UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Adolescent depression and interpersonal behavior 1973

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1973_A5_7 F87_5.pdf
UBC_1973_A5_7 F87_5.pdf [ 7.98MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0101241.json
JSON-LD: 1.0101241+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0101241.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0101241+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0101241+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0101241+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0101241.ris

Full Text

ADOLESCENT DEPRESSION AND INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIOR by MARGERY D. FURNELL B.S.N. University of Alberta, 1967 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE MASTER OF SCIENCE IN NURSING in the School of Nursing We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA JULY, 1973 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make i t freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of /Yl^ The University of British Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada i i ABSTRACT ADOLESCENT DEPRESSION AND INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIOR i Margery D. Furnell Adolescents may be p a r t i c u l a r l y vulnerable to depression. Yet Public health nurses working with large groups of adolescents are often unable to recognize depressed youths due to the lack of simple, r e l i a b l e screening t o o l s . This exploratory study was undertaken i n order to gain information that could be used to develop such a t o o l . S p e c i f i c a l l y , the following question was posed: 'Are there modes of r e l a t i n g interpersonally that can be used to d i s t i n g u i s h the highly and moderately depressed adolescent from the non-depressed adolescent?' The answer was sought from information obtained from adolescent self-reports on Beck's Depression Inventory and an adapted and pre-tested form of McNair and Lorr's Inter- personal Behavior Inventory. /These inventories were administered to twenty-five adolescents who attended a treatment centre f o r adolescents with emotional problems and seventy seven randomly selected adolescents who attended four Catholic high schools in Greater Vancouver. Adolescents were c l a s s i f i e d as non-depressed, moderately depressed and highly depressed on the basis of t h e i r scores on Beck's Depression Inventory. An analysis of variance was c a r r i e d out to discover i f there was a s i g n i f i c a n t difference in interpersonal behavior scores of non-depressed, moderately depressed and highly depressed adolescents. A simple regression analysis and a multiple step-wise regression analysis was done to see i f there was a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between any interpersonal behavior categories that could d i s t i n g u i s h between the non-depressed, moderately depressed, and highly depressed adolescent. The findings supported the overall conclusion: adolescents who exh i b i t mistrust, competition and detachment most of the time or a l l of the time and exhibit dominance only some of the time or not a l l a l l , may be moderately or highly depressed adolescents. The findings did not support the generally held thesis that suppressed h o s t i l i t y i s an important factor in the depressed person. (Thesis Chairman) iv TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I INTRODUCTION 1 The Problem 1 Purpose of the Study 4 Hypothesis 4 Assumptions 5 Limitations 5 Definitions 7 II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 9 Introduction 9 Adolescence 9 Depression 16 Cause of Depression 18 Adolescence: A Time of Loss 20 Id e n t i f i c a t i o n of the Depressed Person 21 Interpersonal Behaviors 23 Studies of Adolescent Interpersonal Behavior 26 Studies of Patient's Interpersonal Behavior 26 A Study of Depressed Women's Interpersonal Behavior 27 Summary 27 III METHODOLOGY 29 Study Population 29 Selection of Population from the Treatment Centre 29 Selection of Population from the High Schools 30 Instruments 33 Beck's Depression Inventory 33 McNair and Lorr's Interpersonal Behavior Inventory 35 Pre-tests by the Researcher 36 Adapted Interpersonal Behavior Inventory (AIBI) 37 Administration of the Inventories 37 IV ANALYSES OF DATA 39 Id e n t i f i c a t i o n of Non-Depressed, Moderately Depressed, 39 and Highly Depressed Adolescents Using a Depression Inventory Interpersonal Behavior Correlates of Depression 44 Simple Regression Analysis 44 Multiple Step-Wise Regression Analysis 47 Interpersonal Behavior Categories that Distinguish Between 50 Non-Depressed, Moderately Depressed, and Highly Depressed Adolescents V CHAPTER PAGE IV ANALYSES OF DATA cont'd 39 Discussion 57 Mistrust 57 Competition 58 Dominance 59 Succorance 61 Inhibition and Aggression 63 V SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 64 Summary 64 Conclusions 67 Implications and Recommendations 69 VI SOURCES CONSULTED 71 VII APPENDIX 78 A. Philosophy of B r i t i s h Columbia Youth Development Centre 79 B. Consent Letter 85 C. Materials Pertaining to Beck's Depression Inventory 87 Pre-tests 88 Value of Statements on Beck's Depression Inventory 89 Beck's Depression Inventory 91 Inventory Analyses Tables 98 D. Materials Pertaining to the Interpersonal Behavior Inventory 103 Pre-tests 104 Behavior Categories and Corresponding Questions 107 Adapted Interpersonal Behavior Inventory 108 Inventory Analyses 117 v i LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1. Methods of Delineating Disease Entries Under the C l a s s i f i c a t i o n 17 of Depression 2. Number of Adolescents C l a s s i f i e d as Non-Depressed, Moderately 40 Depressed, Highly Depressed 3. Scores of Non-Depressed, Moderately Depressed and Highly 41 Depressed Adolescents on 15 Interpersonal Behavior Categories 4. Analysis of Variance: Interpersonal Behavior Categories of 43 Non-Depressed, Moderately Depressed and Highly Depressed Adolescents 5. Simple Regression Analysis: S i g n i f i c a n t Predictors 45 6. Simple Regression Analysis: Non-Significant Predictors 46 7. Multiple Regression Analysis: Correlation Between Interpersonal 48 Behavior Categories 8. Multiple Stepwise Regression Analysis: S i g n i f i c a n t Predictors 49 9. Multiple Stepwise Regression Analysis: Non-Significant 51 Predictors 10. Discriminant Analysis: Variables to Include as Discriminants 52 11. Discriminant Analysis: Variables to Exclude as 54 Discriminators 12. Discriminant Analysis: Stepwise Selection of Variables to be 55 Entered 13. Discriminant Analysis: Goodness of C l a s s i f i c a t i o n into Non- 56 Depressed, Moderately Depressed and Highly Depressed Groups 14. Value of Statements on Beck's Depression Inventory 89 15. Beck's Depression Inventory: Descriptive Data 94 16. Beck's Depression Inventory: Goodness of F i t of Depression 96 Scores 17. Beck's Depression Inventory: Sources of Variance 97 18. Item Analysis of Depression Scores 98 V l l TABLE PAGE 19. Interpersonal Behavior Inventory, Behavior Categories and 107 Corresponding Questions 20. Sources of Variation of AIBI Scores 117 21. Sources of Variation of Dominance Scores 118 22. Sources of Variation of Competition Scores 119 23. Sources of Variation of Aggression Scores 120 24. Sources of Variation of Mistrust Scores 121 25. Sources of Variation of Detachment Scores 122 26. Sources of Variation of Inhibition Scores 123 27. Sources of Variation of Submissiveness Scores 124 28. Sources of Variation of Succorance Scores 125 29. Sources of Variation of Abasement Scores 126 30. Sources of Variation of Deference Scores 127 31. Sources of Variation of Agreeableness Scores 128 32. Sources of Variation of Nurturance Scores 129 33. Sources of Variation of Affection Scores 130 34. Sources of Variation of S o c i a b i l i t y Scores 131 35. Sources of Variation of Exhibition Scores 132 36. Item Analysis of Dominance Questions 148 37. Item Analysis of Competition Questions 150 38. Item Analysis of Aggression Questions 152 39. Item Analysis of Mistrust Questions 154 40. Item Analysis of Detachment Questions 156 41. Item Analysis of Inhibition Questions 158 42. Item Analysis of Submissiveness Questions 160 43. Item Analysis of Succorance Questions 162 44. Item Analysis of Abasement Questions 164 45. Item Analysis of Deference Questions 166 TABLE 46. Item Analysis of Agreeableness Questions 47. Item Analysis of Nurturance Questions 48. Item Analysis of Affection Questions 49. Item Analysis of S o c i a b i l i t y Questions 50. Item Analysis of Exhibition Questions ix LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. Selection of the Population from the Treatment Centre 31 November 14, 1972 to February 1, 1973 2. Selection of the Population from Randomly Selected Catholic 32 School Students January 15, 1973 to March 14, 1973 3. Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Depression Scores 95 4. Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Dominance Scores 133 5. Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Competition Scores 134 6. Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Aggression Scores 135 7. Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Mistrust Scores 136 8. Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Detachment Scores 137 9. Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Inhibition Scores 138 10. Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Submissiveness Scores 139 11. Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Succorance Scores 140 12. Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Abasement Scores 141 13. Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Deference Scores 142 14. Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Agreeableness Scores 143 15. Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Nurturance Scores 144 16. Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Affection Scores 145 17. Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of S o c i a b i l i t y Scores 146 18. Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Exhibition Scores 147 X ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The writer wishes to extend sincere thanks to the many people who made t h i s study possible: to the administrators of the Vancouver Catholic high schools and the Maples, Youth Development Centre for t h e i r support of t h i s research on t h e i r schools; to the s t a f f of these schools who helped with the organization of the research periods; to the youths for t h e i r w i l l i n g p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the pre-tests and research project; to R. Conry f o r his help in the analysis of the data; to J. Horrocks for her advise; and espe c i a l l y to A. Baumgart and Dr. L. Walters f o r t h e i r guidance. Although each investigator cannot consider a l l aspects of a problem, we can overcome t h i s l i m i t a t i o n by comple-mentarity of investigators and theorists - that i s inves-t i g a t i o n of many facets of a problem by many individuals and pooling t h e i r r e s u l t s . G. A l l port CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Problem Theory and recent reports on the incidence of mental i l l n e s s suggest that adolescents may be p a r t i c u l a r l y vulnerable to depression. Yet adults working with adolescents have had great d i f f i c u l t y in recog- nizing the youth suffering from this emotional disorder. S p e c i f i c numbers of adolescents who are depressed cannot be ascertained from national or provincial v i t a l s t a t i s t i c s . However, there are studies which suggest that t h e i r numbers may be large and on the i n - crease. The Celdic Report, undertaken in Canada in 1970, studied c h i l d - ren under the age of twenty and consulted with professional people who worked with them, as well as with parents of these children. The report estimated that a minimum of a m i l l i o n children in Canada suffered from an emotional or learning disorder.^ The American report Action f o r Mental Health, written in 1960, reported that t h e i r c h i l d population with emotional 2 problems numbered in the m i l l i o n s . Other research revealed that there has been a rapid gain in total number of patients with depression admitted to state hospitals, and that much of that increase could be accounted f o r by an increase in the admission of depressed adolescents and young people The Commission on Emotional and Learning Disorders in Children, The  Celdic Report (Toronto: Leonard Crawnford publisher, 1970), p. 5. The Joint Commission on Mental Illness and Health, Action f o r Mental  Health (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1961), p. 114. 2 in t h e i r twenties. ' ' ' Dunlop wrote that depression was second only to schizophrenia as the cause for f i r s t and second admissions to mental hospitals in the United States and that the prevalence of depression outside of hospital was approximately f i v e times greater than schizo- phrenia.^ Beck stated: Depression ranks as one of the major health problems of today. M i l l i o n s of patients suffering from some form of t h i s disorder crowd the psychiatric and general hos-p i t a l s , the out-patient c l i n i c s , and the o f f i c e s of private p r a c t i t i o n e r s . Depression may appear as a primary disorder or i t may accompany a variety of other psychiatric or medical disorders. Not only i s depres-sion a prominent cause of human misery but i t s by-product, s u i c i d e , i s a leading cause of death in certain age groups. 8 In Canada, in 1970, the number of completed suicides for the q age group of ten to nineteen was 2.83 per 100,000. In B r i t i s h Columbia, Saul Rosenthal, "Changes in a Population of Hospitalized Patients with A f f e c t i v e Disorders", American Journal of Psychiatry, 123: 671-675, 1966. J. Oltman and S. Friedman, "Trends in Admissions to a State Hospital, 1942-1964", Archives of General Psychiatry, 13: 549, 1965. W.J. Turner, F. O'Neil, and S. Merlis, "The Treatment of Depression in Hospitalized Patients Before and Since the Introduction of Anti-Depressant Drugs", American Journal of Psychiatry, 119: 421, 1962. A.P. Bay, "Discussion of the Treatment of Depression in Hospitalized Patients Before and Since the Introduction of Anti-Depressant Drugs", American Journal of Psychiatry, 119: 425, 1962. E. Dunlop, "The Use of Antidepressants and Stimulants", Modern Treatments, 2: 543-568, 1965. A. Beck, Depression (New York: Harper and Row, 1967), p. x i i i . Dominion of Canada, Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Causes of Death (Ottawa: S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1970), p. 135. 3 in 1970, i t was 5.3 per 100,000 - the t h i r d leading cause of death for t h i s age groupJ° Some authorities believe that the actual rate of suicide i s three to four times as great as the o f f i c i a l rate, and the number of attempted suicides i s believed to be seven or eight times the number of successful s u i c i d e s . ^ The Celdic Report states that " i n any other f i e l d , a problem of t h i s magnitude would be heralded as an acute epidemic or national disaster and major resources would be poured into the search for a 1 p solution". Prevention through early i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of problems, and mobilization of help must become a high p r i o r i t y f o r people working with 13 children. Public health nurses are in a p a r t i c u l a r l y advantageous position to contribute to preventative programs. They work with children of a l l ages in c l i n i c s and schools; they have ready access to families in t h e i r homes; they have professional contacts. The Public health nurse i s , however, hampered in carrying out e f f e c t i v e prevention of emotional disorders in c h i l d r e n , by a variety of f a c t o r s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , she is hampered in a s s i s t i n g in the prevention of severe depression in adolescents by the paucity of reference material Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, Department of Health Services and Hospital Insurance, V i t a l S t a t i s t i c s ( B r i t i s h Columbia: K.M. McDonald p r i n t e r , 1970), p. 50. ^ E. Stengel, "Recent Research into Suicide and Attempted Suicide", American Journal of Psychiatry, 118: 725, 1962. 2 The Commission on Emotional and Learning Disorders in Children, The  Celdic Report (Toronto: Leonard Crainford publisher, 1970), p. 393. 3 Ibid., pp. 9-10. 4 available for understanding the phenomena and by the lack of diagnostic tools suitable to i d e n t i f y a depressed adolescent in need of help, in a large student population. Purpose The purpose of th i s study was to answer the question, 'Are there modes of r e l a t i n g interpersonally that can be used to distinguish the moderately depressed and high depressed adolescent, from the non- depressed adolescent?' The answer to t h i s question was sought by com- paring the interpersonal behaviors of non-depressed, moderately depressed and highly depressed adolescents. The levels of depression were measured by Beck's Depression Inventory and the modes of interpersonal behavior were ascertained from an adapted form of McNair and Lorr's Interpersonal Behavior Inventory. Hypotheses The hypotheses guiding t h i s study were: 1. there i s no s i g n i f i c a n t difference in the interpersonal behavior categories of non-depressed, moderately depressed and highly depressed adolescents; 2. there are no interpersonal behavior categories that s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlate with depression; 3. there are no interpersonal behavior categories that can distinguish between non-depressed, moderately depressed, and highly depressed adolescents. 5 Assumption A s p e c i f i c assumption basic to this study was that each adoles- cent p a r t i c i p a t i n g in the study was aware of his own feelings and charac- t e r i s t i c interpersonal behaviors, such that he was able to choose from a l i s t of descriptive statements the one that most accurately described his feelings or behavior. Elaboration on th i s i s contained in Chapter III under 'Instruments'. Limitations 1. The population was limited in the following way: a) 102 subjects were drawn from one treatment centre and four Catholic high schools in Metropolitan Vancouver; b) the population from the treatment centre consisted of only those adolescents who chose to p a r t i c i p a t e in the study be- tween November fourteen, 1972 and February one, 1973; c) the population from the Catholic high schools consisted of those randomly selected students who chose to pa r t i c i p a t e in the study and who had a guardian's written consent on the day the inventories were administered in t h e i r high school. Care must therefore be taken in generalizing the findings of th i s group of adolescents to a d i f f e r e n t or larger group. 2. Information gathered f o r thi s research was limited to how adolescents reported they f e l t and interacted with others, on the day the research took place. Considering the l i m i t a t i o n s of this type of report as discussed in Chapter II under 'Interpersonal Behavior' and in Chapter III under 1 Instruments ' " the findings of th i s study are not s u f f i c i e n t to lay the 6 sole groundwork for a tool to i d e n t i f y the depressed adolescent. Further research using the 'other person' as the rater of behavior should be com- pleted to discover i f enough si m i l a r overt behavior i s commonly perceived by both adolescent and 'other' to warrant the use of thi s behavior in a screening t o o l . 7 D e f i n i t i o n of Terms Used in the Study Adolescent Any male or female youth between the age of thirteen and seventeen, i n c l u s i v e . Non-depressed Any adolescent whose score was equal to or less than t h i r t e e n , on the Beck Depression Inventory. Moderately depressed Any adolescent whose score was equal to or less than fourteen to twenty-four, on the Beck Depres-sion Inventory. Highly" depressed Any adolescent whose score was equal to or greater than twenty-five on the Beck Depression Inventory. Interpersonal behavior Any audible or observable int e r a c t i o n between two or more persons, that indicated how one individual thought and f e l t about another person; how he perceived him and what he did to him; what he expected him to do or think, and how he reacted to the actions of the other; the other may or may not be p h y s i c a l l y present. Interpersonal behavior category A mode of r e l a t i n g interpersonally. The modes used in this study were: Dominance - the tendency to lead, d i r e c t , influence and control others. Competition - the tendency to seek recognition and status. Aggression - the tendency to c r i t i c i z e , r i d i c u l e or be punitive toward others. Mistrust - the tendency to doubt or support the a t t i t u d e s , feeling s and intentions of others. Detachment - the tendency to be aloof, withdrawn, and seculsive. Inhibition - the tendency to by shy and to withdraw from the attention of others. Abasement - the tendency to take blame, b e l i t t l e oneself, and apologize. Submissiveness - the tendency to be passive, d o c i l e , and comply to the directions of others. Succorance - the tendency to seek help, support, sympathy, and guidance. Deference - the tendency to be involved in the support and service of a leader or superior. Agreeableness - the tendency to be co-operative, helpful and considerate. Nurturance - the tendency to o f f e r help, support, sympathy and counsel to others. A f f e c t i o n - the tendency to express l i k i n g , warmth, and f r i e n d -liness towards others. S o c i a b i l i t y - the tendency to j o i n groups, to be included with others, and to be gregarious. Exhibition - the tendency to act in attention-seeking, and s e l f -dramatizing ways. CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The paucity of s p e c i f i c relevant l i t e r a t u r e pertaining to both the concept of depression and the area of interpersonal relations in adolescence has been lamented by several authors. Coleman has remarked that: The f i e l d of adolescent development contains a number of areas which have so far remained largely in the area of speculation. . . .No where i s this-,more true than in the area of interpersonal r e l a t i o n s . Krakowski has written that the concept of depression in childhood including adolescence i s unpopular and i n s u f f i c i e n t l y understood. Recourse has thus been made to the general f i e l d s of Adolescence, Depression, and Interpersonal Behavior. This background of theory and research has been used for the following purposes: 1) defining the developmental stage of adolescence and i d e n t i f y i n g i t s unique c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ; 2) defining depression, ide n t i f y i n g possible causes of depression and methods of detection; 3) hypothesising that adolescence i s a period vulnerable to depression; 4) defining interpersonal behavior and delineating the ways that i t has been studied. Adolescence The philosophical question of whether man develops in stages, each with i t s unique c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , has both gained and l o s t support A. Krakowski, "Depressive Reactions of Children and Adolescents", Psychosomatics, 11: 431, 1970. J.C. Coleman, "The Perception of Interpersonal relationships During Adolescence", B r i t i s h Journal of Educational Psychology, 40: 253, 1970. through those years. H i s t o r i c a l l y , A r i s t o t l e may have been the f i r s t to have d e l i n - eated adolescence as a stage of development. He defined i t as a period beginning with puberty and ending at age twenty-one. He believed that a b i l i t y to make independent choices was the unique task for youth to achieve during this stage. The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c behaviors of youth were: indiscriminant s a t i s f a c t i o n of strong f e e l i n g s ; changeable, f i c k l e 4 behavior; afront at being s l i g h t e d . During the Middle Ages, the church repudiated the b e l i e f that man developed in unique stages. Man was viewed as having instantaneous c r e a t i o n , thus he came into the world as a miniature adult, d i f f e r e n t 5 only in quantity not qu a l i t y . Rousseau challenged these teachings. He stated that adolescence could be delineated into two age groups: one from age twelve to f i f t e e n , the other from age fourteen to twenty. The former period represented the time when youth had to develop his s e l f consciousness, his rational functions, and his c u r i o s i t y . The l a t t e r period required the youth to develop an inte r e s t in other people and a need for a f f e c t i o n . R.E. Muus, Theories of Adolescence (New York: Random House, 1968) p. 10. 4 A r i s t o t l e , The Work of A r i s t o t l e Translated to English, XI, trans. Rhys Roberts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959), p. 1389a. 5 R.E. Muus, op, c i t . , pp. 18-21. 6 Ibid., pp. 21-31. In the nineteenth century, Stanley Hall gave the period of adolescence considerable emphasis. He saw adolescence as a turbulent t r a n s i t i o n a l state sim i l a r to a period in time when society was in a chaotic t r a n s i t i o n between primitive times and cultured times. This comparison of man's l i f e cycle to a re c a p i t u l a t i o n of s o c i e t i e s ' growth was based on Darwin's theory of e v o l u t i o n / Current th e o r i s t s in the f i e l d of human development have con- tinued to support the b e l i e f that man passes through a d i s t i n c t period c a l l e d adolescence during his growth to old age. They vary, however, i what they believe constitutes the uniqueness of that period. Erikson has viewed adolescence as a time during which youth has to establish his independence and i d e n t i t y . Adulthood cannot be o reached u n t i l these tasks have been met. Havinghurst defined adolescence as a time when s p e c i f i c b i o l o g i c a l l y and c u l t u r a l l y defined tasks must be mastered. The b i o l o g i c a l l y based tasks are: 1) acceptance of physique and appropriate sex role 2) a c q u i s i t i o n of friends of both sexes 3) preparation for marriage and family 4) attainment of independence from parents and other adults 5) selection and preparation for an occupation 6) development of i n t e l l e c t u a l s k i l l s and formulation of concepts to contribute to society Ibid, pp. 31-35. E. Erikson , Identity Youth and Crises (New York, W.W. Norton and Co. Inc., 1968)., pp. 128-135. 12 The c u l t u r a l l y based tasks for the North American youth are: 1) attainment of economic independence 2) achievement of s o c i a l l y responsible behavior 9 3) formulation of values that are in harmony with the s c i e n t i f i c world. Like Erikson and Havinghurst, Strom has recognized the need for adolescents to gain independence but he has given an added emphasis to youth's need to build peer r e l a t i o n s . ^ Piaget's writings have d i f f e r e d from these writers primarily in t h e i r emphasis on the function of the maturation of the nervous system, inte r a c t i o n with the physical world, and influences from the social inviron- ment as the causative forces in producing th i s unique stage. He described the adolescent as a person who i s capable of abstract thinking, that i s , at the beginning of t h i s period the youth can make only cumbersome approaches to formal operations but by the end of the period he can make laws and generalizations and support them with p r o o f s . ^ The idea of adolescence as a s p e c i f i c period in mans' l i f e cycle has also been supported by social theorists l i k e Lewin, Sebald, and Ausubel. Lewin wrote that the c h i l d belonged to a s p e c i f i c group and the adult to another but the adolescent was a person who held a so c i a l position between and overlapping the adult and c h i l d groups. Because of this lack of 'belongingness' the adolescent was sim i l a r to a marginal member of an R.J. Havinghurst, Developmental Tasks and Education (New York: Longmans Green, 1951, pp. 30-35. M. Strom, Needs of Adolescent Youth (Danville, I l l i n o i s : Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1963), pp. 77-140. I. Inhelder and J . Piaget, The Growth of Logical Thinking (New York: Basic Books, 1952), p. 334-350. 13 u n d e r p r i v i l e g e d m i n o r i t y group and demonstrated s i m i l a r b e h a v i o r s o f e m o t i o n a l i n s t a b i l i t y and s e n s i t i v i t y . Lewin a l s o b e l i e v e d t h a t when an i n d i v i d u a l moved from an o l d r e g i o n t o a new one, t h a t i s , from one group t o a n o t h e r u n f a m i l i a r one, he c o u l d be e x p e c t e d t o d e n o n s t r a t e i n d e c i - s i v e and o f t e n c o n t r a d i c t o r y b e h a v i o r u n t i l he became f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e b e h a v i o r which would b e s t meet h i s needs i n t h a t new s e t t i n g . He b e l i e v e d 12 t h a t t h e a d o l e s c e n t was i n such a t r a n s i t i o n a l p o s i t i o n . L i k e P i a g e t , Ausubel has w r i t t e n t h a t a d o l e s c e n c e i s a t r a n s i - t i o n a l p e r i o d . He has s t a t e d t h a t i n N o r t h A m e r i c a , t h i s t r a n s i t i o n a l p e r i o d i s p r o l o n g e d t o the p o i n t where we have d e v e l o p e d a group o f a n x i o u s a d o l e s c e n t s who have l o s t both t h e i r s t a t u s and t h e s e l f - 13 esteem t h a t goes w i t h i t . Hans S e b a l d has contended t h a t i n N o r t h America t h e r e i s a wide gap between t h e a d o l e s c e n t and h i s p a r e n t . T h i s gap has r e s u l t e d f r o m : a r a p i d l y c h a n g i n g s o c i e t y where v a l u e s h e l d by many p a r e n t s a r e not t h o s e h e l d by s o c i e t y and a r e t h e r e f o r e i n a p p r o p r i a t e t o pass on to t h e i r c h i l d r e n ; a t e c h n i c a l l y a d v a n c i n g s o c i e t y where work e t h i c s a r e no l o n g e r r e l e v a n t from one g e n e r a t i o n to the n e x t ; an u p w a r d l y m o b i l e s o c i e t y where lower c l a s s p a r e n t a l mores may not be a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t h e upward 14 m o b i l e c h i l d r e n . K. Lewin, F i e l d T h e o r y i n S o c i a l S c i e n c e (London: T a v i s t o c k P u b l i c a t i o n s L t d . , 1952), pp. 135-145. D.A. A u s u b e l , T h e o r i e s and Problems o f Adolescent B e h a v i o r (New Y o r k: Grune and S t r a t t o n , 1954), pp. 57-67. H. S e b a l d , A d o l e s c e n c e : A S o c i o l o g i c a l A n a l y s i s (New York: A p p l e t o n - C e n t u r y C r o f t s , 1968). 14 Kenniston has argued that youth finds i t most d i f f i c u l t to adapt to a changing society. They have outlived the social d e f i n i t i o n of childhood and not yet f u l l y located in the World of commitments and are most immediately,torn between the p u l l s of the past and the future. Research by Coleman and the Sherifs has tended to support the theory that adolescents are d i s t i n c t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t from adults in terms of their.value system. J . Coleman studied the values of adolescents across the United States and found that adolescents valued the star athlete while t h e i r parents valued the scholar. The Sherifs observed that adolescent groups formulated rules and value systems d i f f e r e n t from adult standards. It was to these group norms that the adolescent was committed.^ In contrast, in a Canadian study by El kin and Westley and in an American study by Hollingshead l i t t l e d ifference was found between the value system of adolescents and their parents. These researchers have, therefore, questioned i f in f a c t adolescence does represent a unique p e r i o d . 1 8 ' 1 9 15 K. Kenniston, "Social Change and Youth in America", Youth: Change and  Challenge, ed. E. Erikson (Mew York: Basic Books Inc., 1968), p. 169. ^ J.C. Coleman, "The Adolescent Subculture and Academic Achievement", American Journal of Sociology, 65: 337-347, 1960. ^ M. Sherif and C. Sherif, Reference Groups: Exploration into Conformity  and Deviation of Adolescents (New York: Harper and Row publishers, 1961) 18 F. El kin and W. Westley, "The Myth of Adolescent Culture", American Sociological Review, 20: 680-684, 1955. A. Holl p. 443. 1 9 lingshead, Elmtown's Youth (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1949), 15 C l a y B r i t t a i n ' s s t u d y c l a r i f i e d t h i s dilemma, t o some d e g r e e . He found t h a t a d o l e s c e n t s sought t h e i r p a r e n t s ' v a l u e s when t h e y f a c e d a d i f f i c u l t c h o i c e o r one t h a t p e r t a i n e d to t h e i r f u t u r e . A d o l e s c e n t s conformed more t o t h e i r p e e r s ' v a l u e s when the c h o i c e i n v o l v e d s o c i a l mores t h a t were i n c u l t u r a l t r a n s i t i o n s , and when immediate consequences were a n t i c i p a t e d . I f , however, t h e r e were c r o s s p r e s s u r e s , a d o l e s c e n t s 20 t r i e d t o a v o i d h o l d i n g n o t i c e a b l y d i f f e r e n t views from t h e i r p e e r s . Some doubt has a l s o been c a s t on the t h e o r y t h a t a d o l e s c e n c e i s a p e r i o d o f t u r m o i l and a t i m e f o r a p a i n f u l b r e a k i n g away from a d u l t s t o g a i n independence. E l k i n and W e s t l e y found t h a t t h e i r y o u t h p o p u l a t i o n 21 had c l o s e and open r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h t h e i r p a r e n t s . O f f e r , Marcus, and O f f e r showed t h a t a d o l e s c e n t s f e l t a s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h both t h e m s e l v e s and t h e i r p a r e n t s , independence was a c h i e v e d g r a d u a l l y and w i t h l i t t l e 22 or no d i s r u p t i o n . Bandura and Walker showed t h a t none o f t h e i r d a t a 23 s u p p o r t e d t h e t h e o r y t h a t a d o l e s c e n c e v/as a t i m e o f 'storm and s t r e s s ' . E i s e n b u r g wrote about the a d o l e s c e n t i n t h e f o l l o w i n g way: In h i s e f f o r t he examines h i s p a r e n t s from a more c r i t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e and l e a n s more t o peer groups f o r h i s sense o f b e l o n g i n g . I f h i s r e l a t i o n s w i t h h i s p a r e n t s have been s o u n d l y c o n s t r u c t e d d u r i n g e a r l i e r y e a r s , and i f t h e y meet h i s d o u b t and c r i t i c i s m w i t h s y m p a t h e t i c u n d e r s t a n d i n g , t h i s temporary u n s e t t l i n g o f h i s p r i o r r o l e as a c h i l d l e a d s t o a r e - s y n t h e s i s o f h i s r e l a t i o n s with.them C. B r i t t a i n , " A d o l e s c e n t C h o i c e s and P a r e n t - P e e r C r o s s P r e s s u r e s " , American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 28: 385-391, 1963. F. E l k i n and W. W e s t l e y , op, c i t . D. O f f e r , D. Marcus and J . O f f e r . "A L o n g i t u d i n a l Study o f Normal A d o l e s c e n t Boys", American J o u r n a l o f P s y c h i a t r y , 126: 921-924, 1970. A. Bandura, "The Stormy Decade: F a c t o r F i c t i o n ? " , P s y c h o l o g y i n t h e S c h o o l s , 1: 224, 1964. on a firm and lasting basis. . . .Where the parent c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p has been one of excessive h o s t i l i t y , the turmoil of adoles-cence may be prolonged and lead to f a i l u r e of emancipation, r e j e c t i o n or i s o l a t i o n . Depression Descriptions of the c l i n i c a l symptoms of depression have been 25 used since the time of Hyppocrates, in the fourth century B.C. In the second century A.D., Plutarch described the depressed patient i n the following manner: He looks on himself as a man whom the Gods hate and pursue with their anger. A far worse l o t i s before him; he dares not employ any means of averting or of remedying the e v i l , l e s t he be found f i g h t i n g against the Gods. The physicians, the consoling fr i e n d are driven away. In the nineteenth century Pine! offered the following d e s c r i p t i o n : The symptoms generally comprehended by the term melancholia are t a c i t u r n i t y , a thoughtful pensive a i r , gloomy suspicions, and a love of soli t u d e . Those t r a i t s , indeed, appear to d i s t i n g u i s h the characters of some men otherwise in good health and frequently in prosperous circumstances. Nothing, however, can be more hideous than the melancholic brooding over his imaginary mis-f o r t u n e s . ^ Much more recently, Beck portrayed the depressed person as having the following a t t r i b u t e s : 24 L. Eisenburg, "A Developmental Approach", Children, 12: 135, 1965. A. Beck, Depression (New York: Harper and Row, 1967), pp. 3-4. I. Zilboorg, A History of Medical Psychology (New York: Norton and Co. Inc., 1941), p. 67. 27 A. Beck, op. c i t . , p. 5. 17 1) A s p e c i f i c a l t e r a t i o n of mood: sadness, loneliness, apathy. 2) A negative self-concept associated with s e l f reproaches and self-blame. 3) Regressive and s e l f - p u n i t i v e wishes: desires to escape, hide or d i e . 4) Vegetative changes anorexia, insomnia, loss of libedo. 5) Changes in a c t i v i t y l e v e l : retardation or agitation.28 The use of the term depression has d i f f e r e d amongst authors. Some have used i t to encompass a f e e l i n g state that the average person experiences at some stage in his l i f e , a symptom of a disease, a disease 29 i t s e l f , or a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n for disease e n t i t i e s . When the term depression has been used as a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n heading for other diseases no consensus has been reached as to what 30 31 diseases should be placed under the term. ' TABLE I 3 2 METHODS OF DELINEATING DISEASE ENTITIES UNDER THE CLASSIFICATION OF DEPRESSION DELINEATING FACTORS DISEASE ENTITIES 1. internal or external cause 1. a) exogenous depression b) endogenous depression 2. reaction or lack of reaction 2. a) reactive depression to external events b) autonomous depression 3. predominant a c t i v i t y level 3. a) agitated depression b) retarded depression 4. r e a l i t y orientation or lack 4. a) neurotic depression b) psychotic depression 2 8 Ibid, p. 6. 29 " Ibid, p. 7. 3 0 Ibid, p. 8. 3 1 Ibid, p. 63. 3 2 Ibid. 18 Some authors have viewed depression as a single c l i n i c a l disorder. They have seen i t as a continuum where a f e e l i n g state common to most people l i e s at the one end of the continuum and an incapacitating disease stage l i e s at the other end. With this viewpoint i t becomes legitimate to talk of the momentary f e e l i n g of sadness as depression as well as the prolonged period of g r i e f that prevents the individual from meeting his needs, or leads to his s u i c i d a l act. Persons supporting t h i s theory have said that the difference in the depression i s the degree to which i t a f f e c t s the indivual thus the cause can be the same for a l l l e v e l s . Intervention i s not required u n t i l the individual draws close to the end of the 33 continuum. Causes of Depression According to e x i s t e n t i a l i s t s the depressed person i s born with a pre-morbid personality that gives him the potential to develop depression. The pre-morbid personality values o r d e r l i n e s s , and t r i e s to meet his obligations in an exacting manner but i s also very s e n s i t i v e to g u i l t . Depression r e s u l t s when he f e e l s he has f a l l e n behind in; 34 his obligations or a s p i r a t i o n s . Other th e o r i s t s believe that family environment predisposes the individual to become manic-depressive. If the mother i s the head of the family and the father i s weak or i s made to look so, and i f the c h i l d is made responsible for gaining family presitge, the s i t u a t i o n i s r i p e for that c h i l d to develop depression. These theorists have said that the interpersonal behavior of such a person i s structured by the 3 3 Ibid 3^ H. Tallenbach, Melancholia (West B e r l i n : Springer, 1961) c i t e d by A Beck, Depression (New York: Harper and Row, 1967), pp. 251-252. 19 b e l i e f that other people are either good or bad; no middle ground e x i s t s . ^ Numerous studies have been carried out to i d e n t i f y a b i o l o g i c a l substrate of depression. Few of their findings have been r e p l i c a t e d . Positive findings have, however, been consistently associated with sodium retention, changes in sleep electroencephalograms, and excessive levels of stearoids. The l a t t e r has, however, been shown to be non-specific 36 to depression. Further biochemical studies have shown that a depletion in active norepinephrine at central adrenergic receptor s i t e s r e s u l t s 37 in depressed states of animals. For psychoanalytic theorists,depression i s a reaction to loss of a real or perceived loved object - a person, a possession, a highly valued expectation, a previous state of s e l f , r o l e , or status. The loss i s considered to deprive the ego, therefore, h o s t i l i t y towards the l o s t object r e s u l t s . If this h o s t i l i t y i s not recognized and worked 38 39 40 through i t turns inward on the s e l f and depression r e s u l t s . ' ' 35 M.B. Cohen, G. Baker, R.A. Cohen, F. Fromm-Reichman, and E.V. Weigert, "An Intensive Study of Twelve Cases of Manic-Depressive Psychosis", Psychiatry, 17: 103, 1954. ^ A. Beck, op, c i t . , pp. 125-153. 37 J. Schildkraut, "The Catecholamine Hypothesis of A f f e c t i v e Disorders: A Review of Supporting Evidence", American Journal of Psychiatry, 122: 509-522, 1965. 38 G.L. Engel, Psychological Development on Health and Disease (Philadelphia Saunders, I960), p. 274. 39 J . Bowl by, "Grief and Mourning in Infancy and Early Childhood", Psycho- a n a l y t i c a l Study of the C h i l d , XV (New York: International U n i v e r s i t i e s Press, 1960), p. 9. 40 S. Freud, "Mourning and Melancholia", Collected Papers, XIV Standard Edition (Longon: Hogarth, 1949), pp. 152-173. 20 Adolescence, a Time of Loss Some authors have used the concept of loss to describe what happens to the adolescent and explain why he is vulnerable to depression. Anna Freud has written that during adolescence, youth has to detach himself from his parents and his i n f a n t i l e objects, and displace these feelings to other persons and in t e r e s t s . This represents object loss and requires the work of mourning. If the youth does not work through the mourning, i f he does not overtly express his f e e l i n g s , i f he turns his h o s t i l e feelings toward the l o s t object in on himself then depression 41 may ensue. Kenniston has also accorded an important place to the idea of loss i n adolescence. He sees the adolescent losing the warmth, love, spontaneity and imagination of childhood and being unable to replace these benefits or to forsee t h e i r replacements with any equal benefits i n 42 adolescence or adulthood. Mitchell has described the dilemma in a simil a r manner. Adulthood is a time when i t i s d i f f i c u l t to find work, or i f work i s av a i l a b l e , i t i s not a r e f l e c t i o n of the individual's c r e a t i v i t y or motivation. The adolescent can therefore keenly experience the loss of childhood and see l i t t l e replacement value f o r i t s joys and 43 p r i v i l e g e s , in adulthood. A. Freud, "Adolescence", The Psychoanalytical Study of the Chil d, XIII (New York: International U n i v e r s i t i e s Press, 1958), p. 255. K. Kenniston, "Social Change and Youth in America", Youth: Change and  Challenge, ed. E. Erickson (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1968), p. 176. J. M i t c h e l l , Adolescence: Some C r i t i c a l Issues (Toronto: Rinehart and Winston of Canada, 1971), pp. 45-74. 21 Lindemann wrote that loss always leads to g r i e f but does not of necessity lead to depression. If the individual works through his g r i e f , no pathology r e s u l t s . If s i g n i f i c a n t others help the individual face the r e a l i t y of the loss and supports him as he works through a r e a l i s t i c acceptance of the l o s s , his work i s less d i f f i c u l t . I f , however, the individual avoids or i s unable to a t t a i n interaction with others, his a b i l i t y to work through his g r i e f i s more d i f f i c u l t and depression 44 can r e s u l t . Therefore, i t may be said that an individual must have adequate s k i l l s in interpersonal r e l a t i o n s to a t t a i n support during a time of loss. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the Depressed Person Observation has usually been the f i r s t step in the diagnostic process. Although i t may be considered the simplest and quickest method of screening a large group of people, o b j e c t i v i t y and v a l i d i t y have been problematic. The question has been asked whether the observing and thus evaluating person has known what behavior to watch f o r , that i s , what 45 behavior was s i g n i f i c a n t , and what behavior could be overlooked. In trying to d i s t i n g u i s h the depressed adolescent, people have usually looked for c l i n i c a l signs and symptoms of depression but as Dr. Krakowski has warned, the depressed adolescent makes i t d i f f i c u l t for others to observe his depression by masking the usual signs with a facade of j o c u l a r i t y E. Lindemann, "Symptomatology and Management of Acute Grief", American  Journal of Psychiatry, 101: 141-144, 1944. W.A. Mehrens and I.J. Lehmann, Measurement and Evaluation in Educational  Psychology, (New York: Holt, Rinehardt and Winston, Inc., 1973) p. 519. A. Krakowski, "Depressive Reactions of Children and Adolescents", Psychosomatics, 11: 431, 1970. 22 In t h e p a s t i f a per s o n ' s b e h a v i o r s u g g e s t e d t h a t he was m a l a d j u s t e d , a t r a i n e d p r o f e s s i o n a l u s u a l l y i n t e r v i e w e d him and/or gave him p s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t s . I n t e r v i e w s , however, have been n o t o r i o u s l y dependent on t h e t h e o r e t i c a l background o r p e r s o n a l b e l i e f s o f t h e 47 48 49 i n t e r v i e w e r . ' ' I f p r o j e c t i v e t e s t s such as t h e R o r s c h a c h or T h e r m a t i c Apper- c e p t i o n T e s t were u s e d , h i g h l y q u a l i f i e d p r o f e s s i o n a l s were needed t o both a d m i n i s t e r and i n t e r p r e t t h e t e s t s ; even t h e n t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f such t e s t s has been q u e s t i o n e d . C e r t a i n l y t h e c o s t o f tim e to both the 50 51 t e s t o r and t h e t e s t e e has been r e c o g n i z e d . ' The M i n n e s o t a M u l t i - P h a s i c I n v e n t o r y ' s D S c a l e has a l s o been used t o i d e n t i f y t h e d e p r e s s e d p e r s o n . A l t h o u g h t h e s u b j e c t r a t e s h i s own b e h a v i o r , t h e fo r m a t o f t h e t e s t i s such t h a t a q u a l i f i e d p e r s o n i s needed t o a d m i n i s t e r and s c o r e i t . To b e n e f i t from t h e r e p o r t e d r e l i a b i l - i t y o f t h e t e s t , t h e com p l e t e MMPI has t o be a d m i n i s t e r e d . R e s e a r c h e r s have found t h i s cumbersome. E v a l u a t o r s o f the MMPI have a l s o s u g g e s t e d 52 t h a t i t i s s e n s i t i v e t o r e s p o n s e s e t s . 4 7 A. Beck, op, c i t . , pp. 173-175 48 W.A. Mehrens and I . J . Lehman, Measurement and E v a l u a t i o n i n E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y (New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r d t and W i n s t o n , I n c . , 1973), p. 519. 4 9 O.K. Buro (Ed.) The Seventh Mental Measurement's Yearbook, V o l . 1 ( H i g h l a n d P a r k , New J e r s e y : The Gryphen P r e s s , 1972). 5 0 I b i d , pp. 422-449. 5 1 I b i d , pp. 452-462. 5 2 I b i d . , pp. 223-266. 23 L e s s time has been r e q u i r e d t o a d m i n i s t e r , c o m p l e t e and s c o r e s t r u c t u r a l s e l f - r a t i n g i n v e n t o r i e s o f d e p r e s s i o n . L e s s s k i l l e d p e r s o n s have been used t o a d m i n i s t e r them b u t , the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y o f t h e s e t e s t s has v a r i e d . Examples o f t h e s e t y p e s o f t e s t s a r e as f o l l o w s : Jung's S e l f - R a t i n g D e p r e s s i o n S c a l e , D e p r e s s i o n A d j e c t i v e 53 54 55 Check L i s t , Beck's I n v e n t o r y o f D e p r e s s i o n . ' ' I n t e r p e r s o n a l B e h a v i o r F r i t z H e i d e r has d e s c r i b e d i n t e r p e r s o n a l b e h a v i o r as c o n s i s t i n g o f how man f e e l s o r t h i n k s about a n o t h e r p e r s o n , how he p e r c e i v e s t h e o t h e r p e r s o n and what he does t o him, what he e x p e c t s t he o t h e r p e r s o n 56 t o do or t h i n k , and how he r e a c t s to t h e a c t i o n s o f the o t h e r p e r s o n . L e a r y has d e f i n e d i t as b e h a v i o r t h a t i s r e l a t e d o v e r t l y , e t h i c a l l y , o r s y m b o l i c a l l y t o a n o t h e r human b e i n g , r e a l , c o l l e c t i v e , o r i m a g i n a r y . 57 He f e l t t h a t i n t e r p e r s o n a l b e h a v i o r was the u n i q u e human a s p e c t o f man. S t u d i e s o f man's i n t e r p e r s o n a l b e h a v i o r have been done s i n c e e a r l y times a c c o r d i n g t o H e i d e r . He wrote t h a t myth, f o l k - l o r e , CO A. Beck, D e p r e s s i o n (New York: Harper and Row, p u b l i s h e r , 1967), pp. 188-190. O.K. Buro (ec ( H i g h l a n d Park, New J e r s e y : The Gryphen P r e s s , 1972), pp. 320-321. ^ ed.) The Seventh Mental Measurement's Yearbook, V o l . 1 5 5 I b i d . , pp. 132-134. 5 6 I b i d . , pp. 15-19. ^ F. L e a r y , I n t e r p e r s o n a l D i a g n o s i s o f P e r s o n a l i t y (New York: The Ronald P r e s s Co., 1967), p. 4. 24 novels, poans and plays have been some of the best recordings of man's 58 interpersonal behavior to date. He also stated that there i s a need to study man's interaction more s c i e n t i f i c a l l y and that to do this in a comprehensive manner the following areas need to be analyzed: 1. a person's l i f e space, 2. his perception of his environment and the other person in i t , 3. his a b i l i t y to cause change, 4. his actual attempt to cause change, 5. his wish to cause change, 6. his sufferings from the e f f e c t of environmental change, 7. his feelings towards the other person, 8. the e f f e c t of the other person's allegiance to other person's or things, 5 g 9. his feelings of ought or should. Leary has asserted that the functional core of human behavior i s interpersonal and that personality concepts have to be defined along g an adjustment continuum which includes both normal and abnormal reactions. To understand interpersonal behavior attention must be given to four areas: 1. perceived behavior, 2. reaction of other people to the individual's behavior, 3. behavior of the individual over time, 4. c u l t u r a l and environmental influences on the individual's behavior. Leary has explained that perceived behavior should be studied at f i v e l e v e l s . The basic level i s that of public communication which consists of the interpersonal impact of the subject's overt behavior on others, as rated by others. The second l e v e l , conscious description, i s how the subject chooses to present himself and his views of the world; F. Heider, The Psychology of Interpersonal Behavior (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958), pp. 2-3. Ibid., pp. 15-19. Ibid., p. 56. 25 because i t i s his interpretation of his behavior, concensual accuracy has no bearing on the r a t i n g ; information on the th i r d l e v e l , private symbolization, can be sought from projective tests and ind i r e c t fantasy materials; the unexpressed unconscious i s the next level and i t con- s i s t s of the significantly-avoided patterns of behavior of the subject. The f i f t h level c a l l e d values, i s defined by the subject's choice of 61 interpersonal t r a i t s that he holds to be good, proper and r i g h t . Leary maintained that a l l interpersonal behavior involves more than one person, thus the second area of study should include (a) the reflex way people t a i l o r t h e i r responses to others, (b) the automatic ways C O they force others to react to them. He has also suggested that there are inconsistencies in the same level of behavior over a period of time, interpersonal behavior should thus be measured over a period of time to C O gain a more accurate analysis of the behavior. The fourth area of study Leary has been concerned with i s the e f f e c t of cu l t u r a l and environ- mental factors on a person's interpersonal behaviors, thus research should i d e n t i f y the environment in which the subjects act and the person with whom the subject is i n t e r a c t i n g , as this can a l t e r the subject's 64 interpersonal behavior. 6 1 Ibid, pp. 76-81 6 2 Ibid., p. 83. 6 3 Ibid, p. 243. 64 Ibid, 26 Studies of Adolescent Interpersonal Behavior A number of studies of the interpersonal behavior of adolescents have been done recently. In 1965 Meisner used the d i r e c t question method to gain data on the interaction of adolescents with 65 their parents. In the following year, also using d i r e c t questioning, Douvan and Adelson studied the interpersonal behavior of adolescent g i r l s and concluded that g i r l s ' development in the interpersonal sphere cc was the basis for t h e i r adolescent behavior. In 1970 Coleman studied the development of interpersonal behavior in adolescents using the r e s u l t of projective t e s t s . He found that there were changes in behavior at fi7 d i f f e r e n t ages within the adolescent period. Studies of Patient's Interpersonal Behavior Early in the history of psychiatry, H.S. S u l l i v a n used the interview method to study the interpersonal behavior of emotionally ill patients. He concentrated on discovering what the unique i n t e r - personal behavior patterns of patients s u f f e r i n g from a v a r i e t y of personality disorders were. He believed that s c i e n t i f i c study had to CO be the study of interpersonal behavior. 65 W.W. Meisner, "Parental Interaction of the Adolescent Boy", Journal of  Genetic Psychology, 107: 225, 1965. E. Douvan and J . Adelson, Thi Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966~JT J.C. Coleman, "The Perceptioi Adolescence", B r i t i s h Journal of Educational Psychology, 40: 253, 1970. CO H.S. S u l l i v a n , "Tensions Interpersonal and International: A Psychia- e Adolescent Experience (New York: John ^ n of Interpersonal Relationships During t r i s t ' s View", in Tensions that Cause Woe, ed., H. C a n t r i l (Urbana, I l l i n o i s : University of I l l i n o i s Press, 1950), p. 92, 27 In 1967 a d i s c i p l e of Sul l i v a n ' s , P. Mullahy wrote that anxiety was the central cause of various kinds or categories of mental i l l n e s s , and that anxiety originated and operated only in the i n t e r - personal context, i t "could not occur in the absence of inadequate 69 interpersonal r e l a t i o n s " . He believed, therefore, that psychiatry was circumscribed by the processes which involve or go on between p e o p l e . ^ A Study of Depressed Women's Interpersonal Behavior In 1970 Paykel et al were looking for a r e l i a b l e means of ide n t i f y i n g improvement in the depressed state of women patients. Using a semi-structured interview based on a developed rating scale they found that f i v e dimensions of social adjustment could i d e n t i f y improvement in their patients. One dimension measured the work performance of the patient, the other four dimensions measured various aspects of their interpersonal r e l a t i o n s - interpersonal f r i c t i o n , i nhibited communication, submissive dependency and family attachments. Summary The l i t e r a t u r e has suggested that adolescents may be p a r t i c u l a r l y vulnerable to depression. Adolescence has been represented as a period during which youth has l o s t his status and pr i v i l e g e s of childhood. This loss r e s u l t s in g r i e f , and g r i e f unless worked through to a r e a l i s t i c P. Mullahy, A Study of Interpersonal Relations (New York: Science House, 1967), p. xx. 7 0 Ibid. 28 a c c e p t a n c e becomes d e p r e s s i o n . The a d o l e s c e n t c o u l d work t h r o u g h h i s g r i e f w i t h the h e l p o f f r i e n d s or f a m i l y ; the p e r s o n w i t h o u t t h i s h e l p , however, would f i n d i t more d i f f i c u l t to do so. The a d o l e s c e n t who f i n d s i t d i f f i c u l t t o r e l a t e w i t h o t h e r s may be more prone t o d e p r e s s i o n . Y e t , i n t e r p e r s o n a l b e h a v i o r p a t t e r n s have not been used as a means o f d e t e c t i n g d e p r e s s i o n i n a d o l e s c e n t s . CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Study Population The study population consisted of one hundred and two adoles- cents drawn from a r e s i d e n t i a l centre and four Catholic high schools in Greater Vancouver. Adolescents at the treatment centre represented an availa b l e population of adolescents with emotional problems. It was postulated that among t h i s group there would be a high potential f o r some adolescents to be depressed. The remaining adolescent population was made up of randomly selected youths in four Catholic high schools.. Data were co l l e c t e d i n these high schools as t h e i r administrators were amenable to having t h i s type of research done in t h e i r schools. Four schools out of a possible eight were sampled to gain a total population of over one hundred. On suggestion of the school administration, high schools in Burnaby, North Vancouver, East Vancouver and Point Grey were used i n order that most socio- economic groups would be represented. It was recognized that the very poor c h i l d had less l i k e l i h o o d of attending a Catholic school in B r i t i s h Columbia as t u i t i o n fees are required. Selection of Population from the Treatment Centre Thirty-nine adolescents attended the treatment centre during the period of November fourteen, 1972 to February one, 1973 when the research took place; of those, twenty-five participated in the study. Written consent had been obtained from the acting administrator of the treatment centre to ask each of the 39 students to be part of the research project. 30 Thirty seven were approached to participate in the project. Two were ruled out on the grounds that they had previously participated in the pre-test. Nine adolescents chose not to take part in the study. Three adolescents were unable to complete the inventories as they were unable to concentrate f o r the required period of time. See Appendix A f o r information on the philosophy of the Treatment Centre. Selection of the Population from the High Schools A t o t a l of ninety-two adolescents were randomly selected from the alphabetical school l i s t s of four high schools and asked to p a r t i c i - pate in the study; of those seventy-five took part in the f i n a l study. Written consent had been obtained from the Catholic School administration to approach the pri n c i p a l s of the Catholic high schools in Greater Vancouver to ask i f t h e i r students might p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study. Four p r i n c i p a l s were v i s i t e d and the research was explained to them. Although one p r i n c i - pal asked that his students not p a r t i c i p a t e , another principal whose school was in the same area consented. The randomly selected students were approached about p a r t i c i p a t i n g . One student refused. Parental or guardian consent was sought f o r the ninety-one students, who indicated a willingness to p a r t i c i p a t e in the study. (A copy of the consent l e t t e r i s found in Appendix B). Nine consent l e t t e r s were not returned by the day the inven- t o r i e s were scheduled to be answered.Five adolescents who had written consent were absent on the day the research took place in t h e i r high school. FIGURE 1 SELECTION OF THE POPULATION FROM THE TREATMENT CENTRE NOVEMBER 14, 1972 - FEBRUARY 1, 1973 32 FIGURE 2 SELECTION OF THE POPULATION FROM RANDOMLY SELECTED CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS JANUARY 15, 1973 to MARCH 14, 1973 Instruments In t h i s study s e l f report inventories were used to obtain i n - formation on adolescents f e e l i n g s and interpersonal behaviors. The instruments used were Becks Depression Inventory and McNair and Lorr's Interpersonal Behavior Inventory, adapted by the researcher f o r an adolescent population. These tools were selected on the grounds that they seemed well suited to the purpose of the study; they offered a means of c o l l e c t i n g data i n a standardized way; and they could be administered by someone less q u a l i f i e d than a c l i n i c a l p s y c h i a t r i s t or psychologist. Scoring could be done and normative values might be avai l a b l e with which to make v a l i d comparisons between the subjects of t h i s research and those of others. Moreover, information could be quickly obtained from a large number of respondents. Beck's Depression Inventory This inventory consists of items drawn from systematic observa- tions and recordings of attitudes and symptoms of depressed patients that are consistent with descriptions of depression found i n the l i t e r a t u r e . It was designed to i d e n t i f y the depressed person. Normative scores were established to d i s t i n g u i s h between low, moderate and high levels of depression. These were 0-13, 14-25, and 25 and over, respectively. In the inventory c h a r a c t e r i s t i c attitudes and symptoms were grouped into twenty-one categories: sadness, pessimism, sense of f a i l u r e , d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , g u i l t , expectation of punishment, s e l f - d i s l i k e , s e l f - accusation, s u i c i d a l ideas, crying, i r r i t a b i l i t y , s ocial withdrawal, i n - decisiveness, body image change, work retardation, insomnia, f a t i g a b i l i t y , 34 anorexia, weight l o s s , somatic pre-occupation, loss of l i b i d o . These categories became questions one through to twenty-one, respectively. Each question then consisted of a graded series of four to f i v e s e l f - evaluative statements. Numerical values from zero to three were assigned to each statement to indicate the level of severity of the symptom. In many questions there were two a l t e r n a t i v e statements of equal value pre- sented. Details of the inventory can be found in Appendix C, In developing the test Beck subjected i t to various s t a t i s t i c a l checks. An item analysis of 606 cases showed that the categories of depression correlated p o s i t i v e l y with the total depression score (range .31- .68). These were a l l s i g n i f i c a n t at the .001 l e v e l . Pearson's r between the odd and even categories was computed and yielded a r e l i a b i l i t y coef- f i c i e n t of .86; with a Spearman Brown Correction, t h i s c o e f f i c i e n t rose to .93. The test was administered to t h i r t y - e i g h t patients at two d i f f e r e n t times. Each time a c l i n i c a l estimate of the depth of depression was made by a p s y c h i a t r i s t . The change in the scores on the inventory p a r a l l e l l e d the changes in c l i n i c a l ratings of the depth of depression. The Kraskal- Wallis One-way Analysis of Variance by Ranks was used to evaluate the st a t - i s t i c a l s i gnificance of the differences between the mean scores of each level of depression. The p-value of these differences was < 0.001J Similar r e s u l t s were found when the inventory was used i n England by Metcalfe and Goldman. Correlations between scores on the Depression Inventory and c l i n i c a l judgments concerning depth of depression was s i g n i f i c a n t at the 0.001 level in studies done by Beck and replicated by Metcalfe. A ^ A. Beck, Depression (New York: Harper and Row, 1967), pp. 193-200. 35 higher c o r r e l a t i o n existed between the Depression Inventory score and c l i n i c a l ratings of depression, than existed between the c l i n i c a l ratings and scores on the D scale of the MMPI. When the Depression Inventory scores were correlated with other tests f o r depression the following correlations were found: 1. Depression Inventory with MMPI D Scale r = .75 2. " with Hamilton Rating Scale r = .75 3. " " with Lubins Depression Adjective Check L i s t r = .66. McNair and Lorr's Interpersonal Behavior Inventory The f i n a l revised edition of thi s inventory consists of 140 state- ments covering f i f t e e n behavior categories that were selected from the l i t e r a t u r e : dominance, competition, aggression, mistrust, detachment, i n h i b i - t i o n , submissiveness, succorance, abasement, deference, agreeableness, nurturance, a f f e c t i o n , s o c i a b i l i t y , e x h i b i t i o n . Each statement i s rated according to the frequency that i t ' s behavior i s exhibited; not at a l l , occasionally, usually, and very often. Three experiments were designed and multiple factor analysis was done to test i f these behavior categories existed. In the f i r s t experiment 163 psychologists and ps y c h i a t r i s t s in private and public practice used the inventory to describe a total of 346 patients as well as 86 normal i n d i v i d u a l s . It was then used by 254 seniors and graduates i n psychology to describe 290 normal men and women. F i n a l l y , a group of therapists employed the inventory to rate the behavior 2 Ibid. 36. of si x t y neurotic patients. The hypotheses was supported. ' ' Pre-tests by the Researcher The purpose of the pre-tests was two-fold: 1. to determine whether adolescents aged thirteen to seventeen could use the inventories to rate t h e i r own feelings and behavior, 2. to gain expertise i n administering the inventories. It was discovered that no changes were required i n Beck's Depres- sion Inventory but modifications were needed in the wording of McNair and Lorr's Interpersonal Behavior Inventory and the grouping of questions. Adaptations to the inventory were made and pre-tested u n t i l the inventory could be understood and used by the youngest adolescent i n the study. Details of these pre-tests are in Appendix C and D. A s p l i t h a l f , odd-even check for r e l i a b i l i t y using Pearson's Pro- duct C o e f f i c i e n t of Corr e l a t i o n , was used to discover the r e l i a b i l i t y of the f i n a l l y adapted interpersonal behavior inventory. It revealed a c o r r e l a - tion of .96. This adapted form of McNair and Lorr's Interpersonal Behavior Inventory was then sent to Dr. Lorr. He wrote: Your revisions seem very plausible and reasonable. The major questions one might have i s whether your subjects w i l l tend to answer in a s o c i a l l y desireable d i r e c t i o n , otherwise you have converted the statements in a commendable way.6 M. Lorr and D. McNair, "An Interpersonal Behavior C i r c l e " , Journal of Ab- normal and Social Psychology, 67: 68-75, 1963. M. Lorr and D. McNair, "Expansion of the Interpersonal Behavior C i r c l e " , Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2: 823-883, 1965. M. Lorr and A. Suziedelis, "The Interpersonal Behavior Inventory", B r i t i s h  Journal of Social and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 8: 124: 132, 1969. Based on personal correspondence between Dr. CM. Lorr, Professor, Department of Psychology, Catholic University and the writer. 37 It was decided that f o r the purpose of t h i s study the p o s s i b i l i t y of biased answers due to s e l f - r e p o r t would be a l i m i t a t i o n of the study. Adapted Interpersonal Behavior Inventory A1B1 The A1B1 resulted from changes made in McNair and Lorr's Inter- personal Behavior Inventory. The A1B1 contains three sections: A, B, and C. Sections A and B contain f i f t y statements; Section C contains f o r t y . Each statement can be rated as: not a l l a l l , occasionally, usually, a l l the time. The values for these r e p l i e s are one to four respectively. Details of the A1B1 can be found i n Appendix D. Administration of the Inventories Two-hour periods were scheduled f o r the researcher to administer the inventories to groups of adolescents i n both the treatment centre and the high schools. Data were c o l l e c t e d from the treatment centre during f i v e two- hour periods. Four periods were a l l o t e d f o r completion of the inventories by students in each of the four residences in the treatment centre; a f i f t h period was established to allow l a t e r admissions to the centre, the oppor- tunity to p a r t i c i p a t e in the research. Data from the high schools were co l l e c t e d in one two-hour period spent in each of the four high schools. It was explained to each group that during the next two hours there were two inventories to be answered; one concerning how they f e l t and one about how they thought they usually acted towards other people. They were t o l d that the answers to these questions might be useful in helping i n the early treatment of teenagers with problems. They were reminded that 38 t h e i r answers were confidential and that they were free to withdraw from the study at any time. I n a b i l i t y to complete the questionnaires would not be reported to the teachers; i t would simply mean that t h e i r set of incomplete answers would not be used for the study. A set of four coded o.m.fl. com- puter cards and a medium soft pencil with eraser were d i s t r i b u t e d to each student. Instructions on how to use the cards were given and t h i s was then demonstrated. The researcher was aviTable to a s s i s t with problems using these cards, as they arose. F i r s t the Beck's Depression Inventory was d i s t r i b u t e d to each student. Directions were given on how to answer the inventory and demonstrated. When i t was completed the Adapted Interpersonal Behavior Inventory was handed out and the same procedure of explanation and demonstration followed. To minimize the p o s s i b i l i t y that subjects would answer in a s o c i a l l y desirable way, they were ensured that t h e i r answers were anonymous. To further motivate the subjects to answer t r u t h f u l l y , they were t o l d that l i t t l e had been written about how adolescents viewed t h e i r own f e e l i n g s , and interactions with others and that i t was hoped that by finding out t h i s information, nurses could help other teenagers with problems in these areas. Exactly the same procedure was followed in the high school groups as was used with the treatment centre groups. The researcher was the only person who gave the directions and answered questions in a l l the groups. CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS Data was analyzed to: categorize adolescents into three groups; determine differences in interpersonal behavior group mean scores; discover interpersonal behavioral correlates of depression; i d e n t i f y interpersonal behavior categories that can distin g u i s h the highly depressed, moderately depressed and non-depressed adolescent. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Non-Depressed, Moderately Depressed and Highly Depressed Adolescents Using a Depression Inventory The f i r s t step i n the treatment of the data was to categorize adolescents into three groups on the basis of t h e i r depression inventory scores: non-depressed, moderately depressed, high depressed. A value f o r each reply on the Depression Inventory was obtained by using a s p e c i f i c a l l y designed computer program SCALER (See Appendix C for values). These values were aggregated to obtain a score f o r each subject. Those with scores in the range of 0.-3 were c a l l e d non-depressed, those in the range of 14-24 were c a l l e d moderately depressed and those who gained 25 or above were i d e n t i f i e d as highly depressed (Table 2). Differences in Interpersonal Behavior Scores of Non-Depressed, Moderately Depressed, Highly Depressed Adolescents A value f o r each reply on the A1B1 was obtained using an extension of the SCALER program (see Appendix D for values). A score was then com- puted f o r each subject, for each of the f i f t e e n behavior categories in the A l B l . Next, the UBC program ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE was used to calcu l a t e mean scores and standard deviations (Table 3). Analysis of variance was TABLE 2 NUMBER OF ADOLESCENTS CLASSIFIED AS NON-DEPRESSED, MODERATELY DEPRESSED, HIGHLY DEPRESSED NON-DEPRESSED MODERATELY DEPRESSED HIGHLY DEPRESSED 0-13 14-24 25 -> n 48 38 16 total = 102 TABLE 3 SCORES OF NON DEPRESSED, MODERATELY DEPRESSED AND HIGHLY DEPRESSED GROUPS ON 15 INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIOR CATEGORIES INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIORS NON-DEPRESSED Mean Score STRD Dev. MODERATELY Mean Score DEPRESSED STRD Dev. HIGHLY Mean Score DEPRESSED STRD. Dev. Dominance 18.250 2.7637 18.947 3.2378 16.375 2.9637 Competition 19.812 4.0720 22.158 4.0305 22.250 4.7539 Aggression 17.979 3.5639 19.684 3.9600 22.437 5.6800 Mistrust 17.625 3.6532 20.816 3.8484 24.375 4.2249 Detachment 20.625 3.6063 21.395 4.2141 28.313 6.7796 Inhibition 15.208 3.3260 16.105 3.9235 21.062 5.9830 Submission 20.375 3.2917 21.026 3.6279 24.312 5.4738 Succorance 19.917 3.5719 22.263 4.1374 23.688 2.1515 Abasement 17.021 3.3294 18.237 4.2199 21.062 4.2185 Deference 24.979 3.6987 23.553 3.6517 23.000 7.1461 Agreeableness 24.375 3.2592 23.132 2.5698 21.750 3.8210 Nurturance 26.813 4.0668 25.974 4.0100 26.312 4.6147 Affec t i o n 19.583 3.7634 18.211 2.5697 17.313 4.3162 S o c i a b i l i t y 24.833 4.6646 26.184 4.5432 22.00 5.0200 Exhibition 15.167 3.8278 17.263 3.5082 14.812 3.2087 N = 102 df = 101 42 then car r i e d out to discover i f there was a difference in the interpersonal behavior category mean scores of non-depressed, moderately depressed and highly depressed adolescents that was greater than chance. It was found that non-depressed, moderately depressed, and highly depressed adolescents had s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t mean scores in thirteen out of f i f t e e n interpersonal behavior categories, namely: dominance succorance aggression abasement mistrust agreeableness competition a f f e c t i o n detachment s o c i a b i l i t y i n h i b i t i o n exhibition submission In a l l thirteen cases the F r a t i o was greater than 3.09 which was the c r i t - i c a l value of F at .05 with two degrees of freedom f o r the greater mean square and one hundred degrees of freedom f o r the lesser mean square. The F r a t i o was highly s i g n i f i c a n t f o r : mistrust, detachment, i n h i b i t i o n . The chance pr o b a b i l i t y of obtaining the observed F value f o r the thirteen interpersonal behavior categories was less than .05. Non-depressed, moderately depressed and highly depressed adoles- cents did not have s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t mean scores on: deference, nur- turance. For these categories the F r a t i o was less than 3.09 and the F pro b a b i l i t y was greater than .05 (Table 4). This analysis rejects the null hypothes number one and shows that there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the interpersonal behavior scores of non-depressed, moderately depressed and highly depressed adolescents. This suggests that non-depressed, moderately depressed, and highly depressed adolescents may interact d i f f e r e n t l y with others in thirteen areas: domin- ance, competition, mistrust, aggression, detachment, i n h i b i t i o n , submission, succorance, abasement, agreeableness, a f f e c t i o n , s o c i a b i l i t y , e xhibition. TABLE 4 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIOR CATEGORIES OF NON, MODERATELY DEPRESSED AND HIGHLY DEPRESSED ADOLESCENTS BEHAVIOR CATEGORIES F RATIO c D.F = 2/99 CHANCE PROBABILITY OF F Dominance 4.2033 .0175 Competition 4.1213 .0188 Aggression 7.3554 .0012 Mistrust 20.6336 .0000 Detachment 18.7309 .0000 Inhibition 12.7495 .0000 Submission 6.4609 .0025 Succorance 8.2705 .0006 Abasement 6.7411 .0020 Deference 1.7616 .1750 Agreeableness 4.6748 .0115 Nurturance 0.4432 .6488 Affection 3.2184 .0431 S o c i a b i l i t y 4.5154 .0132 Exhibition 4.3970 .0147 N = 102 df = 2,99 C r i t i c a l value of F at .05 level = 3.09 44 Interpersonal Behavior Correlates of Depression To d i s c o v e r . i f there were interpersonal behavior categories that s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with depression (Hypothesis II) simple regression analysis and multiple stepwise regression analysis was car r i e d out using UBC computer program TRIP, subroutines INMSDC, SIMREG and STPREG. Simple Regression Analysis This was computed to discover i f there was a zero c o r r e l a t i o n be- tween depression scores and each of the interpersonal behavior category scores. If a zero c o r r e l a t i o n existed between the two variables i t was interpreted to mean that no systematic r e l a t i o n to each other existed. It was found that a c o r r e l a t i o n s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from 0 existed between depression scores and scores on ten d i f f e r e n t interpersonal behavior categories. The F p r o b a b i l i t y was less than .05 f o r a l l ten cases. High scores on the Depression Inventory s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with high scores on the following interpersonal behavior categories: 1. competition 2. aggression 3. mistrust 4. detachment 5. i n h i b i t i o n 6. submission 7. succorance 8. abasement (Table 5) High scores on the depression inventory correlated with low scores on the interpersonal behavior categories: 9. agreeableness 10. a f f e c t i o n A c o r r e l a t i o n between depression scores and scores on f i v e d i f f e r e n t interpersonal behavior categories was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from 0. These were: 1. exhibition 2. dominance 3. s o c i a b i l i t y 4. exhibition 5. nurturance (Table 6) 45 TABLE 5 SIMPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS, SIGNIFICANT PREDICTORS CRITERION PREDICTORS CORRELATION F RATIO F PROBABILITY VARIABLE COEFFICIENT Depression Mistrust 1.212 64.49 .0000 Detachment .8560 34.90 .0000 Inhibition .8790 26.07 .0000 Succorance .9913 24.29 .0000 Submissiveness .9310 22.76 .0000 Aggression .7997 19.00 .0001 Abasement .7991 15.02 .0003 Competition .5692 8.573 .0043 Agreeableness - .7208 7.714 .0065 Affec t i o n - .5835 5.980 .0155 46 TABLE 6 SIMPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS, NON SIGNIFICANT PREDICTORS CRITERION PREDICTORS CORRELATION F RATIO F PROBABILITY VARIABLE COEFFICIENT Depression Dominance - .3835 1.869 .1711 S o c i a b i l i t y - .2221 1.597 .2139 Deference - .2344 1.437 .2316 Exhibition .1906 .6762 .4180 Nurturance - .1333 .3984 .5367 47 This analysis rejects the null hypothesis and shows that there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between depression scores and interpersonal behavior category scores on competition, aggression, mistrust, detachment, i n h i b i t i o n , submission, succorance, abasement, agreeableness and a f f e c t i o n . This i s a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n for the f i r s t eight categories and a negative c o r r e l a t i o n for the remaining two. The findings of the regression a n a l y s i s , therefore predict that an adolescent who shows frequent interpersonal behaviors c l a s s i f i e d under competition, agression, mistrust, detachment, i n h i b i t i o n , submission, succorance and abasement and rare interpersonal behavior c l a s s i f i e d under agreeableness and a f f e c t i o n , may be depressed. Multiple Regression Analysis Given that the simple regression analysis indicated that there were interpersonal behavior categories s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with depres- sion, the more sophisticated multiple step-wise regression analysis was c a r r i e d out. This was computed to discover which predictors (interpersonal behavior categories) had a s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t c o r r e l a t i o n than 0, with depression, when i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n of the interpersonal behavior categories were considered (Table 7). This analysis showed that there was a c o r r e l a t i o n s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from 0, between depression scores and four interpersonal behavior categories. There was a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between high scores in depres- sion and high scores i n : mistrust, competition, succorance. There was a negative c o r r e l a t i o n between high scores in depression and high scores in dominance. The F p r o b a b i l i t y f o r these observations was less than .05 (Table 8). TABLE 7 MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS CORRELATION BETWEEN INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIOR CATEGORIES o o 3> 2 o o o •—1 m 2 o OO —t * -a —1 3= ZZ m m ZO o J» —1 CO cz rr. i oo oo 2 O —1 \— i —1 m m »—» o zz o zz —I ZZ Dominance 1.00 Competition + .592 1.00 Aggression + .424 .432 1.00 Mistrust + .137 .168 .366 1.00 Detachment -.807 .938 .240 .487 1.00 Inhibition -.273 -.184 -.225 .366 .583 Submission -.212 .552 -.965 .304 .410 Succorance + .319 .346 .258 .366 .871 Abasement -.900 .180 -.106 .262 .184 Deference .144 .331 -.148 -.825 .235 Agreeableness -.406 .347 -.396 -.116 -.320 Nurturance .208 -.966 -.226 .382 -.344 Aff e c t i o n .279 .998 -.223 -.204 -.296 S o c i a b i l i t y .205 .248 .464 -.119 r.425 Exhibition .520 .607 .409 .141 -.189 i—i oo oo 3=> o 3a zz 3> oo zz cr. cr co m O cz -n o nr co o -n zo zo -n <-> i — t o OO r n m —1 m I—1 CO * — *  m zo m cr o 3» t—t OO zo 2 m y> zo —1 CO —1 00 m zz CO 3=- i—i 1—1 I—1 K - 1 zz zz o ZZ o f— o o o —\ m m o zz t—t zz. m NESS m TY 1.00 .461 1.00 .674 .251 1.00 .340 .507 -.368 1.00 .762 .448 .110 .447 1.00 -.664 .156 -.411 .321 .501 1.00 .198 .225 -.148 .432 .280 .523 1.00 -.123 .178 .119 .309 .345 .555 .567 1.00 -.436 -.561 .301 .144 .192 .359 .414 .545 1.00 -.311 -.324 .448 .138 .130 .599 -.414 .249 .411 1. TABLE 8 MULTIPLE STEP-WISE REGRESSION ANALYSIS SIGNIFICANT PREDICATORS INDEPENDENT CORRELATION F RATIO F PROB VARIABLES COEFFICIENT Mistrust .9210 32.2510 .0000 Dominance -.9519 15.0191 .0003 Competition .5233 7.8903 .0060 Succorance .4209 4.5941 .0322 50 The addition of the other eleven interpersonal behavior category scores did not s i g n i f i c a n t l y improve the prediction of the depression scores. That i s , when the correlations between mistrust, competition, succorance, dominance and the eleven remaining interpersonal behavior categories was eliminated, the F p r o b a b i l i t y was greater than .05 (Table 9). This analysis rejects the null hypothesis number two and shows that there is a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between depression and four i n t e r - personal behavior categories. It suggests that we may be able to predict that an adolescent i s depressed i f he portrays frequent interpersonal behavior c l a s s i f i e d as mistrust, competition, succorance, and rare interpersonal behavior c l a s s i f i e d as dominance. Interpersonal Behavior Categories that Distinguish Between Non-Depressed, Moderately Depressed and Highly Depressed Adolescents To discover and i s o l a t e the interpersonal behavior categories which best d i s t i n g u i s h between whether an adolescent i s non-depressed, moderately depressed or highly depressed, the UBC computer program STEP- WISE DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS was used. This program performs a multiple discriminant analysis in a step- wise manner. At each step, one variable i s entered into the set of discrim- inating variables. The variable entered i s selected because i t holds the least F p r o b a b i l i t y value. Only variables with an F p r o b a b i l i t y less than .05 are entered as discriminators. Four variables ( i e . four interpersonal behavior categories) were selected that could c l a s s i f y adolescents as non-depressed, moderately depres- sed and highly depressed. They were: mistrust, detachment, dominance, com- pe t i t i o n (Table 10). 51 TABLE 9 MULTIPLE STEP-WISE REGRESSION ANALYSIS NON-SIGNIFICANT PREDICATORS INDEPENDENT VARIABLES PARTIAL CORRELATION WITH SIGNIFICANT PREDICATORS UNEXPLAINED VARIANCE F PROB Detachment .1799 .6123 .0727 Aggression .1604 .6274 .1104 Inhibition .1595 .6293 .1125 Agreeabl eness .1412 .9322 .1616 Aff e c t i o n .1325 .8749 .1900 Submission .0972 .6836 .3436 Deference .0964 .8705 .3475 Exhibition .08 6 6 .5223 .4011 Nurturance .0267 .9759 .7830 S o c i a b i l i t y .0180 .8707 .8373 Abasement .0122 .7147 .8723 TABLE 10 DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS VARIABLES TO INCLUDE AS DISCRIMINATORS VARIABLES F PROB Mistrust - .0006 Detachment .0043 Competition .0281 Dominance .0052 53 The other eleven categories of interpersonal behavior did not s i g n i f i c a n t l y increase the likelihood of c l a s s i f y i n g the adolescents c o r r e c t l y (Table 11). Once mistrust, detachment, dominance and competition had been selected, their F probability was greater than .05 (Table 12). When only the four behavior categories were used, 58.8% of the adolescents could be c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f i e d as non-depressed, moderately depressed or highly depressed (Table 13). This analysis rejected the null hypotheses and showed that mistrust, detachment, dominance and competition can be used to d i s - tinguish i f an adolescent i s non-depressed, moderately depressed or highly depressed. D i f f i c u l t y arose in the d i s t i n c t i o n of adolescents whos Depression Inventory or AIBI scores neared the cut o f f score between groups. Two factors may explain t h i s . A standard error of measurement existed f o r both the Depression Inventory scores and each of the Interpersonal Behavior Category scores as shown in Appendix C and D. The other explanation complementary to t h i s was that the scores tended to flow on a continuum thus scores close to any cut off point were naturally d i f f i c u l t to d i f f e r e n t i a t e from one another. These fi n d i n g s , therefore, tend to support the theoretical assumption that depression f a l l s along a continuum. TABLE 11 DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS VARIABLES TO EXCLUDE AS DISCRIMINATORS VARIABLES F PROB Aggression .2210 Inhibition .7273 Submission . .8953 Succorance .2432 Abasement .6670 Deference .0732 Agreeableness .1490 Nurturance .6942 Affec t i o n .3017 S o c i a b i l i t y .6825 Exhibition .5946 TABLE 12 DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS STEP-WISE SELECTION OF VARIABLES TO BE ENTERED VARIABLE TED  ED TED  TED  TED  o i — o CJ o UJ UJ i— o CVJ Ul CO Ul •^t UJ CC —1 Ul _ J _ J _ l o Ul CH _ J CC UJ UJ CC Ul u. oo Ul Ul UJ oo U J oo Ul oo Ul co oo t M 1— u_ oo 1— u_ oo h-U. 00 Ul eg; U J <C u i e t Ul C t Ul Ul _ l _ i _ i _ J _ J ca co ca ca co ca CO CO CO CO O «=C O < o <c o < O < cc I - I CC i—i CC i—i CC HH CC i—i Q- CC Q- CC o_ cc Cu CC Q. CC <: =t e t e t < u. > u. > U. > u. > u. > Donimance .0175 .0078 .0329 Competition .0188 .1904 .1918 .0281 Aggression .0012 .3834 .5415 .0909 .2210 Mistrust .0000 Detachment .0000 .0007 • Inhi b i t i o n .0000 .0120 .4983 .8997 .7273 Submission .0025 .1587 .8069 .9863 .8953 Succorance .0006 .2505 .2193 .0854 .2432 Abasement .0020 .1827 .3111 .3811 .6670 Deference .1755 .5006 .1894 .3637 .0732 Agreeableness .0115 .1540 .1526 .1715 .1490 Nurturance .6480 .6076 .5753 .5760 .6942 Affec t i o n .0431 .5538 .4324 .4160 .3017 S o c i a b i l i t y .0132 .0268+ .3829 .4685 .6825 Exhibition .0147 .0157 .1535 .2009 .5946 VARIABLES ELIGIBLE FOR ENTRY WHEN F PROB < .05 56 TABLE 13 DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS GOODNESS OF CLASSIFICATION INTO NON-DEPRESSED, MODERATELY DEPRESSED AND HIGHLY DEPRESSED GROUPS DEPRESSION INVENTORY N DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION GROUPS GROUPS Non-Depressed Mod, Depressed Highly Depressed Non-Depressed 48 30 16 2 Moderately Depressed 38 13 19 6 Highly Depressed 16 1 4 11 102 Discussion The behavioral factors which emerged as s i g n i f i c a n t in this study of depression in adolescents were: mistrust, competition, dominance, detachment, succurance. These same factors have been singled out as important in the more recent l i t e r a t u r e concerning depression. However, the suppressed h o s t i l i t y so frequently mentioned by the schools of psychoanalytic thought, was not supported. Mistrust The most s i g n i f i c a n t factor in distinguishing between the non-depressed, moderately depressed, and highly depressed adolescent was mistrust. Analyses showed that as depression increased, so did the frequency of this type of behavior. E. Erikson has written that adults who withdraw into habitual states of depression have a weakness in basic t r u s t . They have therefore, f a i l e d to master the f i r s t task of childhood; they have not learned to r e l y on a c e r t a i n continuity of care from others, nor on th e i r own sensations or b e l i e f s / Cohen et al wrote that the depressed person manipulates others for his ov/n benefit. The depressed person also sees his own behavior as fraudulent because he knows he tends to undersell himself. This s p l i t between portrayed behavior and actual a b i l i t y must lead the depressed person to be suspicious of the feedback others give him regarding his overt behavior. E. Erikson, Childhood and Society (New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1963) pp. 247-251. M. Cohen, G. Baker, R.A. Cohen, F. Fromm-Reichman, and E. Weigert, "An Intensive Study of Twelve Cases of Manic-Depressive Psychosis", Psychiatry, 17: 121, 1954. Questions on the AIBI that were concerned with mistrust were: 1. When people are kind to me, I look to see i f they are doing i t so they can get something from me. 2. I mistrust or question indications of a f f e c t i o n from others. 3. When I do something, people think I am doing i t for a d i f f e r e n t reason than why I am r e a l l y doing i t . 4. I am not given the c r e d i t due me for my accomplishments. 5. People c r i t i c i z e or blame me unjustly. 6. I f e e l others are p u l l i n g jokes on me or don't r e a l l y mean what they are saying. 7. I show reluctance to trust or confide in others. 8. I express my suspicion when someone i s e s p e c i a l l y nice to me. 3 9. I accuse others of prying into my a f f a i r s . 10. I misinterpret minor comments by others as unfavourable towards myself. Competition This interpersonal behavior category was the second most s i g n i f i c a n t factor in i d e n t i f y i n g the depressed adolescent. As with mistrust, analysis showed that th i s behavior was exhibited more frequently the more depressed the adolescent was. Cohen et al wrote that the depressed person i s extremely sen s i t i v e to envy and competition. He often grows up in a minority group family who sees a need to maintain and r a i s e the prestige of the family before an adverse world. This p a r t i c u l a r c h i l d i s often singled out to take the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of obtaining t h i s prestige 4 for the family. Item analysis shows that this question does not contribute well to the d i s t i n c t i o n between non-depressed, moderately depressed and highly depressed adolescents. Appendix D. 4 I b i d . , pp. 118-119. 59 Questions pertinent to this behavior category were: 1. I compete and try to do better than other kids. 2. I avoid sharing c r e d i t for achievement with others. 3. I volunteer f o r jobs that gain me the attention of others. 4. I l i k e to win games even at p a r t i e s . 5. I would rather do well myself than work for a team to do well. 6. I set goals f o r myself and try to achieve them. 7. I d i r e c t the attention of others toward my accomplishments. 8. I work for things that give me status and s u p e r i o r i t y to others. 9. I contrast unfavourably the accomplishments of others with my own. 10. I seek membership in clubs and associations which have high prestige, reputation. Dominance Dominance was a s i g n i f i c a n t interpersonal behavior category in i d e n t i f y i n g the depressed adolescent. Depressed adolescents reported that they exhibited l i t t l e of t h i s behavior. This i s congruent with Cohen et a l ' s a r t i c l e that said that the depressed person tends to undersell his own a b i l i t i e s in order to promote other persons and t h e i r a b i l i t i e s . Cohen et al believed that he did t h i s in order to avoid feelings of envy. They believed that the depressed person had become sensitized to envy as a c h i l d when he was expected to improve the f a m i l i e s ' status, but then had to contend with the accompanying envy of others as well as his s i b l i n g s and even 5 his parents. 5 Ibid., p. 119. 60 AIBI questions that referred to t h i s interpersonal behavior category were: 1. I make decisions l i k e what to do or where to go when I'm with another f r i e n d . 2. I dominate conversations, interrupt, "talk others down". 3. I boss my friends and associates around. 4. I use someone who i s n ' t as smart as I am to make me look good or get me something I want. 5. I volunteer advice and information when people have decisions to make. 6. I talk my friends into doing what I would l i k e . 7. I take opportunities to inst r u c t or explain things to others. 8. I take charge of things when I'm with people. 9. I d i r e c t the a c t i v i t i e s of one or more clubs or associations to which I belong.6 Detachment This behavior category helped to distin g u i s h between the non- depressed, moderately depressed, and highly depressed adolescent. Highly depressed adolescents were found to exhibit t h i s type of behavior most of the time or a l l of the time. Moderately depressed adolescents exhibited i t only some of the time and non-depressed adolescents never exhibited i t . This finding was simil a r to that of Paykel et al in t h e i r research with depressed women. They found that depressed women rated highly on diminished contacts with f r i e n d s , diminished social i n t e r a c t i o n , diminished dating, withdraw!, lack of involvement, inh i b i t e d communication and family attachment. 7 Item analysis shows that t h i s question does not contribute well to the d i s t i n c t i o n between highly depressed adolescents, and moderately and non-depressed adolescents. Appendix D. E. Paykel, M. Weissman, B. Prusoff, and C. Tonks, "Dimensions of Social Adjustment in Depressed Women", Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, 152: 163, 1971. 61 Questions on the AIBI that were related to this behavior category were: 1. I avoid people who try to become close or personal with me. o 2. I do things on my own and amuse myself. 3. I act business-like and impersonal with fellow classmates. 4. I turn down i n v i t a t i o n s to social events. 5. I f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t to mix with others. 6. I avoid discussion of my personal a f f a i r s with friends or fellow students. 7. I keep aloof or apart from my neighbours. 8. I stay away from social a f f a i r s where I w i l l have to meet new people. 9. I act cool and distant towards others. 10..I avoid involvement or p a r t i c i p a t i n g in group e f f o r t s . g 11. I spend my free evenings at home with a hobby, book or T.V. program. Succorance The analysis of variance, and regression analysis showed that adolescents who were highly depressed reported that they exhibited succorance behavior most of the time or a l l of the time; moderately depressed adolescents said that they exhibited i t less often, and non- depressed adolescents s t i l l l e s s . Item analysis shows that these questions help d i s t i n g u i s h the non-depressed and moderately depressed adolescent from the highly depressed, but not the non-depressed from the moderately depressed. Appendix D. Op. c i t . It was interesting to note that Cohen et al wrote that the depressed person i s exceptionally helpful to s i b l i n g s and o t h e r s . ^ The res u l t s from th i s research suggest that the reverse is true, the depressed adolescent expects this type of behavior from others for himself. This is more in keeping with Cohen et a l ' s other b e l i e f t h a t the depressed person has one or a very few very dependent relationships in which he i s very demanding toward the person -- demanding of his attention, love, service and possessions.^ Beck wrote that the depressed person sees himself in negative terms — inept, inadequate and undesirable. He tends to overestimate the problems in normal l i v i n g and expects everything to turn out badly. He therefore, yearns for some strong person to take 12 care of him and help him with his problems. This study suggests that depressed adolescents overtly seek th i s out. AIBI questions pertinent to succorance were: 1. I t r y to get others to make decisions for me. 2. I avoid or refuse to take the lead even when I should. 13 3. I go to others f o r help and reassurance when in d i f f i c u l t y . 4. I seek out people who show concern and sympathy for me. 5. I borrow money and things of value from frie n d s . 6. I dump my troubles and problems on others. 7. I ask for help on jobs I could handle myself. 8. I ask others to look a f t e r my i n t e r e s t s . 9. I seek favours from friends even when I can't return them. 10. I seek to have others choose or select for me clothes, food, and even recreation. ^ Cohen, op. c i t . , p. 119. 1 1 Ibid. 12 A. Beck, Depression, (New York: Harper and Row, 1967) p. 265. 13 Item analysis shows that t h i s question contributes very l i t t l e towards the d i s t i n c t i o n between groups. Appendix D. Inhibition and Aggression Considering the emphasis psychoanalytical theorists have given the phenomena of suppressed h o s t i l i t y , i t was surprising to discover that i t did not appear s i g n i f i c a n t in- i d e n t i f y i n g the depressed adolescent from the non-depressed adolescent. In r e f l e c t i n g on the other reasons for t h i s f i n d i n g , three p o s s i b i l i t i e s can be suggested. The inventory has only two categories, i n h i b i t i o n and aggression that might r e f l e c t suppressed h o s t i l i t y . In step-wise regression analysis and discriminant analysis these factors may get l o s t d u e t o their c o r r e l a t i o n with other f a c t o r s . The t h i r d p o s s i b i l i t y i s that suppressed h o s t i l i t y may not be as important a factor as i t has generally been acknowledged. Support for this p o s s i b i l i t y i s given by Cohen et a l who wrote that h o s t i l i t y in the depressed person 14 has been over-stressed. A s t i l l d i f f e r e n t finding was reported by Paykel et a l . Suppressed h o s t i l i t y was not found to be the norm but 15 overt h o s t i l i t y was in t h e i r population of depressed patients. Cohen op. c i t . p. 121. Paytel op c i t . , pp. 163-168. CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary Adolescents may be p a r t i c u l a r l y vulnerable to depression. Yet public health nurses working with large groups of adolescents are often unable to recognize depressed adolescents due to the lack of simple, i r e l i a b l e screening t o o l s . This exploratory study was undertaken in order to gain information that could be used to develop such a t o o l . The s p e c i f i c purpose of the study was to answer the question, 'Are there modes of r e l a t i n g interpersonally that can be used to d i s t i n g u i s h the highly depressed and moderately depressed adolescent from the non-depressed adolescent?' In order to answer t h i s question three null hypothesis were posed: 1. There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the interpersonal behavior scores of non-depressed, moderately depressed and highly depressed adolescents. 2. There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t correlations between any interpersonal behavior category and depression. 3. There are no interpersonal behavior categories that can d i s t i n g u i s h between the non-depressed, moderately depressed and highly depressed adolescent. One hundred and two adolescents between the age of thirteen to seventeen l i v i n g in Greater Vancouver were studied. Twenty-five of those adolescents were from a treatment centre f o r adolescents with emotional problems; the remaining seventy-seven adolescents were randomly selected students from four Catholic high schools. Each adolescent was given two s e l f - r a t i n g inventories to complete, Beck's Depression Inventory and an adapted form of McNair and Lorr's Inter- personal Behavior Inventory. On the basis of t h e i r scores on the depression inventory sixteen adolescents were found to be highly depressed, t h i r t y - e i g h t moderately 65 depressed and forty-eight non-depressed. An analysis of variance was used to discover i f there was a difference in the interpersonal behavior scores of these three groups of adolescents. It was found that non-depressed, moderately depressed, and highly depressed adolescents had d i f f e r e n t scores in thirteen interpersonal behavior categories. These were: 1. dominance 2. aggression 3. mistrust 4. competition 5. detachment 6. i n h i b i t i o n 7. submissiveness 8. succorance 9. abasement 10. agreeableness 11. a f f e c t i o n 12. s o c i a b i l i t y 13. exhibition A simple regression analysis was done and i t showed that there was a s i g n i f i - cant p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between high depression scores and high scores on the following interpersonal behavior categories: 1. competition 2. aggression 3. mistrust 4. detachment 5. i n h i b i t i o n 6. submissiveness 7. succorance 8. abasement There was a negative c o r r e l a t i o n between high depression scores and high scores on the following interpersonal behavior categories: 1. agreeableness 2. a f f e c t i o n A multiple step-wise regression analysis was c a r r i e d out and i t showed that mistrust, competition and succorance were s i g n i f i c a n t and p o s i t i v e l y correlated with high depression scores while high dominance scores were negatively correlated with the high depression scores. Stepwise discrim- inant was also ca r r i e d out; mistrust, detachment, competition, dominance were selected as the interpersonal behavior categories that 58.6% of the time c o r r e c t l y distinguished non-depressed adolescents from moderately depressed and highly depressed adolescents. Therefore, the null hypotheses were rejected. 67 Conclusions On the basis of the findings of t h i s study the following conclusions were made: 1. there are modes of r e l a t i n g interpersonally that d i s t i n g u i s h the highly depressed and moderately depressed adolescent from the non-depressed adoles- cent. Those who exhibit mistrust, competition and detachment most or a l l of the time and dominance only some of the time or not a a l l , may be highly or moderately depressed adolescents. 2. depression in adolescents appears to occur on a continuum with youths experiencing graduated degrees of i t . When adolescents in t h i s study were grouped as non-depressed, moderately depressed and highly depressed, i t was d i f f i c u l t to d i s t i n g u i s h between the adolescents whose depression scores f e l l near the cut o f f points between high depression and moderate depression, and between moderate depression and non-depression. 3. adolescence i s a developmental stage vulnerable to depression. F i f t y - four out of 102 adolescents in the study population showed that they were moderately or highly depressed. 4. adolescents experiencing high levels of depression can be found within the student population of high schools. Eight of the sixteen highly depressed youths were students from the high schools. 5. suppressed h o s t i l i t y i s not as an important f a c t o r in depression as i t has generally been believed. The two categories in which th i s phenomena might have been expressed in t h i s study, were not s i g n i f i c a n t . On the basis of the item analysis of the questions the following conclusion was made: given the assurance of anonymity, adolescents have both the s e n s i t i v i t y and the willingness to accurately describe t h e i r own feelings and behavior via s e l f - r e p o r t inventories. Analysis of t h e i r answers showed 68 that they did not give t h e i r answers in a s o c i a l l y desirably manner nor in a manner that suggested guessing. On the basis of administering the inventory, the following con- clusions were made: 1. depression does not prevent the individual from undertaking and achiev- ing a demanding task. Even the highly depressed adolescents were able to answer a t o t a l of 161 questions on computer cards. 2. willingness to a s s i s t and c u r i o s i t y in research was the adolescent norm. Most adolescents in the treatment centre and the high schools were enthus- i a s t i c participants in the research and asked many questions concerning i t s implementation and purpose. 69 Implications and Recommendations The findings of t h i s study imply that the majority of depressed adolescents can be i d e n t i f i e d through t h e i r modes of interpersonal behavior. Public health nurses and other persons working with adolescents should therefore be alerted to watch f o r the adolescent who frequently exhibits behavior that shows mistrust, competition and detachment, and r a r e l y por- trays behavior that i s dominating. The s i g n i f i c a n t findings of t h i s study suggest that further re- search be carr i e d out to discover the following: 1. w i l l the same interpersonal behavior categories d i s t i n g u i s h the depressed adolescent i f depression i s defined by a d i f f e r e n t means than Beck's Depres- sion Inventory, eg. by c l i n i c a l psychiatric interviews, Rorachach, Thermatic Apperception Tests, or the D-Scale of the MMPI. 2. do the s i g n i f i c a n t interpersonal behavior categories d i s t i n g u i s h only the depressed adolescents or do they d i s t i n g u i s h any adolescent who has emotional problems, eg. hysteria, schizophrenia, personality disorder. 3. do the s i g n i f i c a n t interpersonal behavior categories d i s t i n g u i s h only the depressed adolescent or do they d i s t i n g u i s h depressed adults as well. 4. i f another person rated the adolescents' behavior would the findings be s i m i l a r to when the adolescent rates his own behavior. If further research supports the findings of th i s study a screening tool f o r publich health nurses could be developed. Mistrust, com- p e t i t i o n , dominance and detachment could be used as the gross behavior areas to observe, while a c h e c k - l i s t of more s p e c i f i c behaviors could be developed from the seven to eleven statements that are used in the inventory to des- cribe the behavior categories; only those statements that proved useful i n 70 the item analysis would be used. Once such a tool i s developed i t i s recommended that an experi- mental study be car r i e d out to discover i f public health nurses using the screening tool recognize more depressed adolescents than public health nurses who use t h e i r usual method of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . The findings of t h i s study suggest that there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between depression and mistrust, competition, dominance and succorance. The findings do not show which facto r ( s ) i s the cause and which the r e s u l t . It i s therefore recommended that an experimental study be undertaken to dsicover i f the level of depression in adolescents can be s i g n i f i c a n t l y decreased i f they receive therapy concerned with changing t h e i r mode of r e l a t i n g interpersonally in the areas of mistrust, competition, cominance, succorance. Behavior modification may be an appropriate means of therapy. 7' SOURCES CONSULTED Books A r i e t i , S. (ed.) American Handbook of Psychiatry. New York: Basic Book I, 1959. A r i s t o t l e . The Work of A r i s t o t l e Translated to English. XI, trans. Rhys Roberts, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959. Ausubel, D. Theories and Problems of Adolescent Development. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1954. Beck, A. Depression. New York: Harper and Row, 1967. Buro, O.K. (ed.) The Seventh Mental Measurement's Yearbook. Vol. 1, Highland Park, New Jersey: The Gryphen Press, 1972. Buss, Arnold H. Psychopathology. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966, pp. 23-25, 32-35. C a n t r i l , H. (ed.) Tensions That Cause War. Urbana, I l l i n o i s : University of I l l i n o i s Press, 1950. Caplan, G. An Approach to Community Health. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1966. Caplan, G., and S. Lebouici (eds.) Adolescence: Psychosocial Perspectives. New York: Basic Books, 1969. Commission on Emotional and Learning Disorders in Children. The Celdic  Report. Toronto: Leonard Crainford publisher, 1970. Douvan, E., and J . Adelson. The Adolescent Experience. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966. Engel, G.L. Psychological Development in Health and Disease. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1960. Erikson, E. Childhood and Society. New York: W.W. Norton and Co. Ltd., 1945. Erikson, E. Identity Youth and Cris e s . New York: W.W. Norton and Co. Ltd., 1968. Erikson, E. (ed.) Youth: Change and Challenge. New York: Basic Books Inc., 1968. Ferguson, G.A. S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis in Psychology and Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1971. Fleming, CM. Adolescence: Its Social Psychology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., 1963. Freud, S. Collected Papers. Vol. IV, London: Hogart, 1949. Goodman, P. Growing Up Absurd. New York: Random House, 1956. Havinghurst, R.J. Developmental Tasks and Education. New York: Longman Green, 1951. Heider, F. The Psychology of Interpersonal Behavior. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958. Hollingshead, A.B. Elmtown's Youth. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1949. Inhelder, I., and J . Piaget. The Growth of Logical Thinking. New York: Basic Books, 1958. Join t Commission on Mental I l l n e s s and Health. Action f o r Mental Health. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1961. Jones, H.E.. The Family in a Democratic Society, New York: Columbia University Press, 1949. Leary, T., Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality. New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1957. Lewin. F i e l d Theory in Social Science. London: Tavistock Publications Ltd. 1952. McCandless, B. Adolescents Behavior and Development. Hinsdale, I l l i n o i s : The Dryden Press Inc., 1970. Mehrens, William A. and Irvin J. Lehmann. Measurement and Evaluation i n  Educational Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973. Meyer, W.J.. Readings in the Psychology of Childhood and Adolescence, Toronto: B l a i s d e l l Publishing Co., 1967. M i t c h e l l , J.J. Adolescence: Some C r i t i c a l Issues. Toronto: Holt, Rine-hart and Winston of Canada, Ltd., 1971. M i t c h e l l , P.H. Concepts Basic to Nursing. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc., 1973. Mullahy, P. A Study of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Science House, 1967. Muus, R.E. Theories of Adolescence. New York: Random House Inc., 1968. Sebald, H. Adolescence: A Sociological Analysis. New York: Appleton Century-Crofts, 1968. Senn, M.J. and A.J. S o l n i t . Problems in Child Behavior and Development. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, 1968. Sherif, M. and C. Sherif. Reference Groups: Exploration Into Conformity  and Deviation of Adolescents. New York: Harper and Row, 1961. Stein, R.F. Disturbed Youth and Ethnic Family Patterns. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1971. Straus, M. (ed.). Family Analysis. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., Ltd., 1969. Strom, M.T. Needs of Adolescent Youth. Danville, I l l i n o i s : The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1963. S u l l i v a n , H.S. The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry, New York: W.W. Norton and Co., Inc., 1953. Tatsuoka, M.M. Selected Topics in Advanced S t a t i s t i c s : Discriminant  Analysis. Champaign, I l l i n o i s : I nstitute for Personality and A b i l i t y Testing, 1970. Thorndike, E., and I. Lorge, The Teachers' Word Book of 30,000 Words. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1952. Walker, H.M., and J . Lev, Elementary S t a t i s t i c a l Methods. New York: Holt, Rinehardt and Winston, Inc., 1969. Wolforth, J.R. Residential Location and Place of Work. Vancouver: Tantalus Research Lmt., 1968. Zachny, C.B. Emotion and Conduct in Adolescence. New York: D. Appleton-Centry Co. Inc., 1940. Zilboorg, G. A History of Medical Psychology. New York: Norton and Co. Ltd., 1941. 74 Periodicals Abdellah, F. "Overview of Nursing Research 1955-1968, Part I", Nursing Research, 19: 6, 1970. A l l port, G. "The Open System in Personality Theory", Journal of Abnormal  and Social Psychology, 1961: 301, 1960. Bandura, A. "The Stormy Decade: Fact or F i c t i o n ? " , Psychology of the  School, 1: 224, 1964. Bay, A.P. "Discussion of the Treatment of Depression in Hospitalized Patients Before and Since the Introduction of Anti-Depressant Drugs", American Journal of Psychiatry, 119: 425, 1962. Bowlby, J. "Grief and Mourning in Infancy and Childhood", Psychoanalytic  Study of the C h i l d , 15: 9, 1960. B r i t t a i n , C. "Adolescent Choices and Parent-Peer Cross-Pressures", American Sociological Review, 28: 385, 1963. Cohen, M.B., G. Baker, R.A. Cohen, F. Fromm-Reichman, and E. Weigert, "An Intensive Study of Twelve Cases of Manic-Depressive Psychosis," Psychiatry, 17: 103, 1954. Coleman, J . . "The Adolescent Subculture and Academic Achievement", American  Journal of Sociology, 65: 337, 1960. Coleman, J. "The Perception of Interpersonal Relationships During Adoles-cence", B r i t i s h Journal of Educational Psychology, 40: 253, 1970. Crumb, F. "A Behavioral Pattern of Depressed Patients", Perspectives  in P s ychiatric Care, Vol. 4, No. 3, 1966. Dunlop, E. . "The Use of Antidepressants and Stimulants", Modern Treatments, 2: 543, 1965. Eisenberg, L. "A Developmental Approach", Children, 12: 131, 1965. E l k i n , F. and W.A. Westley, "The Myth of Adolescent Culture", American  Sociological Review, 20: 680, 1955. Freud, A. "Adolescence", The Psychoanalytic Study of the C h i l d , XII, New York: International Press, 1958. Gronlund, N., and L. Anderson. "Personality Cha r a c t e r i s t i c s of S o c i a l l y Accepted, S o c i a l l y Neglected, and S o c i a l l y Rejected Junior High School Pupils", Educational Administration and Supervision, 43: 329, 1957. Krakowski, A. "Depressive Reactions of Children and Adolescents", P. Psychosomatics, 11: 429, 1970. Kuhlen, R., and B.J. Lee. "Personality Characteristics and Social Accept-a b i l i t y in Adolescence", Journal of Educational Psychology, 34: 321, 1943 Lewin, K. " F i e l d Theory and Experiment in Social Psychology", American  Journal of Psychology, 44: 868, 1939. Lindemann, E. "Symtomatology and Management of Acute G r i e f " , American  Journal of Psychiatry, 101: 141, 1944. Lorr, M., and D. McNair. "An Interpersonal Behavior C i r c l e " , Journal of  Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67: 68, 1963. Lorr, M., and D. McNair, "Expansion of the Interpersonal Behavior C i r c l e " Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2: 823, 1965. Lorr, M., and A. Suziedelis, "Modes of Interpersonal Behavior", B r i t i s h  Journal of C l i n i c a l Psychology, 8: 124, 1969. Meissner, W.W. "Some Implications of Sources of Anxiety in Adolescent Boys", Journal of Genetic Psychology, 99: 323, 1961. Meisner, W.. "Parental Interaction of the Adolescent Boy", Journal of  Genetic Psychology, 107: 225, 1965. Offer, D. "Normal Adolescents", Archives of General Psychiatry, 17: 285, 1967. Offer, D., D. Marcus, and J . Offer, "A Longitudinal Study of Normal Adolescent Boys", American Journal of Psychiatry, 126: 917, 1970. Oltman, J . , and S. Friedman. "Trends in Admissions to State Hospitals 1942-1964", Archives of General Psychiatry, 13: 544, 1965. Paykel, E.S. " C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Depressed Patients: A Cluster Analysis", The B r i t i s h Journal of Psychiatry, 118: 283, 1971. Paykel, E.S.. M. Weissman, B.A. Prusoff, and CM. Tonks. "Dimensions of Social Adjustment in Depressed Women", Journal of Nervous and Mental  Disease, 152: 158, 1971. Rosenthal, S. "Changes in a Population of Hospitalized Patients with A f f e c t i v e Disorders 1945-1965", American Journal of Psychiatry, 123: 671 , 1966. Schildkraut, J . "The Catecholamine Hypothesis of A f f e c t i v e Disorders: A Review of Supporting Evidence", American Journal of Psychiatry, 122: 509, 1965. Schonfeld, W.A. "Adolescent Turmoil: Socioeconomic Affluence as a Factor New York State Journal of Medicine, 67: 1981, 1967. Stengel, E. "Recent Research into Suicide and Attempted Suicide", American Journal of Psychiatry, 118: 725, 1962. Turner, W.J., F.J. O'Neil and S. Merlis, "The Treatment of Depression in Hospitalized Patients Before and Since the Introduction of Anti-Depressant Drugs", American Journal of Psychiatry, 119: 421, 1962. Weissman, M., E. Paykel, R. Siegal and G. Klerman. "The Social Role Performance of Depressed Women: Comparison with a Normal Group", American  Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 41: 390, 1971. Wolff, I. "Referral - A Process and S k i l l " , Nursing Outlook, 10: 253, 1962. Government Publications Dominion of Canada, Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s . Causes of Death. Ottawa: S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1970. Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, Department of Health Services and Hospital Insurance. V i t a l S t a t i s t i c s . V i c t o r i a : K.M. McDonald p r i n t e r , 1970. Other Catholic University of Washington, Department of Psychology, Personal Correspondence between Dr. M. Lorr, Professor, and the writer n.d. APPENDIX A PHILOSOPHY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA YOUTH DEVELOPMENT CENTRE 79 B r i t i s h Columbia Youth Development Centre This Centre, c a l l e d "The Maples" f o r convenience, was set up in 1968 by the Mental Health Branch of the Provincial Government of B r i t i s h Columbia to meet the treatment needs of emotionally disturbed children and adolescents. A. The Family and Children's C l i n i c which was developed about 1956, Dr. Alan A. Cashmore has been the d i r e c t o r since then, and has developed a m u l t i - d i s c i p i i n a r y team approach, providing out-patient services to chi l d r e n , adolescents and f a m i l i e s . B. The Psychological Education C l i n i c was developed by the Director, Dr. Denis C. Shalman, C l i n i c a l Psychologist, combining the psychology department with the school on the complex. C. The Residential Unit i s the l a t e s t addition to the complex and has been in operation since September, 1969. It consists of three cottages, each contain f i f t e e n beds, and an Arts and Crafts Centre. Other f a c i l i t i e s shared by a l l three c l i n i c s include swimming pool, gymnasium, outdoor play and sports areas. At present two cottages are being used f o r r e s i d e n t i a l treatment, the t h i r d functions as a Day C l i n i c . Adolescent boys and g i r l s from 13-17 years of age l i v e together in a therapeutic community. Although the child's to t a l need i s c a r e f u l l y considered, pref- erence i s given to kids who are motivated to undertake a psychotherapeutic contract to help themselves, despite the suffering that personality change e n t a i l s , are admitted. The treatment philosophy i s based upon: giving the kids accept- ance f o r what they are now; giving a warm atmosphere where relationships are offered without a demand that they reciprocate; where communication i s 80 very open and encouraged to be two-way; where feelings are f r e e l y shown and accepted; where physical contact i s encouraged; though the group may set l i m i t s to the expression of aggression. The kids learn that they are worth-while, are important to us as people, that we l i s t e n , and care about t h e i r needs, and that t h e i r personal desires are v a l i d . As they r e a l i z e t h i s , t h e i r self-esteem r i s e s , and i s reinforced by the s a t i s f a c - tion and achievement they experience in p a r t i c i p a t i n g with the counsellors in learning and enjoying new s k i l l s i n sports, arts and c r a f t s , etc., and in human rela t i o n s h i p s . There i s a large measure of freedom given in the internal run- ning of the cottages, although there are the r e a l i t y - l i m i t a t i o n s of being an i n s t i t u t i o n , under the C i v i l Service. The kids accept that freedom in the community must involve r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to that community so they accept the rules v o l u n t a r i l y and are involved in a democratic process of r e l a t i v e self-government. A community meeting i s held d a i l y in which young people and s t a f f p a r t i c i p a t e f r e e l y , with confrontations, apprecia- t i o n s , information g i v i n g , s e n s i t i v i t y techniques, etc., a l l intermingled. Freedom of choice, with r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r accepting the consequences of t h i s , enable the kids to learn decision making and as t h e i r self-esteem and self-confidence grow, the kids i n i t i a t i v e to help himself, and to f u l f i l l his own personal needs, increases. By v o l u n t a r i l y accepting personal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the r e s u l t s of his choice, the youngster begins to develop s e l f - c o n t r o l and to r e a l i z e that s e l f - c o n t r o l serves a protective function, and should be reduced by the group, se l f - c o n t r o l and personal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y increase. 81 In addition to the community meetings, there are regular Gestalt Therapy Groups availab l e to the kids. A s t a f f member may also use these opportunities to work out a problem when feelings have come up strongly in the course of work. There i s another group for s t a f f each week. There are also talking groups, one a d i r e c t encounter-confrontation type, the other a non-directive, very relaxed informal group in which s e n s i t i v i t y techniques are f r e e l y used. The P s y c h i a t r i s t w i l l see any youngster or counsellor on request, but he does not see them by rota. The i n i t i a t i v e must be t h e i r s , they come when t h e i r need i s high, and usually "work" well in the interview, which i s usually Gestalt Therapy. Program often centers around the turn-on center, an educational project enriched by arts and c r a f t s . One of our keywords i s " p a r t i c i p a t i o n " . Counsellors enjoy "doing t h e i r thing" with the kids. Pottery, weaving, k n i t t i n g , etc., t i e dye and batik, photography, music, cooking, sewing, woodworking, sports, trampoline, s a i l i n g , s k i i n g , camping and many other a c t i v i t i e s are warmly shared. These a c t i v i t i e s usually provide opportun- i t i e s f o r greater contact and increased intimacy, and also for the working out of aggression. There i s , of course, frequent wrestling and also f i s t f i g h t i n g , using boxing gloves when the occasion demands. The educational program aims at "turning on" kids who have experienced f a i l u r e and disillusionment at school. School curriculum i s completed eschewed, and instead the kids f r e e l y follow t h e i r own general i n t e r e s t s , usually in bursts of enthusiasm l a s t i n g from a couple of hours to a couple of days. Gradually we focus on special i n t e r e s t s , extended over a longer period and when c u r i o s i t y and s a t i s f a c t i o n in learning are restored, then kids may elect to do correspondence courses, or have specif remedial teaching. The counsellors are expected to have a basic bachelor' degree, so are drawn from many d i f f e r e n t d i s c i p l i n e s , including teachers, social workers, psychologists, etc., and so provide a r i c h and varied resource pose. They carry on a l l programs, whether educational or recrea- tional or treatment under the Director's d i r e c t i o n . The various resource persons who come in on a sessional basis are used to t r a i n counsellors, wh have the real r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of caring f o r and helping the kid to grow. An in-service t r a i n i n g program i s conducted to a s s i s t with counsellors' personal and professional development. The schedule and s p e c i f i c content of t h i s changes from time to time, in keeping with the needs of the s t a f f in r e l a t i o n to the Unit. Staff members attend t r a i n i n g sessions on alternate weeks. Included i n the t r a i n i n g are: (1) Attendance at a kid's case conference held i n the cottage with a l l kids and Unit and "outside" social workers. (The conference report i s prepared by the kid and a counsellor gives an evaluation of his progress. The report i s retained in the f i l e s and a copy sent to the r e f e r r i n g Social Agency or P s y c h i a t r i s t . ) (2) S k i l l t r a i n i n g i n arts and c r a f t s , a t h l e t i c s , water safety, etc. (3) Personal growth through Gestalt Therapy, S e n s i t i v i t y and Encounter Groups, and theory and practice in conducting various types of groups. (4) Sessions with f u l l s t a f f of each cottage only to deal with p o l i c y , administrative matters, treatment questions with regard to s p e c i f i c kids, and s t a f f interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Referrals A l l manner of social psychological and learning problems can be referred as long as the i d e n t i f i e d patient has not reached his seven- teenth birthday. A centralized intake service w i l l screen r e f e r r a l s and selection of patients w i l l be made on the basis of t r e a t a b i l i t y . It i s worth emphasizing that the Residential Unit i s an a c t i v e , intensive, com- prehensive treatment unit and not a holding or emergency unit. Referrals are made through the d i s t r i c t o f f i c e s of the Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement who forward the request through Special Placements or through the Children's Aid Society, the Catholic Children's Aid or the V i c t o r i a Family and Children's C l i n i c . (Miss) M. Eileen Campbell, B.N. Acting Director Residential Treatment Unit Peter Campbell , M.D. Ps y c h i a t r i s t APPENDIX B CONSENT LETTER QUESTIONNAIRE 1: Choose which statement best describes how you feel today: I t r y to put o f f making decisions. I have great d i f f i c u l t y making decisions. I can't make any decisions any more. I make decisions about as well as ever. QUESTIONNAIRE 11: Rate the behavior that i s most ty p i c a l of you: I do things on my own and amuse myself. 1. Not at a l l . 2. Occasionally. 3. Usually. 4. A l l the time. I do favours f o r others without being asked. 1. Not at a l l . 2. Occasionally. 3. Usually. 4. A l l the time. PLEASE REMEMBER THAT AT NO TIME WILL YOUR SON OR DAUGHTER PLACE HIS OR HER NAME ON ANY ANSWER SHEET. APPENDIX C MATERIALS PERTAINING TO BECK'S DEPRESSION INVENTORY Pre-tests Table 14 Value of Statements on Beck's Depression Inventory Beck's Depression Inventory I Inventory Analysis 88 Pre-tests The purpose of t h i s pre-test was to answer the following: could thirteen year old youths and p o t e n t i a l l y depressed adolescents com- prehend Beck's Depression Inventory; would they have d i f f i c u l t y following the instructions for the questionnaire; could they use the computer cards; how long did t h i s population require to answer t h i s inventory? A copy of Beck's Depression Inventory was given to each of f i v e thirteen year old boys. The researcher read aloud the f i r s t page of instructions and the f i r s t f i v e statements grouped under question one, and demonstrated how to mark on the computer card the statement that they f e l t best explained how they f e l t at that moment. They were then asked to read c a r e f u l l y the remaining questions, for themselves, and use the computer cards to answer on. They were encouraged to ask the researcher whenever they were unsure of how to answer on the computer card or the meaning of a word or phrase used on the questionnaire. This same procedure was followed with a group of eighteen adoles- cents in a treatment centre. No adolescents asked questions concerning methodology or compre- hension. Adolescents requested erasers to change answers on t h e i r computer cards, otherwise they had no d i f f i c u l t y using them to answer on. The longest time required to complete the inventory was one half hour. TABLE 14 VALUES OF STATEMENTS ON BECK'S DEPRESSION INVENTORY QUESTION 1 2 STATEMENTS 3 4 5 1 3 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 3 2 1 3 1 0 2 2 3 4 3 2 0 1 1 5 3 0 2 2 1 6 1 3 0 3 2 7 1 3 0 3 2 8 1 2 3 0 9 1 3 2 2 0 10 0 1 2 3 11 1 2 0 3 12 0 3 2 1 13 1 3 0 2 14 0 2 3 1 15 1 2 3 16 3 2 0 1 17 3 0 2 1 18 0 3 1 2 19 3 1 2 0 20 3 2 1 0 21 0 1 2 3 INVENTORY I On the questionnaire there are groups of statements. Pick out the ONE statement in that group which best describes the way you feel today, that i s RIGHT NOW. 91 1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 2 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 3 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 4 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 5 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7 1. 2. 3. 4. ' 5. 8 1. 2. 3. 4. am so sad or unhappy that I can't stand i t . am so sad or unhappy that i t i s quite p a i n f u l . am blue or sad a l l the time and I can't snap out of i t . do not feel sad. feel blue or sad. feel that I won't ever get over my troubles, am not p a r t i c u l a r l y pessimistic or discouraged about the future. feel that the future i s hopeless and that things can't improve. feel that I have nothing to look forward to. feel discouraged about the future. feel that I have f a i l e d more than the average person, do not feel l i k e a f a i l u r e . feel I have accomplished very l i t t l e that i s worthwhile or means anything. As I look back on my l i f e a l l I can see i s a l o t of f a i l u r e s , feel that I'm a complete f a i l u r e as a person. am d i s s a t i s f i e d with everything, don't get s a t i s f a c t i o n out of anything anymore, am not p a r t i c u l a r l y d i s s a t i s f i e d , feel bored most of the time, don't enjoy things the way I used to. feel as though I am very bad or worthless, don't feel p a r t i c u l a r l y g u i l t y , feel quite g u i l t y . feel bad or unworthy p r a c t i c a l l y a l l the time now. feel bad or unworthy a good part of the time. have a fe e l i n g that something bad may happen to me. want to be punished, don't feel I am being punished, feel I deserve to be punished, feel I am being punished or w i l l be punished. am disgusted with myself, am disappointed in myself, don't feel disappointed in myself, don't l i k e myself, hate myself. am c r i t i c a l of myself for my weaknesses or mistakes, blame myself f o r my f a u l t s , blame myself for everything bad that happens, don't feel I am any worse than anybody else. that 92 9 1.1 have thoughts of harming myself but I would never carry them out. 2. I have d e f i n i t e plans about committing suicide. 3. I feel I would be better o f f dead. 4. I feel my family would be better o f f i f I were dead. 5. I don't have any thoughts of harming myself. 10 1. I don't cry any more than usual. 2. I cry more now than I used to. 3. I cry a l l the time now. I can't stop i t . 4. I used to be able to cry but now I can't cry at a l l even though I want to. 11 1. I get annoyed or i r r i t a t e d more e a s i l y than I used to. 2. I feel i r r i t a t e d a l l the time. 3. I am no more i r r i t a t e d now than I ever am. 4. I don't get i r r i t a t e d at a l l at the things that used to i r r i t a t e me. 12 1. I have not l o s t i n t e r e s t in people. 2. I have l o s t a l l my interest in other people and don't care about them. 3. I have l o s t most of my int e r e s t in other people and have l i t t l e f e e l i n g for them. 4. I am less interested in other people now than I used to be. 13 1. I t r y to put o f f making decisions. 2. I can't make any decisions at a l l anymore. 3. I make decisions about as well as ever. 4. I have great d i f f i c u l t y in making decisions. 14 1. I don't feel I look any worse than I used to. 2. I feel that there are permanent changes in my appearance and they make me look unattractive. 3. I feel that I am ugly or repulsive looking. 4. I am worried that I am looking old or unattractive. 15 1. I don't work as well as I used to. 2. I have to push myself very hard to do anything. 3. I can't do any work at a l l . 4. I can work about as well as ever. 16 1. I wake up early every day and can't get more than f i v e hours sleep. 2. I wake up one to two hours e a r l i e r than usual and f i n d i t hard to get back to sleep. 3. I can sleep as well as usual. 4. I wake up more t i r e d in the morning than I used to. 17 1. I get too t i r e d to do anything. 2. I don't get anymore t i r e d than usual, 3. I get t i r e d from doing anything. 4. I get t i r e d more e a s i l y than I used to. 93 18 1. My appetite is no worse than usual. 2. I have no appetite at a l l anymore. 3. My appetite i s not as good as i t used to be. 4. My appetite i s much worse now. 19 1. I have lo s t more than 15 pounds. 2. I have l o s t more than 5 pounds. 3. I have l o s t more than 10 pounds. 4. I haven't l o s t much weight, i f any, l a t e l y . 20 1. I am completely absorbed in what I feel l i k e . 2. I am so concerned with how I feel or what I feel i t ' s hard to think of much else. 3. I am concerned about aches and pains or upset stomach or constipation. 4. I am not more concerned about my health than usual. 21 1. I have not noticed any recent change in my interest in sex. 2. I am less interested in sex than I used to be. 3. I am much less interested in sex now. 4. I have l o s t i n t e r e s t in sex completely. TABLE 15 DESCRIPTIVE DATA FOR SCORES ON BECK'S DEPRESSION INVENTORY NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS 102 HIGH SCORE 38 MEAN 14.8592 NUMBER OF ITEMS 21 LOW SCORE 0 STANDARD 8.69891 DEVIATION FREQUENCY 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 CLASS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 LOW SCORE 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 : 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 HIGH SCORE 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 FIGURE 3 DISTRIBUTION OF DEPRESSION INVENTORY SCORES vO TABLE 16 GOODNESS OF FIT DISTRIBUTION OF DEPRESSION SCORES CLASS MIDPOINT FREQUENCY 0-2 1 4 2-4 3 6 4-6 5 4 6-8 7 8 8-10 9 10 10-12 11 8 12-14 13 8 14-16 15 11 16-18 17 4 18-20 19 10 20-22 21 7 22-24 23 3 24-26 25 6 26-28 27 4 28-30 29 2 30-32 31 3 32-34 33 2 34-36 35 1 36-38 37 0 38-40 39 1 DEGREES OF FREEDOM 7 CH 1 SQUARE 5.25193 CH 1 PROBABILITY .62925 CRITICA VALUE @ .05 14.07 97 TABLE 17 SOURCES OF VARIATION, BECK'S DEPRESSION INVENTORY DEGREES OF SUM OF SQUARE OF FREEDOM SQUARED SCORES MEAN SCORES INDIVIDUALS 101 360.51 3.57 ITEMS 20 217.01 10.85 RESIDUAL 2020 1458.42 0.72 TOTAL 2141 2035.94 0.95 INTERNAL CONSISTENCY COEFFICIENT .80 STANDARD ERROR OF MEASUREMENT 3.89 TABLE 18 ITEM ANALYSIS OF BECK'S DEPRESSION INVENTORY QUESTION STATEMENT VALUE NO. WHO CHOSE ITEM PER CENT WHO CHOSE ITEM Bl SERIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENT MEAN SCORE 1 1 3 2 2.0 0.34 ' 28.00 2 2 2 2.0 0.29 26.00 3 2 4 3.9 0.50 29.25 4 0 78 76.5 -0.68 12.26 5 1 16 15.7 0.37 20.50 2 1 2 7 6.9 0.2 19.29 2 0 64 62.7 -0.67 11.28 3 3 '4 3.9 0.24 21.75 4 2 8 7.8 0.23 19.62 5 1 19 18.6 0.48 21.47 3 1 1 9 8.8 0.36 22.11 2 0 67 65.7 -0.79 10.88 3 2 13 12.7 0.36 20.92 4 2 12 11.8 0.52 23.92 5 3 1 1.0 0.14 22.00 4 1 3 0 0 0 0.0 2 2 1 1.0 0.34 32.00 3 0 60 58.8 -0.77 10.40 4 1 16 15.7 0.55 23.25 5 1 25 24.5 0.38 19.24 ITEM ANALYSIS CON'T QUESTION STATEMENT VALUE NO. WHO CHOSE ITEM PER CENT WHO CHOSE ITEM BI SERIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENT MEAN SCORE 5 1 3 3 2.9 0.39 27.67 2 0 63 61.8 -0.81 10.41 3 2 12 11.8 0.27 19.58 4 . 2 4 3.9 0.49 29.00 5 1 20 19.6 0.46 20.95 6 1 1 17 16.7 0.14 16.88 2 3 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 0 59 57.8 -0.55 11.56 4 3 7 6.9 0.27 20.86 5 2 19 18.6 0.43 20.74 7 1 1 3 2.9 0.27 23.67 2 3 33 32.4 0.47 19.39 3 0 52 51.0 -0.90 8.71 4 3 12 11.8 0.53 24.17 5 2 2 2.0 0.33 27.50 8 1 1 20 19.6 .31 18.95 2 2 22 21.6 .05 15.45 3 3 10 9.8 .64 27.10 4 0 50 49.0 - .63 10.38 ITEM ANALYSIS CON'T QUESTION STATEMENT VALUE NO. WHO CHOSE ITEM PER CENT WHO CHOSE ITEM BI SERIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENT MEAN SCORE 9 1 1 24 23.5 .33 18.83 2 3 2 2.0 .32 27.00 3 2 7 6.9 .54 27.00 4 2 4 3.9 .15 19.25 5 0 65 63.7 - .67 11.34 10 1 0 49 48.0 - .55 10.86 2 1 21 20.6 .32 19.05 3 2 5 4.9 .22 20.60 4 3 27 26.5 .24 17.56 11 1 1 40 39.2 .16 16.17 2 2 .4 3.9 .30 23.50 3 0 27 26.5 - .25 11.93 4 3 31 30.4 - :04 14.39 12 1 0 84 82.4 - .38 13.62 2 3 3 2.9 .10 18.00 3 2 3 2.9 .22 22.00 4 1 12 11.8 .32 20.42 13 1 1 19 18.6 .22 17.84 2 3 2 2.0 .33 27.50 3 0 50 49.0 - .77 9.90 4 2 30 29.4 .51 20.17 5 0 1 1.0 .00 15.00 ITEM ANALYSIS CON'T QUESTION STATEMENT VALUE NO. WHO PER CENT WHO Bl SERIAL CORRELATION MEAN CHOSE ITEM CHOSE ITEM COEFFICIENT SCORE 14 1 0 66 64.7 - .62 11.65 2 2 13 12.7 .15 17.38 3 3 9 8.8 .34 21.67 4 1 14 13.7 .49 22.79 15 1 1 21 20.6 .01 14.90 2 2 30 29.4 .65 21.60 3 3 2 2.0 .32 27.00 4 0 49 48.0 - .66 10.08 16 1 3 •3 2.9 .31 25.00 2 2 7 6.9 - .12 12.00 3 0 33 32.4 - .48 10.06 4 1 59 57.8 .42 17.25 17 1 3 10 9.8 .34 21.30 2 0 40 39.2 - .59 9.77 3 2 7 6.9 .34 22.43 4 1 45 44.1 .24 16.62 18 1 0 57 55.9 . - .56 11.35 . 2 3 7 6.9 .40 23.86 3 1 25 24.5 .13 16.36 4 2 13 12.7 1.42 22.00 ITEM ANALYSIS CON'T QUESTION STATEMENT VALUE NO. WHO CHOSE ITEM PER CENT WHO BI SERIAL CORRELATION MEAN CHOSE ITEM COEFFICIENT SCORE 19 1 3 2 2.0 .23 23. .50 2 1 12 11.8 .04 15. .50 3 2 5 4.9 .31 23. .00 4 0 83 81.4 - .25 13. .99 20 1 3 12 11.8 .31 20. .33 2 2 11 10.8 .36 21. .45 3 1 17 16.7 .17 17. .09 4 0 61 59.8 - .53 11. .84 5 0 1 1.0 - .04 13. .00 21 1 0 86 84.3 - .20 14. .05 2 1 11 10.8 .01 15. ,00 3 2 4 3.9 .25 25. .25 4 3 1 1.0 .23 35. ,00 APPENDIX D Materials Pertaining to the Interpersonal Behavior Inventory Pretests Table 19, Behavior Categories and Corresponding Questions Adapted Interpersonal Behavior Inventory (AlBl) Inventory Analyses 104 Pre-tests The pre-test was undertaken to discover what form the inventory should take, in order that thirteen year old youths and p o t e n t i a l l y depressed adolescents could comprehend the questions on the inventory and follow the d i r e c t i o n s in answering i t . It was also hoped to discover i f adolescents could accurately answer the questions on OMR computer cards and to f i n d the length of time adolescents required to complete the questionnaire. A second aspect of the pre-test was to see i f adults working c l o s e l y with adolescents could complete the inventory on a youth that they f e l t they knew well. The level of comprehension for each word used in the questionnaire was compared with the level of words Thorndike and Lorge suggested was understandable at the thirteen year old l e v e l . Professors in Education and Nursing were consulted in order to change sophisticated and out-dated phrases to ones that might be more r e a d i l y understood by today's adolescent. This interpersonal behavior inventory was given to each of two thirteen year old boys. The f i r s t page of i n s t r u c t i o n and the f i r s t ques- tion was read to them, as well as the four possible answers to i t . Verbal d i r e c t i o n s with demonstration were given on how to mark on a computer card the one answer to the question that best explained how the adolescent usually acted. The boys were asked to read each of the following questions care- f u l l y and choose the appropriate answers from the four statements at the top of the page. They were given three computer cards to answer 140 questions on. They were encouraged to ask verbally and immediately when they were unsure of the meaning of a word, an idea, or the method of answering. It 105 was emphasized that they could best help by finding questions that they or other youths might ask. A new questionnaire was made, changing those words the boys had had d i f f i c u l t y understanding. As no other questions had arisen this ques- tionnaire was given to twenty-eight thirteen year old g i r l s using the same procedure. Some of the g i r l s had d i f f i c u l t y understanding words on the ques- tionnaire and some had d i f f i c u l t y answering the f i r s t f i f t y questions on the f i r s t computer card, the next f i f t y questions on the next card and the remaining questions on the l a s t card. An adapted questionnaire was designed changing each word that any of the g i r l s had asked the meaning of. The questionnaire was sub- divided into three sections: part A, B and C. Part A contained f i f t y ques- tions that could a l l be answered on a computer card that was coded number two, part B contained f i f t y questions that could be answered on a computer card coded number three, and part C consisted of f o r t y questions to be answered on the f i r s t f o r t y spaces of computer card four. The newly adapted questionnaire was then given to f i v e thirteen year old boys. The o r i g i n a l procedure was used but the new format of the questionnaire was explained. They had no d i f f i c u l t i e s answering the questionnaire. It took the slowest of the thirteen year old boys f o r t y - f i v e minutes to complete. When the adapted questionnaire was given to two adolescents in the treatment centre who the c h i l d care counsellors thought were depressed, no questions were asked although they had been encouraged. This boy and g i r l 106 were timed. It took the slowest one hour and twenty minutes to complete. A s p l i t - h a l f , odd-even check for r e l i a b i l i t y was calculated on the f i v e adolescent boys and two depressed adolescent scores, using Pearson's Product Moment Co e f f i c i e n t . A c o r r e l a t i o n of .96 was obtained. F i n a l l y t h i s adapted inventory was given to eighteen adolescents in a treatment centre as well as to t h e i r c h i l d care c o u n c i l l o r s . The adolescents answered the inventory while the researcher was present. A c h i l d care counsellor was to answer the inventory on an adolescent who had participated in the study, and who the counsellor knew well; they were to complete the inventory that day. There was a minimal return of the questionnaires l e f t for the counsellors to complete; those that attempted to answer the inventory reported that they had d i f f i c u l t y knowing the youth well enough to adequat- ely complete i t . For these reasons, i t was decided that t h i s level of data would not be sought. The level of data would be limited to that reported by the adolescents themselves. TABLE 19 ADAPTED INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIOR INVENTORY BEHAVIOR CATEGORIES AND CORRESPONDING QUESTIONS BEHAVIOR CATEGORY CORRESPONDING QUESTIONS SECTION A SECTION B SECTION C Dominance 1 16 31 46 11 26 41 6 19 Competition 2 17 32 47 12 27 42 7 20 30 Aggression 3 18 33 48 13 28 43 8 21 31 Mistrust 4 19 34 49 14 29 44 9 22 32 Detachment 5 20 35 50 15 30 45 10 23 33 39 Inhibition 6 21 36 1 16 31 46 Submission 7 22 37 2 17 32 47 11 24 34 Succorance 8 23 38 3 18 33 48 13 26 Abasement 9 24 39 4 19 34 49 13 26 Deference 10 25 40 5 20 35 50 14 27 36 Agreeableness 11 26 41 6 21 36 1 15 Nurturance 12 27 42 7 22 37 2 16 28 37 Affe c t i o n 13 28 43 8 23 38 3 S o c i a b i l i t y 14 29 44 9 24 39 4 17 29 38 Exhibition 15 30 45 10 25 40 5 18 i 0 V Al Bl Base your ratings on the behavior you believe you show. Rate the behavior that i s most typical of you. Don't t r y to answer questions the same way. People often show, for good reasons, behavior:that seem opposite. Rate quickly by drawing a st r a i g h t l i n e through the appropriate number with a p e n c i l . Rate every statement. If you feel uncertain about a judgment, record your best guess. 109 1. Not At A l l 2. Occasionally 3. Usually 4. A l l Of The Time 1. I make decisions l i k e what to do or where to go when I'm with another f r i e n d . 2. I compete and t r y to do better than other kids. 3. I r i d i c u l e or run down others. 4. When people are kind to me, I look to see i f they are doing i t so they can get something from me. 5. I avoid people who try to become close or personal with me. 6. I show discomfort and nervousness when people watch me at work or play. 7. I l e t others take charge of things even though the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s mine. 8. I try to get others to make my decisions f o r me. 9. I apologize when c r i t i c i z e d or blamed regardless of who's f a u l t i t i s . 10. I show respect for persons in authority by attitude and manner. 11. I contribute favourably as a member of a team or group. 12. I l i s t e n sympathetically to others t a l k about t h e i r troubles. 13. I exhibit an open t r u s t and f a i t h in others. 14. I go out of my way to be with people. 15. I draw attention to myself in a group by t e l l i n g jokes and s t o r i e s . 16. I dominate conversations, interrupt, "talk others down". 17. I avoid sharing c r e d i t for achievement with others. 18. I act as i f I'm the underdog; as i f I'm being picked on. 19. I mistrust or question indications of a f f e c t i o n from others. 20. I do things on my own and amuse myself. 1. Not At A l l 2. Occasionally 3. Usually 4. A l l Of The Time 21. I show signs of self-consciousness with strangers. 22. I give way when someone i n s i s t s on a point. 23. I avoid or refuse to take the lead even when I should. 24. I blame myself when disagreements occur with others. 25. I speak favourably of persons in charge or in authority over me. 26. I feel comfortable with other kids and they l i k e me. 27. I give help or advice to people who are having d i f f i c u l t y . 28. I show a f f e c t i o n and closeness to members of my family. 29. I take the f i r s t step such as saying hello f i r s t , when making new friends. 30. I take over conversations by talking about myself ( i l l n e s s , experiences, t r a v e l ) . 31. I boss my friends and associates around. 32. I volunteer f o r jobs that gain me the attention of others. 33. I put down or c r i t i c i z e the successes and strengths of others. 34. When I do something, people think I do i t for a d i f f e r e n t reason than why I am r e a l l y doing i t . 35. I act business-like and impersonal with fellow classmates. 36. I keep s i l e n t when in a group. 37. Even when I have a good reason, I don't show other people I am i r r i t a b l e or angry with them. 38. I go to others f o r help and reassurance when in d i f f i c u l t y . 39. I apologize for not having done better when I complete a task. 40. I make myself useful to persons I admire or respect. •1. Not At AH 2. Occasionally 111 3. Usually 4. A l l . Of The Time 41. I relate to and treat people as equals. 42. I reassure and comfort others when they are f e e l i n g low. 43. I say something favourable about nearly everyone I mention. 44. I avoid a c t i v i t i e s i n which I might be alone. 45. When I'm t e l l i n g friends about what I've done on the weekend, I make i t sound extra e x c i t i n g . 46. I use someone who i s n ' t as smart as I am to make me look good or to get me something I want. 47. I l i k e to win games even at parties. 48. I c r i t i c i z e or defy persons in authority. 49. I am not given the c r e d i t due me for my accomplishments. 50. I turn down in v i t a t i o n s to social a f f a i r s . 1. Not At Al1 2. Occasionally 3. Usually 4. A l l of the Time 1. I avoid actions in public which might make people notice me a l o t . 2. I go out of my way to avoid an argument. 3. I seek out people who show concern and sympathy for me. 4. I accept or take blame when things go wrong. 5. I carry out orders of my superiors with eagerness. 6. I carry out my share of common tasks or assignments. 7. I lend things I value to my f r i e n d s . 8. I show a real l i k i n g and a f f e c t i o n for people. 9. I work hard at being popular and accepted. 10. I make s t a r t l i n g remarks that a t t r a c t attention. 11. I volunteer advice and information when people have decisions to make. 12. I would rather do well myself than work for a team to do well. 13. I show impatience and don't tolerate others' mistakes or weaknesses. 14. People c r i t i c i z e or blame me unjustly. 15. I f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t to mix with others. 16. I show signs of discomfort or self-consciousness in the presence of authority figures. 17. I am agreeable and t r y to reach agreement when differences a r i s e . 18. I get opinions from others for even minor decisions. 19. I make a l o t of apologies f o r my appearance or conduct. 20. I choose friends who have greater popularity or greater prestige. 21. I l i k e to work with others on a project that we a l l want to do. 113 22. I put aside my own work or pleasure i f someone asks f o r help. 23. I f i n d i t easy to l i k e people on short acquaintance. 24. I encourage friends to drop in informally at my home. 25. I speak up at meetings whether I have anything to say or not. 26. I t a l k my friends into doing what I would l i k e . 27. I set d i f f i c u l t goals for myself and t r y to achieve them. 28. I show anger or i r r i t a b i l i t y in my dealing with others. 29. I feel others are p u l l i n g jokes on me or don't r e a l l y mean what they are saying. 30. I avoid discussion of my personal a f f a i r s with friends or fellow students. 31. I keep shyly in the background in a social gathering. 32. I y i e l d to the wishes and plans of others. 33. I borrow money and things of value from f r i e n d s . 34. I talk at length about my f a u l t s and f a i l u r e s even in a group. 35. I copy the behavior of admired or successful persons. 36. I express my ideas so that they won't hurt other people's f e e l i n g s . 37. I am o b l i g i n g and cooperative when asked to perform l i t t l e services or favours. 38. I act close and personal with people. 39. I i n v i t e friends and acquaintances to my home. 40. I turn conversations in the d i r e c t i o n of my ideas, accomplishments, misfortunes. 41. I take opportunities to i n s t r u c t or explain things to others. 42. I d i r e c t the attention of others toward my accomplishments. 43. I feel I'm above other kids my age. 44. I show reluctance to t r u s t or confide i n others. 45. I keep aloof or apart from my neighbours. 1. Not At A l l 2. Occasionally 3. Usually 4. A l l of the Time 46. I feel uncomfortable in close face-to-face individual contacts. 47. I give in rather than f i g h t f o r my rights in a c o n f l i c t . 48. I dump my troubles and problems on others. 49. I t e l l others I feel i n f e r i o r to them. 50. I r e a d i l y accept advice of superiors. 1. Not At A l l 2. Occasionally 3. Usually 4. A l l of the Time 1. I consider the feelings and needs of others before speaking or acting. 2. I do favours for others without being asked. 3. I express a f f e c t i o n openly and d i r e c t l y through words, gestures and contact. 4. I mix widely at a social gathering. 5. I act the clown or amuse others at a party. 6. I take charge of things when I'm with people. 7. I work f o r things that give me status and s u p e r i o r i t y to others. 8. I t e l l people " o f f " when they annoy me. 9. I express suspicion when someone i s e s p e c i a l l y nice to me. 10. I stay away from social a f f a i r s where I w i l l have to meet new people. 11. I y i e l d without objection when my opinions are questioned or challenged. 12. I ask f o r help on jobs I could handle myself. 13. When I compare my s k i l l s and accomplishments with those of my f r i e n d s , mine seem small and of l i t t l e c r e d i t . 14. I t r y to obey and please people who are more powerful and s k i l l e d than I am. 15. I t r y to " f i t i n " and do what i s expected. 16. I show a genuine i n t e r e s t in the problems of others. 17. I drop in to v i s i t friends j u s t to t a l k . 18. I openly describe my personal a f f a i r s even to casual acquaintances. 19. I d i r e c t the a c t i v i t i e s of one or more clubs or associations to which I belong. 20. I contrast unfavourably the accomplishments of others with my own. 21. I make unfavourable or h o s t i l e remarks about my equals. 1. Not At A l l 2. Occasionally 3. Usually 4. A l l of the Time 22. I accuse others of prying into my a f f a i r s . 23. I act cool and distant towards others. 24. I compromise to avoid unpleasantness. 25. I ask others to look a f t e r my i n t e r e s t s . 26. I express a great deal of gratitude f o r help or favours. 27. I t r y to be helpful and agree with the teacher and other people who are in authority over me. 28. I respond to others' f a u l t s in a h e l p f u l , accepting manner. 29. I attend or help organize p a r t i e s , dances, celebrations and reunions. 30. I seek membership in clubs and associations which have high prestige, reputation. 31. I use a sarcastic or b i t i n g type of humor. 32. I misinterpret minor comments by others as unfavourable towards myself. 33. I avoid involvement or p a r t i c i p a t i n g in group e f f o r t s . 34. I l e t my friends push me around. 35. I seek favours from friends even when I can't return them. 36. I submit to the judgment of older individuals i n making decisions. 37. I exhaust my energies being helpful to others. 38. I t r y to be included in most of my friends' a c t i v i t i e s . 39. I spend my free evenings at home with a hobby, book or T.V. program. 40. I seek to have others choose or select for me clothes, food, and even recreation. 117 TABLE 20 SOURCES OF VARIATION A1B1 SCORES DEGREES OF SUM OF SUM OF FREEDOM SQUARED SCORES MEAN SCORES INDIVIDUAL 101 320.21 3.17 ITEMS 34 491.61 14.46 RESIDUAL 3434 2262.80 .66 TOTAL 3569 3074.62 .86 INTERNAL CONSISTENCY COEFFICIENT .79 STANDARD ERROR OF MEASUREMENT 4.80 118 TABLE 21 SOURCES OF VARIATION DOMINANCE SCORES DEGREES OF FREEDOM SUM OF SQUARED SCORES SUM OF MEAN SCORES INDIVIDUAL 101 105.92 1.05 ITEMS 8 140.89 17.61 RESIDUAL 808 360.67 0.45 TOTAL 917 607.48 .66 INTERNAL CONSISTENCY COEFFICIENT STANDARD ERROR OF MEASUREMENT .57 2.00 TABLE 22 119 SOURCE OF VARIATION COMPETITION SCORES DEGREES OF SUM OF SUM OF FREEDOM SQUARED SCORES MEAN SCORES INDIVIDUAL 101 186.25 1.84 ITEMS 9 129.38 14.38 RESIDUAL 909 561.72 .62 TOTAL 1019 877.36 .86 INTERNAL CONSISTENCY COEFFICIENT .66 STANDARD ERROR OF MEASUREMENT 2.2/9 TABLE 23 SOURCE OF VARIATION AGGRESSION SCORES DEGREES OF SUM OF SUM OF FREEDOM SQUARED SCORES MEAN SCORES INDIVIDUAL 101 190.88 1.89 ITEMS 9 41.35 4.59 RESIDUAL 909 451.05 0.50 TOTAL 1019 683.20 0.67 INTERNAL CONSISTENCY COEFFICIENT STANDARD ERROR OF MEASUREMENT .24 2.23 121 TABLE 24 SOURCE OF VARIATION MISTRUST SCORES DEGREES OF SUM OF SUM OF FREEDOM SQUARED SCORES MEAN SCORES INDIVIDUAL 101 204.13 2.02 ITEMS 9 25.45 2.83 RESIDUAL 909 457.25 .50 TOTALS 1019 686.84 .67 INTERNAL CONSISTENCY COEFFICIENT .75 STANDARD ERROR OF MEASUREMENT 2.24 TABLE 25 SOURCE OF VARIATION DETACHMENT SCORES DEGREES OF SUM OF SUM OF FREEDOM SQUARED SCORES MEAN SCORES INDIVIDUAL 101 245.65 2.43 ITEMS 10 116.66 11.67 RESIDUAL 1010 646.44 .64 TOTALS 1121 1008.75 .90 INTERNAL CONSISTENCY COEFFICIENT .24 STANDARD ERROR OF MEASUREMENT 2.65 TABLE 26 SOURCE OF VARIATION INHIBITION SCORES DEGREES OF SUM OF SUM OF FREEDOM SQUARED SCORES MEAN SCORES INDIVIDUAL 101 250.51 2.48 ITEMS 6 28.16 4.69 RESIDUAL 606 368.99 .61 TOTALS 713 647.66 .91 INTERNAL CONSISTENCY COEFFICIENT STANDARD ERROR OF MEASUREMENT .75 2.06 TABLE 27 124 SOURCE OF VARIATION SUBMISSIVENESS SCORES DEGREES OF SUM OF SUM OF FREEDOM SQUARED SCORES MEAN SCORES INDIVIDUAL 101 164.68 1.63 ITEMS 9 157.21 17.47 RESIDUAL 909 510.30 .56 TOTAL 1019 832.18 .82 INTERNAL CONSISTENCY COEFFICIENT STANDARD ERROR OF MEASUREMENT .66 2.37 TABLE 28 SOURCE OF VARIATION SUCCORANCE SCORES DEGREES OF FREEDOM SUM OF SQUARED SCORES SUM OF MEAN SCORES INDIVIDUAL 101 138.19 1.37 ITEMS 10 76.69 7.67 RESIDUAL 1010 548.59 .54 TOTAL 1121 763.46 .68 INTERNAL CONSISTENCY COEFFICIENT STANDARD ERROR OF MEASUREMENT .60 2.44 TABLE 29 SOURCE OF VARIANCE ABASEMENT SCORES DEGREES OF SUM OF SUM OF FREEDOM SQUARED SCORES MEAN SCORES INDIVIDUAL 101 183.18 1.81 ITEMS 8 143.10 17.89 RESIDUAL 808 445.57 0.55 TOTALS 917 771.84 0.84 INTERNAL CONSISTENCY COEFFICIENT STANDARD ERROR OF MEASUREMENT .70 2.23 127 TABLE 30 SOURCE OF VARIANCE DEFERENCE SCORES DEGREES OF SUM OF SUM OF FREEDOM SQUARED SCORES MEAN SCORES INDIVIDUAL 101 197.01 1.95 ITEMS 9 122.37 13.60 RESIDUAL 909 500.04 .55 TOTAL 1019 819.41 .80 INTERNAL CONSISTENCY COEFFICIENT STANDARD ERROR OF MEASUREMENT .72 2.35 TABLE 31 128 SOURCE OF VARIANCE AGREEABLENESS DEGREE OF SUM OF SUM OF FREEDOM SQUARED SCORES MEAN SCORES INDIVIDUAL 101 131.69 1.30 ITEMS 7 12.86 1.84 RESIDUAL 707 435.26 .62 TOTAL 815 579.82 .71 INTERNAL CONSISTENCY COEFFICIENT .53 STANDARD ERROR OF MEASUREMENT 2.22 TABLE 32 SOURCE OF VARIANCE NURTURANCE SCORES DEGREE OF FREEDOM SUM OF SQUARED SCORES SUM OF MEAN SCORES INDIVIDUALS 101 170.69 1.69 ITEMS 9 97.44 10.83 RESIDUAL 909 410.27 .45 TOTAL 1019 678.39 .67 INTERNAL CONSISTENCY COEFFICIENT STANDARD MEASUREMENT OF ERROR .73 2.12 TABLE 33 SOURCE OF VARIATION AFFECTION SCORES DEGREES OF SUM OF SUM OF FREEDOM SQUARED SCORES MEAN SCORES INDIVIDUAL 101 180.96 1.79 ITEMS 6 28.31 4.72 RESIDUAL 606 311.70 .51 TOTAL 713 520.97 .73 INTERNAL CONSISTENCY COEFFICIENT STANDARD ERROR OF MEASUREMENT .71 1.90 131 TABLE 34 SOURCE.OF VARIATION SOCIABILITY SCORES DEGREES OF SUM OF SUM OF FREEDOM SQUARED SCORES MEAN SCORES INDIVIDUAL 101 236.18 2.34 ITEMS 9 24.30 2.70 RESIDUAL 909 646.40 .71 TOTAL 1019 906.89 .89 INTERNAL CONSISTENCY COEFFICIENT .70 STANDARD ERROR OF MEASUREMENT ' 2.67 132 TABLE 35 SOURCE OF VARIATION EXHIBITION SCORES DEGREES OF SUM OF SQUARE OF FREEDOM SQUARED SCORES MEAN SCORES INDIVIDUAL ITEMS RESIDUAL TOTAL INTERNAL CONSISTENCY COEFFICIENT .69 STANDARD ERROR OF MEASUREMENT 2.10 101 176.73 1.75 7 50.92 7.27 707 389.20 .55 815 616.85 .76 FREQUENCY 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 0 2 2 4 N df Chi Square Chi Prob 102 3 2.82241 .72734 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 FIGURE 4 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF DOMINANCE SCORES AND GOODNESS OF FIT FREQUENCY CLASS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 LOW SCORE 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 HIGH SCORE 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 FIGURE 5 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF COMPETITION SCORES AND GOODNESS OF FIT CO FREQUENCY 1 CLASS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 LOW SCORE 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 HIGH SCORE 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 FIGURE 6 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF AGGRESSION SCORES AND GOODNESS OF FIT FREQUENCY 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 CLASS 1 2 LOW SCORE 0 2 HIGH SCORE 2 4 N df Chi Square Chi Prob 102 5 3.30782 .65264 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 FIGURE 7 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF MISTRUST SCORES AND GOODNESS OF FIT FREQUENCY CLASS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 LOW SCORE 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 HIGH SCORE 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 FIGURE 8 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF DETACHMENT SCORES AND GOODNESS OF FIT FREQUENCY 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 CLASS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 LOW SCORE 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 HIGH SCORE 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 N df Chi Square Chi Prob 102 5 11.81324 .03744 FIGURE 9 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF INHIBITION SCORES AND GOODNESS OF FIT CO CO FREQUENCY CLASS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 111 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 HIGH SCORE 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 1.8 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 LOW SCORE 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 FIGURE 10 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SUBMISSIVENESS SCORES AND GOODNESS OF FIT CO CO FREQUENCY 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 CLASS LOW SCORE HIGH SCORE N df Chi Square Chi Prob 102 4 6.40916 .17060 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 "11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 FIGURE 11 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SUCCORANCE SCORES AND GOODNESS OF FIT o CLASS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 LOW SCORE 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 HIGH SCORE 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 FIGURE 12 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF ABASEMENT SCORES AND GOODNESS OF FIT FREQUENCY CLASS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 LOW SCORE 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 HIGH SCORE 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 FIGURE 13 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF DEFERENCE SCORES AND GOODNESS OF FIT FREQUENCY 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 CLASS LOW SCORE HIGH SCORE 1 0 2 N df Chi Square Chi Prob 102 3 6.36029 .27272 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 FIGURE 14 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF AGREEABLENESS SCORES AND GOODNESS OF FIT CO FREQUENCY CLASS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 LOW SCORE 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 HIGH SCORE 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 FIGURE 15 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF NURTURANCE SCORES AND GOODNESS OF FIT FREQUENCY 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 CLASS 1 2 LOW SCORE 0 2 HIGH SCORE 2 4 N df Chi Square Chi Prob 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 FIGURE 16 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF AFFECTION SCORES AND GOODNESS OF FIT FREQUENCY CLASS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 LOW SCORE 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 HIGH SCORE 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 FIGURE 17 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SOCIABILITY SCORES AND GOODNESS OF FIT FREQUENCY CLASS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 LOW SCORE 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 HIGH SCORE 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 FIGURE 18 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF EXHIBITION SCORES AND GOODNESS OF FIT TABLE 36 ITEM ANALYSIS 1, DOMINANCE QUESTIONS QUESTION STATEMENT VALUE NO. WHO PERCENT WHO BISERIAL CORRELATION MEAN CHOSE ITEM CHOSE ITEM COEFFICIENT SCORE 1 1 1 9 8.8 - .46 14. 89 2 2 47 46.1 - .40 17. 17 3 3 40 39.2 .52 19. 80 4 4 6 5.9 .30 20. 83 2 1 1 53 52.0 - .66 16. 68 2 2 41 40.2 .49 19. 68 3 3 6 5.9 .26 20. 50 4 4 2 2.0 .28 22. 00 3 1 1 45 44.1 - .61 16. 56 2 2 49 48.0 .45 19. 35 3 3 6 5.9 .26 20. 50 4 4 2 2.0 .20 21. 00 4 1 1 49 48.0 - .54 16. 86 2 2 44 43.1 .48 19. 57 3 3 8 7.8 .15 19. 37 4 4 1 1.0 .12 16. 00 5 1 1 4 3.9 - .02 18. 00 2 2 43 42.2 - .45 16. 93 3 3 39 38.2 .15 18. 69 4 4 15 14.7 .39 20. 40 6 1 1 11 10.8 - .42 15. 45 2 2 70 68.6 - .11 18. 03 3 3 18 17.6 .36 20. 06 4 4 3 2.9 .30 21. 67 QUESTION STATEMENT VALUE NO. WHO PRECENT WHO BISERIAL CORRELATION MEAN CHOSE ITEM CHOSE ITEM COEFFICIENT SCORE 7 1 1 5 4.9 - .28 15.60 2 2 48 47.1 - .41 17.15 3 3 42 41.2 .29 19.07 4 4 7 6.9 .50 22.09 8 1 1 23 22.5 - .73 15.00 2 2 54 52.9 .04 18.30 3 3 23 22.5 .55 20.65 4 4 2 2.0 .50 25.00 9 1 1 52 51.0 - .65 16.65 2 2 34 33.3 .33 19.35 3 3 15 14.7 .50 21.00 4 4 1 1.0 .04 19.00 TABLE 37 ITEM ANALYSIS, COMPETITION QUESTION QUESTION STATEMENT VALUE NO. WHO PERCENT WHO BISERIAL CORRELATION MEAN CHOSE ITEM CHOSE ITEM COEFFICIENT SCORE 1 1 1 10 9.8 - .5 16 .10 2 2 31 30.4 - .36 19 .23 3 3 38 37.3 .15 21 .71 4 4 23 22.5 .58 24 .65 2 1 1 46 45.1 - .45 19 .39 2 2 39 38.2 .27 22 .23 3 3 12 11.8 .19 22 .75 4 4 5 4.9 .18 23 .40 3 1 1 38 37.3 - .70 18 .00 2 2 41 40.2 .22 21 .48 3 3 19 18.6 .47 24 .32 4 4 4 3.9 .31 25 .50 4 1 1 10 9.8 - .37 17 .50 2 2 41 40.2 - .35 19 .61 3 3 25 24.5 .10 21 .64 4 4 26 25.5 .55 24 .19 5 1 1 36 35.3 - .33 19 .56 2 2 38 37.3 - .09 20 .68 3 3 21 20.6 .27 22 .86 4 4 7 6.9 .40 25 .57 6 1 1 14 13.7 - .34 18 .29 2 2 45 44.1 - .31 19 .89 3 3 28 27.5 .31 22 .79 4 4 15 14.7 .37 24 .00 QUESTION STATEMENT VALUE NO. WHO PERCENT WHO BISERIAL CORRELATION MEAN CHOSE ITEM CHOSE ITEM COEFFICIENT B-ST SCORE 7 1 1 31 30.4 - .45 18.77 2 2 51 50.0 - .11 20.69 3 3 18 17.6 .62 25.50 4 4 2 2.0 .29 26.50 8 1 1 19 18.6 - .67 16.42 2 2 53 52.0 - .12 20.68 3 3 23 22.5 .42 23.65 4 4 7 6 .9 .63 28.14 9 1 1 34 33.3 - .48 18.79 2 2 53 52.0 .17 21.62 3 3 11 10.8 .32 24.00 4 4 4 3.9 .27 25.00 10 1 1 34 33.3 - .48 18.79 2 2 53 52.0 .17 21.62 3 3 11 10.8 .32 24.00 4 4 4 3.9 .27 25.00 TABLE 38 ITEM ANALYSIS, AGGRESSION QUESTIONS QUESTION STATEMENT VALUE NO. WHO PERCENT WHO BISERIAL CORRELATION MEAN CHOSE ITEM , CHOSE ITEM COEFFICIENT SCORE 1 1 1 30 29.4 - .75 15.33 2 2 56 54.9 .25 20.09 3 3 9 8.8 .56 25.50 4 4 6 5.9 .42 2 1 1 40 39.2 - .49 17.20 2 2 44 43.1 .22 20.18 3 3 12 11.8 .12 20.42 4 4 6 5.9 .45 24.83 3 1 1 39 38.2 - .61 16.64 2 2 54 52.9 .27 20.20 3 3 5 4.9 .34 23.80 4 4 4 3.9 .54 27.75 4 1 1 23 22.5 - .43 16.61 2 2 55 53.9 - .24 18.55 3 3 17 16.7 .54 23.29 4 4 7 6.9 .46 24.57 5 1 1 22 21.6 - .71 14.77 2 2 56 54.9 .06 19.50 3 3 17 16.7 .49 22.94 4 4 7 6.9 .35 23.29 6 1 1 27 26.5 - .56 16.15 2 2 60 58.8 .09 19.58 3 3 12 11.8 .57 24.33 4 4 3 2.9 .18 22.33 QUESTION STATEMENT VALUE NO. WHO PERCENT WHO BISERIAL CORRELATION MEAN CHOSE ITEM CHOSE ITEM COEFFICIENT SCORE 7 1 1 49 48.0 - .47 17.63 2 2 37 36.3 .12 19.84 3 3 11 10.8 .35 22.55 4 4 5 4.9 .41 24.80 8 1 1 14 13.7 - .36 16.36 2 2 44 43.1 - .35 17.91 3 3 33 32.4 .34 21.00 4 4 11 10.8 .47 23.64 9 1 1 39 38.2 - .67 16.38 2 2 55 53.9 .43 20.67 3 3 7 6.9 .41 24.00 4 4 1 1.0 .27 26.00 10 1 1 34 33.3 - .57 16.53 2 2 51 50.0 .19 19.98 3 3 8 7.8 .25 22.00 4 4 9 8.8 .43 23.67 TABLE 39 ITEM ANALYSIS, MISTRUST QUESTIONS QUESTION STATEMENT VALUE" NO. WHO PERCENT WHO BISERIAL CORRELATION MEAN CHOSE ITEM CHOSE ITEM COEFFICIENT SCORE 1 1 1 44 43 .1 - .75 16. 82 2 2 39 38 .2 .23 20. 90 3 3 11 10 .8 .38 23. 55 4 4 8 7 .8 .61 26. 63 2 1 1 42 41 .2 - .67 17. 02 2 2 39 38 .2 .10 20. 33 3 3 12 11 .8 .39 23. 42 4 4 8 7 .8 .61 26. 63 3 1 1 17 16 .7 - .47 16. 24 2 2 54 52 .9 - .24 19. 06 3 3 25 24 .5 .53 23. 12 4 4 6 5 .9 .33 24. 00 4 1 1 19 18 .6 - .59 15. 63 2 2 59 57 .8 .08 20. 10 3 3 17 16 .7 .28 22. 00 4 4 7 6 .9 .33 24. 29 5 1 1 18 17 .6 - .27 17. 89 2 2 68 . 66 .7 - .07 19. 69 3 3 11 10 .8 .24 22. 18 4 4 5 4 .9 .33 24. 40 6 1 1 20 19 .6 - .43 16. 85 2 2 57 55 .9 - .21 19. 19 3 3 18 17 .6 .51 23. 67 4 4 7 6 .9 .37 24. 29 QUESTION STATEMENT VALUE NO. WHO PERCENT WHO BISERIAL CORRELATION MEAN CHOSE ITEM CHOSE ITEM COEFFICIENT SCORE 7 1 1 24 23.5 - .63 15.92 2 2 49 48.0 .00 19.88 3 3 19 18.6 .29 22.00 4 4 9 8.8 .60 26.22 8 1 1 38 37.3 - .56 17.29 2 2 46 45.1 .11 20.30 3 3 13 12.7 .38 23.23 4 4 5 4.9 .51 26.80 9 1 1 41 40.2 - .52 17.61 2 2 52 51.0 .27 20.81 3 3 8 7.8 .49 25.38 4 4 1 1.0 .00 20.00 10 1 1 19 18.6 - .57 15.79 2 2 62 60.8 - .14 19.48 3 3 15 14.7 .44 23.47 4 4 6 5.9 .63 27.83 TABLE 40 ITEM ANALYSIS, DETACHMENT QUESTIONS QUESTION STATEMENT VALUE NO. WHO PERCENT WHO BISERIAL CORRELATION MEAN CHOSE ITEM CHOSE ITEM COEFFICIENT SCORE 1 1 1 50 49.0 - .49 20. 10 2 2 38 37.0 .05 22. 45 3 3 10 9.8 .50 27. 90 4 4 4 3.9 .51 31. 00 2 1 1 6 5.9 - .08 21. 00 2 2 56 54.9 - .32 20. 98 3 3 27 26.5 .18 23. 37 4 4 13 12.7 .31 25. 31 3 1 1 66 64.7 - .70 20. 06 2 2 20 19.6 .33 24. 80 3 3 11 10.8 .32 25. 73 4 4 5 4.9 .60 31. 60 4 1 1 44 43.1 - .46 20. 2 2 37 36.3 - .03 22. 3 3 14 13.7 .31 25. 21 4 4 6 5.9 .64 31. 50 5 1 1 31 30.4 - .55 18. 77 2 2 43 42.2 - .13 21. 56 3 3 19 18.6 .35 25. 05 4 4 9 8.8 .70 30. 67 6 1 1 32 31.4 - .42 19. 66 2 2 39 38.2 - .22 21. 03 3 3 17 16.7 .19 23. 88 4 4 14 13.7 .70 29. 00 QUESTION STATEMENT VALUE NO. WHO PERCENT WHO BISERIAL CORRELATION MEAN CHOSE ITEM CHOSE ITEM COEFFICIENT SCORE 7 1 1 36 35.3 - .46 19.64 2 2 44 43.1 .00 22.18 3 3 14 13.7 .33 25.36 4 4 8 7.8 .45 27.89 8 1 1 49 48. - .63 19.47 2 2 27 26.5 - .02 22.00 3 3 17 16.7 .46 26.24 4 4 9 8.8 .62 29.67 9 1 1 27 26.5 « .53 18.59 2 2 51 50.0 - .07 21.88 3 3 19 18.6 .39 25.37 4 4 5 4.9 .64 32.20 10 1 : i 35 34.3 - .55 19.06 2 2 49 48.0 .03 22.31 3 3 12 11.8 .38 26.17 4 4 5 4.9 .66 32.60 11 1 1 13 12.7 - .05 21.62 2 2 23 22.5 - .38 19.35 3 3 43 42.2 .12 22.74 4 4 23 22.5 .28 24.22 TABLE 41 ITEM ANALYSIS, INHIBITION QUESTIONS QUESTION STATEMENT VALUE NO. WHO PERCENT WHO BISERIAL CORRELATION MEAN CHOSE ITEM CHOSE ITEM COEFFICIENT SCORE 1 1 1 20 19 .6 - .51 13. 05 2 2 36 35 .3 - .38 14. 67 3 3 29 28 .4 .27 17. 76 4 4 17 16 .7 .72 21. 47 2 1 1 12 11 .8 - .44 12. 58 2 2 36 35 .3 - .45 14. 36 3 3 29 28 .4 .10 16. 86 4 4 25 24 .5 .72 20. 48 3 1 1 24 23 .5 - .50 13. 46 2 2 49 48 .0 - .19 15. 71 3 3 21 20 .6 .37 18. 71 4 4 8 7 .8 .63 22. 87 4 1 1 14 13 .7 - .51 12. 36 2 2 32 31 .4 - .17 15. 53 3 3 40 39 .2 .09 16. 72 4 4 16 15 .7 .58 20. 63 5 1 1 22 21 .6 - .42 13. 77 2 2 44 43 .1 - .26 15. 36 3 3 25 24 .5 .29 18. 00 4 4 11 10 .8 .61 21. 82 6 1 1 25 24 .5 - .63 12. 80 2 2 47 46 .1 - .23 15. 53 3 3 12 11 .8 .13 17. 50 4 4 18 17 .6 .92 22. 72 QUESTION STATEMENT VALUE NO. WHO CHOSE ITEM PERCENT WHO CHOSE ITEM BISERIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENT MEAN SCORE 7 1 1 22 21.6 - .43 13.73 2 2 56 54.9 - .29 15.48 3 3 14 13.7 .41 19.57 4 4 10 9.8 .67 22.60 TABLE 42 ITEM ANALYSIS, SUBMISSIVENESS QUESTIONS QUESTION STATEMENT VALUE NO. WHO PERCENT WHO BISERIAL CORRELATION MEAN CHOSE ITEM CHOSE ITEM COEFFICIENT SCORE 1 1 1 47 46.1 - 0.22 20. 53 2 2 41 40.2 - 0.04 21. 15 3 3 10 9.8 .08 22. 00 4 4 4 3.9 .63 29. 75 2 1 1 26 25.5 - .40 19. 12 2 2 42 41.2 - .24 20. 38 3 3 24 23.5 .30 23. 00 4 4 9 8.8 .58 26. 78 3 1 1 24 23.5 - .38 19. 13 2 2 40 39.2 - .25 20. 27 3 3 31 30.4 .40 23. 23 4 4 7 6.9 .43 25. 86 4 1 1 14 13.7 - .19 19. 86 2 2 52 51.0 - .48 19. 79 3 3 30 29.4 .38 23. 13 4 4 6 5.9 .62 28. 33 5 1 1 1 1.0 .12 24. 2 2 30 29.4 - .24 20. 3 3 57 55.9 - .04 21. 4 4 14 13.7 .37 24. 14 6 1 1 8 7.8 - .17 19. 62 2 2 66 64.7 - .32 20. 53 3 3 24 23.5 .15 22. 13 4 4 4 3.9 .79 32. 00 QUESTION STATEMENT VALUE NO. WHO PERCENT WHO BISERIAL CORRELATION MEAN CHOSE ITEM CHOSE ITEM COEFFICIENT SCORE 7 1 1 46 45.1 - .62 19.11 2 2 38 37.3 .06 21.53 3 3 9 8.8 .44 25.44 4 4 9 8.8 .63 27.22 8 1 1 43 42.2 - .58 19.12 2 2 42 41.2 .09 21.64 3 3 10 9.8 .19 23.00 4 4 7 6.9 .82 30.00 9 1 1 8 7.8 -. .30 18.25 2 2 36 25.3 - .38 19.64 3 3 39 38.2 .15 21.90 4 4 19 18.6 .48 24.42 10 1 1 57 55.9 - .46 19.96 2 2 38 37.3 .10 21.68 3 3 4 3.9 .66 30.25 4 4 3 2.9 .53 29.33 TABLE 43 ITEM ANALYSIS, SUCCORANCE QUESTIONS QUESTION STATEMENT VALUE NO. WHO PERCENT WHO BISERIAL CORRELATION MEAN CHOSE ITEM CHOSE ITEM COEFFICIENT SCORE 1 1 1 35 34.3 - .46 19.43 2 2 49 48.0 .07 21.59 3 3 12 11.8. .38 29.42 4 4 6 5.9 .33 25.00 2 1 1 32 31.4 - .38 19.66 2 2 42 41.2 - .06 21.17 3 3 22 21.6 .27 22.95 4 4 6 5.9 .45 26.33 3 1 1 10 9.8 - .01 21.30 2 2 53 52.0 - .28 20.55 3 3 31 30.4 .20 22.29 4 4 8 7.8 .22 23.50 4 1 1 24 23.5 - .54 18.46 2 2 47 46.1 .06 21.57 3 3 22 21.6 .34 23.32 4 4 9 8.8 .24 23.44 5 1 1 16 15.7 - .53 17.75 2 2 47 46.1 - .27 20.49 3 3 27 26.5 .44 23.59 4 4 12 11.8 .43 24.75 6 1 1 31 30.4 - .40 19.55 2 2 59 57.8 .14 21.75 3 3 7 6.9 .12 22.57 4 4 5 4.9 .46 26.80 QUESTION STATEMENT VALUE NO. WHO PERCENT WHO BISERIAL CORRELATION MEAN CHOSE ITEM CHOSE ITEM COEFFICIENT SCORE 7 1 1 46 45.1 - .68 19.09 2 2 48 47.1 .43 22.77 3 3 5 4.9 .29 24.80 4 4 3 2.9 .50 28.67 8 1 1 37 36.3 - .69 18.59 2 2 51 50.0 .27 22.22 3 3 11 10.8 .46 25.18 4 4 3 2.9 .43 ' 27.67 9 1 1 35 34.3 - .47 19.40 2 2 54 52.9 .21 22.00 3 3 10 9.8 .28 23.80 4 4 3 2.9 .27 25.33 10 1 1 23 22.5 - .38 19.26 2 2 61 59.8 - .06 21.23 3 3 12 11.8 .30 23.75 4 4 6 5.9 .45 26.33 11 1 1 63 61.8 - .34 20.56 2 2 33 32.4 .18 22.18 3 3 4 3.9 .28 25.00 4 4 2 2.0 .33 27.00 TABLE 44 ITEM ANALYSIS, ABASEMENT QUESTIONS QUESTION STATEMENT VALUE- NO. WHO PERCENT WHO BISERIAL CORRELATION MEAN CHOSE ITEM CHOSE ITEM COEFFICIENT SCORE 1 1 1 38 37 .3 - .61 15. 58 2 2 37 36 .3 - .05 17. 92 3 3 22 21 .6 .50 21. 09 4 4 5 4 .9 .62 25. 80 2 1 1 35 34 .3 - .40 16. 37 2 2 48 47 .1 - .11 17. 73 3 3 16 15 .7 .62 22. 50 4 4 3 2 .9 .21 21. 33 3 1 1 24 23 .5 - .59 14. 75 2 2 44 43 .1 - .21 17. 34 3 3 24 23 .5 .55 21. 25 4 4 10 9 .8 .44 22. 10 4 1 1 14 13 .7 - .58 13. 71 2 2 59 57 .8 - .09 17. 88 3 3 24 23 .5 .27 19. 62 4 4 5 4 .9 .64 26. 00 5 1 1 39 38 .2 - .71 15. 23 2 2 35 34 .3 .03 18. 26 3 3 18 17 .6 .43 21. 00 4 4 10 9 .8 .62 23. 70 6 1 1 52 51 .0 -..53 16. 46 2 2 40 9 .2 .37 19. 86 3 3 7 6 .9 .16 19. 86 4 4 3 2 .9 .32 23. 00 QUESTION STATEMENT VALUE NO. WHO PERCENT WHO BISERIAL CORRELATION MEAN CHOSE ITEM CHOSE ITEM COEFFICIENT SCORE 7 1 1 69 67.6 - .31 17.43 2 2 29 28.4 .20 19.14 3 3 2 2.0 .08 19.50 4 4:- 2 2.0 .41 25.50 8 1 1 32 31.4 - .52 15.69 2 2 46 45.1 - .21 17.39 3 3 12 11.8 .36 21.08 4 4 12 11.8 .76 24.42 9 1 1 6 5.9 - .17 16.17 2 2 21 20.6 - .26 16.52 3 3 54 52.9 .02 18.17 4 4 21 20.6 .33 20.14 TABLE 45 ITEM ANALYSIS, DEFERENCE QUESTIONS QUESTION STATEMENT VALUE NO. WHO PERCENT WHO BISERIAL CORRELATION MEAN CHOSE ITEM CHOSE ITEM COEFFICIENT SCORE 1 1 1 9 8.8 - .48 19.22 2 2 10 9.8 - .29 21.30 3 3 52 51.0 - .16 23.58 4 4 31 30.4 .62 27.42 2 1 1 10 9.8 - .48 19.40 2 2 46 45.1 - .41 22.57 3 3 37 36.3 .50 26.46 4 4 9 8.8 .36 27.89 3 1 1 3 2.9 - .37 18.00 2 2 29 28.4 - .53 21.24 3 3 48 47.1 .22 24.94 4 4 22 21.6 .45 27.05 4 1 1 17 16.7 - .56 19.88 2 2 43 42.2 - .12 23.63 3 3 34 33.3 .37 25.94 4 4 7 6.9 .41 28.86 5 1 1 45 44.1 - .31 22.91 2 2 34 33.3 .03 24.26 3 3 18 17.6 .22 25.78 4 4 5 4.9 .32 28.40 6 1 1 25 24.5 . - .31 22.24 2 2 51 50.0 - .20 23.45 3 3 17 16.7 .33 26.65 4 4 9 8.8 .43 28.56 QUESTION STATEMENT VALUE NO. WHO PERCENT WHO BISERIAL CORRELATION MEAN CHOSE ITEM CHOSE ITEM COEFFICIENT SCORE 7 1 1 4 3.9 - .18 21.50 2 2 40 39.2 - .63 21.40 3 3 44 43.1 .21 24.98 4 4 14 13.7 .71 30.07 8 1 1 24 23.5 - .56 20.67 2 2 39 38.2 - .20 23.26 3 3 28 27.5 .29 25.79 4 4 11 10.8 .69 30.64 9 1 1 12 11.8 - .63 18.50 2 2 39 38.2 - .33 22.67 3 3 40 39.2 .33 25.57 4 4 11 10.8 .65 30.27 10 1 1 13 12.7 - .36 21.00 2 2 61 59.8 - .16 23.67 3 3 26 25.5 .37 26.31 4 4 2 2.0 .33 30.50 TABLE 46 ITEM ANALYSIS, AGREEABLENESS QUESTIONS QUESTION STATEMENT VALUE NO. WHO PERCENT WHO BISERIAL CORRELATION MEAN CHOSE ITEM CHOSE ITEM COEFFICIENT SCORE 1 1 1 7 6.9 - .53 19. 00 2 2 14 13.7 - .45 20. 79 3 3 38 37.3 .11 23. 87 4 4 43 42.2 .43 24. 79 2 1 1 5 4.9 - .60 17. 60 2 2 14 13.7 - .26 21. 93 3 3 58 56.9 - .06 23. 36 - 4 4 24 23.5 .53 25. 92 3 1 1 7 6.9 - .63 18. 14 2 2 15 14.7 - .30 21. 73 3 3 48 47.1 .01 23. 52 4 4 32 31.4 .52 25. 47 4 1 1 3 2.9 - .23 20. 67 2 2 18 17.6 - .21 27. 39 3 3 61 59.8 - .03 23. 44 4 4 19 18.6 .36 25. 37 5 1 1 5 4.9 - .38 19. 80 2 2 22 21.6 - .44 21. 41 3 3 40 39.2 - .11 23. 15 4 4 35 34.3 .64 25. 74 6 1 1 7 6.9 - .09 22. 71 2 2 21 20.6 - .45 21. 29 3 3 52 51.0 .05 23. 62 i 4 4 22 21.6 .44 25. 59 QUESTION STATEMENT VALUE NO. WHO PERCENT WHO BISERIAL CORRELATION MEAN CHOSE ITEM CHOSE ITEM COEFFICIENT SCORE 7 1 1 5 4.9 - .19 21.60 2 2 30 29.4 - .46 21.70 3 3 47 46.1 .25 24.19 4 4 19 18.6 .35 25.32 8 1 1 7 6.9 - .35 20.57 2 2 27 26.5 - .42 21.74 3 3 51 50.0 .19 23.98 4 4 17 16.7 .46 26.06 TABLE 47 ITEM ANALYSIS, NURTURANCE QUESTIONS QUESTION STATEMENT VALUE NO. WHO PERCENT WHO BISERIAL CORRELATION MEAN CHOSE ITEM CHOSE ITEM COEFFICIENT SCORE 1 1 1 3 2.9 - .20 23. 33 2 cl 22 21.6 - .65 22. 45 3 3 49 48.0 - .11 26. 04 4 4 28 27.5 .79 30. 54 2 1 1 0 0 0.0 0. 0 2 2 37 36.3 - .61 23. 81 3 3 48 47.1 .20 27. 10 4 4 17 16.7 .54 30. 18 3 1 1 2 2.0 - .24 22. 0 2 2 26 25.5 - .67 22. 73 3 3 49 48.0 .13 26. 86 4 4 25 24.5 .59 29. 76 4 1 1 14 13.7 - .10 25. 64 2 2 45 44.1 - .40 24. 96 3 3 27 26.5 + .20 27. 48 4 4 16 15.7 .42 29. 44 5 1 1 5 4.9 - .32 22. 40 2 2 38 37.3 - .57 24. 03 3 3 45 44.1 .27 27. 42 4 4 14 13.7 .61 31. 14 6 1 1 3 2.9 - .37 20. 67 2 2 20 19.6 - .44 23. 60 3 3 58 56.9 .16 26. 88 4 4 20 19.6 .39 28. 90 QUESTION STATEMENT VALUE NO. WHO PERCENT WHO BISERIAL CORRELATION MEAN CHOSE ITEM CHOSE ITEM COEFFICIENT SCORE 7 1 1 7 6.9 - .38 22.86 2 2 61 59.8 - .32 25.56 3 3 29 28.4 .33 28.10 4 4 5 4.9 .46 32.20 8 1 1 3 2.9 - .54 18.00 2 2 35 34.3 - .53 24.06 3 3 43 42.2 .08 26.72 4 4 21 20.6 .73 30.95 9 1 1 4 3.9 - .43 20.50 2 2 . 43 42.2 - .46 24.67 3 3 49 48.0 .34 27.59 4 4 6 5.9 .60 33.33 10 1 1 24 23.5 - .49 23.63 2 2 59 57.8 .09 26.66 3 3 17 16.7 .42 29.35 4 4 2 2.0 .09 28.00 TABLE 48 ITEM ANALYSIS, AFFECTION QUESTIONS QUESTION STATEMENT VALUE NO. WHO PERCENT WHO BISERIAL CORRELATION MEAN CHOSE ITEM CHOSE ITEM COEFFICIENT SCORE 1 1 1 7 6.9 - .49 14.14 2 2 32 31.4 - .34 17.31 3 3 39 38.2 .04 18.85 4 4 24 23.5 .60 21.71 2 1 1 7 6.9 - .35 15.43 2 2 35 34.3 - .55 16.57 3 3 38 37.3 .30 19.79 4 4 21 20.6 .53 21.57 3 1 1 8 7.8 - .47 14.62 2 2 42 41.2 - .31 17.69 3 3 44 43.1 .36 19.86 4 4 8 7.8 .36 21.88 4 1 1 2 2.0 - .24 15.00 2 2 25 24.5 - .66 15.52 3 3 51 50.0 - .01 18.69 4 4 24 23.5 .75 22.42 5 1 1 6 5.9 - .44 14.33 2 2 28 27.5 - .45 16.68 3 3 40 39.2 .02 18.77 4 4 28 27.5 .64 21.61 6 1 1 10 9.8 - .55 14.40 2 2 50 49.0 - .28 17.90 3 3 33 32.4 .39 20.30 4 4 8 7.8 .49 23.00 QUESTION STATEMENT VALUE NO. WHO CHOSE ITEM PERCENT WHO CHOSE ITEM BISERIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENT MEAN SCORE 7 1 1 11 10.8 - .69 13.55 2 2 38 37.3 - .36 17.39 3 3 41 40.2 .37 19.98 4 4 12 11.8 .64 23.33 TABLE 49 ITEM ANALYSIS, SOCIABILITY QUESTIONS QUESTION STATEMENT VALUE NO. WHO PERCENT WHO BISERIAL CORRELATION MEAN CHOSE ITEM CHOSE ITEM COEFFICIENT SCORE 1 1 1 12 11.8 - .68 18. 17 2 2 46 45.1 - .15 24. 24 3 3 34 33.3 .45 27. 29 4 4 10 9.8 .27 27. 80 2 1 1 12 11.8 - .52 19. 75 2 2 32 31.4 - .39 22. 72 3 3 40 39.2 .42 26. 88 4 4 18 17.6 .36 27. 78 3 1 1 30 29.4 - .32 23. 03 2 2 32 31.4 - .01 24. 81 3 3 21 20.6 .14 25. 90 4 4 19 18.6 .25 26. 84 4 1 1 12 11.8 - .26 22. 33 2 2 36 35.3 - .15 24. 11 3 3 26 25.5 .04 25. 15 4 4 28 27.5 .30 26. 75 5 1 1 20 19.6 - .65 20. 00 2 2 38 37.3 - .12 24. 29 3 3 24 23.5 .16 25. 96 4 4 20 19.6 .63 29. 65 6 1 1 8 7.8 - .61 17. 62 2 2 46 45.1 - .24 23. 89 . 3 3 26 25.5 .14 25. 77 4 4 22 21.6 .52 28. 59 QUESTION STATEMENT VALUE NO. WHO PERCENT WHO BISERIAL CORRELATION MEAN CHOSE ITEM CHOSE ITEM COEFFICIENT SCORE 7 1 1 20 19.6 - .70 19 .60 2 2 37 36.3 - .17 24 .05 3 3 28 27.5 .41 27 .43 4 4 17 16.7 .47 28 .76 8 1 1 14 13.7 - .70 18 .50 2 2 52 51.0 - .17 24 .25 3 3 21 20.6 .33 27 .29 4 4 15 14.7 .55 29 .73 9 1 1 21 20.6 - .60 20 .52 2 2 37 36.3 - .07 24 .54 3 3 34 33.3 .26 26 .29 4 4 10 9.8 .53 30 .60 10 1 1 5 4.9 - .37 19 .40 2 2 29 28.4 - .52 21 .76 3 3 55 53.9 .38 26 .07 4 4 13 12.7 .43 29 .00 TABLE 50 ITEM ANALYSIS, EXHIBITION QUESTIONS QUESTION STATEMENT VALUE NO. WHO PERCENT WHO BISERIAL CORRELATION MEAN CHOSE ITEM CHOSE ITEM COEFFICIENT SCORE 1 1 1 26 25.5 - .64 12.69 2 2 49 48.0 .00 15.90 3 3 15 14.7 .22 17.40 4 4 12 11.8 .66 20.92 2 1 1 31 30.4 - .56 .13.39 2 2 49 48.0 .13 16.29 3 3 16 15.7 .34 18.12 4 4 6 5.9 .36 19.67 3 1 1 7 6.9 - .22 13.71 2 2 48 47.1 - .47 14.42 3 3 34 33.3 .33 17.26 4 4 13 12.7 .41 18.92 4 1 1 26 25.5 - .69 12.46 2 2 50 49.0 - .02 15.84 3 3 19 18.6 .40 18.32 4 4 7 6.9 .66 22.43 5 1 1 42 41.2 - .63 13.67 2 2 40 39.2 .14 16.42 3 3 12 11.8 .33 18.42 4 4 8 7.8 .57 21.12 6 1 1 28 27.5 - .31 14.43 2 2 64 62.7 - .07 15.73 3 3 8 7.8 .61 21.50 4 4 2 2.0 .19 19.00 QUESTION STATEMENT VALUE NO. WHO PERCENT WHO BISERIAL CORRELATION MEAN CHOSE ITEM CHOSE ITEM COEFFICIENT SCORE 7 1 1 35 34.3 - .53 13.74 2 2 48 47.1 .19 16.48 3 3 14 13.7 .12 16.71 4 4 5 4.9 .62 23.00 8 1 1 60 58.8 - .64 14.32 2 2 28 27.5 .79 16.79 3 3 8 7.8 .48 20.38 4 4 6 5.9 .53 21.50

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
China 3 27
France 2 0
United States 2 3
City Views Downloads
Unknown 3 0
Beijing 3 0
Ashburn 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items