Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Drug abuses : perceptions of regional college science students Gentles, Helen Rosemaree 1976

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1976_A8 G45.pdf [ 4.06MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055678.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055678-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055678-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055678-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055678-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055678-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055678-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055678-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055678.ris

Full Text

DRUG ABUSES: PERCEPTIONS OF REGIONAL COLLEGE SCIENCE STUDENTS by HELEN ROSEMAREE GENTLES B.S.P., University of Saskatchewan, 1961 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Faculty of EDUCATION We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August, 1976 (c) Helen Rosemaree Gentles In presenting th i s thesis in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary shal l make it f ree ly ava i l ab le for reference and study. I fur ther agree that permission for extensive copying of th is thesis for scho lar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives. It is understood that copying or pub l i ca t ion of this thesis fo r f i nanc ia l gain sha l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of RCTF.NCF, EDUCATION The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date September, 1976 ABSTRACT Ways i n which regional college students perceive drug abuses, their levels of moral reasoning, their attitudes toward drug abuses and the interrelationships among these variables were investigated. The intent was to present this infor-mation on these variables i n such a way that teachers involved i n drug edu-cation could readily accommodate to these variables to f a c i l i t a t e learning. Multidimensional scaling, using the IKDSCAL model, was employed to determine the number of dimensions that would span perceptions of the drug abuses; to provide the saliences of each dimension; and to describe the qualitative nature of these perceptions. On analysis i t was found that the perceptions were three-dimensional i n nature and that, generally, the group only d i f f e r -entiated between cigarettes, marijuana and alcohol. The other drugs were grouped together. The test on moral reasoning placed this group well below the expected level, probably due to the inherent characteristics of this diverse group. The test on attitudes indicated unfavourableness toward drug abuses. On graphing the perceptions of drug abuses and levels of moral reasoning i t was found that those students who demonstrated high levels of moral reasoning on the moral dilemmas test clustered highly on a l l dimensions. On the other hand, on graphing the perceptions of drug abuses and attitudes toward drug abuses the students who obtained the highest and the lowest scores on the attitude test did not exhibit any clustering on any of the dimensions. The results of this study stress the lack of discrimination between beneficial drugs and addictive, mind-destroying drugs. This distressing finding, plus the rather low levels of moral reasoning demonstrated by this group, indicates that a strong teaching program, comprising science classes on drug action and a component on the development of moral principles, i s urgently required. i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A b s t r a c t i L i s t o f T a b l e s v L i s t o f F i g u r e s v i Acknow ledgements C h a p t e r I INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 The G e n e r a l P r o b l e m 1 1.2 D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms 2 1.3 Impo r t an ce o f t h e P r o b l e m 3 1.4 S p e c i f i c P r ob l ems t o be I n v e s t i g a t e d 4 1.5 R e s e a r c h Hypo t he se s 6 1.6 D e l i m i n a t i o n o f t h e S t u d y 9 I I CONTEXT OF THE STUDY 11 2 . 0 The P r o b l e m o f D rug Abuse 11 2.1 What i s D r ug Abuse? 11 2 . 2 P o r t r a i t o f a D r ug Abu s e r 12 2 .3 R e l a t i o n o f D rug Abuse t o M o r a l R e a s o n i n g 14 2 . 4 A t t i t u d e s t owa rd D rug Abuse 16 2 .5 D rug E d u c a t i o n Today 17 2 .6 D rug E d u c a t i o n Tomorrow 19 i i i C h a p t e r Page I I I METHOD OP STUDY 21 3.1 The S u b j e c t s 21 3.11 D e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e S u b j e c t s 21 3.12 S e l e c t i o n o f t h e S u b j e c t s 22 3.2 I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n 23 3.21 V a r i a b l e s t o be Measu red 23 3.22 D e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e I n s t r u m e n t s 23 I V ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 31 4.1 M u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l S c a l i n g o f D r ug Abuses 31 4.2 D e f i n i n g I s s u e s T e s t 41 4.3 A t t i t u d e T e s t 43 V CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 51 5.1 M u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l N a t u r e o f D r ug Abuses 51 5.2 L e v e l s o f M o r a l R e a s o n i n g and P e r c e p t i o n s o f D r ug Abuses 55 5.3 A t t i t u d e s Toward D rug Abuses and P e r c e p t i o n s o f D rug Abuses 57 5-4 Recommendat ions f o r F u r t h e r S t u d y 57 B i b l i o g r a p h y 60 Append i x A 62 A p p e n d i x B 66 A p p e n d i x C 83 A p p e n d i x D 94 i v LIST OF TABLES Table Page 4-1 Configuration of the Subjects' Weights i n the Group Space 34 4-2 Configuration of Stimuli i n the Group Space 35 4-3 Average P-Scores on the Defining Issues Test from James Rest (1974b) 42 4-4 P-Scores on the Defining Issues Test for This Study Group 42 4-5 Summary of Responses on the Attitude Scale 47 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 4-1 Group Stimulus-Space on Dimensions II and I I I 38 4 - 2 Group Stimulus-Space on Dimensions I I I and IV 39 4 - 3 Group Stimulus-Space on Dimensions I I and IV 40 4 - 4 Selected Subjects i n the Subjects'-Space with High and Low P-Scores on Dimensions II and I I I 44 4 - 5 Selected Subjects i n the Subjects'-Space with High and Low P-Scores on Dimensions I I I and IV 45 4 - 6 Selected Subjects i n the Subjects'-Space with High and Low P-Scores on Dimensions I I and IV 46 4-7 Selected Subjects i n the Subjects'-Space with High and Low A t t i t u d e Scores on Dimensions I I and I I I 48 4 - 8 Selected Subjects i n the Subjects'-Space with High and Low Attitude Scores on Dimensions I I I and IV 49 4 - 9 Selected Subjects i n the Subjects'-Space with High and Low Attitude Scores on Dimensions II and IV 50 v i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I n w r i t i n g t h i s t h e s i s I r e c e i v e d a d v i c e and a s s i s t a n c e f r o m many p e o p l e , t o whom I wou l d l i k e t o e x p r e s s my g r a t i t u d e . A s p e c i a l acknow ledgement i s e x t ended t o D r . W a l t e r B o l d t , my t h e s i s s u p e r v i s o r , who f r e e l y s h a r e d h i s t i m e and h i s y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e w i t h me. I s h o u l d a l s o l i k e t o t h a n k t h e o t h e r member o f my Commit tee D r . Go rdon Page f o r h i s h e l p f u l a d v i c e . My t h a n k s a l s o go t o M r . M i c h a e l Holmwood and h i s s t u d e n t s a t L a n g a r a C i t y C o l l e g e f o r t h e i r c o - o p e r a t i o n i n t h i s s t u d y and t o my f r i e n d P a t R i c h a r d s o n whose t i r e l e s s endeavo r s b r ough t abou t t h e t e c h n i c a l c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e t h e s i s . F i n a l l y I w i s h t o e x t e n d my s i n c e r e g r a t i t u d e t o my hu sband , M u r r a y , f o r h i s c o n s t a n t encou ragement and c h e e r f u l s u p p o r t he gave t o me d u r i n g t h i s p a s t y e a r . v i i CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1 The G e n e r a l P r o b l e m The g e n e r a l p r o b l e m o f t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n was t o d e t e r m i n e what v a r i a b l e s a r e r e l a t e d t o how s t u d e n t s p e r c e i v e i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s be tween d r u g a b u s e s . I t wou l d appea r t h a t d r u g abuse e d u c a t i o n e f f o r t s m i gh t be more b e n e f i c i a l i f t h e s e v a r i a b l e s were known and u n d e r s t o o d by t e a c h e r s . S t u d e n t s , p r e s u m a b l y v i e w d r u g abuses f r o m a d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e t h a n t e a c h e r s , f r o m a d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e t h a n p a r e n t s , and f r o m each o t h e r . Thus i t may be n e c e s s a r y f o r t e a c h e r s t o r e c o n s t r u c t p rog rams to accommodate t o t h e s e p e r s p e c t i v e s i n o r d e r t o d e v e l o p more m e a n i n g f u l d r u g e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , t h r e e f a c e t s o f t h e p r o b l e m have been d e a l t w i t h . The f i r s t f a c e t was whe the r o r n o t a d i v e r s e g roup o f c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s , f r om v a r i o u s ba c kg r ounds and age g r o u p s , s h a r e d common v i e w p o i n t s on d r u g abuse a nd , i f s o , t o d e t e r m i n e t h e n a t u r e and c o m p l e x i t i e s o f t h e s e v i e w p o i n t s . I t seems r e a s o n a b l e t o assume t h a t t h e v i e w p o i n t s t owa rd d r u g abuse o f c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s a r e o f a m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l n a t u r e , d i f f e r i n g n o t o n l y q u a n t i t a t i v e l y , bu t a l s o q u a l i t a t i v e l y . The s e cond f a c e t c on c e r n ed t h e - 2 -possible r e l a t i o n s h i p between l e v e l s of moral judgement and viewpoints on drug abuse. I t may be presumed that those persons who have a high l e v e l of moral development would not knowingly cause harm to t h e i r bodies, nor to some other person's body, by taking or o f f e r i n g drugs of abuse. The t h i r d facet focussed on the attitudes toward drug abuse held by the same group of students. The nature and s i g n i f i c a n c e of drug abuse, l e v e l s of moral judgement and a t t i t u d e w i l l be more f u l l y described i n the following chapter. 1.2 D e f i n i t i o n of Terms For the purposes of t h i s study the frequently used terms, whose common meaning may be vague or ambiguous are defined as follows: 1.21 Atti t u d e ; i s a learned p r e d i s p o s i t i o n to respond to an object or class of objects i n a favourable or unfavourable way (Fishbein, 1967, p. 257) 1.22 Drug Abuse; i s the use, u s u a l l y by s e l f - a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , of any drug i n a manner that deviates from the approved medical or s o c i a l patterns within a given culture ( j a f f e , 1975, p. 284) 1.23 Moral Judgement: i s the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of s o c i a l i n t e r r e l a t i o n -. ships and mutual r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s (Rest, 1974a, p. 492) - 3 -1.3 Importance of the Problem In the l a t e 1960's drug education was taught i n high school i n three d i f f e r e n t curriculum contexts. In the f i r s t context drug education was part of general health education i n the counselling courses or family l i f e programs, as they are now c a l l e d . The second context was from a ph y s i c a l f i t n e s s point-of-view and was taught by the p h y s i c a l education teachers. And t h i r d l y , s p e c i a l assemblies of medical doctors, pharmacologists, former drug addicts and p o l i c e o f f i c e r s handed out f a c t u a l information, personal confessions and exhortations. Unfortunately none of these teaching s t r a t e g i e s were e f f e c t i v e . l>rug abuse increased. In the ea r l y 1970's a f r e s h approach by N. Barty (1973) was aimed at elementary school c h i l d r e n using science classes as the medium. The students were given a background i n basic pharmacological p r i n c i p l e s . That i s , studying the ef f e c t s of various chemicals, drugs and toxi c substances on plant and animal development. The objective of t h i s program was to develop i n the students the s k i l l s of the s c i e n t i f i c method and to use t h i s s k i l l f o r decision-making i n the use of drugs. The ultimate goal of the program was to develop the p o l i c y of making decisions on the use of any f o r e i g n chemical based on weighing p o t e n t i a l benefits against p o t e n t i a l harm. The emphasis was placed on decision-making. Although t h i s method of attacking drug education at the elementary school l e v e l appears to be most f r u i t f u l , i t does have one r e a l drawback. A medical doctor or pharma-c o l o g i s t i s required approximately four times during the program to handle the drugs used i n the experiment, a severe constraint. At the high school l e v e l a new approach i s being t r i e d . According to M. Grant (1976) the topic has now been integrated i n t o a l l high school courses i n B r i t i s h Columbia. For instance, i f the topic of drug abuse arises i n English, then the English teacher discusses the problem; i f i t a r i s e s i n S o c i a l Studies then t h i s teacher discusses the problem. These teachers attempt to place drug abuse i n i t s proper context, not to sensationalize nor to glamourize i t . They present f a c t s and t r y to guide the students to correct decisions. The schools have s h i f t e d the emphasis from the drugs themselves and placed i t on r a t i o n a l decision-making. However, one of the major reasons f o r the f a i l u r e of e a r l i e r drug edu-cation programs was the e x p e r i e n t i a l gap between the teacher and the pu p i l s . That i s , the pupils had probably experimented with marijuana while the teacher had not, with the r e s u l t that the pupils placed no credence i n the teacher's advice. This problem i s s t i l l present. In t h i s study, the author attempted to narrow t h i s communication gap. I f the ways i n which students perceive drugs of abuse can be described, then perhaps the teachers w i l l be able to change t h e i r teaching strategies to accommodate to these perceptions. There must be a common ground f o r the teachers and students i n order to f a c i l i t a t e learning (Easley, 1975). 1.4 S p e c i f i c Problems to be Investigated The following questions w i l l be addressed i n t h i s study: 1 . (a) How many dimensions can be assumed to span the space of drug abuses f o r t h i s group as a whole? - 5 -(b ) How s a l i e n t a r e t h e s e d i m e n s i o n s t o e a ch member o f t h e g r oup ? ( c ) What i s t h e q u a l i t a t i v e n a t u r e o f t h e c o n f i g u r a t i o n s o f d r u g abuses f o r t h e g roup as a w h o l e ? ( a ) How does . the g r oup r e a s o n abou t comp lex m o r a l i s s u e s ? (b ) I s t h e r e a r e l a t i o n s h i p be tween how i n d i v i d u a l s r e a s o n abou t comp lex m o r a l i s s u e s and t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s ( c o n f i g u r a t i o n s ) o f d r u g a bu s e s ? ( a ) What i s the a t t i t u d e o f t h e g roup t owa r d v a r i o u s d r u g abu se s ? (b ) I s t h e r e a r e l a t i o n s h i p be tween t h e a t t i t u d e o f i n d i v i d u a l s t owa rd d r u g abuses and t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f d r u g a bu s e s ? The answe r s t o t h e s e q u e s t i o n s may p r o v i d e u s e f u l i n f o r m a t i o n t o t e a c h e r s c o n c e r n e d w i t h d r u g e d u c a t i o n . L i t t l e r e s e a r c h ha s been c ondu c t e d w h i c h ha s a t t e m p t e d t o i d e n t i f y t h e n a t u r e and c o m p l e x i t y o f p e r c e p t i o n s on d r u g a b u s e s , a l t h o u g h t h e know ledge o f t h e s e p e r c e p t i o n s wou l d h e l p c l a r i f y some o f t h e p r ob l ems i n d r u g e d u c a t i o n . Lawrence K o h l b e r g (1971) has done i n t e n s i v e r e s e a r c h i n t o t h e a r e a o f m o r a l d e v e l o p m e n t . He has f o u n d t h a t young c h i l d r e n s o l v e s o c i a l - m o r a l p r ob l ems i n a v e r y p r i m i t i v e , h e d o n i s t i c way . As t h e c h i l d r e n ma tu re t h e i r method o f s o l v i n g t h e s e p r ob l ems . e v o l v e s g r a d u a l l y , i n a h i e r a r c h i c a l manner . The h i g h e s t s t a g e o f deve lopment embraces u n i v e r s a l e t h i c a l p r i n c i p l e s . T h i s s t a g e may be r e a c h e d i n t h e l a t e t e e n s o r e a r l y t w e n t i e s . The s t u d e n t s i n t h i s s t u d y a r e p r o b a b l y n e a r t h e i r h i g h e s t l e v e l o f m o r a l r e a s o n i n g , t h u s i t wou l d be o f i n t e r e s t t o know i f t h e r e i s a r e l a t i o n s h i p be tween t h e i r l e v e l o f m o r a l judgement and t h e i r v i e w s on d r u g a b u s e s . - 6 -L a s t l y , the group's favourableness or unfavourableness toward drug abuse may be a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n t h e i r perceptions of drug abuse. I t i s presumed that i f an i n d i v i d u a l i s unfavourable toward drug abuse he w i l l p erceive drug abuses i n a d i f f e r e n t manner from an i n d i v i d u a l who i s favourable toward drug abuse. These three f a c e t s of drug abuse were i n v e s t i g a t e d w i t h the i n t e n t to d e l i n e a t e the problem f a c i n g teachers. 1 . 5 Research Hypotheses The b a s i c hypotheses of t h i s study were as f o l l o w s : 1 . 5 1 (a) I t i s hypothesized that three dimensions w i l l adequately span the group-space of drug abuses. The q u a l i t a t i v e nature of these three dimensions w i l l have to do w i t h ; t h e i r e v a l u a t i o n of the v a r i o u s drug abuses, i . e . whether they are "good" or "bad"; whether or not they would a c t u a l l y become i n v o l v e d i n the v a r i o us drug abuses, i . e . b e h a v i o r a l i n t e n t ; and t h e i r normative b e l i e f s , i . e . what they perceive to be the expect-a t i o n s of others w i t h respect to drug abuse, (b) These dimensions w i l l not be e q u a l l y s a l i e n t to a l l i n d i v i d u a l s . The s a l i e n c e s of the hypothesized dimensions w i l l d i f f e r f o r i n d i v i d u a l s due t o , f o r example, d i f f e r e n c e s i n l e v e l s of moral development, knowledge, a t t i t u d e s toward drug abuses, and normative b e l i e f s . For i n s t a n c e , i t i s hypothesized that those - 7 -individuals who abuse drugs w i l l have relatively high weights on the dimension aligned with behavioral intent. (c) The group configuration of drug abuses w i l l show that there w i l l be significant qualitative differences i n the perceptions of the stimuli. It i s hypothesized that some individuals w i l l show clear differentiation between the common drug abuses, drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes and smoking marijuana and the less common drug abuses such as taking tranquilizers and using L.S.D. (acid). It i s also hypothesized that some individuals w i l l differentiate between the so-called "soft" drugs, such as amphetamines and sleeping p i l l s , and the "hard" drugs, such as cocaine and heroin. Generally the more common drugs w i l l be seen as "good"; they w i l l be seen as something they "would do"; and they w i l l be seen as something others would expect them to do. 1.52 (a) There w i l l be no significant differences i n the levels of moral reasoning of the group when compared to the norm. James Rest (1974b) has normative data on his Defining Issues Test for a large number of college students. It i s assumed that the students i n this study w i l l show parallel levels of moral development to the normative groups at f i r s t and second year college levels. (b) There w i l l be a relationship between levels of reasoning about complex moral issues and perceptions of drug abuses. The investigator hypothesizes this on the basis of Kohlberg*s - 8 -(1971) theory of the development of moral reasoning and on the basis of Gert's (1966) proposal i n The Moral Rules. Those individuals who have considered the physiological and social effects of drug abuses and their responsibilities to them-selves and society w i l l have a common viewpoint on drug abuses. On the other hand those persons who are either a l t r u i s t i c or have never thought through the problem of drug abuse w i l l probably share a viewpoint on drug abuse. 1.53, (a) The group as a whole, w i l l have an overall unfavourable attitude toward the various drug abuses. This hypothesis i s based on the author's conversations with a variety of people. Generally, people of this age group w i l l present a conservative attitude toward drugs to the public, and therefore w i l l be opposed to drug abuse. In private their attitude may be quite l i b e r a l , (b) There w i l l be no relationship between individuals' attitude toward drug abuses and their perception of drug abuses. This assumption i s based on the fundamental difference between the two test instruments, the Attitude Test and the Multi-dimensional Scaling Test. The Attitude Test i s easy to under-stand and i t s purpose clear. The Multidimensional Scaling Test i s unfamiliar and i t s purpose obscure. Consequently some students may be able to obtain a high score on the Attitude Test (i.e. unfavourableness toward drug abuse) by intentional deception or typical response bias, but w i l l be unable to present - 9 -t h i s point-of-view on the Multidimensional Scaling Test. 1 .6 Delimination of the Study 1.61 A l i m i t a t i o n of t h i s study i s the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of the r e s u l t s . This study i s confined to one small group of f i r s t and second year re g i o n a l college students i n Vancouver. These students range i n age from 18 to 45 years; come from diverse c u l t u r a l and socio-economic backgrounds; and are of varying mental a b i l i t y . The students could be considered to be a sample of one cross-section of the pub l i c and thus e x h i b i t a l l the various views about drug abuse for t h i s s e c t i o n . Individuals under the age of 18 and over 45 years were not included i n t h i s study. Taking t h i s i n t o consideration the r e s u l t s may be used as strong i n d i c a t o r s of the viewpoints on drug abuse f o r the 18 to 45 year olds. The r e s u l t s should be used with d i s c r e t i o n f o r i n d i v i d u a l s not i n t h i s age group. 1.62 In terms of scope, the drugs of abuse most frequently encountered i n the general population were included i n t h i s study. Other drugs that are misused, but not to the same extent, such as antihistamines, a n t i b i o t i c s , A s p i r i n , mescaline, methylenedioxy-amphetamine (MDA) were not included, due to time l i m i t a t i o n s with the students. A s i m i l a r study could widen the scope to include a l l known and newly discovered drugs of abuse. - 10 -1.63 The instruments used i n t h i s study to i d e n t i f y various viewpoints and at t i t u d e s toward drug abuse and stages of moral development were group t e s t s . Evidence of the v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y of the tests i s considered i n Chapter I I I , so only a b r i e f discussion on the i n t e r p r e t a b i l i t y of the r e s u l t s w i l l be presented here. Multidimensional Scal i n g instruments, having been used f o r some time and over repeated t r i a l s i n d i r e c t l y suggest a high degree of r e l i a b i l i t y . The Defining Issues Test has a t e s t - r e t e s t s t a b i l i t y of 0.81. The Attitude t e s t has a r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t of 0.85. Prom these l i m i t e d data i t may be wise to i n t e r p r e t the r e s u l t s with prudence. - 11 -CHAPTER I I CONTEXT OP THE STUDY 2 . 0 THE PROBLEM OP DRUG ABUSE 2.1 What i s D r ug Abuse? D r ug abu s e , a s d e f i n e d by J a f f e (1975) i n an a u t h o r i t a t i v e t e x t , i s " t h e u s e , u s u a l l y by s e l f - a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , o f any d r u g i n a manner t h a t d e v i a t e s f r o m t he app r o ved m e d i c a l o r s o c i a l p a t t e r n s , w i t h i n a g i v e n c u l t u r e " ( p . 2 8 4 ) . D rug abuse t h u s encompasses n o t o n l y t h e d r ug s t h a t a f f e c t mood o r f e e l i n g s u c h as h e r o i n , m a r i j u a n a o r a l c o h o l , b u t a l s o t h e m i s u s e o f t h e r a p e u t i c a g e n t s s u c h as amphetamines , s e d a t i v e s and a n t i b i o t i c s . The d e f i n i t i o n a l s o i n c l u d e s t h e c o n c e p t t h a t d r u g abuse v a r i e s f r o m c u l t u r e t o c u l t u r e and a l s o f r o m t ime t o t i m e w i t h i n a g i v e n c u l t u r e . F o r i n s t a n c e , i n t h e W e s t e r n c i v i l i z a t i o n i t i s n o r m a l l y a c c e p t a b l e t o have a few d r i n k s o f an a l c o h o l i c b e v e r age t o c e l e b r a t e a s p e c i a l e v e n t , b u t i t i s n o t a c c e p t a b l e , and hence an ' a b u s e 1 , t o be c h r o n i c a l l y i n t o x i c a t e d ( j a f f e , 1 9 7 5 ) . What i s t h e i n c i d e n c e o f d r u g abuse i n ou r s o c i e t y ? I s t h e r e a need t o be c on c e r n ed ? Two s u r v e y s by R u s s e l l were c a r r i e d ou t i n Van couve r i n - 12 -1970 and 1974 to determine the amount of drug usage among secondary school students. The r e s u l t s emphasize the need f o r our concern. In 1970, 61$ of the students used alcohol; i n 1974, the f i g u r e had increas ed to 71$. There was a p a r a l l e l increase i n 1974 i n the incidence of ci g a r e t t e smoking to 64$; marijuana smoking to 42$. The use of other commonly misused drugs appeared to have s t a b i l i z e d . Nevertheless, the survey did f i n d that the incidence of use of most drugs increases with the age of the students (Russell, 1974). Indeed i t has been found that the alcohol consumption i n a l l age groups has r i s e n by 30$ over the past two years. L i b e r a l i z a t i o n of drinking laws, lowered l e g a l drinking age and greater affluence are c i t e d as the probable reasons f o r t h i s epidemic (Ward, 1976). S i m i l a r s t a t i s t i c s f o r the entire population on other misused drugs are not a v a i l a b l e , but i t may be presumed that these also are on the r i s e . The increased dependence on t r a n q u i l i z e r s to 'get through the day 1 and the use of barbiturates to 'get a good night's sleep' i s common knowledge. Indeed, there i s a need to be concerned. 2.2 P o r t r a i t of a Drug Abuser V i s u a l images of the compulsive drug user paints the picture of a seedy, downtrodden d e r e l i c t . The forgotten, the lonely, the depressed. In r e a l i t y the compulsive drug user i s the confused teenager, the depressed housewife, the anxious business man. There i s a compulsive drug user i n every corner of soci e t y . - 13 -The age of i n i t i a t i o n i n t o drugs of abuse has gradually s i f t e d downwards so that now i t i s commonplace to f i n d elementary school c h i l d r e n experi-menting with tobacco, alcohol and solvents (Hemsing, 1972). Two surveys i n high schools included s t a t i s t i c s on sex differences i n drug usage. In Ontario, males used a l l drugs more frequently than females, except f o r t r a n q u i l i z e r s (Smart, 1970). While i n B r i t i s h Columbia, again, males used a l l drugs more frequently than females, except f o r amphetamines and barbiturates (Russell, 1974). Acceptance of t h i s behavior by the peer group appears to have influenced the number of female drug users (McGlothlin, 1975). R e l i g i o n i s another f a c t o r that may be an influence on drug usage, though s t a t i s t i c s on t h i s are scant. Reginald Smart, i n h i s paper on alcohol abuse, stated that "Protestants, e s p e c i a l l y of the s t r i c t sects such as Baptists or Methodists, are l e s s l i k e l y to be drinkers than are Jews or Roman Ca t h o l i c s . And regular church attenders are f a r l e s s l i k e l y to be drinkers or drink frequently" (Smart, 1970). In the socio-economic s t r a t a heroin i s s t i l l most frequently encountered i n the lower cl a s s ; marijuana and the psychedelics i n the middle cl a s s ; cocaine i s the current fad i n the upper class (McGlothlin, 1975). This i n v e s t i g a t i o n was c a r r i e d out with a diverse group of college students whose demographic data were unknown. However, from the f o r e -going d e s c r i p t i o n of the drug users, i t may be presumed that the p a r t i c i -pants exhibited a l l these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and thus exhibited a l l the - 14 -viewpoints, behaviors and atti t u d e s of the general population. 2.3 Relation of Drug Abuse to Moral Reasoning Is there a r e l a t i o n s h i p between drug abuse and moral reasoning? So f a r i no one has s p e c i f i c a l l y researched t h i s hypothesis, although some edu-cation s p e c i a l i s t s have suggested that a values component be taught i n conjunction with drug abuse. In 1970, i n Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia a group of professors, students and concerned c i t i z e n s organized the Association f o r Values Education and Research (A.V.E.R.) to study methods of undertaking r a t i o n a l discussions of value issues that a r i s e i n school. This Association has developed discussion outlines on such topics as racism, c a p i t a l punishment and equality f o r women. Perhaps one on drug abuse should be forthcoming (A.V.E.R., 1974a and 1974b). In the more general area of morality Lawrence Kohlberg (1971), i n t r i g u e d with Jean Piaget's work on cognitive development, has traced a p a r a l l e l growth i n moral development i n ch i l d r e n through to adulthood. He has found that there are s i x stages i n moral development: 1 . the punishment and obedience o r i e n t a t i o n 2. instrumental hedonism and exchange 3. o r i e n t a t i o n to approval and stereotypes of v i r t u e 4. law and order o r i e n t a t i o n 5 . s o c i a l - c o n t r a c t l e g a l i s t i c o r i e n t a t i o n 6. u n i v e r s a l e t h i c a l p r i n c i p l e s o r i e n t a t i o n . - 15 -The movement of an i n d i v i d u a l through the stages i s always upwards and occurs i n an in v a r i a n t sequence. A person w i l l not regress, but neither w i l l he skip one stage. Each person must progress through each stage. The maximum l e v e l of moral development attainable f o r a p a r t i c u l a r person may occur at any stage (Kohlberg, 1971). In t h i s context 'moral 1 i s a s p e c i a l type of decision-making process or a judgement. I t i s based on the consideration of how oneself and other people are to be treated and how one's own i n t e r e s t s and other people's i n t e r e s t s are to be taken i n t o account. Moral judgements assert that the value object i s good or bad, r i g h t or wrong (Taylor, 1961). These moral judgements must be made p r i o r to using a drug. These decisions involve moral values of society, an i n d i v i d u a l ' s own morality and knowledge of empirical evidence about the drug. The l a s t component, knowledge of empirical evidence, i s d i f f i c u l t to obtain. Long term e f f e c t s of most misused drugs have not yet been documented, hence a person would not be acting i n a r a t i o n a l manner by using these drugs ( B e t h e l l , 1973). The other two components are based on the moral values of soc i e t y and the in d i v i d u a l ' s moral values. Has our so c i e t y accepted drug abuse? I t i s true that tobacco and alcohol are l e g a l i z e d , but t h i s does not imply that they are morally acceptable. On the contrary, the chronic use of both, i s implicated i n patho l o g i c a l diseases. The treatment of these diseases places a heavy burden on society, a burden that i s i n d e f e n s i b l e . Would a high l y p r i n c i p l e d person, one at the Stage 6 of moral development, abuse drugs? I t i s u n l i k e l y . A person at t h i s l e v e l bases h i s decisions - 16 -on t h e u n i v e r s a l i t y o f m o r a l a c t s . He wou l d be a c t i n g a g a i n s t t h i s p r i n c i p l e i f he app r o ved h e r o i n a d d i c t i o n , c o c a i n e s n i f f i n g o r a l c o h o l a d d i c t i o n . 2.4 A t t i t u d e s t owa rd D r ug Abuse A t t i t u d e s t owa rd d r u g abu se , t h a t i s , f a v o u r a b l e n e s s o r u n f a v o u r a b l e n e s s , were s t u d i e d by M. L. S impson and F . ¥ . K o e n i g (1975) a t a h i g h s c h o o l where most o f t h e s t u d e n t s were b l a c k and f r o m l ow income f a m i l i e s . The a u t h o r s u s ed t h e S eman t i c D i f f e r e n t i a l t e c h n i q u e t o u n c o v e r d i f f e r e n c e s t owa rd t he f o l l o w i n g c o n c e p t s : ' m y s e l f , ' a d r u g e d u c a t i o n t e a c h e r ' , ' a m a r i j u a n a s m o k e r 1 , and ' a d r u g a d d i c t ' . As c o u l d be e x p e c t e d , t h e s t u d e n t s showed a more f a v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e t owa rd ' m y s e l f and ' a d r u g e d u c a t i o n t e a c h e r ' t h a n t owa rd t he o t h e r c o n c e p t s . The ' m a r i j u a n a smoke r ' was more f a v o u r a b l e t h a n t h e ' a l c o h o l i c ' ; t h e ' d r u g a d d i c t ' b e i n g t h e l e a s t f a v o u r a b l e . Even t hough t he , numbe r o f p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h i s s t u d y was s m a l l (N = 67) i t d i d i n d i c a t e t h e c l o s e n e s s i n a t t i t u d e s be tween a l c o h o l and m a r i j u a n a . A n o t h e r s t u d y on a t t i t u d e s by R. S t a e s s e l (1972) b r o u g h t t o l i g h t t h e d i s c o n c e r t i n g f a c t t h a t d r u g u s e r s , c o n t r a r y t o n o n u s e r s , a g r e ed t h a t t h e y had an adequa te know ledge o f d r u g s . T h i s know ledge p r o v e d l i m i t e d and d i s t o r t e d . T h e i r a t t i t u d e s were t hu s c o l o u r e d by m i s i n f o r m a t i o n . - 17 -Parental and peer group behavior appear to be the major i n f l u e n c i n g factors i n a t t i t u d e s toward drugs. This includes a l l drugs, not only those c i t e d i n t h i s study. I f a c h i l d c o n t i n u a l l y notices h i s parents reaching f o r the A s p i r i n or Valium, then the c h i l d w i l l probably repeat the same a c t i v i t y when maturer. Likewise drinking patterns are copied from parents; attitudes toward indiscriminant drug use are copied from parents. The att i t u d e of the peer group appears to have a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t i n f l u e n c e . Peer groups exert pressure on the i n d i v i d u a l to comply with t h e i r a t t i t u d e s . For instance, i f the peer group i s experimenting with L. S. D., then the member i s expected to experiment also. Parents accept t h e i r own drug abuses, such as s o c i a l drinking, but do not accept the drug abuses of t h e i r c h i l d ' s peer group, such as L. S. D. (Smart, 1970; Russ e l l , 1970; Robbins, 1971). 2.5 Drug Education Today In the ea r l y 1960's a t i d a l wave of s o c i e t a l unrest h i t middle class America. I t was caused by the so- c a l l e d 'hippies', young people d i s -i l l u s i o n e d with middle class standards, as p i r a t i o n s and values. They cast aside the acceptable and embraced the unconventional. They tossed o f f the accepted dress, the expected behavior. In truth, they began a great upheaval i n society which i s s t i l l i n motion. Into t h i s turbulent climate psychedelic drugs were introduced. The youth of America, emulating t h e i r heroes, took o f f on a bi z a r r e t r i p with such potent chemicals as l y s e r g i c acid diethylamide (L. S. D.) and methylenedioxy-amphetamine (M. D. A.) - 18 -S c h o o l s became t h e b l a c k ma rke t f o r m a r i j u a n a , L. S . D . , amphetamines and b a r b i t u r a t e s ; s t u d e n t s became t h e p r i m a r y consume r s . S c h o o l s had t o become i n v o l v e d i n c omba t i n g t h e use o f t h e s e t o x i c c h e m i c a l s . S i n c e t h a t e a r l y p e r i o d i n t h e 1 9 6 0 ' s h i g h s c h o o l s have t r i e d s e v e r a l a pp r oa che s t o d r u g e d u c a t i o n . The e a r l i e s t was t h e ' i n f o r m a t i o n o n l y 1 pha se ; t h e n t h e r e was t h e ' r a p s e s s i o n s ' p e r i o d ; and now we a r e i n a • v a l u e s ' a p p r o a c h . T h i s l a t e s t s t r a t e g y may be t h e most s u c c e s s f u l . I n v a l u e s c l a r i f i c a t i o n t h e s t u d e n t s i n h i g h s c h o o l a r e t a u g h t abou t d r ug s i n an i n d i r e c t manner . T e a che r s no l o n g e r s i t down w i t h t h e c l a s s and announce "Now we a r e g o i n g t o d i s c u s s d r u g s " . I n s t e a d , s t u d e n t s a r e encou raged t o i n v e s t i g a t e s o c i a l and m o r a l p r o b l e m s ; t h e y a r e en cou r aged t o e x p l o r e o t h e r p o i n t s - o f - v i e w ; t h e y a r e en cou r aged t o become more a l t r u i s t i c ; t o f o r m judgements o n l y ' a f t e r c a r e f u l l y w e i g h i n g a l l t h e f a c t s . The u l t i m a t e g o a l i s t o make t h e s t u d e n t s aware o f a l l t h e f a c t o r s i n v o l v e d i n d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g . They a r e made t o r e a l i z e t h a t one wrong d e c i s i o n may a f f e c t them f o r t h e r e s t o f t h e i r l i v e s . I t i s i n t h i s c o n t e x t t h a t t h e use o f d r ug s may be r a i s e d . The s t u d e n t s a r e p r e s e n t e d w i t h t h e e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e abou t t h e d r u g s ; t h e y a r e made aware o f t h e d ange r s o r unknown f a c t s abou t t h e d r ug s and i t i s i n t h i s f r amework t h a t t h e y a r r i v e a t a d e c i s i o n on whe t he r o r n o t t o t a k e d r ug s ( G r a n t , 1976; Wo lk , 1 9 7 3 ) . I t may be n o t e d f r o m t h e f o r e g o i n g p a r a g r a p h t h a t d r u g e d u c a t i o n may be d i s c u s s e d i n any c l a s s r o o m , w i t h any t e a c h e r . T h i s r a i s e s a w o r r i s o m e p r o b l e m . A r e t h e t e a c h e r s o f S o c i a l S t u d i e s , M a t h e m a t i c s , E n g l i s h , e t c . - 19 -q u a l i f i e d t o t e a c h t h e pha rmaco l ogy o f d r u g s ? A r e t h e y d i s p e n s i n g t r u t h o r h e a r s a y ? I s t h e t o p i c o f d r u g abuse on t h e c u r r i c u l u m i n t h e F a c u l t i e s o f E d u c a t i o n ? I n t h e a u t h o r ' s o p i n i o n i t wou l d be a w i s e r a p p r o a c h t o t e a c h t h e b a s i c p r i n c i p l e s o f d r u g a c t i o n a t an e a r l y age i n t he S c i e n c e c l a s s r o o m , t h e n add t h e v a l u e s c l a r i f i c a t i o n component a t a l a t e r a g e . 2.6 D rug E d u c a t i o n Tomorrow I n t h e p r e v i o u s d i s c u s s i o n on ' D r ug E d u c a t i o n Today* a l l t h e p rog rams d e s c r i b e d t a k e p l a c e i n t h e h i g h s c h o o l . I t i s i n t h e h i g h s c h o o l where t h e usage o f d r ug s i s most p r e v a l e n t . B u t , t h e u sage b e g i n s i n e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l (Hems ing , 1972). By t h e t ime h i g h s c h o o l i s r e a c h e d t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e p u p i l s have a l r e a d y e x p e r i m e n t e d w i t h m a r i j u a n a , c i g a r e t t e s , a l c o h o l , L. S . D. and s o l v e n t s . No one knows t h e number o f d r o p - o u t s o r d e l i n q u e n t s t h a t may be a t t r i b u t e d t o d r u g abuse a t t h e e l e m e n t a r y l e v e l . I t i s e s s e n t i a l t h a t d r u g e d u c a t i o n be g i v e n i n t h e e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l . C h i l d r e n i n t h e i r f o r m a t i v e y e a r s have t o be made aware o f t h e good and bad e f f e c t s o f d r u g s ; t h e y must l e a r n t h e b a s i c p r i n c i p l e s o f d r u g a c t i o n ; t h e y must l e a r n t o w e i g h t h e p o t e n t i a l b e n e f i t s a g a i n s t t h e p o t e n t i a l d ange r s o f d r ug s ( B e t h e l l , 1973). As soon as t h e s t u d e n t s e n t e r j u n i o r h i g h s c h o o l v a l u e s c l a r i f i c a t i o n , a t t i t u d e deve l opmen t and d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g s h o u l d b e g i n f o r t h i s i s t h e age a t w h i c h s t u d e n t s b e g i n t o d e v e l o p a s en se o f j u s t i c e . I t i s i n t h e j u n i o r h i g h s c h o o l where t h e m o r a l d i l emmas s h o u l d be p r e s e n t e d and a d i s c u s s i o n o f the a l t e r n a t i v e s o l u t i o n s ensue - 20 -( B u l l , 1969). The s t u d e n t s must become aware o f t h e p r o b a b l e e f f e c t o f t h e i r t a k i n g d r u g s w i l l have on t h e i r p a r e n t s , t h e i r f r i e n d s , t h e i r s o c i e t y . I n o t h e r w o r d s , t e a c h e r s have t o t r y t o edu c a t e s t u d e n t s i n t h e f u l l e s t s en se o f t he word t o become r a t i o n a l , m o r a l human b e i n g s . T h i s i s n o t an e a s y t a s k . T e a che r s w i l l have t o f i n d c l e a r and s i m p l e methods f o r t e a c h i n g abou t t h e h a z a r d s o f d r u g a b u s e . They w i l l have t o d i s c a r d t h e i r p r e c o n c e p t i o n s o f what a c h i l d t h i n k s i s d r u g a b u s e . T e a c h e r s w i l l have t o l e a r n f r o m t h e p u p i l s what t h e y p e r c e i v e as d r u g a b u s e . Then t h e t e a c h e r s w i l l be a b l e t o p l a n p rog rams t h a t w i l l accommo-d a t e t o t h e s e p e r c e p t i o n s ( E a s l e y , 1975). I n t h i s s t u d y , d r u g abuse as p e r c e i v e d by c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s was i n v e s t i g a t e d . I t i s hoped t h a t a c l e a r e r p i c t u r e o f t h i s comp lex p r o b l e m ha s been a t t a i n e d . The n a t u r e , c o m p l e x i t y and i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s have been i n v e s t i g a t e d t o t r y t o u n r a v e l t h e v a r i a b l e s i n v o l v e d . T h i s s t u d y a l s o i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e deve l opmen t o f m o r a l r e a s o n i n g and a t t i t u d e s t owa rd d r ug s t o t r y t o c o r r e l a t e t h e s e w i t h p e r c e p t i o n s on d r u g a b u s e . I t was h y p o -t h e s i z e d t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h h i g h m o r a l p r i n c i p l e s , on w e i g h i n g a l l t h e f a c t s a bou t d r u g s , wou l d n o t abuse d r u g s and wou l d have a u n i q u e v i e w p o i n t on d r u g a b u s e . I t was a l s o h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s who a r e u n f a v o u r a b l e t owa rd d r u g abuse wou l d n o t e x h i b i t a p a r t i c u l a r v i e w -p o i n t . The d e l i n e a t i o n o f t h e s e v a r i a b l e s s h o u l d be o f g r e a t a s s i s t a n c e i n p l a n n i n g m e a n i n g f u l d r u g e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s . CHAPTER I I I METHOD OF STUDY 3.1 The Subjects 3 . 11 Description of the Subjects The subjects of t h i s study were enrolled i n a f i r s t or second year biology class at Langara C i t y College, i n the c i t y of Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia. Sixteen of the students were i n f i r s t year; t h i r t y were i n second year. Langara C i t y College i s a junior r e g ional college which a t t r a c t s a v a r i e t y of students. Some, who enrol d i r e c t l y from high school, have not made a f i r m commitment to complete a u n i v e r s i t y education. Others, u s u a l l y the older ones who have been working f o r some years, have decided they want to improve t h e i r educational standing, so return to a junior college. There i s more d i r e c t i o n and guidance given to students at a junior college than at a u n i v e r s i t y , so f o r those returning to studies a f t e r an absence of a few years, the readjustment i s f a c i l i t a t e d for them. - 22 -Demographic data on the subjects could not be obtained due to the l i m i t e d time a l l o t e d f o r working with the students, however the i n s t r u c t o r noted that the range i n ages was 18 years to 45 years. I t appeared to the i n v e s t i g a t o r that there was an equal r a t i o of males to females. The subjects appeared to span a wide range of ethnic groups and socio-economic backgrounds. 3.12 S e l e c t i o n of the Subjects Through the co-operation of the biology i n s t r u c t o r at Langara C i t y College t h i s i n v e s t i g a t o r was allowed to conduct t h i s experiment with two of h i s classes. This occurred at the end of the spring semester, just p r i o r to examinations. Since the tasks required of the, subjects were of a somewhat d i f f i c u l t nature and ''since i t was impossible due to time constraints to have a t r a i n i n g session, i t was thought that t h i s age group would have less d i f f i c u l t y i n completing the tasks than younger students. I t was also f e l t that since t h i s was a diverse group of students that the r e s u l t s would be more generalizable to t h i s cross-section of the p u b l i c . - 23 -3 . 2 I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n 3.21 V a r i a b l e s t o be Measu red Dependent V a r i a b l e I ndependen t V a r i a b l e P e r c e p t i o n o f i n t e r r e l a t i o n s 1 . I n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n be tween common d r u g a b u s e s . d r u g a b u s e . 2 . R e f e r e n c e d i m e n s i o n s ( a ) e v a l u a t i v e d i m e n s i o n (b ) b e h a v i o r a l i n t e n t d i m e n s i o n ( c ) n o r m a t i v e b e l i e f d i m e n s i o n . 3 . M o r a l r e a s o n i n g . 4. A t t i t u d e t owa rd d r u g a b u s e s . 3 . 2 2 D e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e I n s t r u m e n t s  M u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l S c a l i n g I n s t r u m e n t : The m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s c a l i n g i n s t r u m e n t was c o n s t r u c t e d u s i n g 16 s i n g l e s t i m u l i ; 7 s t i m u l i c o n s t i t u t e d te rms u sed t o d e s c r i b e t h e a n c h o r s o f t he r e f e r e n c e d i m e n s i o n s and 9 s t i m u l i c o n s t i t u t e d s t a t e m e n t s d e s c r i b i n g common d r u g a b u s e s . The f o r m e r s t i m u l i w e r e : me, c l o s e s t f r i e n d s , o t h e r s , wou l d do , wou l d n o t d o , good , b a d , w h i l e t h e l a t t e r w e r e : d r i n k i n g a l c o h o l i c b e v e r a g e s , t a k i n g pep p i l l s , smok i ng m a r i j u a n a , t a k i n g L. S . D. ( a c i d ) , t a k i n g s l e e p i n g p i l l s , t a k i n g t r a n q u i l i z e r s , u s i n g c o c a i n e , smok i ng c i g a r e t t e s , s h o o t i n g h e r o i n . Ea ch p a i r o f p o s s i b l e c o m b i n a t i o n s , ( n ( n - 1 ) / 2 = 1 2 0 ) , was t y p e d on a c a r d , r a ndom l y m i x e d , p a r c e l l e d and p l a c e d - 24 -i n a large envelope that was attached to one side of a f i l i n g f o l d e r . Attached to the opposite side of the f o l d e r i n a column were 8 small envelopes, and i n l i n e with the numbers 1 to 8. Number 1 was s p e c i f i e d as 'Very close agreement 1, while number 8 as 'Extreme disagreement'. P r e l i m i -nary t r i a l s of the s o r t i n g task using d i f f e r e n t descriptions of the proximity scale (e.g. s i m i l a r , d i s s i m i l a r ) suggested that the scale f i n a l l y used i n the study made the s o r t i n g task somewhat more meaningful. Each student was given a f o l d e r , asked to remove the deck of paired-s t i m u l i cards and the pamphlet containing the d i r e c t i o n s (Appendix A). The i n v e s t i g a t o r read the "Introduction" and the "Directions" to the students, then i n s t r u c t e d the students to begin the s o r t i n g task. This consisted of making a judgement on the extent to which each p a i r of s t i m u l i were i n agreement i n some way. The students had to sort the cards i n t o p i l e s , each p i l e representing one point on the 8-point s c a l e . A f t e r c a r e f u l l y s o r t i n g the deck the students placed the cards i n the corresponding envelopes and then sealed them. The f o l d e r s were given an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number so that a subject's scores on the other instruments could be compared with the scale values of the s t i m u l i obtained from an analysis of the responses to the s o r t i n g task. For scoring purposes the i n v e s t i g a t o r used the same numbers that were on the envelopes. That i s , 'Very close agreement 1 was scored as 1, 'Extreme disagreement 1 was scored as 8, and the other points on the scale i n order. Each s t i m u l i - p a i r had an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number, thus f o r c o l l a t i o n of the - 25 -data, each subject's stimulus-pair was numbered and given i t s score. No systematic attempt was made to determine the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of t h i s instrument, however some i n d i c a t i o n of these two c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s may be obtained from the l i t e r a t u r e . Judgement scales have been used f o r the past 70 years to inves t i g a t e p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s , a t t i t u d e s , a b i l i t i e s and preferences, thus evidence on v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y i s being amassed. A study on colour perception, completed i n 1909 and r e p l i c a t e d several times, vouches f o r construct v a l i d i t y . Torgerson (1958) reported that t h i s c l a s s i c experiment using multidimensional s c a l i n g originated by A. H. Munsell i n 1909 has been repeated three times by; M. ¥. Richardson i n 1938, ¥. J . Torgerson i n 1951, and S. J . Messick i n 1954. These studies had the subjects judge the brightness and saturation of red colour chips. The r e s u l t s of these r e p e t i t i o n s were i n close agreement with Munsell's o r i g i n a l f i n d i n g s of two dimensions. I t appears that, since the dimensions a r i s e out of the s p e c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the data, that they are r e a l and do a c t u a l l y underlie the judgements. In t h i s study the multidimensional s c a l i n g model used to analyze the judgements of agreement between stimulus-p a i r s was INDSCAL, (Appendix B) a more recent development by C a r r o l l and Chang (1972). Again the l i t e r a t u r e was searched f o r evidence on the content v a l i d i t y of th i s instrument. In t h i s context i t was established that the t e s t items (s t i m u l i ) were the common drugs of abuse (Hemsing, 1972; R u s s e l l , 1974; McGlothlin, 1975). - 26 -For i n d i c a t i o n s on s t a t i s t i c a l r e l i a b i l i t y of the judgements i t was necessary to r e f e r to the IKDSCAL model. This program i n t e r p r e t s the stimulus-pairs of a l l the subjects and embeds them i n a Euclidean space spanned by r dimensions. IHDSCAL then s i m i l a r l y places each i n d i v i d u a l subject i n the same space. The co-ordinates of the s t i m u l i i n the group space are dependent on a l l the subjects, i . e . i t i s a compromise between each i n d i v i d u a l ' s configuration. The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e that the group configuration obtained changes very l i t t l e when the private spaces f o r i n d i v i d u a l subjects are constructed, i . e . the configuration seems quite stable across subjects. Although each subject does not constitute an independent t r i a l , the r e s u l t s tend to suggest considerable r e l i a b i l i t y and agreement i n judgements made. Defining Issues Test The Defining Issues Test originated by James Rest (1974b) i s an objective t e s t based on Kohlberg's stage theory of moral development. Due to time constraints the shortened version of three s t o r i e s was used i n t h i s study (Appendix C). Each moral dilemma i s followed by 12 questions with each question representing a stage of moral development. P r i o r to taking the t e s t the i n v e s t i g a t o r read the "Introduction" and the "Example" to the students. I t was emphasized to the students that i f a question did not make sense or sounded l i k e g i bberish (e.g. Item 6 i n the example) then they should mark such items as 'No importance'. These are meaningless nonsense items which sound l o f t y and pretentious and may impress some people. A f t e r completing the t e s t the students placed the pamphlet i n the large envelope. - 27 -The subjects' task was to rate the importance of each of the 12 questions i n s o l v i n g the moral dilemma. The ratings were on a 5-point scale ranging from 'Great importance' to 'No importance'. Following t h i s the subjects had to s e l e c t the four most important questions and rank order them. The rank-scores were punched onto computer cards and analyzed by means of a computer program prepared by the author of the t e s t . V a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y of t h i s test are discussed by James Rest i n the manual (1974b, Sec. 5). The Defining Issues Test i s based on the moral development theory and t e s t of Kohlberg (1971), although there are inherent differences i n the t e s t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . In Kohlberg's t e s t the subjects have to think through the problem then produce s o l u t i o n s . Whereas, i n Rest's test the subjects have to evaluate various solutions given f o r the problem. I t would appear that Rest's version i s somewhat easier than Kohlberg's. Nevertheless, the c o r r e l a t i o n of the Defining Issues Test's P-score (or P r i n c i p l e d score which i s the sum of Stage 5 and 6 scores ) to Kohlberg's i s 0.68, a f i g u r e that i s higher than any other external measure (Rest, 1974a, p. 497).. In 1974 a group of 40 students from junior and senior high schools, colleges and graduate schools were given the D. I. T. Included i n the graduate student group were 15 doctoral students i n p o l i t i c a l science and moral philosophy. Thus a l l the higher stages of moral reasoning and i t s h i e r -a r c h i c a l nature should have been manifested. Indeed, the r e s u l t s show evidence of t h i s . The average P r i n c i p l e d score f o r the junior high students was 32.7; senior high 37.4; college 54.9; doctoral 70.3. The c o r r e l a t i o n - 28 --of the P-score w i t h age was 0.62. I n another sample the c o r r e l a t i o n of the P-score w i t h age was 0.67. Since t h i s o r i g i n a l study i n 1974 a f u r t h e r 1500 subjects have been t e s t e d . Again the P-scores were c o n s i s t e n t (Rest, 1974b, Sec. 5 ) . In order to o b t a i n data on r e l i a b i l i t y Rest (1974a, p. 495) t e s t e d 28 grade 9 students. A short time l a t e r the D. I . T. was repeated, r e s u l t i n g i n a Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n of 0.81. This i s a f a i r l y h i g h t e s t - r e t e s t s t a b i l i t y . A t t i t u d e Test Twenty-seven statements r e l a t e d to drug use were s e l e c t e d f o r t h i s t e s t (Appendix D). Each of the drug uses s p e c i f i e d i n the m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s c a l i n g instrument was i n c l u d e d , p l u s an item on the use of a n t i b i o t i c s , s o l v e n t s , the concept of drug i n t e r a c t i o n and behavior regarding general drug use. The i n v e s t i g a t o r read the " I n s t r u c t i o n s " to the subjects and d i s p l a y e d the Mark Sense Card that was to be used f o r t h e i r responses. On completion of the task the t e s t and the Mark Sense Card were returned to the f o l d e r . In t h i s t e s t the s u b j e c t s had to decide how s t r o n g l y they agreed or disagreed w i t h the statements, r a t e d on a 5-point L i k e r t s c a l e . I f the su b j e c t s 'Strongly disagreed' they f i l l e d i n '1' on the Mark Sense Card; i f they 'Strongly agreed' they f i l l e d i n '5'; 'Disagreed', 'Uncertain', and 'Agree* were i n d i c a t e d by 2, 3 and 4 r e s p e c t i v e l y . - 29 -On scoring the test the p o s i t i v e items, those which should have resu l t e d i n a 'Strongly agree' response were given a mark of 5. I f the subject rated the p o s i t i v e item as 'Strongly disagree' he was given a mark of 1. Reverse scoring was used f o r negative statements. I t should be pointed out that a high score on t h i s test i n d i c a t e d an unfavourable a t t i t u d e toward the use of drugs. For evidence on content v a l i d i t y of t h i s t e s t again the l i t e r a t u r e must be c i t e d . McGlothlin (1975) reviewed the area of drug abuse. Each of the drugs that he reported on were included i n t h i s instrument. Other authors (Russell, 1974; Hemsing, 1972) studied the same drugs. The content v a l i d i t y i s ensured. Regarding construct v a l i d i t y the i n s t r u -ment f u l f i l l e d the c r i t e r i a c i t e d by L i k e r t (1967) f o r statements of an a t t i t u d e s c a l e . These are; the statements were expressions of desired behavior, the items were clear and concise, the reactions to the items spanned the a t t i t u d e continuum, and there was an equal number of p o s i t i v e and negative items. The responses to the instrument were analyzed by means of the computer program LERTAP and yielded the following summary s t a t i s t i c s : Highest score 121.00 Mean score 101.09 Lowest score 53-00 Standard deviation 16.68 Standard error of measurement 6.33 Hoyt estimate of r e l i a b i l i t y 0.85 - 30 -A l t h o u g h the r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t , 0 . 8 5 , ' a p p e a r s s a t i s f a c t o r y , t h e r e a d e r i s c a u t i o n e d t o n o t e t h a t be cause o f t h e f a i r l y h i g h s t a n d a r d e r r o r , - t h e s c o r e s a r e p r o b a b l y n o t v e r y p r e c i s e . - 31 -CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 4.1 Multidimensional Scaling of Drug Abuses The use of multidimensional scaling for describing the underlying structure of the subjects' perceptions toward drug abuses i s based on the subjects' perceived distances between stimulus-pairs on an equal-interval scale along an underlying psychological continuum. The continuum may be of one or more dimensions, that i s , the bases for the subjects* judgements may be multidimensional i n nature. The spaces along the continuum are the proximity or closeness measures for each stimulus-pair. Multidimensional scaling uses these proximity measures for each individual to form matrices of similarity between the stimulus-pairs and embeds them in a Euclidean space (Torgerson, 1958). The INDSCAL (individual Differences Scaling) model developed by Carroll and Chang i n 1970 assumes that the underlying psychological structure of a set of stimuli can be represented by an r-dimensional Euclidean space. Further, the assumption i s made that the same r-dimensions w i l l be common to a l l subjects although not equally salient to each one. Consequently, the INDSCAL model generates a 'group-stimulus space' of r dimensions and a 'subject-space' i n which the subjects are - 32 -located on the same r dimensions as the s t i m u l i . The 'subject-space' gives the saliences (weights) of each dimension of the 'group-stimulus space' to each subject. A 'private space' f o r each i n d i v i d u a l can be constructed by using the subject's weights on the r dimensions and applying them to the co-ordinates of the s t i m u l i i n the 'group-stimulus space'. The weights change the group-stimulus configuration i n the d i r e c t i o n of the axes according to how s a l i e n t the dimensions are to a p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l . A s p e c i a l feature of INDSCAL, not present i n other multidimensional s c a l i n g models, i s that the o r i e n t a t i o n of the axes do not require r o t a t i o n and hence are immediately i n t e r p r e t a b l e (Coxon, 1972). The o r i e n t a t i o n of the axes i s unique i n that i t i s , i n part, the consequence of the d i f f e r e n t i a l weightings of the dimensions f o r each subject and not, as i s u s u a l l y the case, based on averaged data. 4.12 The data was analyzed to test hypothesis 1.51(a) postulated i n Chapter I. In t h i s study the number of dimensions used f o r judging the s t i m u l i was determined by a computer program f o r IKDSCAL. On examining the f i r s t 7 dimensions i t was decided that 3 dimensions would be adequate f o r representing the group's perceptions of drug abuses. The subjects' weights on Dimension 1 were a l l negative and therefore t h i s dimension was rejected on t h e o r e t i c a l grounds ( C a r r o l l , 1970). The f i f t h to seventh dimensions were only s l i g h t l y s a l i e n t to a few subjects. The evidence points strongly towards substantiation of the f i r s t hypothesis. - 33 -4.13 The second hypothesis, 1.51(h), was confirmed i n that each individual gave each dimension a different weighting. The subjects' weights and ranges of weights on Dimensions II, III and IV are reproduced i n Table 4-1 • - 34 -TABLE 4 - 1 CONFIGURATION OP THE SUBJECTS' ¥EIGHTS IH THE GROUP SPACE Graph Subject Dimension II Dimension I I I Dimension Code Number 1 1 0.59 0.24 0.31 2 2 0.28 0.36 0.31 3 3 0.53 0.27 0.21 4 4 0.54 0.68 0.28 5 ' 5 0.10 0.24 0.27 6 6 0.63 0.43 0.26 7 7 0.54 0.65 0.27 8 8 0.38 0.18 0.30 9 9 0.61 0.57 0.40 A 10 0.30 0.47 0.29 B 11 0.63 0.61 0.35 C 12 0.53 0.54 0.21 D 13 0.57 0.48 0.10 E 14 0.73 0.50 0.27 F 15 0.54 0.54 0.26 G 16 0.44 0.33 0.24 H 17 0.47 0.46 0.38 I 18 0.64 0.28 0.19 J 19 0.74 0.50 0 .32 K 20 0.46 0.49 0.24 L 21 0.45 0.49 0.23 M 22 0.45 0.57 0.30 N 23 0.46 0.39 0.20 0 24 0.63 0.65 0.15 P 25 0.59 0.60 0.19 Q 26 0.57 0.53 0.29 R 27 0.73 0.47 0.33 S 28 0.62 0.30 0.20 T 29 0.60 0.44 0.27 U 30 0.51 0.69 0.27 V 31 0.50 0.50 0.27 ¥ 32 0.65 0.45 0.21 X 33 0.56 0.49 0.30 Y 34 0.65 0.60 0.40 Z 35 0.33 0.28 0.30 + 36 0.53 0.46 0.28 / 37 0.30 0.48 0.28 38 0.54 0.48 0.23 * 39 0.76 0.74 0.34 & 40 0.48 0.54 0.22 $ 41 0.35 0.29 0.22 @ 42 0.52 0.29 0.31 1o 43 0.72 0.55 0.31 44 0.61 0.29 0.31 # 45 . 0.40 0.40 0.30 ( 46 0.58 0.44 0.26 * Note: These f i g u r e s have been rounded to 2 decimal places. Ranges of ¥eights = 0.10 - 0.76 0.18 - 0.74 0.10 - 0. - 35 -I t should he noted that the saliences of Dimension IV i s , on the whole, considerably l e s s than the saliences of the other two dimensions. 4.14 The q u a l i t a t i v e features of the configuration of drug abuses, hypothesis 1.51(c), are made evident i n Figures 4-1, 4-2 and 4-3 which depict the group stimulus-spaces given i n Table 4-2. TABLE 4 - 2 CONFIGURATION OF STIMULI IN THE GROUP SPACE Graph Stimulus St i m u l i Dimension I I Dimension III Dimension Code Number (abbreviated) 1 1 me 0.02 0.06 -0.64 2 2 close s t f r i e n d s -0.70 0.25 0.13 3 3 others -0.31 0.41 -0.05 4 4 would do -0.37 0.21 -0.22 5 5 would not do 0.36 0.32 0.35 6 6 good -0.05 0.07 0.50 7 7 bad 0.11 0.40 -0.25 8 8 al c o h o l i c 0.20 0.01 0.27 beverages 9 9 pep p i l l s 0.05 -0.19 -0.03 A 10 marijuana 0.14 -0.01 0.04 B 11- L.S.D. (acid) 0.08 -0.28 -0.05 C 12 sleeping p i l l s 0.06 -0.18 0.01 D 13 t r a n q u i l i z e r s 0.04 -0.23 -0.10 E 14 cocaine 0.09 -0.19 -0.02 F 15 cigare t t e s 0.24 -0.25 0.03 G . 16 heroin 0.05 -0.40 -0.02 * Note: These f i g u r e s have been rounded to 2 decimal places. Figure 4-1 i s a graph of the group stimulus-space spanned by Dimensions II and I I I . The subjects who weighted highly on Dimension I I appeared to base t h e i r judgements on t h e i r behavioral i n t e n t with respect to drugs. The "would do"-"would not do" referent axis i s almost p a r a l l e l - 36 -to Dimension I I . These subjects placed c i g a r e t t e smoking closer to "would not do" than any other drug abuse. Alcohol and marijuana are s l i g h t l y more favourable, but s t i l l c loser to "would not do" than to "would do". The other drugs of abuse were not c l e a r l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d on t h i s dimension. Figure 4-2 g r a p h i c a l l y shows the group stimulus-space spanned by Dimensions I I I and IV, depicting a d i f f e r e n t pattern f o r Dimension IV. These subjects appeared to base t h e i r judgements on a "good"-"me" dimension and to a l e s s e r extent on behavioral i n t e n t , as on Dimension I I . Dimension IV f a i l e d to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between the drugs except f o r a l c o h o l . Alcohol was c l o s e l y aligned to "good" and "would not do". In Figure 4-3 Dimension IV again suggests a "good"-"me" basis f o r judging the drugs. While Dimension II again aligned i t s e l f with a behavioral intent axis, but to a l e s s e r degree. Dimension I I I d i d not appear to be r e l a t e d to any of the referent axes. I t may be that the subjects' basis of judging the s t i m u l i along Dimension I I I was a c c e p t a b i l i t y . In Figures 4-1 and 4-2, Dimension I II exhibited two clear q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s . Alcohol and marijuana were placed at i t s o r i g i n , suggesting an ambivalence toward them, while a l l the other drugs of abuse were given d i f f e r e n t i a l weighting i n the negative d i r e c t i o n . Pep p i l l s (amphetamines), sleeping p i l l s and cocaine were judged as s i m i l a r . The subjects judged L.S.D. as negatively as c i g a r e t t e smoking. The reason f o r t h i s may be that a person has a choice between taking L.S.D. or not - 37 -taking i t . There often i s no choice i n the inhalation of cigarette smoke, even i f one does not smoke. These subjects placed heroin at the most distant point i n the negative direction, indicating low acceptability. Figure 4-1 GROUP STIMULUS-SPACE ON DIMENSIONS II AND I I I DIMENSION I I I Ac c e p t a b i l i t y 0 . 4 0 0 0 . 133 w o u l d do 5 wou l d n o t do DIMENSION I I 1 a l c o h o l -b-—3 - 0 . 1 3 3 0 . 4 00 m a r i j u a n a # E B e h a v i o r a l I n t e n t F c i g a r e t t e s - 0 . 6 0 0 - 0 . 4 0 0 - 0 . 2 0 0 - 0 000 0 . 200 0 . 400 0 . 6 00 0.400 0.133 Figure 4-2 GROUP STIMULUS-SPACE OH DIMENSIONS III AND IV DIMENSION IV A "good" - "me" and behavioral intent dimension A ~ E G -D 9 6 good 8alJcohol 5 would not do DIMENSION I I I -0.133 -0.400 -0.667 would do 7 bad -0.600 -0.400 -0.200 -0 A c c e p t a b i l i t y 1 me 000 0.200 0.400 0.600 Figure 4-3 GROUP STIMULUS-SPACE ON DIMENSIONS II AND IV DIMENSION IV A "good" - "me" dimension ?ood c 0 400 i ^ wou l d n o t i S ^ f c o h o l do 0 133 2 •"i c i g a r e t t e s i A F -0 # S- ~ -DIMENSION I I 0 133 3 / 4 wou l d do T " marx. iuana i D9B j 7 bad B e h a v i o r a l I n t e n t 0 400 1 i -| me 0 667 . - 0 . 6 0 0 - 0 . 4 0 0 - 0 . 2 0 0 -OjOOO 0 . 2 00 0 . 4 00 0 . 600 - 41 -4.2 Defining Issues Test In t h i s study the Defining Issues Test was analyzed using the computer program developed by James Rest. This program, PROGRAM MORAL, computes from the four selected rank-order items the stage score, the P r i n c i p l e d score (P-score), the Meaningless score (M-score) and the Antiestablishment score (A-score). The P-score, as mentioned previously, i s the sum of the Stage 5 and 6 scores. The M-score i s the weight the subject gave to the nonsense statements. An A-score s i g n i f i e s that the i n d i v i d u a l i s opposed to the e x i s t i n g s o c i a l order., 4.21 The data was examined to tes t the hypothesis 1.52(a) stated i n Chapter I. The Manual f o r the D. I. T. (Sec. 5) has a record of average P-scores f o r high school and u n i v e r s i t y students. These were compared with the P-scores of the experimental group. Table 4-3 reproduces James Rest's average P-scores and the P-scores obtained by t h i s group. - 42 -TABLE 4 - 5 AVERAGE P-SCORES ON THE DEFINING ISSUES TEST from J . Rest (1974b) NOTE: f o r the purposes of comparison these scores have been divided by two. Rest's groups completed 6 moral dilemmas, while the group i n t h i s study completed only 5-Educational Standing Number of subjects Average P Grade 9 417 10.0 Grade 11 50 18.0 Grade 12 17 18.5 College students, 5rd year 75 20.7 College students, 1st & 2nd year 115 20.5 College students, 1st year 146 21 .5 College students, 2nd year 157 25-1 College students, 4th year 60 27-0 TABLE 4 - 4 P-SCORES ON THE DEFINING ISSUES TEST OF THIS STUDY GROUP Subject Number P-Score Subject Number P-Score 1 11 .0 24 15.0 2 7.0 25 11 .0 5 2.0 26 17.0 4 17-0 27 21 .0 5 9.0 28 14.0 6 15.0 29 17.0 7 15.0 50 N/A 8 5.0 51 15.0 9 6.0 52 15.0 10 20.0 55 21 .0 11 11 .0 54 9.0 12 15.0 55 14.0 15 9.0 56 14-0 14 17.0 57 8.0 15 16.0 58 15.0 16 19.0 59 24.0 17 9.0 40 1 .0 18 16.0 41 10.0 19 21 .0 42 9.0 20 20.0 45 11 .0 21 6.0 44 7.0 22 N/A 45 10.0 25 17.0 46 15.0 NOTE: two subjects d i d not complete the test (No. 22 and 50) - 43 -The average P-score for t h i s group was 12.9, thus the hypothesis that there would be no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n the l e v e l of moral reasoning of t h i s group when compared to the norm was not substantiated. These subjects were s i g n i f i c a n t l y below the expected l e v e l . 4.22 To t e s t the second hypothesis, 1.52(b), per t a i n i n g to the r e l a t i o n -ship between the l e v e l s of moral reasoning of the subjects and t h e i r perceptions of drug abuses, those subjects with the 4 highest P-scores and those with the 4 lowest P-scores were selected f o r fur t h e r inspection. These subjects had P-scores of 24, 21, 21 and 21; 6, 3, 3 and 1, r e s p e c t i v e l y . Figures 4-4, 4-5 and 4-6 show these selected subjects' po s i t i o n s on each dimension of the subject-space. These graphs show that a l l those subjects with high P-scores loaded highly on every dimension, i n d i c a t i n g the d i v e r s i t y of t h e i r bases of judgements and the large amount of variance that was accounted f o r i n t h e i r judgements. Those subjects, on the other hand, with the lowest P-scores were closer to the o r i g i n i n a l l dimensions. This in d i c a t e d that l e s s variance was accounted f o r or, more l i k e l y , that these subjects responded randomly. 4.3 Attitude Test This instrument was analyzed using the LERTAP computer program. LERTAP scans the raw data, cal c u l a t e s the scores, correlates the scores on each te s t item with the score of the t o t a l test and then generates summary s t a t i s t i c s . Figure 4-4 DIMENSION III .800 .700 .600 .500 SELECTED SUBJECTS IN THE SUBJECTS'-SPACE WITH HIGH AND LOW P-SCORES ON DIMENSIONS II AND III P-Score 24 21 21 21 6 3 X J R Sub .j eel X R J L 2 .400 .300. .200 .100 .100 .200 .300 .400 .500 .600 .700 .800 DIMENSION II Figure 4-6 DIMENSION IV .500 .400 SELECTED SUBJECTS•IN THE SUBJECTS'-SPACE WITH HIGH AND LOW P-SCORES ON DIMENSIONS II AND IV P-Score Subject 24 * 21 X 21 R 21 J 6 . L 3 2 3 8 1 E • 300 R * J X .200 .100 0 .100 .200 .300 .400 .500 .600 .700 .800 DIMENSION II - 47 -4.31 To t e s t the hypothesis 1 . 5 3(a), that the e n t i r e group would have an unfavourable a t t i t u d e toward drug abuses, the summary s t a t i s t i c s were examined. As was pointed out previously, a high score i n d i c a t e d an unfavourable a t t i t u d e toward drug abuse. TABLE 4 - 5 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES ON THE ATTITUDE SCALE Highest possible score 135 Highest actual score 121 Lowest possible score 27 Lowest ac t u a l score 53 Mean score obtained 101 One hundred and twenty-one as the highest score and one hundred and one as the mean score substantiate the hypothesis. 4.32 To t e s t the second hypothesis regarding the r e l a t i o n s h i p between att i t u d e toward drug abuses and perceptions of drug abuses, 1 .53(b), those 4 subjects with the highest score and those 4 with the lowest score on t h i s test were s c r u t i n i z e d c l o s e l y . These 8 subjects were located i n the subject-space to a s c e r t a i n i f there was a r e l a t i o n s h i p between at t i t u d e and per-ceptions. Figures 4 - 7 , 4-8 and 4-9 show these subjects' p o s i t i o n s i n the subject-space. The hypothesis was confirmed. The subjects with the high scores are interspersed with the subjects who obtained the low scores. There i s no commonality or c l u s t e r i n g i n t h e i r locations i n the subject-space. Figure 4-7 SELECTED SUBJECTS IN THE SUBJECTS 1-SPACE WITH HIGH AND LOW ATTITUDE SCORES ON DIMENSIONS II AND III DIMENSION III Attitude Score Subject .700 .500 j .400 .300 121 C 121 / 120 A ,600 p B 120 B 69 P E C 58 @ A 58 E 53 S CO .200 0 .100 .200 .300 .400 .500 .600 .700 .800 DIMENSION II Figure 4-9 SELECTED SUBJECTS IN THE SUBJECTS 1-SPACE WITH HIGH AND LOW ATTITUDE SCORES ON DIMENSIONS III AND I? DIMENSION IV Attitude Scores Subject 121 C 121 / 120 A 120 B 69 P 58 @ . 58 E 53 S .500 .400 .300 .200 E C . .100 0 .100 .200 .300 .400 .500 .600 .700 DIMENSION III Figure 4-8 SELECTED SUBJECTS IN THE SUBJECTS'-SPACE WITH HIGH AND LOW ATTITUDE SCORES ON DIMENSIONS II AND IV DIMENSION IV Attitude Score Subject 121 C 121 / 120 A 120 B .500 69 P 58 @ .400 58 E 53 S B • 300 @ / 1 .200 E C P S .100 0 .100 .200 .300 .400 .500 .600 .700 .800 DIMENSION II - 51 -CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5-1 Multidimensional Nature of Drug Abuses 5.11 (a) The perceptions of drug abuses among the college students of t h i s study appear to be at l e a s t three-dimensional i n nature. These three dimensions were t e n t a t i v e l y named: Dimension I I behavioral intent (would do-would not do); Dimension III a c c e p t a b i l i t y ; Dimension IV me-good. Whether or not other groups would judge drug abuse i n the same manner was not confirmed i n t h i s study. These perceptions of drug abuse were not obvious p r i o r to t h i s study and now when f u l l y explored, y i e l d t h e i r own patterns. These patterns are not as varied as was expected, but t h i s may be due to the i n d i v i d u a l character-i s t i c s of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r group. I t i s speculated that the group as a whole do not perceive drug abuses as a problem that they have to struggle with. Now being i n the 18 to 45-years age bracket they f e e l that they have already made decisions on whether or not to take drugs. Several students commented to the i n v e s t i g a t o r that teachers i n the elementary, junior and senior high schools should be concerned about t h i s problem. This i s where the problem a r i s e s ; t h i s i s where i t should be solved. Perhaps a study along these l i n e s with young teenagers, that included t r a i n i n g sessions, - 52 -would r e s u l t i n more than three dimensions. (b) The evidence obtained i n d i c a t e d that each dimension was not equally s a l i e n t to each i n d i v i d u a l . The subjects' weights i n the group-space were quite d i f f e r e n t from each other, moreover, the o v e r a l l salience on Dimension IV was much less than that of the other two dimensions (Dimensions II and I I I ) . I t was assumed that i n d i v i d u a l s would have bases of judgement i n common with the group, so i t i s not clear from t h i s study what other dimensions i n d i v i d u a l s would have used aside from the group. (c) The differences i n the q u a l i t a t i v e nature of the group's perceptions of the s t i m u l i were substantiated, however the dif f e r e n c e s between the s t i m u l i were not as d i s t i n c t as had been a n t i c i p a t e d . Dimension I I , the behavioral intent dimension, was used p r i m a r i l y to i n d i c a t e opposition to c i g a r e t t e and marijuana smoking and the drinking of a l c o h o l i c beverages. In f a c t , marijuana smoking was viewed on Dimension I I as closer to "would do" than the drinking of alcohol or the smoking of c i g a r e t t e s . A l l other drug abuses were clustered together close to the o r i g i n , implying i r r e l e v a n c e of the dimension f o r further d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of these drug abuses. I t i s quite s u r p r i s i n g that these students gave nearly equal weightings to pep p i l l s , L.S.D. (acid ) , sleeping p i l l s , t r a n q u i l i z e r s , cocaine and heroin. Those i n d i v i d u a l s who weighted hi g h l y on Dimension I I I made somewhat broader d i s t i n c t i o n s among the drug abuses and tended to group them i n more d i s t i n c t c l u s t e r s . Of note, from a pharmacological standpoint i s the inconsistency i n the c l u s t e r i n g of pep p i l l s and cocaine, with sleeping p i l l s . The - 53 -pharmacological a c t i o n of cocaine and pep p i l l s (amphetamines) i s that of powerful stimulants, while sleeping p i l l s have the opposite e f f e c t . I t i s l e g a l l y f a r easier to obtain sleeping p i l l s and pep p i l l s than cocaine. Thus the c l u s t e r i n g of these three drugs does not seem to r e s t on e i t h e r pharmacological grounds or on l e g a l grounds. I t seems p l a u s i b l e , however, that these drug abuses were seen as having the same degree of a c c e p t a b i l i t y . The second apparently inconsistent c l u s t e r was that of t r a n q u i l i z e r s , cigarettes and L.S.D. ( a c i d ) . Again, t r a n q u i l i z e r s and L.S.D. have completely opposite e f f e c t s on the body; and again, t r a n q u i l i z e r s and cigar e t t e s are quite l e g a l . On the basis of a c c e p t a b i l i t y , these three drugs were judged to have the same degree of a c c e p t a b i l i t y . Dimension I I I was the only dimension i n which the subjects c l e a r l y separated heroin from a l l the other drug abuses. To these subjects heroin i s perceived as an unacceptable drug. Dimension IV has two d i s t i n g u i s h i n g features. F i r s t l y , the subjects who weighted h i g h l y on t h i s dimension c l e a r l y separated alcohol from a l l the other drugs. Secondly, these subjects made unexpected discriminations among the other drug abuses. They placed taking sleeping p i l l s , using cocaine and shooting heroin at i t s o r i g i n , suggesting i r r e l e v a n c e of the dimension, yet placed taking t r a n q u i l i z e r s , taking L.S.D. (acid) and taking pep p i l l s s l i g h t l y away from the o r i g i n , closer to "me" and "would do". - 54 -I t was r a t h e r d i s c o n c e r t i n g to f i n d many of the students making d e f i n i t e judgements on a l c o h o l , marijuana and c i g a r e t t e s only. The other drugs of abuse were g e n e r a l l y grouped together. This may imply a l a c k of knowledge and understanding about the drugs of abuse, but more s i g n i f i c a n t l y , i t may imply a l a c k of knowledge and understanding about drugs that are commonly used, and not n e c e s s a r i l y abused. I t should be noted that c i g a r e t t e smoking was viewed by a l l the students as unfavourable. The North American campaign on the dangers of c i g a r e t t e smoking appears to have been q u i t e e f f e c t i v e . I t seems c l e a r that s i m i l a r strong measures are i n order w i t h respect to other drug abuses. Perhaps drug education should permeate a l l areas of the elementary and secondary school c u r r i c u l u m . Science teachers could probably do much toward h e l p i n g students acquire a c l e a r understanding of the pharmacological d i f f e r e n c e s between the drugs. Twenty years ago one took medication when one was s e r i o u s l y i l l ; nowadays drug-taking i s a p a r t of everyday l i f e . The schools take the time to teach about new developments, such as space t r a v e l , s u r e l y time could be made a v a i l a b l e f o r an in-depth program on a l l drugs. The need i s present. I n t h i s study the l a c k of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n between such b e n e f i c i a l drugs, as s l e e p i n g p i l l s and such potent, a d d i c t i v e drugs as h e r o i n and cocaine i s q u i t e d i s t r e s s i n g . - 55 -5.2 Levels of Moral Reasoning and Perceptions of Drug Abuses 5.21 (a) The r e s u l t s of the Defining Issues Test pointed out the apparent large discrepancy i n the l e v e l s of moral reasoning between the students i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n and other comparable students. This may be, at l e a s t i n part, due to the f a c t that these students completed only three s t o r i e s . S t i l l the d i f f e r e n c e s seem large enough to be a t t r i b u t e d to a large extent to differences i n l e v e l s of moral reasoning. Another possible explanation f o r the low P r i n c i p l e d scores i s that Rest presents evidence i n h i s Manual (1974b, Sec. 5) that high scores on the D. I. T. r e f l e c t greater cognitive capacity. The D. I. T. test-scores correlated 0.42 with the I. Q. Quick Test f o r Adults; i t also correlated 0.67 with a comprehension t e s t . Evidence appears to be accumulating to support the hypothesis that l e v e l s of moral reasoning are dependent to a s i g n i f i c a n t degree on i n t e l l i g e n c e . I f t h i s i s the case then t h i s points to p o s s i b l y lower mental a b i l i t y of the group than would normally be expected of regular college students. Regional college students have diverse backgrounds. Some have been out of the educational system f o r a number of years often f o r reasons of low marks i n high school. I f Rest's hypothesis i s embraced, then a le s s than average score on the Defining  Issues Test i s i n order. (b) That those i n d i v i d u a l s with a high P r i n c i p l e d score would perceive drug abuses i n the same manner was substantiated to some degree. The high weights on every dimension i n d i c a t e that the dimensions were highly - 56 -s a l i e n t to these i n d i v i d u a l s . The reason f o r t h i s i s not c l e a r . The second part of t h i s hypothesis was not wholly substantiated, but i t may be t e n t a t i v e l y concluded that those i n d i v i d u a l s with low l e v e l s of moral reasoning could not, or would not d i f f e r e n t i a t e between the various drug abuses. This i s evidenced by the low weightings on each dimension, which suggests that t h e i r s o r t i n g of the stimulus-pairs was random, casual or the task was too d i f f i c u l t f o r them. I t appears from t h i s study that these students have not yet learned to solve moral dilemmas r a t i o n a l l y , but, as mentioned e a r l i e r , i t may be that they have already reached t h e i r highest l e v e l of moral reasoning, i f , as Rest suggests, i t i s linked with i n t e l l i g e n c e . And Kohlberg also pointed out that the development of moral reasoning u s u a l l y peaks i n the l a t e teens or ea r l y twenties. I f t h i s i s the case and the evidence strongly suggests t h i s , then learning to solve moral-social c o n f l i c t s must begin at a much e a r l i e r age when the c h i l d i s s t i l l maturing. The current strategy i n teaching, the adding of a values component to discussions on moral-social c o n f l i c t s , such as drug abuse, i s urgently required. Discussions of t h i s nature, plus empirical evidence about drugs, should be included at l e a s t i n the junior secondary school curriculum. - 57 -5-3 Attitudes toward Drug Abuses and Perceptions of Drug Abuses 5.31 (a) The unfavourableness of the group toward drug abuse was quite pronounced, as was hypothesized. Perhaps some of t h i s a t t i t u d e has been acquired i n school, c e r t a i n l y the media has r e f l e c t e d the current accepted a t t i t u d e s toward the 'hard 1 drug abuses. What seems to be the case i n t h i s study i s that the group has r e f l e c t e d the accepted stereotype. (b) There was no r e l a t i o n s h i p between a t t i t u d e toward drug abuse and perceptions of drug abuses. Graphs of the high and low scorers placed i n the subjects'-space did not show any evidence of c l u s t e r i n g of these selected subjects, supporting the hypothesis. The multidimensional s c a l i n g approach makes i t very d i f f i c u l t f o r the subjects to c o n s i s t e n t l y r e f l e c t the accepted a t t i t u d e toward drug abuse. Also, the o v e r a l l a t t i t u d e score does not give any information about the at t i t u d e toward s p e c i f i c drug abuses, hence i t i s u n l i k e l y that the o v e r a l l a t t i t u d e score be c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s on perception of s p e c i f i c drug abuses. 5.4 Recommendations f o r Further Study The experimental nature of t h i s study has revealed several improvements that might be integrated i n t o the design of s i m i l a r studies and suggestions f o r follow-up studies. One of the serious l i m i t a t i o n s of t h i s study was - 58 -the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of the r e s u l t s , thus several more studies along the same l i n e s , but with d i f f e r e n t age groups, d i f f e r e n t backgrounds would add to t h i s f i e l d of knowledge. With larger groups the perceptions may be more c l e a r l y i d e n t i f i e d and mapped out. One of the questions that has a r i s e n i n analyzing the r e s u l t s was the length of time given to t h i s group to complete the unfamiliar m u l t i -dimensional s c a l i n g task. Perhaps t r a i n i n g sessions, plus le s s of a time r e s t r i c t i o n would present c l e a r e r d i s c r i m i n i n a t i o n s among the stimulus-pairs. Another rather important aspect that could not be investigated was the influence of age, sex, socio-economic status, r a c i a l o r i g i n and r e l i g i o n on the perceptions of drug abuses. I f an i n v e s t i g a t o r could obtain demographic data he might f i n d perceptions of drug abuses a t t r i b u t e d to one or more of these v a r i a b l e s . The Defining Issues Test was easy f o r t h i s group of students to complete. I t has been used f o r Grade 9 students (Rest, 1974b, Sec. 5). However, i t i s recommended that the s i x s t o r i e s be used instead of the three, i f at a l l p o s s i b l e . The normative data are based on s i x s t o r i e s so that comparisons would be more c r e d i b l e . L a s t l y , i t i s recommended that teaching s t r a t e g i e s be adjusted to match the p a r t i c u l a r perceptions, mental a b i l i t i e s and moral development of the students. Follow-up data and l o n g i t u d i n a l studies evaluating these teaching programs - 59 -should he i n i t i a t e d . I t i s hoped that, with the present students knowing, understanding and applying a l l the moral p r i n c i p l e s involved i n taking a drug, we w i l l not have the problem of drug abuse i n the next generation. - 60 -BIBLIOGRAPHY Association f o r Values Education and Research. An Introduction to the Aims and A c t i v i t i e s of A.V.E.R. Vancouver: U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, •1974. ( a l Association f o r Values Education and Research. B u l l e t i n s of A.V.E.R. Vancouver: U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1974. [b") Barty, N., B e t h e l l , B. & Bellward, G. Drug Abuse Education: A P r a c t i c a l Approach f o r Elementary School. Education Canada, 1973- 13. (10) , 10-13. B e t h e l l , B. & Bellward, G. Drug Education A Problem i n Moral Philosophy. Journal of Drug Education, 1973, 3., ( 4 ) , 419-427-B u l l , H. J . Moral Education. Beverly H i l l s , C a l i f o r n i a : Sage Publications, 1969-C a r r o l l , D. J . & Chang, J . Analysis of In d i v i d u a l Differences i n M u l t i -dimensions S c a l i n g v i a an H-Way Generalization of "Eckart-Young" Decomposition. Psychometrika, 1970, 35 , ( 3 ) , 283-319. C a r r o l l , D. J . In d i v i d u a l Differences and Multidimensional Scaling. In R. N. Shephard, A. K. Romney & S. B. Herlove (Eds.) Multidimensional  S c a l i n g . Vol. 1. Hew York: Seminar Press, 1972. Coxon, A. P. M. Introduction to C a r r o l l and Chang Models f o r D i f f e r e n t i a l Cognition and Evaluation (iNDSCAL & PREMAP). Unpublished memorandum, 1972. Easley, J . A. Seven Modeling Perspectives on Teaching and Learning Some I n t e r r e l a t i o n s and Cognitive E f f e c t s . Unpublished memorandum, 1975-Fishbein, M. A Consideration of B e l i e f s , and Their Role i n Attitude Measurement. In M. Fishbein (Ed.) Readings i n Attitude Theory and  Measurement. Hew York: John Wiley & Sons, 1967. Gert, B. The Moral Rules. Hew York: Harper & Row, 1966. Grant, M. Personal conversation at the Vancouver School Board Student Services D i v i s i o n , June 16, 1976. Hemsing, E. (Ed.) Children and Drugs. Washington, D. C : Association For Childhood Education International, 1972. - 61 -J a f f e , J . Drug Addiction and Drug Abuse. In L. S. Goodman & A. Gilman (Eds.) The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. 5 t h . ed. New York: The MacMillan Co., 1975-Kohlberg, L. From 'Is' to 'Ought'. In T. Mischel (Ed.) Cognitive Develop- ment and Epistemology. New York: Academic Press, 1971. L i k e r t , R. The Method of Constructing an Attitude Scale. In M. Fishbein (Ed.) Readings i n Attitude Theory and Measurement. New York: John Wiley & Sons., 1 9 6 7 . McGlothlin, Wm. Drug Use and Abuse. Annual Review of Psychology, 1 9 7 5 , 2 6 , 4 5 - 6 4 . Rest, J . et a l . Judging the Important Issues i n Moral Dilemmas An Objective Measure of Development. Developmental Psychology, 1974 , J_0, 491-501 . (a) Rest, J . Manual f o r the Defining Issues Test. Minneapolis: U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota, 1 9 7 4 . (b) Robbins, L. College Students' Perceptions of t h e i r Parents' Attitudes and Practices Toward Drug Use. A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, A p r i l , 1 9 7 1 . R u s s e l l , J . Survey of Drug Use i n Selected B r i t i s h Columbia Schools. Vancouver: Narcotic Addiction Foundation, 1 9 7 0 . R u s s e l l , J . & Hollander, M. Drug Use Among Vancouver Secondary School  Students 1 9 7 0 - 4 . Vancouver: Narcotic Addiction Foundation, 1974-Simpson, M. L. & Koenig, F. W. The Use of Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l Technique In Drug Education Research: An Example and Some Suggestions. Journal  of Drug Education, 1 9 7 5 , ( 3 ) , 2 5 1 - 2 5 9 -Smart, R. Drug Use i n Canada. Kingston, Ontario: John Howard Society, 1 9 7 0 . Staessel, R. Exploration of Attitudes of Students Involved with Drugs. In W. Keup (Ed.) Drug Abuse. S p r i n g f i e l d , I l l i n o i s : Chas. C. Thomas, 1 9 7 2 . Taylor, P. Normative Discourse. Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: P r e n t i c e -H a l l , Inc., 1 9 6 1 . Torgerson, W. S. Theory and Methods of Scal i n g . New York: John Wiley & Sons., 1 9 5 8 . Ward, E. & Nichols, M. Raising the Drinking Age: i f there i s a problem, i s t h i s the solution? Maclean's, May 1 7 , 1 9 7 6 , 2 2 - 2 3 . Wolk, D. Drug Education An Overview. S o c i a l Education, 1972 , 5 6 , ( 8 ) , 8 6 6 - 8 8 8 . - 62 -APPENDIX A MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCALING INSTRUMENT - 63 -I n t r o d u c t i o n T h i s exper iment i s an attempt to determine whether there are commonly h e l d views on drug-use among a d i v e r s e group o f r e g i o n a l c o l l e g e s tudent s a n d , i f so , to determine the c o m p l e x i t y and q u a l i t a t i v e nature o f these v i e w s . It r e q u i r e s you t o make judgments about the ex tent to which p a i r s o f s t i m u l i i n the form of words a n d / o r s ta tements are i n a g r e e -ment, i . e . , s i m i l a r or r e l a t e d i n some way. There are no r i g h t or wrong answers and a l l re sponses w i l l remain ANONYMOUS. D I R E C T I O N S T h e d e c k o f c a r d s y o u r e c e i v e d h a s 1 2 0 c a r d s . E x a m i n e t h e c a r d s . E a c h o n e h a s a p a i r o f s t i m u l i i n t h e f o r m o f w o r d s a n d / o r s t a t e m e n t s t y p e d o n i t . Y o u a r e t o j u d g e t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h e a c h p a i r o f s t i m u l i a r e i n A GREEMENT , i . e . , S I M I L A R o r R E L A T E D i n some w a y , o n a n 8 - p o i n t s c a l e . I t i s e x t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t t o c o n s i d e r E V E R Y P O I N T o n t h e s c a l e i n d i s t i n g u i s h - : i n g b e t w e e n e a c h member o f a p a i r o f s t i m u l i . When y o u h a v e f i n i s h e d s o r t i n g t h s c a r d s t h e r e s h o u l d be some c a r d s o n E A C H P O I N T o f t h e s c a l e . T o h e l p y o u w i t h t h i s t a s k , p r o c e e d a s f o l l o w s ! 1. N o t e t h e p o c k e t s o n t h e e i g h t - p o i n t s c a l e . E a c h p o c k e t h a s a n u m b e r o n i t c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o a p o i n t o n t h e s c a l e . T h e n u m b e r s r e p r e s e n t d i f f e r e n t d e g r e e s o f a g r e e m e n t . T h e n u m b e r r i n d i c a t i n g v e r y c l o s e a g r e e m e n t i s 1, w h i l e t h e n u m b e r 8 i n d i c a t e s e x t r e m e d i s a g r e e m e n t . N u m b e r 2, 3 3 , 4, 5, 6, a n d 7 i n d i c a t e i n t e r m e d i a r y d e g r e e s o f a g r e e m e n t b e -t w e e n t h e s e t w o e x t r e m e s . D i v i d e t h e p i l e o f c a r d s i n t o TWO p i l e s a c c o r d i n g t o w h e t h e r t h e y b e l o n g o n t h e l o w e r e n d o f t h e s c a l e , p o c k e t s 1 - 4, o r t h e u p p e r e n d o f t h e s c a l e , p o c k e t s 5 - 8 . 2 . S o r t t h e c a r d s i n t h e 1 t o 4 p o c k e t p i l e i n t o TWO p i l e s a c c o r d i n g t o w h e t h e r t h e c a r d s b e l o n g t o p o c k e t s 1 a n d 2 o r p o c k e t s 3 a n d 4. Now t a k e t h e 1 a n d 2 p o c k e t - p i l e a n d s o r t t h e c a r d s a c c o r d i n g t o w h e t h e r t h e y b e l o n g i n p o c k e t 1 o r 2 . P u t t h e c a r d s i n t h e a p p r o p r i a t e p o c k e t s . T r e a t t h e 3 t o 4 p o c k e t - p i l e i n t h e same w a y , 3 . S o r t t h e 5 t o 8 p o c k e t - p i l e i n a s i m i l a r way t o t h e 1 t o 4 p o c k e t - p i l e c a r d s . I t i s i m p o r t a n t t h a t y o u u s e e a c h p o c k e t , i f p o s s i b l e . 4. When y o u h a v e f i n i s h e d s o r t i n g , v e r y c a r e f u l l y c h e c k t o see t h a t e a c h c a r d i s i n t h e r i g h t p o c k e t on t h e s c a l e . You may change t h e s o r t i n g u n t i l you a r e s a t i s f i e d you have done y o u r b e s t . S e a l t h e p o c k e t s and hand i n t h e b o o k l e t . ALL RESPONSES ARE STR ICTLY ANONYMOUS - 66 -APPENDIX B INTRODUCTION TO INDSCAL - 67 -INTRODUCTION TO IN DSC A L* by J. Douglas C a r r o l l B e l l Laboratories Murray H i l l , New Jersey 0797^-(Handout f o r Bell-Penn MDS Workshop) . 1 . 2-Way Scaling OBJECTS DIMENSIONS 1 2 ... k n 1 2-•k r 1 2 • ' 1 2 CO L_ CO i— LU J LU J OBJ OBJ n n Input (usually): Single nxn square symmetric matrix (or half matrix) of s i m i l a r i t i e s or d i s s i m i l a r i t i e s data (d = d i s s i m i l a r i t y of J K objects j and k). Model: Output; Single matrix, nxr, of coordinates of n objects i n r dimensions (x ., = coordinate of J^ th object on t dimension). d j t " x k t ) ' (1) (2) (Euclidean metric) - 68 -I I . 3-Way S c a l i n g (Via INDSCAL) OBJECTS Input; m(>2) nXn square symmetric data matrices (or half matrices),' one for each of m subjects (d^.1^ is dissimilarity of objects j and k for subject i ) . Model*. v Jk 1 jk (3) Jk w i t ( x j t " x k t ) t=l or y j-t i t j t (5) and d(J) -Jk £ u j t y k t > (6) - 69 -DIMENSIONS 12««k r DIMENSIONS 1 2-k r o LU CD O n CO I-O LU —) m CO m SUBJECT SPACE NOTE-. OBJECTS NEED NOT BE "STIMULI" "SUBJECTS" GROUP STIMULUS SPACE MAY BE OTHER DATA SOURCES Output: Two m a t r i c e s , an n x r m a t r i x o f c o o r d i n a t e s o f t h e n o b j e c t s on r di m e n s i o n s (group s t i m u l u s space) and an mxr m a t r i x o f w e i g h t s o f m s u b j e c t s on t h e r dime n s i o n s ( s u b j e c t s p a c e ) . Both o f th e s e can be p l o t t e d g r a p h i c a l l y , as i n t h e f i g u r e , and a " p r i v a t e space" f o r - e a c h s u b j e c t can be con-s t r u c t e d , as shown t h e r e , by. a p p l y i n g (square r o o t s o f ) t h e s u b j e c t w e i g h t s t o s t i m u l u s ( o b j e c t ) d i m e n s i o n s , as i n Eq.(5) above, I I I . M e t r i c V e r s i o n o f INDSCAL (Assumes  F j i s a l i n e a r f u n c t i o n ) A. C o n v e r s i o n from e s t i m a t e d d i s s i m i l a r i t i e s t o e s t i m a t e d d i s t a n c e s ( e s t i m a t i o n o f a d d i t . i v e c o n s t a n t ) . Under " m e t r i c " a s s u m p t i o n s we may assume d ^ ) Jk ( i ) j k ( 7 ) D r o p p i n g ( i ) s u p e r s c r i p t f o r now, the s m a l l e s t c o n s t a n t c g u a r a n t e e i n g s a t i s f a c t i o n o f the t r i a n g l e i n e q u a l i t y - 70 -(dj£ < d j k + d k t ^ f o r a 1 1 t r i p l e s ( j j k , t ) c a n e a s i l y be shown to be c . = max (6 ., - d - o\ , ) (8) nan V j t j k k ^ ^ (Note: c m ^ n may be negative) This i s the " a d d i t i v e constant" scheme, f o r c o n v e r t i n g "comparative d i s t a n c e s " ( i . e . , i n t e r v a l s c a l e d i s t a n c e estimates) i n t o absolute d i s t a n c e s ( i . e . , r a t i o s c a l e d i s t a n c e estimates) described i n Torgerson's book as the "one dimensional subspace" scheme (assuming at l e a s t three p o i n t s l i e e x a c t l y on a s t r a i g h t l i n e i n the space). I t i s i n many respects the si m p l e s t and most s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d ^scheme f o r a d d i t i v e constant e s t i m a t i o n , and i s the one used i n the me t r i c INDSCAL procedure. B . Conversion from d i s t a n c e s t o s c a l a r products. As shown i n Torgerson's book, given a set of E u c l i d e a n d i s t a n c e s , these may be converted i n t o s c a l a r products of vectors about an o r i g i n placed ( a r b i t r a r i l y ) at the c e n t r o i d of a l l the p o i n t s by the equation: V = " 1 / 2 d S k " d J . + d?.> where - 71 -d 2 = 1 ) d 2 k (11) k T h i s c a n e a s i l y be seen t o be e q u i v a l e n t t o d o u b l y c e n t e r i n g t h e m a t r i x o f -1/2 t i m e s t h e s q u a red i n t e r p o i n t d i s t a n c e s ( i . e . , s u b t r a c t i n g grand mean and row and column main e f f e c t s , i n a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e s e n s e ) . I n m e t r i c INDSCAL, we a p p l y s t e p s A and B t o each s y m m e t r i c - m a t r i x o f d i s s i m i l a r i t i e s , t h e r e b y c o n v e r t i n g t h e three-way a r r a y o f d i s s i m i l a r i t i e s i n t o a d e r i v e d t h r e e -way a r r a y of s c a l a r p r o d u c t s . IV. INDSCAL Model I n I t s S c a l a r P r o d u c t Form G e n e r a l : I f j k v t S c a l a r p r o d u c t s a r e o f form: V - / ? ( x J t - W ( 1 3 ) V - Z. x i t *kt <l4> t - 72 -i n the INDSCAL model, we have, from Eq. (6) so scalar products are of the form: * i i > = I y£> y$ (15) 1 'jk t s u b s t i t u t i n g Eq. (5)s y {jV = W i t V 2 X j t (5)) i n t o Eq. ( 1 5 ) , we have: " I x j t * M < l6> t which i s the scalar product form of the INDSCAL model. Equation 16 can e a s i l y be seen to be a sp e c i a l  case of the general CANDECOMP (for CANonical DECOMPosition of N-way tables) model (N = 3* i n t h i s case) of the form: z. ., = ) a. , b ., c. , (17) l j k / , i t j t k t K J where - 73 -Z.. l r=b( 1 i) : (18) * i t = w i t ( 1 9 ) b . + = c . = x,... (20) For the INDSCAL s p e c i a l case of t h i s CANDECOMP. (3-way) model, we may, however, ignore the symmetry c o n s t r a i n t o f (Eq 0 20) and f i t the model i n i t s g e n e r a l form. I t tur n s out t h a t the symmetry of the b a s i c data i s s u f f i c i e n t t o guarantee that ( a f t e r a p p r o p r i a t e n o r m a l i z a t i o n o f the s o l u t i o n ) b ^ w i l l i n f a c t equal V. B r i e f o u t l i n e of the CANDECOMP procedure i n the 3-way case. Given the model i n (17): z i j k = I a i t b j t c k t 1 7 ) t We may, given "current e s t i m a t e s " of two sets of parameters (say the b ^ ' s and c ^ ' 3 ) f i n d an exact l e a s t  squares estimate of the t h i r d set by l i n e a r r e g r e s s i o n methods. This can be seen by r e f o r m u l a t i n g the problem as: ••I = V a i t * B t < 2 1 ) - 74 -where z,. = z_. (22) J i s i ( j k ) and S s t = b J t c f c t (23) 2 ( i n t h i s context, s i s a s u b s c r i p t t h a t ranges over a l l n values of j and k) . In m a t r i x n o t a t i o n , t h i s can be formulated as Z* % AG' (2*0 and we can estimate A by A '= Z* G(G'G)" 1 (25) ( t h i s amounts t o - p o s t m u l t i p l y i n g by the r i g h t pseudovinverse of G'). The NILES ( f o r Nonlinear I t e r a t i v e Least Squares) procedure f o r e s t i m a t i o n i n t h i s case amounts t o i t e r a t i n g t h i s l e a s t squares e s t i m a t i o n procedurej i . e . , e s t i m a t i n g the a's (with b's and c's f i x e d ) by l e a s t square methods, then the b's (with a's and c's f i x e d ) and so on round the i t e r a t i v e - c y c l e u n t i l convergence occurs. - 75 -The g e n e r a l i z a t i o n o f CANDECOMP t o t h e c a s e o f N > 3 and some o f i t s p o s s i b l e a p p l i c a t i o n s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d ' i n t h e s e s s i o n on o t h e r 3 -way and h i g h e r way m o d e l s . See C a r r o l l a nd Chang ( R e f e r e n c e #3 -^) f o r f u r t h e r d e t a i l s on t h i s , a n d on INDSCAL g e n e r a l l y . N o t e : R i c h a r d A. Harshman ( R e f e r e n c e #70). has i n d e p e n d e n t l y d e v e l o p e d , i n c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h R. I . J e n n r i c h , a p r o c e d u r e c a l l e d PARAFAR-1, w h i c h i s . e q u i v a l e n t t o t h e 3-way c a s e o f CANDECOMP. FIGURE CAPTION . I l l u s t r a t i o n o f C a r r o l l - C h a n g m o d e l f o r i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s c a l i n g . W e i g h t s ( p l o t t e d i n s u b j e c t s p a c e ) a r e a p p l i e d t o " g r o u p " s t i m u l u s s p a c e i n a p p r o p r i a t e way to. p r o d u c e i n d i v i d u a l p e r c e p t u a l s p a c e s f o r s u b j e c t s 2 and 1^ . T h e s e a r e shown i n b o t t o m o f f i g u r e . - 76 -DIM 2 5 0 © © © ©- D © e © "GROUP" STIMULUS SPACE IM DIM 2 i 5 •6 l-DIM I SUBJECT SPACE DIM 2 DIM 2 ® © © F ) DIM © PERCEPTUAL SPACE FOR SUBJECT 2 ® © •DIM I © © © PERCEPTUAL SPACE FOR SUBJECT 4 - 77 -D e r i v a t i o n o f r e s u l t i n s e c t i o n I I I - B G i v e n t=l Assume: *% - L < xjt - x k t ) 2 ^ J = I x . , = 0 f o r a l l t = l , 2 , . . . , r . ( A - 2 ) J t (We may do t h i s w i t h o u t l o s s o f g e n e r a l i t y , s i n c e t h e o r i g i n o f t h e x space i s a r b i t r a r y , and t h i s j u s t f i x e s i t a t t h e c e n t r o i d o f a l l n p o i n t s . ) E x p a n d i n g A - l o V* p 2 d i , = ) ( x . . - 2 x . . x. , + x. . ) jk ^ j t j t kt kt i t where " X j t 2 - 2 ) , X j t X k t + I X k t 2 t t = ^ + t 2 - 2 D j k ( A - 3 ) I2 = ) x . , 2 (A-4) t b = X x j t x k t ( t h e s c a l a r P r o d u c t ) . ( A - 5 ) - 78 -Because o f ( A - 2 ' b = b = b = 0 . IS. J . • • (A-6) n te-S" b,k = n X b j k = rT /_, X x i t x k t = rt )_, x k t I x j t = ° ] j j t t j f r o m (A-3) and (A-6), we have d.k = + (A-7) ^2 , 2 , , 2 d . = t. + I (A-8) d 2 = 2 t 2 (A-9) where n i 2 (A-10) t h e n A-3, 7, 8 and 9 t o g e t h e r i m p l y t h a t ? ? 2 2 d7 . - d , - d . + d^ I J -k j . 2b jk m u l t i p l y i n g b o t h s i d e s by -1/2 g i v e s the d e s i r e d r e s u l t . Note t h a t we d i d n ' t have to know a n y t h i n g about geometry t o d e r i v e t h i s r e s u l t . The law o f c o s i n e s , f o r example, was n e v e r mentioned. - 79 -Quasi-Nonmetric INDSCAL While a f u l l y nonmetric v e r s i o n of INDSCAL i s not c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e , there i s a quasi - nonmetric v e r s i o n ( i . e . , an approximation to a f u l l y nonmetric v e r s i o n ) . This i s implemented by a l t e r n a t i n g the metric v e r s i o n of INDSCAL, as j u s t d e s c r i b e d , w i t h use of l e a s t squares monotone r e g r e s s i o n (using K r u s k a l 1 s MFIT r o u t i n e ) i n an i t e r a t i v e f a s h i o n . Given data values d ( f ^ , we f i r s t estimate a d d i t i v e constants c^ x^ t o convert to o d . Then, the I t h i t e r a t i o n of t h i s "outer" i t e r a t i v e process (metric INDSCAL f u n c t i o n s e s s e n t i a l l y as an " i n n e r " i t e r a t i v e process) can be described as f o l l o w s : Given j k ( I - l ) j k Phase Onei (a) convert ^ — > (j^ • v i a E c l ' (9) .(b) apply CANDECOMP to three-way m a t r i x of b's, and normalize, to get I X = l l l x j t l ! a n d I W = V i t 1 1 ' Phase Two: (a) Use weighted Euclidean d i s t a n c e formula of equation (4) to c a l c u l a t e f o r a l l i , j , k . - 80 -(b) Use l e a s t squares monotone r e g r e s s i o n (MFIT) , r o u t i n e ) to f i n d I j k x v j k > I j k ~ I where = i m p l i e s a l e a s t squares f i t , and i s a monotone nondecreasing f u n c t i o n ) . Increment I by 1, r e t u r n to beginning of Phase One. Continue i t e r a t i v e l y u n t i l no f u r t h e r improvement In f i t occurs. Badness of f i t , i n t h i s case, i s measured by a g e n e r a l i z a t i o n o f K r u s k a l ' s STRESSF0RM2, namely: which i s e s s e n t i a l l y a root mean-square over subjects of STRESSF0RM2 computed s e p a r a t e l y f o r each subject . (STRESS 2 i s the measure a c t u a l l y p r i n t e d out i n the NINDSCAL program, as implemented by J i h - J i e Chang). - 81 -T y p i c a l l y STRESS w i l l go down f o r s e v e r a l "outer" i t e r a t i o n s , but w i l l u l t i m a t e l y go up again. This i s because the two phases of the a l g o r i t h m are not o p t i m i z i n g the same c r i t e r i o n . Phase One i s l e a s t squares i n the (derived) s c a l a r products, w h i l e Phase Two i s l e a s t squares In d i s t a n c e s . To make the procedure f u l l y nonmetric, both phases should be o p t i m i z i n g the same c r i t e r i o n . One way i s to make Phase One l e a s t squares i n d i s t a n c e s . Another, however, which i s i n some ways more a t t r a c t i v e , i s to repl a c e the STRESS measure w i t h what I have, somewhat whimsically,-c a l l e d STRAIN, defined i n t h i s case as: / where b^,' i s computed by equation ( l 6 ) ( I n t r o to INDSCAL) J while the b ^ ' s are computed from d ^ ' s by the obvious Jk < Jk 'y analogue of equation ( 9 ) , w i t h d(j^ = M 1 (5 ) . Then Phase Two would e n t a i l f i n d i n g the NL o p t i m i z i n g STRAIN (with other parameters held c o n s t a n t ) ; i e . , Phase Two i s made l e a s t squares i n s c a l a r products. J i h - J i e Chang and- I are c u r r e n t l y working on such a procedure, (which could a l s o - 82 -be a p p l i e d t o p r o v i d e a new a p p r o a c h t o n o n m e t r i c 2-way s c a l i n g ) . R i c h a r d Dobson and A l l e n Y a t e s and p o s s i b l y o t h e r s a r e c u r r e n t l y w o r k i n g on o t h e r approaches t o non m e t r i c v e r s i o n s o f INDSCAL. - 83 -APPENDIX C DEFINING ISSUES TEST - 84 -OPINIONS ABOUT SOCIAL PROBLEMS This questionnaire i s aimed at understanding how people think about s o c i a l problems. D i f f e r e n t people often have d i f f e r e n t opinions about questions of r i g h t and wrong. There are no " r i g h t " answers i n the way that there are r i g h t answers to match problems. We would l i k e you to t e l l us what you think about several problem s t o r i e s . The papers w i l l be fed to a computer to f i n d the average f o r the whole group, and no one w i l l see your i n d i v i d u a l answers. In t h i s questionnaire you w i l l be asked to give your opinions about several s t o r i e s . Here i s a story as an example. Read i t , then turn to the next page. Prank Jones has been thinking about buying a car. He i s married, has two small c h i l d r e n and earns an average income. The car he buys w i l l be h i s family's only car. I t w i l l be used mostly to get to work and drive around town, but sometimes f o r vacation t r i p s also. In t r y i n g to decide what car to buy, Prank Jones r e a l i z e d that there were a l o t of questions to consider. On the next page there i s a l i s t of some of these questions. I f you were Prank Jones, how important would each of these questions be i n deciding what car to buy? - 85 -PART A. (SAMPLE) On the l e f t hand side of the page check one of the spaces by each question that could be considered. CD CD O O CD CD a O O cd cd s -p CD -p cd cd O u - P - P o Pi o U U Ql cd o o a -p a PM & •H u •rl a o •rl •H Pi E H t-3 a w E H •rl p E H o H Q cis KJ 1. Whether the car dealer was i n the same block as where Frank l i v e s . ^ _ _ _ _ 2. Would a used car be more economical i n the long run than a new car. 3. Whether the color was green, Prank's f a v o r i t e c olor. _ _ _ _ 4- Whether the. cubic inch displacement was at l e a s t 200. ^ _ _ _ _ 5. Would a large, roomy car be better than a compact car. 6. Whether the fr o n t c o n n i b i l i e s were d i f f e r e n t i a l . PART B. (SAMPLE) Prom the l i s t of questions above, s e l e c t the most important one of the whole group. Put the number of the most important question on the top l i n e below. Do likewise f o r your 2nd, 3rd, and 4th most important choices. Most important 5 Second most important 2 Third most important 3 Fourth most important 1 - 86 -ESCAPED PRISONER A man had been sentenced to prison f o r 10 years. Af t e r one year, however he escaped from prison, moved to a new area of the country, and took on the name of Thompson. For 8 years he worked hard, and gradually he saved enough money to buy h i s own business. He was f a i r to h i s customers, gave h i s employees top wages, and gave most of h i s own p r o f i t s to c h a r i t y . Then one day Mrs. Jones, an old neighbor, recognized him as the man who had escaped from prison 8 years before, and whom the p o l i c e had been look-i n g f o r . Should Mrs. Jones report Mr. Thompson to the p o l i c e and have him sent back to prison? (Check one) Should report him Can't decide Should not report him - 87 -ESCAPED PRISONER 1. Hasn't Mr. Thompson been good enough f o r such a long time to prove he i s n ' t a bad person? 2. Everytime someone escapes punishment f o r a crime, doesn't that just encourage more crime? 3. Wouldn't we be better o f f without prisons and the oppression of our l e g a l system? 4. Has Mr. Thompson r e a l l y paid h i s debt to society? 5. Would society be f a i l i n g what Mr. Thompson should f a i r l y expect? 6. What benefits would prisons be apart from society, e s p e c i a l l y f o r a charitable man? 7. How could anyone be so c r u e l and heartless as to send Mr. Thompson to prison? 8. Would i t be f a i r to a l l the prisoners who had to serve out t h e i r f u l l sentences i f Mr. Thompson was l e t o f f ? Was Mrs. Jones a good f r i e n d of Mr. Thompson? Wouldn't i t be a c i t i z e n ' s duty to report an escaped cr i m i n a l , regardless of. the circumstances? How would the w i l l of the people and the public good best be served? _ _ _ _ _ 12. Would going to prison do any good f o r Mr. Thompson or protect anybody? Prom the l i s t of questions above, s e l e c t the four most important: Most important Second most important . Third most important Fourth most important 0 CD o O CD CD O O cd a fl -P CD -p Cti cd U O u -P -p o o u P H n3 & O o a -P a & & •iH. U •H a a o •H •H Pi Ej a a w EH •H o EH pi O H O g CO 1-3 9. 10. 11. - 88 -HEINZ AND THE DRUG In Europe a woman was near death from a s p e c i a l kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. I t was a form of radium that a druggist i n the same town had rec e n t l y discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost to make. He paid $200 f o r the radium and charged $2000 f o r a small dose of the drug. The s i c k woman's husband, Heinz, went to every-one he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together $1000, which i s h a l f of what i t cost. He t o l d the druggist that h i s wife was dying, and asked him to s e l l i t cheaper or l e t him pay l a t e r . But the druggist sa i d , "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from i t . " So Heinz got desperate and began to think about breaking i n t o the man's store to s t e a l the drug f o r his wife. Should Heinz s t e a l the drug? (Check one) Should s t e a l i t Can't decide Should not s t e a l i t - 89 -HEINZ STORY o © CD Pi o O tu -P c3 c3 U -p -P o fH fH Pi O O a Pi P< •rl a a •rl •rl E H W f^ H o Pd O CO © o Pi crj -P © fH O O pi a -p •H fH rH | EH -H EH N 2 1-3 ^ 1. Whether a community's laws are going to be upheld. 2. Isn't i t only natural f o r a l o v i n g husband to care so much f o r h i s wife that he'd stea l ? 3. Is Heinz w i l l i n g to r i s k g e t t i n g shot as a burglar or going to j a i l f o r the chance that s t e a l i n g the drug might help? 4- Whether Heinz i s a pr o f e s s i o n a l wrestler, or has considerable influence with professional wrestlers. 5. Whether Heinz i s s t e a l i n g f o r himself or doing t h i s s o l e l y to help someone e l s e . 6. Whether the druggist's r i g h t s to h i s invention have to be respected. 7. Whether the essence of l i v i n g i s more encompassing than the termination of dying, s o c i a l l y and i n d i v i d u a l l y . 8. What values are going to be the basis f o r governing how people act towards each other. 9. Whether the druggist i s going to be allowed to hide behind a worthless law which only protects the r i c h anyhow. 10. Whether the law i n t h i s case i s get t i n g i n the way of the most basic claim of any member of society. 11. Whether the druggist deserves to be robbed f o r being so greedy and c r u e l . - 90 -HEINZ STORY CD CD o anc nee nee tan CD -p cd cd rH O u -p -p o Pi o rH u & cd o o a -p a & & •H u •H a a o E H •rH •H §* w EH •r) m o EH rt • t O H o Ci3 CO 1-3 is; 12. Would s t e a l i n g t o t a l good f o r i n such a case "bring about more the whole s o c i e t y or not. From the l i s t of questions above, s e l e c t the four most important: Most important Second most important Third most important Fourth most important - 91 -THE DOCTOR'S DILEMMA A lady was dying of cancer which, could not be cured and she had only about s i x months to l i v e . She was i n t e r r i b l e pain, but she was so weak that a good dose of p a i n - k i l l e r l i k e morphine would make her die sooner. She was d e l i r i o u s and almost crazy with pain, and i n her calm periods, she would ask the doctor to give her enough morphine to k i l l her. She said she couldn't stand the pain and that she was going to die i n a few months anyway. What should the doctor do? (Check one) Should give the lady an overdose that w i l l make her die Can't decide Should not give the overdose \ - 92 -DOCTOR CD CD o O © © PI Pi o o cd CO- Pi -p 0 -p cd cd Pi O u -p -p O Pi o u & cd Q> o o a -p a P H •rl rH •rl a a O E H •H •H LE din *3 w EH •rl p EH > o M O Si m 1-3 !2i 1. Whether the woman's family i s i n favor of g i v i n g her the overdose or not. 2. Is the doctor obligated by the same laws as every-body else i f g i v i n g an overdose would be the same as k i l l i n g her. 3. Whether people would be much better o f f without societ y regimenting t h e i r l i v e s and even t h e i r deaths. 4. Whether the doctor could make i t appear l i k e an accident. 5. Does the state have the r i g h t to force continued existence on those who don't want to l i v e . 6. What i s the value of death p r i o r to society's perspective on personal values. 7. Whether the doctor has sympathy f o r the woman's s u f f e r i n g or cares more about what so c i e t y might think. 8. Is helping to end another's l i f e ever a responsible act of cooperation. 9. Whether only God should decide when a person's l i f e should end. 10. What values the doctor has set f o r himself i n h i s own personal code of behavior. 11. Can so c i e t y a f f o r d to l e t everybody end t h e i r l i v e s when they want to. - 93 -DOCTOR 0 0 o O 0 o o ce cd -p 0 -P cd cd O rH -P -p o O rH cd P) O o a -p a & P( •rH fH •rl a a o EH •H •H LE P) a w EH •H PH o EH PH 1=) O H O c i CO h3 12. Can so c i e t y allow suicides or mercy k i l l i n g and s t i l l protect the l i v e s of i n d i v i d u a l s who want to l i v e . Prom the l i s t of questions above, s e l e c t the four most important: Most important Second most important Third most important Fourth most important - 94 -APPENDIX D ATTITUDE TEST - 95 -UNIVERSITY OF'BRITISH COLUMBIA FACULTY OF EDUCATION A SURVEY OF ATTITUDES TOWARDS DRUG USE INSTRUCTIONS The following i s a short survey on atti t u d e s and knowledge about drugs. We wish to f i n d out how strongly you agree or disagree with the s t a t e -ments. Please read each statement c a r e f u l l y , then decide whether you STRONGLY DISAGREE, DISAGREE, are UNDECIDED, AGREE or STRONGLY AGREE. Your responses are to be made on the 'Mark.Sense' card provided, using the s p e c i a l p e n c i l . You may ignore the left-hand side of the card e n t i t l e d ' I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Number', as your answers are s t r i c t l y anonymous. P i l l i n the 'Answer F i e l d ' f o r your responses using one column per s t a t e -ment, the f i r s t column f o r the f i r s t statement and so on. If you STRONGLY DISAGREE f i l l i n 1; DISAGREE, f i l l i n 2; are UNDECIDED, f i l l i n 3; AGREE, f i l l i n 4; STRONGLY AGREE, f i l l i n 5. When you have completed t h i s survey, please place the 'Mark Sense' card and the l i s t of statements i n the large envelope. - 96 -STATEMENTS 1. Encouraging kids to drink wine, teaches them how to handle alcohol when they are older. 2. Taking a drug just f o r kicks i s fun. 3. I would take a pep p i l l to keep me awake at exam time. 4. Smoking more than one pack of cigarettes a day, i s bad f o r you. 5. A l c o h o l i c s turn me o f f . 6. My f r i e n d had t r a n q u i l l i z e r s prescribed f o r him, but I wouldn't ask him f o r one. 7. I would smoke marijuana r e g u l a r l y , i f I could get i t . 8. Every time I have a pain, I take a drug. 9. I f one p i l l makes me f e e l good, two w i l l make me f e e l even better. 10. I would t r y L.S.D. (acid ) , i f somebody offered me some. 11. People who have a family h i s t o r y of lung cancer, should not smoke ci g a r e t t e s . 12. I f I was depressed, I would take a p i l l to pep me up. 13. A n t i b i o t i c s are the best treatment f o r colds. 14- I would t r y heroin, i f somebody offered me some. 15. There i s no harm i n taking Dristan f o r a cold, before having a few beers. 16. Taking L.S.D. (acid) i s a bad t r i p . 17. Most drugs have both good and bad e f f e c t s . 18. Even i f i t was easier to get, I would not use cocaine. 19. Having a beer once or twice a week i s overdoing i t . - 97 -20. I f I had not had a good night's sleep f o r days, I would take a sleeping p i l l . 21. Smoking marijuana at a party i s stupid. '22. I d e f i n i t e l y would never take amphetamines just to control my appetite. 23. Cocaine i s a good drug. 24. Drinking a few "beers every night i s fun. 25. I f kids want to s n i f f glue, l e t them. 26. T r a n q u i l l i z e r s and booze should not be taken together. 27. I f I could get them, I would take a sleeping p i l l every night. 1 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0055678/manifest

Comment

Related Items