ciu a. “- ‘ l

.
" ”Art,

A‘
" vet-'4'” I

 

"DD‘
..
'-...‘ ~“"‘f:
‘ 5".»
a V0.»

 

.
~ 5
3‘; 3 ,4 ‘
'h, A"
“.1 C;
u
a;
. :~
2‘. § -,
'~ at“;
‘c‘ a.
Q.“
-.'
.
§
. "K'z"
‘g "A
‘ ~II
.~ -.'
‘4‘
y
.. ,~
w... 0"‘
' I: ‘-.'
“
\
Eu,
uric .
-‘ 5’;
‘1
I
\
U
' .Q“.J
.
.
a‘sP:
—

5\ n——.—-—- "—F v."

~h

51

toward blindness. In fact, the results of the study even
unheated that attitudes were slightly more negative among
Hume subjects who had had previous contact with the blind.
lipartial explanation of this apparently contradictory
result may be found in the fact that the extent and type
of contact were not controlled in the research.

It may be recalled at this point that a principal
concern of the present research is the systematic investi-
gation of differential attitudinal reactions as a function

of contact with emotionally disturbed and physically handi-

capped persons.

The Relationshih of Values, Personal
Contact, and Intensigy to Attitudes

IhSiRole of Values
Notwithstanding the fact that the concept of value
has been used in philoSOphical thinking since time immemorial,

scientific and objective approaches to the study of values

have a fairly recent history. With the singular exception

Of pSyc:hologiSts,;. this vital aspect of human behavior has

drawn enthusiastic attention from sociologists, anthropolo—

gists,’ and educationists in modern times. Even the psycholo—

gists Eire now beginning to wonder whether an understanding
or human personality is complete without a thorough analysis
Of the: valuing behavior of individuals (Allport, 1955;
Gardner and Thompson, 1963; Maslow, 1959; Rogers, 1957)-

It requires little imagination to appreciate the efforts

 

a
..'..,.- A‘JV‘R;
- ‘h... Ugontov‘.

 

..-.o..‘~ pt O
s a- \

 

 

vac-nob J. v
.

n o .
_,l.,.,.... H"? ‘7'
‘V ._:.:J “.10. 9..
,...

. ._ P
V” ‘1'"? . d
a ~ 4
soc-h~ (It! ‘ J. .

p~ W"-

— ~,_\' “h—
Ou- n.»..-.g. ..
.. .
..,., , . “‘
. .' an “_
u--u* . '..\.
. ' K
- nu. .I_
. A ~: f.
.., \ ~“‘-~s '-

 

. . . _ ‘
.’~‘-.. .

. _ a“

nn-‘¢4‘-‘| ‘ - I

‘ .
""A.‘ ‘5
"' \ A“ r i
. .v.~ v. ‘vuA..

A |
."c_Vv--
‘ ) es... "" i
one.
.
. l ,
' ‘ ‘r-s .r. 4'
I h-
'1 ““ v..- .
.
A‘AA I.
‘ r
dvniv.‘ r.-
.v
'- I... ~
In, ‘x '9‘“,
-"' v. -
"-
,'_ ‘
. v_~p.:.
-‘ ‘ " .5... A.
'-‘-‘. \
v _ ~
~.
I 5;“ -
o \ .
““'I F ra
‘ I
..‘
'-,.
. a -
...-\ ~f“; 'I
.. g ..
“‘~-..
'-
a,»
" ' w-
“ -‘r‘-’
H s. \ v
- 5“”-

 

.‘ l\‘

‘1 a P

‘. Tfi‘ .
‘g‘ I
. ‘ ‘

'\.~.

..‘

~' Q--

‘~ \R‘
b. >~~
I.» \

‘M
a-”

I Q‘

"1: e.,.
§ .p

“
g
in
a"" I.
~‘. ~'
.
aa‘
\
J
\
t ~ ~

‘ \

1‘ A, A-
.‘v“

.
.‘.
Q‘ .
.

‘-‘\ ‘»

5 Fh
v~ n..-
‘-

 

52

ofnmdern clinical and counseling psychologists in examining
vahmasystems of their clients as well as of those closely
amsociated with them (e.g., Lowe, 1959; Samler, 1960;
hulliamson, 1958).

The measurement of values has been central to a
\mriety of cross-cultural studies (Morris, 1956; Watts,
1962), studies of individual differences (Allport, Vernon,
and Lindzey, 1951), societal characteristics (Morris, 1956),
aspects of counseling (Rogers, 1951; Stefflre, 1958; Super,
1961), interpersonal relationships (Gardner and Thompson,
1963), and the impact of education (Jacob, 1957).

Gordon Allport (1951, 1955, 1958) has been one of
the most vocal advocates of the study of values. Prejudice
and negative stereotypes are most intimately related to

values. In his book, The Nature of Prejudice, Allport (1958)

 

states that "the most important categories a man has are
Ins own personal set of values" (p. 2“). He further asserts:
Man has a propensity to prejudice. This prOpensity
lies in his normal and natural tendency to form
generalizations, concepts, categories, whose content
represents an oversimplification of his world of
eXperience (Allport, 1958, p. 26).
And Allport believes that "one type of categorization that
Iflfidisposes us to make unwarranted prejudgments is our
personal values" (p. 27).
Perhaps, the utility of the value concept is a function

Ofijs close ties with behavioral and motivational aspects of

Wndous theories of both society and personality. For

:-

 
 
 
 

nh o . r” r” . . a. J .
1. .\y o. e. .. 3: r” Tn L. "I. J. L. . .
ru .. a: .3 ”a n. n. a. u . g. s. 1 .
z . .a. .1. .u ",1 a a. . 3 C. a . r” . . ... . I . .3 .1 .3 Z. c . 3 :t
n “ rum W.“ mu” 1 . ".1. Sm . u Cy r: ,. ~ ‘ . Q h. J ‘ A: Q. »: V“ s a h
r.. a. n: . A; a. r. 1. .7. .4. 7. .. c. .v i».. .... u... 1‘ a. .
AV ‘0 n :u A-- r. .l .v I A . fi u .Iu - N s . asu “. fly ~x~ G v I. \ ~fi‘ ’-
u. .. A... r“ .-u . .' .1 .m :» 4v Av no . . . ran 3 ¢ ruv F a u ..v. up‘ :—
0. u." . . u .a n. '. J. . . «1.. ..v.. c 3.. .u. .«d L Q. A. 6. Es
pn- a p40 “a .h» .. & n.. :u u :- - § . . p—n Ni A U
. :u a u u 3 o . u. 3 . 9‘ .: v» ~ 3. u. ‘ :- slv . s i.
.. . n... .. . . .mv .u. 5.: u a t a . . . s ;. ..a
u.” .... .... .5. 1. i. p... .5. . c .. .. .
. . . n .V. . Q Q. . . t ‘ ~\\
. . . . . . v... ..;. .. . ha ;.. L.
. . . . s... -\ I. k.

 

—‘

53

emmmle, values are central to Talcott Parsons' "theory
cfi‘action" in which "value-orientations" are seen as the
bans of "attitudes" taken toward various social objects
(Parsons and Shils, 1951).

Recent theoretical models of attitude formation and
change have attempted to incorporate values rather system—
atically. Katz assumes in his theory that attitudes are
related to a given value system manifesting a vglgg—
expressive function.

. . in which the individual derives satisfactions

from expressing attitudes appropriate to his
personal values and to his concept of himself. This
function is central to doctrines of ego psychology

which stress the importance of self-expression,
self—develOpment, and self-realization (Katz, 1960,

p- 173).

Katz (1960) has also suggested that it is easier to
change isolated attitudes, whereas an attitude that is
closely related to a value system is highly resistant to
change.

According to Rosenberg (1956, 1960), an instrumental
Islationship between attitudes and values exists. He demon-
strated that stable positive attitudes were perceived as
instrumental to positive value attainment and the blocking
Of'negative values, whereas stable negative values were
perceived as instrumental to negative value attainment and
the blocking of positive values. This is also illustrated
in the fact that moderate attitudes as compared to intense

ones were related to less important values.

W ‘
-']< Or“°'__
gr. nah Unto-y
:

C

H

' l v"
‘.I;y|7: I... r

{1‘

no
-uc-~hub Ucv

 

 

 

cu -

'P .lr~ Jrq'vy’ ‘
'1... .' .ng.‘
K...” In» ..

 

 

'\
A
'OHV' vn.~.-v ‘.
.o
..
OIV
'- r
I \.
’ o
. . .. ‘ ‘ :
‘ I
. ‘-: .P 5‘" Frvu
sn. uvh c..'.. v» "
o
I' ‘
1“ n. c» “:W‘ 2. . ‘
a "‘ ‘vl--|\
.‘ *F ‘ ..
. “a F“ '—
v’.~clt 6.5“. V. .-
"'~. ‘ .
C': ”:31 ‘r tr
0. ‘h- ‘.‘ ...
.mo...‘ '
p
~-...:. a“; sung,
n.» 1-. -‘

 

 

 

H
a. H‘
‘ I
'it':’. ‘
\...‘:1 «:2 ‘.‘~
" '— c
‘ ‘
.__
41:“ gr; ‘
. . A ‘-
‘. >
‘ «,fitfi
‘ I
u‘l
‘
'1‘ “1"!
my.“ ‘ A‘ ‘
.~ in I
72:...
‘I A“.
u ~
"Vv ‘s P _
K‘
- V. .._
‘
‘x «
u
. , n
\‘a" I .
NA. fir“:
..
".
v
. '
‘.'
n\:‘ ‘~,~
“‘:;
§
-. .
.‘V'm.
“‘ -"q .‘
‘ x
‘s.
§ ’ v
.H:
II .0
v ‘p, ‘
Q 'A
“‘
.
.
'*-\“'a.
.\\ Al. .
Q ‘ .
‘-,_
‘-
‘
n I .
R v,-
. [_ -
u g. ‘
‘4_ H-
" ' --
L :-
.
“I
3 . '
' I
‘ §
I, 1
" 4' v- -

5“

In his "three-process theory," Kelman (1961) considers
"internalization" as the most developed attitudinal system
in which the individual absorbs the attitude as part of his
value system.'

Since there are many other theoretical models (e.g.
Festinger, 1957; Heider, 1958; Newcomb, 1963; Osgood and
Tannenbaum, 1955) presenting structural and functional 6
analyses which obviously include values, no attempt will
be made to reView this aspect of the literature in the
present report. However, some of the major classificatory
schemes used in the study of values will be presented here,

for they are directly related to the present research.

Classification Of Values

(Various classificatory systems have been provided by
researchers of different disciplines. Philosophers have
classified values in such broad and vague categories as
higher and lower, mental and physical, permanent and trans—
ient, intrinsic and extrinsic, instrumental and inherent.
A sociologist has suggested that there are "dominant,"
"variant" (choice-values),and "deviant" (rejected or anti-
social) values (Kluckhohn, 1953).

Perhaps, the most comprehensive psychological classi-

fication of values was proposed by Spranger (1928). In
his classification, human beings are categorized into six
basic value types: (a) theoretical, (b) economic, (c)

esthetic, (d) political, (e) social, and (f) religious.

'.,.:::...:N. S.

' A

,.‘,::....*‘v.vu
'5‘;n Anv-q‘
“.va ‘vno~-

"’ ‘ I (‘1

A ::: r.

or - v.‘~~‘h-~

‘ 1 V I I
- ‘. "V‘ 'Y" q'n
. -\ n

0-4-~ .u .4gvtn

... .y-o‘ . I
' ,A r_n
"On our“... -

'- :: “:99“ +»

"‘ ohgw. VV
.. . .

':”:.~ m- M. ,.
~"““ ~' Q.. a
U

,
"tn. ‘

 

: .
I". '5 Hrv-b 4
....--_,_ "may
“”fi1= I‘—
'I'..-~ \‘J
‘I-
we
.IIA ~
-.~::\'hg fir-r“.
Q

 

.l
s
'h
-. .I::Q“IF‘1
.-.~..-~ ,.
V.“
e .
A \
F I
'l..~:‘ rt.
‘.‘.
'In.
, . .
‘1. 2:." ,
~,~“ v, [‘1'-
' yv ~-
V 'V-A.
w"
I": a "r .
'VA..;;EI -
“
'..._
I.‘:; ~r."~
‘\‘- .
'A
.'. _
‘t. ~“i‘.
“'- ~C'D
“\-..., A
v
Q'-
‘uti‘l‘ '
h.‘..v-,:‘" .
‘~: ‘ 7
«‘4-

 

55

The claSsic instrument for measuring values developed by
Allport, Vernon, and Lindzey (1951) is based on Spranger's
classificationgsystem.

After considering the various usage of values, Morris
(1956) claSsified them into three categories: (a) operative
values in which preference for one kind of object rather
than another is expressed by living beings, (b) conceived
~values refer to those preferential behaviors which are
directed by an anticipation of the consequence, and (c)
_§jeCt values where the emphasis is upon the objects which
determine what is preferable for the individual.

Morris (1956) has used his well-known instrument,

Ways to Live to measure "conceived values." Further attempts

 

to meaSure conceived values have been made recently by
Gardner and Thompson (1963), who label these as "ought to"
or "prescription" values.

Other interesting classification systems have been
proposed by counseling psychologists in the field of voca—
tional counseling (Stefflre, 1958; Super, 1961). The seven
values measured by Stefflre's Vocational Values Inventory
are altruism, control, job freedom, money, prestige, security,
and self-realization.

In a recent work, A Taxonomy of Educational Objectives:
Affective Domain (Krathwohl, et al., 1964), attempts have
been made to provide a conceptual framework for classifying

affective variables including values in education.

g
3.. .ol‘O. 1’" a,
,.

3': .0 u: “a:
.u-m u; "A‘V‘u,
" ‘ Fr“ -vav
H...‘ .‘A -\..,1
' , .
"*H’r‘vr‘
r. “v. V‘A'~Q.‘

._-...A vfl.':’f
{dc—av, at 1'..‘

-
'5 fur":

“‘4 ugh.-.

 

 

c“ Hm”.
V "‘V:t
.L, - fl ”:5;

 

 

 

,
"' P
s.‘ I...
V
‘.
A,
'v \ '
C~ ‘
‘H. A
'V Q“!
5 ('4
us_
“I
. 9A
\ \
'~

I
-2 .
v“. a a“

1. -
‘.“:

‘WrV—v—‘w—"— _ —‘__—»— ‘h‘

56

Clyde Kluckhohn (1951), in his comprehensive classi-
fication, conceives of values as having several dimensions
IMke modality, content, generality, specificity, intensity,
emd SO forth. Catton (1959) also refers to several dimen-
sions of values, for example, distance of the object-—spacial,
social, and temporal.

A worthwhile conceptual framework has been suggested
by Dumbo, Leviton, and Wright (1956); and Wright (1960) in
respect to dominant value characteristics for studying value
systems of those associated with handicapped persons. Values
cmlbe clustered according to whether they are derived from

U” comparisons or from (b) intrinsic assets. Wright

 

 

elaborates: '

If the evaluation is based on comparison with a
standard, the person is said to be invoking com—
parative values. . . .:On the other hand,.if the
evaluation arises from the qualities inherent in
the object of judgment itself, the person is said
to be invoking asset values.- What matters is the
object of judgment in a setting that has its own .
intrinsic purposes and demands. The person's '
reaction is then based upon how appropriately the
situational demands are fulfilled rather than on
comparison with a predetermined standard (Wright,
1960, p. 29).

It is recognized that there are many situations in
Ihfe, such as job selection, where comparative valuing
inhavior may be inescapable. Nevertheless, a humanistic
\dew of life based on intrinsic asset values would direct
armrson to evaluate the disabled for his unique character-

istics as a human being. Care for the disabled, elderly,

all 'n'Edr. a

n
‘- ':' .g. .a-
n-"

‘ 0“
...‘.|““‘A’ Q‘ :
‘ u
L. bind-nova.
-

. . . 1
“I" rA‘R‘v-w F E
.-

,_,:. avail-1.5 on- _

 

. u
u..!;: ‘A'n.;”3
u..1i»~ aid at.
n...,.‘..‘ ‘,.:'. +r
. ._ ‘
""“~- inn-An: e”.

 

2": no

u...

,_ u‘-,

 

 

 

 

 

~._Lv~,:,_'“‘
I'ayd“: fifl‘ .. ,.
§
U‘J“':
. Q
. a
‘ I"
. ‘Qh'c‘\ r»
N» I”
v g,"
n
\ fly. 0
“ v“ r..
‘u‘
‘.
‘r-
we

57

poor and weak appear to be the direct expression of asset
values. In historical perspective, an important criterion
of a civilized society has been the achievement of the
above goals, regardless of the differences in socioeconomic
and political systems. Thus, a reasonable assumption that
can be made on the basis of asset-value framework, is that
those holding higher asset values would have more favorable
attitudes toward the physically handicapped and emotionally

disturbed than those expressing comparative valuing behavior.

Personalicontact

Many suggestions have been made in regard to the im-
portance of personal contact in changing attitudes and
reducing prejudice. 'Individuals have been found to modify
their neutral or negative attitudes in a positive direction
as a consequence of contact with members of a given group
over a period of time. This fact is demonstrated in educa-
tion, religion, the armed forces, and cultural exchange
programs.

An experiment in modifying attitudes toward the Negro
by Smith (19N3) showed that a group of graduate students
changed their attitudes in a favorable direction as a result
of personal contact with various aspects of Harlem life.

A large-scale research by Williams (196“) and his
colleagues on four communities found that work situation

provides the most favorable environment for the Negroes and

 

p 1' {
- o
we!" r-
. ' - v ’ I
vglljil" I
Q Q " \
luv: ,- ,- .
':"", ‘11- A
c

 

..,...‘.. ‘r , .‘ ‘
u .‘ A
a... I“ H" ‘
'9
Q. . ..
\ F7 .-
.~ “: -

 

' "nn .3.
‘ ‘
u .0 .“~‘-'
v. n .
' .~ ‘59.
’ . ‘ F
.n. ..-D~.. a...
v
u... .
a “:7
"v.‘~-
d.‘ ny.‘ ‘~
..' ‘ fl ‘
. v.-"v

 

 

 

 

‘v

 

rr
4D

I
I
:v
(N
I.

58

whites to interact positively. Similar results have been
obtained in other studies on attitudes toward Negroes
(Brophy, 1946; Deutsch and Collins, 1951; Harding and
Hogrefe, 1952).

Allport (1958) has presented a brilliant exposition
of-various kinds of intergroup contact (pp. 250—268). He
observes that more favorable attitudes are created when
there is an "equal status contact," and when the contact
is in pursuit of common goals. Also, those having contact
with high status or high occupational group Negroes held
more favorable attitudes than those having contact with
lower status Negroes (pp. 254, 261-262). Close personal
contact with an equal-status member of the minority group
in question was also found by Watson (1950) to be a stimu-
lant for more favorable attitudes.

However, Jacobson and his associates (1960, pp. 210-
213) point out that equal status contacts are more likely
to result in unfavorable attitudes if one group does not
fully accept the equality of the other.

Contact on the basis of status equality promises to
be a very important dimension via which attitudes of parents
can be interpreted toward emotional disturbance and physi-
cal handicap.

According to Zetterberg (1963), two other variables
seem to be involved in the intergroup contact: "cost of

avoiding interaction" and "availability of alternative

 

u‘..l'

.....
V'-

L...

 

~-; .

. .‘
'0 .O‘Iv.‘

 

 

   

‘a..
‘ I

 

\
o
' n
v

 

59

rewards." The author explains:
if the costs of avoiding interaction are low,
and if there are available alternative sources of
reward, the more frequent the interaction, the
greater the mutual liking (Zetterberg, 1963, p. 13).

In summary, frequent contact with a person or group
is likely to lead to more favorable attitudes if: (a) the
contact is between status equals in pursuit of common
'goals (Allport, 1958, p. 267), (b) the contact is perceived
as instrumental to the realization of a desired goal value
(Rosenberg, 1960, p. 521), (c) contact is with members of
a higher status group (Allport, 1958, pp. 25A, 261-262),
(d) the contact is among status equals and the basis of
status is unquestioned (Jacobson, et al., 1960, pp. 210-213),
'(e) the contact is volitional (Zetterberg, 1963, p. 13),
and (f) the contact is selected over other rewards (Zetter—
berg, p. 13).

.Although the social psychological research, as noted
above, indicate clearly the importance of personal contact
as one of the most effective agents in themitigation of
prejudice and development of positive attitudes, very few
researchers have studied this aspect in the field of mental
health. Only casual references have been made by some
clinicians about the role of group therapy, especially with

children, in diminishing prejudicial attitudes (Konopka,

19u7; Rosenbaum and Berger, 1960).

 

. nlfiuv
r*;r\ "
.AntUAol-o .

v 0 P
'
_. ....'1Oevva a.
.. u'LCOQUO'V,
a

‘.'... 1..., .y,« zrb
~L." .144:- v. -.~.v

«was we .. .
:Ji::vvu 'Uu a L

~ I ‘
~>v¢ ., 7"“ '.'

l a'
mu...) .u'u- ' .. .

' I;
‘lcbb‘..‘~~
... :IUOU“:S \l
. . .
e r “‘FQV‘.

v“.-.

"2":3 6- ..
.o-u...~-' '
U

I-: :.‘Hfl“‘h“
a. nu.".‘ 2‘,

""~ .-

 

4, 'H.‘
*-
soc.:..E: “
U
‘
~\_

 

”a
.\
,
"a A‘.
U V
U“ h
.e -..
\q
‘
a
._ _
’~ ‘.‘
\~ ‘V‘&
0' f‘
V

6O

Attitude Intensity

Intensity of attitudes, which refers to the strength
of cognitive, affective and motivational aspects, is partic-
ularly important to the problem of measurement. It has been
suggested that the degree to which an individual is per-
sonally involved in an issue will determine the strength of
his attitudes (Sherif, Sherif, and Nebergall, 1965, pp. 91,
1142). In other words, this dimension of attitudes deals
with the motivational and emotional aspects of the problem.

Intensity is not only an important component of atti-
tude structure, but it is also considered as an action
predictor (Rosenberg, 1960, p. 336). Because of motivational
and emotional involvements, intense attitudes have been
found to be highly resistant to change (Carlson, 1956, p.
259). Considering the question of relationships between
attitudes and action, Rosenberg (1960) states that "the
'stronger' the attitude, the more likely it will be that the
SubJect will take consistent action toward the attitude.
obJect" (p. 336).

Guttman and Foa (1951) have shown that intensity is
related to amount of social contact with the attitude. object.
Thus, intensity has been established as an important attitude
COmponent, increasing predictability. It apparently varies
With 90th related value intensity (Rosenberg, 1960) and

w1th amount of contact (Foa, 1950; Guttman and Foa, 1951).

 

 

. Q ~‘l
... u:~v‘\l" "
v .
u, ,u'vuv.
. I
'I F
,I‘.qu’Ar a
p.:¢¢ovu (V'e

' - "H‘O'Fv
' fl
.L‘u, J‘iun-ouu

~ a
>l: "'3":‘~'
'lI' .0..-l0~- i.

'°"I‘ 1;: 25“...
:-...;a. do. «I.

.qu-‘u'
‘IIV-v‘vu

' 0 .
"in 'l
. “Lt‘fig'
-:...'w 4..-. ‘.

 

' ‘an-
- a u ‘
N.‘ L' ‘o U‘A.
‘l I
'5
"
Ml ' “y-
d 1‘14..:..’
*'r .
.‘.."l."
.. _
I”: 'I'WSA“ ’N‘
u..'. J
., |
. '5 ...
IH‘V A F
‘v‘
‘5
""4
:5“ "

'.,
:-:~-
-.':—H’y ‘f‘
‘9‘
"J
0
a
['\ b
|~ c
n...‘
cl!
\1 ' .,- :
u-~ P‘
n
“~ A '
‘e
'-
‘I; "u."
" v
v o
“‘J h.
t.”
U
.K‘
‘1. " ~

 

 

61

Moreover, considerable research has been done to
determine the "zero point" of a scale that discriminates
the psychologically "true" positive from negative attitude
direction (e.g., Edwards, 1957; Guttman, 19u7, 1950, 1954a,
195ub; Guttman and Suchman, 19u7; Suchman, 1950). Atti-
tude intensity is regarded as an important component of
attitude structure in determining the "zero point" of a
scale. Locating a true zero—point appears to have the
highly desirable characteristic of elimination of question
bias, which often confounds cross—lingual studies. In
other words, the location of a true zero-point on a scale
HEKGS it possible to compare responses between different
language groups without further concern for question word-
ing (Guttman, 195Aa; Suchman and Guttman, 19A7).

Another usefulness of intensity analysis is to re-
chme error (Guttman and Suchman, 19U7; Foa, 1950) caused
tWhabitual overstatement or understatement of feelings.
Ikmever, Foa (1950) has shown that is is not usually

necessary to compute this factor.

Theoretical Considerations
As mentioned before, the various studies of parental
andPublic attitudes toward the emotionally disturbed and
prW'Sically handicapped that have been executed hitherto, are
"metly limited in scope and theoretical significance inas-
"mfih as they are primarily concerned with the descriptive,
aDplied, and practical aspects of the problem. The instru—

Ments and techniques utilized in these investigations have

‘ r
n‘r “ Q
.;;r “A . V.”

a,” 1""
.. .5 C
:u-“9 .

”.‘uvb V.

' I a “V
..,. ..: -r\ d
",_..4.-v.eu -

”V

'-" -v" G.
.. '3‘- .,

- -

Pa "VT“.

Olav JAL~

v

‘ Q
"”32“ ‘rgnn;
No.0vo in.» V. .

an --.—t.' -

A "i '
"Oo-u.v-y“ .
,.

u. ‘I- . A
1.. J'
o...
-’ ’) ‘/

tl)
‘ I
(I)
(f
s

.1.

 

~.
r A
“o: “QQ

. «v \— I
|.o
‘ .

.. ‘
5'5“ :y;
m.‘ n.
V.

 

‘
._ .
u A
~ D'P‘JR‘
U I.
s
m p:
n
. J
-T 'w
““b n
9 Q r
'1. O:
I
..
. A.
v .f‘q
n ‘2':
"~‘l ‘r
U
U
3.
_.
.':‘:‘l
‘ “6‘
. .
b”
‘. u
\
U.
Q):
R “
‘-‘l:‘\~‘
n
v-
‘
‘I

 

 

 

62

tmen rather specific to the particular situation. In the
amence of a sound, comprehensive theoretical base, the
uwmlusions are frequently lacking in wider applicability,
gynerality, and theoretical relevance.

The urgent need for research studies generated by
broader theoretical bases, especially in the field of re-
habilitation have been emphasized by Levine (1961), Meyer-
son (l9u8, 1963), and Wright (1960). A trenchant criticism
cfi‘the problem has come from O'Connor and Goldberg (1959)
who state that most studies in this area are characterized
by ". . . isolation without relationship to theories and
findings of other studies" (p. A87). ‘They further accuse:

There is a tendency to neglect theoretical research
and to concentrate on immediate practical problems.
Too often the findings are too inconclusive to war-

rant wide application; seldom are they repeated and
related to each other (O'Connor and Goldberg, 1959,

p. N87).

LSYChoanalytic Model

The research pursuits in the field of clinical psy-
Chology and child psychopathology emit a distinct psycho-
amilytic flavor.l But the increasing evidence accruing
frmnsocial psych°1°3y’ anthropology, and sociology regarding
mueimportance of environmental influences on human behavior
asopposed to psychobiological dominance has rendered the

theor'Etical model of psychoanalysis controvertible and

equivocal.
\

 

1
tow See the review of research on Parental Attitudes
ard Emotionally Disturbed Persons.

 

 

- '
nfi:"’ -
. #IQ. \ :
q
..~r-n: ”
.—
~.§.- we
.
a...“
...-v. F, '\ ‘ v
-
,..,.... v. :rv‘v
.
.‘. :foc g‘
. n
. ..v .o-o‘n vow
. . ’“P
_.,.,.: h" .-
, -

   

n u . .

.... ~,,..e.-:

...~I‘ “Va-4-.. U
.

"'"'.‘.'; 9“,... r
--.-'--I .. v... u
.

 

0' Q 5‘
""‘v~-r~ .- . ,
" ‘ _ .
~"u-..--§-- . ‘
.' .‘yoo Q.- .

a H;\_;
‘- .4-.v ._~“‘

-

A!»
\——"‘

-" ~~vo>n
‘ra. .

’- A;f
0..., v -
I.

u- a.
\ r, \ '5
o. ..v ~‘v
‘.1 e

 

 

-
'N
_ -\
Q.._ \P‘;
VV‘
‘*-...~
» ‘ 'Ie‘, .-
‘ " I‘—
§
' 1-- 2,
“~—
1
. -
‘u. ‘5;-._
“c \—."t.
~‘o.' \
~-' '
‘Lu.
'-._
1..»w‘
‘- h a
og-H\ "
. .‘
h21

 

 

o. ‘
A. ; ‘
‘~. P‘ s
‘I r.
1...
. 3.-
‘s. ‘-
\ d—
's v . .
' 3
.
I
a, ’
. 4"
-‘
4 ,v
;~:.
1 .
.‘ ‘1
“ \
KEN
”i
S
~I~
y‘“ ’
‘
‘3’... ,
-'-
q
.“l
.
l‘. \:
\"".“
'-. “O

63

Frank (1965) has presented an extensive review of
forty years of research on the role of family in the devel-
opment of psychopathology "without being able to feel that
we are any closer to an answer than was Freud" (p. 201).
Parental characteristics of "overprotectiveness," "rejec—
tion," "domination," and "deprivation and frustration"
derived from psychoanalysis have not been found to be
responsible for pathogenic behavior in children, according
to many research reports. Frank remarks:

It seems apparent that the major conclusion

that can be drawn from these data is that there

is no such thing as a schizophrenic or a neuroto—
genic mother or family. At least these data do not
permit of the description of a particular con-
stellation of psychological events within the

home and, in particular, between mother and child
that can be isolated as a unique factor in the

development of one or the other kind of personality
disorder (Frank, 1965, p. 198).

Socialepsychological,Approach

The social-psychological approach to mental health and
physical disability is the major theoretical orientation of
the present study. More specifically, this orientation has
close resemblance to the field theoretical paradigm of
interpersonal relationship as developed by Lewin (1936).
The field theoretical approach has been used by Barker, gt
El; (1953); Dumbo, et a1. (1956); Meyerson (1948, 1963); and
Wright (1960) in studying attitudes toward physical dis-
abilities.

Barker and co-workers (1953) have conceptualized the

position of the physically handicapped in the modern western

A
3“..- PP V‘—
t.- .- ' ;~ ~-
.vv"'¢
: fl.- .,~,-
H’.- A ‘- u—
..,;--~ .1-
l .‘ 7‘" _
"F-'l“ A
~
.,.:-...~-’ W'
..
t F-
.. .pA ‘?' a."
‘...d-v~-4.“
-- v
--
-.-. p .. ,1.
h ’ ~—
1.’ ‘ '-V~‘
. - .
.. ,,...- ’1“
. \ A
“""~-vufi‘-
. -

" ~-
' . \ '
..-—-VA~ a.-.
~-._ «r- —
.- .—

~._,_-:
':"; A-‘18'Yr-u‘ .
-.‘. :..’...Vfi‘-l
" o. s
7"“
‘~-?...,~ a:
‘- ICH‘
..,‘_'~
.' -.“.;‘ S‘- I
v, V a c
\
: "FA ”fl .
‘ I ~ ‘(W—w
.1- d I
I‘\ a}, - b
'u :-
'-‘1‘U:‘ ’
a
'u-‘
\‘l‘ "A L u.
'i 'J b;‘
‘-
. .’-_.‘_ .
'U - ‘
“'N. r n .
g- ,
I
. I 1‘-
. ‘g
31"]

I ' J I
‘n ' s
,.
fl‘_u
,rg
‘.' .‘uvr‘;
I
o \v ‘N .
“a. 4
v4.-
- “.‘ ‘
‘I
ris- -
..
~ki an“
. . ‘.
v 0--
Q '..: J

 

 

”.5 2‘. F
‘b
i
A
.,‘_
We “.—
V.
.5
a
a.»
yvfi“ '. g
-‘_

 

 

l:
l I!
i.

64

society as being characterized by three significant psycho-
dynamic factors: (a) it is underpriviledged, (b) it is
marginal, and (c) it involves exposure to more frequent
psychological situations. As a matter of fact, there seems
to be a close resemblance between the emotionally disturbed
and physically handicapped on the one hand, and racial and
religious minorities, on the other (e.gu Chesler, 1965;
Pundel, 1960; Himes, 1960). g
Psychiatrists and clinical psychologists appear to
rave acknowledged the role of social and ecological factors
in mental health (e.g., Caplan, 1964; Cobb, et al., 1963;
Ikmning, et al., 1964; Meerloo, 1959). In a paper presented
m:the 73rd Annual Convention of the American Psychological
Association,.B1ackman and his colleagues (1965) have ven—
tured to build a "community mental health theory" based on

sociometric approaches. In this theory:

it is postulated that a crucial aspect of the
environment involves the interaction of an individ-
ual with the members of his community. One impor—
tant type of interaction is with the people to whom
the individual feels close and with whom he has
regular, face-to—face contact. . . . One function
of the interaction of these individuals is the
exchange of emotional support and services (Blackman,
et al., 1965, p. 191).

The above mentioned theoretical framework, thus,

brings out the central constructs of self, other, reference

 

 

group, social role, attitude, and value. These constructs
may be subsumed under a more general, but basic dimension

of "interpersonal relationship." Within this framework,

 

 

.AI ’l
n: a ‘
Vnofiv \.
a
- ":-:.: "a: .
.u-u—oh-voiv
.-

:n. Indrtz‘rlr:

la.
n. ~.-OO'--OI- ‘

u
'9' ..,c“:q .y E
'—

-'-v.ov.‘.-~' ‘

v

.. u,‘...,; “h“; ‘
a u, ‘ '

""c‘v‘ “‘4“.
~-

u'.“ "‘0 '

 

e
‘ 1
F: _
y. .
..-,. .».,JA‘”
.. ‘ _
.- --.' ~“va I
0....1.
‘!
“"2. ng
neg. ."
.. 1 ~ ‘
5:: ’7' P: :V‘fl;
. I ~“"“v~
~: Jr (r: “7“
’I
D .0. a..‘ ““
.
.. ~
\."":a.. h
.g..."-:.’
.,_ . ~
. . ._ "H
.-.'~ fl

 

 

‘.‘A'
r
..; ,. “H
‘ul~.' A ‘
is v-
I’-
'1.
.
" A
“v-
... v. 2"“
..~"
.
.3, 1‘ .
I G
1" . fie. P.
'I
‘V' ~
.
s.’ I F
‘l ‘M h ,.
""v ”V1
. ‘..
e‘ 3. ~ ‘~
'~.
0" ~
~ : n"
I..
a. a“
‘ A
' o 5‘ g
.' ~r‘
Q V‘.' ‘
‘.
U
~.‘ .3
o ",R
“l “0..
‘ 3..
‘»
a“
',-‘.s ‘
' K‘
‘V “t
““'
’I
. :Q‘ a
u \‘_
Q.: ,

65

mental illness and physical handicap may be considered a
social value judgment rather than some objective phenomena
in themselves. Certain roles in society have high value
for maintaining the contemporary social system; and peOple
are generally esteemed according to how they are perceived
to valued social roles. Hence, attitudes toward disability
should vary according to the kinds of social roles per-
ceived to be important to the individual, or collectively
to the society (Goodman, et al., 1963; Richardson, et al.,
1961).

More recent approaches to social-psychological pheno-
mena by balance theorists might also provide a new perspec-
tive in the understanding of the problem under investigation.
In particular, Festinger's (1957) theory of cognitive dis-
sonance would suggest that attitudes that are dissonant to
a value orientation would tend to be abandoned, whereas
consonant attitudes would be maintained (see also Rosenberg,
1960).

In consonance with the social-psychological orienta-
tion, it may be construed that actual contact with others
is an important determinant of attitudinal evaluations of
them (e.g., Allport, 1958; Homans, 1950). That is, the
nwre frequent the contact between persons or groups, the
more favorable is the attitude. However, frequency of
contact is not related to evaluation in any simple sense.

Contact frequency has been observed to be related directly

q
.__r.:.,, -o
to ’V

.
.tu:o"' V. ‘
.

 

-" "‘ eke"
-- a”; r-
"‘l ,,'unn‘..
.

._.',.o:pr P“ ‘r

::.‘:u-Uhu U. «~-
' . a r '-
.,. . “A

‘:' a ;\ \ c

ace-.vu bdvoo

"' "'91‘5—‘7-1 ‘ 3 s.
' n

I f
m. n".-‘U--‘ ..

no. .- ‘
. -‘R _r~ ‘.
M" '

...o.;,

 

.- AF- '5‘
‘u
I”. v. “:‘v-
"V--‘
.\_ u.
."".'.
..
' r“~"7‘ I- ~ .'
"¢.‘.:. .—
.. . k.--
--.. ‘
"‘ C- "w- ‘
lyn' pr
fig}.‘.'.‘-
'v-,.'
- W’Yr--v_‘

v... ,_,
‘- v...,.‘ ..

 

 

 

 

66

to intensity of attitude (Guttman and Foa, 1951; Foa,
1958). Whether it is also related directly to a positive
evaluation of the person seems to depend on intermediate
variables such as the social status of the persons con-
tacted, the absence of coercion in the interaction, and
the availability of alternate reinforcing behaviors (e.g.,

Zetterberg, 1963).
We might conclude our theoretical discussion with

a note of caution from Murray and Kluckhohn who stated

tersely:

A human being does not grow up in vacuum: His
development is determined not only by the physical
environment as the biologist proved, and by family
environment as Freud proved, but, as the massive
data collected by the cultural anthropologists
showed by the larger societal and cultural institu-
tions that are extolled, preached, and practiced
not only by parent "carriers" but by the leading
minority (authority figures), if not by the
majority, of the group in which the individual is
reared (Murray and Kluckhohn, 1953, p. 4).

Attitude Organization and Measurement
of Attitudes

 

Attitude Organization

The nature of attitudes has been conceived diversely
by different authors. A frequently quoted definition is
that of Gordon Allport (1935). He defines:

An attitude is a mental and neural state of
readiness, organized through experience, exert—
ing a directive or dynamic influence upon the
individual's response to all objects and situa—
tiogs with which it is related (Allport, 1935,
p. 10 .

J.“p. nrwr-V
,..

‘ A4
‘ utth
_. .e...‘ ‘1‘! .

 

u‘vd"-‘..§

,1.....,.,., v.

.. .ccnvliv, -I

' I- -
... e.,, ”s. .
.. -—

4-1 haven ‘vo‘-

‘ u

.......;_H "r
n s A h
"“"‘-v-- u...

“CL" ’P "no-«w
-...4 .H 4"“.

 

 

‘» N . _
‘ I-Q ‘
- “ 2 "I...

“' “' —- 4'.

K

‘ " n

. ._

'- "ra v-

.. ~..,_‘: u.

o
A.
..

-':,: .

N. I .' g.

'..'-“Y

s) v

 

 

v..'
w.'_.:
h""'
"';v...
'-.‘_‘ c. Q‘.'
‘ ‘c. ‘1‘ ..
~4
"t; In.
.
ufiu. -PC“;
.._-
1‘ '1",
‘n‘ fith-N'
'-. c-
1
-. .
‘..‘~".F
.‘ ~ ~_ .
‘V-_ E .'
Ad,
. ~:
1‘ ‘n. '
.
a. ‘
v
~' L. .
‘I
‘.
'-

 

n
-.i ~ ~.
._.
A o h
lu~ p .
~.
Kr,
c
u‘
r.‘ I-
‘1 .- h g
vs ‘ "
“r-
*v
I. ‘
' a
" ’9, «A
‘ \ -:
Hv
~~
..
’ ) p.»-
k‘u
..
i -
. -K;
\
‘1‘”v‘.
...'-,"V
V“ y.
\
A
1‘.
. ~‘
~_->l‘.
“ -F
-..

67

Recent approaches focus on affective, cognitive, and be-

 

 

havioral components of attitudes (Secord and Backman, 1965).

 

Notwithstanding the various explanatory definitions
of attitude, the definition formulated by Guttman (1950)
has been utilized in the present research inasmuch as the
statistical analyses of the attitudinal responses will be
based on Guttman's approach. Guttman (1950) defines atti-

tude as "a delimited totality of behavior with respect to

 

something" (p. 51). This would include belief (cognitive

 

component), overt action (behavioral component), and
implicitly, evaluation and intensity (affective component).
According to Guttman (1950), responses on an attitude
scale are one form of delimited behavior; but many kinds of
behavior which are more or less intercorrelated forming
separate subuniverses may be embodied in an attitude uni-
verse. Therefore, an adequate attitude abstraction from
this universe should include sampling from each of the
possible subuniverses, a task of uncertain empirical possi-
bility. A limited sampling of behavior, on the other hand,
would render the inferences quite restricted in range and
scope. We proceed to measure attitudes on the assumption
that a relationship exists between the statements made
about a social object (for example, emotionally disturbed
persons), and overt behavior toward that object. But this
relationship needs to be substantiated by adequate empirical

research.

“,. ”rag"
‘0‘: ‘,,u.. .5

'.».¢~.rlr ‘f‘

n ‘
My
,'_‘_:.-e..uu-:r
-ap .
'2 rr (.>-_.
' '
"5‘ r .4
'-‘ 3 .. J-
..-~»A,l:‘ are;
..::-u-‘- V9. —
r5
(1.
,

 

 

 

 

-
o. _r ‘
~Fnr "~,.

on have. n..-_.~
"""I‘r~»~ J -
‘ ‘~\ .
°"~kv-.~.~, “
l
"H; nus .
&.ue.-'-..:
U
“ c ‘
'i‘lrgn ru 1
“‘-‘Ov‘ ‘_ q
C." 4.,
"‘v¥o., -
' F
r...,_ “Fcr‘rj‘;
,"""-"----

"‘ "sI‘ ~

.g‘a . a: 1‘

' ‘fv‘V‘J- ‘

.5;

., "

.~,, ‘ ‘r-<: . ,.
‘ on.-v ‘:

.,.‘

-\.

.._.

I‘ J
* e
:- 6.._‘_I
..". h—I
d“
1" r.‘u
‘I - ."O o.
e‘ 5. n- ‘
‘-“
) 4‘,
F‘
A
‘.

..

.... ‘

‘_ 4 F:

.“ Ct. ‘2“6
e-,;

‘ _ hr A
, u... g

" .

.k ‘r: 0'

v..- -75.,“
‘~' _.
.¥

. 5...

“‘ ~~-:V". ~
‘ -. [‘0‘

‘v
V.
7.

‘~ .7 V-

‘~~ I r
.o‘v‘ n,—
V‘..

 

‘-."‘ 5-,
‘ .~v~,
~‘4 Nh.
- Q
-‘_
‘
.\_
."4- .
at: «. .
V-
V kg
s" a“
' oP~
\‘ ‘
V‘O "__
v. —~.
.w
.t '.l
. .
. .
"-kn
..
‘vtx Ii
\-
. .
U

68

The underlying characteristics of attitudes and their
relationship to other variables have been analyzed by Green
(1954, pp. 335-336). Consistency of responses with respect
to a social object is the most important characteristic.
Secondly, the attitude itself is an abstraction from a set
of consistent, or covarying, reSponses. Green states:

In each measurement method, Covariation among

responses is related to the variation of an

underlying variable. The latent attitude is

defined by the correlations among responses

(Green, 1954, p. 336).
Hence, responses in themselves are not attitudes; rather,
the attitude is defined by the latent variable. The detec—
tion of this latent variable requires certain scale proper—
ties.

Attitude and related constructs, for example, value
and belief, differ from other psychological variables,
because they are always in terms of a referant class of
social objects. Scalogram analysis employed by Guttman
(1950, ch. 3), and other workers in the field is consistent
with the above considerations of attitude organization.

Measurement of attitudes in the present study is based on

this approach.

Attitude Scales

 

The general framework under which the scale analysis is

 

intended to be performed in this research, is derived prim-
arily from the works of Guttman (1954a, 1954b) and his

associates (Guttman and Foa, 1951; Guttman and Suchman,

 

‘ , Q - '- . r
3.2:." q" n c
ur-n ., I _ ,

1
A A
F . ,.. .
Uto--e-- V
‘ Q
”was - l
- . .
»;,-..'D. “ v
2 ‘ ‘.
‘i. I
' . ‘3 "Y‘ ‘ r
n...,“- VA; “.1

I, § ‘
in. . R “ ~—
. ‘ N” a ‘
“nuns. --~....

fl!
\ ' ’
<dnv ~‘A..-.-v‘
v

q. . ‘

A ‘FA

in \ ,1.

v ~‘Ii‘

2";

h.-- .
“inzor I:
f'e~».. ‘~

 

‘ F;
u..--. U.."'
u
v . .
n W .h'hh"
--.._‘ v. a
F
a 27' .-
.fi~~
.
"N‘ I ‘
a “up a ‘
...v ‘I ~ r
un‘r‘- vv‘

 

 

p“
. U:1 ch.—
. -.~“‘
’ ‘.
' "rA
'1
‘ -..:
. -
_p.a_
. 5’18
v....v fi-F\
v“..;

 

..l
-‘\ I D
- ~ -
‘ “5" I‘-
v-‘ d
2 ‘.
K \o- v
\. v ‘I
u
v'..- '-
1..
.' .
. “Q
V 7*
\, ,-
v
Lthcx
. ‘ ~
V,
-' s
‘
s
‘\
k
'I_ \.
.fi,‘-h ‘
‘s, .—
3 ‘_.
. \\‘
'::“‘s
-‘g‘, t ‘
v" n
U 1

69

19H7). Other experts who might also be referred to, in
this connection, aJeIEdwards(1957); Goode and Hatt (1952);
Green (1954); and Riley e§_al. (195“).

Unlike other scales, Guttman questions whether it is
meaningful to describe a respondent as having high or low
attitude on the basis of his high or low scores on a set of
attitude items. He considers the "ranking of respondents"
more significant than the usual item ranks. He defines:

We shall call a set of items of common content a
scale if a person with a higher rank than another
person is Just as high or higher on every item
than the other person (Guttman, 1950, p. 62).
In other words, a person with a more favorable attitude
gives a reSponse which is more favorable than, or equally

favorable to, a person with a less favorable attitude on

gyery item. Such a scale is considered "unidimensional."

 

An essential criterion of unidimensionality is that
the pattern of responses should be reproducible from knowl—
edge of the scale score. However, this ideal outcome of
perfect consistency is rarely achieved. Hence, Guttman

has devised a coefficient of reproducibility in order to

 

allow a certain measure of "error." In fact, the author
has shown that if the errors are random in a given sample
of 100 persons with 5 dichotomous items, the population
reproducibility need not vary more than 4 or 5 per cent
(Guttman, 1950, p. 77). However, Guttman (1954a, 1954b)

suggests that in order for a scale to be considered

3. a
..-_r\

~
Ar”
.n.~.Vooc-,

 

’4’.

.,. -r ya. ‘I
‘ '3. I ‘1

H” u‘ng-‘A.-~-
.

 

 

 

pa
_ "
any .
.
"' ll Q‘s .
a x
" 1‘ ~-.4
"'v.0'.-, a.
"c- v‘.‘.. _,>
- .
L""‘~ I-F‘ ‘ ,
... - "‘ .
..-\..‘ ‘~ ‘4
h

'r

 

.. .-..o “1"--

 

~I
. , a
—
a. ,
u- my..~
-., .
"' >-
-.-'
; ..~
-. ‘ "~
. 1‘-

 

 

.‘
."
' ‘p.
., _" ,.
I. v»
“| 4 'u— '5-
‘. ‘. v
I
.;~ .
.‘
w L, _
"c h.-
-’ ‘
‘. r,‘
‘ _ o.
. I..‘ .- fl
- a
4..
~.
. ‘.-
- ~ ’7
‘~- - p,
‘g. A N,
‘-‘
s.
‘ _a
'-
". . h
a.
~_-_
. "A“
"\‘ y‘-
‘\ 5.. ‘-
‘~ A.
._.
‘ A
.—
_. v p.’
' . o
"..k ‘r'~
o "
§ ‘
i.
‘u_ I.“
. A"
“. V."
5 x '
n ‘ d
x
s
x -'.-'
._ _
- :
U..

 

\
a; ..
._ ~h
.‘h-
'.~ c h
\"- ”c
.
.v‘y‘v
- k
. .
. -~‘Zr_,
\‘fi ‘
un‘rn \.
R~
w‘ '. .
'»‘ ‘u N»
-\p “
‘,-'_‘, V
.. 9.. '2
‘ r
.

7O

unidimensional, the pattern of responses must be 90 per
cent reproducible.

The next question which arises at this point is how
to tackle a situation when the reproducibility of a scale
is lower than the desired 90 per cent. Such a scale is

described as quasi-scale, if the errors occur in a random

 

fashion. Stouffer comments:
The correlation of the quasi-scale with an outside
criterion is the same as the multiple correlation
between responses to the individual item forming
that scale and the outside criterion which Justi-

fies the use of sets of items from an area not
scalable in the strictest sense (Stouffer, 1950,

p. 5).

The criteria suggested by Guttman, when applied to
the scales used in the present research would indicate
that they are more or less quasi-scales rather than proper
scales, in the strict Guttman sense. It may be noted, how—
ever, that the criterion of 90 per cent reproducibility is
rm more an absolute standard than is the selection of an
alpha of .05 for the test of significance. In those areas
cfi‘social research where previous studies do not provide
enough comparison data, even lower limits of reproduci-
bility may prove to be valuable. But the important
criterion in regard to the scale error appears to be the
:andomenss of the errors. Suchman explains this problem
as follows:

The error pattern of the quasi-scale question is
recognizable from the manner in which the fairly

large number of errors that occur gradually de-
crease in number as one moves further and further

" anpu .-

-?z-s t-r- ‘

’ J
'vc‘rgn
avioov. l

nu-“n‘pi ‘\ 3 s"
..-n. ¢~$.- 5...!

A . u
1‘ ’.;.‘A“:r :—
-- u..-'g.‘p--

“
V‘v- .cm ”u "
A .\ I
v4..~ ‘ .
A ’ Q A _ .
nr-" I .—
"' H..-

' ‘3'" *r-
.tn' a “'0 v..
u.‘

' 1"" ‘A ‘-
...¢u.d.. v.4 v.

,3 ‘ r b
.¢ob “. l

n’

 

“
c. ,
i.
\
. ‘ 1
‘
N‘“. V'fi, A
‘A‘ V...‘
V.
. .-
\«~_‘: ‘Ir
V v G A
.‘¥ ~‘O.
\-

 

71

away from the cutting point. These errors . . . do

not group together like non~scale errors (Suchman,

1950, pp. 16o-161).l

Another issue which merits some consideration is the

comparability of respondents on the basis of favorableness
or unfavorableness of responses. What point on the scale
marks this division? It has been shown by Foa (1950) and
Suchman (1950) that slight changes of question wording
nught alter the response patterns considerably. The best
solution to this problem is to-achieve an objective "zero"
point, independent of the content of the items, which will

demarcate the favorable responses from the unfavorable ones.

The intensity component of attitude has been found

 

to have the characteristic of solving the problem of ques—
tion bias by setting zero point along the evaluative dimen—
sion of the attitude scale.. Several experiments have shown
that intensity will usually form a quasi—scale which“ when
plotted against the content dimension, will reveal the point
mxthe content scale of the.lowest intensity of response
(Foa, 1950, 1961; Guttman, 1947, 1950, 1954a, 1954b; Gutt-
man and Foa, 1951; Guttman and Suchman, 19u7; Suchman,
1950; Suchman and Guttman, 1947). That is, the point of
nunimum intensity actually marks the point of indifference

along the evaluative continuum, in respect to the item

1The "cutting poinfl'refers to the point at which the
"favorable" (or, e.g.,"Yes") responses to an item, can be
divided with the least amount of error from the "unfavorable"
(or, e.g.,"No") responses to an item, when the respondents
have been ordered on the basis of total score for all items
in the scale.

 

 

1".
.
(I...

 

 

 

72

cmfient. This has been shown to mark a division between
favorable and unfavorable responses. This would, then,
mumar to relate directly to the question of validity, since
it determines with considerable certainty that a favorable
response (in relation to the zero point) actually represents
a favorable attitude to the content in question. It is,
therefore, posSible to state in respect to a particular
gnpup as to what per cent of the respondents are actually
favorable, neutral, or unfavorable, as defined by an objec-

tive and invariant referent point.

Methodological Considerations

Any research undertaking in the area of attitudes
2mm values must encounter a multitude of technical and
methodological difficulties. The problems become exceed-
ingly complex when the studies are carried out in the
field, that is, outside the laboratory setting. Neverthe-
less, with the refinement of statistical tools and sophisti-
cated research designs, we are now better equipped to tackle

the problem in a scientific manner.

gymrol Group

In historical perspective, it is no wonder what
earlier studies measuring attitudes adopted somewhat naive
research designs. The general strategy followed by those
investigators was to administer some kind of a scale at one

time to group of people drawn from a specific social

u

u. U-
.,.....50
... p~ A“ ‘r‘
‘ g...
L..u~~ v.
.

 

' o

.. .A < 5
-'€' ‘- V‘
u.-uvv -00 Ii

 

 

‘

u. up I .1
-n n--.‘ v.

. V':

--.‘.~.

kk
"“ “‘
Vi. . .
.I-V: .fr‘a
"'ou...‘ ‘4‘;

‘.
.. Ac. ‘
O._ a r:-
" in-" u_
.
;;~ ‘r ‘r- _
" ‘1. a..:

73

setting. Differences between the means of the various
gxmps of the total sample were then construed by the
researchers to indicate whether or not there was any dif-
finence in the attitudes of the groups compared. The con-
cflusions thus obtained from such studies were definitely
rum valid since there was a conspicuous lack of control
groups.

Our review of the literature on parent—child inter-
mfidons has shown that the findings are highly inconsistent.
fins may be partly due to the variation in research methods
Lmed in the studies. Three dimensions of variation in the
investigations have been identified by Spiegel and Bell.
They are:

”(l) the use of large numbers of cases (30 or more)
versus the study of the single case; (2) the use
of subjective impressions derived from clinical
case studies versus the use of objective or test
measures; (3) the use of selected control groups
versus studies in Which no control group was re-
ported (Spiegel and Bell, 1959, p. 121).

The authors have taken great pains in tabulating 85
parent-child studies published since 1930 with a View to
comparing the methodological characteristics mentioned
above. Their conclusion which has special bearing on the
Inesent research may be quoted here:

in the whole sample, clinical studies far
outnumber objective methods of study, and the

Studies lacking a control group are much more
numerous than those in which a control group is

used (Speigel and Bell, 1959. p. 121).

hp '0

c C ;
. «40'5" '_
'.:',.v’no V
..
r“,—
'3“0 r‘:
.AIUOV O
,, ,. ’1’: on46r~

h . .4 -...»

 

 

v.
C: cg :60. H,
v.0 V. ~ ' ‘t‘

A h
.I.‘ .gy. v U

' h
' r2? a
"" .'d~v’ .-
n, ‘
..‘ Q‘; "‘,: f
...““' Ulny

 

'vflw _

7!;

Selection of Variab les

——

 

There are many studies which deal with one variable
at a time with the result that contextual relationship of
that particular variable with other related variables is
lost sight of. Admittedly, it is almost impossible to
control all other significant variables, yet it is possi-
ble to set up a multivariate eXperimental design which
would not be accused of yielding spurious results. In
the least, a multiple regression analysis can be used to

evaluate the contribution of related variables.

Measurement Techniques
Traditionally, attitudes and values have been meas-

tued by questionnaires. But clinical research seem to

 

favor interviews over objective measuring devices. Although
the controversy surrounding clinical versus statistical
prediction (Meehl, 1954) is not yet settled, researchers
seem to favor the use of questionnaires for correlational
Emalyses of the variables in question. However, some in-
\estigators believe that interview studies allow us to
Penetrate beyond the data provided by such psychometric‘
hnnruments as questionnaires or scales.

Sears (1965) made a comparison of interviews with
quEStionnaires for measuring mothers' attitudes toward sex
andaggression. Interview measures were found to be more

Smasfactory in regard to independently obtained measures

..~ .H‘jngr's ':

DI
,. n... o -

-'-'--~"~vg 4r v1;

' '...o» ‘u .

‘1
I« deb-In {——
n 'A

“in-.15 a .4“- .
u.

' I
.nuy- A,“
.'...1! .d. I

  

. " ’ an.
: 1:P‘r‘£ :u'
.
:funyu‘4, ‘4
' a . . A
I".‘l"‘lv‘fl \_
-v‘.‘-..f‘ L,

K

 

., _
'i‘ ”as A“
.. a“:
‘.

O .‘r‘.’

‘vle .
Ila. '
....4u.‘na‘ s
;'; 'QA‘. ‘
m. ,anl ”’2‘;
U“,
.. .
J
'c “ 7 v, V‘
. 5"eii Q24
'
"..
'1. '7“: l .
vvc‘, “. :‘v".
‘ —
.
‘-
' -
... 7,: ”I“ ‘
“IA\.D fi:,.
“as.
:y. . .
1‘.
..‘ P6392".
-‘.
: |
,
'9
a.“ ‘-"v ‘
“‘ .5 1A,. '
\I -V..‘
"t:
. ‘ ,4c‘.
»“\_: arr;
a,‘
....
"H534: p, ‘
Av "\.fi~
' “M4 .-
'
us
.,I
3.
‘ A
V
J ‘~CL.‘“

 

75

of children's behavior. But attitude scale proved more
effective in replicating group differences diScovered in
previous studies and in measuring mothers' observed
behavior.

It has also been suggested that Q-sort techniques
‘should be used instead of interviews or questionnaires
for making accurate appraisals of parental attitudes (e.

g., Babbit, 196A).

longitudinal Studies

Most studies of parental attitudes are cross~
sectional, in the main, even though control groups may
have been added. If attitudes and values are indicators
of consistency of behavior and thought patterns, then
longitudinal studies are best suited to provide reliable
and valid data as to the nature of attitude with respect
to a given social object. Furthermore, the role of various
factors in producing and sustaining changes in attitudes
and values can also be measured effectively with longi—
tudinal research. It is not surprising, therefore, to
find many longitudinal studies for measuring changes in
attitudes and values of students as a consequence of
college education (e.g., Lehmann, Sinha, and Hartnett,
1966; Plant, 1963; Sanford, 1962).

Johnson (1963) has made a fervent appeal for a great

expansion of research in the field of disability which

1 I
‘u-i

.l-nn
”.54

 

, . .
.r. um;

go-I-U‘\‘\‘

(Ix

‘ . .
r “A”,
'— y..--\l
‘1
u; no‘rfl an-r
" 9‘
a. "ac-UQV-h» L.
o .

76

would include systematic and comprehensive studies of the
broad spectrum of the disabled. Such studies would begin
in early childhood and would continue through the life of'

the handicapped.-

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE

The primary purpose of the present research was to
investigate the attitudes of mothers toward emotionally
disturbed and physically handicapped persons. "Personal
contact" was the basic variable on which the mothers'
responses were compared. Two other dimensions emphasized
in this research were "value system" and "educational
experience" of the mothers selected in the study. It was
also presumed that some general ecological character-
istics such as, change orientation, institutional satis-
faction, and popular stereotype about mental illness would
influence the mothers' attitude scores. The subjects'
attitudes, values, educational exposure, and other rele—
vant aspects were measured by a set of attitude and value
scales, and questionnaires eliciting demographic infor-

mation.

Research Population

 

Since "personal contact" with emotionally disturbed
and physically handicapped persons was the main concern
of the present research, it was considered important to
select mothers.whose contact with emotionally disturbed

and physically handicapped would be most intimate and

77

C“
frequent. cu.

able at a cor;

ughflyl‘llfi'

u r
.maL&$'J U*Jc
O. ‘ g g.

3.5.? Magma.

tile-sized.

arises are 1

Igyfin‘ w‘j‘ nun
‘0

I
Jun-4.‘ OV“

"0‘0“.

entoa

Inova4fl- ‘
«wk-41.)! ..a

:{n'l J
-3151 +a+4n

“.'v v-'

I ‘7 ”v ‘(
n... e'dQV‘C:
:" '1. 9". Va ~
sgd. bL‘ “an
7'; A‘
""‘OSESt:
.
"“3"? wit‘r
m
33‘? $5
‘I-
K “A

(F)

78

frequent. Such a pepulation of mothers was ideally avail~
able at a comprehensive community mental health, and a
rehabilitation center located on the campus of The Betty
Jane Memorial Center in Tiffin, Ohio, a typical midwestern,
middle-sized community. The out-patient mental health

services are provided by the Sandusky‘Valley Guidance

 

Center which caters patients ranging from preschool
children to adults. The rehabilitation services for the

physically handicapped are rendered by the Betty_Jane

 

Rehabilitation Center.

The rationale for selection of mothers who were
using the services of these two out—patient centers for
their emotionally disturbed and physically handicapped
children was based on the assumption that these mothers
had closest, most frequent as well as different kinds of
contact with such children.

The selective population for the two experimental

 

groups, therefore, was mothers of emotionally disturbed
and physically handicapped children who were using the
facilities and services of their local mental health
clinic and physical rehabilitation center.

The group of mothers who had neither emotionally
disturbed nor physically handicapped children served as

the population for the control group. These mothers were

 

selected from Mount Pleasant, Michigan, another mid-

western, middle-sized community.

VA" 7‘5“:
U

.cvdnst

«“- mug:-
o ‘-

 

‘ '5'“: :c
”vi-‘v‘
. .
:94 lpl‘n‘: '
cub .-“."lv.‘ {
-._.'

'I
' 5 rs.)
'A~.,“r "V‘
. ‘vo ‘V‘.
.0 ‘
u'F‘cfl "
'vug,_‘ V. A
. “. .v
‘A q
u' .a"“ I
~ fl“: -r c.
‘ v

 

.
u. 7 a .

‘a Cr;
u f...
'4‘
._' ‘4
\‘dPGv-
u, r '

79

Mothers of non—disturbed and non-handicapped children
were presumed to have little or no close personal contact
with the emotionally disturbed or the physically handi-
capped as compared to mothers in the two experimental

groups.

Selection of Samples

 

Since the samples could not be selected on a random
basis because of the specific nature of the population
and limited availability of subjects, selection of the
samples was made according to specified criteria. Careful
exploration of the possible selective factors was at-
tempted in order that permissible generalizations could

be made in the light of these selective factors.

The Experimental Groups

The first and foremost consideration was that the
mothers selected for the study should have either an
emotionally disturbed child or a physically handicapped
child undergoing treatment in one of the two centers.
The children who were new patients or ex-patients were
excluded. That is, only the mothers of children under
active psychotherapy or physical therapy were acceptable.
The overlapping cases where the child was receiving both
kinds of services at the Sandusky Valley Guidance Center
and at the Betty Jane Rehabilitation Center were also
excluded from the samples. Those mothers who had two

children, one under psychotherapy and the other receiving

"lvflfid‘- thv
. v

.. u

.n..J| n-

u':;-warb Or-

voaaou-nvncv .v

”3'35... "C.“

-
u-o-ovJ v. v

(“a

)
3
)

(I:
(I)

w
KL“)
k
I
D
I

1- F- a
.-"._ ‘92‘;
-Un‘
' 1' Vi‘-‘
.
...
.4 's '33»,
. (Q..‘ “‘A:
‘
.
O.. - A‘
' #-
... HQ. fir
Vi
" "'hrnn
"" v ‘\
ANNE
'*¢-'
r
'.
do“; Say!
" s
-
LV‘Qe“
NV-..
‘ - q...
-. v5.
7 'v.. EWV‘
.H
~
:"~V" t

80

physical therapy for the disability were screened care-
fully. Also, the mothers who were themselves undergoing
treatment for either any mental problem or physical dis-
ability were not selected for the study.

The age range of children was between 5 and 15
years. Moreover, only those children were considered
whose I. Q.'s fell within the average range of intelligence
(i.e., 90—109). Administration of a standard intelligence
test such as the Stanford-Binet or the Wechsler Intellih I
gence Scale for Children to the incoming patients is a
routine diagnostic procedure at both centers. As such,
the I.Q. scores of the children were easily available for
the purpose of sample selection. Also, the children were
of both sexes in both the groups.

Insofar as the diagnostic categories of the children
are concerned, all patients in the emotionally disturbed
group belonged to the category of "adjustment reaction"
of childhood or adolescence. The diagnostic categories
in the physically handicapped group were, however,
variegated. Most common disability cases were speech
defectives, blind, deaf, and cripples or amputees.

The mothers thus selected came primarily from the
city of Tiffin. All of them were of white race. How-
ever, there were some mothers who belonged to neighboring

suburb or rural areas.

"5}...”
h-4¢¢v‘4!

 

~~
:I".I.O '7 ‘A

‘ 0v
Oct-UQ‘Q.J

~ I
war -
:c;u&~4, o-tvv-

.o-.,_

" .
0n“...
“.IQ|I

"‘J g c...
““ v)-
.1.._~ ”a F
s ‘ _ F
v ‘ v. M...
.
II-“:
‘-
-..u..-..2. -
' v

th _ ~ '3 ‘
.-‘~ " v

on. ‘te/u ‘-
; C. 'fano f
h...‘ ‘v. v
.; «WC-“JP?
““ “Q"CV—Hc
I. .
a C Pcth"
.~.' ‘U'.-V‘
M’s.“ n'uu" -
'n
I'.‘ v.“-‘
a
..; -c\ m— .
Q i“, V.“
n: ‘
s
.. {a “‘2‘“.
I Q‘ .5"
.
.'..
I "
~‘:.1=:= ’_‘
VVvu ‘1‘
d
3.
’ a
“ s
‘ r-
\II 11.5 El!
‘
v‘. .
. a "\
".Vee ~75» ,
«‘V‘
a; —
. t
V. ‘
JJ .,.V’FQ
‘-
._‘
.h‘A '
. p “‘
ugh t‘rch
U .“
s
‘v-
I‘.F:‘: ~‘
\“
‘.
q
:_‘ ‘

 

\V
. I;
“~ 5
‘
... .
I. .- i
u.~'\ H
Va‘ 'h

81

Although exhaustive demographic data were obtained
with the help of a questionnaire, no attempt was made
initially to control age, income, education, marital
status, mobility, residence, number of children, and so
forth.

The experimental groups were originally to have con—
sisted of all those mothers who met the above criteria of
sampling. It was soon obvious, however, that many mothers
'were not willing to complete the various questionnaires.
'There were others who, although volunteering to answer
tune questionnaires, did not return them within a reason-
able period of waiting. Of 75 mothers of emotionally dis-
tnxrbed children who were initially given the question-
rutires, only 6U mothers returned the packet. Since four
<If the returned questionnaires were quite inadequate for
analyses purposes, they were discarded. Thus, the actual
N in.the experimental group I-—or the "Emotionally Dis-
turbed Group" (EDP) as we shall call it--was 60. Similarly,
0f 55 mothers of the physically handicapped children who
Were given the questionnaires, only 50 packets were re-
turnédu The final number retained in the experimental
groui, II--or the "Handicapped Group" (HP) as we shall

call. this group--was 48, as responses of two of the

mothers were discarded .

2QSlngntrolfGroup

The control group consisted of those white mothers

W
ho had "normal" children. Normality of the children was

. .
4 - l'l rev P —
-.~ "— A
....‘o-I ¥.' fi-‘I
'
I ~ P I
'."f’ . .
'-'~ ,. ' —\
...-...¢- .4- ._

A.
A»-
" ~.¢.C
‘-V*~'
P F n
fl“_ “
‘I- a.

:-'-:Pr‘

u.... v.'..

 

. "
';‘: "r-u -,.'_
F -’
"' be-.l‘-v\‘\
.
I-o

I a
'fi‘: «r‘
"'uv. '

-l-v-‘

    

"‘ up
.u. ”x "
.v.' v. :
n~.,
v I
'M“‘rr‘
_

 

-§-'
" ’7'»: .

.- V1
'0... .I

 

 

(I)

I
I.)

82

ensured by adding the following question at the end of
Personal Questionnaire—EDP for this group of mothers:
Please indicate below if any of your own children

are/or have been physically handicapped or
emotionally disturbed?

In this manner, it was checked that none of their children
were handicapped-—physically, mentally, or otherwise. The
mothers included in the control sample were not using the
services of a clinic or a physical rehabilitation center
for their own emotional problems or physical disability.

Furthermore, only those mothers were given the
questionnaires, who had, at least, one of their children
111 the age range of 5-15 years. The I.Q. of the children
was found difficult to control on the basis of their
scores on a standard psychological test of intelligence.
Iknnever, it was ascertained that the children were pro-
gressing at normal pace in the school. In other words,
they were found to be consistent with respect to age and
grade. Also, these children were never placed in a
'Special class' for slow learners or gifted pupils. Thus,
there was a reasonable certainty that these children were
Of average intelligence.

The geographic location of the control sample was
the Clity of Mount Pleasant. Mount Pleasant is a mid-
W“3‘~"‘»’Cern, middle-sized city similar to Tiffin in a number

or demographic characteristics which will be described

later. .

..’b" *rl
'18-... ...

v!
\fAH'. ’1
tr .

.u .-v duct!

lab; 5"; 3“
h... a... .

' 0...“,
'2.“:= rEvdoc-
.unoov'

.
. Pp?
'p! R ”flflfi‘v“
I-
tub ire-cvbt I...

“R" w-‘A}- - 1 I.
:.J AA‘V.‘ -- .

..,:,.-, ”A ’9
‘ a un‘
‘~-‘~-'~ V
1.", .. I... g
P. \ g
I'I.vou V|“~ Us...
' .. “ "F J
’F P; I!”
I“.' "'V I... u.

3“ erg},

.
I.‘U‘1-V.. fiv‘

-
-3..-‘.

"‘ “('an .H r
m.
.

If: A»
v.,' "v

"Hr‘
e.,. U

 

I, ‘
IFI'LH~
..v,_... \
Ni
.v-i:
u.-. ‘flp‘. -;
at" C a
.v -.. _
.: ~|
1
i‘ . Jr r
QC.‘.‘, J
ta
~_ ‘
.
-. '.c 5"“.
.' "'d P
~ .~
“J
'u
1 g‘ ‘
I‘n‘ .- ‘
5 ' .fc.
‘v
.I‘.
,
.1. cfi~ ‘.‘
"h \ VA
V f" Q
‘V
V
.‘
I... ‘
N" "be; ..
.‘ h
”‘1‘“, ‘v
‘
v
_;:3: .
o
\‘l ‘ ;
‘-
s
:00;
«“‘r‘
lh‘.
"
".' “Cr-g
' ‘

 

 

83

With the help of the principals of different schools
in Mount Pleasant, 100 mothers were originally supplied
with the questionnaires. The number of completed question-
naires returned was 83. Although as mentioned earlier,
the demographic characteristics of the control sample was
very much like the samples in the experimental groups,
special care was taken to achieve comparability on the

variables of age, income, and education of the subjects.

 

With this end in view, 14 respondents were discarded so
that the various response categories of age, income, and
education would remain in proportion to those found in
the experimental groups. Thus, the final number retained
in the control group was 69.

Table 1 summarizes the data pertaining to sample size
for both the control and experimental groups.
EEEOgraphic Characteristics of
Eéperimental and Control Samples

Mothers of emotionally disturbed and physically
rendicapped children were primarily drawn from the city
cDfTiffin, Ohio. A few of them, however, did not belong
to the city proper; they lived in suburbs or rural areas
lying at the outskirts of the city. In similar manner,
I“Others who served as control subjects came primarily
frmnwbunt Pleasant, Michigan. Some of these mothers also
I‘eSided in neighboring rural areas.

Tiffin is situated on the Sandusky River in the

mneh central part of Ohio. It is the county seat of

M... c. , n ... 74.. .32 F, 21:91.; L.C+:a....£2
wife“? w ‘wcs. m

.. 7 « EDA :3.
Denis: LC LCQEZZ LJQEZZ D Z

I n . I . . I- II.....' Ulrull , .n. I h .F I .Il .1 . 1...|. . H. .I .n. .u. . :uewHXH-HI. nu .. . IJV 7 A I 2
I l . . I I M . I .l ,, .u H II .L. .
. E II.*.|"- I'M allrrn. p! l . lul'l hr .> r

.numudnrtaumu L C :3 fi.u..o.mv,~ maul! . N. .SQ:<.~.

U.
8

.cmnpafino Aameaocv Umaamoficcmnlcoc mo mnmnpoz

u ozono Honpcoo

.cmnpafizo Umoamoapcmn maamofimmna no mnmnpoz u HH ozone Hmucmsfinmoxm
.cmnpafico eanSpmfiv mHHMQOHpoEm mo mnmzpoz u H axons Hmpcmefinoaxm

H

 

 

Ro.mm ow :H mm ooa Ammlcozv Honucoo
em.sm m: m om mm Ammv HH Hmpcmsfinmoxm
eo.om oo e as me “some H Hmccceflcccxm
Wm .02
Hmfinmpmz Hmfinmomz umme Hmfinmpmz pmme Hmfinmpmz pmme ozone
pmme nmuomnmm msficaSpmm wcfi>fimomm H
macaw: mo amnezz amnesz amnssz

 

.mmHQEmw

ho soapomaomll.a mqm<e

A
.-O>;r'vl H

ua-v‘v.5, x...
.

U

U
m

(I)

F-v. A‘:

A
-—~4.
. .

-"'" 'v»..~ ‘

M N
"""' "VA- J

a
P'r ‘ .

lov‘- _.‘

 

.
‘7‘
b‘ \
H

L
(I)

1‘)

'9

(1‘ (d

7‘

’(1

 

85

Seneca County. Generally speaking, it is a farm area.
The city has a modest amount of industry: glassware,
plottery, electrical and toolmaking machinery. Heidelberg
College, a private and coeducational institution, caters
to the needs of the community for higher education. In
1960, the Bureau of the Census (1963b) reported that the
city has a population of 21,478. Considering the rate of
population growth, the estimated population at the present
‘time would be in the neighborhood of 24,000. The mental
health and physical rehabilitation services are provided
by a.complex of agencies located on the campus of the
Betty Jane Center.

Mount Pleasant is located in the central part of
the state of Michigan. It serves as the county seat of
Isabella County. According to the census (1963a), popu-
lation of the city was 14,875. Presently, the estimated
Size of population is approximately 18,000. The growth
or the city is credited to the discovery of oil in 1928.
It now supplies the oil fields and refines oil. There
is a state university called Central Michigan University
whictl;is coeducational and draws student population from
Varidous parts of Michigan. The city also has a Child
Guidance Clinic for the diagnosis and treatment of
emotionally disturbed children.

The following table derived from the United States

Cefmsus of Population, 1960, provides a comparison of the

. .
ya’y. ,9.
vvbuouv-
O ‘

 

an;
.' ' r -.
“do-.. Uguy

 

.
R.“

’1
“'--a-

~u..

 

 

”1}: ‘
A. p
‘0... \v- .-
v--.-
‘I\ .‘Jhg |~
h. ‘-
'0 0.,“
‘.“J
Vin."
5 I
n . V;
“.
._ .
I
‘..‘~ ‘a‘..
'7‘.“ l t
v
5 v
”1:”. .
._ ‘ - K
“A...“ ~ .
§ . “
-
.‘..

 

 

W‘q‘

' v ‘

 

 

‘
‘
LI. _
‘ ’.
' . ~‘ng .
"v ~ ‘ .-
V.”
."
o
'b p
“.
.
.2
.
I - F
e _ ~
'. -.I_
. ~
‘~ y
'u‘
.
.
\
" .'; a, “
~. _
. h— p
.‘
‘\
‘.
..
‘. 3 «r
.‘~
‘I
\_
.‘ y‘ .
.' _.
-"~ I..
-‘ ,.'
.—

86

tvvo cities in relation to some general characteristics

of? the population (1963a, 1963b):

TABLE 2.--Size of population and income in Tiffin and
Mount Pleasant.

 

Per cent With

 

Total Population Median Incomes of
ijty Popu— by Sex Income
lation Under $10,000
Male Female $3,000 and Over
'Tigffin 21,478 10,330 11,148 5,759 15.6 11.7
Mount
EfiLeasant 14,875 7,374 7,501 6,229 15.6 17.6

‘

Selection of Variables

The selection of variables for the present research
was primarily stimulated by an ambitious cross-cultural
research project being carried out at Michigan State
University (see page 9, Chapter 1). This international
research project has hypothesized a relationship between
attitudes toward physical handicap and personal contact,
value structure, educational orientation, and certain
demographic variables. Moreover, the research reports,
and theoretical and methodological considerations already
reviewed in Chapter II pointed to the paucity of research
data based on the variables mentioned above, particularly
in the field of mental health.

Thus the theoretically—dictated and empirically

supported variables were those suspected to have some

 

. n

..--.l r ‘ ' ‘

.' ”H 91., ’_

.,...v‘o¢o bi-..-

v I ‘

.- ‘-l r neo-

, In .-

uouu' 1] iv..-
. . .

q. p p‘.~. 1‘

. g .—

..c U] aunts-Aa—

 

il .
‘ 2““?
uelugcgg... :1“

n. n._

H‘
t

A" ‘
u "1 .‘-

r ’Dy

unnot.

 

«D

 

 

.
V_. I ‘
u.-
‘

 

 

., _
- -
. 5.: ,
-
— FV'
‘.
,
. .
" Iva.
.
.5 —.. .
‘0'!
‘C
-

 

 

 

87

rerticular relationship to the two main criterion vari-
mfles: (a) attitudes toward emotionally disturbed persons,
and (b) attitudes toward physically handicapped persons.
The other two important variables were concerned with the
value system of the subjects and their attitudes toward
education. Additional variables that were selected for

the study related to the respondents' change orientation.

Description of Instruments

 

A number of instruments were employed to measure
the subjects' attitudes toward emotional disturbance and
physical handicap, their value systems, their attitudes
toward education, and so forth. With the exception of
one, most of the measures were adapted after suitable
modifications from already available tests, while some
were locally constructed specifically for the study. The
battery of tests consisted of the Handicapped Persons
Scale, the Emotionally Disturbed Persons Scale, the Edu-
cation Scale, and Survey of Interpersonal Values. In
addition, a series of personal questionnaires were given
They were: Personal Questionnaire (general), Personal
Quandonnaire--HP, and Personal Questionnaire--EDP. All

the scales and personal questionnaires have been attached

in APpendix A .

88

PMndicapped Persons Scale

The items used in this scale were taken from the
Attitudes Toward Disability Scale (Yuker, gt_a1., 1960).
Test-retest reliability scores were reported to range
from .67 to .78. Various construct validity data (Yuker,
et;§£., 1960, pp. 5—8) that were collected from disabled
employees of Abilities, Inc., a light manufacturing com-
pany which employs disabled workers, also indicated the
adequacy of the scale. Among these employees, the test
was found to be negatively related to age and anxiety,
and positively related to verbal intelligence and job
satisfaction. Females and those with low absentee rates
made higher scores. But the validating group itself has
questionable generality and the rationale for item selection
is not clear.

A recent study attempted to determine the factorial
structure and correlates of the Attitudes Toward Disabled
Persons Scale (Siller and Chipman, 1964). The obtained
data indicated acceptable reliability and comparability
over age and educational levels. But the author questioned
the use of a single overall score. However, the test repre-
sents a major attempt to fill a gap in the field and
herrants further study.

The Handicapped Persons Scale used in the present
r‘esearch was modified so as to make provisions for re-
flmmdent scoring. The Likert-type format was retained,

Muzthe response categories for each item were reduced

r
,
..

‘r

JO.

' .'
“Aw
.yhfiv

“A‘I“‘ 7‘
w

_,.
ovd‘-. "'
.
.a
“
Uvibld,

.o‘
..
.po
.-
iv.
It... A
I

 

c. .5 ... . . a. .: .I .. .

r. r. .4 .1 c. x. a. ..~ so f. T~ .2

n. . a . c. : . a .. A a 2» . . : . ~ . .. .v ... a .. a y ‘

cc. .. ... v” .»u 1. a. 4.. .3 C. 4‘

to to r“ G» A. a. re 2. h. n... .»~ :~ 5.
L. c. L. . . -. a . . 2. .. .1 ... .3
L . :~ I. ~ . 2. s . 2‘ Te 4 ..I. ...u n. L. u. \
“a 9: Ce .; p . .1 Z. n. . 1‘- 1 v r . f. .r.. .2.
g u “.4” «.u .s- ..~ . c a u .A‘ ~.- ~ e -.H ..v s v p \

 

89

from seven to four. Another modification was that instead
of requiring the respondent to transfer a number from a
set of coded categories at the top of the page to indicate
his response, the item alternatives were stated following
each question. Since it is intended to submit the items
to scale analysis rather than follow the suggested scoring

system, there is no need to follow the same numerical

SCOI‘GS .

ggnotionally Disturbed Persons Scale

The scale attempts to measure the respondents' atti—
tleeS toward emotionally disturbed persons. This scale
mnas specially constructed for the present research.
Ehssentially the scale under consideration is based on the
Séime item content provided in the Handicapped Persons
E5<2a1e discussed in the previous section. Suitable modifi-
cations were made in the scale by substituting mental

h’Ec'ilth concepts for the concepts pertaining to physical

disability.

Fm&cation Scale

This scale is an adaptation of Kerlinger's Attitudes
[PCJWard Education Scale (Kerlinger, 1958, 1961; Kerlinger
and Kaya, 1959). Modifications similar to those de-
SCBribed in the Handicapped Persons Scale were made for
tlle Education Scale.

It would not be out of order here to present a

brief description of the Attitudes Toward Education Scale

I I
a . ..

.. 4..
’v- ‘

n‘f

‘
'-—n-d-y

o-Avnov.

-,.c

o."

i. h. .p.
. a a. d
. v s v
n v s u
. .-
vv,-.. I.

 

90

as developed by Kerlinger. The complete instrument con—
sists of 20 items, of which 10 are "progressive," and

the other 10 are "traditional." Educational attitudes

have been conceptualized by Kerlinger as hinging on two
relatively independent underlying factors or ideologies.
They are: "traditionalism" and "progressivism." The
author has shown that traditionalism can be conceived as
the affirmation of a stand which emphasizes a conservative-
traditional approach to educational issues. Progressivism,
on the other hand, is not just the Opposite of traditional-
ism in education. It has an existence of its own where
education has a much wider connotation.

Precisely, the restrictive-traditional factor has
been defined by Kerlinger (1958, p. 112) as that which
emphasizes subject-matter for its own sake. The hier-
archical nature of impersonal superior-inferior relation-
ships is considered important; and external discipline
is a matter of great concern. Social beliefs are pre-
served through the maintenance of the status quo. In
contrast, the permissive-progressive factor emphasizes
problem—solving with a minimum concern for the subject-
matter. In this perspective, education is seen as growth
and the child's interests and needs are seen as basic
to education. Equality and warmth in interpersonal
relationship are valued. Internal rather than external

discipline is considered important. Social beliefs tend

91

to be liberal, and education is viewed as an instrument
of change.

The Attitudes Toward Education Scale represents a
factor analysis of a set of 40 items given to 598 sub-
jects of varying backgrounds, but all apparently of above
average education. The scale has been found to hold up
under cross-validation; however, there is no indication
that persons of lower educational attainment have been
adequately represented in the studies. In fact, a sur-
face examination of the items (see Appendix A-3) suggests
that some of them may be somewhat overly complex and diffi-
cult for many people. As employed in the present study,
the "progressive" and "traditional" items will be analyzed
independently as two separate scales.

The Education Scale, a modified version of the
Kerlinger's Attitudes Toward Education Scale, was included
in the present study for several reasons. Firstly, there
is some justification in hypothesizing a relationship
between progressive attitudes and attitudes toward
emotional disturbance and physical disability. Secondly,
in a study so closely interwoven with educational con—

cerns, the findings are interesting in their own right.

Gordon's Survey of Interpersonal Values

 

The selection of the Gordon Survey of Interpersonal
Values (Gordon, 1960) was based on two considerations.

First, an instrument was needed which would yield scores

“'9‘“

vial--

' 1

 

 

92

on items that seemed logically related to the values under
test in the hypotheses. These values are: "asset"
orientation to others and "comparative" orientation to
others. Of the six sub—scales in the instrument, the one
for Benevolence is described as: "Doing things for other
Ipeople, sharing with others, helping the unfortunate,
loeing generous” (Gordon, 1960, p. 3). In a subsequent
leesearch, Benevolence was found to correlate .49 with the
bhlrturance score on the Edwards Personal Preference Sche-
dllle and negatively with Achievement (-.24) and Aggression
(—.28), according to Gordon (1963, p. 22). It was decided
CH1 the basis of the description, the item content, and the
intercorrelations with the EPPS that the Benevolence Value
prOposed by Gordon would be an adequate operationalization
of "asset value." The second value to be operationalized
was that of a "comparative" orientation toward others.

The Gordon Manual offers the follwoing definition for
Recognition Value: "Being looked up to and admired, be-
ing considered important, attracting favorable notice,
achieving recognition" (Gordon, 1960, p. 3). The defi-
nition for Conformity Value is: "Doing what is socially
correct, following regulations closely, doing what is
accepted and prOper, being a conformist" (Gordon, 1960,

p- 3). The value of Leadership was defined as: "Being

in Charge of other people, having authority over others,

heing in a position of leadership or power" (Gordon, 1960,

p. 3).

93

All three of these values would appear to involve
ranking of others in some kind of absolute scale, either
of social acceptability (Conformity), achievement (Recog-
nition), or power (Leadership). On the basis of surface
consideration of item content, the Recognition items were
judged to be most representative of Comparative values.
Moreover, a correlation of .58 was found between Aggres-
sion on EPPS and Leadership. This would indicate that
Leadership also is a good indicator of comparative values.

A special feature of Gordon's value scale is that it
utilizes forced-choice technique. Apparently, the pur-
pose of a forced-choice format is to control the factor
of social desirability. Whether or not ipsative measures
are as valid as normative measures is still a vexing
problem for psychometricians. For example, "Knapp (1964)
made an empirical investigation of the concurrent and ob-
servational validity of Gordon's Survey of Interpersonal
values. He concluded that "yes-no" response format
differentiated between the two groups (Navy offenders and
non—offenders) better than the forced-choice format.
However, for the purposes of this study, it was con-
sidered useful to employ a measure which would curb the

subjects' tendency to fake good on value questions.

Personal Questionnaire (General)
This questionnaire had two parts in it. The first

part was concerned with the respondents' contacts with

94

school and education. It also attempted to elicit their
knowledge about education. The second part of the
questionnaire was intended to provide personal information
about the subjects such as, age, income, education, marital
status, number of children, mobility, and so forth (see
Appendix A-5).

Contact with education was, thus, measured by four
items (PQ 4—7) where the respondents were required to
indicate: (a) how much they had worked in schools or
educational settings; (b) what per cent of their income
was derived from such work; (c) how they generally felt
about such work; and (d) what other work opportunities
they could have chosen alternatively. In addition, three
Other questions were asked to determine various kinds or
levels of education experienced, and varieties of contact
With education.

Change Orientation items contained a number of

 

Statements which purported to elicit subjects' attitudes
tDward change in such areas as health practices, child-
rearing practices, birth control practices, automation,
and political leadership (PQ 39-43). It was assumed that
peOpIe expressing positive attitudes toward emotional
diSturbance and physical handicap would reveal greater
flexibility and openness toward change. Self change

(PQ 47—49), and future orientation (PQ 52—54) of the
Subjects were also included in the Questionnaire for

measuring attitudes toward change.

 

'Aaocavan-U J
I..." ‘7
-

.vnd", -Jq

- u

.‘A- ‘7'";Y‘

.."" ""‘D‘oto
V

-"-".A a

\ .
Uv-uv¢-:, .

‘ .
v
D'.‘ fir -“.'f
.n‘ ..“. «‘-

 

' l
\ .w“,
"."~v

I
We...

dig-V

’.

-. "nmr
‘._ r-
i ‘v‘

. ~

.

h _,

w \ p.

.w‘ v.
V...

F’-

"‘ s

‘ ‘
‘E‘Ctfi o.

‘
C

’.

.~ .‘1

\' &'

V r-
U
.-

.._'

-‘L'l

u‘

‘1 AV
w
‘
r
.
i h -
c “q
‘
U
‘\
\
I u

n‘:

.. ._

‘ ' g

"_ Q
i
-

95

These questions were adapted from Programa Inter-
americano de Informacion Popular (PIIP) in Costa Rica
(Felty, 1965).

Institutional satisfaction was measured by a set of

 

nine questions (PQ3lA—31I). These measures were adapted
from Hyman (1955, p. 400). The institutions selected
(schools, business, labor, government, health services,

and churches) were listed in the question. The respon-
dents were asked to indicate whether they judged these
institutions as: excellent, good, fair, or poor in re-
spect to how well they perform their particular job in the
community. It was hypothesized that mothers who hold
favorable attitudes toward the emotionally disturbed and
physically disabled would be less satisfied with the insti—
tutions, generally speaking, than those mothers who express
negative attitides.

Preferences for personal relationships were measured

 

with the help of a set of three items (PQ 21-23) in

Section 2 of the Questionnaire asking personal information.
These three items were devised to help identify respondents
or groups of respondents along a traditional-modern di-
mension. The predominance of affective relationships as
opposed to affectively neutral relationships is supposedly
one of the distinguishing characteristics of the "Gemein-
shaft” or traditional orientation (e.g., Loomis, 1960,

p. 61ff). One question (PQ 21) asked the respondent to

indicate the approximate per cent of personal interactions

*v'flf~.-
.' o
,

\ :—
coo—noiui ..

 

~nv in.-. I J
‘ F‘
...

:crcze M
O‘UvotvUU v-

.': "'V‘”"rc_

I...

""3" vo-y

a
‘V v- a.
‘5 ‘5 ...
t‘. J yv 4';
.,. .

Lhzqu. A
-u“‘~‘v4-v

‘e‘

‘50

- :3- h

"v..- ‘2:

“V

v‘.’

5 file

i III-

“"0: r'fi
V ...v.

 

N . I
a ‘~
“~ :-
* v-
'\
‘d
.5
.K c.
‘ v
\ ’7. .
o‘ ”A
‘Q

w—w—u—

96

on the job which were with persons who were close personal
friends. Another question (PQ 22) asked how important it
was to work with persons who were close personal friends.
The third question (PQ 23) was intended to signify dif—
fuseness of specificity of personal interactions under
the hypothesis that the traditionally oriented person is
more likely to have personal interactions which are dif-
fused between job and family, or other affective non-job
interactions. Loomis comments:
Members of the Gemeinshaft-like system are likely
to know each other well; their relationships are
functionally diffuse in that most of the facets of
human personality are revealed in the prolonged and

intimate associations common to such systems
(Loomis, 1960, p. 72).

 

In accordance with our hypotheses about values, then,
those respondents who are committed to "asset" values,
being more concerned with intrinsic valuation of the per-
Son rather than valuing him for his absolute achievements,
should also express a greater need for personal inter-
aCtions generally, and a greater diffuseness of inter—
personal relationships.

Religiosity of the subjects were measured with the

 

help of three questions (PQ 19, 20 and 38). Specifically,
the questions asked were: (a) religious preference, (b)
the felt importance of religion to the respondent, and

(C) conformity to the rules and regulations of the
religion. "Religiosity” also seemed to be related to

the traditional-modern dimension, and as such higher

—
op-ran vyflu fl
.~ ‘
:H... “VJ‘J

. . .
ppa I-oo ‘r'lflv-

:u‘ av“ fits-v9.1

 

C‘.”" av”

Jen-4». _.
___1__—

fl
H‘n-td'. V . {A

u“. A‘s 7*r
"' A ' It
7“ *‘V at;
U .
Kr «a
41 y-.,,,,

'9
.7 ‘4 Y“ Y.r
“ a I, .a-:
I
:7" 3"“r
nu IAVU -‘Ad:..
1? c.‘
u. 7‘ rhcn,
in. U. ”C.-
. v

'v.
‘14:“ Q‘wé.
v. UV“
I

 

'7.
n R.. ‘
N I‘ “F a
'.~“:’\ 7‘-
u
NJ
‘
.
\ fi.‘
-‘ .
u. x
I. 'UE.‘ ‘-
‘ v
.-
.‘ .
K
7.. r g
\.H “0. “.r-
c
‘
v.‘
s_- u
I - A
‘I
s “‘VS‘ ’
v r-
u
‘.
p
'uh ”fl
‘ .itv-
3...
.‘ n~4‘
us.“ o.
“ l‘
‘A
i '.
‘
.v“~-) A
“s (
"I
‘L
- Q ~.'
‘I. a q»:
‘M A
~—
‘H ‘
.
>" I
'v__\ ‘r
..
n '1‘
‘:
. ‘*
“ac;
v"
A ,"-
v.
~r:
- .~
Q. Q.
- ‘c
\-
' J in“
“
o
c
:-
.1?—
5
‘. -:~

 

 

 

 

97

scores would be expected among persons with less education
and low income.

Demographic Characteristics were ascertained by a
number of questions in the Personal Questionnaire. They
were age (PQ 8), marital status (PQ 12), number of children
(PQ 13), number of siblings (PQ 16, 17), education (PQ 26,
27), occupation (PQ 37), home ownership (PQ 29), rental
(PQ 30), rural-urban youth (PQ 9), and income (PQ 14). It
is not intended to use all of these demographic variables
in the present data analysis because of time and space
limitations. They will be utilized more fully in the

larger study described on page 9.
Egggonal Questionnaire: HP

Contact with physically handicapped persons was
measured by nine questions. The items (PQ—HP) were con—
Structed to determine: (a) the kind of physical disability
With which the mothers had had the most contact, or knew
the most about (PQ—HP l, 2); (b) the type of relationship
the respondents had had with physically disabled persons
‘-family, friends, working relationships, casual, etc.
(PQ-HP 3); and (c) the approximate number of encounters
the subjects had had with physically handicapped per—
Sons (PQ—HP U). Other significant questions were de-
Signed to explore alternative opportunities (PQ-HP 9),
enjoyment of contact.with handicapped persons (PQ-HP 8),

ease of avoidance of such contacts (PQ-HP 5), material

I ogu 55's.“. Chav‘i'q

'- pnhw fi"7
.avul v.1-

IN.
‘lv
0
.

.

.prqfir‘ZE
.-
."."“V

 

I
':r:_-: ~v-sr .
~-.»—.‘ h-

-..

“ .- 5,...
7‘ n..,.
-.u~.¢4-., ,
' I
t
”:1. "‘ry~r~<

,.
J""'-vso..,.‘_
a

s.‘

 

.
..
~ ‘\ 'V‘f;n
"“~"‘JIAA.‘a
0. _
.y...‘_‘c~ :'
:..q-"‘ .
v.5 ‘
’ H»-
, “c.
v .

.I
. . ‘

.1. Vhfic"
‘.~.“Vv‘
.

.

by
"‘ ’CY.
v “‘vu‘l'

98

gain from contact with the handicapped (PQ-HP 6), and

percentage of income derived from working with the dis-

abled (PQ—HP 7).

Personal Questionnaire: EDP

Contact with emotionally disturbed persons was deter—
mined with the help of this questionnaire which was specially
constructed for the present research. The items in this
questionnaire were comparable to the ones in the Personal
Questionnaire: HP described above. Thus the questions
provided information about the following: (a) whether or
not the respondents had had any contact with emotionally
disturbed persons (PQ—EDP l); (b) the kinds of experiences
the mothers had had with emotionally disturbed persons--
family, friends, working relationships, etc. (PQ-EDP 2);
and (c) approximate number of encounters these mothers had
had with emotionally disturbed persons (PQ-EDP 3). Other
important areas explored were: ease of avoidance of con-
tact with emotionally disturbed persons (PQ-EDP u), material
gain from such contacts (PQ—EDP 5), per cent of income de-
l"ived from contact while working with emotionally disturbed
persons (PQ—EDP 6), enjoyment of contact with emotionally dis-
turbed persons (PQ-EDP 7), and alternative opportunities
(PQ-EDP 8).

Collection of Data

 

Ideally, there should have been a "testing" session
in which the data could be collected in a single session.

But, the composition of subjects in both control group and

 

; it- ~

---;r. w;v ,4

3...... -u-.. .. ..
.

.
. . A».
"H 3" “..-\
..v<v-A-A.ou
' s 0-.
. . .w,
'\ n —r -
-..~..A..-..u!
“Iv A"’r~ -.
’- a
... 44... _,
f4!
_
-IOG
""" r - 1
.. .-
‘-v 51.4.. -
.
‘1-

. V‘"W— , -
“"v¢ A».

 

 

 

- .
-‘ " 3""F
“” "" v—
7- "rt-s:
‘ A ‘ f
v...-‘
‘ 'Ia.‘_
'—. .
‘ r»
...
‘ V/ a
.D .
"rp.
. u. a,
' '0‘-
v
D‘-
n
.,‘
.-
\-a 1’.r-
'v Lh'
.g, ‘
VQ
'-
-s
— .~'
- a
n v. “A\
‘~
.._
» _~_
'u_“ y.
o
o. r
’ -.
I.
.
-v...,
~._ .. ~
. '.-\ ‘
‘v
~
“.
~ -
'. F'~._
‘. ‘
‘Vl.'
._.._.
..
RV»-.. -,
I
- ’l'
‘5
‘ W
‘. “s:
‘4 -
-v
‘v
s
.-
“‘
‘.
x
v- -
- ~¥13 _
‘ r-
u
s
‘I;
‘

‘.
\i
a
v
«0
~.
0
\
J-
-
v
o
\
I
a-
‘l
.l
..

99

experimental groups was such that group administration of
the instruments was not possible. Consequently, a set of
procedures was developed for the administration of the
instruments in order to ensure uniformity in conditions
for data collection (see Appendix B-l).

The entire battery of scales and questionnaires
were put in a large (l2%"x9%") envelope. Besides the
instruments arranged in a certain order, enclosed within
each envelope were two mimeographed sheets: (a) an
explanation of the nature and purpose of the research,
and (b) a statement of the format of the administration
of the scales and questionnaires with precise instructions
for answering them in the prescribed order. The re-
searcher's appreciation for the cooperation of the sub-
Ject was also mentioned in the second sheet. The first
Sheet, therefore, served the purpose of a covering letter,
Whereas the second sheet contained the detailed instructions
for answering the questions. Since most mothers in the
Sample were housewives, the language and style of the in-
S’Cr'uctions were as simple and nontechnical as possible.

The subjects were required to answer the test
materials in the following order:
Definitions of Physical Handicap
Education Scale
Survey of Interpersonal Values
Personal Questionnaire (general)
Handicapped Persons Scale
Personal Questionnaire: HP
Definition of Emotional Disturbance

Emotionally Disturbed Persons Scale
Personal Questionnaire: EDP

\OCDNGUTKWMH

 

A

n

‘- A'-

v-vV-v
.

v.0!

,,..

 

 

.M. ff. \. n n
«\U p—v ‘4 .4 ;\K a

n. r... A: A: r“ 4.4 ;. :4 Zn ‘ . r .
.1 .2 .1 h F E I r. T . i T. i
L. 5. .. .4 .. H‘ .. . _ .._ :‘ 2. p; D .C
”.m w.“ H“ . . . . n... H... u u. ml “MN. ...-.. . e {1‘ n...
r . g a . a C.— .... u . . u .n v. . 2. . .~ ~ . “u .p.... ls ~-

 

100

For the two experimental groups in Tiffin, the
envelopes were stamped and self-addressed for the con-
venience of returning the materials by mail. The desigy
nated secretarial staff at the Sandusky Valley Guidance
Center and the Betty Jane Rehabilitation Center in Tiffin,
Ohio personally handed over the envelopes to the subjects
at the time they brought their children for treatment.

At that time, the mothers were also advised either to
return the materials by mail or bring the sealed envelopes
back during their next visit to the respective centers.

Several weeks after supplying the materials, follow-
up letters were mailed to all respondents in Tiffin area
reminding them of the importance of this study and once
again asking for their assistance and COOperation.

Several weeks after this, a reminder post card was sent
to all mothers with a view to prompting those who still
had not yet returned the materials. The second reminder
was, however, needed only in the case of mothers of
physically handicapped children who were few in number.

For the control group in Mount Pleasant, Michigan,
it was not considered necessary to provide stamps for
mailing purposes. The active interest of the Superin-
tendent and principals of the Mount Pleasant school system
had already assured of the availability of an adequate
number of subjects. Test materials were supplied to the
mothers by the principals; and they were asked to return

the sealed envelopes at the principal's office. No

:_ A
w
’4'-

 

r, ‘ A.
pow -‘J‘
PI’ O'n‘
is. (on:

Fan-’5
u‘uvv
.

w A
.u v:

P~ ‘
\Otan
.4

':_70-

v...’

V
n-

I"

(“w

an
n
‘1

 

‘

‘

d

 

s

lOl

follow—up or reminder post cards were sent to this group
of subjects.

The anonymity of the respondents as promised in the
instruction sheet was scrupulously maintained. There was
no identification mark on the evelOpes, nor was there any
on the test materials. The following procedure was
adopted to approach the non-respondents in the two ex-
perimental groups in Tiffin. A list of subjects was pre-
pared according to the sampling criteria before the test
materials were supplied to them. As expected, a number
of mothers had not returned the materials even after
waiting several weeks. Since there was no way of record—
ing the names of those who had returned the envelopes,
the follow-up letters and reminder post cards could not
be sent selectively to the non-respondents only. Conse-
quently, all subjects were reminded, of course, with an
apology to those who had already returned the question-
naires.

The number of subjects who were initially given the
test materials and the number returning them have already
been indicated in Table 1 along with other pertinent

data about sample size.

Statistical Procedures

 

Descriptive Statistics

 

The responses were, first, scored on a special

scoring sheet. They were, then, transferred to punched

,-

‘..n-,:
.Av‘

,-
vfi‘
uv,*

 

a-fi .-
V.-

'_J-.

‘10-
dd.

 

 

a.“
IV.

I.

P.- n. A
C.

.r- .3
r.. 2.
a . :u
5.. .4

 

102

cards. Punched cards were used for analyses purposes in
order that the data could be fed into the CDC 3600 computer,
available at Michigan State University.

Two frequency Column Count Programs (Clark, 1964)
designated as FCC I and FCC II, were used. These programs
were utilized in tabulating the frequency distributions
for every item. This proved to be a very useful step in
selecting variables for analysis and in gaining a "clinical

feel" of the data.

Inferential Statistics

 

The one—way analysis of variance was used for testing
hypotheses about the difference between group means. For
convenience of computer programming, the 3 statistic was
used for most testing of mean differences, even though
differences between two means are usually tested by the
3 statistic. Comparisons of E and 3 statistics have shown
that the results are the same (e.g., Edwards, 1965, p. 146).
If an E between group means was significant, inspection of
the size of the two means indicated as to which one was
the highest and consequently the main contributor to the
differences reflected in the E ratio.

However, a significant overall 3 simply leads to
non—rejection of the hypothesis being tested. In other
words, we do not know whether every mean is significantly
different from every other. Several methods have been

prOposed by statisticians for determining the nature of

 

._ a
.r; ~-.
..'v J...
V
-
rfi;"

--.¢.-v.b“

(D

n-
(n
.

D ‘
\'

In
(D
;;.
(

~“p~"

 

A.
.‘n:“
nyv.
as, s
‘ '7‘2"
~--,"
‘

a‘
1‘05
— {in
a...‘ i-‘.
n, :
[yu-
.p' :y-

‘A..‘_

~"

I
(I)

t

(n

.4

ha

103

the differences between treatment means. In this research,
Duncan's New Multiple Range Test (Edwards, 1965, p. l36ff),
as extended for unequal replications by Kramer (1956), was
used to investigate the extent to which a particular sub—
group mean contributes to the total variance represented
by the E test. The Duncan procedure enables the ordering
of the group means from high to low and then to examine

the "difference" between successive pairs-of—means to
ascertain which one(s) do in fact depart from chance at a
stated level of significance.

In the computer, the UNEQl routine (Ruble, Kiel, and
Rafter, l966b)was used to compute the one-way analysis of
variance statistics. The program was specially designed
to handle unequal frequencies occuring in the various catee
gories. The "print-out" from the computer with the UNEQl
routine also provided the frequencies, sums, means, stand—
ard deviations, sums of squares, and sums of squared de—
Viations of the mean for each category, in addition to the
analysis of variance tables. The approximate significance
probability of the E statistic was also included in the
"print-out.” This convenient figure enabled the researcher
to know at a glance whether or not the E was significant
without referring to statistical tables. For example,
if the number printed out was .01, this implied that for
a given E with the appropriate degrees of freedom, the

level of confidence would be .01. However, if only .00

 

r0-

4

Au-

 

 

uv-u

V
.-

v
54.-

 

 

. y.
L. A
I. . ‘ pg 7»
_. r.. ,p.
.na A ,ra .a.‘
a . .- ... ;.
.hv ‘. . . ~ ~
.1,

 

IOU

was printed out, the level of confidence was to be con-

 

sidered to be .005 or less.

The UNEQl routine also contains provision for
designating one or more dependent variables as missing
for an observation, but incorporating other dependent
variables listed on the Analysis of Variance table as
non-missing. The observation is then ignored for all
dependent variables with missing values, but used in
the analysis for all dependent variables with non-missing
values. The number of missing values in each category is
printed after the table giving statistics for the cate-

gories for each dependent variable.

Relational and Predictive Statistics

 

With the help of the CDC 3600 computer programs
(Ruble and Rafter, 1966; Ruble, Kiel, and Rafter, 1966a,
1966b) the researcher was able to procure the following
measures of association for the purposes of predictive and
relational analyses: (a) zero-order correlations, (b)
multiple correlations, and (c) partial correlations. The
programs provided a host of data including means and stand-
ard deviations for each variable, the matrix of simple
correlations between all variables, the multiple corre-
lations of selected variables on the criterion, the beta
weights of all predictor variables used in the analyses, a
test of significance for each beta weight, and the partial

correlations between each predictor and the cirterion.

:“fGVC-V’

"vhv ' vo,

5
La ‘

 

("l

.
“WM":
u

Jrv “"»

3..
(I,
’ h
' 1'
'2

( f

.. .~

h'a‘
V. 4""
w‘ '-
Na
§
,‘
u
. “h
V -r
sl
y.
C.
u
v.
-
§
\
*s‘n
v £-

a‘

\
U

105

However, the ones which were used in this study are briefly
described below.

The zero-order correlational analysis provided a
matrix of simple correlations between all variables for
the total sample (without considering the three groups
separately). In addition to this, a matrix of simple
correlations between all variables was obtained for each
of the three groups used in the study. Tests of signi—
ficance of the correlation coefficients from zero are the
usual ones, with tables entered for the appropriate de-
grees of freedom.

The multiple regression analysis that was done for
the data was consistent with the appropriate research
hypotheses. More specifically, the various analyses em—
ployed the total raw scores, as a criterion, from the
Emotionally Disturbed Persons Scale, Handicapped Persons
Scale, and the Progressive and Traditional Education
Scales. The multiple regression analysis was also done
uSing the scores from Change Orientation items.

The use of multiple regression analysis has been
1"ecommended by many researchers. Ward (1962) observed
‘thaizit "not only reduces the dangers inherent in piece-
mealresearch but also facilitates the investigation of
broad problems never before considered 'researchable'"
(p. 206).

Partial correlation was computed from the outputs

of tdie general multiple regression model used in the

I
- a-
n“ ‘7'
v-‘ d"

.

-.-~- ‘V

a .—

.‘..-.A

rzre 5v

U'IO"..

..-“.. ..

-

--. 1 ft

'

-nwprfi

new-avid If

(I)

‘V..\

r -¢_~

A.. V

i
“t‘.

A
a
i.

 

‘
'1:th
~. \ v.
‘v‘. .
es
. .
a'fi ‘.
‘M‘ 'P‘
l“
J
V.‘ J
“0; Vs
v Q."
’i‘
s“ Al.y
v“. t
.
g
9’ H
v“ 9..."
,F
‘v.
p
..
.
'-
‘.
,.
,—
-
C
s
M
f‘.
.—

I”

——-.__ _

~_—_'

106

CDC 3600 program. The greatest advantage of using partial
correlation is that a number of variables which are as-
sumed to have some relationship to a criterion, or de—
pendent variable can be examined simultaneously. It may
very well happen that when a series of Pearsonian product-
moment r's are computed between a criterion and a set of
variables considered to be predictors of the criterion,
spurious conclusions may be made because the predictor
variables are themselves interrelated, rather than pre—
dictive of the criterion. However, partial correlation
helps solve the problem by taking into account these re-
lationships among the predictor variables in computing
'the true correlation of each variable with the criterion.
In.other words, the effects of all variables except one

are taken into account.

Measurement of Attitude Intensity
The scales used in the study (the Handicapped
Persons Scale, the Emotionally Disturbed Persons Scale,
and the Education Scale) contained provisions for measur-
ing intensity of attitude content. The procedure adopted
in constructing and scoring intensity scales was based
on Suchman's (1950) formulations.
A simple approximation of the intensity function
has been successfully attained by asking a question
about intensity after each content question. One
form used for an intensity question is simply:
"How strongly do you feel about this?" with answer

categories of "Very strongly," "Fairly strongly,"
and PNot so strongly." Repeating such a question

a. . .
3.

J . v. C~ r. .r. u. . .C r: .r~ is .v. a: A e we 4.. r: u v. v. C.‘
a -.. a a r. W n. a. . . C 3 w” y” r“ n. t .3 C. C .L a. a .i 2
3 n. S n. n. C a. 3 p... ,1 .J .l T.
f“ L‘ or. pa“ 3‘. ”A 11¢ ”J L v \o s v u a» ‘4
-. . n. 3: L. . . . . S S . . .f. ,3 2.. a. 4 ‘ r.
.N ”a :5 L. 2. A . n. . .5 n. . 2. a . : a L. 5.4 h. 3:
4 ”a .r.. :- um r.. ”a Lu n» as .vl wd 1‘ L. I;
I.” H... a: . . n. i. J . an s v C. 3. ~ . Au. ta uu. «3

107

after such content question yields a series of

intensity answers. Using the same procedure

as . . . for content answers, these are scores

and each reSpondent is given an intensity score.

The intensity scores are then cross tabulated

with the content scores (Suchman, 1950, p. 219).
A minor change was, however, made in the intensity scales.
Four response categories were used instead of the three

suggested by Suchman.

Limitations of the Study

The Problem of Research Design

 

As explained earlier, the basic problem of the present
research was to determine whether "personal contact" with
emotionally disturbed and physically handicapped has any
influence on attitudes toward them. In our previous dis-
cussion on methodological issues, it was pointed out that
this problem is analogous to the one encountered in studies
evaluating the impact of college attendance on students'
attitudes and values (e.g., Lehmann, Sinha, and Hartnett,
1966, p. 90). In this connection, Barton (1959) raised
questions concerning "comparison groups" and "points-in-
time” in the measurement of the effect of college ex-
periences. There are four main types of research de-
sign, according to Barton (1959):

l. After-only comparison of exposed and unexposed
persons

2. Before-and—after comparison of exposed groups
only

3. Comparison of groups at different stages of
exposure

~
-
at
o 0
‘fi: .
.ooUJ a

he»
~"fiwr‘ r~
UU‘QUA.
.p& .5,—
b- \ ’-
v5.1 ‘4‘.

s .

'Iov .“

D‘,

'un..‘

i
uv“‘ r
‘

CV1
‘
._.’_
ail-*1:
b. » hy-
V“
A
Q’s

‘1'4. ‘

U " K

“‘I “c.
. ~

‘

. J .

 

108
u. Before-and-after comparison of exposed and
unexposed groups

The present research has a design similar to the
first type in that it compares_only the exposed and un-
exposed persons. In the context of our problem, the re—
search design which makes comparisons of groups at differ—
ent stages of exposure appears to be the best one. Thus
the mothers applying for help for their patient-children
may be compared with those mothers using the services of
the clinic and/or rehabilitation center for varying
lengths of time. It is to be noted here that this type
of research is possible only when the clinic or the
physical rehabilitation center has a large population of
clients, and when longitudinal research is planned.

Perhaps, even a cross-sectional research like ours
could have been improved by including two additional groups
of mothers from those who were on the waiting list of the
clinic and the rehabilitation center. It was discovered,
however, that very few physically handicapped patients
were on the waiting list at the Betty Jane Rehabilitation
Center, although there were many emotionally disturbed
children on the waiting list at the Sandusky Valley
Guidance Center. Moreover, it was feared that the
mothers who were not in active therapy would not cooperate

in answering the questionnaires.

‘W"
O. UI‘I

q

 

 

. a .3 e .3 a . . r 3 33 c a. a: Q. h.
:. a. a. n- S n . 1 . .p.. m. .3 S 2: C.

v” ”A v” u . r: J . a. s v ; q . .

. v .v 2. S. . . v. . . . u .3 .. a a. c. Q.

n. n. .. .a .3 L. .. :. a. v‘. A. .r.. Lu .»..

a. . a... .3 P... n. e . r.. . ..u v. . ...n c . t . ~ .

 

109

The Problem of Sample Selection

Another limitation of the study that may be pointed
out is the selection of control sample which was derived
from a different geographical location. Apparently, it
would have been better if the control sample were drawn
from the city of Tiffin to which the two experimental
groups belonged. But due to some unavoidable circum-
stances, this could not be accomplished. However, ade-
quate precautions were taken to match the samples on
relevant variables and important demographic charac-
teristics.

The method of sampling, as explained previously, was
not "random." After controlling extraneous variables
(i.e., the variables not of direct interest in the in-
vestigation, but which might have affected the results)
in the two experimental groups, the research population
Was reduced to such a size that any kind of randomization
'WOuid have further violated the assumptions pertaining to

tflde sample size. This might place some limitations on

tflie generality of results.

Tflie Problem of Test Administration

 

Group administration of questionnaires is generally
<20nsidered the ideal testing condition. In this research,
it was extremely difficult to collect the subjects at a
time even in small groups of ten or so. Hence, it was
up to the subjects to complete the questionnaires in one

0? Several sittings on their own time.

V!

'.v |-.

|
7‘,

h

 

"lv'lrl'abnns
1

00.4-..-“ .1 .

‘\

. ,
','-r I'qzyc.‘
Odinh.-"'v‘
0

.
‘: fiflrqey‘rc
.6 Vino. .‘uy-

U afiafiarfi A.

Act... _uv .

 

U‘l
o
\ :V'an~
“vigi “r“.v‘
.

:"“‘vv ,; J
cub...“ ‘r.

a
‘1». N “no '
I“-‘ 99:9 y c
‘ ‘ u .
' ‘6va . ,. ,
nu I... U.‘:.‘
“r: .- ‘

Y
_.“-:'~.IE’:
p.

:.s“ r ,‘
‘~4y aw" h:
w...“ ‘ ~
\I

.~-
. Q
‘9: 5‘
NH. _v~,.—~
‘1‘..-
v i...
l-JI
h e . .
.'§‘rcs" p-_‘
I‘,‘
MI
E
‘. ~~
w
\w ”‘nu
' “to 5%:
‘~
.
‘.\ "n“
‘t “h: p-
' ;-
Q‘ \
h‘
‘1
5|
q
‘H.‘ A~.'
~
h .I‘.. A
‘n
1‘
A. ‘
" \A..A~
N-ei
.l
.I'A. ‘ . ‘
~
v p,
“‘ “a":
I
v
p
L: n
3‘, ""1
Ka‘
v
3
s
.
‘
u a
"- \ H
‘w .5. .
‘4
- I
\‘.u ‘
n .. -A
' ~
“‘_ Lt,
V i
V
5' ‘
L 7“,
“.. .
“4.. r?
'A

llO

Viewing the problem from another angle, group
administration of tests in a single session might have
complicated the situation insofar as the present research
is concerned. It may be recalled that there were seven
different questionnaires which required a period of three
hours approximately to complete them. The length of time
involved in filling out the questionnaires, therefore,
could have affected the subject's motivation resulting
in unreliable attitude scores, if the tests were ad-

ministered in a single session.

The Problem of Statistical Analysis

It was planned earlier to perform scale and inten-
sity analyses of the data with the help of CDC 3600
Computer at Michigan State University. The specific
Computer program currently available was known as Multiple
SCalogram Analysis (MSA), developed by Lingoes (1963) and
refined by Hafterson (196A). The "CUT" computer program
by Hafterson (1965) determined each possible cutting point
€18 well as the number of errors involved in each cut.
'This method was found to be much more economical, in that
it saved numerous hours of work and avoided errors which
‘would have resulted from longer and more tedious methods
(e.g., Suchman, 1950; Waisanen, 1960). The dichotomized
items resulting from the "CUT" procedure were then to be
scaled by the Multiple Scalogram Analysis program. Thus

the MSA program would have selected the items forming

‘1‘

‘9o‘

5h
1 I

lll

Guttman-type scales from the attitude instruments used
in the study.

Recently two doctoral dissertations (Felty, I965;
Friesen, 1966) which have used these instruments failed
to obtain sufficient items which could be considered to
form scales in the Guttman sense. It may be pointed out
that the underlying assumption in the Lingoes procedure
is that attitudes are unidimensional. But it is more
reasonable to assume that attitudes are multidimensional,
and as such scale and intensity analyses would be more
meaningful if the multidimensional nature of attitudes
are revealed by some special technique. Lingoes (1966)
has revised the original procedures to make provisions
for both unidimensional and multidimensional analyses.
These new computer programs were, however, not available
at the time the analyses were desired. Hence, the atti-
tude scales in the present research could not be sub—
mitted for scale and intensity analyses.

Insofar as the reliability and validity of the
measuring instruments are concerned, most research using
these scales have reported adequate reliability and
validity (see Description of Instruments). The research
data reported by Felty (1965) and Friesen (1966) pertain-
ing to these attitude scales further substantiate their
reliability and validity. Nonetheless, a further check
on the reliability and validity of the instruments would

have been highly desirable.

 

 

 

‘V;“*';rp‘~.

..v¢dvnovf
V i -
"~o..

. fig
..u..¢“' ~
“—

g
\»|;
No

 

‘---J

.‘rc ‘r‘crfl4

In» “‘VVg5:‘
O‘. Q:
n ‘
‘ W a ,.
‘0- “l \ Vn
J -~.u_
.. n ,
.l‘.‘~c
. f.
.”""uu 2v
‘
no _
u-o .
“:—C.
,
h
\

 

.-
"V.
V. ‘
a:
t..-
‘1'“1 .
i “a.
‘Q. _ v:-
Q."‘
. .
’HJ
,-
‘ .
IMI‘ 2-“?
U
..
a). ‘
\,

'3‘.
.‘v
-.
.—
,
y.
s
’1'- e

112

Research Hypotheses, Rationale,
and Instrumentation

 

Hypotheses Related to Contact
Frequency, Intensity, and
Attitude Scores

 

 

 

H:l: Contact-Intensity Interactions

 

Hzlal: The more frequent the contact with emotion-

ally disturbed persons, the higher will be the scores on

 

the intensity statements of the attitude—toward-emotion-
ally-disturbed—persons (EDP) scale, regardless of whether
attitude content is favorable or unfavorable.

H:1a2: Mothers of emotionally disturbed children
will have greater intensity of attitude toward emotionally

 

disturbed persons than will the mothers of physically
handicapped or non-handicapped (i.e., normal) children.
Hzla : The more frequent the contact with physically

3
handicapped persons, the higher will be the scores on the

 

intensity statements of the handicapped persons (HP) scale,
I‘egardless of whether attitude content is favorable or
unfavorable.

Hzlau: Mothers of physically handicapped children

 

Will have greater intensity of attitude toward physically
handicapped persons than will the mothers of emotionally

disturbed or non-handicapped (i.e., normal) children.

Hypotheses Derivation (H:1a

‘

l - H113“)

From considerations of Guttman and Foa (1951), Foa

(1950), and Rosenberg (1960), to the effect that contact

’m‘":" "
,..q.‘vu J -
‘

 

{331.655 O:

.
rgennwgr #- f‘
ouyvo ‘A-tvsl U a

“—
Ar‘ ‘ *
Vs. b '3
P".r&“ P.”

uau~-L v.

 

(I)
(I!
(D

o' 9
r‘g.,_"‘ .Ir':
"" V‘K..

v

‘cgu

:55’L_":A n,-
"'-v.‘u: U.

(D

'1)
«D
(I)
:r
i
1

:27!
VA.‘

-,

rs‘
""\'v:‘h~
.

‘

 

113

frequency is directly related to attitude intensity, re—

gardless of content directions (see Chapter 2).

Instrumentation (Hzla - H:1au)

l

 

Contact frequency was measured by direct questions,

 

number A of the Personal Questionnaire: HP (Appendix
A-6), and number 3 of the Personal Questionnaire: EDP

(see Appendix A-7). The intensity scores were obtained

 

through independent intensity questions following each

attitude content statement on both the Handicapped Per-
sons Scale and the Emotionally Disturbed Persons Scale

(see Appendix A).

H:1bl: The more frequent the contact with education,

 

the higher will be the scores on the intensity statements
of the Education Scale, regardless of whether attitude is
traditional or progressive.

H:1b2: Mothers of emotionally disturbed and physi-

 

cally handicapped children will have greater intensity of
attitude toward education (traditional and progressive)
than will the mothers of non-handicapped (i.e., normal)

children.

Hypotheses Derivation (Hzlb

1 - H:1b2)

Same as H:1a above.

Instrumentation (Htlb - H:1b2)

l
Contact frequency was measured by direct questions,

number A of the Personal Questionnaire: General (Appendix

“I“ "nrrpn

155' no snow.

 

 

   

l
.r~ A“Fh“.‘ ‘
.ulq ,1th.

" a.

v4.

 

“‘A by ’ ‘
'A
' a, ‘fl: ,3:
h ""-~¢.....
‘- A
~0/:
00".“‘
/
_
\
1~. .
"' ”F" w.
u _ c.
‘0. a“..- .l“
'“Pc‘

~11 Fr:
3 a...“

11A

A-S). The education intensity scores were obtained in

 

the manner described in Hzla (see Appendix A-3).
H:2: Contact-Frequency Interations

H:2al: High frequency of contact with emotionally

 

disturbed persons will lead to favorable attitudes if

high frequency is concurrent with (a) alternative reward-

 

ing opportunities, (b) enjoyment of contact, and (c) ease

of avoidance of contact.

 

H:2a2: Mothers of emotionally disturbed children

will have more positive attitudes toward emotionally dis-

 

turbed persons than will the mothers of physically handi-
capped or non-handicapped (i.e., normal) children.

H:2a3: High frequency of contact with physically

 

handicapped persons will lead to favorable attitudes if

high frequency is concurrent with (a) alternative reward-

 

ing opportunities, (b) enjoyment of contact, and (c) ease

 

of avoidance of contact.

 

H:2a“: Mothers of physically handicapped children

 

will have more positive attitudes toward physically handi-
capped persons than will the mothers of emotionally dis-

turbed or non—handicapped (i.e., normal) children.

Hypotheses Derivation (H:2a — H:2a“)

1
From considerations of Homan's (195A), Zetterberg's

(1963), and various studies reviewed in Chapter 2.

 

'r "nu-“gr?
.ou‘iv. min-v.0 v

,
C.

 

 

:5 a. (‘h'
a F- .

'1 an! \-j‘,
_

u
-.1‘~“

:‘v‘d" (see

 

'0‘ 1. .
“- "V‘- H

U‘““‘:0 ¢J ,

m,
In 'c "c5 Ao‘“
a... was...

(I)
L);
(n

A

(“a-5

‘i-Z‘ J Afr-'-
“'nv.‘.,:

‘re ~
- u-
an." “a, n.
h
a
~:F:A‘V‘P‘ I

“'MC. .
~=’~g !

_\ I
”wuss
'V
. p“ .

v Iv,

u nudge-:1
9, A
In I
IA. :-
\-
-
G‘s]
c‘- sfi
vv 0
i
n.

0
~11 Q? A
v 'v
t.’
N“.
A3
v “.A'
.Vt. p,-
v
I.
he.
‘-k"‘
~ !‘ I
‘-.'-’\"-
.,~ .
‘~
A
‘ r»
.—
~ ...5

115

Instrumentation (H:2al - H:2a“)

‘v—

 

Attitudes toward disabled persons were measured by
a 20 statement attitude instrument developed by Yuker,
§£_§l. (l960) and modified for the purposes of the present
study (see Handicapped Persons Scale, Appendix A-l).
Similarly, attitudes toward emotionally disturbed persons
were measured by the Emotionally Disturbed Persons Scale
developed specifically for the study after Yuker's Scale
(Appendix A—2). Contact with physically handicapped per-
sons were measured by direct questions in the Personal
Questionnaire: HP, while contact with emotionally dis-
turbed persons were measured by direct questions in the
Personal Questionnaire: EDP. Specifically, the Personal
Questionnaire: HP provided information about frequency
by question number A, alternatives by number 9, ggjgy-
flggg by number 8, and avoidance by number 5. On the

Personal Questionnaire: EDP, frequency was measured by

 

question number 3, alternatives by number 8, enqument

 

by number 7, and avoidance by number A.

 

H:2b: High frequency of contact with education will
lead to favorable attitudes if high frequency is con-

current with (a) alternative rewarding opportunities,

 

(b) enjoyment of contact, and (c) ease of avoidance

0f contact.

EXPOthesis Derivation (H:2b)

Same as H:2a above.

Lr -
.’:.”‘m"

1 ..
mu. -o ML.uaA «C

 

 

Ebb-«'0'
fivv-.,

l C
' ‘ an

' F
Wflhcaikva’. u,

"*‘cwcwfi :-
;~:vv.u'inv ‘
I..-,\ 17"
.
v a. ‘
.111). UV.
a, g";

 

«HA-clap 'l‘
O\

“"‘-U¢¢ ..‘.
o

/
.Fn ‘W‘p a“ r
5" .A‘...v'. «

vi,
D'c63A . . "
u-ulv.v..1-"
.. fl‘
"" 4r- .
3.. H .
.4
\
“Mum
by“

.H
- A
"" a .
a
“"U‘l v- ‘r
‘I
PLA.
....1..,
Il\": :hc ’
\fl“ a
.,
'9 -..«
" a CV... .
C... A
‘

116

Instrumentation (H:2b)

 

Attitudes toward education were measured by the
Education Scale. This scale is a modification of a 20
statement attitude instrument developed by Kerlinger
(1959). Contact variables were measured by direct questions

in the Personnel Questionnaire (general): frequency by

 

question number N, alternatives by number 7, and enjoyment

 

 

by number 6.

Hypotheses Related to Attitude-
Value Interactions

 

high: Mothers who score high in need for power and
control over others will tend to score £33 in acceptance of
emotionally disturbed and physically handicapped persons.

ELQE‘ Mothers who score high in need for power~and
control over others will tend to score igfl_in progressive
attitudes toward education and h;gh_in traditional atti-

tudes toward education.

Hypotheses Derivation (H:3a - Ht3b)

From considerations of Wright (1960) in respect to
asset versus comparative valuations of others (see Chapter
2), and of Rosenberg (1956) to the effect that the more
the belief content of an attitude is instrumental to
value maintenance, the more favorable will be the evalu-
ation of the object of attitude. Persons with high power
needs are applying a comparative yardstick in evaluations

Of others and should be expected to devaluate persons with

pkg

duo.

~4..n\
-

Pd":

O’A‘ .

v...“ 'v

a. pan
.aa ”I.
.. A A v
s 4 u a

.NI‘
5:

V- a
..
-~-.3'

“

117

disabilities as well as progressive attitudes toward
education since the latter usually implies changes in

the status quo. Some empirical evidences of these hy-

 

potheses appear in findings of Felty (1965), Friesen

(1966), Whiteman and Lukoff (1962).

Instrumentation (H:3a — H:3b)

 

Need for power and control were measured by the Leader-
ship (L) scale of the Gordon Survey of Interpersonal Values
(Appendix A-U); attitudes toward emotionally disturbed per-
sons and attitudes toward handicapped persons, as in high;
and attitudes toward education, as in high.

gigg; Mothers who score high in need for recognition
and achievement will tend to score i9! in acceptance of
emotionally disturbed and physically handicapped persons.

3:39: Mothers who score high in need for recognition
and achievement will tend to score $2! in progressive atti-
tudes toward education and high in traditional attitudes
toward education.

gigg: Mothers of emotionally disturbed and physically
handicapped children will score low on the values of
Leadership and Recognition than will the mothers of non—

handicapped (i.e., normal) children.

EXEchesis Derivation (qua - quc)

As in H:3.

 

all
3‘35

R

.

”b!
P- c
‘n’AV'A‘.
h
.'.HV"““X
A.
Mme" “‘5-
Ids-JV‘V*‘-J
"PM“
vt‘avingno
afitlhn
‘VV-V'H

I

.ui:v. dul'uu

7".““W

«\u
.flu‘.

Curt
....,aj’
‘\

A“:

118

Instrumentation (qua - H:uc)

 

Need for recognition and achievement, and leadership
were measured by the Recognition (R), and Leadership (L)
scales of the Gordon Survey of Interpersonal Values
(Appendix A-A); attitudes toward emotionally disturbed and
physically handicapped persons as in high; and attitudes
toward education as in high.

high: Mothers who score high in need to help others,
to be generous, will tend to score high in acceptance of
emotionally disturbed and physically handicapped persons.

high: Mothers who score high in need to help others,
to be generous, will tend to score high in progressive
attitudes toward education and $2! in traditional attitudes
toward education.

high: Mothers of emotionally disturbed and physically
handicapped children will score high on the value of
Benevolence than will the mothers of non—handicapped (i.e.,

normal) children.

Eypotheses Derivation (H:5a - H:5c)
As in qu, but stated in terms of an asset-value

Orientation rather than a comparative—value orientation.

lgetrumentation (H:5a - H:5c)
Need to be helpful and generous was measured by the
Benevolence (B) scale of the Gordon Survey of Inter-

personal Values (Appendix A—A); attitudes toward emotionally

11:...”L-c;

.Uvdo Uv-I

pH 9551‘

Saw 3v d-v
" K
—' .
.‘ICI

 

. . .
rev-'1‘ 4-
untoigv-

R

\“Flanb 4-

"IVUV. v .
no

P’“wn‘y

:- :
‘Iiflht‘-’ ‘

I. H

to.

. ~ I
to

A’q- a:
than..-"

T“

til
I

a

'“~!5~,' ‘

"um...”
I

‘

"hwn

"V. ”“1- I

n
-o.‘ A ‘ ‘p

A, In.

My

119

disturbed and physically handicapped persons as in high;
and attitudes towards education as in high.

gig: Mothers of emotionally disturbed and physically
handicapped children will score high on the value of
Support than will the mothers of non-handicapped (i.e.,
normal) children.

hi1: Mothers of emotionally disturbed and physically
handicapped children will score i9! on the value of Con-
formity than will the mothers of non-handicapped (i.e.,

normal) children.

Hypotheses Derivation (H:6 - H:7)

The value of Support has been defined by Gordon (1960)
as: "Being treated with understanding, receiving encour-
agement from other people, being treated with kindness and
consideration" (p. 3). Therefore, itis expected that
those who are personally involved with emotionally dis-
turbed and disabled persons would express greater need
for support from others.

As defined by Gordon (1960), the Conformity value
refers to: "Doing what is socially correct, following
regulations closely, doing what is accepted and proper,
being a conformist" (p. 3). Generally speaking, this
behavior is typical of normal people; and as such they

would score high on the value of conformity.

-51

o

'-

-_.~

vb.—

 

 

u

“in
V¢.~‘
-

tr
'Ql

 

120

Instrumentation (H:6 - H:7)

 

The values of Support and Conformity were measured
by S and C scales of the Gordon Survey of Interpersonal
Values (Appendix A-U).

Hypotheses Related to Change
Orientation and Attitude Scores

 

 

high: Mothers who score high on change orientation
will also score high on positive attitudes toward emotion—
ally disturbed and physically handicapped persons.

high: Mothers who score high on change orientation
will also score high on progressive attitudes toward edu-
cation and l2fl.°n traditional attitudes toward education.

hi2: Mothers of emotionally, disturbed and physically
handicapped children will have higher mean scores than
will mothers of non-handicapped (i.e., normal) children on
the following change orientation measures: (a) health
practices, (b) child rearing practices, (0) birth control

practices, (d) automation, and (e) self change.

Hypotheses Derivation (H:8a-b, H:9)

 

As in H:3 and extended to connote that high scores
on change orientation represent departure from the

status quo and high relationship to new ideas (i.e.,

 

progressivism) and care for the disturbed and handi-

capped (i.e., concern for individual differences).

  
 

'rc‘wmon‘

“adv. ‘Au'bl‘v
fi'ra'h‘

M. “L

w

-Tin the

\)
‘
‘)A
U)
(D
k)
’9
()

 

..
~"VAG'

. F
"'uvy QQOC
“‘H

‘.

d ‘C‘V‘Qrfl
...... “”4,
a: ‘
" v. ' ‘
,\ P
Uhyd‘r'e:
A? ._.A"::

.q _
u..,.‘-

-
VI.

(93‘ ‘

"a-.ren

‘nn-" .

 

 

121

Instrumentation (H:8a-b, H:9)

Change orientation was measured by questions 39-A3,
A7 in the Personal Questionnaire: general (Appendix A-S).
These questions deal with change in health practices, child~
rearing, birth control, automation, political leadership,
and self change. Attitudes toward the disturbed and handi-
capped were measured as in high, and toward education as
in high.
Hypotheses Related to General
Differences Between Mothers of
Disturbed, Handicapped,_and
Non-Handicapped Children

hiiggz Mothers of non-handicapped (i.e., normal)
children will tend to have hhhg_favorable attitudes toward

physically handicapped than toward emotionally disturbed

persons.

H:10b: lMothers of non—handicapped (i.e., normal)

 

children will have less favorable attitudes toward physically
handicapped persons than will the mothers of physically

handicapped children.

Hypptheses Derivation (H:10a—b)
The common stereotype about mental illness in the general
population, and the role of personal contact with the handi-

capped.

Instrumentation (H:10a—b)
Attitudes toward emotionally disturbed and physically

handicapped persons were measured as in H:2a.

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
This chapter is organized into two main sections:

Section 1: descriptive data on designated charac-
teristics of the sample;

 

Section 2: the testing of the hypotheses presented
at the end of Chapter III. This includes comparisons of
mean differences of various scores of the subjects be-
longing to the three treatment groups and when they are
considered as one sample regardless of treatment. Partial
and multiple correlations have also been presented for
selected variables of the study.

 

Section 1: Descriptive Data

 

The descriptive characteristics of the research
samples are presented in this section. Analyses of the
data are based on the FCC I and FCC II programs (see p.
102% and the CDC 3600 MDSTAT program which provides a
number of statistics (see p.1CU) useful for simple demo-
graphic description.

Table 3 presents the sample size of the control
group and the two experimental groups. It is apparent
that the number of respondents in the group consisting
of mothers of physically handicapped children is not
fully sufficient when compared to the other two groups.

However, this may not be construed as an overly limiting

122

Q I
n ‘V‘ A,
.--no-V-
...x.. ¢

VA‘ "2'
“a a nu...

0-,.9 f

(at. d

AWFFGV
Illuu . .

h V

‘\“h J

51" ‘
U

'4'"; s
‘-a , n
‘4

123

factor in the interpretation of the results since most
clinical research is based on very small number of cases
owing to the restricted nature of the population. In
comparison to emotionally disturbed persons, there are
not many persons suffering from physical disability in

the total population.

TABLE 3.--Distribution of subjects according to "treat-

 

 

 

ments.”l
Experi- Experi-
2 mental mental Control
Group I II (Non-HP) Total
(EDP) (HP)
Number of
Subjects 60 A8 69 177
1

The term "treatments" refers to the three groups
of mothers used in the study.

2Experimental Group I (EDP = Mothers of emotionally
disturbed children.

Experimental Group II (HP) = Mothers of physically
handicapped children.

Control (Non-HP) = Mothers of non-handicapped
(i.e., normal) children.

The occupational composition of the total sample,
diVided into three respondent groups, is presented in Table
A. Inspection of the table reveals that most mothers were
housewives. Although there was no stipulation in the re-

search design to control the subjects' occupations, it

 

 

.u-

.

.x..

.57..

.un.....~_:l...

~11~ :.;32.:o

~...:.._ .~...:.,J..:\n

?

Svapr.

.cmLUHHzo AHMELo: ..o.HV omaamoHocmclco: mo
mnmhuoa u dzlcoz “cochHco sodomoHocmc zHHmOHmmna do mpyguoz n ma ”HTHUHHSo nmopsumHo AHHmcoHpoEm no whocpoz u mom

 

124

 

 

. m
.mcoHumdzooo co coHnaHLommv apneano Lou Hznm vacmaa< .ml: .qu xoom mooo momH
:H.~m m: mm.ww mm r:.o: >H 0:.mo mm Hmm>Hzmwsozv xhoz 02 5w
me.o H o o Tm.m H o o .umzucHumazucoz aw
oo.a : o o :H.e m mm.H H mHnmcsoucoz-maz mm
ca.m o o o cm.HH a ma.H H mHnmnsolwuz mm
ms.o H o o o c ma.H H .mczucoz Hm
mm; a $6 2 2 .m H £5 m 333$ .03: C.
no.0 H o o c : mm.H H mo>Hpmtmqo Ho
mo.o H o o rm.m H o o moHcmcooz mm
mo.c H o o mm.m H o o coEmLom Ho
mm.H m o o ;\.3 x mm.H H coEmummpo ow
em.H m so.H H o o mo.H H .opm .wpmHHm: mm
mm.H m Ho.H H cg.: m o o cmammxaocm mm
m9: e SH H H.m.m H 85 m mhmxhoz $me Hm
mo.mH om mm.mm 2H cH.H m ss.m m HmoHHmHo om
56 H o o “m x. H o o m$5.6 5.3m 3
om.H m o o im.m H mm.H H monope HHmbom m:
mo.c H o o n : mm.H H whoxpoz HmHoom mm
56 H o o 2. .m H o o mcmcohmmmom mm
mo.c H o o Hm.m H o o .ooZIzomelcoz wm
om.H m o o pm.m H mm.H H .somBI.Umz om
mc.o H em.H H o o o o mhmcomme HempcmEon OH
omemmmmwm mocmscmcm mmmwmmwmwm mocosvcbm owwwmmwmmm mosescohm mmwwmwwmmm accsvmpm coHuthome mooo
Hmpoe m:|:oz mm mzm
quopu HCOHumasooo

i. ‘l .2 I .II‘ 1.

 

 

.mdsohm Hconcoouoe an deEmm Hwoou on» go :oHuHmoqeoo HmCOHBMonoouu.a mHm<E

In":

I.vna:5d t

"“OQnan;

tuna-a v-oVu

 

‘ I F
"I! D .4
' A 5.9."- -6

—i.___.
”In
"fl
.0.

l
fl:""V‘ 1‘
'OiQVAA, -'

"v

125

appears that interpretation of results would not be
vitiated by this factor.

Differences in Education, Income,
and Age Between Respondent Groups

The data for three demographic variables of edu-
cation, income, and age have been presented in Tables
5-7. The frequencies and percentages indicate that a
great deal of similarity exists among three groups of
subjects insofar as these selected demographic variables
are concerned. However, a test of significance seems to
be in order to ensure that the samples do not differ in
respect to these important variables. Mean differences,
standard deviations, and 3 statistics are presented in
Table 8. The analyses of variance of the data do not
reveal significant differences between three groups of
mothers in any of the three demographic variables, namely,
education, income, and age.

Using Table 8 as reference, it can be seen that the
mean coded score for the total sample of u.227 indicates
‘that the "average" mother selected in the study has com-
Illeted secondary education and may have spent some time
ir: a university, or in some other educational institution
beyond high school (e.g., a business school). It-is also
jJlteresting to note that the variability of educational
athainment in the total sample is fairly small as indi-

ciated by small standard deviations.

Ill)

(Ilfllrillli’l‘ II..- I v.‘

. —.~us-:qn r c. .u w...

._H_:.:_.
H

—-.--.J-u .uj...~J—H.-

.H 1,. 1.

>1; 4%

;h.—

1.2.... ..

HHH

H..H~:.~.~...-

:71. —‘.:.J..u_.......~

A»: ..

(Nae

-ava~ N-N w...&E..v

rv

u~sN ad (VF

 

126

.cmLUHHLo HHmEHoc ..o.HV voodooHocmzlco: Ho whosooz u mzlcoz
.cmpUHHco nodomoHocmc zHHMonmna Ho mpocuo: u a:

.choHHLo oanSHmHo hHHmcoHuoEo Ho whmcuoz u mom

 

 

 

H
00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 Locuo m
00.0 H co.o o 00.0 o mm.H H mmtwmo smocm>o< 0
00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 hogan oohwoonpmom a

mm.m 0H 03.: m HH.HH m Ho.m m omnmoc HHHm
ILm>Hcs Lo monHoo o

0H.mH mm am.0m 0H 0a.eH m Hm.oH 0 HHHmcm>Hcs
ho oonHOO mEom m

50.30 mcH 0H.em a: HH.Hm mm mg.mp o: nmumHasoo
mpmom HH 0» 0H thm :

mm.m :H m:.H H 00.0m 0 Fm.~ : ompmHQEoo
mpmmm m on 5 Song m

cm.H m 00.0 o 00.0 o :0.m m umpmHQEOO
munch m o» : Eonm m

00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 omumHano
munch : can» mmmH H

ammocmohom mocmzoopm mwm»coohom mucosvohm swapcmopmm mocmsomhm owmpcmohmm mucosoopm COHQmosom

nmpmsqn< ompmsmu< cocmswoa nopwsnu< co unsoe< muoo
Hmuoe mzacoz m: mam
azopo

H

 

.pcoechupm HmcoHpmosoo Hmsoow Ho mspou CH mosopw pcoocoammh 0:» mo comHquEoonu.m mHm<B

ICIII ..| I.¢’|'l‘|u. |il||n5lil v‘l‘

, H x». H...... ....1. .._::,Z_— .n x . . __ _ f. _ . 7... Hr‘ ...u_.H~HIK—nc.. t.~.~ Lav -....u.~e...§t:...vll .C n\.:~F\L.

127

 

 

 

.chcHHrs HHmEHou ..c.r. viaamUHo:mcncoc an muogpoz u luncoz
.xmLUHuco venomochm; hHHMOHwhcd go meagre» n m:
.coLnHHco conezuch hHchoHuoev uo whocarr u LamH
..n H ec.o c HH.m H H:.o o «mm.on»
0H coo..m« scum Hm
H .a H oo.o o co.c H mm.H H mmm.mm»
op soo.m~» scum om
H~.o H oH.H H oo.c a ca.: o mmm.mm»
o» ooo.mw» scum Hm
Hm.H a mm.m m oo.o c so.o o mam.om»
o» ooo.o » scum Hm
Hc.c H oo.o o oo.o H HH.H H aam.wH»
oH ooo.mH» seem mH
Ho.o H mH.H H oo.c a oo.o o amm.HH»
o» ooo.HH« scum 0H
Ho.o H oH.H H oo.o c oo.o a mam.mHo
oH ooo.mH» scum 0H
Hn.H m mH.H H om.m H oo.o o mam.MH»
0» coo.MH» scum HH
HH.H H Hm.m H oo.m m Ho.H H mma.mH»
oH ooo.mH» sous MH
CH.m a Hm.m H oo.m m mm.m m amm.OH»
op ooo.OH« scum HH
mm.m MH mH.cH H om.H m 00.0 m amm.m»
op ooo.o» scum oH
HH.cH 0H Hm.HH m oo.cH H HH.H H mma.m»
o» ooo.m» sot: mo
mm.mH Hm mH.0H HH on.» m MH.MH H mma.H»
o» coo.H» scum mo
HH.HH Hm HH.mH o oc.;m H Hm.Hm HH mam.o»
o» ooo.o» eoum Ho
“H.HH on mm.HH OH om.HH H mw.mm NH mmm.m»
op ooo.m» scam co
HH.cH 0H Ho.HH H om.H m OH.H m amm.H»
o» ooo.H» scum no
HH.H m aH.H H om.s H om.H H mam.m»
o» ooo.m» scum Ho
om.H m oo.o o oo.m m HH.H H mmm.~»
op ooo.~» scum mo
Hm.H m oo.o o om.~ H oo.H H mam.H«
o» coo.H» scum mo
00.0 o 00.0 o 00.0 o co.o o ooo.H» can» smog Ho
ommucoonom zucozoohm omwpcoonmd accoscohm owwpcmonmm Hoqozvoum emancooemm mocmzooum escocH oooo
neumsHHH umHn=Ho< uwumawn< neumch<
HaHoH a:-coz H: Ham
«ozone
r

 

. (a. .l .

.HHHHewuaoHomv escocH mHHm.

a

5
t

o

\
.0

' |.|
3.1.“

 

 

Humgnmh 7H magnum ncoocoanoa «ca 90 camHkaQBOOII.w m4m<9

 

..

...~.~H...v.~

a.

HHHHHZHLLH

ill

,HHH..~.-HH,—:.v.~

cJIInl

a: _

.Nau

HHHHHH—

.H ....?:....l| . \

..H.:~H\.H.

.coHoHHzo HHmEHo: “.m.HV oonMoanmcnco: no mhmccoz u mzncoz
.coHoHHno onQmoHocmn zHHMonHLQ Ho mhmcpoz u m2
.cmLUHHSo noHLSHmHU mHHmcoHHoEo Ho mpocuoz n mom

 

128

 

 

H
H0.0 H 00.0 0 mm.m H 00.0 0 Ho Ho
Hw.c H 0H.H H 00.0 0 00.0 0 0m om
Hw.0 H 0H.H H 00.0 0 00.0 0 0H 0H
H0.0 H 0H.H H 00.0 0 00.0 0 0H 0H
Hm.H m 0H.H H 00.0 0 mm.H H NH NH
Hm.H H mm.m m mo.H m mH.m m 0H 0H
Ho.m 0 Hm.m H mm.m H mm.H H mH mH
m0.m m 0H.H m 00.0 0 00.0 0 HH HH
mH.m H oo.m m mo.H m 00.0 0 MH mH
Hm.H H H0.m H mm.m H Ho.m m mH mH
NH.m H 00.0 0 mm.m H mH.m m HH HH
m0.m m Hm.m H mm.m H 00.0 0 0H 0H
Hm.H H 00.m m mH.H m 0H.m m mm mm
mm.H m 00.0 0 m0.H m mw.H H mm mm
Hm.H H mH.H m mm.H m H0.m m Hm Hm
mH.m m 00.m m 00.0 m HN.H H 0m 0m
mH.m 0 Ha.m H m0.H m mH.m m mm mm
mH.m 0 0H.H H m0.o m Hm.w H Hm Hm
Hm.H NH H0.m H mo.HH m 0H.m m mm mm
Hm.CH mH Hm.m H mm.0 m 00.0m HH mm mm
H0.m o mH.H m mm.m H H0.m m Hm Hm
mH.m m Hm.m H m0.H m mH.m m om om
m0.m m mm.m m mm.m H Hm.m m mm mm
H0.o HH Hm.m H 0m.0 H mH.m m mm mm
mm.H m 0H.H m 00.0 0 00.0 0 pm Hm
H0.m w mH.H m mm.m H Ho.m m 0m 0m
mm.H m 0H.H H m0.H m 00.0 0 mm mm
Hm.0 H 00.0 0 00.0 0 mw.H H Hm Hm
mm.H m 0H.H H mm.m H m0.H H mm mm
mwmpcoohmm mucosomhm owmucoopmm mosesdohm mwmpcootom mocmscmhm mmchmoLom Hocmzumhm me mooo
nopm3w0< vopmsmo< nopmswo< ompmsw©<
Hmuoe mmlcoz m: mam
HQSOHU

 

.mwm o» Homamoh CH masopw pcoUQOQmoH on» go COmHHmQEoo|I.~ mHm<B

(<‘CF\'g*‘t~c "\S<”~itl‘c

 

. «YHZOLE JCH~¢C3QE$L 3.....HLHHQ mXHJ L3H fififlflfidfifixy UH HHQQLMHOHHHUU mmfizd OH \H UQQQQL
CH a. H.» ...u r H 2 a .H :9.” .L «.2; Ha A «Lu—had a. \- I— > unvfis ~..r~ 3. HJH~d~ (w 3. Q 3.1.. nv~kr0.~ thL h —» «HiwmyH: .k a; aka... 3. ~ .~ ETNZHHHhHI.‘ . 3v .axWN MN <.\.

129

.cmHUHHno HHmEHoc ..o.HV UmQQMOHccmnlcoc mo mhmnpoz

mmlcoz
.cothHno woodonvcmn HHHmOHmHQQ Ho mhmspoz
.cmHvHHco umnHSHmHv mHHmcoHpoEm Ho mpmnpoz n mom

mm
H

 

 

mmm.m www.mm mmH Hmuoe
H00.» HOH.mm no mmlzoz
Hm0.H 0H0.mm mH mm
wm.o HHmmm.o mom.m HmH.Hm mm Ham mmH
HOH.m mmH.m mmH Hmpoe
mmm.m 050.0 Hm muscoz
HHH.H 00H.m 0H mm
0m.0 H000H.0 0mH.H mH0.H Hm mom mEOocH
HmH.0 HNN.H HmH Hmpoa
m0m.0 mHm.H no mmlcoz
Ham.0 00N.H mH mm
mm.0 meoH.H mH0.0 00H.H mm mom coHpmoswm
M mo m QoHpmH>mQ saw: 2 Q2090 oHanHm>
mocmonchHm ohmocmHm H

 

.masohw unmacommmh woman on» How moHanhm> OHHQMHonou boys» on pooomoh
CH moHpmempm m 0cm .mcoHumHaoo unoccupm .moocohmmmHo same no comHhmoEooll.m mHmHB

‘r ?)‘p 3r

a“ UoAv Act

. .1
‘I- R n g:
dub usu‘-‘

“'9 A“

Vic-4' V;

wan-.3 gr .0
"“oG-.d -

”C- tam--
UV. I

u...

A“ F‘P'vml

u r..d'b'

‘WI‘H‘:
5‘V“.~'u o

A." gnhn

J. ‘1."

‘.

”p: ”:4

lqg ‘-
“L

4‘ FA

.‘2 an

-' Ch
s- h v.

N
in
"a‘ha’,

v

A

thn.‘- a

H‘v‘ ;

130

The average income of the total sample was $8,500
approximately, although there is a considerable dispersion
in the income of individual mothers. When compared with
the median income of the residents in Tiffin and Mount
Pleasant, these mothers have somewhat higher income. As
reported in Table 2, the city of Tiffin has a median in-
come of $5,759, whereas Mount Pleasant has $6,229 as its
median income. This would suggest that those who seek
the services of professional agencies for mental problems
or physical disability, generally come from higher income
groups.

The average age of the mothers in the research
samples was 35.28 years. However the standard deviation
of the total sample in respect to age data indicates that
the majority of mothers fell in the age range of 28.64 to
“1.92 years.

Differences in Some Other Demographic
Characteristics Between Respondent

Groups

Descriptive data pertaining to number of children,

 

 

marital status, recent residence, and length of residence
of the control group and the two experimental groups are
presented in Tables 9-12. Although these variables were
not of direct concern for the study, the frequencies and
percentages help in providing a general comprehensive
picture of the samples. On the average, mothers of

emotionally disturbed and physically handicapped children

E1 Hm”.

 

. C+U.HUH.H£ 0

L 0 rnmwaHEHHC

[:11.... 1.-- .-
n‘flhku’. ..II. I n"

30 DUOQE3L Cfi

1r... ’. ..

3330wa

HEDCHHOQEQL my: a ..

H3

CC m. N L .3th CL .1

C

.uL.f-

.CvaHHCo AHMECOC ..m.HV omQQMoHUCmCICoC Ho mhmnuoz u mmICoz
.CmCUHHCo woodonchC HHHMonmCQ no mCmeoz u mm
.CoCUHHCo UmnpspmHv HHHmCoHpoEm Ho mHmCuoz u mom

 

131

 

 

H
mm.H mm.H mm.m H mm.H H ewe OH
NH.H mm.H 00.0 o mm.H H mcHz a
NH.N 00.0 Ho.0 m mm.H H Hame H
Hm.H 00.0 00.0 o OH.m m cm>mm H
Ho.m mo.m mm.m H mm.m m me o
om.mH H0.OH oo.om m Hm.om HH m>Hm m
Hm.Hm OH.mH HH.HN m mm.mH OH Hsom H
Hm.Hm HH.HN mm.mH H mm.mm HH mmnae m
HH.mH HH.HH HH.HH m HH.HH m 039 m
HH.H HH.mH mm.m H mm.H H mco H

H .HHH .umpm H .HHH .umHH H .HHH .amhm H .HHH .umHm gmHHHHHo mcoo

Hmpoa Hm-coz mm mom Ho HmQEHZ
asohc

H

 

.CmHoHHCo no hmnECC ou woodman CH mQCOHM quoCoammh mCu Ho ComHHMQEoonu.m mqm<e

 

 

 

H

QJOLU

8:0

Land

«L03 .fi..,~.fiqu:a.g.¢|.|. - C h

$wa MN H\.>

 

 

 

- mhj-vfls-rflu

.H Mu J u L it:

51V

.w

\w “J h- A& an flu in,

a.“ 1N.

EQHJO.HM~

U nhfly five-Onwnu mvru.

.u

.CoHUHHCo HHmECoC «.m.HV coaamochmCICOC mo mHmeoz n mmuCoz
.CmHUHHCo UmdeoHUCmC HHHmOHmzCQ Ho mCmeoz H mm
.CoHoHHCo umnhspmHo HHHmCOHuoEm Ho mCmCuoz u mam

 

 

 

H
00.0 mH H0.HH 0 HH.HH m H0.m m gaspsm HHHo H
00.0m H0 H0.m0 HH HH.HH 0m 00.00 mm HHHo m
mm.mH Hm 00.0 0 mm.mm 0H 00.0w HH ego» thcsoo m
HH.HH 0m MH.mH 0 mm.mm 0H 0m.0H 0 thcsoo H

H .HHH .umhm H .HHH .umhm H .HHH .Hth H .HHH .umhm mocmnHmmm maoo

Hmpoe HH-HOz Hm mom Hcmomm
HQCOHo

 

132

.ooCoonmC pCoomH on poodmmh CH masonw pCmoCoammH on» Ho ComHCMQEooan.HH mqm<e

.CmCUHHCo HHmEHoC ..m.Hv omaamoHoCmCICOC Ho mhmnpoz u mmICoz
.CmHoHHCo umaamOHquC mHHmOHmHCQ Ho mHmeoz u mm
.CmHoHHCo oophspmHo mHHmCOHpoEm Ho mHmeoz n mom

 

 

 

H
00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 Hmpmhmamm m
H0.m m m0.m m H0.0 m 00.0 0 HmzocHz H
Hm.H H mm.H m H0.0 m m0.H H Hmono>H0 m
00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 mech m
HH.m0 HmH NH.m0 H0 HH.HH 0m 0H.00 Hm HmHHHmz H

H .HHH .omHm H .HHH .uth H .HHH .umhm H .HHH .umhm mzpmpm 0000

Hmpoa Hm-coz Hm Ham HHHHHHH
ozone

H
.mspwum prHhms op uomdwoh CH masohw pcmucoamma 0:» mo ComHCMQEooII.0H mHmHB

.AzufiHfinoEv
DUCQUHEQL LO LJECOH JC@LLSO Op uOQQQQL :fi EQZOL$ JCQUZOQQ$L 03¢ g0 COQfiLQQEOUll.NN N43<5

133

.cmHUHfino AHmEpoc ..m.Hv UmQQMOHUcmSICOC no mgmnpoz u mmlcoz
.cmpvafino Umaamofivcmn zHHmQHmch Ho mamcuoz u mm

.cmHUHHSO Umnazpmfio zHHmCOHpoEm mo mnmnpoz u mam

 

 

H
m0.H0 00H H0.00 :3 00.0m 0m HH.HH mm mummm amp pm>0 m
mm.mH mm NH.mH 0 :0.mH 0 HH.HH 0 mumma
amp on cw>mm :
HH.HH mm NH.mH 0 0H.0H 0 0m.0H 0 mammm
xfim on mmpce m
m0.m 0 mm.: m mm.0 m Hm.H : mummm
ozu 0p mco m
:m.: H mm.: m mm.: m zm.m m Ham»
m can» mmmq H
H .H0H .0mam H .00H .0mum H .H0H .wmpm H .noH .0mum mocmonmm 0000
Hmpoe mmucoz mm mom Ho npwcmH

 

Q50
H aw

 

.HHHHHHpoeV

mocmvfimmh mo £pMCmH meHMSO 0p poQOmh CH masonw pcmncoammh map mo

comfiamm5oonu.mH mqm¢e

--l
fi
rd:

Qv

.3

L9

~»*‘r*o”
“ginnv.

Hang ‘

“v. v .
nAr‘vv'
'UV‘od. ‘

‘2'. b
b.
..._4 €
7
...6 p4
LEA
"HV'
FA
Ll-
*t

13“

had four children, whereas mothers of the control group

had three children. A large majority of mothers were
living with their husbands. Less than 8 per cent of total
mothers were divorced, widowed, or separated. In regard

to residence, approximately 60 per cent of the mothers

were living in the city, only 9 per cent of the respondents
lived in city suburbs.

Since mobility has been considered by some as a
contributing factor in mental illness, current length of
residence of mothers of emotionally disturbed children
may be noted. Nearly 73 per cent of these mothers had
lived at their present residence for more than seven years.
The percentage of mothers in the total sample living at
one place over seven years was 75.35 per cent.

Summary of Descriptive Data
in Tables 3-12

The sample size of 60 and 69 for the mothers of
emotionally disturbed and non-handicapped children re-
spectively was considered adequate for the study. However,
there were only 48 mothers in the group having physically
handicapped children. In the total sample, a substantial
majority of mothers were housewives. The three samples
were comparable in education, income, and age as indicated
by statistically non-significant E statistics. The aver-
age educational level of mothers was high school or a
little more. Very few mothers (about 6 per cent) had a

college or university degree. Average yearly income,

.ot"

oto‘s ,

were

4

“l

p
Vonb

v

11:

the

‘ \

ecz'

R
Us;

Col

A
or

«a
01.

.EU

135

from self-employment or from family earnings, was found
to be in the range of $7,000 to $8,000 for the total
sample. Most mothers were a little over 35 Years old
and had three or four children.

None of the mothers were separated, while only
3.01 per cent were widowed and 4.21 per cent were divorced.
Thus, approximately 93 per cent of the total respondents
were living with their husbands. Furthermore, the demo-
graphic data reveal that 60 per cent of the mothers of
emotionally disturbed children and 65.67 per cent of the
mothers of non—handicapped children were living within
the limits of the city. However, only HH.HH per cent of
the mothers of physically handicapped children lived in
the city proper, and HH.HH per cent resided in country
or country town. In regard to current length of resi—
dence, a majority of the respondents had not changed
residence during the past seven years.

The foregoing description of sample characteristics
must be interpreted with caution inasmuch as the data
based on self-report may be somewhat inflated by "social
desirability" factors. This would be especially true in
respect to education and income. Lacking objective ex-
ternal criteria, the extent or presence of a directional

bias cannot be assessed.

a
F

V‘.'

r {
H‘s
.MM
'4... _

33
n u. . H
H c. Me.
a: .

136

Section 2: Hypotheses Testing, Mean Differences,
and Correlational Analyses

Hypotheses Related to Contact
Frequency, Intensity, and
Attitude Scores

 

H:1z Contact-Intensity Interactions
Hzlal: The more frequent the contact with emotionally
disturbedgpersons, the higher will be the scores on the
intensity statements of the attitude-toward-emotionally-
disturbedgpersons (EDP) scale, regardless of whether
attitude content is favorable or unfavorable.

In testing this hypothesis, intensity scores on the
attitude-toward-emotionally-disturbed-persons were regarded
as the dependent variable, and contact frequency scores as
the independent variable. Tables 13 and 14 present sta—
tistics for all subjects regardless of treatment. In other
words, all mothers were considered as one group; and then
approximately 25 per cent of the total sample who had the
highest intensity scores were compared with approximately
25 per cent of the mothers who had the lowest intensity
scores on the EDP scale. The highly significant P (P-< .005)
indicates that frequency of contact with emotionally dis-
turbed persons does contribute to real differences in in-
tensity of attitudes. But high frequency of contact did
not produce higher intensity scores. The mean of EDP in-
tensity scores for the low frequency contact group is

larger than the one obtained by the high frequency contact

 

or

vu-
«‘5‘
. A

.Vv..-

(U
(D
('1‘

:5
(D

(
11)
(“f

(D

(D
)

137

TABLE l3.--Means and standard deviations of intensity

scores on the attitude-toward-emotionally-disturbed-

persons (EDP) scale comparing high and low frequency

of contact with emotionally disturbed persons for the
total sample.1

 

 

 

Mean of EDP Standard

Variable N Intensity Scale Deviation
High frequency

of contact 35 50.171 4.098
Low frequency

of contact 44 52.818 3.405
Total 79 51.646 3.932

1

Total sample refers to all respondents regardless
of treatment.

TABLE l4.--Ana1ysis of variance of the EDP intensity
scores comparing high and low frequency of contact wit?
emotionally disturbed persons for the total sample.

 

 

 

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Sig.
Variance Squares Freedom Square E of E
Between

categories 136.559 1 136.559 9.832 0.005
Within

categories 1069.517 77 13.890
Total 1206.076 78

1

Total sample refers to all respondents regardless
of treatment.

 

QfiAHB -
Luau.“ .,
a t
b . arr
.A 2 \f
audio Ufi~
hr.»
by.
:AAV‘iQQ :v
IUV‘UU “-

"“f‘ *K O-!
z....y Hevfi
2...“,

\

3'...
ou‘v'uu- v

 

 

 

 

 

 

85"“H‘r
"d4‘vy '

"n 1: .
in» .K“ :
‘JF'A. A
0¢v..1‘ c-

138

group. Hence, Hzlal cannot be considered confirmed for the
total sample.

Zero-order correlations between contact and intensity
scores are presented in Table 15. No significant relation-
ship between contact with emotionally disturbed persons and
intensity of attitudes toward them is observed in the total
sample; yet the direction of relationship is negative. This
contact with EDP is also not related to intensity scores on
the HP scale, or intensity scales of progressive and tradi-

tional attitudes toward education.

H:1a2: Mothers of emotionally disturbed children will have
greater intensity of attitude toward emotionally disturbed
persons than will the mothers of physically handicapped or
non-handicapped (i.e., normal) children.

The intensity scores of the three groups of mothers
(EDP, HP, and Non—HP) were compared and analyzed. Mean
differences, standard deviations, and 3 statistics are
reported in Tables 16 and 17. There exists a highly
significant difference (P < .005) between the three re-
spondent groups. Mean rankings, however, are not con—
sistent with the hypothesis in that the EDP group has a
lower mean score than the Non—HP group.

Although the significant 3 statistic supports the
hypothesis that the treatment means do not come from a
common population, it is still necessary to consider the

relationships between pairs of means to conclude which

 

-.-.¢- ..

_‘ . . _-
pr.-.— 0, -
m:—

 

 

...

, 1 0.-

0 . ‘
—p
0
.H.

 

 

 

139

TABLE 15.--Zero-order correlations between contact and intensity scores on the attitude
scales for the three respondent groups and the total sample.

 

 

 

 

EDP hP ED ED
Intensity Intensity Progressive uraditional
Group1 Variab1e2 scale 0ca1e Ingensity Intensity
cale scale
N r 1 r N r 1 r
EDP EDP contact 48 -0.189 48 -0.091 47 0.040 47 -0.011
HP contact 41 0.064 41 -0.302 41 -0.151 41 -0.138
ED contact 16 0.237 16 0.162 16 0.456 16 0.174
HP EDP contact 18 0.306 18 0.344 16 0.701** 16 0.242
HP contact 36 -0.346* 36 -0.038 34 -0.227 34 -0.260
ED contact 34 0.099 14 0.235 14 0.268 14 0.020
Non-HP EDP contact 30 0.266 31 0.267 31 0.215 31 0.101
HP contact 51 —0.010 51 -0.049 52 -0.073 52 -0.022
ED contact 40 -0.160 40 0.070 41 -0.016 41 0.015
Total EDP contact 96 -0.062 97 0.074 94 0.110 94 0.031
HP contact 128 -0.175* 128 —0.222* 127 -0.094 127 -0.0th
ED contact 70 0.024 70 0.154 71 0.138 71 0.043
1

EDP - Mothers of emotionally disturbed children.
HP - Mothers of physically handicapped children.
Non-HP I Mothers of non-handicapped (i.e., normal) children.

2EDP contact - contact with emotionally disturbed persons.

HP contact I contact with physically handicapped persons.
ED contact = contact with education.

*P < .05
"P < .01

:w —- #-
VI-AV '

d

. H.
:v «N. : . .H .. M...
I. . Cw . . g
.H H w». n H H

140

TABLE 16.-—Means and standard deviations of intensity
scores on the attitude-toward-emotionally—disturbed—
persons (EDP) scale for the three respondent groups.

 

1 Mean of EDP

 

Variable Group N Intensity Standard
Scale Deviation
Intensity of EDP 55 60.454 7.042
attitude toward HP 45 55.822 5.730
emotionally Non-HP 66 63.667 6.316
disturbed
persons Total 166 60.476 7.119

Ranking of means: Non-HP (63.667) > EDP (60.454)
> HP (55.822)

Duncan's Test Results: Non-HP > HP; Non-HP > EDP;
EDP > HP

 

lEDP = Mothers of emotionally disturbed children.

HP = Mothers of physically handicapped children.
Non-HP = Mothers of non-handicapped (i.e., normal)
children.

TABLE l7.--Ana1ysis of variance of EDP intensity scores
for the three respondent groups.

 

 

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Sig.
Variance Squares Freedom Square F of F
Between

categories 1646.523 2 823.261 19.984 0.005
Within

categories 6714.880 163 41.196

Total 8361.403 165

 

‘ o
‘r
A: e .4

'1‘. 4t“

‘3

1)
‘
3

A
Irv “30‘--

 

d” v ._

v." 3,”. .

.I‘JA “a-..
..

 

w

p‘n'. ~Y,!\
a

any.‘ ‘. ‘

VJ

A.'£h a,
V'u.. -.

‘ I
A: ’3 1‘.
“-J ‘-

. .. ~
In “C.

v.“‘\‘. u

"2* a:
30“. V.

I”,
"v“-

v.“

141

of the treatment means is the primary source of variance.
For this a test of multiple mean comparisons seems de-
sirable. Several posteriori tests have been developed

to analyze the variance between three or more means where
the overall F is significant. In this study, Duncan's
New Multiple Range Test, as modified by Kramer (1956) for
unequal replications is used.

Table 18 reports the findings of the Duncan's test.
Each group differs significantly (P . .01) from every
other in respect to intensity of attitude toward emotion-
ally disturbed persons. Mothers of emotionally disturbed
children do not have greater intensity of attitude than
that of the mothers of normal children. However, the EDP
mothers do score higher than the HP mothers who obtained
lowest intensity score on the EDP scale. Therefore,
H:1a2 is not considered to be confirmed.

The correlational analysis shown in Table 15 also
does not permit the inference that there is a linear
relationship between EDP contact and intensity since the
correlation coefficients in all the three groups are
non-significant. However, the correlation between con-
tact with emotionally disturbed persons and intensity
of progressive attitude toward education is found to be

highly significant (P < .01) in mothers of handicapped
children.

0.04

r” Q 3 _ . _
G. L. _ . . .
~03 .dJ fl 0 M . - — r£ rd.
Y.” ”a n.v A v — C. .- H—‘v .A.‘
. A. fl - D . 0 fl 0

3m pox». . . o . . 3“ . n p. .i}.

.d.

‘
t“

J

142

TABLE 18.--Duncan's New Multiple Range Test applied to
means of EDP intensity scale for the three respondent

 

 

groups.
Range of Means (p) 2 3 df=l63
Studentized ranges1

for a = .05 (Zp, df=l63) 2.772 2.918

for a = .01 (Zp, df=l63) 3.643 3.796

-----—-—-----~—-—------_---—------------——-_-------_m-----

Mean Differences3

:- __ = *‘H‘
XNon—HP XHP (p 3) 57.423
‘ _ — = xx

XNon-HP XEDP (p 2) 24.888

— _ ‘ = **

XEDP XHP (p 2) 32.591

 

lSignificant studentized ranges for Duncan's new

multiple range test with a equal to .05 and .01 taken
from Edwards (1965, pp. 373—74).

2p = the range of means (2 and 3).

s the square root of the error mean square of
the analysis of variance of Table 17. Thus,

s=/Hl.196 = 6.42

3Mean differences of columns 2 and 3 have been
transformed into the equivalent of t - scores for multiple
means. To be significant, the figure must exceed the
R'p value of the same column. The formula given by
Kramer (1956) is:

_ _ — __X__£_ , z '
(Xy XZ) n + n szp, error df of A. of V. ( R

\
,\ I

P

 

. ~
rffalfi;v

naudgw a-

 

”'8‘: ”Fr
"4- UV:-

 

"i.
r
"a.
“53::“fir
“"V‘ou..
Cd" “07“:-
V‘ vvug’:
.3 § ~
0
‘ \ QR ,-
".UJ.‘ ‘
1: V‘n .

a“ g:
o. “a

‘tu.

y'f’ns‘
‘1
‘Ur‘icg‘

9“
Ii'V-v.

’1‘}

..
r'oi

'_I—
' ‘
l f

143

H:1a3: The more frequent the contact with physically
handicapped persons, the higher will be the scores on
the intensity statements of the attitude-toward-handi—
cappedgpersons (HP) scale, regardless of whether atti-
tude content is favorable or unfavorable.

This hypothesis was tested by dividing the entire
research sample into two groups-—one having high frequency
of contact with handicapped persons and the other con-
sisted of mothers who had low frequency of contact. There
is no significant difference between the HP intensity means
of the two groups as indicated in Tables 19 and 20. This
hypothesis is not supported.

It may be pointed out that the absolute value of
the mean of the low contact group is higher than the high
contact group, which is similar to the findings of Hzlal.
This difference was significant at the .10 level of confi-
dence suggesting thereby a further verification of the
hypothesis with the help of a large sample.

In the entire sample, a significant relationship
(P < .05) exists between contact with handicapped persons
and intensity statements on the EDP and HP scales. The
direction of relationship is, however, negative (see
Table 15). Thus the correlational analysis supports this
hYpothesis in an inverse manner. High frequency of con-
tact with physically handicapped persons produces less

intense attitudes toward both disabled and disturbed

persons.

-.-on 1
_i u ‘_
cud-lad ‘4

:‘Mo: '

HIV-Uh: H

.
g
1

(In
I

,.
p O f"
.08 Vt

‘ I
“'IIAI 5,-
\ t-
u..l~-v.~-
a U

_.
———H

 

0A.. fi'n -
uvh i. '“

flhy

)
D0)

~l“ v.
.-
.“HHU ‘

Gr»,

5 l
H'.n~;-“
d

H-

144

TABLE 19.—-Means and standard deviations of intensity
scores on the attitude-toward—handicapped—persons (HP)
scale comparing high and low frequency of contact with
physically handicapped persons for the total sample.1

 

 

Mean of EDP Standard
Variable N Intensity Scale Deviation
High frequency
of contact 55 60.364 6.174
Low frequency
of contact 73 62.493 8.180
Total 128 61.578 7.434

 

1Total sample refers to all respondents regardless

of treatment.

TABLE 20.--Analysis of variance of HP intensity scores
comparing high and low frequency of contact with physically
handicapped persons for the total sample.

 

 

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Sig. of
Variance Squares Freedom Square F F
Between

categories 142.245 1 142.245 2.606 0.10
Within

categories 6876.974 126 54.579
Total 7019.219 127

1Total sample refers to all respondents regardless of
treatment.

a

rnr

r
—
A

coil"

.3

~ :5
u i.-

.F‘ng‘
Vvtov.

w
1.3

—fi\0r.
bung“.

p
,-

CE.‘

9.
a.
2..

‘1

Ah“. _
5‘ Var
V
.

E

"P'Ws.

'VA._'

‘.'
c‘xv“

Grp
v .

145

H:1au: Mothers of physically handicapped children will
have greater intensity of attitude toward physical handi-
cap than will the mothers of emotionally disturbed or
non-handicapped (i.e., normal) children.

As indicated in Tables 21 and 22, the means of HP
intensity scores for the three groups of mothers differ
significantly (P < .005). The highly significant F
suggests that the group means do not come from a common
population. But the direction of the difference does not
support the hypothesis. Ranking of means reveal that
mothers of normal children have the highest intensity
scores followed by the mothers of emotionally disturbed
children. Mothers of handicapped children express least
amount of intensity in respect to attitudes toward physi-
cally handicapped persons. However, the Duncan's test
(Table 23) does not indicate a statistically significant
difference between the control group and the EDP mothers'
group.

No prediction can be made about intensity of atti-
tude toward the handicapped on the basis of closeness of
contact (see Table 15), since there is a non-significant
correlation between these two variables. Interestingly
enough, a significant negative relationship is noted be-

tween HP contact and EDP intensity scores.

E“ ‘1.

or} ‘
““-u

146

TABLE 21.--Means and standard deviations of intensity
scores on the attitude-toward-handicapped-persons (HP)
scale for the three respondent groups.

 

 

1 Mean of HP
Variable Group N Intensity Standard
Scale Deviation
(Total)

Intensity of EDP 55 62.818 9.284
attitude toward HP 45 56.955 5.013
physically Non-HP 66 63.000 6.187
handicapped
persons Total 166 61.301 7.554

Ranking of means:

Duncans test results:

Non—HP(63.000) > EDP(62.818)

> (HP(56.955)
Non-HP > HP; EDP . HP

 

lEDP =

HP =

children.

Mothers of emotionally disturbed children.
Mothers of physically handicapped children.
Non—HP

= Mothers of non-handicapped (i.e., normal)

TABLE 22.--Ana1ysis of variance of HP intensity scores
for the three respondent groups.

 

 

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Sig.
Variance Squares Freedom Square F of 3
Between

categories 1166.847 2 583.423 11.530 0.005
Within

categories 8248.093 163 50.602
Total 9414.940 165

_

all-lou- .-
‘I‘ l /
IJIU‘“ 6

AA A A1
'u.”

“in”: v.

.
.Fv'oc

A(
H
“ans. V]

 

 

‘ y.
..y
\ "’v
“"Ivcsv.

'
- v-
-1. _
.. y
o o
h

.
’:;V‘ H
“'1... ‘
u
..
V
2.. ..
V‘
AQV‘.-::
‘
‘y
3
no
A, ‘_
"'y.‘-‘
‘
w
1
A
“q“
' .1
H"

147

TABLE 23.--Duncan's New Multiple Range Test applied to
means of HP intensity scale for the three respondent

 

 

groups.
Range of Means (p) 2 3 df=l63
Studentized ranges1
for a = .05 (Zp,df=163) 2.772 2.918
for a = .01 (Zp,df=l63) 3.643 3.796

R'p )R'=<s><zp.dr=163) 2 a = '05 19°71? 20.756

Mean differences3

— _ — = *9!-
XNon-HP XHP (p 3) 44.219
XNon-HP - XEDP (p=2) 1.410

_ .. _ = **

XEDP XHP (p 2) 41.252

 

lSignificant studentized ranges for Duncan's New
Multiple Range Test with a equal to .05 and .01 taken from
Edwards (1965, pp. 373-74).

2p the range of means (2 and 3)

s = the square root of the error mean square of the
analysis of variance of Table 22. Thus,

5 = /50.602 = 7.113

3Mean differences of columns 2 and 3 have been

'transformed into the equivalent of 3 - scores for multiple
lmeans. To be significant, the figure must exceed the
13' value of the same columns. The formula given by

Krgmer (1956) is:

n
(XI - Y ) ——l——%— > szp, error df of A. of V. (=R'p)

W ‘

u.-u- '

‘pz alt-Q“
'
.‘pr-It'-

. —-
fife Ln
du-v Hw‘

dict .‘
b
“- Q
our)“ C.

v
“0

1

148

Hzlbl: The more frequent the contact with education,_the

 

higher will be the scores on the intensity statements of

the Education Scale, regardless of whether attitude is

 

traditional or progressive.

 

The statistical analyses presented in Tables 24-27
indicate that the mean differences between persons with
high and low contact with education, are not significantly
different on either progressive or traditional intensity
scores. Thus the data do not support the hypothesis.

The zero-order correlations given in Table 15 also
suggest that there is no significant relationship between
educational contact and intensity of attitudes toward
education or toward emotionally disturbed or handicapped

persons .

H:1b2: Mothers of emotionally disturbed and physically

handicapped children will have greater intensity of atti-

 

 

tude toward education (traditional andprogressive) than

 

will the mothers of non—handicapped (i.e., normal)

 

children.

 

The non-significant F statistics (Tables 28-31) do
not support the hypothesis that close contact with dis-
turbed and disabled persons tends to enhance the intensity
of attitude toward education. This finding is consistent
with the results obtained in correlational analysis
(Table 15) in that the correlation coefficients for con-
tact with education and intensity scores on the attitude

scales are not significant.

 

 

".5“ l.
.‘a Mr
4. yg.l
~ ’ A

A v r“:
"a ...
"1'“ AA'
J. Vv.
Afi,

.I/d:;

\
r? 7‘s
V. '.~

149

TABLE 24.--Means and standard deviations of intensity

scores on the progressive-attitude-toward-education

scale comparing high and low frequency of contact with
education for the total sample.1

 

Mean of
Variable N Progressive Standard
Intensity Scale Deviation

 

High frequency

 

of contact 46 32.652 2.906
Low frequency
of contact 25 32.240 3.515
Total 71 32.507 3.116
1

Total sample refers to all respondents regardless
of treatment.

TABLE 25.--Analysis of variance of intensity scores on the
progressive-attitude-toward-education scale comparing high
and low frequency of contact with education for the total

 

 

 

sample.l

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Sig.
Variance Squares Freedom Square F of F
Between

categories 2.752 1 2.752 0.280 0.60
Within

categories 676.995 69 9.811
Total 679.647 70

1

Total sample refers to all respondents regardless
Of treatment.

gut-on
‘! .4 u
“may
nqA 5
\:

UtVov

 

fl (\I‘f
V we”.
’fi'v 9,,1
av“ ‘1’:
“0 fiAy—

‘e V‘v..

-
.Ao.‘

g.
vi‘.‘

 

-
«'0 37%;»
V‘ U.~:
In.“
;~'? .
.A.-~_ ‘
U
I" T“,
0‘ U. c
‘u

150

TABLE 26.--Means and standard deviations of intensity
scores on the traditional-attitude-toward-education
scale comparing high and low frequency of contact with

education for the total sample.

 

 

 

Mean of
Variable N Traditional Standard
Intensity Scale Deviation
High frequency
of contact 46 32.978 3.249
Low frequency
of contact 25 33.640 3.108
Total 71 33.211 3.193
1

of treatment.

Total sample refers to all respondents regardless

TABLE 27.--Analysis of variance of intensity scores on
the traditional-attitude-toward-education scale comparing

high and low frequency of contact w
total sample.

ith education for the

 

 

 

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Sig.

Variance Squares Freedom Square F of F
Between

categories 7.093 1 7.093 0.692 0.41
Within

categories 706.738 69 10.243
Total 713.831 70

1

Total sample refers to all respondents regardless

Of treatment.

I In "
““qu C-

 

I- r
nag-”9‘
II. we

 

.

"A“: :1. L
F .
‘08 .au- .

 

.‘
a s ..
P cr-
vVuv".g
Ffia‘.n;:
gotta. VH
n..{o..

cuu‘.‘

.
‘fi'vfifin

avid. ,‘

94“,,ggg

vuu.u,-

 

fr

._

’0’

fir-1 .‘an

v..--.‘. '0.

V‘J‘TCG
'-
"r lzrn

151

TABLE 28.--Means and standard deviations of content
scores on the progressive-attitude-toward-education
scale for the three respondent groups.

 

1 Mean of
Variable Group‘ N Progressive Standard
Content Scale Deviation

 

 

Content of EDP 55 28.436 3.120
progressive HP 43 28.744 3.001
attitude Non—HP 68 28.176 3.507
toward
education Total 166 28.410 3.244

1

EDP = Mothers of emotionally disturbed children.
HP = Mothers of physically handicapped children.
Non-HP = Mothers of non-handicapped (i.e., normal)
children.

‘TABLE 29.--Ana1ysis of variance of content scores on the
progressive-attitude-toward-education scale for the three
respondent groups.

 

 

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Sig.
Variance Squares Freedom Square F of F
Between

categories 8.549 2 4.274 0.403 0.67
Within

categories 1727.596 163 10.599

Total 1736.145 165

 

.‘I'H

n in
Jun“; -
.
(5r ‘ no
\n- a...

A
9" r5
“Juan...

 

.
U‘"n:#
vi 5..

‘h

.

“J

r "%

~
‘.A“~h
§ n

.‘;W:I

152

TABLE 30.-—Means and standard deviations of content scores
on the traditional-attitude-toward-education scale for the
three respondent groups.

 

 

 

1 Mean of
Variable Group N Traditional Standard
Content Scale Deviation

Content of EDP 55 29.436 3.414
traditional HP 43 28.512 3.418
attitude Non-HP 68 29.176 3.494
toward
education Total 166 29.090 3.446

lEDP = Mothers of emotionally disturbed children.

HP = Mothers of physically handicapped children.

Non-HP =

children.

Mothers of non—handicapped (i.e., normal)

TABLE 31.--Ana1ysis of variance of content scores on the
traditional-attitude-toward-education scale for the three

respondent

groups.

 

 

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Sig.
“Variance Squares Freedom Square F of F
Between

categories 21.491 2 10.745 0.904 0.41
Within

categories 1938.154 163 11.891
Total 1959.645 166

. "F7
" 7'

fl
\

UA-‘L' 00A-

4 I
.. .

:5

P)‘"
it.

1
V

O

\

‘ A
.Ouvgyln

ring-
.-

“GA-c

.

k I

‘v .

Q9,-
\-

'-
V‘.

’53

153

Summary of Contact and Attitude
Intensity Variables

 

The analyses of the data do not provide results in
the direction of the hypotheses. Neither of the included
hypotheses was confirmed. In fact, some hypotheses were

confirmed inversely. Less frequent contact rather than

 

high frequency of contact with emotionally disturbed and
physically handicapped persons produced significantly
greater intensity of attitude on the EDP and HP scales.
This would appear a special case requiring further exami-

nation and will be discussed in the following chapter.

H:2: Contact—Frequency Interactions
H:2al: High frequency of contact with emotionally dis—
turbedgperscns will lead to favorable attitudes if high
frequency is concurrent with (a) alternative rewarding

gpportunities, (b) enjoyment of contact,_and (c) ease of

avoidance of contact.

 

Total Sample.--As indicated by Table 32, the multiple

 

correlation relating to the combined contact variables and
favorableness of attitudes toward emotionally disturbed
persons is significant at the .01 level of confidence in
'the total sample. Because of a very small number, 'alter-
native to contact' was not included in this analysis.
Table 32 also points out that amount of contact and
enjoyment of contact when partialled out contribute

mOst to predicting attitudes toward disturbed persons.

Since high scores on the EDP content and HP content scales

. .d-_

1r.»4 «5‘
uni-VIII

AI

mud vvu

 

I
1.H\ny.h
lttdy‘...

Po;

‘ N
v . i

154

indicate negative attitudes, the direction of the partial

correlations have negative signs. H:2a is, thus, con-

1
sidered confirmed for the total sample.

TABLE 32.--Partia1 and multiple correlations between con—

tact variables (in respect to the emotionally disturbed)

and content of attitude toward emotionally disturbed per-
sons (EDP scale)1 in the total sample.2

 

 

 

EDP Contact Variab1e3 N = 90 Partial Correlation
Amount of contact -0.264**
Avoidance of contact 0.191
Enjoyment of contact -0.296**
Multiple correlation R = 0.497**'

1

Low scores on EDP content scale indicate positive
attitudes.

2Total sample refers to all respondents regardless

of treatment.

3EDP contact = Contact with emotionally disturbed
persons.

** P < .01

Partial and multiple correlations were also obtained
between combined EDP contact variables and attitudes toward
physically handicapped persons (Table 33). Consistent with
the above findings, the multiple correlation is highly
Significant (P < .01). However, unlike the previous case,

enJoyment of contact did not contribute to the prediction

“”5"?"
C...“ in.“

any-Uh, “I
vutodav

I'MA-le.
‘1‘“V-Andt

P'VAJ 4’
”Hum.“

---~~

"- “|
c.“"

ag‘:‘-
H
u"‘~

(I)
(1)

'r1

( p

*1
m

155

of favorableness of attitude. On the otherhand, besides
amount of contact, the significant variable associated
with attitude on the HP content scale was avoidance of
contact in the total sample.

TABLE 33.--Partia1 and multiple correlations between
contact variables (in respect to the emotionally dis-

turbed) and content of attitude toward physically handi—
capped persons (HP scale)1 in the total sample.2

 

 

EDP Contact Variable3 N=90 Partial Correlation
Amount of contact -O.279**
Avoidance of contact -0.307**
Enjoyment of contact ~0.l60
Multiple correlation R=0.369**

 

lLow scores on HP Content scale indicate positive
attitudes.

2Total sample refers to all respondents regard—
less of treatment.

3EDP contact = contact with emotionally disturbed
persons.

**P < .01

Respondent Groups.--When the three respondent groups are

 

Compared with each other in respect to combined EDP contact
Variables and attitudes toward the handicapped, signifi-
Cant multiple and partial correlations are found only for

the mothers of emotionally disturbed children (Table 34).

:wt
44"

nfir'"
v'vt' "‘

FY.
van-I

L

V‘

 

re...

.-
udu'v ‘. .

0"“, 1
v..;la

156

But avoidance of contact when partialled out does not

contribute significantly to the multiple correlation.

TABLE 34.-—Partial and multiple correlations between contact

variables (in respect to the emotionally disturbed) and con—

tent of attitude toward physically handicapped persons (HP
Scale)l in the three respondent groups.

 

Partial Correlation
EDP Contact

 

 

Variables EDP HP Non—HP
N=45 N=l7 N=28
Amount of contact —0.476** —0.354 -0.230
Avoidance of
contact —0.218 -0.239 -0.275
Enjoyment of
contact —0.381* -0.231 0.184
Multiple
Correlation R=0.532** R=0.4OO R=O.353

 

lLow scores on HP content scale indicate positive
attitudes.

2EDP = Mothers of emotionally disturbed children.

HP = Mothers of physically handicapped children.
Non-HP = Mothers of non-handicapped (i.e., normal
children.

3EDP contact = Contact with emotionally disturbed
persons.

*P < .05

**P < .01

-'/2 '
nit-a '

 

 

.
Frn v
1'. .1 S

5....

I»:
u "c.

$..'

P .
..:v~
‘¢“

 

V1.
'4).
P.
Arc.

 

157

H:2a2: Mothers of emotionally disturbed children will
have more positive attitudes toward emotionally disturbed
persons than will the mothers of physically handicapped
or non—handicapped (i.e., normal) children.

This hypothesis is confirmed. The mean differences
and standard deviations are reported in Table 35. Ana-
lysis of variance and Duncan's test results are presented
in Tables 36 and 37. The absolute value of the mean for
the EDP group is the lowest which indicates that mothers
of emotionally disturbed children have more positive atti-
tudes toward the disturbed compared to the other two
groups of mothers. However, Duncan's test reveals that
there is no significant difference between mothers of

handicapped and normal children in this regard.

H:2a3: High frequency of contact withpphysically handi—
capped persons will lead to favorable attitudes if high
fpequency is concurrent with (a) alternative rewarding
gpportunities, (b) enjoyment of contact, and (c) ease

of avoidance of contact.

 

Total Sample.--The relationship between the com-

 

bined contact variables and favorable attitudes toward
.handicapped persons is found to be highly significant

(P < .01), as shown by the multiple correlation (Table
38). However, none of the individual contact variables
contributed significantly to this correlation. One con—

tact variable, alternative rewarding Opportunities could

 

"Av-b V.
v‘v‘uv...

.OJ..

0
c..l.

5Acvr y
“4'41.

ppafi .
vm‘v ‘v -

list.

”Onto
5'08»

'1'
3

(

 

Q . .
Ari

v..‘-‘.

“Us.
‘vv‘.’

hl‘.

-
“.~"‘H

158

TABLE 35.--Means and standard deviations of content scores
on the attitude-toward-emotionally-disturbed-persons (EDP)
scale for the three respondent groups.

 

1 Mean of
Variable Group N EDP2 Standard
Content Scale Deviation

 

Content of EDP 55 50.818 3.806
attitude HP 45 52.689 4.106
toward Non—HP 66 52.576 3.823
emotionally
disturbed Total 166 52.024
persons

Ranking of Means: HP(52.689) > Non-HP(52.576)
> EDP(50.818)
Duncan's test results: HP > EDP; Non—HP > EDP

 

lEDP = Mothers of emotionally disturbed children.

HP = Mothers of physically handicapped children.
Non-HP = Mothers of non-handicapped (i.e., normal)
children.

2Low scores on EDP content scale indicate positive
attitudes.

TABLE 36.-—Analysis of variance of EDP content scores for
the three respondent groups.

 

 

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Sig.
Variance Squares Freedom Square F of F
Between

categories 119.956 2 59.978 3.952 0.02
Within

categories 2473.947 163 15.178

Total 2593.903 165

 

P.0lvfi

.1 II
.a‘n-Jud

 

.F F":
u»
.4. and! r

 

fl .
‘fi..nero
UV“ 0.

“on
iv. a

.v. 3

 

H A .
'9'." fl
“3...; u

159

TABLE 37.--Duncan's New Multiple Range Test applied to
means of EDP content scale for the three respondent

 

 

groups.
Range of Means (p) 2 3 df=l63
Studentized ranges1

for a = .05 (Zp, df=163> 2.772 2.918

for a = .01 (Zp’ df=l53) 3.643 3 795

Mean differences

XHP — XEDP (p=3) 13.164*
XHP ‘ XNon—HP (p=2) '827
XNon—HP ‘ XEDP (p=2) 13’617*

 

lSignificant studentized ranges for Duncan's new
multiple range test with a equal to .05 and .01 taken from
Edwards (1965, pp. 373-74).

2p = the range of means (2 and 3).

s = the square root of the error mean square of the
analysis of variance of Table 36. Thus,

3 = JIETI7E = 3.90

3Mean differences of columns 2 and 3 have been
transformed into the equivalent of £-score for multiple
means. To be significant, the figure must exceed the R'p
Value of the same column. The formula given by Kramer
(1956) is:

n
— _ _ ._L_z__ = '
(Xy XZ) n + n > szp, error df of A. of V. ( R p)

 

c'
('7‘
(I-

Z)

F's. F
; I
0.1.14“

h, 4- ‘
,0.
'avv .

gr; A.
an; ‘VV

i”"“r-
oudy“."

 

!'~'f\‘! ;.
-H —
uvv_‘“
H

- AY'w
u'H‘Ji.‘

"“u
7",
I."‘|¥-~

.

 

 

160

not be included in the analysis on account of insufficient

number of cases. H:2a3 is considered confirmed for the

total sample.

TABLE 38.--Partial and multiple correlations between con—

tact variables (in respect to the physically handicapped)

and content of attitude toward physically handicapped
persons (HP scale)1 in the total sample.2

 

 

HP Contact Variable3 N=1l9 Partial Correlation
Amount of contact -0.179
Avoidance of contact —0.119
Enjoyment of contact -0.180
Multiple Correlation R=O.279**

 

lLow scores on HP content scale indicate positive
attitudes.

2Total sample refers to all respondents regard-

less of treatment.

3HP Contact = Contact with physically handicapped
persons.
**P < .01

Correlational analysis was also done to determine
relationship between HP contact variables and attitudes
toward emotionally disturbed persons. Table 39 which
presents this analysis reveals that no such relationship

exists in the total sample.

161

TABLE 39.--Partia1 and multiple correlations between con—

tact variables (in respect to the physically handicapped)

and content of attitude toward emotionally disturbed per-
sons (EDP Scale)1 in the total sample.2

 

 

HP Contact Variable3 N=119 Partial Correlation
Amount of contact 0.019
Avoidance of contact 0.022
Enjoyment of contact 0.077
Multiple correlation R=0.086

 

lLow scores on EDP content scale indicate positive
attitudes.

2Total sample refers to all respondents regard—

less of treatment.

3HP Contact = contact with physically handicapped
persons.

Respondent Groups.--The multiple correlation be-

 

tween the combined contact variables and attitudes toward
physically handicapped persons is significant (P < .01)
for the mothers of emotionally disturbed and handicapped
children (Table 40). H:2a3 is, therefore, partially con-
firmed in the three respondent groups.

A further analysis exploring relationship between
combined HP contact variables and attitudes toward
emotionally disturbed persons yielded no significant

results in any of the three groups of mothers (Table 41).

2g r“
run so
F. 0 Av

w ..
HS
0. e

r H.
a;
n .

1,1".
1L;

a 0.-

al.
A 5.]

hard.

162

TABLE 40.--Partial and multiple correlations between
contact variables (in respect to the physically handi-
capped) and content of attitude toward physically handi—
capped persons (HP Scale)1 in the three respondent groups.2

 

Partial Correlation

 

 

giriifliifit EDP HP Non-HP
N=60 N=48 N=69
Amount of contact —0.l33 —O.l86 —0.058
Avoidance of contact -O.236 -0.055 -0.102
Enjoyment of contact -0.320* -0.050 -0.044

Multiple Correlation R=0.452** R=O.335* R=0.127

 

1Low scores on HP content scale indicate positive
attitudes.

2EDP = Mothers of emotionally disturbed children.

HP = Mothers of physically handicapped children.
Non-HP = Mothers of non-handicapped (i.e., normal)
children.

3HP contact = contact with physically handicapped
persons.

*P < .05

**P < .01

 

1r]
anolu

'-
0".

 

Vu‘ . :

R§‘1‘.
C...“

‘51-} s ‘
H..gi‘

163

TABLE 4l.--Partial and multiple correlations between

contact variables (in respect to the physically handi-

capped) and content of attitude toward emotionally dis-

turbed persons (EDP scale)1 in the three respondent
groups.

 

Partial Correlation

 

 

HP Contact
Variab1e3 EDP HP Non-HP
N=60 N=48 N=69
Amount of contact -0.159 -0.049 0.220
Avoidance of contact 0.045 0.104 -0.l29
Enjoyment of contact -0.080 0.126 0.009
JMultiple Correlation R=0.179 R=0.24l R=0.268

 

lLow scores on EDP content scale indicate positive
attitudes.

2EDP = Mothers of emotionally disturbed children.

HP = Mothers of physically handicapped children.
Non-HP = Mothers of non—handicapped (i.e., normal)
children.

3HP contact = contact with physically handicapped
persons.

 

 

 

I
(n

v...

-‘y

 

“An-
.‘ V“;

w't'»

‘v‘.

r-&

“I".I"

flag
‘ F
vc“ g
i: "n
H “‘
PA .
‘ N.
‘ \
13 y.‘
.
(2‘1" -
~ —
m
H
Hod;
0‘ . (U

317
‘3
(D

164

H:2a”: Mothers ofpppysically handicapped children will
have more positive attitudes towardpphysically handicapped
pprsons than will the mothers of emotionally disturbed or
non-handicapped (i.e., normal) children.

The data presented in Tables 42-44 support the hy-
pothesis. Mothers of physically handicapped children
have the lowest mean score which indicates that they ex-
pressed the greatest amount of positive attitude toward
the handicapped. The mean differences between the three
groups are significant at the .03 level of confidence
(Table 43). As revealed by Duncan's test (Table 44),
attitudes of the control group mothers do not differ

from those of the mothers of handicapped children.

H:2b: High frequency of contact with education will lead
to favorable attitudes if high frequenpy is concurrent

with (a) alternative rewarding opportunities, (b) enjoy-l
ment of the contact, and (C) ease of avoidance of contact.

Total Sample.--The multiple correlation (Table 45)

 

indicates that the correlation between progressive edu-
cational attitudes and the combined contact variables
is not significant. Similarly, Table 46 shows there is
110 significant correlation between the combined contact
‘variables and traditional attitudes toward education.
fiz2b is not confirmed for the total sample.

Respondent Groups.—-When mothers of three groups

 

arercompared in terms of the relationship between combined

I“. F
H ‘
“Fun-“.4

AAA“;
vvc 0

loan: P
la. ‘0-

0
F1.

“1. H

5“:.
navy"

 

165

TABLE 42.--Means and standard deviations of content
scores on the attitude-toward-handicapped persons (HP)
scale for the three respondent groups.

 

1 2

 

Variable Group N Mean of HP Standard
Content Scale Deviation
Content of EDP 55 46.582 4.475
attitude HP 45 44.022 6.218
toward Non—HP 66 44.651 5.027
physically
handicapped Total 166 45.036 5.383
persons

Ranking of means: EDP(46.582) > Non-HP(44.651)
> HP(44.022)
Duncan's test results: EDP > HP; EDP > Non-HP

 

1EDP = Mothers of emotionally disturbed children.

HP = Mothers of physically handicapped children.
Non—HP = Mothers of non-handicapped (i.e., normal)
children.

2Low scores on HP content scale indicate positive
attitudes.

TABLE 43.—-Ana1ysis of variance of HP content scores for
the three respondent groups.

 

.Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Sig.
'Variance Squares Freedom Square F of F
Between

categories 186.246 2 93.123 3.430 0.03
Within

categories 4425.344 163 27.149

Total 4611.590 165

‘1

J

n
1
F.
v.‘

f!

E

.fl-h‘
-----1

r'“’
Q0”
Qg‘dvl

q u . . I o.IU
S S a. to H. .
.rn rim mu C a /(

a: 3‘. «04/
3. H

A
T. .
v . I I: u

166

TABLE 44.--Duncan's New Multiple Range Test applied to
means of HP content scale for the three respondent groups.

 

Range of Means (p) 2 3 df=l63

 

Studentized ranges1
for d = .05 (Zp, df=l63) 2.772 2.918

for a = .01 (zp, df=l63) 3.643 3.796
_---_-______-_-----__-___g_; _______________________________
R'p [R' = (s)(zp,df=l63)] = .05 14.442 15.203

a = .01 18.980 19.777

 

Mean differences3
EEDP - XHP (p=3) 18.012*
ifEDP ' ifNon—HP (p=2) 14.958*
iHon—HP ' 3EHP (p=2) “'601
1

Significant studentized ranges for Duncan's new
multiple range test with a equal to .05 and .01 taken from
Edwards (1965. pp. 373-74).

2p the range of means (2 and 3).

s the square root of the error mean square of
the analysis of variance Table 43. Thus,

8 = V27.149 = 5.210

3Mean differences of columns 2 and 3 have been
'transformed into the equivalent of p - scores, for multiple
Ineans. To be significant, the figure must exceed the R'
‘Value of the same column. The formula given by Kramer
(1956) is:

2n n
— _ — __y__§_. = '
(Xy XZ) ny + nz > szp, error df of A. of V. ( R p)

*P < .05

phfi"

7‘ I R -
‘I-ou-g'.

”fly-‘-

\\\
..,

a“ {1‘
“‘1 v‘.

167

contact variables and progressive attitudes toward edu—
cation, significant multiple correlation is observed for
the HP and Non-HP groups (Table 47). Although the multiple
correlation is significant at the .01 level of confidence
for the HP group, none of the three contact variables
contributed significantly individually to this multiple
correlation. In the control group, enjoyment of contact,
when partialled out contributed significantly to the
multiple correlation.

TABLE 45.--Partial and multiple correlations between

contact variables (in respect to education) and content
of progressive attitudes toward education in the total

 

 

sample.l
ED Contact Variable2 N=42 Partial Correlation
Amount of contact 0.260
Enjoyment of contact -0.233
Alternatives to contact -0.l27
Multiple Correlation R=O.300

¥

lTotal Sample refers to all respondents regard-
less of treatment.

2ED Contact = Contact with education.

H...
."l‘

.114...“

my“ ;
Hunt.-

at ‘r.

 

434»:

I. -U‘

 

2? ‘.'n
v. V“
‘5
4. v
I
:‘m‘
v-5”
(9";
C...“
8“"
Hive

P. A

168

TABLE 46.--Partial and multiple correlations between
contact variables (in respect to education) and content
of traditional-attitudes—toward-education in the total

 

 

sample.
ED Contact Variable2 N=42 Partial Correlation
Amount of contact 0.106
Enjoyment of contact 0.028
Alternatives to contact -0.098
Multiple Correlation R=0.154

 

lTotal Sample refers to all respondents regardless
of treatment.

2ED Contact = Contact with education.

Insofar as relationship of combined contact variables
to traditional attitudes toward education is concerned,
significant multiple correlations are found for the EDP
and HP groups (Table 48). When partialled out, alterna-
tives to contact, contributed most to this relationship
in the EDP group.

Notwithstanding the fact that significant multiple
correlations are obtained for the respondent groups, the
directions of partial correlations are not consistent
With the hypothesis. In reSpect to progressive attitudes
toward education, H:2b cannot be considered confirmed,
Since the majority of the partial correlation coefficients

are negative. However, large amount of negative partial

IIIr—~r———————————————————______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________'
i

—.—v*

.544“

’) (in
I» L)
T1 (f
' S H‘

1wfi‘ln v’
CA..¢J.A..

\.f..‘1 ‘- :

"ide—

\
i 1;
t... ,_

 

169

TABLE 47.--Partia1 and multiple correlations between

contact variables (in respect to education) and content

of progressive—attitudes-toward-education in the three
respondent groups.

 

Partial Correlation

 

 

Egagiggigt EDP HP Non—HP

N=60 N=48 N=69

Amount of contact -0.031 0.133 0.202
Enjoyment of contact 0.102 —0.187 —0.251*
Alternatives to contact -0.l24 0.157 -0.172
Multiple Correlation R=0.l46 R=O.388** R=O.303*

 

lEDP = Mothers of emotionally disturbed children

HP = Mothers of physically handicapped children
Non—HP = Mothers of non-handicapped (i.e., normal)
children.

2ED contact = contact with education.

*P < .05
**P < .01

170

TABLE 48.--Partial and multiple correlations between

contact variables (in respect to education) and content

of traditional-attitudes-toward-education in the three
respondent groups.

 

Partial Correlation

 

 

ED Contact
Variables2 EDP HP Non-HP
N=6O N=48 N=69
Amount of contact 0.077 —0.279 0.078
Enjoyment of contact -0.039 0.053 0.063
Alternatives to
contact -0.332* 0.098 0.050

Multiple Correlation R=O.348** R=O.309* R=0.l38

 

lEDP = Mothers of emotionally disturbed children

HP = Mothers of physically handicapped children
Non-HP = Mothers of non-handicapped (i.e., normal)
children.

2ED Contact = Contact with education.

*P < .05
**P < .01

a a. a. B

a. w w e 4 3 VJ
”H w. r.“ n . . .
4a ”4 fly I. 0.
By 2.. all. «0 . »1

RD
.3

V.

facts;

flflr‘h
Vilnova»
.

0..“
r .
"Q Ve:

t:

We

4}

n*‘
c.““h
‘

»

h
v

171

coefficients obtained for traditional attitudes toward

education lend some support to this hypothesis.

Summary of Contact and Attitude
Content Variables

 

 

Most hypotheses under this category have been con-
firmed by the data.

Total Sample.--High frequency of contact with emotion-

 

ally disturbed persons is noted to be related to favorable-
ness of attitudes toward the disturbed. Amount of contact
and enjoyment of contact appear to be the most significant
factors responsible for positive attitudes toward emotion-
ally disturbed persons. The combined contact variables in
respect to emotionally disturbed are also found to be re-
lated to favorableness of attitudes toward physically
handicapped persons. In similar vein, the combined HP
contact variables are related to favorable attitudes toward
the disabled. Positive attitudes toward emotionally dis-
turbed persons are not associated with the combined HP
contact variables.

No significant relationship is observed between
progressive and traditional attitudes toward education
and combined contact variables concerning education in
the total sample.

Respondent Groups.--Mothers of emotionally disturbed
children are found to have more favorable attitudes toward
the disturbed than those of mothers of physically handi-

capped or normal children. Similarly more positive

.
.4" ‘
Vufia-

I-
z

5".“

Jung.

 

u
3th
m

172

attitudes toward the disabled were expressed by HP mothers
in comparison to EDP mothers. But mothers of normal
children did not differ significantly with HP mothers in
their attitudes toward handicapped persons.

As revealed by multiple and partial correlations,
the combined EDP contact variables are observed to be
related to favorable attitudes toward the handicapped only
in the group of mothers of emotionally disturbed Children.
Except the control group, mothers of emotionally disturbed
and handicapped children revealed significant correlations
between combined HP contact variables and positive atti-
tudes toward the handicapped. However, no significant
relationship is found between combined HP contact vari-
ables and positive attitudes toward the emotionally disturbed
in any of the three groups of mothers.

Hypotheses Related to Attitude-

‘Value Interactions

Iiz3a: Mothers who score high in need for power and
control over others will tend to score low in acceptance.
of emotionally disturbed and physically handicapped
persons.

This hypothesis was tested by means of analysis of
‘Variance for the entire sample which was divided into high
arm.low groups on the basis of value scores on the Leader-
Ship sub-scale. The results are reported in Tables 49—52.
Zero-order correlations between the two variables have

also been presented in Tables 53 and 54.

 

-
‘F.‘
0y.

(1"

NE A
F“.
a. .,,

 

 

”'0‘.

.4
‘nu.

Ctr;

\A..

(1’)
11’

173

TABLE 49.-—Means and standard deviations of content

scores on the attitude-toward-emotionally-disturbed-

persons (EDP) scale comparing high and low scores on
Leadership value for the total sample.1

 

 

Mean of EDP2 Standard
Variable N Content Scale Deviation
High scores on
Leadership value 42 50.857 4.100
Low scores on
Leadership value 73 52.726 4.032
Total 115 52.043 4.139

 

1Total sample refers to all respondents re-

gardless of treatment.

2Low scores on EDP content scale indicate positive
attitudes.

TABLE 50.--Analysis of variance of EDP content scores
comparing high and low scores on Leadership value for
the total sample.

 

 

 

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Sig.
Variance Squares Freedom Square F of F
Between

categories 93.119 1 93.119 5.658 0.02
Within

categories 1859.663 113 16.457
Total 1952.782 114

1

Total sample refers to all respondents re-
gardless of treatment.

 

n

’4)-
(h (111

‘\')

t

"X

(D 3‘
$|‘

T‘

.
owe...

 

p 1

l

174

TABLE 51.--Means and standard deviations of content

scores on the attitude—toward-handicapped-persons(HP)

scale comparing high and low scores on Leadership value
for the total sample.1

 

 

Mean of HP2 Standard
Variable N Content Scale Deviation
High scores on
Leadership value 42 45.643 5.026
Low scores on
Leadership value 73 44.753 5.484
Total 115 45.079 5.316

 

lTotal sample refers to all respondents regardless
of treatment.

2Low scores on HP content scale indicate positive
attitudes.

TABLE 52.-—Analysis of variance of HP content scores
comparing high and low scores on Leadership value for
the total sample.

 

 

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Sig.
Variance Squares Freedom Square F of F
Between

categories 21.091 1 21.091 0.744 0.39
Within

categories 3201.205 113 28.329

'Total 3222.296 114

 

 

chHCEHHHTA .and 4..£.+
“21:4 fiQaJOtnni JCCUCOQQOL .00..qu 03...» eHOLH meadwuomw mwBHuuxw £00403 02¢ 0C3 «.mdcwuHHOO £3va mulfiMwOmu
Muconluuwdhhldvfle.-~ru.~29.4...HHJlnLAH.HMZLOH_JO:.0|mUnH.$30nwln.ufio~DJH-\w.u.m.~ nhfleflwSJWQ munkfivlfidmfimyHrHOU .HMUU.HOIIO.NUNII.MI».\. £1“.qu

.. r. r

 

175

mo. v ma.
.pcoEpmonu mo mmoHonmwon meCUCOQmop HH< n Hmuoem
.cmnoHfizo AHmenoc «.m.HV voodoofiocmzlcoc mo mnocpoz u mmlcoz

.smnoHano woodwofiocmz zHHmonzzd mo mnonpoz u mm
.conoHano oonpzpmHo HHHmCOHpoEo mo mnonuoz n mam

 

 

 

m

.moosufippm o>fipmwoc DHMoHocH mopoom peopcoo mom zmfima
mo0.0 mmH em0.0u m0 H0H.0 0m *e0N.0 Hm soHsooccoo
0H0.0 mmH 000.0 mm 00m.0 0m m0~.0: Hm cnooosm
Hmo.on mmH moo.o| mm mmm.o: mm wao.o Hm mocoao>ocom
0HH.0 mmH mm0.0- m0 *mmm.0 0m 0HH.0 Hm coHpchooom
HomH.OI mma :Hm.o| mm *Hmm;01 mm mmH.oI Hm magnetomoq

L z a z u z m z
mzlcoz mm mam
Hopoe moam>
m mQSOHw

 

.oHdEmm Hmpou on»
one masonw psoocoomop mops» on» now CHMom mzam> coopoo on» one HApzopnoo mmmv datum
mcomnoQIUCDHSpmHUIHHHMCOHuoEmlpgmzoulmbzufiupm cmmzumn mCOHpmHmnaoo hmn&01ommwln.mm mqm<e

.. n .4 ,-l P i V 1‘
0S3 UCN $Q3CLM¢ uHLMtUCCQEQrH TQLEQ 0:» LOpH mimonom 031mmw> COUCHOU mwgu USN...» HfiUZQQCOU .HHHV
£|TL$30$I$UJGH¢OQ :003J03 QCOHQQHQLLOU EQULOIOLQNII.QA SQWQW

0.6.0.00» nnnhnvnu..HWQ'UUQQQC.r HUCQ

176

.conoHHno AHmEpoc «.o.HV woodwoaocmnlcoc no mponpoz
.conoHHno omdomofiocmn zaamOHmmnd mo mnmnpoz
.conoHfino omen3pmfio zHHMQOHpoEm Ho whonuoz

.pcoEpwopp Ho mmoaopmwon meDUQOQmop HH<

vm*

Hoooem

mmlcoz

H mm

momm

.moozpaupm o>fiumwoc opmofiocfi mopoom pcopcoo mm nwfim

H

 

 

 

*zma.0 mma 020.0 mm *mmm.0 0m #:0N.0 0m zpfifihomcoo
0H0.01 NmH 0m0.0l m0 000.0! mm mmN.01 0m phoaasm
mmo.0| mmH ©NH.0 mm *omm.0I mm 020.0 0m mocofio>mcmm
000.0 NmH 000.0I mm 0HH.0 mm w:a.0 0m Coapficmooom
HH0.0 mmH 00H.0 mm 000.0 mm N0H.0I 0m Qanmhmcmoq

n z A z A z a z
mHmcoe dmucoz NMMoco mom osHo>

 

.oHQsmm HMHOH

mzu 0cm masonw qupCoamon woman can now canon moam> 200900 one 0cm HApnopcoo mmv
mamom mcompoalooaamo“CatalohmzopICUSHHppm coozpon mcoapmHomHoo noonononowll.:m mqm<e

177

There is a significant difference between high and
low scores on Leadership value and attitudes toward
emotionally disturbed persons (Tables 49 and 50). But
the results have reversed the hypothesized direction of
difference. Also, no significant difference is found in
respect to attitudes toward physically handicapped per-

soriss (Tables 51 and 52). H:3a is, therefore, not con-

firmed .

The correlational analysis does reveal a significant
relationship between the Leadership sub-scale and the EDP
content scale. However, high Leadership value scores are
associated with positive attitudes toward the disturbed
(Table 53). The relationship between scores on the Leader-

Ship value scale and attitudes toward handicapped persons

is :not significant (Table 54).

H33 ‘6: Mothers who score high in need for power and control
95,33? others will tend to score low in progressive atti-
Eges toward education and high in traditional attitudes
wrd education.

As indicated by Tables 55-58, there are no signifi-
cant differences between mothers with high scores on
Leadership value and mothers with low scores on Leader-
ship value insofar as the progressive-attitudes-toward-
edLICEation scores or traditional-attitudes—toward-education

SecDr'es are concerned. This hypothesis is not confirmed.

178

TABLE 55.--Means and standard deviations of content

scores on the progressive-attitude-toward-education

scale comparing high and low scores on Leadership value
for the total sample.1

 

 

Mean of
Variable N Progressive Standard
Content Scale Deviation
High scores on
Leadership value 41 27.902 3.223
Low scores on
Leadership value 72 28.486 3.113
Total 113 28.274 3.152

 

lTotal sample refers to all respondents regard-
less of treatment.

TABLE 56.--Analysis of variance of content scores on the
progressive-attitude-toward-education scale comparing
high and low scores on Leadership value for the total

 

 

 

sample.
Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Sig.
Variance Squares Freedom Square F of F
Between
categories 8.900 1 8.900 0.895 0.35
Within
categories 1103.596 111 9.942
Total 1112.496 112
1

Total sample refers to all respondents regardless
of treatment.

179

TABLE 57.--Means and standard deviations of content scores

on the traditional-attitude-toward-education scale com-

paring high and low scores on Leadership value for the
total sample.1

 

 

Mean of
Variable N Traditional Standard
Content Scale Deviation
High scores on
Leadership value 41 28.244 3.322
Low scores on
Leadership value 72 29.056 3.468
Total 113 28.761 3.423

 

lTotal sample refers to all respondents regardless
of treatment.

TABLE 58.--Analysis of variance of content scores on the
traditional-attitude-toward-education scale comparing
high and low scores on Leadership value for the total

 

 

 

sample.l

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Sig.
Variance Squares Freedom Square F of F
Between

categories 17.210 1 17.210 1.475 0.22
Within

categories 1295.339 111 11.670
Total 1312.549 112

1

Total sample refers to all respondents regardless
of treatment.

180

Tables 59 and 60 reporting correlation coefficients
also do not suggest any relationship between Leadership
value and progressive or traditional attitudes toward edu-

cation in the total sample.

H:4a: Mothers who score high in need for recognition and
achievement will tend to score low in acceptance of
emotionally disturbed and physically handicapped persons.
Tables 61 and 62 point out that significant differ-
ences do not exist between those who scored high and
those who scored low on Recognition value in respect to
acceptance of emotionally disturbed persons. Mothers
who scored high on Recognition value also did not score
significantly higher on the HP scale which measured atti-
tudes toward the handicapped than did those who had
lower scores on Recognition value (Tables 63 and 64).
H:4a is not confirmed.
In the total sample, no significant relationship
is found between Recognition value scores and attitudes
toward emotionally disturbed or physically handicapped

persons (Tables 53 and 54).

H:4b: Mothers who score high in need for recognition

 

and achievement will tend to score low in progressive
attitudes toward education and in traditional attitudes

toward education.

 

As seen from Tables 65-68, there are no significant

differences between mothers who scored high and those who

181

m0. v m:

.pcoEpmopp mo mmoaopmwon mpcmocoomop Ham u Hopoem

.copoafino Hamsnoc n.o.Hv ooQQmOHocmCIcoc mo mnonpoz u mmlcoz
.comoafizo oodomofiocmc AHHHOHmznd mo mponpoz u mm
.conoafino connzumfio 0HHmcoapoEo mo mnonpoz u mam

 

 

 

H
emmH.0u mmH Homm.0n 00 *mHm.0u Hm 0m0.0u Hm HoHscoHcoo
HOH.0 mmH 0mm.0 :0 000.0 Hm 000.0- Hm ocoaosm
0m0.0 mmH 000.0- :0 e00.0 Hm 0H0.0 Hm oosoHosocom
0H0.0 00H HeH.0 :0 000.0 Hm 000.0- Hm coHchmooom
0HH.0- 00H HH0.0I e0 00H.0u Hm 00H.0u Hm oHcmnooooH
c z n z n z n z
Hoeoe amucoz mm mom osH0>
m Hazonu

 

.oHdsmm Hmuop on» one mononw unmoCOQmon omega on» pom onom osam> coopow can and

Hocopcoov Coapmosoonopmsoulmoosufippmno>fimmopmopd coospon mcofiumfionpoo hoonononownn.mm mqm<e

182

m0. v m...

.000800090 00 mmoa0hmwop 00000000009 0H0 n awnoem

.con0Hfizo AHmEpoc ..0.HV 00000000005120c no 0900002 n mmlcoz
.00000020 00000000000 0HHMonm£Q 00 0003002 4 mm

.CGQUHHSO Umflhdpmfifi hHHmCOHPOEm .HO meflmflpoz fl mQMH

 

 

 

 

*00H.0 00H 0000.0 :0 00H.0- Hm 000.0 H0 HoHsnoccoo
000.0- 00H 00H.0n 00 000.0 H0 0HH.0- Hm ctooosm
*m0m.0 00H *H0m.0 e0 0H0.0 Hm 00H.0 H0 oocoHosocom
000.0 mmH 000.0- :0 00H.0 Hm H00.0- Hm coHchwooom
HNH.0- 00H HHH.0- e0 00H.0n Hm 00H.0: Hm oHnmnooooH
a z n z a z n z
mHmcoe mmucoz 00 000 osHo>
Hasono
.oagsmm

H0000 one 000 masonw 0000000000 00020 on» pom onom osHm> 000000 on» 000 Apcopcoov
coapmoz0on0nmzounmo0suH0001H0000000mnp 0003000 mQOHpmaopnoo po0pouop0an.00 mam¢e

183

TABLE 61.--Means and standard deviations of content

scores on the attitude—toward-emotionally—disturbed—

persons (EDP) scale comparing high and low scores on
Recognition value for the total sample.1

 

2

 

Mean of EDP Standard
Variable N Content Scale Deviation
High scores on
Recognition value “9 52.143 H.067
Low scores on
Recognition value 68 51.u71 4.005
Total 117 51.752 “.028

 

lTotal sample refers to all respondents regardless
of treatment.

2Low scores on EDP content scale indicate positive

attitudes.

TABLE 62.--Analysis of variance of EDP content scores
comparing high and low scores on Recognition value for
the total sample.

 

 

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Sig.
Variance Squares Freedom Square 5 of E
Between

categories 12.871 1 12.871 0.792 0.38
Within

categories 1868.9ul 115 16.252

Total 1881.812 116

 

A“
V

.

.z-.
C

nv‘
v-

 

 

5.

h .v

184

TABLE 63.-—Means and standard deviations of content

scores on the attitude-toward-handicapped-persons (HP)

scale comparing high and low scores on Recognition
value for the total sample.

 

 

Mean of HP2 Standard
Variable N Content Scale Deviation
High scores on
Recognition value 50 45.760 5.061
Low scores on
Recognition value 68 45.073 4.614
Total 118 45.364 4.800

 

lTotal sample refers to all respondents regardless
of treatment.

2Low scores on HP content scale indicate positive
attitudes.

TABLE 64.—-Analysis of variance of HP content scores
comparing high and low scores on Recognition for the
total sample.

 

 

 

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Sig.
Variance Squares Freedom Square E of 3
Between

categories 13.578 1 13.578 0.587 0.45
Within ‘

categories 2681.752 116 23.119
Total 2695.330 117

1

Total sample refers to all respondents regardless
of treatment.

185

TABLE 65.--Means and standard deviations of content

scores on the progressive-attitude-toward-education

scale comparing high and low scores on Recognition
value for the total sample.

 

 

 

Mean of
Variable N Progressive Standard
Content Scale Deviation
High scores on
Recognition value 50 28.960 3.428
Low scores on
Recognition value 66 28.000 2.845
Total 116 28.414 3.132
1

of treatment.

Total sample refers to all respondents regardless

TABLE 66.--Ana1ysis of variance of content scores on the
progressive-attitude-toward-education scale comparing
high and low scores on Recognition value for the total

 

 

sample.

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Sig.
Variance Squares Freedom Square F of F
Between

categories 26.218 1 26.218 2.712 0.10
Within

categories 1101.920 114 9.666

Total 1128.138 115

 

 

 

'17" v

'u.

A...

‘v.

(j
'49)

J

(u
(D

(3

 

 

 

186

TABLE 67.--Means and standard deviations of content

scores on the traditional-attitude—toward-education

scale comparing high and low scores on Reiognition
value for the total sample.

 

 

 

Mean of
Variable N Traditional Standard
Content Scale Deviation
High scores on
Recognition value 50 29.260 2.754
Low scores on
Recognition value 66 28.924 3.085
Total 116 29.069 2.939
1

of treatment.

TABLE 68.--Ana1ysis of variance of content scores on the

Total sample refers to all respondents regardless

traditional-attitude-toward-education scale comparing
high and low scores on Recognition value for the total

sample.

 

 

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Sig.
Variance Squares Freedom Square E of 3
Between

categories 3.207 1 3.207 0.369 0.
Within

categories 990.241 8.686

Total 993.448

115

 

187

scored low on Recognition value compared with either
progressive attitudes or traditional-attitudes-toward-
education. It may be noted, however, that in case of
progressive-attitudes-toward education, the difference
between high and low scores on Recognition value is
significant at the .10 level of confidence (Table 66).
This would suggest a further verification of the hy-
pothesis on another sample. H:4b is not supported by
the data.

The correlation coefficients for the value variables
in question also indicate a lack of statistically signifi—

cant relationship for the total sample (Tables 59 and 60).

H:4c: Mothers of emotionally disturbed and physically

 

handicapped children will score lower on the values of

 

Leadership and Recognition than will the mothers of non-

 

handicapped (i.e., normal) children.

 

Mothers of emotionally disturbed, physically handi-
capped, and normal children did not obtain significantly
different scores on Leadership value as indicated by
Tables 69 and 70. In respect to scores on Recognition
value, significant differences (P < .02) exist between
the three groups of mothers (Tables 71 and 72). But
the hypothesis is not supported in the predicted direction.
Ranking of means reveal that mothers of emotionally dis-
turbed children scored the highest while HP mothers

scored the lowest. Duncan's test (Table 73) indicate that

188

TABLE 69.--Means and standard deviations of Leadership
value scores for the three respondent groups.

 

 

1 Mean of
Variable Group N Leadership Standard
Value Scale Deviation
Leadership EDP 52 7.269 4.366
value HP 39 7.128 4.969
Non—HP 64 8.140 5.055
Total 155 7.593 4.803

 

lEDP = Mothers of emotionally disturbed children.

HP = Mothers of physically handicapped children.
Non-HP = Mothers of non-handicapped (i.e., normal)
children.

TABLE 70.--Ana1ysis of variance of Leadership value scores
for the three respondent groups.

 

 

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Sig.
Variance Squares Freedom Square F of 5
Between

categories 33.069 2 16.535 0.714 0.50
Within

categories 3520.324 152 23.160

Total 3535.393 154

 

189

TABLE 71.--Means and standard deviations of Recognition
value scores for the three respondent groups.

 

 

1 Mean of
Variable Group N Recognition Standard
Value Scale Deviation
Recognition EDP 52 10.000 4.106
value HP 39 7.692 3.419
Non-HP 64 9.766 4.679
Total 155 9.323 4.282

Ranking of means: EDP(10.000) > Non-HP(9.766)
> HP(7.692)
Duncan's test results: EDP > HP; Non-HP > HP

 

lEDP = Mothers of emotionally disturbed children.

HP 8 Mothers of physically handicapped children.
Non-HP = Mothers of non-handicapped (i.e., normal)
children.

TABLE 72.--Analysis of variance of Recognition value
scores for the three respondent groups.

 

 

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Sig.
Variance Squares Freedom Square F of F
Between

categories 140.079 2 70.039 3.967 0.02
Within

categories 2683.792 152 17.656

Total 2823.871 154

¥

190

TABLE 73.--Duncan's New Multiple Range Test applied to
means of Recognition value scale for the three respondent

 

 

groups.
Range of Means (p) 2 3 df=152
Studentized ranges1
for a = .05 (Zp, df=152) 2.772 2.918
for a = .01 (Zp, df=152) 3.643 3.796

R'p [:R' = (8) (2p, df=152)]2 a = .05 11.648 12.261
0 8 .01 15.308 15.951

Mean differences3

RED? - ifip (p=3) 15.408*
23D? _ iN0n_HP (p=2) 1.772

X' Y (p=2) 14.439*

Non-HP ‘ HP

 

lSignificant studentized ranges for Duncan's new
multiple range test with 0 equal to .05 and .01 taken from
Edwards (1965, pp. 373-74).

2p = the range of means (2 and 3).

s = the square root of the error mean square of the
analysis of variance of Table 72. Thus,

S = “17.656 = 4.202

3Mean differences of columns 2 and 3 have been
transformed into the equivalent of E - scores for multiple
Ineans. To be significant, the figure must exceed the R'
'value of the same column. The formula given by Kramer
(1956) is:

/2n n
- _ - __1__E_ = v
(Xy Xz) my + nz > szp, error df of A. of V. ( R p)

*P < .05

mg F

30,:
i

s z
:8 heads

is
, mc‘
ound tc

l
1

v
H
0

o”
A

‘79":
«NJ V
-,fi"’h
”LUVtée
.I‘V'
Imus
n'n’ '.
Vol.03-

sturbe

O‘l‘

c
red

,1
\g

nan

‘1 low

5
O
0:23"

u.
u. la
y”.
l“

‘ 0

am Leac

‘0

191

there is no significant difference between control group
mothers and the mothers of emotionally disturbed children.
Thus, mothers of Non—HP and EDP groups scored higher on
Recognition value than did the mothers of handicapped
children. The hypothesis is considered confirmed only
for the HP group.

Zero-order correlations between Leadership and
Recognition value scores, and EDP content scores are
found to be significant only in the group of mothers
having physically handicapped children (Table 53). Where-
as Leadership value correlated positively (contrary to the
predicted relationship) with attitudes toward emotionally
disturbed persons, a negative correlation supporting the
hypothesized relationship is noted in case of Recognition
value for the HP group (Table 53). None of the groups
indicate significant relationship between HP content scores

and Leadership or Recognition value (Table 54).

I{:5a: Mothers who score high in need to help others,
1x3 be generous, will tend to score high in acceptance of
emotionally disturbed and physically handicapped persons.
Tables 74 and 75 reveal that there are no signifi-
caxn: differences between the means of mothers who scored
jhigh and those who scored low on Benevolence value when
compared with scores on the EDP scale. Similarly, high
and low scoring mothers on Benevolence value did not

<iiffer significantly in their attitudes toward physically

192

TABLE 74.--Means and standard deviations of content

scores on the attitude-toward—emotionally-disturbed—

persons (EDP) scale comparing high and low scores on
Benevolence value for the total sample.1

 

 

Mean of EDP2 Standard
Variable N Content Scale Deviation
High scores on
Benevolence value 73 52.014 3.967
Low scores on
Benevolence value 80 52.075 4.093
Total 153 52.046 4.020

 

lTotal sample refers to all respondents regardless
of treatment.

2Low scores on EDP content scale indicate positive
attitudes.

TABLE 75.--Analysis of variance of EDP content scores
comparing high and low scores for Benevolence value for
the total sample.

 

 

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Sig.
Variance Squares Freedom Square F of 3
Between

categories 0.143 1 0.143 0.001 0.89
Within

categories 2456.536 151 16.268

Total 2456.679 152

 

193

handicapped persons (Tables 76 and 77). H:5a is not con-
firmed.

The relationship between Benevolent value and EDP
content or HP content scales is not found to be statisti—

cally significant in the total sample (Tables 53 and 54).

H:5b: Mothers who score high in need to help others, to
be generous, will tend to score high in progressive atti-
tudes toward education and low in traditional attitudes
toward education.

No significant differences are found between mothers
who scored high and those who scored low on Benevolence
value when compared with either progressive attitudes or
traditional attitudes toward education (Tables 78-81).
Nonetheless, it is worthwhile to mention that considerable
difference (P < .10) exists between traditional attitudes
toward education and high and low scores on Benevolence
value (Tables 78 and 79). But the difference is in the
reversed direction in that mothers scoring high in Bene-
‘volence value obtained high rather than low scores on
‘bhe Traditional content scale. This hypothesis is not
confirmed.

The value of Benevolence, however, is found to be
significantly associated with traditional attitudes to-
walwi education in the total sample (Table 60). In case

of‘zxrogressive attitudes, no significant relationship

is seen in Table 59.

194

TABLE 76.--Means and standard deviations of content

scores on the attitude-toward-handicapped-persons (HP)

scale comparing high and low scores on Benevolence value
for the total sample.1

 

 

Mean of HP2 Standard
Variable N Content Scale Deviation
High scores on
Benevolence value 73 44.781 5.606
Low scores on
Benevolence value 79 45.620 4.541
Total 152 45.217 5.081

 

lTotal sample refers to all respondents regardless
of treatment.

2Low scores on HP content scale indicate positive
attitude.

TABLE 77.--Analysis of variance of HP content scores
comparing high and low scores on Benevolence value for
the total sample.

 

 

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Sig.
Variance Squares Freedom Square F of F
Between

categories 26.735 1 26.735 1.036 0.31
Within

categories 3871.101 150 25.807

Total 3897.836 151

 

195

TABLE 78.-—Means and standard deviations of content

scores on the progressive-attitude-toward-education

scale comparing high and low scores on Benevolence value
for the total sample.1

 

 

Mean of
Variable N Progressive Standard
Content Scale Deviation
High scores on
Benevolence value 71 28.507 3.549
Low scores on
Benevolence value 81 28.333 2.868
Total 152 28.414 3.194

 

lTotal sample refers to all respondents regardless
of treatment.

TABLE 79.--Analysis of variance of content scores on the
progressive—attitude-toward-education scale comparing
high and low scores on Benevolence value for the total

 

 

 

sample.l

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Sig.
Variance Squares Freedom Square F of 3
Between

categories 1.142 1 1.142 0.111 0.74
Within

categories 1539.746 150 10.265
Total 1540.888 151

1

Total sample refers to all respondents regardless
of treatment.

196

TABLE 80.--Means and standard deviations of content

scores on the traditional-attitude-toward-education

scale comparing high and low scores on Benevolence value
for the total sample.1

 

 

Mean of
Variable N Traditional Standard
Content Scale Deviation
High scores on
Benevolence value 71 29.465 3.460
Low scores on
Benevolence value 81 28.612 3.011
Total 152 29.013 3.245

 

lTotal sample refers to all respondents regardless
of treatment.

TABLE 81.--Ana1ysis of variance of content scores on the
traditional-attitude-toward-education scale comparing
high and low scores on Benevolence value for the total

 

 

 

sample.l

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Sig.
Variance Squares Freedom Square E of 3
Between

categories 27.176 1 27.176 2.608 0.10
Within

categories 1562.798 150 10.419
Total 1589.974 151

1

Total sample refers to all respondents regardless
of treatment.

197

H:5c: Mothers of emotionally disturbed and physically
handicapped children will score high on the value of
Benevolence than will the mothers of non-handicapped

(i.e., normal) children.

 

The hypothesis is not supported by the results
shown in Tables 82 and 83. The mothers of EDP, HP, and
control groups did not differ significantly in their
scores on Benevolence value.

Nevertheless, significant correlation is obtained
between Benevolence value and attitude toward the handi-
capped among the mothers of-physically handicapped
children (Table 54). This relationship is not found in
the mothers of disturbed and normal childred on either

EDP content or the HP content scales (Tables 53 and 54).

H:6: Mothers of emotionally disturbed and physically
handicapped children will score high on the value of
Support than will the mothers of non-handicapped (i.e.,

normal) children.

 

The findings reported in Tables 84 and 85 suggest
there is a significant difference (P < .01) between the
three groups of mothers regarding their scores on Sup-
port value. But the Duncan's test (Table 86) indicates
that true difference exists only between EDP and HP
Inothers. In other words, mothers of emotionally dis-

turbed children have significantly higher scores on the

198

TABLE 82.--Means and standard deviations of Benevolence
value scores for the three respondent groups.

 

1 Mean of
Variable Group N Benevolence Standard
Value Scale Deviation

 

 

Benevolence EDP 52 21.154 4.469
value HP 39 23.205 4.443
Non-HP 64 22.437 4.632
Total 155 22.200 4.573

1

EDP = Mothers of emotionally disturbed children.
HP = Mothers of physically handicapped children.
Non—HP = Mothers of non-handicapped (i.e., normal)
children.

TABLE 83.-—Analysis of variance of Benevolence value
scores for the three respondent groups.

 

 

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Sig.
Variance Squares Freedom Square F of F
Between

groups 99.922 2 49.961 2.433 0.09
Within

groups 3120.878 152 20.532

Total 3220.800 154

 

199

TABLE 84.-—Means and standard deviations of Support
value scores for the three respondent groups.

 

 

1 Mean of
Variable Group N Support ' Standard
Value Scale 'Deviation
Support value EDP 52 18.654 4.338
Non—HP 64 17.125 5.382
Total 155 17.194 5.062

Ranking of means: EDP(18.654) > Non-HP(17.125)
> HP(15-359)
Duncan's test results: EDP > HP

 

lEDP = Mothers of emotionally disturbed children.

HP = Mothers of physically handicapped children.
Non-HP = Mothers of non-handicapped (i.e., normal)
children.

TABLE 85.--Ana1ysis of variance of Support value scores
for the three respondent groups.

 

 

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Sig.
Variance Squares Freedom Square F of F
Between

groups 242.450 2 121.225 4.975 0.01
Within

groups. 3703.744 152 24.367

Total 3946.194 154

 

200

TABLE 86.—~Duncan's New Multiple Range Test applied to
means of Support value scale for the three respondent

 

 

 

groups.

Range of Means (p) 2 3 df=152
Studentized ranges1

for a = .05 (zp, df=152) 2.772 2.918

for a = .01 (Zp, df=152) 3.643 3.796

R'p [R' = (s)(zp,df=152)]2 a = 05 13 683 14 403

d = 01 17.982 18 737
Mean differences3
EEDP - EH? (p=3) 21.997**
XEDP - XNon—HP (p=2) 11'582
XNon—HP ’ XHP (p=2) 12‘295
1

Significant studentized ranges for Duncan's new
multiple range test with 0 equal to .05 and .01 taken
from Edwards (1965, pp. 373—74).

2p = the range of means (2 and 3)

s the square root of the error mean square of
the analysis of variance of Table 85. Thus,

S = V24.367 = 4.936

3Mean differences of columns 2 and 3 have been
transformed into the equivalent of t - scores for multiple
mearus. 'To be significant, the figure must exceed the R'
VEJJle of the same column. The formula given by Kramer

(1956) is:

—_

2n n
:— _ — 2 Z = v
(xy XZ) my + nz >szp, error df of A. of V. ( R p)

**P < .01

201

value of Support than the mothers of normal or handi—
capped children. This hypothesis is considered only
partially confirmed.

The zero—order correlations between the value of
Support and attitudes toward the disturbed and the dis-
abled are not significant either in the total sample or

the three respondent groups (Tables 53 and 54).

H:7: Mothers of emotionally disturbed and physically
handicapped children will score low on the value of con-
formity than will the mothers of non-handicapped (i.e.,

normal) children.

 

The ranking of means, standard deviations and F
statistic are presented in Tables 87 and 88. There are
significant differences (P < .05) between mothers of the
control group and experimental groups. Nevertheless,
the hypothesis is not supported as shown by Duncan's
test (Table 89). Mothers of emotionally disturbed
children expressed lowest Conformity value; but these
mothers are not statistically different from control
group mothers. Contrary to the hypothesis, HP mothers
obtained highest Conformity mean, and are statistically
different from Non—HP and EDP mothers. H:7 is not re-
garded to be confirmed.

Table 53 presenting zero-order correlations reveals
that Conformity value is positively correlated with the

EDP’content scale in the mothers of emotionally disturbed

202

TABLE 87.--Means and standard deviations of Conformity
value scores for the three respondent groups.

 

 

1 Mean of
Variable Group N Conformity Standard
Value Scale Deviation
Conformity EDP 52 18.615 5.623
value HP 39 21.461 4.999
Non-HP 64 19.125 6.119
Total 155 19.542 5.766

Ranking of means: HP(21.461) > Non—HP(19.125)
> EDP(18.615)
Duncan's test results: HP > EDP; HP > Non—HP

 

lEDP = Mothers of emotionally disturbed children.

HP = Mothers of physically handicapped children.
Non—HP = Mothers of non—handicapped (i.e., normal)
children.

TABLE 88.—-Analysis of variance of Conformity value
scores for the three respondent groups.

 

 

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Sig.
Variance Squares Freedom Square 3 of F
Between

groups 199.477 2 99.739 3.081 0.05
Within

groups 4921.000 152 32.375

'Total 5120.477 154

 

203

TABLE 89.-—Duncan's New Multiple Range Test applied to
means of Conformity value scale for the three respondent

 

 

groups.
Range of means (p) 2 3 df=152
Studentized ranges1
for a = .05 (Zp,df=152) 2.772 2.918
for a = .01 (Zp,df=152) 3.643 3.796
R'p[ ' = (s)(Zp,df=152)]2 a — .05 15.773 16 603

Mean differences3

“ _ ’ = *
XHP XEDP (p 3) 19.000
_ _ _ = *

XHP XNon—HP (p 2) 16.263

XNon—HP ‘ XEDP (p=2) 3'863

 

lSignificant studentized ranges for Duncan's new
multiple range test with 0 equal to .05 and .01 taken
from Edwards (1965, pp. 373-74)-

2p = the range of means (2 and 3).

s the square root of the error mean square of
the analysis of variance of Table 88. Thus,

8 = /32.375 = 5.690

3Mean differences of columns 2 and 3 have been
transformed into the equivalent of t - scores for multiple
means. To be significant, the figure must exceed the R'
value of the same column. The formula given by Kramer
(1956) is:

_ _ 2n nz
(Xy - XZ) 5—11—H—->szp,

error df of A. of V. (=R' )
y z p

*P < .05

204

children. The value of Conformity is also found to be
positively associated with attitudes toward the handi—
capped in the total sample as well as in the EDP and HP
groups.

Summary of Attitude and
Value Variables

 

The F tests and correlational analyses of the various
hypotheses pertaining to attitude—value interaction did not
yield consistent results. Very few hypotheses were fully

confirmed.

Total Sample.——Mothers scoring high in need for

 

power and control over others (Leadership value) scored
high in acceptance of emotionally disturbed persons. But
they did not score high in acceptance of physically handi-
capped persons. Low scores on Recognition value did not
result in greater acceptance of emotionally disturbed or
physically handicapped persons. Similarly, mothers who
scored high in need to help others, to be generous (Bene—
volence value) were not different from low scoring mothers
in their attitudes toward emotionally disturbed or handi-
capped persons.

The correlational analyses of the total sample re-
vealed that high scores on Leadership value are signifi—
<3ant1y related to favorable attitudes toward emotionally
ciisturbed persons. The values of Recognition and Bene-

‘volence had no correlation with EDP and HP scales.

205

Consistent with the above findings, attitudes to-
ward education (progressive or traditional) were not found
to be significantly different in high and low scoring
mothers on the value scales of Leadership, Recognition,
and Benevolence. Except for the value of Benevolence
which suggested significant positive correlation with
traditional attitudes toward education, none of the re—
maining value variables were observed to indicate signifi-
cant relationships with either progressive or traditional
attitudes toward education in the total sample.

Respondent Groups.--When value scores of the three
groups of mothers were compared, mothers of emotionally
disturbed children as well as mothers of normal children
did indeed score significantly higher on Recognition
value than did mothers of handicapped children. Also,
EDP mothers had significantly higher scores on the value
of Support compared to mothers of physically handicapped
or normal children. Conformity value was found to be
highest in mothers of physically handicapped children,
while there was no significant difference between EDP
and Non—HP mothers in this regard.

The zero-order correlations between value variables
and attitude scales for the three groups of mothers re-
'vea1ed few significant correlations. The amount of
correlations in all cases were too low to permit general-
izations. Low positive correlation was observed between

.Leadership and EDP scores in mothers of handicapped

206

children. Recognition and EDP scores correlated nega-
tively in mothers of handicapped children. Some signifi-
cant negative relationships were noted between Conformity
value and attitude scores on the EDP scale in mothers of
emotionally disturbed children. The value of Conformity
was also found to have a slight negative association with
attitude scores on the HP scale in EDP and HP groups.
But Benevolence did have a significant positive corre-
lation with HP scores in mothers of handicapped children.

The relationship between progressive-attitudes-
toward-education and Conformity value was detected to be
significant in a positive direction for both HP and con-
trol groups. Conformity value had significant negative
correlation with traditional-attitudes-toward-education
for the control group only. Again, the control group
mothers indicated a negative correlation between Benevo-
lence and traditional-attitudes—toward-education.
Hypotheses Related to Change
Orientation and Attitude Scores
H:8a: Mothers who score high on change orientation will
also score high on positive attitudes toward emotionally
disturbed and physically handicappedgpersons.

Total Sample.--According to Table 90, the multiple

 

correlation between change orientation and attitudes
toward emotionally disturbed persons is highly signifi-

cant (P < .01). When the six change variables are

207

TABLE 90.--Partia1 and multiple correlations between

change variables and content of attitudes toward

emotionally disturbed persons (EDP scale)1 for the
total sample.2

 

 

 

Change Variable N=158 Partial Correlation
Health practices 0.046
Child rearing practices -0.078
Birth control practices 0.186*
Automation 0.034
Political leadership -0.078
Self change 0.054
Multiple correlation R=0.223**

1

High scores on EDP content scale indicate negative
attitudes.

2Total sample refers to all respondents regardless
of treatment.

*P < .05
**P < .01

partialled out, only one variable, namely, birth control
practices makes most differential contribution to the
multiple correlation. But the direction is reversed.

In regard to the relationship between attitude scores

on the HP scale and change orientation, the multiple
correlation is noted to be significant at the .01 level
of confidence (Table 91). No single variable contributes

significantly to the multiple correlation. Moreover,

208

TABLE 91. --Partia1 and multiple correlations between
change variables and content of attitude toward physi-
cally handicapped persons (HP scale)1 for the total

 

 

sample.2

Change Variable N=158 Partial Correlation
Health practices -0.058.

Child rearing practices 0.077

Birth control practices 0.122
Automation 0.020
Political leadership 0.105

Self change —0.137
Multiple correlation R=0.229**

 

lHigh scores on HP content scale indicate negative
attitudes.

2Total sample refers to all respondents regardless

of treatment.

**P < .01

only two correlation coefficients between the HP criterion
variable and self-change and health practices are nega-
tive, which are consistent with the hypothesis. Thus the
hypothesis is not considered confirmed for the total sample.
Respondent Groups.—-Significant multiple correlations
are observed in the EDP and HP groups in respect to atti-
tudes toward the disturbed and change variables. However,
there is no consistency in the direction of relationship

(Table 92). The partial correlation reveals that except

209

TABLE 92.--Partial and multiple correlations between

change variables and content of attitu es toward emo-

tionally disturbed persons (EDP scale) for the three
respondent groups.2

 

Partial Correlation
Change Variables

 

 

 

EDP HP Non-HP
N=52 N=44 N=62
Health practices 0.048 0.070 0.049
Child rearing
practices -0.099 0.241 ”0.164
Birth control
practices 0.234 0.385* -0.016
Automation -0.009 0.076 -0.052
Political
leadership -0.221 -0.081 0.047
Self change —0.009 -0.037 0.012
Multiple correlation R=O.34l* R=0.426** R=0.196
1

High scores on EDP content scale indicate negative
attitudes.

2EDP = Mothers of emotionally disturbed children.

HP = Mothers of physically handicapped children.
Non-HP = Mothers of non-handicapped (i.e., normal)
children.

*P < .05
**P < .01

210

two variables, namely, health practices and birth control
practices, most are associated with the criterion (EDP
content scale) in the expected direction. This is not
true in case of HP mothers where only two variables--
political leadership and self change have negative coeffi-
cients.

Concerning the relationship between attitudes to-
ward the handicapped and change variables, significant
multiple correlations were obtained for all the three
groups of mothers (Table 93). But a look at the partial
correlations indicate that self change is the only vari-
able contributing significantly to the multiple corre-
lation in the EDP group. H:8a cannot be considered fully

confirmed by the results.

H:8b: Mothers who score high on change orientation will
also score high on progressive attitudes toward education
and low on traditional attitudes toward education.

Total Sample.--As indicated by Table 94, a highly

 

significant relationship (P < .01) exists between pro-
gressive attitudes toward education and change variables,
although no individual change variable contributes signi-
ficantly to this multiple correlation. In View of the
Ineager size of negative partial correlation coefficients,
‘the hypothesis can be considered supported for the total
seunple as far as progressive attitudes toward education

arms concerned. There is no statistically significant

211

TABLE 93.—-Partia1 and multiple correlations between

change variables and content of attitude toward physi-

cally handicapped persons (HP scale)1 for the three
respondent groups.2

 

Partial Correlation

 

Change Variables

 

EDP HP Non—HP
N=60 N=48 N=69
Health practices -0.118 0.005 -0.l68
Child rearing
practices 0.154 -0.012 0.120
Birth control
practices -0.118 0.299* 0.136
Automation —0.222 0.064 0.138
Political
leadership -0.004 0.164 0.014
Self change -0.328* 0.005 -0.092

Multiple correlation R=O.395** R=O.384* R=0.271*

 

lHigh scores on HP content scale indicate negative
attitudes.

2EDP = Mothers of emotionally disturbed children.

HP = Mothers of physically handicapped children.
Non-HP = Mothers of non-handicapped (i.e., normal)
children.

*P < .05
**P < .01

212

TABLE 94.—-Partial and multiple correlations between
change variables and content of progressive-attitude-
toward-education for the total sample.1

 

 

 

Change Variable N=156 Partial Correlation
Health practices 0.137

Child rearing practices 0.116

Birth control practices 0.043
Automation -0.040
Political leadership -0.005

Self change 0.055
Multiple correlation R=O.220**

1

Total sample refers to all respondents regardless
of treatment.

**P < .01

relationship between traditional attitudes and change
orientation (Table 95).

Respondent Groups.--The multiple correlations be-

 

tween the change orientation variables and progressive
attitudes toward education are found to be significant
in all the three groups of mothers (Table 96). However,
only in the control group, is the partial correlation
pertinaing to health practices significant in the pre-
dicted direction. If the direction of partial corre-
lation coefficients is considered, then H:8b can be
considered only partially supported by the data for the

respondent groups.

213

TABLE 95.—-Partia1 and multiple correlations between
change variables and content of traditional-attitude-
toward-education for the total sample.1

 

 

 

Change Variable N=156 Partial Correlation
Health practices 0.095
Child rearing practices 0.011
Birth control practices -0.000
Automation 0.024
Political leadership 0.097
Self change -0.030
Multiple correlation R=0.l45
1

Total sample refers to all respondents regardless
of treatment.

Table 97 does not indicate any relationship between
the change orientation variables and traditional atti-
tudes toward education in any of the three groups of
mothers. H:8b in respect to traditional education is

not supported.

H:9: Mothers of emotionally disturbed and_physically
handicapped children will have higher mean scores than
will mothers of non-handicapped (i.e., normal) children
on the following change orientation measures: (a)
health practices, (b) child rearing practices, (0)

'birth control practices, (d) automation, and (e) self

change.

214

TABLE 96.--Partial and multiple correlations between
change variables and content of progressive-attitgde—
toward-education for the three respondent groups.

 

Partial Correlation
Change Variable

 

 

EDP HP Non-HP
N=60 N=48 N=69
Health practices -0.020 0.122 0.313*
Child rearing
practices 0.226 -0.196 0.168
Birth control
practices 0.058 -0.110 -0.053
Automation —0.118 0.142 -O.176
Political
leadership -0.155 0.166 0.034
Self change -0.006 0.287 -0.123

Multiple correlation R=O.318* R=0.415H R=O.370**

 

lEDP = Mothers of emotionally disturbed children.

HP = Mothers of physically handicapped children.
Non-HP = Mothers of non-handicapped (i.e., normal)
children.

*P < .05
**P < .01

215

TABLE 97.--Partial and multiple correlations between
change variables and content of traditionaleattitude-
toward-education for the three respondent groups.l

 

Partial Correlation
Change Variable

 

 

 

EDP HP Non-HP
N=60 N=48 N=69
Health practices 0.226 -0.021 0.038
Child rearing
practices -0.084 0.099 -0.024
Birth control
practices 0.227 0.222 -0.154
Automation 0.204 -0.010 -0.137
Political
leadership 0.039 0.145 0.099
Self change 0.024 0.023 -0.136
Multiple correlation R=0.327* R=0.216 R=0.236
l

EDP = Mothers of emotionally disturbed children.
HP = Mothers of physically handicapped children.
Non-HP = Mothers of non-handicapped (i.e., normal)
children.

*P < .05

216

Comparisons of mean differences, standard deviations,
and F statistics are presented in Tables 98 and 99. There
is no statistically significant difference between the
three groups in any of the five change orientation vari~
ables. This hypothesis is not considered to be confirmed.
Summary of Attitude and Change
Orientation Variables

The use of multiple and partial correlations to test
the hypotheses revealed very few statistically significant
correlations. Moreover, the size of correlations were also
very low.

Total Sample.--The combined change variables, and

 

attitudes toward the disturbed and disabled were found to
have significant relationships, although the direction of
most partial correlation coefficients were inconsistent
with the hypotheses. A significant but low multiple
correlation was noted between the combined change orien-
tation variables and progressive attitudes toward edu-
cation. No such relationship was evident in the case of
traditional attitudes toward education for the total
sample.

Respondent Groups.--The multiple correlation be-

 

tween change orientation variables and attitudes toward
emotionally disturbed persons was significant for EDP
and HP mothers. The partial correlation revealed that
high scores on the variable of birth control practices

produced negative attitudes toward the emotionally

217

TABLE 98.--Comparison of mean differences and standard
deviations in respect to five change orientation vari-
ables for the three respondent groups.1

 

 

 

. 1 Standard
Variable Group N Mean Deviation
Health EDP 54 3.315 0.865

practices HP 45 3.289 0.815

Non-HP 67 3.492 0.704

Total 166 3.379 0.790

Child rearing EDP 55 3.145 0.803
practices HP 45 3.822 0.747

Non-HP 65 2.938 0.789

Total 165 2 976 0 788

Birth control EDP 55 1.800 0.911
practices HP 45 1.956 0.903

Non-HP 65 1.677 O 664

Total 165 1.794 0.823

Automation EDP 54 3.130 0 802
HP 44 3.045 0.888

Non-HP 65 3.185 0.726

Total 163 3.129 0 795

Self change EDP 55 2.327 ‘0.883
HP 45 2.378 0.806

Non-HP 65 2.554 0.613

Total 165 2.430 0 767

l

EDP = Mothers of emotionally disturbed children.
HP = Mothers of physically handicapped children.
Non-HP = Mothers of non-handicapped (i.e., normal)
children.

 

:00 000.00

00000

 

 

000.0 000 000.00 000000 000003

00.0 000.0 000.0 0 000.0 000000 0003000 000000 0000
000 000.000 00000
000.0 000 000.000 000000 000003

00.0 000.0 000.0 0 000.0 000000 0003000 0000000000
000 000.000 00000
000.0 000 000.000 000000 000003

00.0 000.0 000.0 0 000.0 000000 0003000 0000000 00000
000 000.000 00000
000.0 000 000.00 000000 000003

00.0 000.0 000.0 0 000.0 000000 0003000 0000000 00000
000 000.000 00000
000.0 000 000.000 000000 000003

mm.o 200.0 000.0 m Hm:.H 00000w 000300m 000000000 000000

m 00 M 00000m 5000000 000000m 0000000> 0000000>
.wfim 000: 00 0000w00 no 50m 00 00000m

.00000&

0000000000 00000 000 000 000000 00000000000 0&0000

00 00000003 00 0000000<|I.mm m0m<e

219

disturbed for mothers of handicapped children. Regard-
ing attitudes toward handicapped persons, all the three-
respondent groups revealed significant correlation with
change variables. Except for the EDP group, the direction
of relationship did not corroborate the hypothesized re-
lationships. Progressive attitudes toward education was
significantly related to change orientation variables for
all groups; but traditional attitudes correlated signifi-
cantly with combined predictors only for the EDP group.

The §_statistics for all the change orientation
variables also indicated non-significant differences be-
tween the groups. Thus, most hypotheses pertaining to
change orientation and attitude scores remained uncon-
firmed.

H otheses Related to General

erences Between Mothers of
Disturbed, Handicapped and Non-
Handicapped Children
H:10a: Mothers of non-handicapped (i.e., normal) children
will tend to have more favorable attitudes towardphysically
handicapped than toward emotionally disturbed persons.

The hypothesis is confirmed in that control group
mothers obtained significantly_(P < .01) different scores
on the EDP and HP scales. In other words, mothers of
normal children had more positive attitudes toward the

physically handicapped compared to emotionally disturbed

persons (Table 100).

220

TABLE lOO.-—Means, standard deviations, and critical
ratio of content scores on the EDP and HP scales for
mothers of non-handicapped (i.e., normal) children.

 

Standard Standard

 

Variable N Mean1 Deviation Error of 3
Difference
Content scores on
the EDP scale 66 52.56 3.82 0.77 10.27**
Content scores on
the HP scale 66 “4.65 5.03
Total 132

 

lLow content scores on the EDP and HP scales indi-
cate positive attitudes.

**P < .01

Hleb: Mothers of non—handicapped (i.e., normal) children
will have less favorable attitudes towardphysicallyhandi—
cappedgpersons than will the mothers of physically handi-
capped children.

This hypothesis is not confirmed as the difference
in the means of HP content scores of the mothers of handi-

capped and normal children is statistically not significant
(Table 101).

221

TABLE lOl.--Means, standard deviations and critical ratio
of HP content scores for mothers of physically handicapped
and non-handicapped (i.e., normal) children.

 

1 Standard Standard

 

 

Variable Group N Mean Deviation Error of 3
Difference
Content HP MS “4.02 6.22 1.11 1.07
scores on Non-HP 66 uu.65 5.03
the HP
scale Total 111
1

HP = Mothers of physically handicapped children.
Non—HP = Mothers of non-handicapped (i.e., normal)
children.

2Low content scores on the HP scale indicate positive
attitudes.

CHAPTER V

DISUCSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND

SUMMARY

This chapter presents an integration of findings
and implications relevant to the accomplishment of the
purposes of the study. Recommendations have been made
for future research modifications or innovations emerg-
ing from these findings and implications. Thus, con-
sistent with the objectives originally developed in
Chapter I, the present chapter is divided into three
major sections suggested by the chapter title.

Part I is devoted to a discussion of results ob-
tained from testing of hypotheses pertaining to the total
sample and the three groups of mothers.

Part II deals with recommendations for changes and
additions in future studies based on discussion of theo-
retical and methodological issues concerning research
design, sampling, instrumentation, and analyses proce-
dures.

The final section, Part III, presents the conclud-
ing summary with a reflection on the primary purpose of
the research in reference to the verification of the main

hypotheses.

222

223

Part I: Discussion of Results

 

There were 26 hypotheses which were divided into
four major categories pertaining to: (a) contact fre-
quency, intensity, and content of attitude; (b) attitude-
value interactions; (c) change orientation and attitude;
and (d) general differences in attitudes of mothers of
emotionally disturbed, physically handicapped, and non-
handicapped children. Each major category had several
hypotheses and sub-hypotheses with a view to predicting
relationships and making inferences about the total sample
and the groups of respondents. Since all mothers were
given the same set of instruments, it was considered use-
ful to determine differences and relationships between
selected criteria and predictors for the entire sample
regardless of treatment. In accordance with the main pur-
pose of the study, however, the three groups of mothers
were compared for relevant dependent and independent
variables. '

Hypotheses Relating to Contact
Frequency and Intensity

 

 

The main hypothesis in this section was that higher
frequency of contact with the disturbed and the disabled
produced greater intensity of attitude irrespective of
the attitude content. The intensity of attitude toward
emotionally disturbed persons in the total sample was
significantly different in mothers having high and low

frequencies of contact with the disturbed (Table 13).

22H

But contrary to expectation, intensity of attitude was

greater in mothers who had less frequent contact. Since

 

mothers of emotionally disturbed children have, apparently,
most frequent contact with disturbed persons, mean inten-
sity scores of the three groups of mothers were analyzed.
Somewhat consistent with the above results obtained for the
total sample, the EDP group did not score highest on the
intensity statements of the EDP scale (Tables l6-18).
However, these mothers had higher scores than mothers of
handicapped children. It may be inferred that personal
contact provides an opportunity to perceive both positive
and negative aspects of the social object resulting in

less intense attitudes. This interpretation is supported
by the fact that mothers of normal children who did not
have close personal contact with emotionally disturbed
persons indicated greatest intensity of attitude.

Before arriving at a definite conclusion in this
regard, the correlational data should also be examined.
There was no significant correlation between contact
with emotionally disturbed persons and intensity of
attitude toward them (Table 15). This would suggest
that intensity of attitude is not entirely a function
of frequency of contact, rather it may be related to a
number of related factors like nature of contact, con-
tent, and function of attitudes for an individual or a

group.

225

As for intensity of attitude toward physically
handicapped persons, no significant difference was found
between high and low frequencies of contact (Table 20).
However, the low contact group had a higher mean score
on the lH’ intensity scale than the high contact group;
and the mean difference was significant at the .10 level
of confidence. Similar to the above finding, the Non-HP
group had the highest intensity score, while the HP
group which had the most contact with handicapped per-
sons scored the lowest (Tables 21-23). The correlation
coefficient of -0.22 between contact and intensity on
the HP scale was statistically significant for the total
sample (Table 15). Interestingly enough, contact with
physically handicapped persons was also found to have
significant negative correlation with intensity of atti-
tude toward the emotionally disturbed. This may be a
case of response generalization.

The findings, therefore, support the earlier inter-
pretation that contact exposes a person to various as-
pects of a social situation so that he becomes more
flexible and maintains a less intense attitude toward
that social object.

Whether or not contact with education produced
difference in intensity of attitude toward education
was tested with another set of hypotheses for both the
total sample and the three groups of mothers. Neither

the E statistics (Tables 24-31), nor the correlation

226

coefficients (Table 15) were found to be statistically
significant for either progressive or traditional atti—
tudes toward education. It is important to note that
unlike the intensity scores on the EDP and HP scales,
high frequency of contact with education did not result
in lower intensity of attitude. A possible explanation
is that the nature of the attitude object and its func-
tional importance to the individual are significant
factors in respect to attitude intensity. It may be that
education was not considered a meaningful variable by the
subjects selected for the study. Perhaps, this is the
reason why no difference was found in the EDP, HP, and
normal mothers on the intensity items of the Education
Scale.

Contact Variables and Content
of Attitude

 

 

The rationale for hypotheses under this category
has been presented in Chapter III. It specifies that high
frequency of contact with a social object is associated
with favorableness of attitude if, (a) there are other
rewarding activities to engage in, (b) the contact was
enjoyable, and (c) the interaction could be easily
avoided. The hypotheses relating to the first condition,
namely, alternative to contact could not be tested be-
cause of the very small number of responses. The basic
assumption is that amount of contact with emotionally

disturbed and physically handicapped alone does not

227

produce favorable attitudes. Rather the attitudes are
dependent upon the positive evaluation of the contact
and the possibility of avoidance of such contact.

The multiple correlation between the combined contact
variables (predictors) and attitudes toward emotionally dis-
turbed persons (criterion) was highly significant for the
total sample. The partial correlations indicated that
amount and enjoyment of contact were significant contri-
butors to this multiple correlation. Although the size
of the multiple correlation coefficient (0.497) may be
given some consideration, the coefficients obtained for
significant partial correlations were too small to permit
generalizations with any certainty (Table 32). It must
be remembered, however, that the sample size was not
large, and this might have been responsible for the low
amount of correlation.

Contact with emotionally disturbed persons was
also related to favorable attitudes toward physically
handicapped persons. In this case, however, enjoyment
of contact was not found to have significant partial
correlation; instead, amount of contact and avoidance
of contact had a significant association with the
criterion (Table 33).

When the groups were considered separately, amount
and enjoyment of contact with the emotionally disturbed
were related to favorable attitudes toward handicapped

persons for the EDP group only. In this case, size of

228

the multiple correlation was .53 which was significant
at the .01 level of confidence (Table 34). The lack of
such relationships in the HP and control groups could

be explained as due to inadequate number of respondents
in the two samples. Only 17 mothers in the HP group and
28 mothers in the Non-HP group had had contact with
emotionally disturbed persons.

Although none of the HP contact variables, when
considered individually, contributed significantly, the
multiple correlation between combined predictors and
favorable attitudes toward handicapped persons was highly
significant for the total sample (Table 38). The data,
therefore, suggest that favorable attitudes toward the
handicapped may be predicted if high frequency of contact
is enjoyable and provides an opportunity to avoid the
contact with the handicapped. Similar results were ob-
tained for the mothers of physically handicapped and
emotionally disturbed children (Table 40).

As mentioned before, the partial and multiple
correlation coefficients presented in Table 33 indicated
that contact with the emotionally disturbed was able to
produce favorable attitudes toward handicapped persons.
But the predictors concerning contact with the handi-
capped did not correlate significantly with attitudes
toward emotionally disturbed persons (Table 39). It
seems reasonable to assume that emotional disturbance

was considered less desirable than physical handicap

229

by the respondents.. As a consequence, contact with handi—
capped persons did not result in favorable attitudes to-
ward emotionally disturbed persons. Table 41 also re-
vealed that contact with physically handicapped persons
was not related to attitudes toward emotionally disturbed
persons in any group of mothers, unlike the relationship
between EDP contact and HP scale observed in the mothers
of emotionally disturbed children (Table 34). Again, this
would suggest that contact with the handicapped influences
attitudes only in respect to handicapped persons.

In conformity with the hypothesis, mothers of the
emotionally disturbed children expressed more favorable
attitudes toward emotionally disturbed persons than did
the mothers of other two groups (Tables 35—37). Similarly,
attitudes toward physically handicapped persons were ob-
served to be most favorable among the mothers of handi-
capped children. Apparently, close personal contact as
well as the frequency of contact are responsible for this
difference in attitudinal reactions of the mothers (Tables
42-44).

However, the nature of attitudes expressed by the
mothers of normal children might suggest another possible
reason for this finding. In case of attitudes toward
emotionally disturbed persons, there was no significant
difference in mean EDP scores of HP and Non-HP mothers
which were significantly lower than the attitude scores

of EDP mothers. Also, no significant difference was

230

found in mean HP scores of HP and Non-HP mothers, although
they differed significantly with the EDP mothers. In
other words, there was no difference between mothers of
handicapped and normal children in respect to attitudes
toward emotionally disturbed or physically handicapped
persons. Perhaps, cultural values, prejudice and stereo-
types about mental illness versus physical handicap' are
responsible for differential attitudinal reactions. Physi-
cal handicap is generally viewed with sympathy and con-
sideration, whereas emotional disturbance is regarded by
many as the responsibility of the victim. The mentally
ill is perceived as a "deviant" or "transgressor" posing
a threat to the society which places great value on in-
dependence, responsibility and achievement. 0n the other
hand, a disabled person may be perceived as an unfortu-
nate victim of nature or circumstances beyond his control.
This is why perhaps, regardless of personal contact, the
mothers in the control group expressed more favorable
attitudes toward physically handicapped persons than to—
ward the emotionally disturbed.

Nevertheless, this interpretation does not explain
why EDP mothers had significantly higher scores on the
EDP scale and significantly lower scores on the HP
scale, if personal contact was not an important deter-
mining factor. It has already been suggested by corre—
lational analyses that enjoyment and ease of avoidance

of contact are probable factors associated with

231

favorableness of attitude toward the disturbed or the
disabled. An additional factor that appears plausible

in case of EDP mothers is personal commitment to their
emotionally disturbed children. Parents of disturbed
children are well aware of the general belief-—professiona1
as well as lay—-that they are the prime source of their
children's difficulties; and explicitly or implicitly they
accept this responsibility. There may not be any change
in overt parental behavior toward the children, but the
possibility of favorable change at least in the cognitive
component of the attitude still remains. Even if the
mothers of emotionally disturbed children did not enjoy
this contact and unquestionably the avoidance of the con-
tact was not easy, they expressed favorable attitudes to-
ward emotionally disturbed persons because of personal
commitment based on cultural expectations.

The hypotheses concerning educational contact and
progressive or traditional attitudes toward education
were not confirmed for the total sample. The multiple
and partial correlations presented in Tables 45 and 46
were not found to be significant. However, when the
three groups of mothers were compared, educational con—
tact variables did yield significant multiple correlation
with progressive attitudes toward education for the HP
and the Non-HP groups, although the directions of partial
correlations were not consistent (Table 47). As shown

in Table 48, the combined educational contact variables

232

were significantly related to traditional attitudes to—
ward education for EDP and HP groups of mothers. But
the partial correlations were not in the predicted di-
rection. For example, alternatives to education pro-
duced significant positive traditional attitudes toward
education, contrary to the hypothesis. Moreover, the
size of significant multiple and partial correlation co—
efficients were very low both for the total sample and
the respondent groups. Thus, it is extremely difficult
to interpret the data with any definiteness. At best,
the results suggest some sort of relationship between
contact with education and progressive and traditional
attitudes toward education. As to the precise nature of
relationship, further investigation on different samples
is warranted.

Value Variables in Relation
to Attitudes

 

 

As noted earlier, personal contact alone does not
seem to account for attitudes toward the disturbed and
the disabled as well as toward education. Interpersonal
values have been suggested by several authors in the
field (see the discussion on hypotheses derivation) as
being instrumental in the maintenance and sustenance of
attitudes toward social objects. With the help of a
number of hypotheses, attempt was made to determine the
role of various kinds of values in attitudes of mothers

selected for the study.

233

The first hypothesis was concerned with Leadership
\Jalue defined as need for power and control over others.
CEheoretically, it is appropriate to assume that those
INhO express the need for power and control over others
‘will tend to reject the emotionally disturbed and phySi-
cally handicapped persons. However, the results of the
study did not support this hypothesis. A comparison of
high and low scoring mothers on Leadership value scale
revealed that emotionally disturbed persons were accept-
able to the high rather than the low scoring group
(Tables 49 and 50). The relationship between high Leader-
ship scores and favorable attitudes toward the disturbed
'was also found to be significant for the mothers of physi-
cally handicapped and normal children (Table 53). A
Ibossible explanation of this apparently contradictory
:finding may be located in the manifestations of the need
:for power and control over others. Generally speaking,
ifavorable attitudes toward emotionally disturbed per-
ssons are held by professionals and responsible citizens
Vvho are in positions of authority or leadership. Hence,
eaven though the emotionally disturbed are evaluated in
1:erms of comparative values, favorable attitudes may
toe shown toward them because expression of such atti-
‘tudes would be congruent with the attitudes of experts
éand civic leaders. It is not uncommon to find examples
IFrom social life where power and control over others are
Eichieved by accepting new ideas if the social climate

S o warrant s .

234

The above interpretation must be considered as
tentative, since no significant difference was found
between high and low scoring mothers on Leadership value
regarding attitudes toward physically handicapped persons
(Tables 51 and 52). Furthermore, the three groups of
mothers did not differ significantly in respect to
Leadership value (Tables 69 and 70), nor was the corre—
lation between Leadership and HP scale significant. Atti-
tudes toward education, either progressive or traditional
did not indicate any relationship to Leadership value.

The value of Recognition which also included achieve-
ment orientation was investigated by another set of hy-
potheses. It may be recalled that the distinguishing
features of this value is the tendency to attract favor-
able attention and to receive admiration from others. In
essence, then, Recognition value is related to comparative
orientation as opposed to asset orientation measured by
Benevolence value. It was hypothesized that mothers
scoring high on Recognition value would tend to express
unfavorable attitudes toward emotionally disturbed and
physically handicapped persons. This hypothesis was
not confirmed (Tables 61—64) for the total sample. But
Significant negative correlation was found between
Recognition value and attitudes toward emotionally dis-
turbed persons among the mothers of handicapped children
(Table 53). Considering the small size of this corre-

lation and the fact that no such relationship existed in

235

respect to physically handicapped persons (Table 54),
no definite conclusion can be made for this data.

When the three respondent groups were compared
for Recognition scores, a significant difference be-
tween the groups was observed (Tables 71-73). The HP
group had the least amount of Recognition value, while
there was no significant difference between the EDP and
Non-HP groups. Two possible explanations may be offered
to account for this result. Contact with physically
handicapped children might have changed the value orien-
tation of the mothers, although they might have held high
Recognition value in the beginning. It is also possible
that mothers of physically handicapped children selected
for the study were low in Recognition value initially
and that later contact with disabled children had no
effect whatever on their value orientation. A design
making comparison of groups at various stages of ex-
posure would have provided more definite answers.

High scores on Recognition value were also thought
to be related to low scores on progressive attitudes
toward education and to high scores on traditional atti-
tudes toward education. No such relationship existed
either in the total sample or in the three groups of
mothers (Tables 59-60; 65-68).

The third value variable investigated in the present
research was Benevolence. This value refers to the need

to help others, and to be generous. When the total

236

sample was divided into high and low scoring groups on
this scale, comparison of their attitudes toward the dis-
turbed and the handicapped did not yield any significant
difference (Tables 74—77). The value of Benevolence was
also unable to differentiate the three groups of mothers
significantly (Tables 82-83). The only significant re-
lationship between Benevolence and HP scale was observed
for the mothers of handicapped children. However, the
correlation coefficient of .36 is too low to warrant any
serious consideration.

Unlike the previous cases where Leadership and
Recognition values failed to differentiate the groups on
the Education scale, some relationship was evident between
Benevolence value and Traditional attitudes toward edu-
cation for the control group and the total sample (Table
60). But contrary to the hypothesis, the correlation was
positive. It is extremely difficult to interpret the re-
sults since the coefficients were well below .30.

The two other values investigated were Support and
Conformity. The need to be treated sympathetically by
other people is measured by the value of Support. The
mothers of emotionally disturbed children scored signifi-
cantly higher than did the mothers of handicapped children.
This may indicate that mothers of handicapped do not need
understanding and encouragement from other people as do
the mothers of emotionally disturbed children. The pre-

valent attitude of the society placing responsibility on

237

mothers of disturbed children may be instrumental in the
maintenance of Support value. This is not true in case
of mothers of handicapped children who receive relatively
preferential treatment by the people, in general. None-
theless, Support value did not correlate significantly
with any of the attitude scales used in this study.
Conformity value, which signified the need for
social approval, was found to differentiate significantly
the three groups of mothers (Tables 87-89). But the
differences were not in the direction of the hypothesis.
It was predicted that mothers of emotionally disturbed
and physically handicapped children would express low
Conformity value in comparison to the scores of the con—
trol group. The result, however, indicated that the HP
group had the highest Conformity value than those of EDP
and Non—HP groups. Besides, there was no significant
difference between EDP and Non-HP groups on this value
scale. The inconsistency in the results is further evi-
denced by the fact that the EDP group showed a slight
positive correlation with attitudes toward the disturbed
and the handicapped (Tables 53 and 54). As expected,
Conformity was observed to be negatively correlated with
progressive attitudes toward education and positively re—
lated to traditional attitudes toward education. However,
the correlation coefficients were too low to be considered

meaningful.

238

Change Variables as Related to
Attitude Scores

 

 

Acceptance of emotionally disturbed persons and
the handicapped appears to bear a salient relationship
to change orientation variables (Felty, 1965; Friesen,
1966). High scores on change orientation items indicated
the presence of favorable disposition toward new ideas

and willingness to depart from the status quo. All hy-

 

potheses under this category were subjected to analyses
of variance and correlational analyses. The six change
variables selected for analyses were: health practices,
child rearing practices, birth control practices, auto-
mation, political leadership, and self change.

While several significant multiple and partial
correlations were obtained, low amount and inconsistent
direction of correlation coefficients render the inter-
pretation of results confounded. For the total sample,
significant multiple correlations were found between com—
bined change variables and attitudes toward the disturbed
and the disabled (Tables 90 and 91). Birth control
practices was the only variable which made significant
differential contribution to the multiple correlation in
respect to attitudes toward emotionally disturbed persons
for the total sample as well as for the HP group. But the
direction of these partial correlations were negative pre-
dicting unfavorable attitudes toward the emotionally dis-

turbed for those who were change oriented on items referring

239

to birth control practices. A significant but small pro-
portion of the variance of the HP scores can be explained
through reference to self change (r2 = .11) for the EDP
group (Table 93).

Progressive attitudes toward education may be con-
sidered to have some significant relationship with com-
bined change variables (Tables 94 and 96). The EDP group
was the only group to manifest significant multiple corre—
lation with traditional attitudes toward education (Table
97). Items concerning health practices, when partialled
out, made a significant positive contribution to the
multiple correlation with progressive educational atti-
tudes in the control group (Table 96).

Nothwithstanding the above findings, the mean differ-
ences of the change orientation scores were statistically
non-significant for the three groups of mothers. It may
be inferred that possibly some kind of relationship exists
between attitudes and change orientation variables, but
the relationship is not very clear to account for the
differential attitudinal reactions of the three groups
of respondents.

General Differences in the
Attitudes of the Respondent

Groups

The hypotheses under this category are based on
the general principle of cultural relativism reflecting

cultural values and popular stereotypes about emotionally

240

disturbed and physically handicapped persons. Physically
handicapped persons receive same treatment as given to
other minority groups like Negroes or Jews (see Review

of Literature). However, when the two minority groups
are compared, the physically handicapped group seems to
be preferred over the mentally ill. An empirical verifi-
cation of this notion was attempted by comparing the atti-
tudes of mothers of normal children toward emotional dis-
turbance and physical handicap. The results reported in
Table 100 confirm the hypothesis. The prejudice against
the emotionally disturbed is indeed greater than that
found for handicapped persons. It would appear that ef-
forts of the professionals and civic leaders in changing
public apathy with a view to producing greater acceptance
of the disturbed have failed to do the job.

Although more favorable attitudes are shown toward
the disabled by the control group, the amount of positive
attitudes should not be as large as the attitudes of the
mothers of handicapped children. This hypothesis is
based on the assumption that personal contact produces
much greater change in attitudes. Since mothers of
handicapped children had the closest personal contact,
it was expected that they would express more favorable
attitudes than the mothers of normal children. The re-
sults, however, do not confirm the hypothesis (Table 101).
The amount and direction of attitudes were not signifi-

cantly different for the two groups of mothers. This

241

would seem to cast some doubts upon the assumption that
personal contact alone is an important factor leading

to favorable attitudes toward the handicapped. Perhaps,
the nature of personal contact, especially enjoyment of
contact, is a more significant factor.

Another possible explanation refers to the in-
adequacy of the attitude scales used in the study. The
attitude instruments may be measuring a limited portion
of the attitude universe related to the disturbed or
handicapped persons. The items on these scales are pro-
bably reflecting only stereotyped statements about handi—
capped or disturbed persons, so that an individual with
a direct and prolonged personal contact might appear less
accepting on a "stereotype" level than those whose re-
lationships are less frequent and perhaps more super-
ficial. This explanation may also be applied to account
for the failure to confirm several other hypotheses per-
taining to contact and attitude scores discussed else—
where.

Part II: Theoretical and Methodological.
Issues, and Recommendations

 

 

The theoretical considerations and methodological

. problems have been discussed at some length in earlier
sections of this report. In this section, an attempt
will be made to critically examine the theoretical models
and the methodological strategies employed in the study

in light of verification of the hypotheses.

242

Theoretical Issues

In general, the theoretical framework of the pre-
sent research may be regarded as social—psychological,
inasmuch as the explanatory concepts used were primarily
from the field of social psychology. The principal con—
cern of the present research is the determination of
differential attitudinal reactions as a function of con-
tact with the emotionally disturbed and physically handi-
capped persons. If contact is an important determining
factor, can it also account for content and intensity of
attitude toward education as a result of educational con-
tact? Other important questions investigated in the
study related to the role of values. What kinds of value
orientations can predict attitudes toward specified social
objects? In what directions the relationships between
attitudes and values can be predicted? These were the
Inajor theoretically dictated questions.

Several studies were discussed in the Review of
Literature (Chapter III) which suggested the importance
of personal contact in changing attitudes and reducing
;prejudice (e.g., Allport, 1958; Jacobson, g£_al., 1960;
‘Watson, 1950). More recently, the role of personal con-
‘tact was investigated in respect to physical disability
(n1 cross—cultural samples (Felty, 1965; Friesen, 1966).
Ifiriesen (1966) who compared samples from Colombia, Peru
amid Kansas reported that ". . . there was a significant

Inalationship between contact and HP scores . . ." (p.

243

254). On the other hand, Felty (1965) found a significant
negative correlation between contact frequency and atti—
tude.

The results obtained from hypotheses testing do
provide some empirical support in that mothers of emotion-
ally disturbed and mothers of physically handicapped
children exhibited more favorable attitudes toward handi-
capped persons. But somewhat surprisingly, no signifi-
cant difference was found between mothers of handicapped
and normal children in regard to attitudes toward emotion-
ally disturbed or physically handicapped persons. This
raises the question whether personal contact in itSelf is
a major factor. It was suggested earlier during the dis-
cussion of results that cultural values reflecting common
stereotypes and prejudices are perhaps equally important
factors, if not more. The fact that mothers of normal
children expressed more positive attitudes toward the
physically handicapped than toward emotionally disturbed
persons may be considered a further proof of the ubiquitous
role of popular stereotypes.

As for the nature of personal contact, Zetterberg
(1963) has suggested that volitional nature of contact is
crucial. Also, in keeping with the theoretical position
of Zetterberg, enjoyment of contact was tested for pre-
dictive relationship. Apparently, there was little
possibility of avoidance of contact in case of mothers

of emotionally disturbed or physically handicapped

244

children. However, their responses on these variables
were procured on the Personal Questionnaires. The find-
ings, in this connection, are quite inconsistent as dis—
cussed in the previous section. Enjoyment, frequency,
and alternatives to contact with education also failed to
provide any consistent pattern in order to predict either
progressive or traditional attitudes toward education.
For the sake of comparison, Felty's (1965) observations
on an international sample (San Jose, Costa Rica) may be
mentioned here. In his study, contact frequency alone
was not found to be a significant determinant of atti-
tudes; rather, ease of avoidance of contact and avail-
ability of other rewards were significantly associated
with positive attitudes toward the disabled. Although
it cannot be concluded that these contact variables are
irrelevant for predicting attitudes, the results of the
present study do point out the necessity of a more rigor-
ous test of the theoretical propositions in question.

A theoretical relationship between attitude inten-
sity and amount of social contact has been postulated by
Foa (1950), and Guttman and Foa (1951) whereby intensity
increased as a result of contact. According to Rosen—
berg (1960), intensity is an important action predictor.
Zetterberg (1963) suggests that attitude intensity on
the favorable—unfavorable continuum is related to per-
ceived freedom or constraint of social interaction and

‘whether this interaction is perceived as rewarding. The

245

results of the study do not substantiate the above-
mentioned relationship between attitude intensity and
personal contact. In fact, a new direction in the inter-
pretation of this relationship is suggested by the data.
The variable in question did differentiate significantly the
three groups of mothers, as well as the total sample which
was divided into high and low frequencies of contact. But
more frequent contact reduced the intensity of attitudes
toward emotionally disturbed or physically handicapped
persons. In one of his respondent groups, Friesen (1966,
p. 225) obtained a significant negative relationship
between contact and intensity of attitudes toward
disabled persons. It is possible that intimate and fre-
quent personal interaction furnish a more comprehensive
perspective about the social object so that the indivi-
dual no longer responds on the level of stereotype.

Insofar as intensity of attitudes toward education
is concerned, no significant relationship with educational
contact was observed. Thus, even a negative relationship
between intensity and contact may not exist for all atti-
tude objects. The results of the present research give
a strong impression that attitude intensity is related
to the significance assigned to the specified social ob—
ject by the individual.

In recent years many psychological research studies
seem to emphasize the importance of values in explaining

lduman behavior. Both psychological and sociological

246

approaches have theorized that values are the best pre-
dictors of human behavior (e.g., Katz, 1960; Kluckhohn,
1951; Rosenberg, 1960). A specific proposal for studying
attitudes toward physical disability has been made by
Wright (1960) in which values are considered to have
either (a) comparative or (b) asset orientations. The
same theoretical model was applied in this study for
determining the relationships between values and atti-
tudes toward emotionally disturbed persons. The values
of Leadership (power needs) and Recognition (needs for
attention and admiration) were considered to be measures
.of "comparative" value system. In contrast, Benevolence
(generosity needs) was conceptualized as an "asset"
value system. Empirical confirmation of the negative
relationship between power needs and attitudes toward
physically disabled persons has been reported by Felty
(1965), Friesen (1966), and Whiteman and Lukoff (1962).
While the results of the present investigation do indi-
cate the existence of some relationship between Leader-
ship value and attitudes, they suggest a negative rather
than positive relationship. But even the negative re-
lationship was not found for all groups analyzed in the
study. Similarly, Recognition value failed to indicate
any consistent relationship with different attitude ob-
jects studied. This was also true in case of Benevolence,

Support, and Conformity.

247

Some possible tentative explanations have been of—
fered by the researcher in Chapter III when discussing the
results of specific value hypotheses. However, from a
theoretical standpoint, two pertinent questions can be
raised. Specific values such as Leadership, Recognition,
and Benevolence may not be representative of the hy-
pothesized dichotomy between comparative and asset
orientations. In other words, these values may not be
crucial to the maintenance of favorable or unfavorable
attitudes toward emotional disturbance, physical dis-
ability, or education.

The second question is concerned with the conceptuali-
zation of dimensions of values. As described elsewhere,
the six values used in the study were measured by Gordon's
Survey of Interpersonal Values. Although the scale makes
provision for the measurement of intensity of values,
other value dimensions like generality, specificity, and
modality (suggested by Kluckhohn, 1951) were not con-
sidered. Whether or not these dimensions are relevant
and more successful in predicting attitudes apparently
depend upon further empirical proofs.

Concerning attitudes toward education, the theo-
retical framework was provided by Kerlinger (1956). He
postulated that the progressive-traditional dimension of
attitudes toward education generalizes to other relevant
attitudes. In view of the non-confirmation of many hy-

potheses regarding education in this research, it is

248

clear that the issues are far more complicated and that
they should be re-examined in the light of the theoretical

questions raised in respect to values.

Methodological Issues

 

The basic methodological issue relates to the suit-

ability of the research design adopted in the study. As

 

discussed in an earlier section (see Chapter III--Limi-
tations of the Study), a cross-sectional analysis com-
paring exposed and unexposed groups only is not considered
to be a strong design. Hence a longitudinal research com—
paring groups at different stages of exposure with atti-
tude objects, and using multivariate analysis procedure
might have yielded more generalizable conclusions.

Another important problem is concerned with the

selection of instruments and their psychometric properties.

 

 

The three attitude scales employed inlthe study were: the
Handicapped Persons Scale, the Emotionally Disturbed Per-
sons Scale, and the Education Scale. The six values were mea-
sured by Gordon's Survey of Interpersonal Values which
had six value sub-scales. A detailed discussion of the
rationale underlying the selection of these scales has
been presented in Chapter III under the heading: De-
scription of Instruments.

Since not many hypotheses have been confirmed in
the present research it is necessary to examine further

the problems associated with validity and reliability of

249

the scales. Except the EDP scale, all the scales have

been used in many other investigations, and the reliability
and validity data warranted the use of these instruments.
The two recent doctoral dissertations (Felty, 1965;
Friesen, 1966) using the same scales (except the EDP

scale) on cross-cultural samples have raised the question

of concept equivalence. That is, the attitudes as ab-

 

stracted from the items may not have the same psychologi-
cal implications for different groups of respondents.
Although this problem has greater significance in cross-
cultural comparisons, it may be argued that the incon-
sistent attitudinal reactions of the subjects in the pre-
sent study resulted from a lack of concept equivalence on
account of differential group membership.

With this end in view, Felty (1965) and Friesen
(1966) employed the modified version of Guttman scaling
procedure using the Lingoes Multiple Scalogram Analysis.

It may be recalled that in the standard Guttman technique,

 

the content component of the attitude is scaled first, and
then the total content scores are plotted against total
intensity scores for each respondent. Usually, the con—
tent scores are plotted on the abscissa and intensity
scores on the ordinate. When the two are plotted to-
gether, a typical graphic presentation shows that inten-
sity forms a U—shaped or J-shaped curve in relation to

the content dimension. The true point of division be-

tween positive and negative responses is generally found

250

to be the low point of this curve. The Lingoes procedure,

 

used in the two dissertations mentioned above, does not
attempt to scale all of the items together, unlike the
Guttman procedure. This procedure is designed to extract
all possible attitude dimensions separately that are
latent in the data.

It is significant to note that both Felty (1965)
and Friesen (1966) failed to obtain sufficient items
which formed scales meeting Guttman scale requirements.
Also, low Guttman reproducibility coefficients were ob—
tained for the attitude scale suggesting low reliabilities.
Although methodologically, Guttman's pioneer scaling
method is very sound, the assumption that attitudes are
unidimensional can be seriously questioned. The Lingoes
procedure also makes the same assumptions regarding uni-
dimensionality of attitudes, although this technique is
an imporvement over the previous one in that it permits

multi-unidimensional analysis. These techniques, how-

 

ever, do not reveal multidimensional nature of attitudes.
Since these techniques for which computer programs
were available at Michigan State University did not yield
meaningful scales, they were not used for analyzing the
data in the present research. A further revision of the
Lingoes program attempts to provide both the much needed
multidimensional analysis and the multi-unidimensional

analysis. This new computer program, known as MSA—I

251

(Lingoes, 1965) is scheduled to become operation at
Michigan State University in the Spring of 1966.

In respect to the value scale, the factor analytic
data obtained by Felty (1965) revealed that "the forced-
choice format of the value scale produced factors which
reflected the format rather than response patterns" (p.
167). He recommended that forced-choice technique be
changed in conformity with attitude scales so that all
scales could be submitted to Guttman-Lingoes Multi-
dimensional Scalogram Analysis. However, it is difficult
to ascertain the usefulness of such a procedure for
Gordon's value scale in the absence of empirical data.

Apart from the issues involving scaling procedures,

a major problem is the actual content of attitude items.

 

It is likely that the attitude instruments used in the
study may be measuring a limited portion of the attitude
universe in regard to emotional disturbance, physical
disability, and education. For the purposes of the pre-
sent investigation, attitude was defined as a delimited

totality of behavior with respect to a given social ob—

 

ject (Guttman, 1950). Clearly, then, the items should be
as representative of this defined universe of attitude

as possible. Although it becomes a logical issue as to
whether the construct of attitude under consideration

has been properly sampled or not, it is always advisable
to broaden the range of items to ensure representative-

ness .

252

Two other methodological issues relating to sampling

 

of the respondents and test administration procedures need
brief comment. Considering the nature of the research
population, the total number of respondents in the control
group and the two experimental groups may be regarded
satisfactory. However, the number of cases for several
categories of variables measured in the study were quite
low (see Chapter IV). The size of the samples, there-
fore, cannot be considered large enough in order that the
non-confirmed hypotheses could be rejected or reformulated
for future research.

All the questionnaires in this research were self-
administered by the subjects. Since a period of about
three hours was required to fill out the entire set of
questionnaires, it is possible that some mothers com-
pleted the questionnaires in one sitting while others
spaced the task into several sittings extended over weeks.
For those who finished the task in a single sitting, the
fatigue effect might have influenced the responses on
the instruments taken toward the end. It would have been
desirable to collect the data through group administration
of the instruments distributed over three or more testing
sessions. However, this ideal testing condition was not
accomplished in the present investigation for the practical
reason of non—availability of the subjects for group test-

ing sessions.

253

Recommendations

 

The foregoing discussion of the relevant theoretical
and methodological issues serve the basis on which recom-
mendations for future research in the area have been made
in this section.

Research Design and Sampling.--It is strongly

 

recommended that a research design permitting comparison
of groups at various stages of exposure to emotionally
disturbed and physically handicapped persons be developed
for evaluating the precise contribution of personal con-
tact in effecting changes in attitudes and values. In
other words, a longitudinal research should be planned
which would indicate not only the changes in attitude
and values as a result of increasing exposure to atti-
tude objects, but would also reveal the nature of atti-
tude-value interactions at various points in time.
Furthermore, this design would allow the determination of
the stability of attitude change over a period of time.
Regarding sampling, it may be suggested that in
order to procure sufficient number of respondents and
also to ensure representativeness of the research popu-
lation, several institutions providing professional ser-
vices to the mentally ill and the physically disabled
should be selected. Of course, the different insti-
tutions should be similar in major demographic charac-

teristics. In this manner, some "randomization" of the

254

samples is possible even after controlling extraneous
variables.

Selection and Analysis of Scales.--The attitude
scales used in the present investigation had essentially
the Likert's (1932) "summated rating" format. One diffi-
culty with this technique is that there is no means by
which the four different scale values obtained for a
given item can be equated with other items in the scale.
In the preceding section, various improved techniques
for analyzing the content and intensity of the attitude
items have been discussed. It was also pointed that the
items should represent the entire universe of content in
respect to the attitude object. But this need not be
homogeneous or unidimensional. The universe of content
in regard to a given social object should be sampled in
terms of component areas.

Guttman (1959, 1961) has developed a highly sys-
tematic model for the selection and scaling of attitude
items within the framework of component approach. This
model, known as 'facet theory,‘ attempts to substructure
an attitude universe into logically established com-
ponents.1 The sampling of items is done within each of
the derived components. It is claimed that the relation-

ships between various components of the attitude universe

 

1A detailed discussion of Guttman's facet theory
and its implications for studying attitudes toward the
disabled can be found in Felty's dissertation (1965,
pp. 173-180).

255

can also be predicted with the help of this model (Foa,
1958, 1963; Guttman, 1959, 1961). Guttman (1959) applied
this model to analyze a research conducted by Bastide

and van den Berghe (1957). He suggests that there are
three facets (i.e., factors) insofar as intergroup be-

havior is concerned: (a) Subject's Behavior which in-

 

cludes belief and overt action at rational and affective
levels expressed either symbolically or operationally;

(b) Referent in respect to subject's group or subject

 

himself; and (c) Referent's Intergroup Behavior which
may be comparative or interactive.

However, the problem of item selection within each
component appears to be difficult to resolve. Using the
basic facet design, Dr. John E. Jordan of Michigan State
University and Dr. Louis Guttman of the Institute of
Applied Social Research have devised a mapping sentence
(see Figure l) with a view to constructing an attitude-
toward-education-scale. A mapping sentence for the facet
analysis has been proposed for measuring cross-cultural
attitudes toward education to be used in the larger inter-
national study of attitudes toward the disabled currently
underway at Michigan State University under the direction
of Dr. John Jordan (see Figure 2).

It can be seen clearly that future research in the
field would benefit a great deal by using the facet model
which has many theoretical as well as practical impli-

cations. Precisely, the problems related to the

256

 

$2 .o 3.538
:33qu «308 2.2%?
we flusumuaCH duounn

. announu owDOJ
huwnuc>wca madam clownow:
cannon .m anon

 

d I.IIIIIIH.H I 0 h I Q 0 fl ‘ K

.3. NBS—cg 5M)\A5 ELEV—330.60 cal-on gnu. A3 a §u\fi5 g new
\5. 923.28 uo\ .2 5 E53\ 8. 358 uo\.u. 859:: 35a.- uo\§ Era Hum .55 uo\ .2 Egg sou .5 g 9.385. «o \ .5 33.56

017.2562... «x

33.23 153- on

30.— nay N. ”Flange .783!- an
.033 :93 55? a . 3:8. 355:... 5? Huang ~35?! x All 9:22. a mo .28 05 guano»
:3... ab « giant»! guano? n
.3383 x a a“
NMAHNAHN u «lionlbulludon
mmmummw
3. a
so .2
n we uso and :4 Ma
cowuco>oun «a unqua- n .850 no ;
a «0 among? 05 new €38 a no 83:10 on» .3 fig 83 and.) «3.58
acofiouno>va « ~15u00~ufiucw z ova-flu Am
«.35 g
E .5 .2
oqanuo on
You? ~d.
n vlcuduou hue-unol o0
Quechua o
30: nu Inseam «a coda-nun handed-ham no
.— Eouu nHOOu mafia: nucogul N. ha Emu—HG .5058 9.123136 1
guacauwvauu u n~l90w>u664 do ecu-unuaddl hAuI«OOI u
. uuonunou a. n
mummmmw MNNHIu-dulmdafi noon 0
Au
vauuoonIn: do
a
m nunovaau 0‘ A0.
a on on
ous can an A undocumm Handwuanuducw ma
a an as v
a. u «a: n caduceus ounequm v:
a a 000 a on n .IIIIJWIII
you .32.: 9.38:2" u v: a u. n as cofia zoo 539m ual—Egon. ~23qu no 05>... a g 3.5 gonna-o.—
N
hunucouo
o "J acoacuofiom ~IOO~ «I
mun cal. o
u . a n nuaouam no
wgfl Manama

Hofiummam

A5

 

3.: .p. 3352.
5:33. 1:93 93.19.

 

«a. bazaauupfi -auu~
Gide—.0 nag

 

 

nonlIII-vflnl‘llnnlunnno-dhm—

 

.aug-ugqc... ouaum nag—~03- § 8 IE: no is E 0|
:Ivuohc .w :50». .— NI
7 ohfloguggi A“ all gun-lino“ I madly-Dwain
a: Gallo Ho 8" no g- ; ml .
at. g g
Dunno ~148- OI a0. .3
Saul-.800 ml N n1
loan VI 8.— u N! Al
can ha 030460.:- ouu Ema-Imam a Mlle—law»: 0.05 .- .ulolu nun. gut “ a * in Enl- lqu a as...
35.0.. 83.080 nl no: a Cu A!
8'. «I g a
to. ml .5 8
a?
.5 .
.3328 1:3. 4 n
no «I. o
:gnga Ngdfla Mn Sada—i Nd % N‘ I a N.
93:... unto—lac! «Inez-uni «a no .28 I3 val-bu 0a uu * «o g 05 new :3 wan-500: an“ no guano In» Slain u g Pal a. g.
7 a g. g a! I
eel-8261:30- n
5 i
N
2 a . . .5 .2
.3 \ 015. no
38% 9n.
A o gala-Irani— an
0.2.32. >238- o v
.331 no a Hunk-Ii a
3!. «u a 1:85 «v _ 33 313-3.. 0 a
a g 8.: £8» 2:3 ~ 3.8.35- . ~ .3 g: 3.05.... 9.13... w u v 3a g g in... a an in:
nails—33 u a 03‘? «Q viola- Aug 0 A N
on; C no i .-
dug a noun
.hv g as E N0 ”3 HI
all!
5 f u a! In!
luau-lulu! u .3
g
a.
3.399». 0: .I.D o
.3800. ugquzusflq ml «0.qu nu END
33...... 8.5!. v. uni—8!.» on 3.. 3 bag «u
ago-52.8 1:83! nu 9.1.3 13.13. g .2 3 8:38".- !«uu! .8: .388 a... n» .1. 5 w 3 an” Ill-I- f. 3 1838.. 3 unencu— i In
anal-23. aloo— nl .8353 50?»: ah i
cannul- ad 3035550 .3 and «a .5
a

a
2: .5

 

258

determination of attitude content, sampling of the items,
and length of the scales may be resolved on the basis of
this model.

With reference to the scaling of values, it is
recommended that the dimensions and classification schemes
of values relevant to attitudes toward the mentally ill,
the disabled, and education should be re-examined. If
scaling of value items with Guttman's technique is de-
sired, then the forced-choiced format should not be used.
It is also suggested that some other value instruments,

such as, The Differential Value Inventory(Prince, 1957)

 

or Ways to Live (Morris, 1956) be employed in order to

 

determine which value scale differentiates the groups
significantly in respect to the criteria.

Statistical Analysis.--Recommendations regarding
scale analysis have already been mentioned in the previous
section. In addition, factor analysis appears to be of
greater potential value in determining predictor vari-
ables for subsequent multiple regression analysis. Future
research should also use chi-square statistics to test

goodness of fit of the sample results with the normal

 

probability model or some other theoretical distributions

of the parent population.

Part III: Concluding Summary

 

The present research has confirmed, in general, the
impact of personal contact in the maintenance of favorable

attitudes toward emotionally disturbed and physically

259

handicapped persons. It has furthermore demonstrated
that amount of contact alone does not always produce
favorableness of attitudes; rather enjoyment and avoidance
of contact are also involved in some manner. However, no
consistent pattern can be determined between contact vari-
ables and attitudes from the present research. The data
also point to the fact that mothers of normal children
have more favorable attitudes toward the disabled than
toward emotionally disturbed persons and that the amount
of attitudes toward the disabled is the same in both the
mothers of normal and the mothers of physically handi-
capped children. This gives the impression that cultural
stereotypes about mental illness and physical disability
play a significant role in attitudes even in the absence
of personal contact. Contrary to expectation, more fre-
quent contact is seen to reduce the intensity of atti-
tudes toward emotionally disturbed and physically handi-
capped persons. The majority of the hypotheses relating
to values, change orientations, and attitudes toward
education are not confirmed consistently, and as such

no definite conclusions can be made on the basis of the
present investigation.

Although several specific hypotheses remain clearly
unsubstantiated in the study, it does not necessarily
warrant rejection or a major reformulation of the hy-
potheses in question at the present state of our know-

ledge about the constructs of attitude and values and

260

their relationships to other variables. Consideration
of theoretical and methodological problems would suggest
further examination of the hypotheses with the help of
improved research design, more adequately formulated
measuring instruments, and more appropriate statistical
techniques.

A major implication of the research findings is
that future studies of attitudes about important social
objects such as the mentally ill and the disabled must
encounter the complexity of attitude composition under
a sound and logically consistent theoretical system.
Only then it is possible to derive a meaningful and
predictable relationship between specific attitudes

and relevant interactive variables.

11.1.14. III! i I'll

 

 

REFERENCES

261

REFERENCES

Adams, H. B. Mental illness or interpersonal behavior.

Amer. Psychologist, 196A, 19, 191—197.

 

P. L., Schwab, J. J., & Aponte, J. F. Authoritarian
parents and disturbed children. Amer. J. Psychiat.,
1965, 121, 1162-1167.

 

Allport, G. W. Attitudes. In C. Murchison (ed.), Handbook

 

pf social psychology. Worcester, Mass.: Clark
University Press, 1935.

 

Allport, G. W. Becoming. New Haven: Yale University

 

Press, 1955.

Allport, G. W. The nature of prejudice. New York:

 

 

Doubleday-Anchor, 1953.

Allport, G. W., Vernon, P. E., & Lindzey, G. A study of

values: A scale for measuring the dominant interests
ip personality. (Rev. ed.) Boston: Houghton Mifflin,
1951.

 

Almond, G., & Coleman, J. S. (eds.). The politics of the

 

developing areas. Princeton: Princeton UniVErsity
Press, 1960.

 

American Psychiatric Association. Training the psychiatrist

 

pp meet changing needs. Washington: Amer. Psychiat.
Ass., 1963.

 

Askenasy, A. R. Attitudes toward mental patients and their

 

rehabilitation: A study pf mental health personnel
£2 éfl Atlantic boarder state ip Hawaii and ip England.
Part one of a two part final report, Office of Voca-
tional Rehabilitation Project RD 426, World Federation
for Mental Health: U. 8. Committee, New York, 1963.

 

 

 

 

 

Babbit, P. H. Appraisal of parental attitudes. J. Rehabilit.,

 

196a, 20—21.

Badt, Margit I. Attitudes of university students toward

exceptional children and special education“ Except.
Child., April 1957, 23, 287.

262

263

Bandura, A. Psychotherapy as a learning process. Psychol.
Bull., 1961, 68, 1u3-159.

Barclay, A. & Vaught, G. Maternal estimates of future
achievement in cerebral palsied children. Amer. A.
ment. Defic., 196b,.69, 62-65.

 

Barker, R. G. The social psychology of physical disability.

A. App. Issues, 19U8, 6, 28-35.

Barker, R. G., & Wright, Beatrice A. Disablement: The
somatopsychological problem. In E. D. Witthower &
R. A. Cleghorn (eds.), Recent developments l2 psycho-
somatic medicine. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott,
195D.

 

 

 

Barker, R. G., Wright, Beatrice A., Meyerson, L., & Gonich,
M. N. Adjustment to physical handicap and illness:
A survey of the social psychology of physique and
disability. Bulletin 2: the Social Science Research
Council, 1953, No. 55.

 

 

 

Barker, R. G., & Wright, H. F. Midwest and its children,
the psychological ecology 9: AA American town.
Evanston, 111.: Row, Peterson, 1955.

 

 

 

Barton, A. H. Studyipg the effects pf é college education:
A methodological examination pf changing values AA
college. New Haven, Conn.: Edward W. Hazen Found—
ation, 1959.

 

 

 

 

Barton, W. Foreword. In The American Psychiatric Associ-
ation (ed.), Planning for mental health: A report
pp the nation. Washington: Amer. Psychiat. Ass., 1965.

 

 

Bastide, R., & van den Berghe, P. Stereotypes, norms and
interracial behavior Sao Paulo, Brazil. Amer. sociol.
Rev., 1957, 22, 689-694.

Bell, A. H. Attitudes of selected rehabilitation workers
and other hospital employees toward the physically
disabled. Psychol. Rep., 1962, 10 (1), 183-186.

 

Bennet, C. C. Community psychology: Impressions of the
Boston conference on the education of psychologists
for community mental health. Amer. Psychologist,
1965, 20, 832—835.

 

Blackman, 8., Mandell, W., Goldstein, K. M., & Silberstein,
R. M. An approach to a community mental health theory.
Proceedings pf the 73rd Annual Convention 93 3A3
American Psychological Association, 1965, 191-192.

 

 

 

264

Bolles, M. M., Metzger, H. F., & Pitts, M. W. Early home
background and personality adjustment. Amer. A.
Orthopsychiat., 1941, 20, 530-535.

 

Brayfield, A. H. Community mental health centers "staffing"
legislation. Amer. Psychologist, 1965, 20, 429-430.

 

Brophy, I. N. The luxury of anti-Negro prejudice. Pub.
Opin. Quart., 1946, 9, 456-466. ’

Browne, W., Mally, M., & Kane, R. Psychosocial aspects of
hemophilia: A study of twenty—eight hemophilic
children and their families. Amer. A. Orthopgychiat.,
1960,30, 730—740.

 

 

Caplan, G. Principles 9: preventive psychiatry, New York:
Basic Books, 1964.

 

 

Carlson, E. R. Attitude change through modification of
attitude structure. A. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1956,
52, 256—261.

 

 

Carter, V., & Chess, Stella. Factors influencing the
adaptations of organically handicapped children.
Amer. A. Orthopsychiat., 1951, 21, 827-837.

 

Cass, L. K. Parent-child relationships and delinquency.
A. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1952, 47, 101-103.

Catton, W. R., Jr. A theory of value. Amer. sociol. Rev.,
1959, 24, 311.

 

 

Centers, Louise, & Centers R. Peer group attitudes toward.
the amputee child. A. soc. Psychol., 1963, 61, 127—
132.

Chamberlain, H. E., & De Schweinitz, E. Nine programs for
the promotion of mental health. In R. Kotinsky &
H. L. Witmer (eds.), Community programs for mental
health. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
1955-

 

 

Chesler, M. A. Ethnocentrism and attitudes toward the
physically disabled. A. Pers. soc. Psychol., 1965,
2, 877-882.

Clark, J. Manual of computer programs. Research Services,
Department of Communication, Michigan State University,
1964 (mimeo).

Clunk, J. Employer attitudes and the adjustment of the
blind. In Donahm2& Donahue (eds.), Psychological
diagnosis and counseling of the adult blind. New York:
American Foundation for tfie blind, 1947.

 

 

 

265

Cobb, 8., French, J. R. P., Jr., Kahn, R. L., & Mann,
F. C. An environmental approach to mental health.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1963,
107, 5963606.

 

Cohen, J., & Struenning, E. L. Opinions about mental
illness in the personnel of two large mental
hospitals. 1. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1962, 64,
349—360.

 

Cohen, J., & Struenning, E. L. Opinions about mental
illness: Mental hospital occupational profiles
and profile clusters. Psychol. Rep., 1963, 12
(1), 111—124.

Cole, N. J., Shaw, O. M., Steneck, J., & Taboroff, L. H.
A survey assessment of current parental attitudes
and practices in child rearing. Amer. A.
Orthopsychiat., 1957, 27, 815-822.

 

 

Cole, N. J., & Taboroff, L. H. The psychological
problems of the congenitally blind child. Amer.
A. Orthopsychiat., 1956, 26, 165-178.

 

Commission de la Ligue Francaise d'Hygiene Mentale.
Attitude de la societé a 1’ égard des maladies
mentales. [Public opinion in regard to mental
illnesses.] Hyg. ment., 1959, 48, 14-43.

Cook, J. Dimensional analysis of child-rearing attitudes
of parents of handicapped children. Amer. A. ment.
Defic., 1963, 68,_354-361.

Cowen, E. L., Underberg, R. P., & Verillo, R. T. The
development and structure of an attitude to
blindness scale. A. soc. Psychol., 1958, 48,
297-304.

Crawford, F. R., Rollins, G. W., & Sutherland, R. L.
Variations in the evaluation of the mentally ill:
11 The vieWpoint of the rural dweller. l. Hlth.
hum. Behav., 1961, 2, 267—275.

 

Cumming, Elaine, & Cumming, J. Closed ranks: AA experi-
ment l2 mental health education. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1957.

 

 

Davis, K. Mental hygiene and the class structure.
Psychiatry, 1938, 1, 55-56.

 

 

266

Denhoff, E., & Holden, R. Family influence on successful
school adjustment of cerebral palsied children.
Excep_. Child., 1954, 21, 5-75.

 

Despert, J. L. Some considerations relating to the genesis
of autistic behavior in children. Amer. A. Ortho-
ppychiat., 1951, 21, 335-350.

 

Deutsch, M., & Collins, M. E. Interracial housipg. Minn—
eapolis: Univer. of Minnesota Press, 1951.

 

Dickstein, Joan, & Dripps, Elaine. An analysis of attitudes
of acceptance-rejection towards exceptional children.
Master of Education Thesis, Boston University, 1958.

Dingman, H. F., Eyman, R. K., & Windle, C. D. An investi-
gation of some child-rearing attitudes of mothers
with retarded children. Amer. A. ment. Defic., 1963,
67, 899-908.

Downing, M., Rickels, K., Downing R., & Robinson, F.
Personality and attitudinal correlates of response
to drug treatment in psychiatric out-patients: III.
Neurotic medical clinic patients of lower socio-
economic status-—a demographic study. A. Psychol.,
1964, 57, 165-188.

Dumbo, T., Leviton, G. R., & Wright, Beatrice A. Adjustment
to misfortune--a problem of social-psychological
rehabilitation. Artificial Limbs, 1956, 3, 4-6.

 

Edwards, A. L. Eyperimental design £3 psychological
research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965.

 

 

 

Edwards, A. L. Techniques pf attitude scale construction.
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957.

 

 

Erikson, K. T. Patient role and social uncertainty: A
dilemma of the mentally ill. Psychiatry, 1957, 20,
263—274.

 

Estes, H. R., Haylett, C. H., & Johnson, E. M. Separation
anxiety. Amer. A. Psychother., 1956, 10, 682-695.

 

Felty, F. E. Attitudes toward physical disability in Costa
Rica and their determinants: A pilot study. Unpubv
lished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University,
1965.

Festinger, L. The theory 9: cognitive dissonance. New York:
Harper & Row, 1957.

 

 

267

Field, M. Maternal attitudes found in twenty-five cases
of children with primary behavior disorders. Amer.
l. Orthopsychiat., 1940, 10, 293-296.

 

Fliegler, L., & Hebeler, T. A study of the structure of
attitudes of parents of educable mentally retarded
children and a study of a change in attitude structure.
U. S. Dept. of HEW, Office of Education, Cooperative
Research Program, Project No. 018. Vol. I & II.
Syracuse, N. Y.: Syracuse University Research
Institute, 1960.

Foa, U. G. Scale and intensity analysis in opinion research.
Int. A. Opin. Att. Res., 1950, 4, 192—208.

Foa, U. G. The contiguity principle in the structure of
interpersonal relations. Human Relat., 1958, 2, 229-
238.

 

Foa, U. G. Convergence in the analysis of the structure of
interpersonal behavior. Psychol. Rev., 1961, 68, 341-
353.

Foa, U. G. A facet approach to the prediction of communal-
ities. Behav. Sci., 1963, 8, 220-226.

 

Force, D. G. Social status of physically handicapped
children. Except. Child., 1956, 26, 104-107, 132.

 

Frank, G. H. The role of the family in the development of
psychopathology. Psychol. Bull., 1965, 64, 191—205.

Frank, J. D. Persuation and Healing. Baltimore: John
HOpkins Press, 1961.

 

Friesen, E. W. Nature and determinants of attitudes toward
education and toward physically disabled persons in
Colombia, Peru, and the United States. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1966.

Gardner, E. F., & Thompson, G. G. Investigation and measure—
ment pg the social values governing interpersonal
relations amon adolescent youth and their teachers,
(Parts I & II . Cooperative Research Project No. 259A
(8418) and 259B (8418), Syracuse University, and Ohio
State University, 1963.

 

 

 

 

 

Genskow, J. K., & Maglione, F. D. Familiarity, dogmatism,
and reported student attitudes toward the disabled.
A. soc. Psychol., 1956, 67, 329-341.

268

Ginsburg, S. W. The mental health movement and its
theoretical assumptions. In R. Kotinsky & H. L.
Witmer (eds.), Community programs for mental health.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1955.

Goode, W. J., & Hatt, P. K. Methods Ap_socia1 research.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1952.

 

Goodman, N., Dornbusch, S. M., Richardson, S. A., & Hastorf,
A. H. Varient reactions to physical disabilities.
Amer. sociol. Rev., 1963, 28, 429—435.

 

Gordon, L. V. Manual for survpy pfinterpersonal values.
(No. 7-2761). Chicago, 111.: Science Research
Associates, 1960.

 

 

Gordon, L. V. Research briefs pp survey 9: interpersonal
values. Chicago, 111.: Science Research Associates,

1953.

 

 

Goshen, C. E. Mental retardation and neurotic maternal
attitudes. A research report. Arch. gen. Psychiat.,
1963, 9, 168-174.

 

Gowman, A. G. The war blind AA American social structure.
New York: Amer. Found. for the Blind, 1957.

 

 

 

Green, B. F. Attitude measurement. In G. Lindzey (ed.),
Handbook 9: social psychology. Vol. 1. Theory and
method. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1954.

 

 

Gurin, G., Veroff, J., & Feld, Sheila. Americans view
their mental health: A nationwide interview survyy,
New York: Basic Books, 1960.

 

 

Gurney, Wilma. Parents of children with congenital computa-
tion. Children, 1958, 5, 95-100.

 

Guttman, L. The cornell technique for intensity and scale
analysis. Educ. psychol. Measmt., 1947, 7, 247—280.

 

Guttman, L. The problem of attitude and opinion measurement.
In S. A. Stouffer (ed.), Measurement and prediction.
Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1950.

 

Guttman, L. An outline of some new methodology for social
research. Pub. Opin. Quart., Winter 1954, 18, 395—
404 (a).

 

 

Guttman, L. The principal components of scalable attitudes.
in P. F. Lazarsfeld (ed.), Mathematical thinkipg_lp
the social sciences. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press,

1954 (b). ,

 

 

269

Guttman, L. A structural theory for the intergroup beliefs
and action. Amer. sociol. Rev., 1959, 24, 318-328.

 

Guttman, L. The structuring p; sociological s aces. Tech-
nical Note No. 3, Contract No. AF 61 (0525-121, Dec.,
1961, p. 14.

Guttman, L., & Foa, U. G. Social contact and an intergroup
attitude. Pub. Opin. Quart., Spring 1951, 43-53.

 

Guttman, L., & Suchman, E. A. Intensity and a zero-point
for attitude analysis. Amer. sociol. Rev., 1947, 12,
57-67.

Hafterson, J. M. Multiple scalogram analysis (MSA) on the
CDC 3600. Michigan State University Computer Institute
for Social Science Research, Technical Report 6,
Feb. 10, 1964.

Hafterson, J. M. The "CUT" program for Guttman scalogram
analysis. Computer Center, Michigan State University,
1965. (Mimeo)

Handel, A. F. Community attitudes and adjustment to dis—
ability. Outlook for the Blind, 1960, 54, 361-367.

 

Harding, J., & Hogrefe, R. Attitudes of white department
store employees toward Negro co-workers. A. soc.
Issues, 1952, 8, 18-28.

Haring, N. G. A review of research on cerebral palsy and
emotional adjustment. Except. Child., 1959, 26, 191-
194.

 

Haring, N. G., Stern, G. G., & Cruickshank, W. M. Attitude
educators toward exceptional children. Syracuse,
Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1958.

 

 

9.:
N.

 

Heider, F. The psychology 9: interpersonal relations. New
York: Wiley, 195 -

Himes, J. B. Measuring social distance in relations with the
blind. Outlook for the Blind, 1960, 54, 54-58.

 

 

Hobbs, N. Statement on mental illness and retardation.
Amer. Psychologist, 1963, 18, 295-299.

 

 

Holliday, A. R. An empirical investigation of the personality
characteristics and attitude of the parents of children
who stutter. Dissertation Abstr., 1958, 19, 569-570.

 

Hollingshead, A. B., & Redlich, F. C. Social class and mental

 

illness: A communipy study. New York: Wiley, 1958.

 

270

Homans, G. C. The human group. New York: Harcourt, Brace
& World, 1950.

 

Hyman, H. Survey design and analysis. Glencoe: 111.:
Free Press, 1955-

 

Jacob, P. E. Changipg values 13 college. New York:
Harper & Bros., 1957.

Jacobson, E., Kumata, H., & Gullahorn, Jeanne B. Cross-
cultural contributions to attitude research. Pub.
Opin. Quart., Summer 1960, 24, 205—223.

 

Johnson, W. A broader and bolder rehabilitation program.
A. Rehabilit., 1963, 2, 13-14, 41-46.

Johnson, A. M., Falstein, E., Szurek, S. A., & Svendsen, M.
School phobia. Amer. A. Orthopsychiat., 1941, 11,
702-711.

Joint Commission on Mental Illness and Health. Action for
mental health. New York: Basic Books, 1961.

 

Jordan, J. E. Problems and promises of education in Latin
America. Special education in Latin America. Phi
Delta Kappan, January, 1964.

 

Jordan, 8. The disadvantaged group: A concept applicable
to the handicapped. A. Psychol., 1963, 55, 313-322.

Kasanin, J., Knight, E., & Sage, P. The parent—child rela-
tionship in schizophrenia. A. nerv. ment. Dis}, 1934,

79, 249-263.

 

 

Katz, D. The functional approach to the study of attitudes.
Pub. Opin. Quart., Summer 1960, 24, 163-204.

Kelman, H. C. Processes of opinion change. Pub. Opin.
Quart., 1961, 25, 57-78.

 

Kennedy, J. F. Mental illness and mental retardation:
Message from the President of the United States
relative to mental illness and mental retardation.
Amer. Psychologist, 1963, 18, 280-289.

 

Kerlinger, F. N. The attitude structure of the individual:
a Q-study of the educational attitudes of professors
and laymen. Genetic Psychology, 1956, 53, 283-329.

Kerlinger, F. N. Progressiveness and Traditionalism:
Basic factors of educational attitudes, A. soc.
Psychol., 1958, 68, 111-135.

Kerlinger, F. N. Factor invariance in the measurement of
attitudes toward education. Educ. psychol. Measmt.,
1961, 21, 273-285.

271

Kerlinger, F. N., & Kaya, E. The construction and factor
analytic validation of scales to measure attitudes
toward education. Educ. psychol. Measmt., 1959, 19,
13—29 0

Kessler, Jane W. Psychopathology 2: childhood. Englewood,
Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1966.

 

 

Kirk, S. A. Educating exceptional children. Boston, Mass.:
Houghton-Mifflin, 1962.

 

Klebanoff, L. W. Parents of schizophrenic children: 1.
Parental attitudes of mothers of schizophrenic, brain-
injured and retarded, and normal children. Workshop,
1958. Amer. A. Orthopsychiat., 1959, 29, 445-454.

 

Kluckhohn, C. Values and value orientations in the theory
of action. In T. Parsons & E. A. Shils (eds.),
Toward 2 general theory pf action. Cambridge, Mass.:

Harvard University Press, 1951.

 

Kluckhohn, Florence R. Dominant and variant value orienta-
tions. In C. Kluckhohn, H. A. Murray & D. M.
Schneider (eds.), Personality: Ip_nature, society
and culture. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1953.

 

 

 

Knapp, R. R. An empirical investigation of the concurrent
and observational validity of an ipsative versus a
normative measure of six interpersonal values. Educ.

psychol. Measmt., 1964, 24, 65-73.

Konopka, C. Group therapy in overcoming racial and cultural
tensions. Amer. A. Orthppsychiat., 1947, 17, 693-699.

 

Kramer, C. Y. Extension of multiple range tests to group
means with unequal numbers of replications. Biometrics,
1956, 12, 307-310.

 

Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. A taxonomy
pf educational objectives: Handbook IA: The affective
domain. New York: David McKay, 1964.

 

 

 

 

Kvaraceus, W. C. Acceptance-rejection and exceptionality.
Except. Child., 1956, 22, 328-331.

 

Law, Shirley. The mother of the happy child. Smith Coll.
Stud. soc. [A., 1954, 25, 1-27.

 

 

Leary, T. Interpersonal diagnosis pf personality. New York:
Ronald Press, 1957.

 

 

Lehmann, I. J., Sinha, B. K., & Hartnett, R. T. Changes in
attitudes and values associated with college attendance.
A. educ.Psychol., 1966, 57,89—98.

 

272

Lemkau, P., & Corcetti, G. An urban population's Opinion
and knowledge about mental illness. Amer. A. Psychiat.,
February, 1962, 118, 8.

 

Levine, S. A proposed conceptual framework for special
education. Except. Child., 1961, 28, 83-90.

 

Lewin, K. Principles of topological psychology. New York:
McGraw—Hill, 1936?

 

 

Lewis, W. D. Influence of parental attitudes on children's
personal inventory scores. 1. genet. Psychol., 1945,
67, 195-201.

Likert, R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes.
Arch. Psychol., 1932, No. 140.

Lingoes, J. C. Multiple scalogram analysis: A set theoret-
ical model for analyzing dichotomous items. Educ.
ppychol. Measmt., 1963, 23, 501-524.

 

Lingoes, J. C. Ap IBM — 7090 program for Guttman—Lingoes
multi-dimensional scalogram analysis--I. The Univer.
of Michigan, 1965.

 

 

 

Lingoes, J. C. New computer developments in pattern analysis
and nonmetric techniques. I.B.M. Journal, 1966 (in
press).

Liverant, S. MMPI differences between parents of disturbed
and non-disturbed children. A. consult. Psychol.,
1959, 23, 256—260.

 

Loomis, C. P. Social systems. Princeton, N. J.: Van
Nostrand, 1960.

 

Lowe, C. M. Value orientations--an ethical dilemma. Amer.
Psychologist, 1959, 14, 687-693.

 

MacGregor, F. C., Abel, T. M., Bryt, A., Laner, E., &
Weissman, S. Facial deformities and plastic surgery:
A psychosocial study. Springfield, 111.: Chalres C.
Thomas, 1953.

 

 

McKeown, J. E. The behavior of parents of schizophrenics,
neurotic, and normal children. Amer. A. Sociol., 1950,
56, 175-179.

Madoff, J. M. The attitudes of mothers of juvenile delin-
quents toward child—rearing. {. consult. Psychol.,

273

Manis, J. G., Hunt, C. L., Brawer, M. J., & Krecher, L. C.
Public and psychiatric conceptions of mental illness.
A. Hlth. Human Relat., 1965, 6, 48-55.

 

Mark, J. C. Attitudes of mothers of male schizophrenics
toward child behavior. A. abnorm. soc. Psychol.,
1953, 48, 185-189.

 

 

Maslow, A. H. (ed.). New knowledge Ap human values. New
York: Harper, 1959.

 

 

Medinnus, G. R. The relation between parent attitudes and
parental acceptance of the child. A. genet. Psychol.,
1963, 103, 117-121.

Meehl, P° E. Clinical versus statistical prediction.
Menneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1954.

 

Meerloo, J. A. M. Psychiatric ecology. A. nerv. ment. Dis.,
1959 3 129 , 385-390 .

 

Meyerson, L. Physical disability as a social psychological
problem. A. soc. Issues, 1948, 4 (4), 2-10.

Meyerson, L. Somatopsychology of physical disability. In
W. M. Cruickshank (ed.), Psychology p: exceptional
children and youth. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:
Prentice-Hall, 1963, pp. 1—52.

 

 

 

Morris, C. Varieties pi human value. Chicago, 111.:
University of Chicago Press, 1956.

 

 

Murphy, A. T. Attitudes of educators toward the visually
handicapped. Sight—Saving Rev., Fall 1960, 30 (3),
157-161.

 

Murray, H. A.. & Kouckhohn, C. Outline of a conception of
personality. In C. Kluckhohn, H. A. Murray, & D. M.
Schneider (eds.), Personality; Ap_nature, society)
and culture. New York: Alfred Knopf, 1953.

 

 

 

Nash, M. V. A study of attitudes of a group of non-
handicapped people toward the orthopedically handi-
capped. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia
University, 1962.

Newcomb, T. M. Stabilities underlying changes in inter-
personal attraction. A. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1963,

66, 376-386.

 

Nunnally, J. C., Jr. Popular conceptions pi mental health.
New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1961.

 

 

274

Nunnally, J., & Kittross, J. M. Public attitudes toward
mental health professions. Amer. Psycholpgist, 1958,
13: 589'594-

 

O'Connor, F., & Goldberg, 1. Children with crippling condi-
tions and special health problems. Rev. Educ. Res.,
December 1959, 29, 471—496.

 

 

Osgood, C. E., & Tannenbaum, P. H. The principle of congruity
in the prediction of attitude change. Psychol. Rev.,
.1955, 62, “2‘55.

Parsons, T., & Shils, E. A. (eds.), Toward A general theory
p: action. Chambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1951.

 

Peterson, D. R., Becker, W. C., Hellmer, L. A.,Shoemaker,
D. J., & Quay, H. C. Parental attitudes and child
adjustment. Child Develpm., 1959, 30, 119-130.

 

Pintner, R., Eisenson, J., & Stanton, M. The psychology
pg the physicalAy handicppped. New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts, 1941.

 

 

Plant, W. T. The psychological impact p: the public two-
year college pp_certain non-intellectual functions.
San Jose, Calif.: San Jose State College, 1963.

 

 

 

 

Prince, R. A study of the relationship between individual
values and administrative effectiveness in the school
situation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Chicago, 1957.

Prout, C. T., & White, Mary A. A controlled study of per—
sonality relationships in mothers of schizophrenic
male patients. Amer. A. Ppychiat., 1951, 107, 251-256.

 

Putnam, M. C. Case study of an atypical two-and-a-half-year—
old. Amer. A. Orthopsychiat., 1948, 18, 6-30.

 

Radke, M. J. The relation of parental authority to children's

 

 

behavior and attitudes. Univer. of Minnesota Institute
of Child Welfare Monograph Series, No. 22. Minneapolis:
The University of Minnesota Press, 1946.

 

Raskin, N. The attitudes of sighted people towards blindness.
Paper read at National Psychol. Res. Council, 1956.

Read, K. H. Parents' expressed attitudes and children's
behavior. A. consult. Psychol., 1945, 9, 95-100.

Rees, T. P. Back to moral treatment and community care.
A. ment. Sci., 1957, 103, 303-313.

 

275

Reeves, J. K. Some parental and social attitudes towards
children using hearing aids. Volta Rev., 1962, 6A,
314-316, 331.

 

Reichard, Suzanne, & Tillman, C. Patterns of parent-child
relationships in schizophrenia. Psychiatpy, 1950, 13,
247-257.

Richardson, 8. A., Goodman, N., Hastorf, A. H., & Dornbusch,
S. M. Cultural uniformity in reaction to physical
disabilities. Amer. sociol. Rev., 1961, 26, 2u1—2u7.

Riley, Matilda W., Riley, J. W., & Jackson, T. Sociological
studies Ap_scale analysis. New Brunswick: Rutgers
University Press, 1954.

 

Roeber, G. A. A study of certain public attitudes toward
the orthopedically disabled. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, New York University, 1959.

Rogers, C. R. Client-centered therapy. Boston, Mass.:
Houghton-Mifflin, 1951.

 

Rogers, C. R. A note on the nature of man. A. counsel.
Psychol., 1957, A, 199-203.

Rome, H. P., & Robinson, D. B. Psychiatric conditions
associated with metabolic, endocrine, and nutritional
disorders. In S. Arieti (ed.), American handbook p;
psychiatry. Vol. I. New York: Basic Books, 1959.

 

Rosenbaum, M., & Berger, M. Group_p§ychotherapy and group
function. New York: Basic Books, 1960.

 

Rosenberg, M. J. Cognitive structure and attitudinal
affect. A. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1956, 53, 367-372.

 

Rosenberg, M. J. A structural theory of attitude dynamics.
Pub. Qpin. Quart., Summer 1960, 24, 319-340.

 

 

Ruble, W. L., Kiel, D. F., & Rafter, Mary E. Calculation
of least squares (regression) problems on the LS
Routine. Stat. Series Description No. 7, Agricultural
Experiment Station, Michigan State University, 1966. (a)

Ruble, W. L., Kiel, D. F., & Rafter, Mary E. One-way analysis
9: variance with unequal number p: replications
permitted. (UNEQI Routine.) Stat. Series Description
No. 13, Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan

State University, 1966. (b)

 

 

 

 

276

Ruble, W. L., & Rafter, Mary E. Calculation 9: basic
statistics when missing data are involved. (The
MDSTAT Routine.)‘*Stat. Series Description No.6,
Agriculture Experiment Station, Michigan State
University, 1966.

 

 

 

Rusalem, H. The environmental supports of public attitudes
toward the blind. Outlook for the Blind, 1950, HA,
277—288.

 

Samler, J. Change in Vlaues: A goal in counseling.
A. counsel. Psychol., 1960, 7, 32—39.

 

Sanford, N. (ed.). The American college. New York: Wiley,
1962.

 

Schauer, G. Motivation of attitudes toward blindness.
Outlook for the Blind, 1951, 45, 39-A2.

 

Schuhman, A. I., Coe, R. M., & Rae-Grant, N. I. Some
social-psychological variables influencing parental
acceptance of residential treatment for their
emotionally disturbed children. A. Child psychol.
Psychiat., 1964, 5, 251-261.

 

 

Sears, R. R. Comparison of interviews with questionnaires
for measuring mothers' attitudes toward sex and
aggression. A. pers. soc. Psychol., 1965, 2, 37—A4.

Secord, P. F., & Backman, C. W. Social psychology, New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1965.

 

Shaefer, E. S., & Bell, R. Q. Development of a parental
attitude research instrument. Child Develpm., 1958,
29: 339‘3610

 

Shepherd, Irma L., & Guthrie, G. M. Attitudes of mothers
of schizophrenic patients. A. clin. Psychol., 1959,
15, 212-215.

 

Shere, Marie. Socio—emotional factors in family of the
twin with cerebral palsy. Except. Child., 1956, 22,
196-199, 206-208.

Sherif, Carolyn W., Sherif, M., & Nebergall, R. E.
Attitude and attitude change: The social Judgment-
involvement approach. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders,
1965.

 

 

 

Shoben, E. J., Jr. The assessment of parental attitudes in

relation to child adjustment. Genet. Psychol. Monogr.,

277

Siller, J. Personality determinants of reactions to the
physically disabled. Amer. Found. for the Blind, 1964,
NO. 7’ 37-520

 

 

Siller, J., & Chipman, A. Factorial structure and correlates
of the attitudes toward disabled persons scale. Educ.
psychol. Measmt., 1964, 24, 831-840. -

Smith, F. T. Ap_experiment Ap_modifying attitudes toward
the Negro. New York: Columbia University, Teachers
College Contributions to Education, No. 887, 1943.

 

 

 

Smith, M. B., & Hobbs, N. The community and the community
mental health center. Amer. Psychologist, 1966, 21,
499-509-

 

 

Sommers, Vita S. The influences p: parental attitudes and
social environment pp the personality development 2:
the adolescent blind. New York: Amer. Found. for
the Blind, 1944.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spiegel, J. P., & Bell, N. W. The family of the psychiatric
patient. In Arieti, S. (ed.), American handbook p:
psychiatgy, Vol. I. New York: Basic Books, 1959.

 

 

Spranger, E. Types p£_men. (Trans. by P. J. W. Pigors.)
Halle: Niemyer, 1928.

Star, Shirley A. Public attitudes--a measure of the dif-
ficulties. In APA (ed.), Psychiatry, the press and
the public. Washington: Amer. Psychol. Ass., 1956.

 

 

 

Stefflre, B. Vocational value inventory. Tentative Manual.
Michigan State University, 1958.

 

Stern, Nancy W. Maternal personality, attitudes, and child-
rearing practices, and their relation to child adjust-
ment. Dissertation Abstr., 1964, 25 (1), 635.

 

Stewart, C. A. A study of opinions regarding mental ill-
nesses and facilities for their care as realted to
social class membership. Dissertation Abstr., 1959,
19 (8), 2173.

 

Stouffer, S. A. An overview of the contributions to scaling
and scale theory. In S. A. Stouffer, L. Guttman, E. A.
Suchman, P. F. Lazaresfeld, Shirley A.Star, & J. A.
Clausen (eds.), Measurement and prediction. Princeton,
N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1950.

 

Struening, E. L., & Cohen, J. Factorial invariance and
other psychometric characteristics of five Opinions
about mental illness factors. Educ. psychol. Measmt.,
1963, 23, 289-298. W

 

 

 

 

. W h a n a .3 r:
C. Cu Co Q» r . a l

 

 

Uh
Uh

m-

278

Suchman, E. A. The intensity component in attitude and
opinion research. In S. A. Stouffer, L. Guttman, E.
A. Suchman, P. F. Lazaresfeld, Shirley A. Star, &
J. A. Clausen (eds.), Measurement and ppediction.
Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1950.

 

Suchman, E. A., & Guttman, L. A solution to the problem
of question bias. Pub. Opin. Quart., 1947, 2, 445—
455.

 

Super, D. E. Work value inventory. Form D. Teachers
College, Columbia University, 1961.

 

Szaz, T. S. The myth of mental illness. Amer. Psycho-
logist, 1960, 15, 113-118.

Tamkin, A. S. Survey of pathogenic parental attitudes in
parents of emotionally disturbed children. Psychol.
Rep., 1964, 15, 36.

Taylor, J. B. The organization of physician attitudes
towards the emotionally disturbed patient. A, Hlth.
Human Behav., 1965, 2, 99-104.

 

Tietze, Trude. A study of mothers of schizophrenic
patients. Psychiatry, 1949, 12, 55-65.

 

Tolor, A., & Rafferty, W. The attitudes of mothers of
hospitalized patients. A. nerv. ment. Dis., 1963,
136, 76-81.

 

 

Underberg, Rita. The relationship between parental under-
standing and child adjustment in the visually disabled
adolescent. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Rochester, 1958.

Underberg, Rita, & Others. Factors relating to adjustment
to visual disability in adolescence. New Outlook for
the Blind, 1961, 55, 253-259.

 

 

 

U. S. Bureau of the Census. A. A. census 9: population:
1960. Vol. I. Characteristics Q; the pOpulation.
Part 24, Michigan. Washington: U. S. Government
Printing Office, 1963. (a)

 

 

 

U. S. Bureau of Census. A. S. census 9: population: 1960.
Vol. I. Characteristics 9: the population. Part 37,
Ohio. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office,
1963. (b)

 

 

 

 

Van Houten, Janny. Mother-child relationship in twelve
cases of school phobias. Smith Coll. Stud. soc. WA.,
1948, 18, 161—180.

 

279

Verillo, R. T. A study of adjustment and the relationship
between parental attitudes and adjustment in visually
impaired and sighted adolescents. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester, 1958.

Waisanen, F. B. A notation technique for scalogram
analysis. The Sociol. Quart., October, 1960, 1
(4), 245-252.

 

Ward, J. H., Jr. Multiple linear regression models. In
H. Borko (ed.), Computer applications Ag the behavioral
sciences. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1962.

 

 

Watson, J. Some social and psychological situations
related to change in attitude. Human Relat., 1950,
No. 3, 15-56.

 

Watson, Jane E., & Johnson, Adelaide. The emotional signifi-
cance of acquired physical disfigurement in children.
Amer. A. Orthopsychiat., 1958, 28, 85—98.

Watts, H. J. Methodological problems in the measurement
of values. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1962.

Whiteman, M., & Lukoff, I. F. Public attitudes toward
blindness. New Outlook for the Blind, 1962, 56,
153-158.

Whiteman, M., & Lukoff, I. F. A factorial study of sighted
people's attitude toward blindness. A. soc. Psychol.,
196“: 6“: 339‘353-

Whiteman, M., & Lukoff, I. F. Attitudes toward blindness
and other physical handicaps. A. soc. Psychol.,
1965, 66, 135-145.

Williams, R. M., Jr. Strangers next door: Ethnic relations
Ag American communities. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:
Prentice-Hall, 1964.

 

Williamson, E. G. Value orientation in counseling.
Personnel Guid. A., 1958, 36, 520-528.

‘Winder, C. L., & Rau, Lucy. Parental attitudes associated
with social deviance in preadolescent boys. A. abnorm.
soc. Psychol., 1962, 64, 418-424.

 

VWood, K. S. Parental maladjustment and functional articula-
tory defects in children. A. Speech A Hearing Dis-
orders, 1946, 11, 255—260.

280

Worchel, T., & Worchel, P. The parental concept of the
mentally retarded child. Amer. A. ment. Defic., 1961,
65 , 782-788.

 

Wortis, H., & Cooper, W. The life experience of persons
with cerebral palsy: A study of sixty-three histories.
Amer. A. Phys. Med., 1957, 36, 328-344.

Wright, Beatrice A. Physical disabilipy: A psychological
approach. New York: Harper, 1960.

 

 

 

Wright, F. H., & Klein, R. A. Attitudes of hospital
personnel and the community regarding mental illness.
A. counsel. Psychol., 1966, 13, 106-107.

Yolles, S. F. The role of the psychologist in comprehensive
community mental health centers: The national insti—
tute of mental health view. Amer. Psychologist, 1966,
21, 39-41.

 

 

Yuker, H. E., Block, J. R., & Campbell, W. J. A scale to
measure attitudes toward disabled persons. Human
resources Stud., 1960, No. 5, l4.

 

Zavalloni, M., & Askenasy, A. Attitudes toward mental
illness: A cross—cultural study. New York: World
Federation for Mental Health: U. S. Committee, 1963.

 

 

Zetterberg, H. L. 9g theory and verification Ag sociology.
Totawa, N. J.: Bedminster Press, 1963.

 

 

Zuckerman, M., Oltean, Mary, & Monashkin, I. The parental
attitudes of mothers of schizophrenics. A. consult.
Psychol., 1958, 22, 307-310.

APPENDICES

281

APPENDIX A—l

Handicapped Persons Scale

282

PL-ipb [3,1nt-

YSEtt-

]

 

 

No. Location

 

Male Group

 

Female I Date

 

HANDICAPPED PERSONS SCALE

Instructions: Given below are 20 statements of opinion
about physically handicapped persons. We all think dif-
ferently about persons with physical handicaps. Here

you may express how you think by choosing one of the four
possible answers following each statement. These answers
indicate how much you agree or disagree with the state-
ment. Please mark your answer by placing a circle around
the number in front of the answer you select.

You are also asked to indicate for each statement how
strongly you feel about your marking of the statement.
Please mark this part of your answer in the same way as
before, by placing a circle around the number in front of
the answer you selects

 

_Y'

1. Parents of handicapped children should be less strict
than other parents.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree
About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly
2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

2. Physically handicapped persons are just as intelligent
as non-handicapped ones.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree
About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

No.

2 ATDP

Handicapped people are usually easier to get along
with than other peOple.

l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

Most physically handicapped people feel sorry for
themselves.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

Physically handicapped people are the same as anyone
else.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

No.

3 ATDP
There shouldn't be special schools for physically
handicapped children.
1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

It would be best for physically handicapped persons
to live and work in special communities.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

It is up to the government to take care of physically
handicapped persons.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

No.

10.

ll.

4 ATDP

Most physically handicapped people worry a great deal.
1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

Physically handicapped people should not be expected
to meet the same standards as non-handicapped people.

1. Strongly Disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

Physically handicapped people are as happy as non-
handicapped ones.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

No.

l2.

13.

14.

5 ATDP

Severely physically handicapped people are no harder
to get along with than those with minor handicapps.

l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

It is almost impossible for a handicapped person to
lead a normal life.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

You should not expect too much from physically handi—
capped people.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

No.

15.

l6.

l7.

6 ATDP
Physically handicapped people tend to keep to them-
selves much of the time.
1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

Physically handicapped people are more easily upset
than non-handicapped people.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

Physically handicapped persons cannot have a normal
social life.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

No.

18.

190

20.

7 ATDP
Most physically handicapped people feel that they are
not as good as other people.
1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

You have to be careful of what you say when you are
with physically handicapped people.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

3. Disagree 4. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

Physically handicapped people are often grouchy.
1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

APPENDIX A-2

Emotionally Disturbed Persons
Scale

290

No. Location

 

 

Male Group

 

 

Female Date y

EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED PERSONS SCALE

Instructions: Given below are 20 statements of opinion about
emotionally disturbed persons. We all think differently
about persons with emotional disturbances. Here you may ex—
press how you think by choosing one of the four possible
answers following each statement. Please mark your answer by
placing a circle around the number in front of the answer ypu
select.

 

You are also asked to indicate for each statement how strongly
you feel about your marking of the statement. Please mark
this part of your answer in the same way as before, by placing
a circle around the number in front of the answer you select.

 

1. Parents of emotionally distrubed children should be less
strict than other parents.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree
2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?

1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly
2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly
2. Emotionally disturbed persons are just as intelligent as

emotionally stable ones.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree
About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

No.

EDPS

 

Disturbed people are usually easier to get along with
than other poeple.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree
About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly
2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

Most emotionally disturbed people feel sorry for
themselves.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree
About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly
2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly
Emotionally disturbed peOple are the same as anyone else.
1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree
About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly
2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

There shouldn't be special schools for emotionally dis-
turbed children.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree
About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

\
I

 

 

No.

10.

EDPS

 

It would be best for emotionally distrubed persons to
live and work in special communities.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree
About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly
2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

It is up to the government to take care of emotionally
disturbed persons.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree
About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly
2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly
Most emotionally disturbed people worry a great deal.
1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree
About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly
2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

Emotionally distrubed people should not be expected to
meet the same standards as emotionally stable people.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree
About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

No.

ll.

l2.

13.

14.

 

EDPS

Emotionally disturbed people are as happy as emotionally

stable ones.
1. Strongly disagree

2. Disagree

About how strongly do you feel

1. Not strongly at all

2. Not very strongly

Severely emotionally disturbed
get along with than those with

l. Strongly disagree

2. Disagree

About how strongly do you feel

1. Not strongly at all

2. Not very strongly

It is almost impossible for an
person to lead a normal life.

1. Strongly disagree

2. Disagree

About how strongly do you feel

1. Not strongly at all

2. Not very strongly

You should not expect too much

turbed people.
1. Strongly disagree

2. Disagree

About how strongly do you feel

1. Not strongly at all

2. Not very strongly

Agree

Strongly agree
about your answer?

Fairly strongly

Very strongly
people are no harder to
minor disturbances.

Agree

Strongly agree
about your answer?

Fairly strongly

Very strongly

emotionally disturbed

Agree

Strongly agree
about your answer?

Fairly strongly

Very strongly

from emotionally dis-

Agree

Strongly agree
about your answers?

Fairly strongly

Very strongly

No.

15.

16.

17.

18.

EDPS

 

Emotionally disturbed people tend to keep to themselves
much of the time.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree
About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly
2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

Emotionally disturbed people are more easily upset than
emotionally stable ones.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree
About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly
2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

Emotionally disturbed persons cannot have a normal
social life.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree
About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly
2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

Most emotionally disturbed people feel that they are
not as good as other people.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree
.About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

No.

19.

20.

EDPS

 

You have to be careful of what you say when you are
with emotionally disturbed people.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree
About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly
2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly ’
Emotionally disturbed people are often grouchy.
l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree
About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

APPENDIX A-3

Education Scale

297

NO. Location

 

 

Male y, Group

 

Female Date

 

EDUCATION SCALE

Instructions: Given below are 20 statements of opinion
about education. We all think differently about schools
and education. Here you may express how you think by
choosing one of the four possible answers following each
statement. These answers indicate how much you agree or
disagree with the statement. Please mark your answer by
pggcigg,a circle around the number in front of the answer
youfiselect.

You are also asked to indicate for each statement how
strongly you feel about your marking of the statement.
Please mark this part of your answer in the same way as

before, by placing a circle around the number in front of
the answer ygu select.

_L

l. The goals of education should be dictated by children's
interests and needs as well as by the larger demands of
society.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?

1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly
2. No subject is more important than the personalities
of the pupils. ‘

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?

1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

No.

4.

2 E.D.
Schools of today are neglecting reading, writing, and
arithmetic; the three 3'5.
1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree
2. Disagree . 4. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly
2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

The pupil-teacher relationship is the relationship be—

tween a child who needs direction, guidance, and control and
a teacher who is an expert supplying direction, guidance,
and control.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree
2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree

About how strOngly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly
2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

Teachers, like university professors, should have
academic freedom-—freedom to teach what they think is
right and best.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. .Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly
2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

.1 ,1 r,
I, ( {I

No.

3 E.D.

The backbone of the school curriculum is subject matter;
activities are useful mainly to facilitate the learning
of subject matter.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly disagree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

Teachers should encourage pupils to study and criticize
our own and other economic systems and practices.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

The traditional moral standards of our culture should
not just be accepted; they should be examined and
tested in solving the present problems of students.
1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

arm-’1'

('I'!

.3

a

No.

9.

10.

11.

u E.D.
Learning is experimental; the child should be taught
to test alternatives before accepting any of them.
1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

The Curriculum consists of subject matter to be learned
and skills to be acquired.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

The true view of education is so arranging learning
that the child gradually builds up a storehouse of
knowledge that he can use in the future.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

No.

12.

l3.

l4.

5 E.D.

One of the big diffidulties with modern schools is that
diséipline is often sacrificed to the interests of
children.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all I 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

The curriculum should be made up of an orderly sequence
of subjects that teach to all students the best of our
cultural heritage.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly
2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

Discipline should be governed by long-range interests
and well-established standards.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree

About hos strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

No.

15.

l6.

l7.

6 E.D.

Education and educational institutions must be sources
of social ideas; education must be a social program
undergoing continual reconstruction.

l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?

1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly
2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly
Right from the very first grade, teachers must teach
the child at his own level and not at the level of
the grade he is in.

l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree

About now strongly do you feel about your answer?

1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly
2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly
Children should be allowed more freedom than they
usually get in the execution of learning activities.
1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

No. 7 E.D.
18. Children need and should have more supervision and
discipline than they usually get.
1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

19. Learning is essentially a process of increasing one's
store of information about the various fields of

knowledge.
1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree
2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

20. In a democracy, teachers should help students under-
stand not only the meaning of democracy but also the
meaning of the ideologies of other political systems.
1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree

.About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly

APPENDIX A-4

Gordon Survey of Interpersonal Values

305

%I %I %l %I

%I

.4

 
    
  
  
  
 
 

 

   

RAW SCORE

 

Date . .

 

Grade or Occupation

 

PERCENTILE
l NORM GROUP

.1 44.~ Marital Status

School or Firmi 1 ..

 

Mark your answers in column A —-—->

 

EE- SURVEY OF INTERPERSONAL VALUES

By LEONARD V. GORDON

DIRECTIONS

In this booklet are statements representing things that people consider to be important to
their way of life. These statements are grouped into sets of three. This is what you are asked to do:

Examine each set. Within each set, find the one statement of the three which represents what
you consider to be most important to you. Blacken the space beside that statement in the column
headed M (for most).

Next, examine the remaining two statements in the set. Decide which one of these statements
represents what you consider to be least important to you. Blacken the space beside that statement
in the column headed L (for least).

For every set you will mark one statement as representing what is most important to you,
one statement as representing what is least important to you. and you will leave one state-
ment unmarked.

Example
M L
To have a hot meal at noon , , . 7 . :::::: —
To get a good night’s sleep ,, , :::::: ::::::
To get plenty of fresh air , , , , N _ ::::::

Suppose that you have examined the three statements in the example, and although all three
of the statements may represent things that are important to you, you feel that “To get plenty
of fresh air" is the most important to you. You would blacken the space in the column headed M
(for most) beside the statement. Notice that this has been done in the example.

You would then examine the remaining two statements to decide which of these represents
something that is least important to you. Suppose that “To have a hot meal at noon” is the
least important to you. You would blacken the space in the column headed L (for least) next to
this statement. Notice that this has been done in the example.

You would leave the remaining statement unmarked.

In some cases it may be difficult to decide which statement to mark. Make the best decision
that you can. This is not a test; there are no right or wrong answers. Be sure to mark only one
M (most) choice and only one L (least) choice in a set. Do not skip any sets. Answer every set.
Turn this booklet over and begin.

SCIENCE RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC.
8 259 EAST ERIE STREET, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60611
Copyright I960 © Science Research Associates, Inc.

All rights reserved. Printed In U.$.A.
Reorder No. 7-2760

6789/I-98765432

To be free to do as I choose
To have others agree with me
To make friends with the unfortunate

To be in a position of not having to follow orders__._,__.______.__.
To follow rules and regulations closely ........ . ...... . ......................
To have people notice what I do

 

To hold an important job or office ____________________________________________
To treat everyone with extreme kindness
To do what is accepted and proper ____________________________________________

To have people think of me as being important ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
To have complete personal freedom
To know that people are on my side, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

To follow social standards of conduct .......................................
To have people interested in my well being ............................
To take the lead in making group decisions ............................

To be able to do pretty much as I please...__...,,,,,,..._.._________._
To be in charge of some important project,,,....,..
To work for the good of other people ........................................

To associate with people who are well known ..........................
To attend strictly to the business at hand .............. , .................
To have a great deal of influence ............................................

To be known by name to a great many people ........................
To do things for other people
To work 011 my own without direction

To follow a strict code of conduct ............................................
To be in a position of authority ............................................
To have people around who will encourage me ........................

To be friends with the friendless . ...........................................
To have people do good turns for me. , ..................................
To be known by people who are important ..............................

To be the one who is in charge... ..............................................
T0 conform strictly to the rules . ._
To have otheis show me that they like me ____________________________

To be able to live my life exactly as I wish ..............................
To do my duty ...........................................................................
To have others treat me with understanding.........,_,_.,..._

To be the leader of the group I’m 1n
To have people admire what I do .............................................
To be independent in my work ......... . ........................................

To have people act considerately toward me“
To have other people work under my direction,,.._._._',,_.__,._...
T 0 spend my time doing things for others ................ \ ________________

To be able to lead my own life ............................. ............

To contribute a great deal to charity .......................................
To have people make favorable remarks about me.

,7. 7‘ Turn the page and go on.

 

Mark your answers in column B ——> B A

 

 

 

To be a person of influence ,, ,, . . , ,, ,, , ,, ,, ;;;;;: ;:;;;; 33;; 33;;
To be neared with kindness ,,,,,, ,, , H
To always maintain the highest moral standaids , , ,,,,,,,,

  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
  

To be p1aised by other people , ,
To be re l11tivel1 unbound by social conventions , ,,,,,
To work for the good of society

To have the affection of other people
To do things 111 the approved manner
go around doing favors for other people

:‘I

To be allowed to do whatever I want to do
To be regarded as the leader
To do what is socially correct

fl

, have others approve of what I do

To make decisions for the group

To share my belongings with other people
To be free to come and go as I want to

‘11 help the poor and needy
To show respect 10 my superiors

‘
,—

To be given compliments by other people
To be in a very responsible position
' ‘0 do what is considered conventional

To be 111 charge of a group of people
To make all of my own decisions
To receive encouragement from others , ,,

To be looked up to by other people
To be quick in accepting others as friends
To direct others in their work

To be generous toward other people , , ,,,,,
To be my own boss
To have understanding friends

To be selected for 11 leadership position , , ,,,,,,,, ,
To be treated as a person of some importance
To have things pretty much my own way

To have other people interested in me
To ha1e p1ope1 and c01rect social manners , , ,,,,,,,
To be sympathetic with those who me in trouble

[‘0 be very popular with other people , _ .
To be free from having to obey rules ,,,,,,, , , , ...........
To be in a position to tell others what to do .......................

To alwavs do what is morally right , , N , .
To go out 01 m1 wav to help otheis
To have people willing to o tfe1 me a helping hand

To h 1111e people) eadmiie me , , ,_ ,,,,,,,,, ,
To alwa1 s do the approved thing
T o be 11bl c to Ie111e things Iving a1ound if I wish ,,,,, , .....

 

APPENDIX A-5

Personal Questionnaire (general)

307

No. Location

 

Male , Group

 

Female Date

 

 

PERSONAL QUEST IONNA 113E

This questionnaire has two parts to it. The first part has to
do with your contacts with schools and education, and what you
know about education. You may have had considerable contact
with schools and education, or you may know a great deal about
education. On the other hand, you may have had little or no
contact with schools or education and may have never thought

much about it at all.

For the purposes of this investigation, the answers of all per-

 

sons are important. If you know very little or nothing about
schools or education, your answers are important. If you know

a great deal about them, your answers are important.

The second part of the questionnaire has to do with personal
information about you. Since the Questionnaire is completely
anonymous, you may answer all of the questions freely without
any concern about being identified. It is important to the

study to obtain your answer to every question.

165

NO.

PERSONAL_QUESTIONNAIRE

Please read each question carefully and do not omit any questions.
Please answer by circling the correct answer (or answers) or fill
in the answer as requested.

165

SECTION 1: Experiences with Schools and Education

Below are listed several different kinds of schools or edu-
cational divisions. In respect to these various kinds or
levels of education, which one have you had the most profes-
sional or work experience with, or dogyou have the most
knowledge about? This does not refer to your own education.
Please answer by circling the number of the group you select.
Circle only one.

 

Elementary School (Grade School) ........... .. 1
Secondary School (High School) ............... 2
College or University ... ................ ..... 3
Other Types (Please Specify) 4
I have had no such experience ... ............ . 5

Which other groups, in addition to the one indicated above,
have you also had some professional or work experience with?
Please circle the number of each additional group with which
you have had some experience.

 

Elementary School (Grade School) ............. 1
Secondary School (High School) ............... 2
College or University ........................ 3
Other Types (Please Specify) 4
I have had no such eXperience ................ S

NO. . 2 P.Q.

3. The following questions have to do with additional kinds of
contracts you have had with schools or education. Please
girolg the number of each experience that applies to you.
Be sure and circle the number of every experience that
applies to you.

I know little or nothing about education .. ....... ..... l

I have read or heard a little about schools and
education .... .......... ....................... ..... ... 2

I have studied about schools and education through
reading, movies, lectures, or observations .... ........ 3

A neighbor of mine works in education ................. 4
A friend of mine works in education ................... 5
Some relative works in education . ............ . ...... .. 6
My father, mother, brother, sister, wife (husband),
or child works in education (in any position, pro—

fessional or non-professional) ............... ......... 7

I have worked in education, as a teacher, adminis—
trator, counselor, volunteer, etc. . ....... ............ 8

Other (Please Specify) 9

 

 

-——.._—-.-_7 ...... . ___._.

 

 

If on the preceding three questions you indicated that you
have had no personal experience with any kind of education,
please skip Questions #4 through #7. If you indicated that
you have had experience with one or more of the levels of
education listed, please answer Questions #4 through #7.

 

 

 

 

-.. .M .. w.

165

No. 3 P.Q.
4. About how much have you worked in schools or educational
settings? Please circle the number of the one best answer.
Less than three months ......... ..... . ...... ........... 1
Between three and six months .................... . ..... 2

Between six months and one year ....................... 3

Between one and three years ... ........................ 4
Between three and five years .... ....... ...... ..... .... 5
Between five and ten years ............................ 6
Over ten years ........ . ....................... ........ 7
Over fifteen years .... ..... ......... ..... . ........ .... 8

5. If you have ever worked in education, about what per cent of
your income was derived from such work?

Less than 10% ... ............... . ..................... . 1
Between 10 and 25% ... ........ . .......... ... ..... . ..... 2
Between 25 and 50% ... ..................... . ........... 3
Between 50 and 75% .......................... ... ....... 4
Between 75 and 100% ......... . ......................... S

6. If you have ever worked in education, how have you generally
felt about it?

I definitely have disliked it ......... .... ..... ....... l
I have not liked it very much ......................... 2
I have liked it somewhat ............ ..... ........ ..... 3

I have definitely enjoyed it ............ ...... . ....... 4

165

No. 4 P.Q.

7. If you have ever worked in education for personl gain, (for
example, for money or some other gain), what opportunities
did you have (or do you have) to work at something else
instead, that is, something else that was (or is) acceptable
to you as a job?

I do not know what other jobs were available or accept-
able OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO .... ..... O .............. 0...... 1

No other job was available ........... . ............ .... 2
Other jobs available were not at all acceptable to me . 3
Other jobs available were not quite acceptable to me .. 4

Other jobs available were fully acceptable to me ...... 5

 

“'1

8. How old are you? (Write age in box) ... ................. {—

 

.-.J.

9. ,Where were you mainly reared or "brought up" in your youth
(that is, up to the age of 15 or 16)?

Country .......................... . ........... . ........ 1
Country Town .......................................... 2
City .................................................. 3
City Suburb ......................................... .. 4

10. Where have you (or the main bread winner in your family)
been employed during the past three years?

 

Country ............... . ..... ..... ............ ......... 1
Country Town ......................... ... ....... ....... 2
City .. .................. . ..................... . ....... 3
City Suburb ........................................... 4

165

NO.

11.

12.

13.

14.

165

5 P.Q.

Where you have mainly lived during the past three years?

Country ......................... ............... ...... . 1
Country Town ........ ..... .... ........... . ..... ........ 2
City ............................. . ...... ....... ..... .. 3
City Suburb .................. . ...... .......... ..... ... 4

What is your marital status?

Married ........................................ . ...... 1
Single ........................... .. ....... .. ....... ... 2
Divorced .................. ............................ 3
Widowed ..... ........ . ..................... ... ..... .... 4
Separated ............................................. 5

How many children do you have? (Please write number in

box).

Please answer either A or B, which applies best to your
present situation. Please read both choices, than answer
only one.

A.

 

 

 

If you are self-supporting, about what is your total
yearly income before taxes (or, if you are married,
the total yearly income in the family). Include
extra income from any regular sources such as divi-
dends, insurance, etc. Please write the total in

the box . i

If you are not self-supporting (or, if you are
married, if your family is not self-supporting),
what is the approximate total yearly income before
taxes of the persons who mainly provide your sup-
port (that is, parents, relatives or others).
Make the best estimate you can.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

’ ('25

 

 

No. 6 P.Q.

15. According to your answer to Question 14, about how does your
income compare with that of most people in the total commun-
ity where you live?

Much lower .................. .......... . ..... 1
Lower ............... . ............ . ....... . ........... . 2
About the same ......................... .......... ..... 3
Higher ..... . ........................ . ......... . ....... 4
Much higher .. .................... ... .................. 5

16. How many brothers have you? (Please write number in box).

 

 

 

 

17. How many sisters have you? (Please write number in box).

 

 

 

 

18. About how does (or did) your father's income compare with
that of most peOple in the community in which he lives
(or lived)?

Much lower ...................................... . ..... 1
Lower ................................................. 2
About the same ..................................... . . 3
Higher ........ . ......... ............ .................. 4
Much higher ......... . ............ . .................... 5

165

19. What is your religion?

Catholic ............................,........ ..... .... l
Protestant ................. ..... .............. . ....... 2
Jewish ...... . ........ ............ ....... ........ ...... 3
None ....... .................. .... ..... ................ 4
Other (Please Specify) j S

 

20. About how important is your religion to you in your daily life?

I have no religion ........ .......... .............. .... 1
Not very important . ....... .... ..... .... ............... 2
Fairly important ................................. ..... 3
Very important .......... ........ ...................... 4

21. During an"average" work day, you probably have occasion to
talk and make contact with other adult persons where you are
employed. Estimate about what per cent of these contacts
and conversations are with people you feel personally close
to, whom you consider to be close friends, or that are rela-
tives of yours.

 

I do not usually talk or make contact with other

adult persons where I am employed ......... ...... . ..... 2
Less than 10% .... ............. ...... .................. 3
Between 10 and 30% ..... ................... ....... ..... 4
Between 30 and 50% ....... ............ ........ ......... 5
Between 50 and 70% ................................ .... 6
Between 70 and 90% ...... .... ..................... ..... 7
More than 90% ..... . ............... .... ................ 8

165

No. 8 P.Q.

22. How important is it to you to work with people you feel
personally close to?

Not at all important ...... .. ...... ..... ..... .......... 1
Not very important ...... . ......... . ................ ... 2
Fairly important .......... .............. ........... ... 3
Very important ........ ................................ 4

23. Now please consider all of the personal contacts you have
with people when you are not at work. Would you estimate
about what per cent of your contacts apart from working
hours are spent with peOple whom you know because of your
jgbg that is, those who work at the same job, trade, or
profession, or in the same place that you do, or that you
otherwise contact in the pursuit of your job.

None ........ . ............. . ............. . ...... ....... 1
Less than 10% ................................. . ....... 2
Between 10 and 30% ...................... ..... ..... .... 3
Between 30 and 50% .................. .................. 4
Between 50 and 70% ................................ .... 5
Between 70 and 90% .................................... 6
More than 90% .............. ... ........... ... ........... 7

24. What social class do you believe you are in?

Lower .. .................... . ..................... ..... 1
Lower Middle ......................... . ................ 2
Middle ........................ . ....................... 3
Upper Middle ............ . ........... . ..... . ........... 4
Upper ..... ........................................ .... 5
Upper Upper ............. .. ..... . ...... .. ............ .. 6

165

NO.

25.

26.

165

9 P.Q.

Which social class do you believe your father is (or was) in?

Lower .............. ..... .............................. 1
Lower Middle .......................................... 2
Middle .. .............. ............ ............ . ....... 3
Upper Middle ................ .......................... 4
Upper ....... . ............ ....... ........ . ...... ....... 5
Upper Upper ............... ...... ........... ... ....... 6

About how much education do you have (Circle only one).
3 years of school or less .. ........ . ..... .... ......... l
6 years of school or less .. ........................... 2

9 years of school or less ............................. 3

12 years of school or less .. ........ .................. 4
Some college or university ........................ .... 5
A college or university degree ..... ..... ........ . ..... 6
Some graduate work beyond the first degree ............ 7
One or more advanced degrees .......................... 8

Other (Please note number of years of study or diploma
obtained) _ 9

NO. 10 P.Q.
27. About how does your education compare with that of most
people?
Much less than most ................................. 1
Less than most ...................................... 2
About average ....................................... 3
More than most ...................................... 4
Much more than most ................................. 5
28. About how does (or did) your father's education compare with
that of most peOple in his time?
Much less than most ................................. 1
Less than most ...................................... 2
About average ..... ........ .......................... 3
More than most ... ........... ........................ 4

MuCh more than mOSt 00.000.000.000...00.000.00.000... 5

29. What type of living arrangement do you have?
Rent a house .......... ..... ...... ...... ....... ...... 1
Rent an apartment ................ ..... .............. 2
Rent a room (meals in a restaurant, etc.) ........... 3
Purchase a room and board (rooming house, etc.) ..... 4
Own an apartment .... ..... ........................... 5

Own a house .......... ............................... 6

 

Other (Please Specify) ' . 7

165

NO.

30.

31.

165

ll P.Q.

Please answer either A or B. Please reaggboth before
answering.

A. If you are renting the house in which you live, about
how much money per month do you pay for rent? (Writgmmw
amount in boxL ............. ..... ............ ...... !

 

—-t-———v. ...-.—

B. If you own the house in which you live (house, apart—
ment, or other), about how much money per month do
you believe you could rent the house for? (Write
amount in box). ....................... ..... .......

 

 

 

 

In every community each group (for example, schools, busi-
nessmen, labor, the local government) has a different job

to do for the community. In your community, would you say
that the schools are doing an excellent, good, fair, or pgor
job? How about businessmen? Labor? The local government?
The doctors and hospitals? The church? (Please circle the
appropriate number to indicate how you feel each job is
being done). Please answer for each group.

A. Elementary Schools

Do not know .................................. ..... 1
Poor .............................................. 2
Fair .................................... .......... 3
Good .. ......... . ..... ........ ........ ............. 4
Excellent ..... ....... ...... .... ....... ............. 5

B. Secondary Schools

Do not know ...................... . ............ .... 1
Poor ....... ...... ................................. 2
Fair ......... ..................................... 3
Good .. ....... . ..... ........ . ...... ......... ...... 4
Excellent .... ..... ............. ......... .......... S

NO.

31.

165

12 P.Q.

Continued from Page 11. The instructions on the previous
page apply to the following sections, C through E.

C.

Universities
Do notknow 000000000000000000000000.000000000 ..... 1

Poor 00'. 000000000000 00000000000000.000000000 ...... 2

Fair 00 0000000000000 00.000000000000000000000.0000003

GOOd 0000.0..00.0.0000000000000...00000000000000...4

Excellent ...... .............................. ..... 5

Businessmen

Do not know ....................................... 1

Poor 0. ....... 00.00000000000000000000... 00000 00.0.. 2
Fair 000.0000.00.000000000000000. 00000 0000 0000000 00 3

GOOd 000000000000000000000000.0000.00000000000000.04
Excellent 00000000000000.0000.000.000.000.000000000 5

Labor

DO not know 000000000 00000 0.00 000000000000 0000000.. 1

Poor 00000000 00000000000...0000000000000000000000002
Fair 00000.0000000000000000...000.00.00.000000000003

Good O.O.000.000.000000000000000...00000000000000004

Excellent ... ......... ............................. S

NO.

31.

165

13 P.Q.

Continued from Page 12. The instructions on Page 11 apply
to the following sections, F through I.

- F .

Local Government

DO not know. 000000000 00‘00000000000 0000000 0000 00000 1

Excellent ......................................... 5

National Government

Excellent ........ ....... .... ....... . .......... .... 5

Health Services (Doctors and Hospitals)
Donotknow~000000.000....00000000000000000.000000. 1

Poor 000000000000000000000000000 000000000..000000002

Excellent ...................... ............ ....... 5

Churches

Do nOt know 00000000 000000.00000000000000000000000. 1

Poor 00000000000000.0000000000000.000.000.000000...2

600d 0000 000000 00000000000000.0000... 00000000 00000.4

Excellent ................ ............ ......... .... 5

No. 14 P.Q.

32. How long have you lived in your present community?
Less than 1 year . .......... ......... ..... ........... 1
From 1 to 2 years ................................... 2
From 3 to 6 years ................................... 3
From 7 to 10 years .................................. 4
Over 10 years ....................................... S
33. Have you changed your residency (from one community to

another) during the past two years? Please cigcle the
correct number.

34. Have you changed your employment during the past tWo years?
Please circle the correct number.

35. About how many times have you changed residency (communities)
during the past 10 years? Please circle the correct number.

None ........... ............... ...... ................ l
1 Time ...... ..... . ............... . ........... ....... 2
2 — 3 Times ................ ........... . ..... ........ 3
4 - 6 Times ....... ...... ......... ................... 4
7 - 10 Times .... ..... .. ........ . ......... ........... 5
Over 10 Times ......................... ..... ... ..... . 6

165

No. 15 P.Q.

36. About how many times have you changed jobs during the past
10 years? Please circle the correct number.

None 0000.00.00.000000000.00.00000000000000000.000000 l

lTime 00000.000000000000000000000000000000000.0000002

2 - 3 Times ......................................... 3‘
4 — 6 Times ......................................... 4
7 - 10 Times ........................................ 5
Over 10 Times ........... ..... .......... ..... ........ 6

37. Please state your occupation. Briefly state the title or
name of your job and the nature of your work.

 

38. In respect to your religion, about to what extent do you
observe the rules and regulations of your religion? Please
circle the correct number.

I have no religion ............ .... ..... . ..... ....... I
seldom 0000 00000 000000000000000000000000000.0000000002
sometimes 000000000 00000 0 00000 0.000000000000000000000 3

usually 00000000000000000000.000000000000000... 000000 4

Almost always 00000000000000.0.0000000000000000...... 5

165

NO.

39.

40.

41.

165

16 P.Q.

Health experts say adding certain chemicals to drinking
water results in less decay in people's teeth. If you could
add these chemicals to your water with little cost to you,
would you be willing to have the chemicals added? Please

circle the correct number.

Probably not ..... ..... ................................ 1

No ... ............. .................................... 2

Yes 00000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000.4

Some peOple feel that in bringing up children, new ways and
methods should be tried whenever possible. Others feel that
trying out new methods is dangerous. What is your feeling
about the following statement?

"New methods of raising children should be tried out
whenever possible."

Strongly disagree ..... ..... ............... .......... 1
Slightly disagree .......................... ......... 2
Slightly agree .............. . ........ .. ......... ..... 3
Strongly agree ...................................... 4

Family planning on birth control has been discussed by many
people. What is your feeling about a married couple prac—
ticing birth control? Do you think they are doing something
good or bad? If you had to decide, would you say they are
doing wrong, or rather, that they are doing right?

It is always right ......... . ............ .............. 1
It is probably all right ....... ....... . ...... ......... 2
It is usually wrong .. ........ . ..... . ..... ............. 3

It is always wrong 000000000000000000000000000.000000004

NO.

42.

43.

44.

165

17 P.Q.

Pe0p1e have different ideas about what should be done con-
cerning automation and other new ways of doing things. How
do you feel about the following statement?

"Automation and similar new procedures should be encouraged
(in government, business, and industry) since eventually it
creates new jobs and raises the standard of living."

Disagree Strongly .......... .. ........ . ........... ... 1

Disagree Slightly .......... ..... ..............,..... 2
Agree Slightly ........... ........................... 3
Agree Strongly ........ .. ........... . ........... ..... 4

Running a village, city, town, or any governmental organiza-
tion is an important job. What is your feeling on the
following statement?

‘"Politica1 leaders should be changed regularly, even if
they are doing a good job."

Strongly disagree ................................... 1
Slightly disagree .................................. 2
Slightly agree . .................. . .............. .... 3
Strongly agree ............................ . ...... ... 4

Some peOple believe that more local government income should
be used for education even if doing so means raising the
amount you pay in taxes. What are your feeling on this?

Strongly disagree ................. . ................... 1
Slightly disagree ....... .. ........ .. ....... . ......... . 2
Slightly agree ... ..................................... 3
Strongly agree .............. . ................ ......... 4

No. 18 P.Q.

46. PeOple have different ideas about planning for education in.
their nation. Which one of the following do you believe is
the best way? Answergnly one.

Planning for education should be left entirely to the

parents 0000000000000000000000000000000.000000000000000 1

Educational planning should be primarily directed by
the individual city or other local governmental unit .. 2

Education planning should be primarily directed by

the national government ..... .......... .......... ...... 3

47. Some peOple are more set in their ways than others. How
’ would you rate yourself? Please circle the number of your

ch01ce.
I find it very difficult to change .... ..... ..... ..... . 1
I find it slightly difficult to change ........... . ..... 2
I find it somewhat easy to change my ways ........ ..... 3
I find it very easy to change my ways ................. 4

48. I find it easier to follow rules than to do things on my own.

Agree strongly ................................... i ..... 1
Agree slightly ......................... ............... 2
Disagree slightly .............. ...... ................. 3
Disagree strongly ............... . ....... ..... ..... .... 4

165

No. 19 P.Q.

49. I like the kind of work that lets me do things about the
same way from one week to the next. Circle the number of
your choice.

Agree strongly ........... .................. ....... .... 1
Agree slightly ... ....... ... ..... .......... ..... ....... 2
Disagree slightly .............. ................... .... 3
Disagree strongly ............. ....................... . 4

50. A good son will try to find work that keeps him near his
parents even though it means giving up a good job in another
part of the country. '

Agree strongly ... ..... ..... ............ . ......... ..... 1
Agree slightly ................ ..... . .................. 2
Disagree slightly .......... . ...... ...... .............. 3
Disagree strongly ......... .... ........................ 4

51. We should be as helpful to people we do not know as we are
to our friends.

Disagree strongly ......... .... ........................ l
Disagree slightly .................. . .............. .... 2
Agree slightly ............ ... ......................... 3
Agree strongly .............. ......... ....... .......... 4

165

No. 20 P.Q.
52. Planning only makes a person unhappy because your plans
hardly ever work out anyway.
Agree strongly ........ ....................... ........ . 1
Agree slightly ................. ...... . ........ ........ 2
Disagree Slightly 0000000000000000000000000000.00000000 3
Disagree strongly ......... ........... . ...... .. ...... .. 4
53. Which one of the following requisities do you consider mogt
important to make your life more happy and satisfactory in

the future? Circle the single, most important choice.

Nothing 0000000000000000000000000000.000000000000000000 1

More money ......... ...... ................ ...... . ...... 2
More friends ...... ....... .... ........... . ..... . ....... 3
Better job ....... ...... ............................... 4
Good health .. ........... ..... ....... ...... ..... ....... 5
Other (Please Specify) ‘ 6

 

54. What do you think you can do to make this possible? Please
answer one of the two alternatives below.

Nothing

 

Please Specify

 

 

 

165

APPENDIX A-6

Personal Questionnaire: HP

329

No. Location

 

Male Group

 

Female Date

 

PERSONAL QUESTIONNAIRE: HP

This questionnaire deals with your contacts with physically handi-
capped persons, and what you know about them. Perhaps you have
had much contact with physically handicapped persons, or you may
have studied abOut them. On the other hand, you may have~hadi
little or no contact with physically handicapped persons, and may

have never thought much about them at all.

For the purposes of this investigation, the answers of all per-
sons are important, so even if you know very little or nothing

about physically handicapped persons your answers are important.

165

 

 

 

PERSONAL QUESTIONNAIRE: HP

Please read each question carefully and do not omit any questions.

Please answer by circling the correct answer (or answers) or fill

in the answer as requested.

1. Some physically handicapping conditions are listed below. In
respect to these various handicaps, which have you had the

most actual experience with. Please answer by circling the
number of the group you select. Circle only one.

 

l. blind 6. disfigured (such as severe
burns or scars on face)
2. partially blind

7. spastic (or cerebral

3. deaf (and deaf-mute) palsy)
4. partially deaf 8. speech disorders
5. crippled or amputated 9. none

limbs

2. 'Which other groups have you also had some experience with?
Please circle the number of each additional group with which
you have had some experience.

1. blind 6. disfigured (such as severe
burns or scars on face)
2. partially blind
7. spastic (or cerebral

3. deaf (and deaf—mute) palsy)
4. partially deaf 8. speech disorders
5. crippled or amputated 9. none

limbs

 

If on the preceding question you indicated that you have
had no personal experience with physically handicapped per-
sons (by circling response No. 9, please skip questions #3
through #9. If you indicated that you have had the exper-
ience with one or more of the above handicapping conditions,
please answer questions #3 through #9.

 

 

1165

 

NO.

165

2 P.Q.-'HP

The following questions have to do with the kinds of exper-
iences you have had with physically handicapped persons.
Please circle the number of each experience that applies to
‘ypg. If more than one experience applies, please circle a
number for each experience that applies.

I have read or heard a little about physically
handicapped persons ................................. l

I have studied about physically handicapped persons
through reading, movies, lectures, or observations .. 2

A friend is physically handicapped .................. 3
Some relative is physically handicapped ............. 4
I have personally worked with physically handicapped
persons, as a teacher, counselor, volunteer, child

care, etc. 0.000000000000000000.000000000000000000000 5

My father, mother, brother, sister, wife (husband)
or child is physically handicapped .................. 6

I, myself, have a physical handicap. (Briefly, 7
please indicate the kind of handicap)

 

 

Considering all of the times you have talked, worked, or in
some other way had personal contact with physically handi-
capped persons, about how many times has it been altogether?
Please circle the number of the single best answer.
Less than 10 occasions .......... .................... 1
Between 10 and 50 OCCaSions 000.000000000000000000000 2
Between 50 and 100 occasions ........................ 3

Between 100 and 500 occasions ....................... 4

More than 500 OCCaSionS 0000000.000000000000000000000 5

NO.

6.

165

3 P.Q.-HP

When you have been in contact with physicially handicapped
people, how easy for you, in general, would it have been 39.
have avoided being with these handicapped persons?

I could generally have avoided these personal contacts
only at great cost or difficulty ...................... 1

I could generally have avoided these personal contacts
only with considerable difficulty ..................... 2

I could generally have avoided these personal contacts
but with some inconvenience 0............OOOOOQOOOOOOOO 3

I could generally have avoided these personal contacts
without any difficulty or inconvenience ............... 4

During your contact with physically handicapped persons, did
yougainmaterially in any way through these contacts, such
as being paid, or gaining academic credit, or some such gain?

No, I have never received money, credit, or any other
material gain ......... ..... . ....... ................... 1

Yes, I have been paid for working with handicapped
persons .0. .............. .0... ........... ......OCQOOOOO 2

Yes, I have received academic credit or other material
ga in 0000000000000000 Q ..... O ........ C OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 3

Yes, I have both been paid and received academic credit 4

NO.

8.

165

4 P.Q.-HP

If you have never been paid for working with handicapped
persons, go on to the next question. pryou have been paid,
about what per cent of your income was derived from contact
with physically handicapped persons during the actual period
when working with them?
Less than 10% . ......... . ....... ... ........ ............ 1
Between 10 and 25% ........................ ............ 2
Between 25 and 50%......OOOOOOOOO......COOOOOOOQOOOOOO 3
Between 50 and 75% .......... ....... ...... ............. 4
More than 75% .............................. ....... .... 5
How have you generally felt about your experience with handi-
capped persons?
I definitely have disliked it .................... ..... l
I have not liked it very much .......................... 2
I have liked it somewhat ... ..... . ................. .... 3
I have definitely enjoyed it .......................... 4
If you have ever worked with the physically handicapped for
personal gain (for example, for money, or some other gain),
what Opportunities did you have (or do you have) to work at
something else instead: that is, something else that was (or

is) acceptable to you as a job?

I do not know what other jobs were available or
acceptable ......OOOOOOCCOOO......QOO0.0.000.000.0000.0 1

No other jOb was available 0.0.0..........OOOOOOOOOOOO. 2
Other jobs available were not at all acceptable to me . 3
Other jobs available were not quite acceptable to me .. 4

Other jobs available were fully acceptable to me ...... 5

NO. 5 P.Q.-HP

 

 

The following questions should be answered '
by all persons, regardless of whether or ' !
not they have had any personal contact with '
persons who are physically handicapped.

 

 

 

10. Have you had any experience with mentally retarded persons?
Considering all of the times you have talked, worked, or in
some other way had personal contact with mentally retarded
persons, about how many times has it been altogether?
Please circle the number of the single best answer.

 

Less than 10 occasions ................................ 1
Between 10 and 50 occasions .............. ............. 2
Between 50 and 100 occasions ...... ......... ........... 3
Between 100 and 500 occasions ......................... 4
More than 500 occasions ................... ............ 5
11. Have you had any experience with emotionally ill persons?
Considering all of the times you have talked, worked, or in
some other way had personal contact with emotionally ill

persons, about how many times has it been altogether?
Please circle the number of the single best answer.

 

 

Less than 10 occasions ................................ 1
Between 10 and 50 occasions ................. .......... 2
Between 50 and 100 occasions .... ...................... 3
Between 100 and 500 occasions .............. ........ ... 4
More than 500 occasions ..... .. ....... ................. 5

165

APPENDIX A—7

Personal Questionnaire: EDP

336

NO. LOCATION

 

 

MALE GROUP

 

 

FEMALE DATE

 

 

PERSONAL QUESTIONNAIRE: EDP

This questionnaire deals with your contacts with emotionally

 

disturbed persons, and what you know about them. Perhaps

 

you have had much contact with emotionally disturbed persons,
or you may have studied about them. On the other hand, you
may have had little or no contact with emotionally disturbed

persons, and may have never thought much about them at all.

For the purposes of this investigation, the answers of all

 

persons are important, so even if you know very little or

 

nothing about emotionally disturbed persons your answers

are important.

NO.

 

PERSONAL QUESTIONNAIRE: EDP

Please read each question carefully and do not omit any
questions. Please answer by circling the correct answer

 

 

(or answers) or fillixlthe answer as requested.

1.

Please indicate below whether or not you have had any
experience with emotionally disturbed persons. Be sure
to read the definition of emotionally disturbed persons
which is enclosed. Please circle only one of the follow-
ing choices.

 

Yes, I have had experience with emotionally
disturbed persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

N2, I have not had experience with emotionally
disturbed persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

 

If on the preceding question you indicated that you
have had no personal experience with emotionally
disturbed persons (by circling response No. 2),
please skip Questions 2 through 8. If you indicat-
ed that you had eXperience with emotionally dis-
turbed persons, please answer Questions 2 - 8.

 

 

 

The following questions have to do with the kinds of
experiences you have had with emotionally disturbed
persons. Please circle the number of each experience
that applies to you. If more than one experience
applies, please circle a number for each experience
that applies.

 

 

 

 

 

I have read or heard a little about emotionally
disturbed persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l

I have studied about emotionally disturbed persons

through reading, movies, lectures, or observations. 2
A friend is emotionally disturbed . . . . . . . . . 3
Some relative is emotionally disturbed. . . . . . . A

I have personally worked with emotionally disturbed
persons, as a teacher, counselor, volunteer, child
care, etc.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

NO.

PQ-EDP

 

My father, mother, brother, sister, wife (husband),
or child is emotionally disturbed . . . . . . . . . . 6

I, myself, have an emotional disturbance. (Briefly,
please indicate the kind of emotional disturbance)

7

 

Considering all of the times you have talked, worked, or
in some other way had personal contact with emotionally
disturbed persons, about how many times has it been alto—
gether? Please circle the number of the single best
answer.

 

Less than 10 occations
Between 10 and 50 occasions. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Between 50 and 100 occasions

Between 100 and 500 occasions.

UltLUNF’

More than 500 occasions.

When you have been in contact with emotionally disturbed
people how easy for you, in general, would it have been
to have avoided being with these disturbed persons?

 

I could generally have avoided these personal

contacts only at great cost and difficulty . . . . . l
I could generally have avoided these personal
contacts only with considerable difficulty . . . . . 2
I could generally have avoided these personal
contacts but with some inconvenience . . . . . . . . 3

I could generally have avoided these personal
contacts without any difficulty or inconvenience . . A

During your contact with emotionally disturbed persons,
did you ggin materially in any way through these con-
tacts, such as being paid, or gaining academic credit,
or some gain?

 

No, I have never'received money, credit, or any
other material gain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I

Yes, I have been paid for working with disturbed
persons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Yes, I have received academic credit or other
material gain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Yes, I have both been paid and received academic
credit . . . . . . A

NO.

PQ-EDP

 

If you have never been paid for working with distrubed
persons, go on to the next question. If you have been
paid, about what percent of your income was derived
from contact with emotionally disturbed persons during
the actual period when working with them?

 

Less than 10%

Between 10 and 25%.

Between 25 and 50%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Between 50 and 75%.

More than 75%

UlthH

How have you generally felt about your experience with
disturbed persons?

I have definitely disliked it

I have not liked it very much

I have liked it somewhat.

I have definitely enjoyed it. . . . . . . .

.1:me

If you have ever worked with the emotionally disturbed
for personal gain (for example, for money or some other
gain), what gpportunities did you have (or do you have)
to work at something else instead; that is, something
else that was (or is) acceptable to you as a job?

 

I do not know what other jobs were available or
acceptable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I

No other job was available.

Other jobs available were not at all acceptable
to me . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

 

Other jobs available were not quite acceptable
to me

 

Other jobs available were fully acceptable to me. . 5

 

 

The following questions should be answered
by all persons, regardless of whether or
not they have had any personal contact with
persons who are emotionally disturbed.

 

 

 

 

 

NO.

10.

ll.

PQ-EDP

 

Have you had any experience with physically handi-
capped persons? Considering all of the times you have
talked, worked, or in some other way had personal
contact with physically handicapped persons, about how
many times has it been altogether? Please circle the
number of the single best answer.

Less than 10 occasions.
Between 10 and 50 occasions

Between 50 and 100 occasions.
Between 100 and 500 occasions

mil—DUMP

More than 500 occasions

Have you had any experience with mentally retarded
persons? Considering all of the times you have talked,
worked, or in some other way had personal contact with
mentally retarded persons, about how many times has it
been altogether? Please circle the number of the
single best answer.

 

Less than 10 occasions.

Between 10 and 50 occasions . . . . . . . . . . .
Between 50 and 100 occasions.

Between 100 and 500 occasions . . . . .

U‘l-IZ'WNI-J

More than 500 occasions . . . . . . . . .

Please indicate below if any of your own children
are/or have been physically handicapped or emotionally
disturbed? (Circle only one.)

Yes, I have, or have had, a child who was physically

 

handicapped . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
Yes, I have, or have had, a child who was emotionally
disturbed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Yes, I have had a child who was both physically
handicapped and emotionally disturbed . . . . . 3

None of my children have been physically handicapped
or emotionally disturbed.

APPENDIX A-8

Definitions of Physical Handicap

3A2

DEFINITIONS

What is meant by "physical handicap."

The words "physically handicapped" will be used often in

the questions and statements that follow. Where these

words are used, they will include persons with any of the

following handicaps:

1.

blind persons--those who have no useful sight
at all.

partly blind persons--those who have some sight
but have trouble reading and getting
about even with glasses.

deaf persons--those who have no useful hearin:
at all.

partly deaf persons--those who have some hearing
but have trouble understanding other
persons even with a hearing aid.

cripples or amputees—-those who have arms or
legs that have been paralyzed or
removed even though they may be of
some use with artificial hands or legs.

spastic (or cerebral palsy)--those who have poor
control and coordination of their leg,
arm, and head movements. Movements are
often Jerky and speech hard to under-
stand.

disfigured--those who have been obviously damaged
about the face, such as with burns or
scars, so that the face has been
changed.

APPENDIX A-9

Definition of Emotional Disturbance

3AA

3A5

DEFINITION

What is meant by "emotional disturbance?"

The words "emotionally disturbed" will be used often in
the questions and statements that follow. Where these
words are used, they will include persons with the
following disturbance:
Those children or adults whose behaviors,
feelings or emotions cause them to have

difficulties with everyday problems which
they are unable to solve.

APPENDIX B-l

Administration Procedures

3A6

3A7

ATTITUDES AND VALUES TOWARD

MENTAL AND PHYSICAL DISABILITIES

The purpose of this study is to investigate attitudes
and values of parents toward physically handicapped and emo—
tionally disturbed persons. The problems of mental and
physical handicaps have assumed much greater importance in
the life of a modern community.

The Betty Jane Memorial Center is a unique place
providing facilities for the treatment of various kinds of
disabilities. This is a growing institution particularly
geared to the local needs of the community. Its service
facilities are constantly expanding with a view to meeting
the needs of the community in the best possible manner.

The future planning of these facilities, however, should
depend upon a proper evaluation of the parents' attitude
and values.

The present investigation attempts to deal with the
attitudes and values of the parents who are using the
services at both Betty Jane Rehabilitation Center and

Sandusky Valley Guidance Center.

(Tiffin)

3A8

ATTITUDES AND VALUES TOWARD

MENTAL AND PHYSICAL DISABILITIES

The purpose of this study is to investigate attitudes
and values of parents toward emotionally disturbed and
physically handicapped persons. The problems of mental
illness and physical disability have assumed much greater
importance in the life of a modern community. Both the
government and the civic leaders have helped establish
mental health clinics and rehabilitation centers in order
to provide professional services to the public. These
service facilities are constantly expanding with a view to
meeting the needs of the community more effectively.

However, the future planning of these facilities
should depend upon a proper evaluation of the parents'
attitudes and values in respect to the emotionally disturbed
and.the physically disabled. The present investigation,
tflius, attempts to determine the various factors that might

bee associated with attitudes toward emotionally disturbed

avid physically handicapped persons.

(Mount Pleasant)

v

 

 

3A9

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS

The enclosed questionnaires attempt to determine
the parents' attitude toward physically handicapped and

emotionally disturbed persons.

Please note, in a study like this, there are no right

 

or wrong answers. We want you to answer how you feel about

 

 

certain things. Therefore, we do not want your name on the

 

questionnaire. In this manner no one will know your answers.

 

Please answer quickly, with your first idea, and do not spend
a lot of time thinking about each item. If, however, there
is no answer that exactly fits what you would like to answer,

please choose the alternative nearest to your desired answer.

Order of Administration of Questionnaires

 

Page of Definitions(Physical Handicap)

Education Scale

Survey of Interpersonal Values

Personal Questionnaire

Handicapped Persons Scale

Personal Questionnaire: HP (Handicapped Persons)

Page of Definition (Emotional Disturbance)

Emotionally Disturbed Persons Scale

Personal Questionnaire: EDP (Emotionally Disturbed
Persons)

\DCDNQU‘IEWNH

The questionnaires have been arranged in the order men—
tioned above. Please answer them in the same order. For your
convenience and to avoid confusion, the questionnaires have
been numbered (l-2—3—A-5—6-7-8-9) in the upper left hand cor-
ner of each set of questions. Take each set one at a time
and when you have answered all questions, move on to the next
set. Please do not look at them ahead of time.

Your cooperation is greatly appreciated!

APPENDIX B—2

Basic Variables of the Study

350

BASIC VARIABLES - INTERNATIONAL

A. Attitudes Toward Education

1 Traditional attitudes, Items 3, 4, 6, 10, ll, 12, 13, 14,
18, 19 - Content
Raw Score total
Adjusted total score (dichotomized)

2 Traditional attitudes, Items 3, 4, 6, 10, ll, 12, 13, 14,
18, 19 - Intensity
Raw Score total
Adjusted total score (diChotomized)

3 Progressive attitudes, Items 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, l6, 17,
20 - Content
Raw Score total
Adjusted total score (dichotomized)

4 Progressive attitudes, Items 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17.
20 - Intensity
Raw Score total
Adjusted total score (dichotomized)

 

B. Contact with Education (Q'aire)

1 Levels of education experienced
Q'aire, Item 1 (primary contact)
Q'aire, Item 2 (additional contacts - no. kinds of)

2 Varieties of contact with education
Q'aire, Item 3

3 Amount of contact (work) with education
Q'aire, Item 4

4 Personal gain through working in education
Q'aire, Item 5 (%.of income)

5 Alternative Opportunities available
Q'aire, Item 7 (refers to other possible employment)

6 Enjoyment of contact
Q'aire, Item 6

(2. Aid to Education - Financial (Q'aire)

Item 44 (local)
Item 45 (federal or national)

£565

G.

565

2 BASIC VARIABLES r INTERNATIONAL

Education Plannigg (Q'aire)

Item 46

Interpersonal Values - Gordon Scale

mUltthl-J

scores: Support

scores: Conformity

scores: Recognition (comparative score)
scores: Independence

scores: Benevolence (asset score)
scores: Leadership (comparative score)

t‘U'Jl-ISUOUI

 

Demographic, S.E.S., Other Control Data (All from Q'aire)

.WN

(DVOU‘ID

ll
12

Education (self-amount), Item 26

Occupation (specific), Item 37

Income and rental (S. E. Class)

Item 14 (income - yearly, self-family)

Item 30 (rental)

Age: Item 8

Sex: Front sheet of questionnaire

Marital status: Item 12

Number of children: Item 13

Size of family:

Item 16 (brothers - do not use)

Item 17 (sisters - do not use)

Items 16 and 17 (siblings)

Housing (type of), Item 29

Mobility: Residency, Items 32, 33 and 35

Card 4, Col. 25

Occupational, Items 34 and 36

Rural-Urban Status: Items 9, 10 and 11

Employment status - current: Item 37

Satisfaction with institutions (Q'aire)

1

2

Satisfaction with elementary schools
Item Bl-A

Satisfaction with secondary schools
Item 31—B

Satisfaction with universities

Item 31-C

565

3 BASIC VARIABLES - INTERNATIONAL

4 Satisfaction with businessmen

Item 31-D

5 Satisfaction with labor
Item 31-E

6 Satisfaction with local government
Item 3l—F

7 Satisfaction with national government
Item 31-G

8 Satisfaction with health services
Item 31-H

9 Satisfaction with churches
Item 31—I

Self-Statements (Q'aire)

Comparative income status - self: Item 15
Comparative income - father: Item 18
Comparative social class - self: Item 24

Comparative social class - father: Item 25
Comparative education - self: Item 27
Comparative education - father: Item 28

O‘U'IDWNH

Religiousity Questionnaire (Q'aire)

1 Religious affiliation: Item 19
2 Perceived importance: Item 20
3 Perceived norm conformity: Item 38

Personalism Questionnaire (Q'aire)

l Orientation toward job personalism
a Statement of extent of personalism on job: Item 21
b Perceived importance of personal relations: Item 22
2 Diffusion of personal relationships
Percent of job-social overlap: Item 23
3 Familialism: Item 50, (Son's work)
4 Other orientation: Altruism: Item 51

Attitudes Toward Change (Q'aire)
1 Health practices (water): Item 29

2 Child-rearing practices: Item 40
3 Birth control practices: Item 41

565

4 BASIC VARIABLES - INTERNATIONAL

4 Political leadership change: Item 43
5 Automation: Item 42
6 Self Conception
Item 47 (Perceived self-rigidity)
Item 48 (Adherence to rules)
Item 49 (Job regularity and rigidity)
7 Future orientation
Item 52 (Planning - personal)
Item 53 (Requisites for happiness)
Item 54 (Achievement of happiness)

Attitudes Toward Handicapped Persons

1 Handicapped Persons Scale, Items 1-20 - Content
Raw Score total
Adjusted total score (dichotomized)

2 Handicapped Persons Scale, Items 1-20 - Intensity
Raw Score total
Adjusted total score (dichotomized)

 

Contact with Handicapped Persons

1 Kinds of handicapped persons experienced
P.Q.-HP, Item 1 (most contact)
P.Q.-HP, Item 2 (additional contacts - no. of)

2 Varieties of relationship with handicapped
P.Q.-HP, Item 3

3 Frequency of contact with physically handicapped
P.Q.-HP, Item 4

4 Ease of avoidance of contacts with handicapped
P.Q.-HP, Item 5

5 Personal gain through working with handicapped persons
P.Q.-HP, Item 6 (experienced gain)
P.Q.-HP, Item 7 (% of income)

6 Alternative opportunities available
P.Q.—HP, Item 9 (refers to other possible employment)

7 Enjoyment of contact with physically handicapped
P.Q.-HP, Item 8

8 Frequency of contact with mentally retarded persons
P.Q.-HP, Item 10

9 Frequency of contact with emotionally disabled persons
P.Q.-HP, Item 11

APPENDIX B-3

Rationale and Procedures for
Producing Item Directionality

356

Rationale and Procedures for Producing Item

"Directionaly" in the Following Scales:

1. Handicapped Persons Scale
2. Hearing Handicapped Persons Scale

3. Blind Persons Scale

John E. Jordan
John E. Felty

September 30, 1965

357

The rationale for reversing content scoring on the HP
scale items 2, 5, 6, ll, 12.

a. All of the other items of the scale state either a
difference between HP's and others, or a negative
characteristic--therefore, ggreement with these
items indicates less acceptance (according to
Yuker—Block).

 

 

 

 

 

b. The 5 items mentioned above are statements of
similarity between HP’s and others, therefore,
ggreement indicates more acceptance. In order to
make the "direction" of acceptance the same for
all items, the scoring was reversed on these 5, so
that peOple who disagreed with statements of similar-
ity would get a higher score.

 

 

 

c. After this reversal, high scores on each of the
items is supposed to indicate less acceptance.

 

d. In the dichtomoization procedure (Felty, by hand)
there was a final reversal of scoring on all items
in order to make a high (1) score be favorable, and
a low (9) score unfavorable for each item. It is,
of course, not necessary to make this final step,
but it is more convenient for my thinking, and a
more usual procedure, to make more favorable scores
higher.

 

For Dickie and Weir, the positively-stated items are

not all precise statements of similarity, but the items
can be divided into those in which agreement with the
item indicates unfavorable attitudes, and those in which
agreement indicates favorable attitudes. This is by
inspection, of course, and it is possible that empirical
test could indicate that a given item was placed in the
wrong category. Such an item would probably scale nega—
tively with the others, and scoring would have to be
reversed for this item in computing total scores for
each subject.

 

 

 

 

 

This question is independent of the question of whether

a high total score indicates favorable or unfavorable
attitudes, which is a question of item content. If you
want a high total score to indicate favorable attitudes,
(see l,d above), one way would be to follow Felty's
procedure on the H—P scale (as outlined above and in

the code book). However, if the computer dichotomization
is used, it will be necessary to reverse the total scores

 

 

 

after the dichotomized total scores have been computed
for each person for scale items (this is a hand procedure
based on new dichotomized totals--either machine or hand-
dichotomized--and takes place as the last two operations

 

 

358

in the "scale and intensity analysis" subsection of the
"flow and control chart." That is, after scaling, even
by computer, someone still has to figure out the new
total scores for each respondent for each "scale," enter
these into unused columns of the data sheet, and then
have them punched into Deck 1 for further analysis.) If
after dichotomization, total scores ranged from g to gg
(possible with 20 dichtomoized statements scored gll)
and high scores indicate unfavorable attitudes, the
scoring can be reversed by making up an equivalence
table to transpose the scores; e.g.,

Total Scores

 

 

 

Dichotomized Reversed
"Unfavorable" "Favorable"
2O 0
19 l
18 2
17 3
etc. etc.

 

Another way of doing this would avoid the necessity of
making two sets of reversals; i.e., instead of reversing
the similarity-type items (see above, 1.b), reverse the
others. This means many more items have to be reversed
initially in the scoring (Kathy's job) but that no
further reversal is necessary since a high score for
each item would then presumedly indicate a favorable or
accepting response. Although this would be more time—
consuming for Kathy, it would save time later and is not
as complicated. (Note: it will still be necessary to
obtain new scale item total scores by a hand procedure
after dichotomization and scaling as indicated on p. 2).

 

 

 

For the Blind Persons Scale (Dickie) a high score
(strong agreement) indicates favorable attitude for
items 2, 101 13, 11LL l7, l9.

 

 

 

For the Hearing Handicapped Persons Scale (Weir) a high
score (strong agreement) indicates favorable attitude
for items 1, 73,10; 15.

 

If the scores are reversed for these items, a high total
score will indicate unfavorable or unaccepting attitudes,
and a further reversal following dichotomization would

 

 

 

359

be advisable (as on pages 1 and 2). If scores are
reversed for all other items, a high total score will
indicate favorable or accepting attitudes, and no
further reversal will be necessary.

 

 

 

3. For Sinha (Emotionally Disturbed Persons Scale-EDP)
the procedures follow exactly those Of Felty for the
HP scale. (See pages 1-10 of codebook number 865).

A. Following is a summary of the above procedures to be
used by all studies:

 

a. in initial scoring, reverse favorably stated items
(usual procedure) i.e., those items mentioned
specifically by number.

 

b. submit for dichotomization and scale analysis by
computer.

c. for scale items obtain new total scores for each
respondent.

d. convert these total scores by inverting the order
(e.g., bottom of page 2).High score now indicates
favorable attitude.

 

e.' enter scale scores (converted) onto data sheets
in Open columns.

f. have scale scores punched into Deck 2 at data
processing.

g. use new scale score totals in subsequent analyses
(Anova, MRA, etc.).

 

h. since the intensity items are all clearly directional,
from low to high intensity, there would be no reason
for making any reversals.

 

1As mentioned before, a possible complication can arise
with items which scale negatively with the other items in
the Lingoes procedure. This would seem to indicate that the
prejudgment about whether the item was "favorable" or "unfav-
orable" was in error, and would require a reversal of scoring
for this item in obtaining a total scale score. That is,
all "Q's" would be scored as "l's" and vice versa (as Lingoes
states it, the item has been "reflected").

 

John E. Jordan
John E. Felty

APPENDIX B—A

(a) International Study

(b) Special Instructions for Tiffin Study

360

CODE BOOK

 

CROSS CULTURAL ATTITUDES TOWARD

EDUCATION: THEIR NATURE AND DETERMINANTS

INTERNATIONAL STUDY*

 

John E. Jordan

College of Education
Michigan State University
August 25, 1965

 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE USE OF THIS CODE BOOK

1. Code Q_Or 9Q will always mean Not Applicable or Nothing,
except as noted.

2. Code i_for a one column no response, or —9 for a two column
no response, or —99 for a three column no response will mean
there was NO Information or Respondent did not answer.

 

 

3. In each case in the following pages the column to the left con-
tains the column number of the IBM card; the second column con-
tains the question number from the questionnaire; the third
column (item detail) contains an abbreviated form Of the item;
and the fourth column contains the code within each column Of
the IBM card with an explanation Of the code. The fifth COIL
.222 (recode) is reserved to later indicate recoding after the
item count is finished; i.e., after all data is key punched,
run the data through the M.S.U° computer (ACT II, FCC, and/or
Single-Column Frequency Distributions) to determine the pat-
terns Of response alternatives to a question. This will indi—
cate if regrouping, etc., need to be considered for the item.

 

 

 

 

4. Coder instructions always follow a line across the page and
are clearly indicated.

5. In some cases when codes are equal to others already used, they
are not repeated each time, but reference is made to a previous
code or the immediately previous code with "same".

 

6. Under Code, the first number is the questionnaire question
alternative and the second number is the actual code which is
entered on the data sheets (i.e., 1—4; one l is the question-
naire question alternative and g is the code).

 

* This code book is specifically for the United States sample thru

Card 4. Limited modifications and/Or additions are made in certain
nations and/or states. Special instructions are appended for each

study before scoring that sample.

865

 

 

/<,'

 

\

865

Column-Ques.

1,2,3 Face Sheet

8655

CARD 1

Item Detail SEES

 

Nation and UNITED

 

Location 001 -
002 -
003 -
004 -
005 ~
006 —
007 —
008 —
009 -
010 -
011 -
012 -
013 —

Page 1—1
Recode*
STATES
Mich., Mt. Pleasant

Mich., Cadillac
Mich., Ann Arbor
Mich., Port Huron
Mich., Lansing
Mich., Walden Woods
Mich., Flint

Mich., Misc., Ka1., Mid.
Kansas, Wichita
Ohio, Tiffin

West Virginia
Kentucky

Georgia

LATIN AMERICA

 

101 -
102 -
103 -
104 -
105 -
106 —

EUROPE

201 -
202 -
203 -
204 -
205 -
206 -
207 —

says.
301 -
302 —
303 _
304 -

AFRICA

401 -
402 —
403 -

Costa Rica
Colombia
Peru
Argentina
Mexico
Surinam

England
Holland
Belgium
France
Yugoslavia
Denmark
Germany

Israel
Japan
India
Formosa

Kenya
Rhodesia
South Africa

34a

 

Columnfgues.

 

4,5 Face Sheet
6,7 Face Sheet
8 Face Sheet
9 (Code
derived
from
Col's
T22,‘23,
Card 1)
10 New

11,12 Face Sheet

13,14 Face Sheet

Item Detail

 

Group Number
(adminis-
tration)

Respondent
Number

Sex of
Respondent

Occupational
Recode
anterest

group)

Occupational
Recode
(Spec. Ed.,
Rehab. SER)*

Deck or Card
Number

Project
Director,
location
and con-
tent area

* If respondent is not an SER

"educational person", he received

a i,
865

Page 1-2
Code Recode*
01 - 99
Check Special
Instructions
01 - 99
l - Masculine
2 - Feminine
l - Code 01 — O9, Rehab.,
Spec. Ed.
2 - Code 10 - 19, Education
3 - Code 20 — 45, Profes-
sional, Business, Medical
4 - Code 50 - 86, White Col-
lar, Blue Collar, Laborer
1 - Teacher, Educable Retarded,
(Type A and Type C)
2 - Teacher, Trainable Retarded
(Type B)
3 - Teacher, Hearing
4 - Teacher, Vision
5 - Speech Correction
6 - Visiting Teacher (Also
Social Worker)
7 - Diagnostician
8 - Other (Professors, Supts.,
Administrators, etc.)
+ - Non-teacher
01

LATIN AMERICA

 

01 Felty: Costa Rica
(total — pilot study)

02 Friesen: Peru and
Colombia (total)

03 Taylor: Costa Rica
(country study)

CARD 1 Page 1-3

 

 

 

Column—Ques. Item Detail Code Recode*
13,14 Face Sheet UNITED STATES
(continued) 31 Sinha: Ohio (parents-
M. R., emot. dist. and
normal)

32 Dickie: Kansas (total
and blind scale)

33 Weir: Kansas (total
and deaf scale)

34 Mader: Michigan (spec-
ial educ. - intra)

35 Jordan: Michigan — Mt.
Pleasant (Spec. Ed.)

ASIA
51 Cessna: Japan (total
plus university stu—
dents and government

employees)
EUROPE
7l Boric: Yugoslavia
(total)

72 Fabia: France (total)
73 Hansen: Denmark
(total)
74 Loring: England
(total)
75 RObaye: Belgium
(total)
76 Schweizer: Netherlands
(total)
77 Kreider: Europe (total)

15,16 Face Sheet Day Of Admin- 01 to 31
istration
(Use the
actual day)

17,18 Face Sheet Month Of 01 - January
Adminis- 02 - February
tration 03 — March

865

OJ

 

Column:gues.

 

17,18 Face Sheet
(continued)

1.

19,20 Face Sheet

21 Face Sheet

22,23 37 Q'aire

* See page 4-2
865

Item Detail

 

Year Of
Adminis-
tration

Type Of
.Adminis-
stration

Occupation
of Respon-
dent* (Spe-
cific)

 

Page 1-4

Code Recode*

10 — October

11 - November

12 - December

64 - 1964

65 - 1965

66 - 1966

70 - 1970

1 Group

2 Self-administered

3 Interview, individual

+ NO information

401 - 09) Rehab. & Spec. Ed.

01 - A11 administrative
persons, public and
private schools or
agencies

02 - Teachers, elem. and
secondary academic
and vocational

03 - School Special Services
(Psych., soc. work,
speech, etc.)

04 - University teachers,

05

06

07

08

09

professors, researchers,
specialists, etc.

- Medical (Doctors, Den-
tists, etc.)

- Other professional
(Psych., Soc. worker,
Speech, etc., not pri-
marily in public or
private schools)

- Para-medical (Nurse,
O.T., R.T., P.T., ect.)

- Unskilled Help (Hospital
aide, janitor, any non-
prof., non-tech. role)

- Other

Columnfiguesa‘ Item Detail

 

22,23 37 Q'aire Occupation
(continued) of Respon-
dent* (Spe-
cific)

*See page 4-2
865

£2.d_e

Page 1-5

Recode*

(10 - 19) Educationalgpersonnel

 

 

 

other than Rehab. and Spec. Ed.

10 - Elementary teachers,
(include elem. v.p.'s,
counselors, etc.)

11 - Secondary teachers

12 - Guidance and personnel
workers (psych., social
work, counselor if not
elementary)

13 - Other special services
(Speech, spec. teacher,
audiometric, etc.)

14 - Administrative (elem.,
sec., central office
adm., including elem.
principal, sec. v.p.
and princ., etc., in
non-teach.)

15 - University teachers,
professors, researchers,
specialists, etc.

16 - 19 Open

(20 — 29) Medical, other than

Rehab. and Spec. Ed.

20 - General practitioners

21 - Surgeons

22 - Psychiatrists or psycho-
analysts

23 - Dentists

24 - All other medical spec-
ialties

25 - Open

26 - Tech. and Prof.: Nurse,
O.T., P.T., R.T., Audio,
etc.

27 - Non-tech. and non-prof.:
aide, janitor, attendant,
etc.

28 - 29 Open

CARD 1 Page 1-6

Columnjgues. Item Detail Code Recode*

 

 

22,23 37 Q'aire Occupation (30 - 39) Professional and

 

 

(continued) Of Respon- Technical, not Spec. Ed. and
dent* (Spe- Rehab. or Medical or Educ.
cific)

30 - Engineers (degrees):
civil, electrical,
mechanical, etc.

31 - Lawyers, attorneys,
public accountants

32 - Ministers, clergymen

33 - Musicians

34 - Clinical psychologist

35 - Researchers, scientists,
not primarily in education

36 - Social workers, etc.

37 - 39 Other

(40 - 45) Business and Industry,
Managers, Officials, prop.'s

4O - Gov't and other bureau-
cratic Officials: public
administrators and Offi-
cers, union Officials,
stage inspectors, public
utility, telephone Offic-
ials, etc.

41 - Manufacturing, industrial
officials, exec's, etc.

42 - Non-mfg., service, indus-
try: bankers, brokers,
insurance, real estate

43 - Retail trades: food,
clothing, furniture, gaso-
line, vehicle sales, etc.

44 - General: i.e., manager
executive, etc., no other
qualifications

45 - Open

(46 - 49) Farm ownersL,Operators
and managers Of large farms, e.g.,

 

 

heavy equipment andZor many empl.

 

* See page 4-2
865

CARD 1 . Page 1-7

 

 

Columnjgues. Item Detail Code Recode*
22,23 37 Q'aire Occupation 46 - Farm owner
(continued) Of Respon- 47 - Farm Operator (renter)
dent* (Spe- 48 - Farm manager
cific) 49 - Open

(50 - 59) White Collar: Office,
clerical, etc.

50 - Clerical and similar:
tellers, bookkeepers,
cashiers, secretaries,
shipping clerks, attend-
ants, telephone Operators,
library asst's, mail clerks
and carriers, file clerks,
etc.

51 - Sales workers: advertising,
sales clerks, all mfg.,
wholesale, retail and other

52 - Small shopkeeper or dealer

54 - 59 Open

(60 - 69)7B1ue Collar: crafts-
men, foremen, and kindred work

60 - Craftsmen: carpenters,
bakers, electricians,
plumbers, machinists,
tailors, toolmakers,
photographers, etc.

61 - Foremen: all construc-
tion, mfg., transporta-
tion and communication,
and other industries

62 - Servicemen: telegraph,
telephone, etc.

63 - Mechanics and repairmen

64 - Shoemakers, roofers,
painters, and plasterers

65 - Merchant marine, sailors
(non-military)

*See page 4—2
865

 

 

/(rul

 

CARD 1 Page 1-8

 

 

Column:gues. Item Detail Code Recode*
22,23 37 Q'aire Occupation 66 - Bus and cab drivers,
(continued) of Respon— motormen, deliverymen,
dent* (Spe- chauffeurs, truck and
cific) tractor drivers

67 - Operatives Of all other
mech. equipment (machine,
vehicle, misc. mfg.)

68 — 69 Open

(10 - 74) Serivce and Private
Household workers)

70 - Private household: laun-
dress, housekeeper, cook

71 - Firemen and policemen,
sheriffs, and baliffs

72 - Attendents, professional
and personal (valet, mas-
seur, misc. mfg.)

73 - Misc. attendents and
services: hospital
attendents, bootblacks,
cooks

74 - Open

(75 - 79) Military Personhel

75 - Ranking Officers, all
services (Navy Commander
and up, Army and Marines
Colonel“and'up)

76 - Junior Officers,‘Army and
Air

77 - Junior Officers, Navy and
Marines

78 - Non-commissioned personnel,
Army and Air

79 - Non-commissioned personnel,
Navy and Marines

(80 - 86) Laborers

 

* See page 4-2
865

 

 

Page l-9

Recode*

Small farm owners, renters,
and farm laborers (small
farm has no heavy equipment,
provides minimal income and
substance, employs 3 or less
persons, full or part time,
except for migrant help)
Non-mfg., non-industrial:
fishermen, hunters, lumber-
men, miners, gardeners,
teamsters, garage laborers,
etc.

Manufacturing Of durable
goods: wood, clay, stone
(stonecutter), metal, glass
plastic,. machinery, of all
kinds

Mfg. of non-durable goods:
food (bakery, beverages,
etc.). tobacco, clothing,
cloth, paper, printing,
chemicals, rubber, leather,
etc.

Non-mfg. industries: rail-
road, construction, trans-
portation, workers, etc.

86 Open

No employment

 

gplumnegpes. gpemypetail Code
22,23 37 Q'aire Occupation 8O -
(continued) of Respon-
dent* (Spe-
cific)
81 -
82 —
83 -
84 -
85 -
187)
87 -

 

* Instructions for Coder: OCCUPATIONS,

Persons that haven't worked,
such as housewives, students
or others who have never had
a regular occupation

COLUMNS 22-23. Coding

information is derived from two sources:
1. Occupational description Of groups as listed by the

administrator.

2. Personal statements by the respondents in Question 37
of the questionnaire. Question 37 is the primary source

Of information. If vague or
from notes Of administrator.
* See page 4-2
865

incomplete, score entirely

 

 

Columntgues. Item Detail

24 37 Q'aire Current
Employment
Status*

25 1 thru A11 ques-

thru 20 H-P tions in

44 Content** handicap-
ped per-

sons scale
are to be
scored from
33 data .
See instruc-
tions below.

 

btur0k4
I

Code

.5me
I

Page 1-10

Recode*

Employed or self-employed
Retired

Temporarily out Of work
Housewife, but formerly
employed

Unable to work (other than
retired or housewife) but
formerly employed

Student or persons trained
for employment but not work-
ing for various reasons

, strongly disagree
disagree

agree

strongly agree

bUNI—J
Q.

~

* Instructions for Coder: EMPLOYMENT STATUSL COLUMN 24. Code
from questionnaire Question 31_if person clearly states employ—
ment status. If nO employment stated, and no indication with

certainty from the administrator,

 

score‘1.

** Instructions for Coder: HANDICAPPED PERSONS SCALE SCORING,

COLUMNS 25-44.

INOTE: CERTAIN STEPS AND PROCEDURES ARE THE SAME FOR THE EDUCATION
SCALE AS FOR THE HANDICAPPED PERSONS SCALE. THESE PROCE-
DURES WILL BE WRITTEN IN CAPITAL LETTERS.

The content part Of the question is the first half of the
question (i.e., the first score).

1“. Reverse the content response numbering for the Handicgpped
Persons Scale (NOT the intensity response number) for items

 

—

The number of response l
on data sheets., .2
.3.
5..

£365

2,_§,_§,.ll, and l2, as follows:

is changed to

I

and scored directly

.4.
.2
Z
.1.

CARD 1 Page l-ll

Column-Ques. Item Detail Code Recode*

 

 

2. Special instructions for §Q_RESPONSE. Count the number Of NO
RESPONSE items, if more than §_Occur, do not score respondent
for this scale. If there are p 9£_less in total, and 3_9£_less
in sequence, the NO RESPONSE statement is to be scored either
l_or 2.by the random procedure of coin flipping.

If a head is Obtained, the sCOre assigned will be l.
If a tail is obtained, the score assigned will be 2,

3. TOTAL THE RAW SCORES FOR EACH RESPONDENT AND WRITE THE TOTALS
ON THE TRANSCRIPTION DATA SHEET DIRECTLY BELOW THE COLUMN
TOTALED.*

4. INTENSITY RAW SCORES FOR EACH STATEMENT ARE TO BE SCORED ON THE
DATA SHEET EXACTLY AS THEY APPEAR ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE: i.e.,
IF.l IS CIRCLED IN THE INTENSITY SECTION OF QUESTION ONE, SCORE
IT AS l_ON THE CORRESPONDING SECTION OF THE TRANSCRIPTION SHEET.

5. Dichtomization Procedures (i.e., forfMSA - applied to all
scales).

a) Using raw data scores (i.e., the/actual number circled by
the respondent) via the HaftersOn pg: Program on the M.S.U.
CDC 3600, determine the point éf_least error for each item
on the content scales.

 

b) Using this point (i.e., between l_and g, or between g_and
§_Or between 3_and 4) rescore the items, via recode cards,
as Q, l_via the Hafterson MSA Program on the M.S.U. CDC
3600 to determine which items form §_scale. Run at both
.01 and .05 level.

 

c) For Handicapped Persons ScaleA items are scored 9 above
the column break, l below the column break. For edugation
Spale scoring, the reverse is true: items are scored l
above the column break, 9 below the column break.

 

d) Using the same procedure in point 5—a above, determine the
CUT points for the intensity component nyeach item.

 

* By this procedure, the possible range of scores is from Q to 89.
Doubling the Obtained score will approximate scores Obtained by
the method of Yuker, 33 gl., (1960, p. 10)

1.HP scale, blind scale, and deaf scale.
865

CARD 1 Page 1-12

Column-gues. Item Detail Code Recode*

 

 

5. e) Enter the MSA Program with the CUT points for the intensity
component and scale as in Point NO. 5-b for content.

 

f) Adjusted total scores for content and intensity. Sum the
didhfiomized content and intensity scores (i.e., 9,.l)
Obtained by the above procedure for each respondent on
these items that scaled for both content and intensity.
Maximum score will be l §_the number gf_the same items
that scaled gp_both content and intensity.

 

g) Zero Point. Using only the items that scaled for both con-
tent and intensity, plot and determine the ”zero point" for
each cultural group (or other desired groupings) via the
method detailed on pages 221-234 by Guttman (1950).

 

6. Dichotomization Procedure (alternative to no. 5 above). Attempt
to program the CUT Program into the MSA so that both procedures
under 55a and b are conducted jointly.

 

45 1 thru Handicapped l - 1, not strongly at all

thru 20 §;g Persons 2 - 2, not very strongly

64 Intensity* Scale 3 - 3, fairly strongly
Intensity 4 - 4, very strongly

 

1. Except for NO RESPONSE, intensity scores are to be determined
as noted in the preceding section regarding Content.

2. Those scales which are rejected because Of an excess Of NO
RESPONSE items in respect to content will Of course also be
rejected for intensity. Intensity questions which are
unscored, but which occur when the content part Of the ques-
tion is scored, will be scored as follows:

If content score is l_or 4, score intensity 4,

If content score is 2_Or 3, score intensity just below the
mean intensity score for that item: i.e. mean intensity
of the group.

 

* Instructions for Coder: HANDICAPPED PERSONS SCALE, INTENSITY,
COLUMNS 45—64.‘ See instructions 1 and 2 above and 3 on the
next page.

 

 

865

CARD 1 Page 1-13

Column—Ques. Item Detail Code Recode*

 

3. Intensity questions which are unscored, and which occur when
the content part Of the question is also unscored, will be
scored at the highest point below the respondent's own median
on the other intensity questions in the questionnaire; i.e.,
if respondent generally scored intensity questions either 4
or 3, so that the median was in between_3 and 4, score NO
RESPONSE_§, and so forth.

 

 

65 3,4,6, Education 1 - 1, strongly disagree
thru 10,11 Scale Tradi-. 2 - 2, disagree
74 12,13 tional, Con- 3 - 3, agree
14,18 tent Respon- 4 - 4, strongly agree
19* .ggs **

1. Items are to be scored on the transcription sheet as circled
by the respondent.

2. Follow the procedures outlined in caps on Pages 1-10, 1-11,
and 1-12 for the Handicapped Persons Scale. Be sure to score
only those items indicated above as applying to the education
traditional scale, content.

 

* The traditional and the progressive scales are both in the
Kerlinger education scale but the responses are scored separ-
ately on the transcription sheet.

** ipstructions for Coder: EDUCATION SCALE, TRAPITIONALL CONTENT,
COLUMNS 65-74. See instructions 1 and 2 on page 1-13.

865

Column:Ques.

 

1,2,3

10

11,12
13,14

15,16

17,18

19,20

21

865

Face

Face

Face
Face

37 Q

37 Q

Face
Face

Face

Face

Face

Face

Sheet

Sheet

Sheet

Sheet

'aire

'aire

Sheet

Sheet

Sheet

Sheet

Sheet

Sheet

Item Detail

 

Nation and
Location

Group Number

Respondent
Number

Sex of
Respondent

Occupational
Recode
(Interest
group)

Occupational
Recode
(Spec. Ed.-
Rehab. SER)

Deck or Card
Number

Project
Director

Day of
Adminis-
tration

Month of
Adminis-
tration

Year of
Adminis~
tration

Type of
Adminis-
tration

Code

Same

Ol -

01 -

Same

Same

Same

02

Same
and

01-31

01-12

Same as Card 1,

Same

as

99

99

as

as

as

as

1-3

as Card 1,

Card

Card

Card

Card

Card

Page 2-1

Recode*

page 1-1

page

page 1-2

page 1-2

pages 1-2

page 1-4

page 1-4

CARD 2 Page 2-2

 

 

 

 

 

Column-Ques. Item Detail Code Recode*
22.23 Face Sheet Occupation Same as Card 1. pages
of Respond- 1-4 through 1-9
ent
24 Face Sheet Current Same as Card 1. page 1—10
Employment
Status
25 3.4.6.10. Education 1 - 1. not strongly at all
thru 11.12.13. Scale. Tra- 2 - 2. not very strongly
34 14.18.19 ditional. 3 - 3. fairly strongly
Intensity 4 - 4. very strongly
Responses*
35 1.2.5.7. Education 1 - 1. strongly disagree
thru 8.9.15. Scale. Pro- 2 - 2. disagree
44 16.17.20 _gressive. 3 - 3. agree
Content 4 - 4. strongly agree
Responses**

 

* Instructions for coder: EDHQAIIQN.EQALE. TRADITIONAL. INTENs
SIT . COLUMNS 24-33. Intensity questions are scored as indica-
ted in caps on pages 1-11. 1-12 and 1-13 and as noted before.
Handicapped Persons Scale. pages 1-10. 1-11 and 1-12. instruc-
tions 1 through 5.

 

**_;Q§tructions for Coder: EDUCATION SCALE. PROGRESSIVE. CONTENT.

1. Items are to be scored exactly as circled.

 

 

2. Follow the procedures outlined in caps on pages 1-11.
1-12 and 1-13. Handicapped Persons ggale. Be sure to
score only those items indicated above as belonging to
the education progressive scale content.

 

865

 

Column-Ques.
22.23 Face Sheet
24 Face Sheet

25
thru
34

35
thru
44

3.4.6.10.
11.12.13.
14.18.19

1.2.5.7.
8.9.15.
16.17.20

 

* Instructions for coder:

SIT . QQLUMN§ 24-33.

ted in caps on pages 1-11.

Item Detail

 

Occupation
of Respond-
ent

Current
Employment
Status

Education
Scale.lgrae
ditional.
Intensity
Responses*

 

Education
Scale..g£g-
_gressive.
Content
Responses**

Page 2-2
Code Recode*
Same as Card 1. pages

1-4 through 1-9

Same as Card 1. page 1-10

Q

not strongly at all
not very strongly
fairly strongly
very strongly

‘

othH
I
bcyrord
‘

§

1 - 1. strongly disagree
2 - 2. disagree

3 - 3. agree

4 4

strongly agree

Q

.EDHCAIIQNHSQALE..ZBADLILQNALo.lEI§Hf

Intensity questions are scored as indica-
1-12 and 1-13 and as noted before.

Handicapped Persons Scale. pages 1-10. 1-11 and 1-12. instruc-
tions 1 through 5.

** Instructions for Coder:

 

1.

2.

865

EDUCATION SCALE. PROGRESSIVE. CONTENT.

 

Items are to be scored exactly as circled.

Follow the procedures outlined in caps on pages 1-11.
l-12 and 1-13. Handicapped Persons Scale. Be sure to
score only those items indicated above as belonging to

 

the education progressive scale content.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CARD 2 Page 2-3
Columnjgpes. Item Detail Code Recode*
45 1.2.5.7. Education 1 - 1. not strongly at all
thru 8.9.15. Scale. Pro— 2 - 2. not very strongly
54 16.17.20 _gressive 3 - 3. fairly strongly
Intensity 4 - 4. very strongly
Responses*
55-56 Raw g Value scale.
score Support 01 32
score**
57-58 Raw 9 Value scale. 01 32
score Conformity
score**
59-60 Raw 3 Value scale. 01 32
score Recognition
score**
(comparative)
61-62 Raw I Value scale. 01 32
score Indepen-
dence score**
63-64 Raw B. Value scale. 01 32
score Benevolence
score**(asset)
65-66 Raw L Value scale. 01 32
score Leadership
score**
(comparative)

 

* Instructions for Coder:
COLUMNS 44-53.
gressive content.

**

EDUCATION SCALE. PROGRESSIVE.
Same as instructions for Education Scale.
see page 2-2.

INTENSITY.
Pro-

 

Entries for columns 63-74 are obtained through scoring accord-
ing to SRA Manual for Survey of Interpersonal Values. Science
Research Associates. Inc., 259 East Erie Street. Chicago. Illi—
nois. 1960. For scoring. coders should use the special keys
adapted from the SRA English edition of the scale. Although the
summed scores of the six value scales should total 90. scores
Ibetween 84 and 95 are “acceptable."

865

Column-Ques.

 

67-68 Sum of
item
scores.
1-20.

Content

69-70 Sum of
item
scores.
1-20.

Intensity

71-72 Sum of
item
scores. 3.
4.6.10.11.
12.13.14.

18.19

73-74 Sum of
item
scores. 3.
4.6.10.11.
12.13.14.

18.19

Item Detail Code

 

Adjusted (Check
totals based here)

 

on item :2_to
dichotomiza-

tion. H.P.

§cale. Con-

tent*
Adjusted (Check

totals based here)
on item ‘12 to
dichotomiza-

tion. H.P.

Scale. Inten-

sity*

Adjusted (Check
totals based here)
on item .12 to
dichotomiza-
tion Educa-
tion Tradi-
tional Scale.
Content*“

 

Adjusted (Check
totals based here)
on item .19 to
dichotomiza-
tion Educa-
tion Tradi-
tional Scale.
Intensity*'

 

 

 

* See Card 1. page 1-12.

adjusted total scores are obtained.

 

865

instruction no.

Page 2-4
Recode*
dich. for no. to use
Code will be: 99 or
obtained score
dich. for no. to use
Code will be: QQ_or
obtained score
dich. for no. to use
Code will be: ,QQ or
obtained score
dich. for no. to use
Code will be: .99 or

obtained score

5-f. to ascertain how

Column-Ques.

75-76 Sum of
item
scores. 1.
2.5.7.8.9.
15.16.17.20

77-78 Sum of
item
scores. 1.
2050708I9I
15.16.17.20

Item Detail Code

 

Adjusted (Check

totals based here)
on item .32 to
dichotomiza-

tion Educa-

tion Progres-

 

sive Scale.

 

M*

Adjusted (Check
totals based here)
on item .12 to
dichotomiza-

tion Educa-
tion Progres-

 

sive Scale.

 

Intensity*

 

* See Card 1. page 1-12. instruction No.
adjusted total scores are obtained.

 

 

865

Page 2-5

Recode*

dich. for no. to use
Code will be: IQQ_or
obtained score

dich. for no. to use
Code will be: .99 or
obtained score

5-f. to ascertain how

u.._-—--

 

Column:gues.
1.2.3 Face Sheet
4.5 Face Sheet
6.7 Face Sheet
8 Face Sheet
9 37 Q'aire
10 New

11.12 Face Sheet
13.14 Face Sheet
15.16 Face Sheet
17.18 Face Sheet
19.20 Face Sheet
21 Face Sheet

865

Item Detail

Nation and
Location

Group Number

Respondent
Number

Sex of
Respondent

Occupational
Recode
(Interest

group)

Occupational
Recode
(Spec. Ed.-
Rehab. SER)

Deck or Card
Number

Project
Director

Day of Admin-

istration

Month of
Adminis—
tration

Year of
.Adminis-
tration

Type of
Adminis-
tration

Code

Same as

01-99

01-99
Same

as

Same as

Same as

03
Same as
and 1-3

01-31

01-12

Card

Card

Card

Card

Card

Same as Card 1.

Same as Card 1.

Page 3—1

Recode*

page 1-1

page 1-2

page 1-2

page 1-2

pages 1-2

page 1-4

page 1-4

CARD 3 Page 3-2

 

 

 

 

Column-gges. _ Item Detail Code Recode*
22.23 Face Sheet Occupation Same as Card 1. pages
of Respond- 1-4 through 1-9
ent
24 Face Sheet Current Same as Card 1. page 1-10
employment
status
25.26 1 Q'aire Contact Primary
group 1 - 01. Elem. School
(Educ.) 2 - 02. Sec. School
3 - 03. University
4 - 04. Other as specified
5 - 05. No experience
27.28 2 Q'aire Contact Secondary
group 1 - 01
(Educ.) 2 - 02
3 - 03 SAME
4 - 04
5v- 05
29.30 3 Q'aire Educational 1 - 01 Know nothing about Ed
Contact 2 - 02 Read little about Ed
(Varieties) 3 - 03, Studied about Ed
4 - 04 Neighbor works
5 - 05 Friend works
6 - 06 Relative works
7 - 07 Family works
8 - 08 I work in Ed
9 - 09 Other
(1) If any combination of alternatives 1. 2 and 3 are circled. code

(2)

(3)

865

as 10. Impersonal Contact

If any combination of alternatives 4-8 are circled. code as 11.
Personal Contact.

If alternatives are circled in both division. code as 12. Both
Impersonal and Personal Contact. This requires coding alterna-
tive OTHER (i.e.. alternative 9) as either personal or imper-
sonal contact; i.e.. according to its content.

 

Column:gues.

31 4 Q'aire
32 5 Q'aire
33 6 Q'aire
34 7 Q'aire
35.36 8 Q'aire
37 9 Q'aire
865

.—

CARD 3

Item Detail

Amount of
Contact
(Educ.)

Percent of
income from
Education

Enjoyment of
Educational
Work

Alternative
work (to
educ.)

Age

Community in

which reared.
If more than

one is
checked try

to determine
in which one
the respond-
ent spent
most of the
time. If

2221.2

mflmUl-fiWNl-J
I

.tht—I m-waH
I I

U'ltfiwNH
I

Q Q

Q

Q Q

mflmUI-bWNl-d
Q Q

Q

UlnbUJNH
sssss

U1I§OJN
§~§~

Q

Q Q

UTIbUNH
s

Q

Page 3-3

Recode*

less than 3 months

3 months to 6 months
6 months to 1 year

1 year to 3 years

3 years to 5 years

5 years to 10 years
over 10 years

over 15 years

less than 10%
10 to 25%
25 to 50%
50 to 75%
75 to 100%

disliked
not much
somewhat
enjoyed

no information
unavailable

not acceptable

not quite acceptable
acceptable

years
years

country
country town
city

city suburb

 

CARD 3 Page 3-4

 

 

Columnjgpes. Item Detail Code Recode*
37 9 Q'aire
(continued) impossible.
try to
choose a
median (i.e.
country.

city. score
country town)

38 10 Q'aire Employment 1 - 1. country
community 2 - 2. country town
(recent) 3 - 3. city
4 - 4. city suburb
39 ll Q'aire Recent Resi— 1 — 1. country
dence 2 - 2. country town
3 - 3. city
4 - 4. city suburb
40 12 Q'aire Marital 1 - 1. married
Status 2 - 2. single
3 - 3. divorced
4 - 4. widowed
5 - 5. separated
41.42 13 Q'aire Number of l - 01
children. 2 - 02
If blank. 3 - 03
check Ques. ° °
13. If 10 - 10
single.

score 00;
if married.
score -9.

43.44 14 Q'aire Yearly Income UNITED STATES
‘ (self-family) 01 - less than $1.000
(for other 02 - $1.000 to $1.999
nations see 03 - $2.000 to $2.999
Special °
Instructions) 10 - $9.000 to $9.999

865

 

Column-Ques.

45 15 Q'aire
46.47 16 Q'aire
48.49 17 Q'aire
51.51 NOneT

52 18 Q'aire
53 19 Q'aire

865

Item Detail

 

Comparative
Income
(self-fam-
ily)

U'lnPWNH

H

Brothers.
If the
respondent 3
answers -
only one 10
question
(17 or 18)
and other
is blank.
assume it
to be zero.

N

Sisters

Siblings - 1
Obtain by °
summing 15
above Ques-
tions 16 and
17. Col's 45.
46 and 47. 48

Fathers'
Income:
Comparative

UlthNI-d

Religious
Affiliation

O‘U‘lwal-J

I
UlvaJNl-J
Q

Q

Same

.9292

Q

Q

Q

- 01
- 03

- 10

as

- 01

- 15

Q

Q

Q

I
mbWNH
Q Q

Q

Q

I

I
U'thJNl—l
Q

I

Page 3-5

Recode*

much lower
lower

about the same
higher

much higher

number of brothers

much lower
lower

about the same
higher

much higher

Roman Catholic
Protestant
Jewish

None

Other

to 9. Other major religions

CARD 3 Page 3-6

 

 

Column-Ques. Item Detail Code Recode*.

54 20 Q'aire Religion 1 - 1. No religion
(Import- 2 - 2. Not very
ance) 3 - 3. Fairly

4 - 4. Very
55 21 Q'aire Personaliam 1 - 1. none
(job-amount) 2 - 2. no contact
3 - 3. less than 10%
4 - 4. 10 to 30%
5 - 5. 30 to 50%
6 - 6. 50 to 70%
7 - 7. 70 to 90%
8 - 8. over 90%

56 22 Q'aire Personalism 1 - 1. not at all
(job-impor- 2 - 2. not very
tance of) 3 - 3. fairly

4 - 4. very

57 23 Q'aire Personalism 1 - 1. none
(job-diffu- 2 - 2. less than 10%
sion) 3 - 3. 10 to 30%

4 - 4. 30 to 50%
5 - 5. 50 to 70%
6 - 6. 70 to 90%
7 - 7. over 90%

58 24 Q'aire Social Class 1 - 1. lower
Position 2 - 2. lower middle
(Self) 3 - 3. middle

4 - 4. upper middle
5 - 5. upper

59 25 Q'aire Social Class Same as above
Position
(Father)

865

 

Column-gues.

60 26 Q'aire
61 27 Q'aire
62 28 Q'aire
63 29 Q'aire
64 30 Q'aire

865

Item Detail

Education

(Self-
amount).

If more
than one is
circled.
choose the
highest
amount or
determine
the approp-
riate an
answer.

Education

(Self-com-
parative)

Education

(Father -
comparative)

Housing

(type of)

Housing

(rental-
month) (for

other nations

see Special

Instructions)

Code

(DQOUIDUJNH
I

UTbUJNl-J mph-JR)!“
l I

thNl-J
i

mm
II

7..

Page 3-7

Recode*

three years or less
six years or less
nine years or less
twelve years or less
some college

degree

work beyond degree
advanced degree

Q Q

Q

Q Q Q

(DQOWUIDNNH
Q

Q

much less
less
average
more

much more

Q

Q Q

Ul-wai-J
Q

Q

much less
less
average
more

much more

Q

Q Q

U"l.bLa\Jl\.)l--"I
Q

Q

rent house
rent apartment
rent room
purchase room
and board

5. own apartment
6. own house

7. other

IP-le—i
QQQ

Q

UNITED STATES

 

$20 or less

21 - 40 (dollars)
41 - 75

76 - 125

126 - 200

201 - 300

300 or more

Column-Ques.

65 3l-A Q'aire

66 31-B Q'aire
67 31-C Q'aire
68 31-D Q'aire
69 31-E Q'aire
70 31-F Q'aire
71 31-G Q'aire
72 3l-H Q'aire
73 31-I Q'aire

865

Item Detail

 

Institutional
Satisfaction
Elementary
Schools

Institutional
Satisfaction
Secondary
Schools

Institutional
Satisfaction
Universities

Institutional
Satisfaction
Businessmen

Institutional
Satisfaction
Labor

Institutional
Satisfaction
Government

(local)

Institutional
Satisfaction
Government

(National)

Institutional
Satisfaction
Health
Services

Institutional
Satisfaction
Churches

£95.12

U'lfiUJNl-J
I

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

m-th-‘w

Page 3-8

Recode*

do not know
poor

fair

good
excellent

Column-Ques.

74

75

865

32 Q'aire

33 Q'aire

 

CARD 3

Item Detail Code
Residency 1 -
(current 2 -
length) 3 -
4 _
5 -
Residency l -
(change- 2 -

recent)

mprH
QQQQQ

H
Q

Page 3—9

Recode*

less than a year
one to two years
three to six years
seven to ten years
over ten years

yes
no

Column-Ques.

1.2.3

4.5

10

11.12

13.14

15.16

17.18

19.20

21

865

Face

Face

Face

Face

Sheet

Sheet

Sheet

Sheet

37 Q‘aire

New

Face

Face

Face

Face

Face

Face

Sheet

Sheet

Sheet

Sheet

Sheet

Sheet

Item Detail

Nation and
Location

Group Number

Respondent
Number

Sex of
Respondent

Occupational
Recode
(Interest

group)

Occupational
Recode
(Spec. Ed.-
Rehab. SER)

Deck or Card
Number

Project
Director

Day of
Adminis-
tration

Month of
(Adminis-
tration

Year of
Adminis-
tration

Type of
Adminis-
tration

9221.2

Same

01 -

Same

Same

Same

04

Same
1-3

01-31

01-12

Same

Same as Card 1. page 1-4

as Card 1.

99

99
Card 1.

as

as Card 1.

as Card 1.

as Card 1.
and 1-3

as Card 1.

Page 4-1

Recode*

page 1-1

page 1-2

page 1-2

page 1-2

pages

page 1-4

CARD 4 Page 4-2

 

 

Column:Ques. Item Detail Code Recode*
22.23 Face Sheet Occupation Same as Card 1. pages
of Respond- 1-4 through 1-9
ent
24 Face Sheet Current Same as Card 1. page 1-10
Employment
Status
25 34 Q'aire Job change 1 - 1. yes
(recent) 2 - 2. no
26 35 Q'aire Residency - . none
(change fre- - . one time

two to three times
four to six times
seven to ten times
over ten times

quency) (i.
e.. last
ten years)

Q

Q

O‘U’ltPUJNH
I
O‘U‘IthH
Q

Q

27 36 Q'aire Job (change
frequency)
(i.e.. last
ten years)

none

one time

two to three times
four to six times
seven to ten times
over ten times

Q Q

Q

Q

O‘U'ItPUJNI-J
I
mmbwwr—a
Q

Q

28.29 37 Q'aire Occupation Same as Card 1. pages
(Specific) 1-4 through 1-9
30 38 Q'aire Religiousity 1 - 1. no religion
(norm con- 2 - 2. seldom
formity) 3 - 3. sometimes
4 — 4. usually
5 - 5. almost always
31 39 Q'aire Change Ori— 1 - 1. no
entation 2 - 2. probably not
(Health 3 - 3. maybe
Practices) 4 - 4. yes
32 40 Q'aire Change Ori- l - 1. strongly disagree
entation 2 - 2. slightly disagree
(Child 3 - 3. slightly agree
Rearing) 4 — 4. strongly agree

865

CARD 4 Page 4-3

 

 

Column-Ques. Item Detail Code Recode*
33 41 Q'aire Change Ori- l - 1. always right
entation 2 - 2. usually right
(Birth con- 3 — 3. probably wrong
trol Prac- 4 - 4. always wrong
tices)
34 42 Q'aire Change Ori- l - 1. strongly disagree
entation 2 - 2. slightly disagree
(Automation) 3 - 3. slightly agree
4 - 4. strongly agree
35 43 Q'aire Change Ori— l - 1. strongly disagree
entation 2 - 2. slightly disagree
(Political 3 - 3. slightly agree
Leaders) 4 - 4. strongly agree
36 44 Q'aire Education 1 - 1. strongly disagree
(aid to - 2 - 2. slightly disagree
local) 3 - 3. slightly agree
4 - 4. strongly agree
37 45 Q'aire Education 1 - 1. strongly disagree
(aid to - 2 - 2. slightly disagree
federal) 3 - 3. slightly agree
4 — 4. strongly agree
38 46 Q'aire Education 1 - 1. only parents
(planning 2 - 2. only city or local
responsi- government
bility) 3 - 3. primarily federal
government
39 47 Q'aire Change Ori- 1 - 1. very difficult
entation 2 - 2. somewhat difficult
(self) 3 — 3. slightly easy
4 - 4. very easy
40 48 Q'aire Change Ori— 1 - 1. agree strongly
entation 2 - 2. agree slightly
(self-role 3 - 3. disagree slightly
adherence) 4 - 4. disagree strongly

865

QC

Column-gues.

 

41 49 Q'aire
42 50 Q'aire
43 51 Q'aire
44 52 Q'aire
45 53 Q'aire
46.47 54 Q'aire

865

Item Detail

 

Change Ori-
entation
(self-
routine job)

Personalism
(Famialism-
Parental
ties)

Personalism
(Other ori-
entation)

Future Ori-
entation
(Planning)

Future Ori-
entation
(Happiness)

Future Ori-
entation
(Happiness
possibility)

Code

tthH
I

Same

waI-l bWNH
I I

OAU'I-D-WNH
I

06
07
08
09
10
-9

htubOPJ

bWNH kWNH
s

Q

mU'IuPUNI-J

Page 4-4

Recode*

agree strongly
agree slightly
disagree slightly
disagree strongly

Q

Q

Q

disagree strongly
disagree slightly
agree slightly
agree strongly

Q

Q

Q

agree strongly
agree slightly
disagree slightly
disagree strongly

Q

Q

Q

nothing
money
friends
job
health
. other

Q

Q

Q

Q

Q

Nothing

Marriage

Divorce

Friends

Religion (Satisfaction
with life)

Money

Job

Education

Health (Mental)
Health (Physical)
No response

Column-Ques. Item Detail

 

9992

Page 4-5

Recode*

HANDICAPPED PERSONS QUESTIONNAIRE

 

48 l-Q-HP HP Contact
Group (Pri-
mary)

49.50 2-Q-HP HP Contact
Group (Sec-
ondary)

51,52 3—Q-HP HP Contact
(varieties)

53 4—Q-HP HP Contact
(amount)

* NOTE:

QmflmU‘I-FWNH

00
to
08

\ImU'l-bWNI"

LJ'l-PWNH

If either or both alternatives 1 and 2 are circled.

as gs - Impersonal contact.
tives 3-7 are circled. code as 92 - Personal contact. If
alternatives from both preceding divisions are circled.
code as lQ.- Impersonal and Personal contact.

865

blind
partially blind
deaf (and mute)
partially deaf
crippled
disfigured
spastic

speech

none

Q Q Q

Q

Q Q Q

OWQO‘U‘I-fiwNAI—J

Q

If there was no contact
and questions are not
answered score 9, The
score for this question
is the score of the
response alternatives
circled. i.e.. scores
can range from Q_to 8,

01.
02.
03.
04.
05.
06.
O7.
08)
09)* See note below
10)

Minimum knowledge
Studied about HP
Friend HP
Relative HP
Worked with HP
Family HP

Self is HP

1. less than ten
2. ten to fifty

3. fifty to 100

4. 100 to 500

5. over 500

code
If either or all alterna-

Columnegpes..v Item Detail

 

 

54 5-Q—HP HP Contact
(ease of
avoidance)

55 6-Q-HP HP Contact

(gain from)

56 7—Q-HP HP Contact
(% income)

57 8-Q-HP HP Contact
(enjoyment)

58 9-Q-HP HP Contact
(alterna-

tives to)

59 lO-Q-HP Contact
(amount-
M.R.)

60 ll-Q-HP Contact
(amount-
EDP)

865

QUNI‘“ bWNI‘"
QWNH punt”
u s s s s Q s s s s

Q

Q

U'IuthH
UI-PoUJNH

Q

PLUM?“
thH
QQ

Q Q

Q Q Q

Q

U'l-thINI-J
U'IPUJNI—J

Q

Page 4-6

Recode*

great difficulty
considerable difficulty
some inconvenience

no inconvenience

no rewards

paid

credit

paid and credit

less than 10%
10 to 25%

25 to 50%

50 to 75%
over 75%

disliked. great
disliked. little
liked. some
definitely enjoyed

No information on
alternatives

No other job
available

Other available
job N91 acceptable
Other available
job acceptable

less than 10
10 to 50

50 to 100
100 to 500
over 500

Column:Ques.

61.62 Sum of
item
scores
1-20
Content

63.64 Sum of
item
scores
1-20
Intensity

65.66 Sum of
item
scores 3.
4.6.10.11.
12.13.14.
18.19

67.68 Sum of
item
scores 3.
4.6.10.11.
12.13.14.
18.19

865

Item Detail Code

 

Handicapped 00-80

Persons
Scale Total
Content Raw
Score. entry
on trans-
cription
sheet

Handicapped 00-80

Persons
Scale Total
Intensity
E! Score.
entry on
transcrip-
tion sheet

Education 00-40

Scale. Tra-
ditional
Total Raw

Content

score entry
on transcrip-
tion sheet

Education 00-40

Scale..g£ag
ditional
Total Raw
Intensity.

 

score entry
on transcrip-
tion sheet

Page 4—7

Recode*

Column:gues.

69.70 Sum of

71.72

865

item
scores 1.
2.5.7.8.
9.15.16.
17.20

Sum of
item
scores 1.
2.5.7.8.
9.15.16.
17.20

Item Detail Code

Education 00-40

Scale..g£9-
(gressive
Total 3331
Content

score entry
on transcrip-
tion sheet

Education 00-40

Scale..g£g¢
gressive
Total M.
Intensity
score entry
on transcrip-
tion sheet

Page 4-8

Recode*

I
'1
39:2,!" 40 7
l

Tiffin-Ohio (010)
(SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS)

Card 5 Page S-S-O-l

Column-Ques.

 

1—9 Face Sheet

 

Item Detail

 

Nation and Location

Same as Card 1

Code Recode*

 

1

page 1-1
10 Face Sheet Special Education —1, mothers (SVGC)
of Q'aire (Occupational EDP
Recode) -2, mothers (BJRC)
HP
—3, mothers (Mt.
Pleasant)Non-SER
11,12 Face Sheet Deck or Card Number 05
13-24 Face Sheet Nation and Location Same as Card 1,
page 1-1
25 1 thru All questions in EDP l—l strongly agree
thru 20 EDP Scale are to be 2-2 disagree
44 Content scored from raw data.3—3 agree
Instructions parallelu-U strongly agree
exactly those of the
H-P scale. (Note
especially reversals
in items 2, 2, 6, II,
and 12.
US 1 thru Instructions for 1—1 not strongly
thru 20 EDP scoring parallel at all
64 Intensity those of H-P scale. 2—2 not very
See Card l-ll. strongly
3-3 fairly
strongly
u—u very strongly
65-66 Sum of Emotionally Distur- 00-80

item scores

bed Persons Scale.

1-20, Total Content Raw
content score.
(EDP)

865

Card 5

Column-Ques.

 

67-68 Sum of
item
scores
1-20
Content

(EDP)

69-70 Sum of ad-
Justed item
scores.
Content

We:

71-72 Sum of ad-
Justed item
scores,
Intensity
(m)

 

408

Tiffin-Ohio (010)

(SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS)

Item Detail

 

EDP Scale. Total
Intensity raw
score.

 

Adjusted totals
based on item
dichtomoziation,
EDP-Content (l)

 

Adjusted totals
based on item
dichtomization
EDP—Intensity_(l)

 

 

Page S-5-0—2
Code Recode*

00—80

00-

(Check Dich. for
no. to use here).
See pp 1-11 for
instructions.

(1) See Card 1, Page 1-11, instructions No. S-f, to ascertain
how adjusted total scores are obtained.

 

865

' *pM-wmfl
A n

1:09

Tiffin-Ohio (010)
(SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS)
Card 6 Page S-6—0—1

Column-Ques. Item Detail Code Recode*

 

1-9 Face Sheet Nation and Location Same as Card 1,

page 1—1
10 Face Sheet Special Education —1, mothers
(Occupational (SVGC) EDP
Recode) -2, mothers
(BJRC) HP

-3, mothers
(Mt. Pleasant)
Non-SER
11,12 Face Sheet Deck or Card Number 06

13-24 Face Sheet Nation and Location Same as Card 1

page 1—1
25 1 EDP Contact with EDP 1—1 yes
Q'aire 2—2 no
26-27 2 EDP Varieties of l—Ol, Minimum
Q'aire Contact with EDP knowledge
2—02, Studied
about EDP

3—03, Friend-EDP

4—04, Relative—EDP

5—05, Worked with
EDP

6-06, Family EDP

7—07, Self is EDP

-08)

—09) See note below

-10)

IVote: If either or both alternatives 1 and 2 are circled,
code as 08 - Impersonal contact. If either or all
alternatives 3-7 are circled, code as 09 - Personal
contact. If alternatives from both preceding divisions
are circles, code as 10 - Impersonal and Personal
Contact.

8655

 

“L
‘ Iv: ,

410
Tiffin-Ohio (010)

(SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS

 

 

Card 6 Page S—6-0-2
Column-Ques. Item Detail Code Recode*
28 3 EDP Amount of Contact l-l, less than ten

Q'aire with EDP 2—2, ten to fifty
3—3, fifty to 100
4-4, 100 to 500
5-5, over 530
29 A EDP Ease of avoidance l—l, great difficulty
Q'aire of EDP 2—2, considerable
difficulty
3—3, some inconven-
ience
A-A, no inconvenience
3O 5 EDP Material gain from l-l, paid
Q'aire contact with EDP 2-2, credit
3-3, no rewards
A—A, paid and credit
31 6 EDP Per cent of income l-l, less than 10%
Q'aire 2-2, 10 to 25%
3-33 25 to 50%
A—A, 50 to 75%
5-5, over 75%

-6, if i is circled
in No. 6 or if
they have never
worked with EDP

32 7 EDP Feeling about con— l—l, disliked, great
Q'aire taCt with EDP 2-2, disliked a little
3-3, liked, some
A—A, definitely enjoyed
33 8 EDP Alternatives to l-l, no information on
Q'aire contact with EDP alternatives
(i.e. employment) 2-2, no other job

available

3-3, available-not
acceptable

A-A, available-not quite
acceptable

5—5, available-
acceptable

L :qu

Card 6

Column-Ques.

 

3A 9 EDP
Q'aire
35 10 EDP
Q'aire

(I)
Ch
U7

All

Tiffin—Ohio (010)

(SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS)

Item Detail

 

Amount of Contact
with physically
handicapped

 

 

Amount of Contact

with mentally

retarded

 

 

WtWNI—J U’ILTWRJI—J

I I I I
mummy—v U'IJZ‘WRJI—J

IIII

Page S—6—0-3

as:

UUUUU

UUUUU

less than 10

10 to 50
50 to 100
100 to 500
over 500

less than 10
10 to 50

50 to 100
100 to 500
over 500

Recode*

 

APPENDIX B-5

FCCI and II Variable-Computer
Print-Out Code Forms

412 :L~

 

A13

Tiffin 010

FCC I and 2

Variable-computer printout code form

John E. Jordan
College of Education
Michigan State University

 

Wu—umugu p
. . - . .. v .
. . . s
:" . -
I.

AlA Tiffin 1 of 5

 

FCC I

Field No. Question Variable Name Col.
Card I

1 Face Sheet Nation and Location 3

2 Face Sheet Sex 8

3 37 Q'aire Interest Group 9

A None Occup. recoder (mothers) 10

5 Face Sheet Admin. type 21

6 Face Sheet Employment status 2A

7-26 HP Scale HP Content 25—AA

27-A6 HP Scale HP Intensity A6—6A

A7-56 Ed Scale Ed. Trad Content 65—7A
Card 2

First 2A Columns SAME as Card 1 except for Col. 11,12
(i.e. Deck or Card No.)

 

 

 

 

57-66 Education Scale Trad. Education—Intensity 25-3A

67-66 Education Scale Prog. Education-Content 35—AA

77-86 Education Scale Prog. Education~lntensity A5-5A
Card 3

First 2A Columns SAME as Card 1 except for Col. 11,12
(i.e. Deck or Card No.)

 

 

87 A Q'aire Contact (amount-education) 31
88 5 Q'aire Contact (gain from education) 32
89 6 Q'aire Contact (enjoyment—education) 33
90 7 Q'aire Contact (alternatives to ed) 3A
91 9 Q'aire Early Youth Community 37
92 10 Q'aire Employment Community (recent) 38
93 11 Q'aire Residence Community (recent) 3
9A 12 Q'aire Marital Status A0
95 15 Q'aire Income (comparative—self fam.)A5
96 18 Q'aire Income (father's comparative) 52
97 19 Q'aire Religious affiliation 53
98 20 Q'aire Religion (Importance) 5A
99 21 Q'air Personalism (job—amount) 55
100 22 Q'aire Personalism (job-importance) 56
101 23 Q'aire Personalism (job-diffusion) 57
102 2A Q'aire Social class position (self) 58
103 25 Q'aire Social class position(father) 59
10A 26 Q'aire Education (self-amount) 60
105 27 Q'aire Education (self-comparative) 61
106 28 Q'aire Education (father-comparative)62
107 29 Q'aire Housing (type of) 63
108 30 Q'aire Housing (rental-mouth) 6A
109 31A Q'aire Institutional Satisfaction 65
(elementary schools)
110 318 Q'aire Institutional Satisfaction 66
(secondary schools)
111 31C Q'aire Institutional Satisfaction 67

(universities)

 

A15 Tiffin 2 of 5
Field No. Question Variable Name Col.
112 31D Q'aire Institutional Satisfaction 68
(businessmen)
113 31E Q'aire Institutional Satisfaction 69
(labor)
11A 31F Q'aire Institutional Satisfaction 70
(local government)
115 310 Q'aire Institutional Satisfaction 71
(national government)
116 31H Q'aire Institutional Satisfaction 72
(health service)
117 311 Q'aire Institutional Satisfaction 73
(churches)
118 32 Q'aire Residing (current length) 7A
119 33 Q'aire Residing (change-recent) 75
Card A
irst 2A columns SAME except for Columns 11-12 (i.e.
deck or Card No.)
120 3A Q'aire Job (change-recent) 25
121 35 Q'aire Residing (change-frequency) 26
122 36 Q'aire Job (change—frequency) 27
123 38 Q'aire Religiousity (norm-conformity)30
12A 39 Q'aire Change orientation (health pr)31
125 A0 Q'aire Change orientation(child rear)32
126 A1 Q'aire Change orientation(birth cont)33
127 A2 Q'aire Change orientation(automation)3A
128 A3 Q'aire Change orientation 35
(political leaders)
129 AA Q'aire Education (aid to-local) 36
130 A5 Q'aire Education (aid to—federal) 37
131 A6 Q'aire Education (planning respon—
sibility) 38
132 A7 Q'aire Change orientation (self) 39
133 A8 Q'aire Change orientation (self-
rule adherence) A0
13A A9 Q'aire Change orientation (self-
routine job) A1
135 50 Q'aire Personalism (familialism-
parental ties) A2
135 51 Q'aire Personalism(other orientation)A3
137 52 Q'aire Future orientation (planning) AA
138 52 Q'aire Future orientation
(happiness prerequisites) A5
139 l-Q-HP Contact group (primary HP) A8
1A0 A-Q-HP Contact (amount of HP) 53
1A1 5-Q-HP Contact (ease of avoidance) 5A
1A2 6-Q-HP Contact (gain from—HP) 55
1A3 7—Q-HP Contact (% income from HP) 56
1AA 8-Q-HP Contact (enjoyment-HP) 57

1165

 

A16 Tiffin 3 of 5

 

 

Field No. Question Variable Name Col.
1A5 9-Q-HP Contact (alternative to HP) 58
1A6 lO-Q-HP Contact (amount - MR) 59
1A7 ll-Q-HP Contact (amount-emotional i11)60
Card 5
First 2A columns SAME except for Col. 11,12 (i.e. Deck or
Card No.)
1A8—l67 EDP Scale EDP total content 25-AA
168-187 EDP Scale EDP total intensity A5-6A
Card 6
188 1-EDP Q'aire Contact with EDP 25
189 3-EDP Q'aire Contact (EDP, amount) 28
190 A-EDP Q'aire Contact (EDP, avoidance) 29
191 5-EDP Q'aire Contact (EDP, gain) 30
192 6-EDP Q'aire Contact (EDP, % income) 31
193 7-EDP Q'aire Contact (EDP, enjoyment) 32
19A 8-EDP Q'aire Contact (EDP, alternatives) 33
195 9-EDP Q'aire Contact (HP, amount) 3A
196 lO-EDP Q'aire Contact (MR, amount) 35

1165

M17 Tiffin A of 5

 

FCC 11

Field No. Question Variable Name Col.
Card 1

1 Face Sheet Group Number A,5

2 37 Q'aire Specific Occupation 22,23
semis

First 2A Columns SAME as Card 1 except for Col. 11,12

(i.e.

CDN ONW zoo

First 2A
(i.e.

9
10
11
12
13
1A
15
l6
17

Value
Value
Value
Value
Value
Value

Columns SAME as
Deck or Card No.)

Deck or Card No.

Scale
Scale
Scale
Scale
Scale
Scale

 

1 Q'aire
2 Q'aire
3 Q'aire
8 Q'aire
13 Q'aire
1A Q'aire
16 Q'aire
17 Q'aire

None

)

 

Support Value 55,56
Conformity Value 57,58

 

Recognition Value(comparative)59,60
Independent Value 61,62
Benevolence Value 63,6A
Leadership Value (comparative)65,66

 

 

 

 

Card 3

Card 1 except for Col. 11,12

 

Ed. Contact group (primary) 25,26
Ed. Contact group (secondary) 27,28

Ed. Contact (varieties) 29,30
Age 35.36
Number of children A1,A2
Income(yearly,self,family) A3.AA

Brothers(do not use in FAN etc)A6,A7
Sisters(do not use in FAN,etc)A8,A9

First 2A Columns SAME as Card 1 except for Col. 11, 12

(i.e.

18
19

20
21
22
23
2A
25
26
27

1165

 

Deck or Card No.)

37 Q'aire
5A Q'aire

2-Q-HP
3-Q-HP

HP
HP
ED
ED
ED
ED

Scale
Scale
Scale
Scale
Scale
Scale

 

I

' a ' T
“a“;

 

Siblings 50,51

Card A
Occupation (specific) 28.29
Future orientation

(happiness possibility) A6,A7
HP Contact group (secondary) A9,50
HP Contact (varieties) 51,52
HP — Total content 61,62
HP - Total intensity 63,6A
Ed. Trad. Content 65,66
Ed. Trad. Intensity 67,68
Ed. Prog. Content 69,70
Ed. Prog. Intensity 71,72

A18 Tiffin 5 of 5

 

 

 

 

Field No. Question Variable Name Col.
Card 5

First 2A Columns SAME as Card 1 except for 001. 11,12

(i.e. Deck or Card No.)

28 EDP Scale EDP - Total Content 65,66

29 EDP Scale EDP - Total Intensity 67,68
Card 6

First 2A Columns SAME as Card 1 except for Col. 11,12

(i.e. Deck or Card No.)

30 Contact - EDP (Varieties) 26,27

1165

a: ’L

.39 .. 7." .; .‘~:_’

 

J

. ~er

‘nmw

APPENDIX B-6

Data Transcription Sheet

A19 I

 

Attitudes Toward Education:

International Study

 

 

 

. o v v o

 

 

 

 

 

.........

 

 

 

 

865

 

 

 

Handicapped Persons Edugation Scale - ~ Education Scale -
Scale (Card 1) raditional Progregsive
= Card 1 Card 2 Card 1 Card 2
COntent Intensity Content Intensity Content Intensity
(C01) (C01) (Col) (C01) (C01) (Col)
1” ____(25)_____j45) 3. (65)_____125) 1. (35)_____j45)
2. _____(26) ______(46) An (66) ______(26) 2. (36) ______(46)
3. _____ ______ 6. (67) _____(27) 5. (37) _____(47)
4. __ __ 10. __(68) ____(28) 7. __(38) __(48)
5. __ __ 11. ___(69)I ____(29) 8. __(39) ___(49)
6. __ __ 12.____(70) ___(30) 9. __(40) ___(50)
7. _____ ______ 13.____f71)‘_____(3l)]5._____(41)._____(51)
8. __ __ 14.___(72) ___(32) 16. _(42) _____(52)
9._____ ______ 18._____(73)______(33) ll ____(43) _____(53)
"10. ___(-34)I ____(54) 19.____(74) ____(34) 20. (44) ____(54)
ll._____ ______
12._____ ______ _____ ______ _____ ______
13._____ ______
14. ._____
15.___(39) ____(59)
16._____ ______
172____ ______ Location
18°——-—- -———- Group W_ A “; fl“ A
l9._____ ______
20. (44) (64) Respondent No.

 

 

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
INIWINHII(I”I“I)"I)”I)(I)NIHIIWIIWIWHI
31293500260058

.A