UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Alcoholism : a study of certain characteristics of environment and personality Fry, Howard Calvin 1950

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1950_A8 F7 A4.pdf [ 12.55MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0106776.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0106776-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0106776-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0106776-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0106776-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0106776-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0106776-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0106776-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0106776.ris

Full Text

£"1.. i ALCOHOLISM: A STUDY OF CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF ENVIRONMENT AND PERSONALITY b y HOWARD CALVIN FRY A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY AND PSYCHOLOGY . THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA APRIL, 1950 ABSTRACT ALCOHOLISM: A STUDY OF CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF ENVIRONMENT AND PERSONALITY " '. by HOWARD CALVIN FRY The purpose of this study was to investigate by means of psychometric methods, certain characteristics of environment and personality as found in alcoholic subjects. The study attempted to determine whether or not an alcoholic personality pattern existed, a pattern to which a l l alcoholics would conform. Four measuring instruments were selected for use. They were the Manson Evaluation, a modification of the Chassell Experience Variables Record, a questionnaire and rating scale, and the Alcadd Tests The subjects consisted of two groups of individuals matched, as well as possible, for age, years of education, occupational level, and marital status. The f i r s t group was made up of 69 male alcoholics obtained from Alcoholics Anonymous circles and from the Provincial Mental Hospital, Essondale, B. C. The second group was composed of 67 male nonalcoholics l i v i n g i n the Vancouver area. The alcoholics ranged i n age from 22 to 61 years, the mean age of the group being 41.6 years. The nonalcoholics ranged in age from 22 to 62 years, with-a mean age of 37.8 years. A l l subjects had reached at least the grade four level of schooling. The nonalcoholic group belonged to a sl i g h t l y higher occupational level than did the alcoholic group. No psychologically or physior logically deteriorated subjects were included for study, and a l l subjects were voluntary participants© The responses of the alcoholic group to questions in the test battery were compared with those made by the nonalcoholic group. Test items were assigned weighted values, and the means, sigmas, and standard errors of the means'were calculated for both groups. The standard errors of the differences between the means were computed and c r i t i c a l ratios determined. Test items having c r i t i c a l ratios equal to 3.0 or greater were considered to represent significant differences between the alcoholic and nonalcoholic groups. As a result of , the s t a t i s t i c a l treatment of the data a series of conclusions were reached. These conclusions are as follows: 1. Differences exist between the alcoholics and nonalcoholics i n the  childhood and adolescent environment! The alcoholics revealed a greater number of behavior d i f f i c u l t i e s i n infancy, and their general health tended to be poorer. They were more resentful of parental discipline, but reported their mothers to be more attentive and solicitous. . The mothers of alcoholics rarely used alcohol, whereas nonalcoholics 1 mothers did more frequently. The alcoholics 1 fathers tended to have poorer emotional control, and demanded greater obedience. The alcoholics reported being more afraid of their fathers, and confided i n them less. The alcoholics' fathers tended to use alcohol i n greater amounts than did the fathers of the nonalcoholics. The alcoholics reported that they were less popular in the home and tended to avoid family l i f e activity. 2. Differences exist between the alcoholics and nonalcoholics i n the  adult environmentt (a) Vocational adjnstment was found to be poorer for the alcoholics. They reported less satisfaction with their jobs, and their economic situation tended to be more precarious than the nonalcoholics. The alcoholics exhibited a marked lack of drive and incentive towards a goal. Goals were expressed i n vague and hazy- terms. The alcoholics showed much greater occupational mobility. The type of occupation sought was such as to avoid responsibilities, and one that lacked routine work. (b) Marital adj ustment was found to be much poorer for the alcoholic group. They reported a greater frequency of love affairs than did the non-alcoholics, and had a greater number of crushes on persons of the same sex. Twenty-two per .cent of the alcoholic group were found to be separated and 17 per cent divorced, whereas no nonalcoholic was divorced or separated. -3-Those alcoholics who were married gave more evidence of not getting along well with their wives. The wives of alcoholics opposed the use of alcohol more strongly than did the wives of nonalcoholics. The alcoholics reported their wives to have poorer emotional control. The alcoholics indicated that they were more jealous of their wives than were the non-alcoholics. (c) Emotional adjustment was much poorer for the alcoholics than for the nonalcoholics. Extremely strong feelings of anxiety, resentfulness, insecurity, and emotional sensitivity were shown by the alcoholics. Feel-ings of being alone in the world and estranged from others were also present. Interpersonal relationships for the alcoholic group were markedly poorer. The alcoholics expressed much stronger feelings of sin and guilt, and felt remorseful about their failures in l i f e . The strong feeling of resentfulness was the predominant characteristic, with depressive fluct-uations second. (d) Social adjustment was typified by the alcoholics engaged in much more active pursuit of recreation than the nonalcoholics. This recreation, however, was found to be expressed in hazy and ill-defined terms and generally not of a satisfying nature such as hobbies, sports, and so forth. The alcoholics reported a much greater absence of group affiliations (other than Alcoholics Anonymous) than did the nonalcoholics. The alcoholics felt that they accepted criticism easier and were more suggestible and self conscious than the nonalcoholics. These specific conclusions led to the following general conclusions: 1. The alcoholics showed greater maladjustment than the nonalcoholics in the vocational, marital, emotional and social spheres. 2. The alcoholic group does not appear homogeneous with reference to any of the characteristics measured. 3. The findings are applicable only to those alcoholics who partici-pated in the study. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express his indebtedness and appreciation to Drs. W. G. Black and w. C. Gibson for their criticisms and kind suggestions during the course of this study. He also wishes to thank Mr. G. S. of Alcoholics Anonymous ahd the medical and administrative staff of the Provincial Mental Hospital, Essondale, B. C. for the sincere interest and cooper-ation received. Gratitude i s expressed to the men composing the alcoholic and nonalcoholic groups who participated i n the study, and to those individuals, too numerous for personal mention, who greatly aided the investigator by helping to gather the necessary data for analysis. TABLE OF CONTENTS I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM, AND DEFINITION . OF MAJOR TERMS. ........................ • 1 1. Statement of the Problem .. 1 2. Orientation of This Study 1 •3. Definition and-Discussion of Major Terms............ 2 II REVIEW. OF THE LITERATURE. 5 1. Studies Using Personality Inventories and Rating Scales.. 5 2. Studies Using Projective Techniques... 17 3. Studies Using C l i n i c a l Observation but Proceeding Statistically.............. . . . . . 2 0 4. Summary of Past Research... 25 III METHODS AND MATERIALS USED. IN THIS STUDY. ,....28 1. The Planning of This Study ..............28 2. S t a t i s t i c a l Techniques 29 3. Tests Used in This Study. .........31 4. Methods of Test Administration.. 40 5. Subjects Used in This Study. ......44 IV TEST RESULTS .....59 1...Results on the Questionnaire.... 60 2, The Modified Experience Variables Record,...........65 3» The Manson Evaluation .72 4. The Alcadd Test..... ..74 V DISCUSSION.. ................76 1. Factors in Childhood and Adolescent Environment.....76 2. Factors i n the Adult Environment. , .79 3. Emotional and Social Adjustment ......81 VI CONCLUSIONS 84 VII SUMMARY. 87 VIII PROBLEMS FOR FURTHER STUDY 89 APPENDICES. 90 A» Alcoholics Anonymous. 91 B. The Manson Evaluation. .95 C. The Modified Experience Variables Record .97 D. The Alcoholic Questionnaire. I l l E. The Nonalcoholic Questionnaire..' .119 F. The Rating Scale. .127 G* The Alcadd Test. .136 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....138 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM, AND DEFINITION OF MAJOR TERMS 1. Statement of the Problem A survey of the literature dealing with alcoholic addiction has revealed many'wide divergencies of opinion concerning both' the char-acteristics of addicts and the etiological factors leading to the condition. Much research has been carried out with a view to the establishment of an "alcoholic personality pattern," a pattern to which a l l alcoholics would conform. Concerning this, Lewis (35 ) has written: "It may be possible eventually to find some fundamental similarities in the personality of the alcoholic group,1 Landis (30) has expressed a similar view but concludes, as do Haggard and Jellinek (20), that i f any common factors do exist they have, thus far, defied scientific recognition. The general problem investigated by this study was. prompted by the hypothesis that similarities within the personality of the alcoholic group might exist. The problem was formulated as follows: To determine whether there exists any type of constellation of environmental and personality characteristics common to the alcoholic group studied, and whether the similarities observed, i f any, differ significantly from those of a nonalcoholic group. 2. Orientation of This study Studies attempting to cast light upon the psychodynamics of alcoholic addiction have approached the problem from many directions. They have stressed such factors as "...personality, heredity, constitution, psychotic or psychopathic tendencies, the emotional situation, environ-mental factors, such as occupation and the drinking mores of the community, -2-tolerance and the physiological processes" (25). The present study was oriented in a twofold manner: (a) i t was limit-ed specifically to certain environmental and personality characteristics, and (b) i t was.statistically oriented, the test results of the alcoholic group being compared with those of the nonalcoholic group and significant differences determined by statistical methods. Concerning the latter statement, a review of the literature reveal-ed that the great majority of the investigations dealing with personality factors in addiction have proceeded on the basis of clinical observation. While the resultant views presented have, in some cases, proved exceeding-ly astute, they have often revealed the unconscious bias of the observer. It would seem that many of the clinically-derived findings are equally applicable to both alcoholics and nonalcoholics, and hence one wonders whether they represent significant alcoholic characteristics. Viewing this problem, Landis and Bolles (31), Cranford and Seliger (Li), and Lewis (35) have a l l stressed the need for controlled, statistically-oriented studies of personality factors in alcoholic addiction. The present study is of that type. 3. Definition and Discussion of Major Terms Alcoholic The term "alcoholic" is used in this study to designate those indi-viduals called by Bowman and Jellinek (25) "primary" and "secondary" addicts. A primary addict is one who suffers from addiction soon after he commences use of alcohol. Addicts of this type become so strongly dependent upon alcohol that they cannot make a satisfactory l i f e adj ust--3-ment without i t . The drinking habits of the primary addicts are thought to arise from within the personality structure (endogenous origin), and are l i t t l e influenced by external factors (25). Concerning this type of alcoholic, Bowman and Jellinek (25) states This i s not actually a type but a group of types with the common characteristic that alcohol is a definite need for them, that i t has a definite function in their scheme of things and that their dependency upon the intoxicant and their inability to give i t up are not determined by habit or physiological processes.... Haggard (19) states: The true addicts have a profound but nonpsychotic maladjustment...they express to the highest degree the general conception of the true alcoholics the men to whom alcohol is a complete solution to the problem of adjustment. Distinct from the primary addict i s the secondary addict, who has developed psychological and physiological need for alcohol through long period of use and habituation. He tends to represent the social , drinker who has "lost control" of his drinking. Both types of drinkers f a i l to control their craving for alcohol, and are thus to be regarded as abnormal drinkers. The abnormal drinker is defined as a "man who cannot face reality without alcohol and whose adequate adjustment to reality is impossible so long as he uses alcohol" (60). The alcoholics who participated in this study were thought to be primary and secondary addicts. 1 There was no attempt made to delineate the two groups, since sufficient data for categorization were not available. However, i t was thought that the majority of the alcoholics studied were of the secondary type. Nonalcoholic The term "nonalcoholic" i s used to refer to those individuals who either have never used alcohol on any occasion or perhaps once or twice i n an exploratory way, and those social drinkers who adequately control their drinking. According to Strecker and Chambers (60), the moderate drinker i s one who imbibes to exaggerate reality, not to adjust to i t . Environment and Personality The environmental and personality characteristics measured i n this study are regarded as indicators of the degree of adjustment, Allport's (3 ) definition of personality, used i n this investigation, implies that every individual achieves, by means of a systematic organization of psychological t r a i t s , habits, and attitudes, a unique adjustment to his environment,2 Environment, i n turn, may be viewed as the composite of "those factors which act upon the organism from without and influence i t s structure or i t s behaviour" (66).3 personality would thus appear as a dynamic entity that constantly adjusts to the environment, and i s con-stantly modified by the environment. The purpose of this study, therefore, i s to determine whether or not there exists a pattern of personality characteristics and a group of environmental factors eommon to those individuals who make their adjust-ments to the li f e - s i t u a t i o n by excessive use of alcohol. o Allport's (3 ) definition i s as follows: "Personality i s the dynamic organization within the individual of those psychophysical systems that determine his unique adjustment to his environment." 3 Symonds (61) would consider environment to be threefold: (1) the physical, including outer surroundings, animate and inanimate objects which require manipulation i n order to provide food, clothing, and to avoid danger; (2) the soeial, involving the society of others, institutions, customs, and laws as contained within a given culture; and (3) the "self", the inner environment of the individual — one must learn to get along with one's self. II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The literature concerned with personality factors i n alcoholic addiction i s vast i n scope. I t was considered best, therefore, to limit the present review to discussion of those investigations most relevant to the type of approach used i n this study: (a) those investi-gations employing formal psychological techniques; (b) those proceeding on a statistically-oriented basis: and (c) those using nonpsychotic, non-deteriorated alcoholics as subjects for study. 1* Studies feing Personality Inventories and Rating Scales Three studies that have received much acclaim were carried out by Wittaan (67, 68, 69 ) in 1938 at the Elgin State Hospital, I l l i n o i s . Her subjects were 100 male alcoholics diagnosed as chronic alcoholics without psychosis. Her alcoholic group was matched with a nonalcoholic control group for age, education and nationality. In the f i r s t study, Wittman (68) used the Humm-Wadsworth Temperament Scale.^ On the basis of this test she concluded that the alcoholic i s a "paranoid-cycloid, w and that he exhibits "...stubborness, suspicion, conceit, fixed ideas, elation, pressure of activity, d i s t r a c t i b i l i t y , enthusiasm, sadness, lessened activity, worry, timidity, and depression." The alcoholic group could not be regarded as homogeneous insofar as temperament was concerned, but the general trends appeared to indicate a weak degree of This scale i s based upon Rosanoffs classification of temperament ( 2 4 ) . I t yields scores related to 7 personality types. Mursell (51) describes them as follows: "(1) N, Normal, characterized by self-control, self-improve-ment, and inhibition. (2) H, Hysteroid, characterized by tendencies to self-preservation, selfishness, and crime. (3) M, Manic Cycloid, character-ized by elation, excitement, and sociability. (4.) D, Depressive Cycloid, characterized by sadness, retardation, caution, and worry. (5) A, Autistic, Cycloid, characterized by shyness and sensitiveness. (6) E, Epileptoid, characterized by ecstasy, meticulousness, and inspiration. (7) P, Paranoid a A - 4 - J i — — J -t-a - • - « . . » restraint and difficulty in controlling moods and desires, .according to Wittman, the alcoholic shows strong cycloid tendencies, and alternates between happy-go-lucky optimism and euphoria on the one hand, and i r r i -table, apprehensive mental states on the other. He is not a shy or sensitive individual and is not given to daydreaming. That he is con-ceited, suspicious, stubborn, scornful of the ideas of others and stead-fast in. adherence to his own ideas is summed up by. the strong paranoid tendency. Next to this is a well-developed manic component. He is a good mixer, approachable and communicative, but easily offended and hot-headed'. He shows a lack of perseverance and consequent change of interests. Sociableness and witty conversation are usual characteristics. In a second study, Wittman (69) compared the 100 alcoholics and 100 non-alcoholics for their degree of "adjustment" by use of the Chassell Experience Variables Record, parts II to XV ( 1 3 ) . Only two significant differences were found between the two groups. The alcoholics showed a much greater need for religious security and had strong feelings of sin and guilt. There was also evidence indicating poor adjustment in vocational, emotional, and religious spheres for the alcoholic group. However, one might suspect that such maladjustment could be the direct resultant of excessive drinking, and not necessarily indicate causative factors. In a third study, using a modification of the Chassell Scale (the original 80 Items considered for use in the present study), Wittman (67) found the following characteristics significant for the alcoholic group: 1. A domineering but idealized mother and a stem, autocratic father whom the patient feared some-what as a child. •7-2. A marked degree of strict, unquestioning obedience demanded in family l i f e , with l i t t l e latitude or freedom allowed. 3. A feeling of insecurity as evidenced by an insistent feel-ing of need for religious security and strong feelings of sin and guilt. 4. Marked interest in the opposite sex, with many love affairs, but poor marital adjustment. 5. Lack of self-consciousness, together with a marked ability to get along and be:SDcially acceptable to others. 6. Occasional depressions and periods of marked unhappiness. 7. A keyed-up emotional level — ~ work done under high nervous tension. 8. A definitely expressed and disproportionately greater love for the maternal parent. Wittman concluded that alcoholism appears to be a "socio-psychological maladjustment of the personality, " and that the alcoholic is influenced in his self-estimates by a marked "halo" effect, a hypercritical attitude towards others, and tendencies to sentimentalize, according to her, he exhibits l i t t l e insight into his self-motivations and has a strong sense of self-pity which "...protects his ego in adverse situations." Wittman's study has been described by Marshall (46) as the " . . . f i r s t statistical approach, to the study of the personality of alcoholics." Bowman and Jellinek (25) regard her work as "...perhaps the most thorough investigation in this field." That study of 100 cases should be the "most thorough" is indeed a sad commentary on past research and, unfortunately, only a few comprehensive investigations of a similar type have materialized since Bowman and Jellinek's remark (1942). A study following much the same pattern as Wittman's was carried out by Marshall (47) in California in 1938. Her subjects were 120 male alcoholics diagnosed as chronic alcoholics without psychosis, undergoing treatment in four State Hospitals and one private sanitarium. Her alco-holic group was matched with a nonalcoholic control group of 179 males' for age, education, and occupation. The Humm-Wadsworth Temperament Scale, the Strong Vocational Interest Test, items from the Ghassell Experience Variables Record,-* and a questionnaire and rating scale were the measuring instruments used in her study. Results on the Humm-Wadsworth Scale showed the alcoholic to manifest a slight paranoid tendency, but this was not accentuated. Furthermore, there was a marked absence of manic and depressive components which wittman had found to be accompanying factors. Generally, Marshall found l i t t l e difference between the alcoholic and nonalcoholic groups on the Humm-Wadsworth Scale. Results on the Strong Vocational Interest Test showed the alcoholic to have an occupational rating average for his status, but that his choices of ideal occupations were such as to require less responsibility. In some cases, alcoholic subjects failed even to reach the level of these choices-; Insofar as the items from the Experience Variables Record and the questionnaire were concerned, responses revealed significant differences in the early environment. The alcoholics reported greater handicap on the basis of early illness or accidents, and felt that they had received more than the average amount of attention and affection from their parents. Interestingly, their homes were less likely to have been broken by death or separation prior to adolescence; and they felt that they were more free from financial handicaps. Concerning popularity in the family and These items were essentially the same as those employed by Wittman (67). -9- ' educational achievement, the alcoholic was markedly lower. The alcoholic frequently described his father as tense and anxious to succeed. In the adult environment he was less likely to have achieved financial security and showed no plans for self-improvement as did the average man. Marshall found that the alcoholics were generally much less impressed with the need for formulating a definite goal in l i f e . According to her, the most striking differences between the alcoholic and nonalcoholic groups existed in the vocational, social, emotional and particularly the marital spheres. The alcoholic had not attained his level of vocational aspiration; he spent more time in active pursuit of recreation than did the nonalcoholic; he was less happy; and he showed strong guilt feelings and remorse over his short-comings. Marital adjustment was exceed-ingly poor; 40 per cent of the 120 male alcoholics were either divorced or separated as compared to only 6 per cent of the nonalcoholics. Landis and associates (30) report intensive study of the personality of 29 alcoholics, 25 former alcoholics who had been "dry" for at least two years, and a control group of 21 nonalcoholics. A psychologist, a' social worker, and a psychiatrist interviewed each subject participating in the study and determined those aspects of personality relevant to each specialist's field. Case.histories were then drawn up and the data anal-ysed by an "evaluation scale method."^ The investigators found that those who had recovered from alcoholism tended to come from a more unfavourable 6 For example, childhood background was evaluated in te„ms of: "(1) very unfavourable home; (2) unfavourable home; (3) somewhat unfavourable home; or (4) favourable home conducive to security and stability" (30). -10-home environment than either the "wet" alcoholics or the nonalcoholics. In the evaluation of aggressive-submissive behaviour, no significant differences were noted between the three groups, although there was a' tendency for the recovered alcoholics to shows more aggressiveness. Aggres-siveness is evidently related to the attitude toward authority. Landis and co-workers found that the recovered alcoholics showed more antagonism toward authority than the "wet" alcoholics, while the nonalcoholics were the least rebellious. No significant differences were noted between the three groups in religious attitudes. Vocationally, the alcoholic was the least interested in his job, the recovered alcoholic showed slightly more interest and the nonalcoholic was the most interested. Insofar as neurotic trends were concerned, the investigators found that both the "wet" and the "dry" alcoholics manifest-ed a great many instances of maladjustment, whereas the nonalcoholics were relatively stable and well-adjusted. Personal l i f e goal or ambition was absent to a large extent in the alcoholic subjects, although the recovered alcoholics showed some evidence of ambition. The nonalcoholics exhibited the greatest ambition and tended to aim at high standard of achievement. Landis failed to find any evidence of homoerotic trends such as are considered significant by Wall ( 65) and SchUder (57)• Personal sex adj ustment reveal-ed significant differences,' however, with the alcoholics tending toward poor adjustment. The investigators concluded that the areas in which significant differences are shown are precisely those affected by intem-perate use of alcohol. Other investigators have been mainly concerned with attempts to uncover specific correlates of personality of the alcoholic group rather than with a general descriptive approach including conditions that shape -11 personality, viz., the social environment and developmental factors. Hewitt (23) used the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMFI) with a group of 54 alcoholics (39 were members of Alcoholics Anonymous) and a control group of 12 nonalcoholics (5 men and 7 women) The average age of the groups was 44 years. He reports that membership in Alcoholics Anonymous was considered to be "prima facie" evidence of alcohol addiction. The most predominant and consistent trend for the alcoholic group was expressed by high scores on the psychopathic deviate scale, with depression, paranoia, and schizophrenia scales following i n succession. The frequency of responses to certain items of the MMPI sug-gested strong feelings of social inadequacy for the alcoholic group. Hewitt hypothesized that the neurotic drinker, as described by Strecker and Chambers (60), i s merely a neurotic personality with strong psychopathic features, and that alcoholic behaviour obscures the real personality structure. So few cases are included in this study, especially the lack of an adequate control group of nonalcoholics, that the results expressed probably must be interpreted with c aution. Nevertheless, the MMPI would appear to represent a hopeful method f o r investigating characteristics of the alcoholic personality structure. Use of the scale with large numbers of alcoholics, divided into primary and secondary types would seem desirable. Since psychopathic characteristics appeared to be predominant i n alcoholie subjects, Manson (43) selected the 50 items comprising the psyeho-This test yields scores relating to 9 scales expressed in psychiatric nomenclature. They are as follows: (1) Hypochondriasis; (2) Depression; (3) Hysteria; (4) Psychopathic Deviate; (5) Masculinity-femininity; (6) Paranoia; (7) Psychasthenia; (8) Schizophrenia; and (9) Hypomania.(22) 12 pathic deviate scale of the MMPI and presented them in booklet form to 438 alcoholics (314 males and 124 females) and 486 nonalcoholics (222 males and 264 females). He reported that the age range of his subjects was 20 to 60 years, a l l had grade 4 or better of schooling, a l l were white, free from mental deficiency and relatively free from physiological or psychological deterioration. By converting raw scores into T scores, Manson found the alcoholic males to have an average T score of 69 and the alcoholic females a score of 63. On the other hand, the nonalcoholic males had a T score of 53 (well within normal limits) and the females a score of 51. He concluded on the basis of these findings that the alco-holic group shows a much larger per cent of psychopathic personalities than does the nonalcoholic group. In exact figures, Manson found 31.8 per cent of the male alcoholics and only 2.7 per cent of the male nonalco-holics to show marked psychopathy. For the female subjects, 33.1 per cent of the alcoholics compared to 4.5 per cent of the nonalcoholics showed psychopathy. C r i t i c a l ratios were 13.3 and 6.1 for the males and females, respectively. Manson divided the 50 items into 6 arbitrary groups, and then reported that the alcoholics showed feelings of inadequacy and i n -security, poor social adjustment, poor interpersonal adjustment, feelings of persecution, poor sexual adjustment, and manic behaviour. Manson cites ample evidence i n support of his classification. In another report, Manson (45) explained the construction and standardization of a scale to be used for differentiating alcoholics from nonalcoholics. On the basis of 72 questions relating to 7 personality t r a i t s , Manson succeeded in distinguishing 79 per cent of the alcoholic group studied. His male standardization group numbered 202 alcoholics -13-derived from Alcoholics Anonymous circles, hospitals, and sanitariums. The age limits were between 20 and 60 years. The alcoholic group was compared with a nonalcoholic group for age, sex, education, and occupat-ional status. Manson found that the alcoholics showed significantly • higher scores, i.e., greater maladjustment, for the 7 personality char-acteristics measured, which were as follows: (1) anxiety; (2) depressive fluctuations; (3) emotional sensitivity; (4) resentfulness; (5) incomplete ness; (6) aloneness; and (7) Interpersonal relationships.^ Manson (4.2) also attempted to measure the degree of adjustment of alcoholics by administering the Cornell Selectee Index, Form N, to 404 alcoholics (293 men and 111 women) and 474 nonalcoholics (220 men and 254 women). His subjects were essentially the same type as those used in his previous investigations ( 43, 45 ). The alcoholic group contained both primary and secondary addicts, with the majority of cases thought to be the .latter type. The nonalcoholic group contained both abstainers and social drinkers. Results showed a greatudifference between the 293 male alcoholics and the 220 male nonalcoholics studied. Twenty-seven and four tenths per cent of the former group manifested "severe" neurotic symptomatology as compared to only 5 per cent of the male nonalcoholics,^ Moreover, 35.3 percent of the male alcoholics were included in the "mild" category as compared to 13.1 per cent of the nonalcoholics. The "free" category included 8.1.9 per cent of the male nonalcoholics; whereas only 37.2 per 8 ' ' See page 33 for the definitions of these personality characteristics. . 9 "Severe" classification was reserved for subjects achieving a score of 25 to 64 in the aberrant direction; "mild" included scores ranging from 15 to 24 in the aberrant direction. "Free" referred to those cases who scored less than 14. -lu-cent of the male alcoholics reported freedom from neurotic disturbances. Data comparing female alcoholics with female nonalcoholics were of a similar nature. Manson concluded that alcoholics possess many psycho-neurotic and psychosomatic signs. Manson selected 46 items from the Cornell Selectee Index which were highly diagnostic i n separating alcoholics from nonalcoholics. He divided the items into four symptom groups, viz., anxiety, psychosomatic signs, emotional sensitivity, and marked psychopathic behaviour. Insofar as anxiety i s concerned, the alcoholic reported himself to be nervous, easily discouraged, worried about his health, frequently shaky/and trembly, miserable and sad, unusually fearful, and uneasy in public t o i l e t s . Somatic signs were poor appetite, exhaustion, vertigo, nausea, hot and cold spells, and so forth. Emotional sensitivity i n -cluded feeling touchy about oneself, paranoid ideas, and being disturbed over feelings of shyness. Psychopathic behaviour was indicated by loss of jobs, being arrested more than three times, being sent to reform school, and drinking more than two quarts of whiskey a week. In conclusion, i t would appear that the investigations carried out by Manson ( 4.2, 43, U5 ) describe adequately certain characteristics of alcoholic subjects after years of excessive drinking. Nevertheless, explanation of the dynamics of addiction, or actual probing at the causal factors appears to be at a superficial l e v e l . However, he seems to have demonstrated, in a rather conclusive fashion, the high incidence of psychopathic and psychoneurotic symptomatology amongst alcoholic sub-jects as compared to nonalcoholics. In his study, using the Cornell Selectee Index, he found that almost 37 per cent of the male alcoholic group were relatively free from psychoneurotic manifestations. There are no -15-data presented, however, to identify the characteristics of the alcoholics so described. One might well wonder whether this particular group, free from disturbances, i s one with long standing successful participation in Alcoholics Anonymous, and therefore largely resolved neuroticism, or whether the group showed i n i t i a l l y almost complete absence of neurotic signs. Haggard and Jellinek (20) found that almost 30 per cent of the alcoholics coming within their orbit were also free from neurotic symptom-atology. I f such i s actually the case then i t would seem that large numbers qf alcoholics do not commence compulsive drinking because of severe psychic conflicts or disturbances, but because of some other factor or factors,as yet unknown. Lentz and his associates (34-) constructed a questionnaire containing 1,565 items relating to attitudes, opinions, interests, and preferences, and administered the form to a large number of persons. The number of individuals completing the form was 780. The investigators categorized their subjects as follows: Moderate drinkers 13 per cent Occasional drinkers 2 9 per cent Drank rarely . 29 per cent Abstainers 28 per cent The records of 100 drinkers (50 men and 50 women) were compared with those of 200 nondrinkers (70 men and 130 women). The median age of the drinkers was 23.28 years while the nondrinkers had a median age of 22.28 years. Lentz was primarily interested i n comparing attributes of drink-ers to those of nondrinkers and thus establishing a personality pattern common to the drinking population. For example, he found that drinkers tended to smoke, drank coffee, were l i b e r a l in their views, tended to be less optimistic, were often maladjusted, were tolerant of morals, were -16-internationally minded, and materialistic in their view-point. Lentz obtained a reliability coefficient of .69, corrected by the Spearman-Brown formula, for the drinking personality test score. He concluded that a greater degree of maladjustment was shown by drinkers in the early relationships with parents than by nondrinkers. Halpern (21) employed a "Level of Aspiration Test" with U1 subjects (38 males and 9 females), who were a l l compulsive drinkers. _ge range-was from 29 to 63 years with an average age of 42 years. The test re-quired the subject to estimate the amount of time he thought he would require to complete a given task.-*-0 The relationship between the sub-ject's actual time and his estimated time was regarded as a measure of his level of aspiration. The alcoholic group tended to overestimate their speed in performing the required task by an average of 2.17 seconds. Halpern interpreted this finding by stating that the alcoholics generally were inclined to "...expose themselves to the risk of failure...this would seem to be part of the general attitude which brooks no limitations and almost invites trouble rather than avoids i t . " With the same group of alcoholics, Halpern used a Vocational Interest Test consisting of a l i s t of 42 occupations. Items were weighted and a masculinity-femininity score computed. The average score for the subjects studied was 5.5, which is within normal limits for masculinity. Marshall (4,7) found similar results using the Strong Vocational Interest Test. The favoured occupations were autoracer, aviator, state trooper, gym teacher, taxi driver, and forest ranger. It appeared that the alco-Halpern does not state the nature of the task. -17-holics preferred jobs involving physical activity with an emphasis on "moving around," with almost complete rejection of occupations requiring routine or stationary ,work. 2, Studies ftsing Projective Techniques A relatively new approach to the understanding of the alcoholic personality has been by use of the projective techniques, viz., the Rorschach Test, and the Thematic Apperception Test. The Rorschach Test Klopfer and Kelley (28 ) state in a review of earlier Rorschach studies (1942), that they could discover no Rorschach pattern typical for alcoholics. They also state that records of confirmed drinkers tended to show psychopathic, depressive, schizophrenic or neurotic tendencies. Since the time of their review, however, three studies have been carried out that seem to agree on a typical alcoholic personality pattern. B i l l i g and Sullivan ( 8 ) tested AO subjects, 29 hospitalized and 11 jailed, and divided them by means of Rorschach results into groups -representing poor and favourable prognosis for recovery from alcoholism. Groups I, II, and III (the 29 hospitalized cases), were followed-up for a year's time. The Rorschach findings of B i l l i g and Sullivan descriptive of the alcoholic are summarized by Buhler and Lefever (10) as follows: High ambition and limited achievement; sensualization of personality difficulties but lack of adaptation; withdrawal, from environment and inability to smooth relation between reality and self; self-centered wish fulfillment furthered by rich imagination; emotional maladjustment involving weak restraint, poor poise and stability, l i t t l e control of mood swings and desires, lack of attention; hypochondriacal ideas. -18-Halpern (21) administered the Rorschach Test also, along with the Level of Aspiration and Vocational Interest Tests discussed earlier. Her summary of the alcoholic personality is as follows; He is a maladjusted,, immature individual who has developed few techniques for alleviating his feelings of discomfort. Actually, his attitude implies that he will not recognize limitations or inadequacies in his personality...In order to convince himself that he has no need to...inhibit his reactions, he deliberately exposes himself to irritating and challenging stimuli instead of insulating himself against them. This refusal...is one of the most striking characteristics...If he cannot accept the idea of limitations...the conflict must be outside himself, and he proceeds to externalize i t . While there is tremendous aggression of a kind in such an attitude,...the alcoholic does not really strive for activity or aggression. He is satisfied with the passive role... which will put the problem outside himself and make no active demands on him. Halpern notes that the emotions and not the intellect were in control. Basically, according to her, the alcoholic wishes to play a passive role, but there is often an element of self-punishment present that makes him expose himself to frustrating situations. Buhler and Lefever (10) summarize the test findings of Seliger and Cranford (58) as follows: Ambition and urge for self-expression but no ability to attain these because of a lack of purpose and perseverance; hyper-sensitivity and paranoid traits; inability to adapt to social or personal relations and a tendency to flinch from adult res-ponsibilities and seek escape from reality; strong to violent emotional forces; a self-pampering .tendency (I want what I want when I want it) which refuses to tolerate unpleasant states of mind;.unreasoning demand for happiness, excitement, etc. The Rorschach results of Buhler and Lefever (10) for a group of 100 alcoholics (77 males and 23 females), led them to conclude that the alcoholic is more closely allied to the psychopathic personality th§n to -19-the psychoneurotic. The alcoholic is described as having a low tension tolerance and a high degree of anxietyj the psychopath has a low tension tolerance and a low degree of anxietyj and the psychoneurotic has a high tension tolerance and a high degree of anxiety. Nevertheless, the alcoholic has greater self-functioning rationality, greater self-criticism, greater sensitivity, and better emotional respons-iveness that does the psychopath. Both types, however, develop "...their symptoms in adolescence because the responsibilities they are called upon to take and which cause strain and tension generally begin at that time. Both the alcoholic and the psychopath falter under the strain of beginning career and family responsibilities.? 1  The Thematic Apperception Test The Thematic Apperception Test was used by Klebanoff (27) in a study of 17 successive voluntary male admissions to a State Hospital in Illinois. The mean age of the group was 4-0.3 years with a range of 28 to 51. The mean years of schooling was 10.3. Every patient had the clinical diagnosis: "symptomatic chronic alcoholism without psychosis.?1 Klebanoff found an amazing degree of similarity between his subjects following the analysis of the themas. He concluded that the group was homogeneous. Most noticeable in the stories was the failure of the central character. Themas stressing intoxication, domination and rejection, occurred with the highest frequency. According to Klebanoff, the alcoholic's need for passivity was apparent. It would appear, on the basis of the themas, that the alcoholic suffers great feelings of conscious or unconscious in-adequacy in the social and power spheres. His interpersonal relationships are disturbed and inadequate. Klebanoff reported that the alcoholic"s fear of failure to adjust socially does not express Itself in aggressive terms, but instead becomes internalized. He felt that his alcoholics showed an "essentially psychoneurotic reaction," and that the underlying cause of addiction in such personality types is due to the insoluble conflict between tremendous social and power inferiority on the one hand and an extremely passive and introvertive type of personality pattern on the other which is totally unsympathetic to the underlying psychological.needs of the individual.?1 Generally, Klebanoff is one of the few investigators to dis-cover homogeneity in an alcoholic group. The fact that his sample numbered only 17 cases may be pertinent, but equally important may be the clinical diagnosis of symptomatic alcoholism. It would appear that his alcoholic group is too small to attempt broad generalizations, but nevertheless, his findings suggest pertinent factors requiring further research. A repetition of bis study with a larger group of alcoholics would seem desirable. 3. Studies - Using Clinical Observation but Proceeding•Statistically Some studies have proceeded along statistical lines without the use of formal psychometric devices. These investigations have observed the frequ-ency of specific, isolated traits in the alcoholic group. In an analysis of 105 patients admitted to a private sanitarium, Norbury (53) employed a rating device covering 48 characteristics. A l l subjects were diagnosed as alcoholics without psychosis. The group was comprised of business and professional men, with a general intelligence level of superior or superior adult type. No nonalcoholic control group was used. Norbury noted that superficiality appeared to be a predominant characteristic, 90 of the 105 cases being classified as such. He reported that the majority of the cases f e l l into the cyclothymic category with the associated mental mechanisms, while the remainder showed schizoid tendencies with over-dependence and feelings of inferiority. Ratings were made on such traits as economic -21-adj:ustment, social attributes, extroversion-introversion, sexual and marital adjustment, sensitivity of mood, narcissism, alcoholism in the family, and so forth. The salient t r a i t s in order of frequency were as follows for the 105 alcoholic cases: 97 alcoholics showed over-activity; 96 showed adequate economic adjustment; 95 drank alone, 94 were communi-cative;. 90 showed gregariousness; 90 were vocationally successful; 80 had an adequate sense of general responsibility; 79 were extroverted; 68 showed adequate emancipation; 68 showed perseverence; 68 had affective response; 63 showed adaptability; 63 showed adequate sexual adjustment;: 52 showed adequate marital adjustment; 52 showed aggressiveness; 52 had alcoholism i n the family background; 46 showed forcefulness; 43 showed f i l -i a l overdependence; and 41 had feelings of inf e r i o r i t y . Norbury concluded: "...the material seems to emphasize a lack of maturity and a d i f f i c u l t y in expression and accomplishment along some lines, chiefly i n the emotional f i e l d of consciousness." He expressed the opinion that the reason for alcoholism i s to be found i n the personality of the individual. Fleming and Tillbtson (17) f a i l e d to find any unitary pattern typical of the alcoholic group which they studied. One hundred arid twenty-four patients comprised the group; 61 men and 14 women were diagnosed as "chronic alcoholism without psychosis," and 13 men and 3 women were diag-nosed as "chronic alcoholism with psychopathic personality.? 1 The average age of the men was 40 years with a range of 19-72. Fifty-three of the subjects were married, 30 were single and 11 divorced or separated. Alco-holism had existed In the immediate family of more than one half of the subjects. The investigators concluded by stating: "A more variegated -22-colleotion of personalities and personality types than those of our 124. cases would be d i f f i c u l t to assemble. The only t r a i t they had i n common was addiction to alcohol." Factors that were significant, however, were secondary developments of personality due to addiction,such as, in f e r i o r i t y , sociability, and emotional i n s t a b i l i t y . 1 Mueller (50) proceeded on largely the same assumptions as did Norbury (53). He was searching for data that could be regarded as causal to the development of alcohol addiction. His subjects were 100 chronic alcoholics without psychosis. The age range was from 22 to 60 years. Mueller employed a l i s t of 22 "specific and objective" t r a i t s . The only significant factors noted were the- great amount of occupational shift, the number of broken homes of the alcoholics, and an abnormal attachment of the alcoholics to their mothers after puberty.- He also found that i f the subjects studied had been married and divorced, the children were more l i k e l y to be i n the custody of the wives. This study offers nothing signi-ficant in terms of explanation of addiction. TABLE I SALIENT PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS AMONG ALCOHHC SUBJECTS, ACCORDING TO VARIOUS INVESTIGATORS Investigator Date Chief Characteristics Other Characteristics Test Used Wittman (6$) 1939 Strong paranoid-cycloid tendency Wittman (69") 1939 Insecurity; feelings of sin and gui l t . Marshall (4-7) Marshall (47) Landis, et a l (30) Hewitt (23) Manson (43) 1947 Slight paranoid tendency 1947 Feelings of insecurity, sin and guilt, 1945 General maladjustment; psycho-neurotic symptoms 1943 Strong psychopathic tendencies 1949 Strong psychopathic tendencies. Manson (45) 1948 Psychoneurotic and Psychopathic tendencies. Manson (42) 1949 Psychoneurotic and Psychosomatic symptoms. Also evidence of psychopathic tendencies Manic tendency Lack of self-consciousness; sociable. None Sociable Aggressive tend-encies. H umm-Wad sworth Items from Chassell Scale, H umm-Wadsworth Items from Chassell Scale. Case histories, rat-ing scale. Depressive and Minnesota Multiphasic paranoidal features. Feelings of social inadequacy. Feelings of inade- Psychopathic deviate quacy; insecurity; scale of Minnesota manic behaviour. Multiphasic. Anxiety; depres- Manson Evaluation, sive fluctuations; sensitive; f e e l -ings of inadequacy. Emotional sensitiv- Cornell Selectee i t y ; anxiety. Index Form N TABLE I - Cont'd. B i l l i g and Sullivan (8) 194-3 Feelings of social inadequacy; introversion Halpern (21) 1946 Buhler and 1947 Lefever (10) Social inadequacy with refusal to accept i t . Maladjustment in emotional spheres; pas-si v i t y feelings. Psychopathic trends predominant; psychoneurotic features also. Seliger and Cranford (58) 1945 Paranoidal; psychopathic features. Klebanoff (27) 1947 Passivity feelings; psycho-neurotic tendencies. Norbury (53) Fleming and Tillotson (17) 1942 Cyclothymic personality; superficiality; general lack of maturity. 1939 No outstanding characteristic Unstable; dis-tractible; mood swings. Lack of persev-erance. Rorschach Test Rorschach Test Low tension t o l -erance; high degree of anxiety. Hypersensitive; lack of persev-erance; socially inadequate;manic. Feelings of inade-quacy; introver-sion. Over-activity; gregarious. Emotional instab-i l i t y ; Feelings of inferiority; Sociable. Rorschach Test Rorschach Test Thematic Apper-ception Test, Rating Scale C l i n i c a l observa-tion noting frequency of certain character-i s t i c s . -25-4. Summary of Past Research To conclude the preceding review of research on alcoholism, the point of greatest agreement seems to be the recognition that the alcoholic is a maladjusted individual. Table I shows that the majority of investigat-ors found both psychoneurotic and psychopathic tendencies present in the alcoholic group. However, the question of which of these components is the most predominant remains unanswered. The study carried out by Buhler and Lefever (10) would seem one of the most thorough, and they concluded that the alcoholic group possessed a personality structure more closely related to that of the psychopath. Klebanoff (27), on the other hand, felt that his alcoholic group showed an "essential psychoneurotic pattern." Generally, investigators found that the alcoholic group showed paranoid tendencies, .'feelings of insecurity and inadequacy, emotional sensitivity, and mood swings. A most important point, however, is the fact that not a l l alcoholics manifested these personality characteristics. Table I I shows environmental characteristics of the alcoholic group as found by the various investigators. Relatively few statistically-oriented investigations have been concerned with developmental factors in the life-history of alcoholic subjects. Wittman (67) and Mueller (50) both reported their alcoholics to show excessive attachment to the mother, but other investigators failed to agree. Wittman (67) and Marshall (47) found that the alcoholics' fathers were usually autocratic, tense, and ambitious to succeed. Marshall reported that the early home l i f e was generally stable, but Landis (30) found great variation and reported that alcoholics with a good prognosis tended to come from an unfavourable home environment. -26-I t might be said that research dealing with developmental factors during childhood and adolescence has' produced vague and diverse findings, and that the variation of methods employed to study these factors has helped to hinder the formation of an adequate picture. Table II also indicates the findings obtained by various investi-gators for the vocational and marital adjustment of the alcoholic group. It i s realized that adjustment in these spheres i s closely intertwined with personality, but for purposes of tabulation the two spheres have been included under environmental factors. The alcoholics were found to evidence great maladjustment in the vocational and marital f i e l d s . They were reported to have d i f f i c u l t y with their jobs and to lack perseverance and ambition. Insofar as marital adjustment was concerned, a high rate of divorce and separation were found to be usually characteristics. TABLE II SALIENT ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS AMONG ALCOHOLIC SUBJECTS, ACCORDING TO VARIOUS INVESTIGATORS Investigator Date Chief Characteristics Other Characteristics Test Used Wittman (6?) 1939 Marshall (4-7) 1947 Landis, et a l (30)1945 Norbury (53) Mueller (50) Domineering mother and autocratic father; unquestioned obedience demanded in the home l i f e . Handicapped by ill n e s s or accident; home generally stable; father tense and ambitious; educational achievement poor* Recovered alcoholics tend to come from unfavourable home. 1942 None. 1949 Abnormal attachment to mother after puberty. Poor marital adjust-ment; poor vocat-ional adjustment; poor religious ad-justment. Poor marital, vocat-ional and social adj ustment. Chassell Experience Variables Record Chassell Experience Variables Record Poor vocational ad- Rating Scale, justment; inadequate sexual adjustment. Rating Scale Good vocational ad-justment; rather poor sexual adjust-ment; rather poor marital adjustment. Great occupational Check l i s t of shi f t . Poor marital 22 t r a i t s , adjustment. I l l METHODS AND MATERIALS USED IN THIS STUDY 1. The Planning of the Study This study was undertaken to prove or disprove the hypothesis that significant differences could be found between alcoholic and nonalcoholic individuals in the areas of (a) environment, and (b) personality. The study was designed to discover the nature of these differences and to determine whether or not there could be found a constellation of factors typical of alcohol addicts. A perusal of past research revealed four measuring instruments which appeared suitable for use i n this study. They were the Manson Evaluation (39), a modification of the Chassell Experience Variables Record (12), a questionnaire and rating scale (4-7), and the Alcadd Test ( 3 8 ) . ^ These instruments are discussed seriatim in the section "Tests Used i n This Study." Following the selection of tests, the next step was to obtain alcoholic and nonalcoholic subjects for study. Insofar as the alcoholic subjects were concerned, the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous was thought to be a f e r t i l e source, and contact was made with G. S,, the executive secretary of the organization in Vancouver. He arranged for the investigator to v i s i t various group meetings of A.A."^ for the purpose of s o l i c i t i n g volunteers ^These four instruments are referred to collectively as "battery" or "questionnaire.V 12 Due to the Alcoholics Anonymous principle of anonymity,, the name has been omitted. 13 "A.A." i s the abbreviation for Alcoholics Anonymous, and w i l l be used occasionally i n the interest of brevity. to participate i n the study. Forty-five cases (33 males and 12 females) volunteered from group meetings. A second source of alcoholic subjects was the Provincial Mental Hospital, Essondale. With the permission of the medical staff, 36 male members of A.A. undergoing treatment for alcoholism were interviewed. These men had Slipped" off the A.A. program and had subsequently sought treatment at the Hospital."^ A total of 69 male alcoholics therefore comprised the alcoholic ga?oup studied in this investigation. To determine the significance of responses to the test battery by the alcoholics,, a group of nonalcoholics was selected for purposes of comparison. The men composing this group were friends of the investi-gator, acquaintances of the investigator's friends, ward attendants at the Mental Hospital, members of a church group, and chance contacts made by the investigator. No nonalcoholic subject came from A.A. ci r c l e s . I t was desired to achieve a nonalcoholic group as similar to the alcoholic group as possible i n terms of age, occupational level, educational lev e l , and marital status. Complete discussion of the subjects may be found i n the section "Subjects Used i n this Study." 2. S t a t i s t i c a l Techniques The test battery was completed by 136 male subjects: 69 alcoholics and 67 nonalcoholics. The.responses made by the alcoholic group to the test battery were compared with those made by the nonalcoholics. Each test item was assigned a weighted value, and the mean, standard deviation, and standard error of An A.A. member "sl i p s " when he commences to drink again. One drink i s to be regarded as a s l i p . the mean calculated. The standard error of the difference between two means was then computed for every test item. . The formula used, -soobtained from Guilford (18), was as follows: where ^D±ff. =- Standard error of the difference *M • between two means. , 0Z,1 •=. Standard error of the mean of the f i r s t distribution. 07.2 _ Standard error of the mean of the i M second distribution. This formula assumes that the two samples being considered are i n -dependent insofar as the variable being measured i s concerned. In other words, an absence of correlation between the samples i s assumed. While in some cases, a degree of correlation may exist, i t would probably be so slight as to make negligible any decrease i n the accuracy of the stat-i s t i c s . To determine the significance of obtained differences between the means, the c r i t i c a l ratio was calculated for every test item by use of the following formula (18): Diff G.R. -where C.R. * The c r i t i c a l ratio D i f f . =* The difference between the two means. 0^)iff _ The standard error of the difference *M between the means. - 3 1 -Those test items having a c r i t i c a l ratio of 3*0 or higher.were considered to differentiate with s t a t i s t i c a l significance between the alcoholic and nonalcoholic groups.1-' 3 . Tests Used in-This Study D i f f i c u l t y was encountered i n finding measuring instruments suit-able for use in this investigation, since i t was realized that a min-imum amount of information had to be obtained i f the study was to have significant value, and yet, the battery had to be short enough in length so as not to discourage potential members of the alcoholic-and nonalcoholic groups from participating. As i t later proved, however, the test battery was too lengthy and this factor was important'in that i t seriously reduced the number of subjects and thus decreased the rep-resentativeness of the samples. The selection of tests involved consideration of three areas: F i r s t , i t was f e l t that a measure of various aspects of personality was required as an indication of the degree of adjustment. The term "adjustment" i s used i n the sense' of being free from psychoneurotic or psychopathic manifestations. The Manson Evaluation (39) was chosen be-cause i t was designed specifically as a means to distinguish between . alcoholic and nonal coholic subjects. Its relatively short length (72 items), when compared to inventories of a similar nature, was another factor i n i t s favour*. 15 As pointed out by Smith ( 5 9 ) , the null hypothesis hypothesizes that no real difference exists between the true means of the samples being, consider-ed. When a c r i t i c a l ratio as high as 3 . 0 i s selected, the probability of falsely rejecting the null hypothesis i s reduced, to about 3 chances in 1 0 0 0 , The use of a value of 3 . 0 i s not to deny the s t a t i s t i c a l significance of ratios at the 1 and 5 per cent levels of confidence, but to avoid the accept-ance of data which could possibly occur from chance variations i n sampling. The need for adoption of rigourous c r i t e r i a would appear especially imporfent in the area of research i n alcoholic addiction. -32-Second, some measure of the environmental history of the subjects was required. A perusal of Wittman's study (67) suggested the use of the Chassell Experience Variables Record (13), and written permission was obtained from Dr. Chassell to employ items from his scale. I t was f e l t that the use of this instrument was jus t i f i e d in that i t could be regarded as a relatively objective scale, and the. data i t yielded could thus be compared with value to data obtained by Marshall (47) and Wittman (67). Marshall (67) had developed and employed i n the State of California in 1938, a questionnaire and rating scale for purposes of investigation of alcoholics* I t was f e l t that use of her questionnaire would prove an added asset to the study, and with some minor modifications the scale 1 6 was included in the battery. Third, while a l l members of the alcoholic group were members of A.A. and could therefore be considered bona fi d a alcoholics, or at least individuals with extremely serious alcoholic problems, i t was considered advisable to employ some measure that would serve as an index of the degree of addiction. The Alcadd Test (38) was the instrument selected for this purpose. The forementioned tests composed the battery that was completed by the alcoholic and nonalcoholic groups. These tests w i l l now be dis-cussed seriatim. The Manson Evaluation (See Appendix B) This test (39) i s of the questionnaire or inventory type and contains 72 diagnostic items pertaining to seven personality t r a i t s . Each item _______ _ — — — _ — _ _ _ . Dr. Marshall kindly gave her permission to use her scale i n this study. In s t r i c t usage, the questionnaire i s not a "test" but. a scale. The term "test" i s used for the sake of convenience. -33-i s worded simply and objectively and requires the subject to respond with either a "yes" or "no" answer. For example, "I often fool myself." or "I often feel a l l wound up." According to Manson (4-5), the test was constructed in an attempt to achieve "...an objective, practical, valid and reliable paper-and-pencil test which could differentiate alcoholics...from nonalcoholics." Insofar as consulting reports of other investigators concerning the r e l i a b i l i t y of the Manson Evaluation, there are to date few references in the literature, due to the recent development of the test (194-8). However, Manson reports that by use of the shorter approximation of the Richardson-Kuder -formula, the coefficient, of r e l i a b i l i t y for a male group of 202 alcoholics i s .94 with a standard error of .006. Va l i d i t y of the test was determined by four methods. t(a) Every test item differentiated between the alcoholics and nonalcoholics,and had a c r i t i c a l ratio at the 5 per cent level or higher; (b) the total test scores made 79 per cent correct predictions for the male alcoholics; (c) significant c r i t i c a l ratios existed between the alcoholics and the nonalcoholics for mean test scores; and (d) phi coefficients converted into coefficients of correlation yielded a value of .71 for the male standardization group. The seven personality characteristics which the Manson Evaluation purports to measure are quoted directly from the Manual (41) for the sake of c l a r i t y and to avoid confusion concerning their exact interpreta-tion. They are as follows: ' 1. A - Anxiety: High scores would indicate an excessive number of fears, worries, feelings of inadequacy and insecurity; undue concern over health, easily fatigued. -34-2. B - Depressive Fluctuations: High scores would indicate easily depressed, sadness, frequent mood swings toward depression; prone to quick disappointments. 3o C- Emotional Sensitivity: High scores would mean extreme emotional sensitiveness with in-ability to make satisfactory social or emotion-al adjustments; extreme lability with poor defenses; touchiness. 4» D -. Resentfulness: High scores would indicate strong and bitter feelings of resentment to-ward society and individuals; easily irritated;, carries chip on shoulder; paranoid ideaso 5. E - Incompleteness:j High scores would indicate a series of failures to complete commonly accepted social objectives such as: education, work mastery, steady employment, marital adjust-ments, community participation, religion, • philosophy of l i f e ; restlessness, unsteadiness, mobility, and frequent change6 6. F - Aloneness: High scores indicate feelings of being alone in the world, isolated, unique, un-wanted, undersocialized; feelings as i f there were a barrier between the individual and the world or society. 7« G - Interpersonal Relations: High scores would indicate a lack of close personal and emotional ties; poor family relations, parental rejection, • ' unhappy childhood; lack of r e a l friends,; shallow emotional relationships« Manson states that traits 1, 2, and 3. are often shown by neurotic subjects, while traits 4, 5, 6, and 7 appear to represent psychopathic characteristics. The Chassell Experience Variables Record (See Appendix C) The Chassell Experience Variables Record (12, 13) was developed by Dr. J. 0. Chassell as a means of ascertaining important factors and their degree of intensity in.the developmental history of an individual. The -35-blank'.requires the subject to report his experiences and attitudes, as well as he can recall them, to a series of 189 questions. These items deal with his relationships to his mother; to his father; with his sibs; home l i f e in general; attitudes toward religion and standards; sex development; love affairs; physical development; intellectual adjustment; and general emotional development and happiness. A modification of this blank was employed by Wittman (67) in a study of chronic alcoholics. She selected 80 items from the Original blank that were thought to be of particular significance in the develop-mental history of alcoholic subjects. These items included 11 dealing with relationships with mother; 11, relationships with father; 6, rela-tionships with brothers and sisters; 8, dealing with home l i f e in gener-al; 3, concerning religion and standards; 5, sex development; 3, love affairs; 3, physical development; 3, intellectual adjustment; 11, social adjustment; 5, vocational adjustment; 4, emotional adjustment; and 7, adjustment to marriage. Marshall (47) used almost the identical items in her study. While she revised some of the questions with a view to increased objectivity and placed them in the form of a four-point scale, they were essentially the same. In the present study an attempt was made to reduce as much as possible the amount of reading required of the subjects. Various items of the original 80 used by Wittman and Marshall were therefore deleted. The procedure was as follows: The scale containing the original 80 items was screened by a psychiatrist on the staff at the Provincial Mental Hospital, Essondale, 18 who had been dealing extensively with alcoholic admissions and therapy. 1 8 # Dr. A. J. Shulman kindly screened the 80 items. The items were also scanned by a member of the A.A. who had had wide and comprehensive experience with alcoholic subjects. 1^ Both men were requested to retain those items which, i n view of their knowledge, they f e l t to be important factors i n the genesis of addiction to alcohol. Furthermore, a l l those items found to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant by Wittman (67) and Marshall (47) at the five per cent level of confidence or higher, were also retained; a l l other items were deleted. At the termination of this procedure there remained a total of 58 items. Four new questions were incorporated which increased the total to 62 items. The additions were: To what degree did you take pleasure in family l i f e at home? How much group family l i f e has there been? How important i s an interesting job to yoli? and How important do you feel i t i s to be able to get along with others? These items were suggested from the revised edition of the Chassell Scale (12) and were written i n the form of a four-point scale, to accord with the other 58 items. 2 0 An example of the scale i s as follows: 2 1 Do you get along well with your wife? (a) We are extremely congenial; we adjust perfectly together. (b) We have slight quarrels or dissatisfactions, but there i s nothing serious. (c) She scolds or nags or i s disagreeable in other ways. We do not adjust well but try to make the best of i t . (d) We are not congenial. I feel I would get along better and be happier i f we were to separate or get a divorce. Due to the A.A. principle of anonymity, the name i s omitted. 20 • -The writer i s grateful to Dr. and Mrs. Shulman for help i n composing these items. 21 Subjects were requested to encircle the letter a,b,c, or d which best corresponded to their individual case. These answers were arranged i n series and i t was therefore considered justifiable to weight the responses as follows: an a response was given a weighted value of 1;' a b response, a score of 2; a c response, a score of 3; and a d response, a score of The wording and presentation of the 58 items followed exactly the * 22 same pattern as used by Marshall (47). Upon reading, the scale now included 7 items dealing with relationships with mother; 9, relationships with father; 6, relationships with brothers and sisters; 6, dealing with home l i f e in general; 3, concerning religion and standards; 4, sex development; 3, love affairs; 1, physical develop-ment; 2, intellectual adjustment; 5, vocational adjustment; 9, social adjustment; 2, emotional adjustment; and 5, marital adjustment. The Questionnaire and Rating Scale (see Appendices D, E, and F) The subject matter of the questionnaire i s concerned with develop-23 mental and environmental factors, beliefs and attitudes. The order of inquiry follows a general temporal sequence, progressing from memories of childhood up to the present time. Table III indicates the characteristics and factors measured by the questionnaire. Except for minor modifications which included the substitution of geographical names, rephrasing of some questions to reduce ambiguity, and the addition of items dealing specifically with Alcoholics Anonymous, the 2 2 I t i s to be noted that Marshall's arrangement of the alternative answers available to the subjects f a i l to follow a consistent pattern. In some items, the ideal choice i s a; i n other questions, i t i s d. No attempt was made to remedy this inconsistent arrangement. 23 Marshall f e l t that i t was not feasible to ask direct questions about many of the attitudes and experiences. The naive subject would perhaps be baffled or disturbed by the implications, and the more sophisticated subject would modify his responses in order to present a desirable picture. For that reason,'the questions were asked i n an indirect way and phrased so that they could be answered as objectively as possible.. -37a-TABLE III THE 31 AREAS COVERED BY THE QUESTIONNAIRE SHOWING FAVOURABLE AND UNFAVOURABLE RATINGS Item Area Investigated Favourable (Value-1) to unfavoui'able (Value-5) 1. Early training 2. Health; organic functioning 3. Emotional relations with parents in childhood A-i Stability of the home 5. Parent relationships-discipline 6. Parent relationships-economic status 7. Position in the family^ 8. Relations with sibs 9. Economic situation-occupation 10. Economic situation-financial adequacy 11. Satisfaction with education-al & cultural opportun. 12. Dynamic effectiveness of a definite goal 13. Satisfaction with work 14. Occupational stability 15. Liking for reading, writing, expressing ideas 16. Amount of recreation 17. Autono my of recreation 18. Relations with wife 19. Relations with friends 20. Individual contacts 21. Group activities 22. Satisfaction with the community 23. Permanence of residence 24-. Antagonism toward auth-ority 25. Readiness to assume res-ponsibility 26* Political conservatism 27. Self-criticism 28. Attitude toward alcohol 29. Attitude toward religion 30. Religious observance 31. Fulfillment of ideal for "self." No handicaps Incapacitated Perfect health Incapacitated Object of affection Neglected and love Home harmonious Never had a home No criticism Family well-to-do Raised in big family Equal to sibs Level at his ideal Income meets needs and standards Stopped school of own accord L^fe integrated toward goal Deep satisfaction Has job long time Marked interest in abstaraction Actively pursues i t Definite interests Married;congenial Few close friends Always with others Many organizations Enthusiastic; a booster; loves i t A l l l i f e in one town No criticism what-ever Occupation implies ability; a leader No need for change No dissatisfaction Has never used i t Evidence of deep faith Church is main interest Fu l f i l l s own ideal Marked resentment Blames poor financial background for failure Only child Lower than any sib Level always lower Income precarious Forced to leave school Subject to whims of chance; no purpose Dislikes job strongly Jobs a l l temporary No interest; demands mechanical expression No outlets No interests; just "rests" Divorced No associates at a l l Nearly a l l times alone No group affiliation Strongly dislikes region Constantly on the move Strongly antagonistic No responsibility present or past World must be made over Strongly concerned Alcohol is a problem No belief in higher power No church attendance No formulation of recog-nizable goal. Complete discouragement. k A question of fact, not opinion. form of the questionnaire followed closely to that used by Marshall. The alcoholic questionnaire differed slightly from the nonalcoholicj the latter contained no items pertaining to Alcoholics Anonymous, and questions dealing with drinking habits were included at the end of the questionnaire. Answers to the questions were reduced to comparable and equivalent forms by means of the rating scale (see Appendix F)» Thirty-one f i v e -point scales were used, each covering one of the areas comprising the subject matter of the questionnaire. For example, the area of economic situation and financial adequacy was dealt with as follows: Questions asked: Employed? Kind of work (level)? Greatest earning capacity? Thrifty? Financial status? Other sources of income? Any dependents? Children? Ever on relief? Any indication that the family provides home or otherwise supplements income? 24 The continuum of desirability for rating this t r a i t i s as follows: 1 . Income meets needs and standards of l i v i n g completely and easily; no worries. High financial standing i n the community. 2 . Income adequate; some savings or property. 3. Income adequate; no reserves of money or property; may have car. 4 . Low income, supplemented by efforts of wife or other members of the family; meets needs with d i f f i c u l t y ; or, s t i l l de-pendent upon parents. 5. Income precarious; has frequently been dependent or on r e l i e f . Every area investigated by the questionnaire was treated following a pattern similar to that l i s t e d above. The Alcadd Test (see Appendix G) The Alcadd Test (38) i s of the inventory type, and was designed to yield a measure of the degree of addiction to alcohol. The scale i s comprised of 24 The ratings are arranged i n a five-point scale to form a theoretical continuum ranging from highly satisfactory (low scores) to highly unsatis-factory (high scores). A weighted value of 1 was given to the rating No. 1; a weighted score of 2 given to the rating No. 2 ; and so forth. -39-60 items pertaining to drinking and drinking habits. For example, "I drink because I am unlucky in love." or "I get drunk about every payday." Each item i s to be answered with either a "yes" or "no" response. Manson {AA) reports that by use of the Kuder-Richardson formula, the coefficient of r e l i a b i l i t y for the male group of 83 alcoholics i s .92.. Insofar as the validity of the test i s concerned, a c r i t i c a l score of 12 was found to identify 97 per cent of 87 male alcoholics. The Alcadd Test indicates five characteristics which are scored significantly higher by alcoholic subjects. To avoid misinterpreta-tion of these t r a i t s , they are quoted directly from the Manual (4-0). 1. A - Regularity of Drinking: Most alcoholics reveal a pattern of consistent drinking. . High scores on this t r a i t indicate habits of steady drinking. 2. B - Preference for Drinking over Other Activities: The alcoholic i s frequently an under-socialized person, who avoids many social a c t i v i t i e s . He often prefers to drink rather than attent dances, dinners, concerts, entertainments, etc. High scores indicate strong preference for drinking and drinking situations. 3. C - Lack of Controlled Drinking: The alcoholic can-not control his drinking; he has an i r r e s i s t i b l e craving for alcohol. Once an alcoholic starts to drink, in most cases, he w i l l continue u n t i l he i s drunk. High scores on this t r a i t indicate inadequate control over drinking, 2T Concerning the construction of the test, Manson (44-) selected 160 items relating to drinking behavior. _ He administered these items to groups of alcoholic and nonalcoholic men and women, who were comparable for age, sex, intelligence, and socio-economic status. A l l subjects were free from psychosis or marked mental or physiological deterioration. Sixty of the 160 items were selected as being diagnostic,and these items compose the test. His f i n a l male standardization group numbered 83 a l -coholics matched with 61 social drinkers and 17 abstainers. The 60 test items a l l had c r i t i c a l ratios of 2.7 or higher. - 4 0 -4. D - Rationalization of Drinking; The alcoholic can give many apparently good reasons for his drinking. The tendency to rationalize reflects poor insight Into the real reasons for the excessive drinking of the alcoholic. High scores indicate poor insight into the causes of the pathological drinking. 5. E - Excessive Emotionality: The alcoholic i s often an immature personality with many neurotic qualities. He is hypersensitive, becomes depressed easily, worries a great deal, and has not learned to make mature emotional adjustments. High scores indicate poor emotional control. 4. Methods of Test Administration The administration of the test material presented certain d i f f i c u l t -'ies due to i t s lengthiness and also the fact that the topic of alcoholism i s of a delicate and extremely personal nature. The alcoholic group was composed of subjects drawn from two sources: (1) the Provincial Mental Hospital and (2) group meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous in Vancouver. Provincial Mental Hospital Administration of test material to alcoholics undergoing treatment at the Provincial Mental Hospital was carried out i n the following manner: ' The investigator went on the ward and asked, for example, to see John Smith. He introduced himself to Mr. Smith as a psychologist employed at the Hospital who was interested in the problem of .alcohol addiction and asked whether Mr. Smith would be willing to cooperate in a research scheme that was underway at the time. At a l l times the patient was made aware that his anonymity would be respected and that any intimacies, either in the form of conversat-ion or writing, would be s t r i c t l y respected. . He was informed thai the - a -results of the interview had no connection with his stay at the Hospital nor would they affect his relationship with the psychiatric staff. Care was taken to retain proper conditions for sat—factory inter-viewing such as comfortableness, the assurance of privacy, quietness, and so forth. following the establishment of rapport, the investigator questioned the subject along the lines suggested by the questionnaire.. Upon completion of this scale, usually being finished within one or two hour's time, the investigator requested the patient to take the remaining forms and f i l l ' them out i n his leisure time. He was told to return them to the ward attendant. These forms included the Manson Evaluation, the Alcadd Test, and the Chassell Experience Variables Record. Except for specific questions relating to past events, he was told to report his feelings and attitudes as he f e l t them at the present time. Every patient approached, save.one, was extremely anxious to help i n every possible way. The patient refusing to cooperate did so on the grounds that he f e l t a mental hospital was not the place to evaluate him and that i f the examiner so wished he could interview him following his release. Alcoholics Anonymous Meetings - The second source of alcoholic material was from group meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous in Vancouver. Test administration was as follows: G. S. of Alcoholics Anonymous accompanied the investigator to the various group meetings of the organization. 2^ During the evening, at a time convenient to the chairman, the members Due to the A.A. principle of anonymity, the name has been omitted. -42-of the group were informed that G. S. was with them tonight and that he had a few words to say. G. S. then stood up and explained that he had a university student with him engaged in psychological work and that he was working on a re-search program concerning alcoholism. I t was explained to the members that they were going to be requested to f i l l - o u t a questionnaire. G. S. stressed the fact that anonymity would be respected, and that by completely cooperating the members could accomplish some valuable "Twelfth Step Work.".2''' G. S. then introduced the investigator to the members of the group and asked him to explain in added detail the purpose of the project. Generally, unless specific questions were asked, the discussion was quite short and the nature of the investigation was explained in non- . technical terminology. Mention was made that research was interested in discovering why one man drinks to excess while another does not. The members were told that excessive drinking might be the result of psycho-logical factors existing i n the personality, together with certain accompanying environmental factors. The purpose of the project was ex-plained as an attempt to determine how the alcoholic differs from the non-alcoholic. Members were urged to be sincere and honest when completing the forms. The question of anonymity was again stressed, and every mem-ber was requested to cooperate with the study. Concerning instructions for.completing the questionnaire, members were given essentially the same instructions as were the alcoholics at the Provincial Mental Hospital. The only difference, however, was the request to reply to the questions contained in the Alcadd Test in the past tense, i.e., drinking habits before coming into Alcoholics Anonymous. — Twelfth Step Work i n Alcoholics Anonymous i s l i t e r a l l y the helping of other alcoholics to attain sobriety. - 4 3 -This was necessary since the items on the scale were phrased in the present tense. The battery was handed out to the members at the termination of the meeting, and they were asked to return the forms at the next meeting or to give them to G. S. personally. 1 Obviously i t i s a d i f f i c u l t task to obtain good rapport and a working relationship with a group of alcoholic men and women in the brief space of five to ten minutes. The prestige-value of G. S. undoubtedly helped greatly in presenting the test material, but unfortunately, the creation of motivation to complete the forms proved a formidable task, Administration to Nonalcoholics Administration of the tests to nonalcoholic subjects was accomplished by means of individual conact. Members of this group were either seen by the investigator or by his friends. A l l individuals gathering data were briefed as to what to i n -2 8 form the potential subjects about the purpose of the questionnaire. I t was explained that their replies to the questions in the test battery were to be compared with those given by a group of alcoholic i n -dividuals, and that the purpose was to identify significant differences. They were told that individuals were needed who were mature in age and who had undergone the stresses of the competltive-world-at-large. They were urged to give replies as unbiased as possible, and to be sincere and £8 Originally, the idea was advanced that i t would be to advantage to explain the tests in a way that would disguise the real purpose. I t was postulated that i f an individual was aware that the study dealt with alcoholism and personality he would have a tendency to minimize his d i f f i c u l t i e s , and to that degree, alter his responses. With the i n -clusion of the Alcadd Test into the battery, however, i t became almost impossible to conceal the purpose of the project. Therefore, a l l mem-bers of the nonalcoholic comparison group were told e x p l i c i t l y the reason for the questionnaire. honest. Each subject was told i n clear fashion not to identify him-self i n any way, since the study was s t a t i s t i c a l i n nature and not concerned with individuals as such. The subjects were requested to take the forms home and complete them in their leisure time. In the majority of instances the questionnaires were returned diredtly to the individuals requesting them to be f i l l e d -out; i n other cases the forms were mailed back to the investigator. Concerning the r e l i a b i l i t y of the information given by a l l the subjects taking part i n this study, i t would appear that the general consistency of the information supplied suggests a conscientious effort at accuracy. 5. Subjects Used in.This Study One hundred and thirty-six male subjects were used i n this study. This number was divided into an alcoholic group of 69 individuals, and a comparison group of 67 nonalcoholics. A. Selection of the Alcoholic Group The alcoholics in this study were a l l members of Alcoholics Anony-mous and were contacted through two sources: (a) group meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous in Vancouver City, and (b) the Provincial Mental Hospital, Essondale, B. C. 29 Group Meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous Approximately 1000 men and women, i n the ratio of about six to one, 30 belong to Alcoholics Anonymous in Vancouver. This membership i s con-29 • ~ : " : 1 " Explanation and discussion of Alcoholics Anonymous may be found in Appendix A. 30 -This number represents a f a i r l y stable population. There i s always a transient population composed of dri f t e r s ; individuals basically refusing to admit their alcoholism; those who cannot accept the principles of the Program; and severe neurotic or psychopathic individuals whose main problem i s not alcoholism. -At-tained within 16 separate groups which vary roughly i n size from 20 to 31 100 or more members. I t was the hope of the investigator to obtain a representative cross-section of the Alcoholics Anonymous population for analysis and study. Accordingly, 10 of the groups were selected whose membership was thought to be representative of every type of alcoholic following the Program. The 10 groups were visited by the investigator, and 267 questionnaires 32 were distributed. • Each questionnaire bore a serial number which served to identify the group to which i t belonged. The number of questionnaires distributed and the percentage of re-turns per group i s indicated i n Table IV. Of the 267 given out, only 45 (14»9 per cent) were returned to the investigator. Of these, only 33 33 (12.3 per cent) were suitable for analysis. Repeated requests over a period of two months urging the members to complete and return the forms failed to e l i c i t any appreciable res-ponse. The limited number of individuals returning the forms would seem to preclude the assumption of a representative sample. Additional factors supporting this view are as follows: (a) some members were ab-sent at the time when their particular group was visited, and (b) not a l l subjects at a meeting; accepted a questionnaire. I t i s possible that significant differences might exist between those alcoholics participating 31 These groups are scattered throughout Vancouver and contain within their membership individuals who together would form continuums insofar as length of membership, success with the Program, degree of addiction, age, socio-economic status, etc. are concerned. 32 These groups were visited in the month of October. 33 Twelve of the 45 questionnaires were not acceptable. Three were largely incomplete, and 9 had been f i l l e d - o u t by female subjects. -46-TABLE IV DISTRIBUTION OF QUESTIONNAIRES AND PERCENTAGE OF RETURNS FOR TEN GROUPS OF ALCOHQLICS ANONYMOUS IN VANCOUVER4 A# Ao Group Number Distributed Number Returned Return Per Group (58) Return For Total Number Distributed (*) 1 63 9 14.3 3.4 2 36 5 13.9 1.9 3 15 1 6.7 .3 4 32 2 6.2 .7 5 23 5 21.7 1.9 6 36 4- 11.1 1.5 7 14 0 0.0 0.0 8 8 1 12.5 .3 9 12 2 16.7 .8 10 28 4 14.3 1.5 Totals 10 267 33 12.3 it The 12 cases not acceptable for analysis are deleted from this tabulation. in the study and those not participating. Unfortunately, there does not appear a way to circumvent such sampling errors. Provincial Mental Hospital Group Thirty-six members of Alcoholics Anonymous seeking psychiatric help were interviewed at the Provincial Mental Hospital, Essondale. Criteria for selection of subjects were as follows: (a) the patient must be a voluntary admission to the hospital; (b) he must be free from psychological or physiological deterioration; and (c) he must be free from any evidence of psychosis. These conditions were checked by con-sulting the patient'_s clinical f i l e . The reason for seeking admission to the hospital was usually the fact that the patient had commenced to drink, gone on a spree and subsequently sought treatment. It would appear that individuals composing this group exhibited some difficulty in achieving and retaining sobriety. Their contact with Alcoholics Anonymous often appeared capricious and generally unsatisfactory. The sample of alcoholics obtained from the mental hos-pital is considered to be fairly representative qf the type of voluntary 34 alcoholic admitted. B. Selection of the Nonalcoholic Group The nonalcoholic group in this study consisted of 6 7 male subjects. As stated earlier, subjects composing this group were drawn from friends of the investigator, acquaintances of the investigator's friends, members of a church group, psychiatric attendants employed at the mental hospital, and chance contacts made by the Investigator. It was desired to achieve as wide a cross-section of individuals as 34 During the months of August, September, October, and November, when subjects for this study were being interviewed, there were 48 voluntary admissions. Seven of these cases showed marked psychopathy or organic det-erioration and were therefore not considered suitable material for study. Time was not available to interview the remaining 5 subjects. -48-possible. Many of the forms received were completed by female subjects, and were therefore not suitable for analysis* Care was taken to avoid having friends of Alcoholics Anonymous members complete the questionnaire, since that organization i s to be regarded as a select group and indiv-iduals associating with that c i r c l e were l i k e l y to be biased in their responses* C» Results of the Comparison of the Groups An attempt was made to match the groups for mean age, marital status, degree of education, and occupational status* Each factor i s discussed seriatim below. Concerning the age averages of the groups, the mean age of the alcoholic group of 69 subjects was 41.68 years, with a standard dev-iation of 8.65* Alcoholics from group meetings and those from the mental hospital were essentially similar i n years of age. The mean age for the nonalcoholic group was 37*81 years, with a standard deviation of 9.43. D i f f i c u l t y was encountered in obtaining older, nonalcoholic subjects to participate i n the study* Data are tabulated i n Table V. Concerning marital status, there was found to be a marked difference between the alcoholics and nonalcoholics, and also between the two a l -coholic groups. Table in shows only 27, or nearly 40 per cent of the 69 alcoholics to be married, whereas 82 per cent of the nonalcoholics were found to be married. Moreover, approximately 22 per cent of the 69 alcoholics were separated, and nearly 18 per cent divorced, whereas no nonalcoholic was divorced or separated. While the absence of divorced and separated subjects i n the nonalcoholic group may be attributed to sampling errors, the Canadian Census (1941) l i s t s for B r i t i s h Columbia only .4 per cent of the population divorced and .9 per cent separated(16), -49-TABLE V 1 COMPARISON OF CHRONOLOGICAL AGE OF THE ALCOHOLICS COMING FROM GROUP MEETINGS OF ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS, ALCOHOLICS • FROM THE PROVINCIAL MENTAL HOSPITAL AND THE NONALCOHOLIC GROUP. Alcoholics Alcoholics Alcoholics Nonalcoholics AA Meetings Hospital Total ; (N-33) (N-36) (N-69) (N-67) Mean age 41.37 ' 42.00 41.68 37.81 Sigma 8.59 8.55 8.65 9.43 Range 22-60 22-61 22-61 21-62 TABLE VI COMPARISON OF MARITAL STATUS OF THE ALCOHOLICS FROM GROUP MEETINGS OF ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS, ALCOHOLICS AT THE PROVINCIAL MENTAL HOSPITAL AND THE NONALCOHOLIC GROUP. Status Alcoholics AA Meetings (N-33) Alcoholics Alcoholics Nonalcoholics H 0 s p i t a l Total (N-36) (N-69) (N-67) Married 22 5 27 55 Single 5 6 11 12 Separated 3 12 15 0 Divorced 2 10 12 0 Widowed 1 3 0 -50-100 FIG. 1. COMPARISON OF MARITAL STATUS OF 69 ALCOHOLICS AND 67 NONALCOHOLICS Alcoholics Nonalcoholics • -51-These findings are essentially similar to those reported by Bacon (4.). Figure 1 illustrates i n clear fashion the wide discrepancies between the alcoholic and nonalcoholic groups. Significant differences also exist between the alcoholics attending group meetings in Vancouver and those undergoing treatment at the hospital. Only 13 per cent of the hospital group were married, whereas 66 per cent were married i n the former group. Approximately equal numbers were single, but insofar as separation and divorce are con-cerned there were again significant differences. The educational status of the groups i s interesting. Education ranged from fourth grade to four years of university work. Approxi-mately 20 per cent of the 69 alcoholics sought higher education, while only 16 per cent of the nonalcoholics did so. Sixteen per cent dropped out prior to graduation, however, as compared to only 11 per cent of the nonalcoholics. Insofar as high school graduation i s concerned, 26 per cent of the nonalcoholics- achieved the grade twelve level, while 22 per cent of the nonalcoholics did so. Upon viewing Figure 2, i t would appear that a greater number of alcoholic subjects stopped school at about the grade ten leve l . Replies to the item on the questionnaire asking the reason for stopping school were answered by a great many alcoholics "just quit," "got fed up." or "wanted to work." I t i s suggested, since the majority of alcoholics failed, to reveal economic circumstances such as would prohibit continued education, that there was a lack of staying power or drive toward further educational achieve-ment. As previously mentioned,•there i s also indication of this abandon-ment at the college l e v e l . Generally speaking, the alcoholic and nonalcoholic groups appeared reasonably similar in educational achievement. The mean years of -52-FIG. 2. COMPARISON OF THE EDUCATIONAL LEVELS OF THE 69 ALCOHOLICS AND 67 NONALCOHOLICS Alcoholics — Nonalcoholics -53-schooling for the two groups was found to be 10.77 and 10.71 respect-ively. Data for educational levels of the groups are indicated in Table VII. Comparison of the occupational levels of the alcoholic and non-alcoholic groups also reveals some interesting differences between the groups. As indicated i n Figure 3, the nonalcoholics were on higher occupational levels than were members of the alcoholic group. Insofar as managerial and semi-professional categories were concerned, approx-imately 19 per cent of the nonalcoholics were at these levels, whereas only 7 per cent of the alcoholics were in these categories. Most notice-able was the relative absence of nonalcoholics in the semi-skilled and unskilled brackets; approximately 6 per cent of the nonalcoholics as compared with nearly 30 per cent of the 69 alcoholics. Table VIII indicates that twice as many of the semi-skilled and unskilled a l -coholics came from the hospitalized group. There are 14 subjects engaged in the sales f i e l d for both the alcoholic and nonalcoholic groups; this was the result of a purposeful selection of nonalcoholic subjects. Generally, the alcoholics appeared to be on a lower occup-ational level than the nonalcoholics. Such a finding perhaps reflects on the selection of the groups, but i t also may indicate a general down-ward trend on the occupational scale of alcoholics who cannot attain sobriety. Table IX presents in tabular form the length of association with Alcoholics Anonymous of individuals comprising the alcoholics drawn from group meetings and those drawn from the Provincial Mental Hospital. The mean number of months1 contact with the organization would appear to be essentially similar, as i s the general distribution. -54-. TABLE VII COMPARISON OF EDUCATIONAL STATUS OF ALCOHOLICS OBTAINED FROM GROUP MEETINGS OF ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS, ALCOHOLICS FROM THE PROVINCIAL MENTAL HOSPITAL, AND THE NONALCOHOLIC GROUP Alcoholics Alcoholics Alcoholics Nonalcoholics AA Meetings Hospital Total (N-33) (N-36 (N-69) (N-67) 4 years college 1 2 3 3 3 years college 1 1 2 2 2 years college 1 3 4 3 1 year college 2 3 5 3 12th grade 7 8 15 18 11th grade 4 1 5 12 10th grade 8 9 17 9 9th grade 1 5 6 3 8th grade 7 1 8 5 7th grade 0 1 1 2 6th grade 0 1 1 5 5th grade 1 0 1 .2 4th grade 0 1 1 0 lower 0 0; 0 0 Mean Years 10.57' 10.97 10.77 10.71 of school FIG. 3. COMPARISON OF THE OCCUPATIONAL LEVELS OF 69 ALCOHOLICS AND 67 NONALCOHOLICS A l c o h o l i c s N o n a l c o h o l i c s -56-TABLE VIII COMPARISON OF OCCUPATIONAL LEVELS^OF ALCOHOLICS OBTAINED FROM GROUP MEETINGS OF ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS'; ALCOHOLICS FROM THE PROVINCIAL MENTAL HOSPITAL, AND THE NONALCOHOLIC GROUP Alcoholics Alcoholics Alcoholics Nonalcoholics Level AA Meetings Hospital Total (N--33) (N-36) (N-69) - (N-67) Professional 0 0. 0 1 Semi-professional 1 2 3 4 Managerial 2 0 2 9 Clerica l 3 5 8 12 Sales 11 3 14 14 Service •1 2 3 8 Agriculture 1 1 2 • 0 Skilled 7 9 16 15 Semi-skilled 6 6 12 2 Unskilled 1 8 9 1 Student 0 0 0 1 k According to the Dictionary of Occupational T i t l e s . (Ijp) -57-> In summary, i t would' appear that the data for the groups revealed some fundamental similarities and differences,, Insofar as age and education were concerned, the alcoholic and nonalcoholic groups were essentially similar* The basic differences appeared to be i n the marital and occupational spheres. The alcoholics were found to be on a lower occupational level, and did not even begin to approx-imate the nonalcoholics insofar as marital status was concerned. It i s a d i f f i c u l t task to obtain a comparison group which would properly match the alcoholic group for a l l the c r i t e r i a selected. TABLE IX COMPARISON OF LENGTH OF MEMBERSHIP' IN ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS OF ALCOHOLICS OBTAINED FROM GROUP MEETINGS AND ALCOHOLICS FROM THE PROVINCIAL MENTAL HOSPITAL. Alcoholics Alcoholics Time Group Meetings Hospital (N-33) (N-36) 2 weeks or less 3 cases 1 case 1 month 3 U 2 months 3 0 3 months 0 0 4 months 2 2 5 months 0 0 6 months 1 • 5 7 months 2 1 8 months 0 1 9 months 0 0 10 months 0 1 ' 11 months 0 0 12 months 3 4 15 months 5 1 18 months . 0 1 20 months 1 0 24 months 1 ' 3 27 months 2 1 30 months 2 1 36 months 4 6 45 months 1 0 Sporadic 0 4 \ Mean No. Months Contact: 15.04 15.04 TEST RESULTS Before presenting the test results, two points require discussion and c l a r i f i c a t i o n . The f i r s t i s whether or not significant differences . might exist between those alcoholics obtained from group meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous, and those obtained from the Provincial Mental Hospital. In answer to this query, i t seemed that comparison and analysis of the two groups would yield fruitless results. The reasons for this assumption were as follows: (1) a l l members of both groups belonged to Alcoholics Anonymous, and therefore i t might be suspected that they represented a rather similar type of alcoholic; (2) a l l patients at the Mental Hospital participating in the study were voluntary admissions; therefore, they^were just as actively seeking treatment for their alco-holism as were those in attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. In other words, both groups were composed of individuals seeking sobriety; (3) analysis of Table IX showed that members of both groups had had essentially equal contact with Alcoholics Anonymous insofar as length of association was concerned; and (4) a brief analysis of the d i s t r i -bution of the two groups was made for various items of the test battery thought to be discriminative. The distributions of the two groups on the Manson Evaluation and the Alcadd Test revealed no significant d i f f e r -ences. Items covering the need for religious;security, feelings of sin and guilt, l i k i n g for companionship and social affairs, likewise f a i l e d -60 to reveal differences. Inasmuch as the two groups had essentially the same age and standard deviation, and years of education, they were assumed to be essentially the same and thus were combined to form a single, alcoholic group of 69 subjects. The second question deals with those alcoholics who might better be termed "ex-alcoholics." From the 33 cases obtained from group meetings, there were only 8 cases who had not touched alcohol for eight months or more. Their membership i n Alcoholics Anonymous ranged from eight months to two years, with no relapse to drinking. It appeared neith-er practical nor feasible to consider separately so few cases. The Manson Evaluation test scores for the 8 men averaged 31.6 with a range of 16 to 45. Seven of the 8 cases scored over 28, i.e., well over the c r i t i c a l score of 21 set for alcoholic subjects. These subjects were therefore included with the remainder of the alcoholic group. 1. Results on the Questionnaire (see Appendices D & E) Replies made by the alcoholic and nonalcoholic groups to the questions composing the questionnaire were translated into comparable and equivalent forms by means of the rating scale, (see Appendix F ) following the procedure explained on page 38. The use of a rating scale would seem to bring to question the objectivity of the method. In order to provide whatever safeguards were possible, two raters were used in this study. Rate No. 1 was the author, rater No. 2 was a psychological c l i n i c assistant employed at the Provincial Mental H 0spital. I n i t i a l l y , each rater rated 5 alcoholic and 5 nonalcoholic question-naires (310) ratings.) . I t was found that there was complete agreement on 289 items, disagreement of two points on 5 items and disagreement of -61-one point on 16 items. After discussion and analysis of previous ratings, a second group of 5 alcoholic and 5 nonalcoholic questionnaires was rated. Analysis of this group showed complete agreement for 296 items, disagree-ment of one point for 11 items, and disagreement of two points for 3 items. A further group of 10 alcoholic and 10 nonalcoholic questionnaires was rated (620 judgments), and in this instance there was complete agreement for 603 items, disagreement of one point for 12 items, and disagreement of two points for 5 items. I t was concluded that both raters were using relatively similar c r i t e r i a for rating, and analysis and rating of the questionnaires was commenced. Each rater rated approximately an equal number of alcoholic and nonalcoholic questionnaires. Alcoholic:, and nonalcoholic questionnaires were rated alternately so as to avoid a halo effect. At the termination of rating, comparison of ratings was again made for 10 alcoholics and 5 nonalcoholics (465 judgments). There was complete agreement for 449 items, disagreement of one point for 9 items, and dis-agreement of two points for 7 items. Of the 45 questionnaires rated by both raters, items differing by one point were averaged and those d i f -fering by two points received a compromise rating, sometimes in favour of one rating, sometimes i n favour of the other. Each rating scale was assumed to have equal intervals and thus a rating of 1 (favourable) would be given at one end of a continuum to a rating of 5 (unfavourable) at the other. The ratings for each scale were tabulated f o r both the alcoholic and the nonalcoholic groups and the means, standard deviations and c r i t i c a l ratios for the differences -62 between the means were computed. Data are tabulated in Table X. The picture of the average alcoholic, as revealed by the question-naire, i s of a man who has evidenced more than an average amount of behaviour d i f f i c u l t i e s i n early infancy, mostly in the form of temper tantrums, generalized fears and expressions of nervousness, and whose general health i n adolescence and later years was slightly below the average. He i s more l i k e l y to have suffered from serious accidents or injury. As a child i n the home, he reports an adequate amount.of attention and affection, but evidently this was of a highly inconsistent type. The alcoholic expresses rather marked feelings of resentment against home rule and discipline. He feels that other children had nicer fathers in some cases. The home i s more l i k e l y to show to a slight degree, a lack of family harmony, but not to a serious extent, He reports ho financial handicaps and feels that his family's economic position was at least'average i f not better than average. His position of birth rank in the family does not d i f f e r significantly from"the nonalcoholics. The alcoholic expresses himself as being dissatisfied with his occupational and financial status. His occupational mobility i s signi-ficantly greater than that of the nonalcoholic. Not only does he tend to change his place of workjbut he also changes the nature of his work as well, usually slipping steadily to more menial occupations. Financial-ly, he has not achieved an income adequate for his needs and he i s more l i k e l y to be dependent upon others for funds or some type of support. One of the most noticeable differences between the alcoholic and -63-TABLE X COMPARISON OF MEAN SCORES OF TBE ALCOHOLIC GROUP WITH MEAN SCORES OF THE NONALCOHOLIC GROUP FOR 31 CHARACTERISTICS MEASURED BY THE QUESTIONNAIRE I £ e m Characteristic N O . Measured Alcoholics No.of Mean S.D. Cases Score Nonalcoholics No. of Mean S.D. C * R * Cases Score 1. Early training 68 2.17 .92 65 1.54 .65 4.59 2. Health? organic functioning 68 2.22 .95 67 1.76 .77 3.06 3. Emotional relations with parents i n childhood 67 2.11 1.08 67 2.12 1.27 .05 4. Stab i l i ty of the home 68 2.12 1.14 67 1.55 .83 2.72 5. Parent relationships; d i sc ip l ine 68 2.33 1.26 67 1.61 .77 4.00 6. Parent relationships; 68 2.00 1.05 67 2.07 1.52 .22 economic „ Position in the family* 7. 68 2.72 1.33 67 2.64 1.34 .34 8. Relationship with brothers and s isters 61 1.89 1.27 62 1.31 .52 3.49 9. Economic situation; occu-pation 68 2.68 1.27 66 1.97 .87 3.79 10. Economic situation; f i n -ancial adequacy 67 3.67 1.22 67 2.25 .56 8.40 68 67 2.36 11. Degree of satisfaction with educational and cultural opportunities 2.17 1.02 .89 1.15 12. Dynamic effectiveness of definite goal 67 2.96 .83 65 1.71 .83 10.41 13. Satisfaction with work 66 2.55 1.02 67 1.97 .75 3.74 14. Occupational s tab i l i t y 67 2.87 1.04 65 1.51 .53 9.64 15. Liking for reading, writing, expressing ideas 67 3.25 .86 66 3.24 .84 .06 16. Amount of recreation 67 3.04 .85 67 2.15 .90 5.93 17. Autonomy of recreation 66 3.32 1.03 67 2.67 .98 3.16 18. Relations with wife 54 3.04 1.60 55 1.18 .77 7.65 19. Relations with friends 66 2.94 .98 67 2.41 .61 4.U 20. Individual contacts 67 2.86 1.17 67 2.44 .71 3.02 21. Group ac t iv i t i e s 67 3.55 1.60 67 3.21 1.01 2.00 22. Satisfaction with the community 65 2.65 .96 67 2.34 .79 2.18 23. Permanence of residence 66 2.57 1.20 67 2.06 .85 3.38 24. Antagonism toward authority 68 2.39 1.07 67 2.24 .93 .96 25. Readiness to assume res-pons ib i l i ty 67 3.12 1.27 65 2.12 .93 6.25 26. P o l i t i c a l conservatism 66 2.15 .70 65 2.15 .68 0.00 27. Sel f -cr i t i c i sm 67 2.90 1.14 65 2.11 .66 5.84 28. Attitude toward alcohol 67 5.00 0.0 67 2.64 .92 23.15 29. Religious fa i th 67 2.91 .95 67 3.06 1.13 .85 30. Religious observance 68 4.07 .82 65 3.67 .82 2.81 31. Fulfil lment of ideal for self 68 3.38 .78 67 2.23 .48 10.36 # Not a scale; a q u e s t i 0 a of fact . -64-nonalcohiic group, as revealed on Table X,is the lack of dynamic drive to-ward a definite goal. The great majority of the alcoholics f a i l to exhibit a plan or philosophy of l i f e or a goal to which they aspire. He is below his brothers and sisters i n terms of educational, occupation-a l and financial achievement. The alcoholic tends to seek recreation, but this i s of a type that furnishes l i t t l e i n the way of deeply satisfying hobbies, music, books, or art. Rather.,: the alcoholic desires recreation that involves muscular ac t i v i t i e s such as hunting or fishing. In general, his expressed inter-ests tend to be hazy and. ill-defined. The alcoholic reports an average number of friends and acquaintances and states that he spends a good deal of his.time with others. Insofar as the community goes, he i s not strongly identified or openly antagonis-t i c . He tends to have changed his place of residence a great many more times than have members of the nonalcoholic group. His a f f i l i a t i o n with churches and other organizations within the community is extremely limited, and he reports less activity than do the nonalcoholics. There i s no difference between the groups for p o l i t i c a l conservatism, resentment against authority and degree of religious fait h . Concerning religious observance, the alcoholic shows significantly less interest than the nonal-coholic with respect to church attendance. In general, the alcoholic on the basis of this questionnaire, appears to have failed to f u l f i l l his ideal of"self." He has fallen short of his mark in the marital f i e l d , the occupational f i e l d , ' and in some of the social and moral aspects of behaviour. He i s keenly aware of these f a i l -ures and expresses remorse over his shortcomings. Significant differences between the alcoholic and nonalcoholic groups are indicated i n figure 4, -64a-Rating Scale Valaes Item No. 1. 2. 4'. 5. 6. 9. 10. 12. 13. 14. 16. Characteristic Early training Favourable : 1 2 Unfavourable 4 \ 5 18. 19. 20. 23. 25. 27. 28. 30. 31. Health; organic f u n c t i o n -S t a b i l i t y of the home Parent relationships; discipline Relationship with sibs Economic situation; occupation Economic situation; f i n — • ancial adequacy Dynamic effectiveness o f — a definite goal Satisfaction with work Occupational sta b i l i t y -Amount of r e c r e a t i o n — 17. Autonomy of recreation-Relationship with wife Relations with friends-Individual contacts-Permanence of residence-Readiness to assume-responsibility Self-criticism-Attitude toward a l c o h o l — Religious observance Fulfillment of ideal f o r — self - V 1-y. - 4-\ 1 V 1 -w 1 V / • c \ \ \ \ / / X . 1 V 1 \ 1 ^ \1 \ nn nn _f_ V _ | \ i \ l LJLZ 1 31 <r _\ I nn _t~ y - ~jT \ I \ _t__ I- l> *- ' 1 <-"1 *~l Ii— 1 i 1 J y <l \ \ \ \/ A 1 Si s r te • 0* ziz H - 4- f9r r r FIG. 4. COMPARISON OF MEAN SCORES OF THE ALCOHOLIC GROUP WITH MEAN SCORES OF THE NONALCOHOLIC GROUP FOR 21 CHARACTERISTICS DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN THE GROUPS AT THE 1 PER CENT LEVEL OF CON-FIDENCE OR HIGHER Alcoholic group Nonalcoholic group ' -65-: 2. The Modified Experience Variables Record Subjects were requested to encircle the letter corresponding most nearly to their case for every question, as explained on page 36. These answers were arranged i n series, and i t was therefore considered j u s t i -fiable to weight the responses as follows: an A response was given a weigh-ted value of 1; a B response a value of 2j a C response a value of 3 and a D response a value of ^ . The mean scores and standard deviations were calculated for a l l items for the alcoholic and nonalcoholic groups. The c r i t i c a l ratios of the differences between the means were computed. Table XI indicates the obtained data. The average alcoholic reports his feelings and attitudes as follows: Concerning his relationships with his mother, he states that she . was primarily interested in the home and i n home a f f a i r s . She showed much mora than average attention to h i s welfare, needs and desires. The nonalcoholic reports his mother to be slightly more interested In the home than the alcoholic 1s mother but definitely less solicitous and attentive to him. The alcoholic reports that h i s mother rarely insisted on s t r i c t obedience to her wishes, although he was made to conform slightly more than average. Concerning the severity and frequency of discipline, the alcoholic states that his mother seldom spanked him but more often scolded and then made quick amends. Discipline was slightly more severe for the nonalcoholics. The alcoholic and the nonalcoholic both report trying to please their mothers' wishes, but just as often they followed their own plans and inclinations. The alcoholic tended to idealize his mother slightly more than the average. His mother did -66-TABLE XI COMPARISON OF MEAN SCORES OF THE ALCOHOLIC GROUP WITH MEAN SCORES OF THE NONALCOHOLIC GROUP FOR 62 CHARACTERISTICS MEASURED BI THE MODIFIED EXPERIENCE VARIABLES RECORD Item Characteristic Alcoholics Nonalcoholics c.R. No. Measured No.of Mean S.D. No.of Mean S.D. Cases Score Cases Score I. Mother 1. Many outside interests 67 3.13 .73 67 3.24 .60 .92 2. Attentive to subject 67 1.83 .69 67 2.35 .62 4.72 3. Dominant in attitude toward 67 2.73 • 88 67 2.83 .31 .99 subject 4. Severity of discipline 67 2. 64 .74 67 2*46 .17 1.95 5. Subject desired to please her 66 2.44 .55 67 2.43 .63 .10 6. Subject idealized her 67 1*82 .76 67 2.03 .57 1.81 7. Did not use alcohol 67 1.33 .46 67 1.79 .62 4.60 II. Father 8. Ambitious, tense, anxious to 67 2.09 .71 67 2.30 .93 1.50 succeed 9. Standing i n the community 66 1.96 .15 67 2.00 .33 .88 10. Good emotional control 67 1.94 .56 67 1.59 • 59 3.57 Dominant in attitude toward 67 2# 3-4 .88 65 2.65 .72 2+ 2X subject 12. Subject afraid of father 67 2.57 .35 65 2.97 .56 4.83 13. Subject idealized him 67 2.03 •64- 65 1.85 .42 1.91 14. Subject intimate with him 67 2.58 X*X2 65 2# XX .87 2.76 15. Did not use alcohol 68 2.79 .97 66 2.33 .91 -1.25 16. Subject preferred mother to 64 2.01 .74 65 2.37 .60 3.05 father III. Sibs 17. Sibs more talented than subject 62 2.09 .73 62 2.33 .74 I.84 18. Sibs more popular i n home 61 3.03 .74 62 2.45 .83 4.14 19. Subject feels affection for 61 2.02 .85 62 1.94 .65 .57 sibs 20, Subject f e e l s envious of sibs 62 3.40 1.08 62 3.88 1.01 2.52 2X $ Parents favour sibs 62 2.16 • 22 62 2* X*7 .44 •30 22. Subject quarrelled with sibs 63 3.00 .56 62 3.15 .55 1.54 IV. Home Life 23. Parents demanded obedience 66 2.28 .81 67 2,27 .56 .08 24. Subject resented discipline 68 2.63 .53 67 3.00 .95 2.72 25. Age of leaving home 66 19.92 4.28 67 20.45 4.71 .23 26. Most pleasant times were at 65 2* 22 .56 67 1.86 ••4*2 .52 home 27. Subject not a great deal with 67 2.68 .43 67 2.16 .19 9.45 family 28. Religious practice i n home 67 X#0-4 .70 67 1,86 .30 • • 2X -67-TABLE XI Cont'd, Item Characteristics A l c o h o l i c s Nonalcoholics c.R. No. Measured J ° * o f * e a n S.D, *°'Ot Mean S.D. Cases Score Cases Score 4'- tr V. Subject's Religion 29. Practice of r e l i g i o u s obser- 69 vance 30. Subject needs r e l i g i o u s sec- 69 urity 31* Subject has strong sense o f 69 g u i l t VI. Sex Development 32, Parent's adjustment good 68 33* Information from bad source 69 34-. Subject's a t t i t u d e good 68 35. Subject's adjustment good 69 36. Frequent crushes on same sex 67 37. I n t e r e s t i n opposite sex 69 38. Frequency of love affairs 69 VIII. PJBgsloal Develop. 39. Interest in a t h l e t i c s 68 IX. Intgjyjstaf_* Adjust. 40. Strove to excell in school 69 41. Parental pressure 68 X. Vocational Adjust. 42. Parents' ambitious for subj. 68 43. Desire for public life;author. 68 44. Interest in people vs ideas 68 45. Success in gaining ambition 68 46. Desires job with l i t t l e rout, 69 XI. Social Adjust. 47. L i k i n g for companionship 69 48. L i k i n g for social affairs 69 49. Seeks to lead socially 69 50. Accepts criticism easily 69 51. Important to get along 67 52. Influenced by ideas of others 69 53. Self-conscious 69 54. Does not dominate others 68 55. Gets along with others 67 3.23 1.08 67 3.08 ,62 .97 2.12 .98 67 2.67 1.02 4.08 2.17 .39 67 3.22 .61 32.80 * 197 .72 67 1.97 1*53 0.00 2.55 .89 67 2.22 .39 2*82 1.26 .46 67 1.14 .41 1.60 1,79 .88 67 1.43 .49 2.95 • 3.10 .95 67 3.81 .51 5.88 1.89 .64 67 1.73 .55 1.50 2.23 .51 67 2.54 .59 3.23 2.35 .88 67 2.48 .72 .50 2.49 1.12 67 2.58 1.04 .57 1.98 .66 67 1.98 .36 0.00 2.28 .90 67 2.49 .75 1.48 2.33 .97 67 2.23 .83 .64 2,07 .84 67 1.81 .50 2.20 2.25 .94 67 1.75 .78 3.82 2.52 .85 67 2.05 .65 3.62 1.88 .76 67 1.73 .55 1.33 2.17 1.03 67 2,02 .59 1.04 2.30 1.01 67 2.40 .54 .07 2.03 .85 67 1.75 .67 2.13 1.71 .77 67 1.72 .45 .10 1.98 .73 67 1.86 .41 4.15 2.47 .57 67 2.18 .61 2.87 3.44 1.14 67 2.55 .54 5.78 1.89 .17 67 1.78 .48 1.74 -68-TABLE XI Cont'd. '"Item Characteristic Alcoholics Nonalcoholics G.R, No. Measured No.of Mean SQ No.of Mean S.D. Cases Score Cases Score XII. Emotional Adjust. 56. Poor le v e l of happiness 69 2.62 .61 67 1.86 .52 7.88 57. Concentration on goal 69 2.43 .76 67 1,72 .57 6.18 XIII. Marital Adjust. 5 8 . Not congenial with wife 58 2.69 1.08 55 1.76 .62 7.88 59. Wife opposes use of alcohol 58 1.89 .78 55 2.77 .71 6.24 60. Wife has good emotional con. 57 2,38 . 8 9 55 1.96 .76 2.12 61. Subject jealous of wife 57 2.17 .86 55 1.51 . 5 4 4.85 62. Wife not jealous of subject 57 1.86 .78 55 1.81 .72 .35 -69-not g e n e r a l l y use alcohol,whereas the mother of the nonalcoholic occasion-a l l y d i d so. This represents a significant d i f f e r e n c e between the mo tiers of the alcoholics and the nonalcoholics. In the area of father relationships, the alcoholic describes his father as somewhat more ambitious than average, but not to a significant degree. His father was generally well-liked, had a good reputation, but was not outstanding. The nonalcoholic feels much the same way about his father. The alcoholic u s u a l l y reports that his father was sometimes up-set or irritated, but not as a rule. Fathers of the nonalcoholic group tended to be significantly more stable and w e l l - a d j u s t e d . The a l c o h o l i c reports that his father tended to be tactful but firm i n his relations with him, whereas the nonalcoholics f e l t that their fathers gave few com-mands and many suggestions. There i s a significant difference here be-tween the two groups, but not extreme. The alcoholic reports t h a t he feared his father much more than did the nonalcoholics. He -fended to understand his father, however, and was sympathetic to him. The nonalco-holics revealed slightly more affection for their fathers. Comparatively l i t t l e intimacy i s reported between the alcoholic and his father, whereas the nonalcoholic usually talked t h i n g s over. A greater number of f a t h e r s of alcoholic subjects drank than did fathers of the nonalcoholics. The alcoholic expressed equal love for both parents, while the nonalcoholic professed greater affection for the maternal parent to a significant degree. In his relationships with his brothers and sisters, the alcoholic regards himself to be about equal in a b i l i t y . He feels, however, less pop-ular than his brothers and sisters. Both alcoholics and nonalcoholics -70» report exchanges of confidences with sibs to an equal degree. The alcoholic i s a l i t t l e more envious of his brothers and sisters than are nonalcoholics. Both groups feel that they are on a par with brothers and sisters insofar as popularity with tiarents was concerned. The a l c o h o l i c s report somewhat more conflict with their brothers and sisters, but this does not appear to deviate significantly from the average. Concerning relationships in the home, both groups state that they had to obey their parents as a general rule. The alcoholic reports that he was often resentful of home discipline, whereas the nonalcoholic accepted i t i n good grace. The alcoholic group l e f t home at the average age of 19.92 years and the nonalcoholic group at the age of 20.45 years. Both groups rec a l l many pleasant hours spent within the home environment, but the a l c o h o l i c was absent from the home situation a great d eal more than the nonalcoholic. Insofar as religious practice in the home is concerned, both groups report their parents as having the i n t e r e s t of the average church member. The degree of fait h and religious observance i s similar for the non-alcoholic and alcoholic. The alcoholic, however, reports a much greater need for working out a philosophy of l i f e than does the nonalcoholic, who tends to give the matter scarcely a moment's thought. The alcoholic reports considerable feelings of guilt as compared with the nonalcoholic. He feels that he has done things that would be hard to acknowledge to others. Sex development reveals no h i g h l y significant differences between the alcoholic and the nonalcoholic. Both groups report their parents to be rather inhibited and embarrassed about sex. The alcoholic tended to garner -71-his sex i n f o r m a t i o n from sources slightly more disreputable than those used by the n o n a l c o h o l i c . Both groups r e p o r t t h a t they enjoy sex, and experience f e e l i n g s of re l e a s e and pleasure. Insofar as sexual adjust-ment i s concerned the alcoholic tends to have made a less satisfactory adjustment. This i s understandable i n terms of the greater rate of divorce and separation i n the alcoholic group. Love affairs are reported more frequently by the alcoholic than by the nonalcoholic. Interest in the opposite sex i s similar for both groups. The alcoholic group reports a significantly greater number of emotional attachments to persons of the same sex than does the nonalco-holic group. No differences exist between the groups with reference to interest in athletics. Intellectually, both groups exhibit a similar amount of drive. Parental pressure on school work was also reported as being the same. Concerning vocational adjustment, the alcoholic r e p o r t s somewhat greater parental ambition for his career. Both groups express the d e s i r e to work i n the h u s t l i n g business world as against private study and work. The alcoholic professes a s l i g h t l y greater interest in work involving imagination and contemplation. Concerning satisfaction with his vocat-ion, the alcoholic feels that he i s not doing exactly what he originally wished. He differs significantly from the nonalcoholic in this r e s p e c t . Furthermore, the alcoholic reports that he feels restless i f a job i s dull but can stick i t i f i t i s a good one. Both groups report similar l i k i n g for companionship and social affairs, and show no differences i n desire for leadership in social activity. - -72-The alcoholic reports that he finds i t more d i f f i c u l t to be objective i n the face of razzing or criticism. Both groups feel that i t i s impor-tant to get along with others, but that they have lost friends because of i n a b i l i t y to agree. The alcoholic i s more influenced by the opinions of others, i s s l i g h t l y more self-conscious and claims that he does not mind working under others. The nonalcoholic differs significantly on the latter point. Both groups feel that they get along relatively well with people in general. Concerning emotional adj ustment j the alcoholic reports degressions and periods of marked unhappiness. He often finds himself anxious and worried about things, and sometimes finds i t d i f f i c u l t to concentrate and persist i n his work. The nonalcoholic group reports no such d i f f i c u l -t i e s . In the marital f i e l d , the alcoholic does not adjust well to his wife. She opposes the use of liquor and has somewhat poor emotional control. The alcoholic expresses feelings of jealousy toward her. 3. The Manson Evaluation The total test scores obtained from the Manson Evaluation, and the scores of the seven personality characteristics, were calculated accord-ing to the Manual (41).. The means, standard deviations, and standard errors of the means were calculated for both the alcoholic and nonalco-holic groups. The standard errors of the differences between the means were also obtained and c r i t i c a l ratios computed. Test data are presented i n Table XII. The most striking features revealed by the data are the extremely high scores obtained for psychoneurotic and psychopathic traits by the 1 -73-TABLE XII COMPARISON OF THE MEAN SCORES OF THE ALCOHOLIC GROUP WITH MEAN SCORES OF THE NONALCOHOLIC GROUP FOR 7 PERSONALITY TRAITS. MEASURED BY THE MANSON EVALUATION Trait Alcoholi cs Nonalcoholics CR. No. of Mean S.D. No. of Mean S.D. Cases Score Cases Score Total test score 67 35.95 15.43 67 12.28 6.55 16.34 Anxiety 67 9.83 5.07 67 2.69 2.45 5.85 Depressive fluctuations 67 6.49 2.81 67 1.67 1.47 12.35 Emotional sensitivity 67 5.53 2.39 67 2.09 1.42 10.11 Resentfulness 67 6.55 1.94 67 2.33 1.47 14.25 Incompleteness 67 9.96 3.09 67 4.22 2.28 12.26 Aloneness 67 4.95 2.93 67 1.41 1.03 9.31 Interpersonal relations 67 5.21 2.84 67 1.41 1.03 10.26 -74-alcoholics. Manson (45) states that a c r i t i c a l score of 21 succeeded in identifying 79 per cent of the male alcoholics i n his standardization group. In the present study, 87 per cent of the cases were identified by means of a c r i t i c a l score of 21. This test, used as a measure of the degree of adjustment, i.e., freedom from psychoneurotic and psychopathic manifestations, shows clear-ly the great extent of maladjustment of the alcoholics studied. Feelings \ of anxiety, depressive fluctuations, emotional sensitivity, resentfulness, insecurity, feelings of aloneness, and failure of adequate interpersonal relations are a l l manifested by the alcoholic group. 4 . The Alcadd Test The means, standard deviations, and standard errors of the means of the scores obtained from the Alcadd Test were calculated following scoring according to the Manual (40). The standard errors of the d i f -ferences beWeen the means were computed, and the c r i t i c a l ratios cal-culated. Data are presented in Table XIII. This test, using a c r i t i c a l s core of 12, adequately identified 89.8 per cent of the alcoholics. Results show clearly the great d i f -ferences between the alcoholic and nonalcoholics for the 5 characteris-t i c s measured. The most predominant t r a i t appears to be the preference for drinking over act i v i t i e s , with lack of controlled drinking, excessive emotionality, regular drinking, and'rationalization of drinking follow-ing i n that order. Originally, the Alcadd Test was included in the battery to determine the relationship between the degree of addiction and recovery i n Alcoholics Anonymous. Since so few recovered alcoholics were obtained for study, this particular problem was abandoned. -75-TABLE XIII COMPARISON OF THE MEAN SCORES OF THE ALCOHOLIC GROUP WITH MEAN SCORES OF THE NONALCOHOLIC GROUP FOR 5 DRINKING CHARACTERISTICS.MEASURED BY THE ALCADD TEST Trait • Alcoholics No^of Mean S.D. Cases Score Nonalcoholics No.of Mean S.D. .Cases Score C«R. Total test score 62 38.96 9.90 67 6.64 5.65 22.44 Regularity of drinking 62 7.13 3.33 67 1.16 .47 13.88 Preference of drinking over other a c t i v i t i e s ' 62 6.64. 3.27 67 1.91 1.70 28.80 Lack of controlled drinking 62 13.67 3.39 67 .1.57 1.36 25.74 Rationalization of drinking 62 11.69 4.50 67 3.00 2.64 13.16 Excessive emotionality 62 12.76 4.11 67 2.75 2.58 17.87 DISCUSSION Many significant differences have been found to exist between the alcoholics and the nonalcoholics studied in this investigation* A comparison of the findings with those obtained by previous invest-igators w i l l now be presented, and some of the theoretical implications considered. 1. Factors in the Childhood and Adolescent Environment The alcoholic group was found to exhibit a greater number of behavior d i f f i c u l t i e s during early childhood than the nonalcoholic group. These d i f f i c u l t i e s included nocturnal fears, temper tantrums, and enuresis. The general health of the alcoholics during the child-hood and adolescent phases of development was found to be poorer than that of the nonalcoholics. The latter finding agrees with Marshall (47), but she discovered no difference between her alcoholics and nonalcoholics insofar as behavior d i f f i c u l t i e s were concerned. Marshall was the sole investigator found to have been concerned with the health and behavior pattern in the early l i f e - h i s t o r y of i n -ebriates. A few workers have studied early emotional relationships, but the majority have considered alcoholic addicts in their adult status only. I t would appear that much research i s required in the realm of early emotional relationships of addicts. Both MacCurdy (37) and Richardson (55) have hypothesized that the seeds of alcoholic addiction are planted i n early youth. They have based this postulation on their observations of countless numbers of > alcoholic subjects. Richardson feels that the substructure of the a l -coholic personality, i f there i s one, i s formed due to faulty relation-ships with parents. According to him, the child lacks independence, 77-freedom, power, and prestige. L o l l i (36) theorizes along similar lines, and feels that unbalanced emotional growth i s an important factor. Inadequate emotional relationships with others during the developmental phases results in a personality structure comprised of mature and immature elements. I t might be well asked whether the present data substantiate, to any degree, the theoretical con-tentions of these investigators. Insofar as the amount of affection and attention received from parents ^is; concerned, both the alcoholics and the nonalcoholics re-ported an equal and satisfactory amount. Marshall found, however, that her alcoholics received a significantly greater amount of love and attention. Stability of the home was found to be poorer for the alcoholics, both in the present study and i n Marshall's. Antagonism toward parental authority was found to be greater for the alcoholic than the nonalcoholic group i n the present study, but Marshall found no significant difference to exist between her groups. She reported that her alcoholics came from a better economic background, whereas the alcoholics i n the present study did not d i f f e r significantly from the nonalcoholics, both groups reporting their families to be financially adequate. A finding frequently reported (see Table II) i s that the mothers of alcoholics are usually of the over-solicitous, over-indulgent type. Both Wittman (67) and Marshall (47) found this condition to exist, and the present study agrees on this point. The c l i n i c a l studies of Knight (29), Wall (65), and Chambers (11) also agree. Usually accompanying the over-indulgent mother in the picture, i s an expression of greater love for her than for the father. The present study did not corroborate this. -78-and the. alcoholics reported equal love for both parents. The non-alcoholic, on the other hand, professed greater love for the maternal parent, Marshall (47), Wittman (67), and Tillotson and Fleming (64) found the alcoholic to have disproportionately greater love for the mother. There does not seem to be an explanation for the discrepancy obtained in the present study, A significant finding was that the mothers of alcoholics rarely used alcohol, whereas i t was used more often by mothers of the non-alcoholics. Whether or not this has any bearing upon the way the alcoholic learned to view alcohol, as a child, i s not known. Use of alcohol,insofar as the alcoholics' mothers were concerned, was evidently taboo, Wittman's description of the alcoholics' fathers as being unusually ambitious, tense, and anxious to succeed, was confirmed by Marshall, but the present study failed to agree. However, the alcoholics reported greater fear of their father than did the nonalcoholics, and stated that their fathers tended to demand a greater degree of obedience, Wittman (67) also noted that the alcoholics tended to fear their fathers and were:forced to obey more than were the nonalcoholics. Insofar as relationships with brothers and sisters are concerned, the only s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant differences between the alcoholics and the nonalcoholics were that the alcoholics reported being less pop-ular in the home and expressed envy of their brothers and sisters. Marshall (47) found similar results. The alcoholics differed s i g n i f i -cantly from the nonalcoholics i n the amount of family l i f e at home. The alcoholics tended to avoid the family group, whereas the nonalcoholics reported extensive participation. An early breakdown of interpersonal relationships for the alcoholics could possibly be an explanation for this -79-finding. On the basis of the foregoing, there would seem to appear some degree of confirmation to the postulations of c l i n i c a l investigators. Kamman (26) states, according to his observation of inebriates, that there i s evidence of maladjustment in the early family relationships. Miles (49), Bonney (9), Allen (2), and Knight (29) have stressed that the parents of alcoholics are typically characterized by a doting, over-protective mother, and a stern, autocratic father. According to these investigators, i n f e r i o r i t y develops in,the child because of a failure to emulate the father. In addition, the mother pours her affection upon the child i n a form of compensation for any real opportunity to shower i t on her husband. Thus, the parental background appears char-acterized by inconsistency, a lack of unanimity of parental discipline, which results i n unstable identifications in the child. The father i s severe and indulgent, while the mother i s over-protective and over-in-dulgento Therefore, as Chambers (11) points out, parents pass on to their children a disposition toward maladjustment and immaturity. 2. Factors in the Adult Environment . That the vocational adjustment for alcoholics i s markedly poorer than for nonalcoholics•is a frequent finding of investigators,as shown on page 27. The present study found similar results. The alcoholic . group appeared to exhibit a lack of drive toward well-defined goals. Lack of ambition and perseverance characterized many of the alcoholics studied. The alcoholics were found to have fai l e d in the achievement of their vocational aims. Great occupational mobility, including change of the nature of their work as. well as the place, was a usual characteristic.35 The alcoholic group reported desire for jobs that involved l i t t l e routine. Many alcoholics reported having worked at 50 or more jobs • -80-Halpern (21) noted this alcoholic characteristic. The alcoholics were found to prefer jobs that involved moving around. They also sought jobs that demanded a lesser degree of responsibility than did the non-alcoholics. Marshall reported similar results on the basis of her ob-servations. I t i s extremely d i f f i c u l t to say whether or not such behavior i s actually a personality characteristic. I t would seem more feasible to view the vocational maladjustment of the alcoholic as a result of excessive drinking. Table II indicates that the marital adjustment of the alcoholics i s no better than their vocational adjustments. In the present study, a perusal of Figure 1, page 50, reveals that almost 82 per cent of the nonalcoholics were married as compared to only 4-0 per cent of the alco-holics. Moreover, the high frequency of divorces and separations i s indicative of maladjustment. That the alcoholics exhibit many signs of-marital incompatibility i s an almost unanimous finding of investigators. Probably Bacon (4) has carried out the most thorough study in this f i e l d . According to him, marital maladjustment i s just one symptom of a general social maladjustment, i.e., the alcoholic i s fundamentally an undersocialized individual. Bacon sums this up by stating that the a l -coholic shows "limited participation in the surrounding culture." He f a i l s to associate with other people i n the usually accepted manner, and does not u t i l i z e many of the patterns of behavior open to the members of society. The alcoholics in the present study reported a greater number of love af f a i r s than did the nonalcoholics. They also revealed a greater frequ-ency of crushes on persons of the same sex. One would be extremely loth - S i -te- consider homosexual tendencies for the alcoholic group on the basis of a single test item. Marshall (47) and Wittman (67) failed to find any evidence of homosexuality i n their alcoholic subjects. Latent or overt homosexuality has been stressed as an etiological factor i n a l -coholism, by many workers, notably by the psychoanalysts. Schilder (57) has expounded this theory, as well as Wall (65)• Psychological research has failed to substantiate their views, however. The alcoholics re-ported a significantly greater number of love affairs, but stated that their sexual adjustment was much poorer than that of the nonalcoholics. Wittman (67) found similar results. 3. Emotional and Social Adj ustmeni The Manson Evaluation correctly identified 87 per cent of the a l -coholics studied. The most predominant characteristics differentiating between the alcoholics and nonalcoholics was found to be the feelings of resentment exhibited by the alcoholic group. Table I, pages 23-24, indicates that the majority.Of investigators found this to be a prominent feature of alcoholic addicts. Side by side with the feelings of resent-ment was found evidence of marked mood swings. These fluctuations have also been noted with great frequency. Feelings of incompleteness, guilt and remorse over failures; feelings of being alone, isolated and unwanted emotional sensitivity; and a breakdown of interpersonal relations were a l l characteristic of the alcoholic group. Tiebout (63) observed similar t r a i t s i n the alcoholics coming under his scrutiny. According to him, the alcoholic appears to have built a barrier about himself which "separates him from the world.?' Beecher (6) agrees, and feels that the alcoholic lives i n a state of psychic isolation. According to Beecher, -82-a fear of the opinions of others i s always at the core of the alcoholic 1 d i f f i c u l t i e s . In the light of these findings, the breakdown of the alcoholics* interpersonal relations appears to be a natural consequence. Table I indicates that the present findings are in close accordance with those found by previous investigators. The t r a i t s measured by the Manson Evaluation are thought to represent psychoneurotic and psychopathic characteristics (45). It i s purely conjecture whether this interpretation i s valid, since the test was not standardized on clinically-defined groups, but merely upon individuals with serious alcoholic problems. In one investigation, however, Manson (42) cor-related the scale with the Cornell Selectee Index, Form N, and found a Pearson r equal to .80 to exist between the two tests. On the basis of this fact, more fai t h might perhaps be placed i n the Manson Evaluation . as a measure of neurotic characteristics. As mentioned previously, eight alcoholics i n the sample were found to have been abstinent for a period of 8 to 24 months. Seven of the eight cases earned scores exceeding the c r i t i c a l score of 21. This finding would seem to indicate that the symptoms of a neurotic nature remain relatively stable within the personalities of the alcoholics. Manson (45) had raised the question previously as to whether "...members of Alcoholics Anonymous currently abstaining are alcoholics." This i s an important point not only from the view of identification of alcoholic personality characteristics, but also from the view of determining the efficacy of Alcoholics Anonymous Therapy for solving maladjustment. Manson combined the "wet" and "dry" alcoholics i n the belief that the personality make-up would remain relatively stable, whether the person was drinking or not. Judging from the eight cases in the present study, -8> his assumption would appear to be valid, Myerson (52) would disagree with such a contention. He states: "The alcoholic's mental disease disappears with abstinence and there i s nothing to distinguish him from other people except his reaction to alcohol," Lemere, et a l (33), express a similar view. They state: 'Most of our patients have be-come quite normal after they stop drinking." They use this view to conclude that the usual explanation of alcoholism as an expression of a neurosis or inadequacy i s insufficient. On the other hand, Meyer ( 4 8 ) and Miles ( 4 9 ) contend that alcoholism i s essentially a psychoneurotic reaction, and that alcoholism i s the symptom of a neurosis. The difference i n viewpoints cannot be decided by the results of the present study. A l l that might be said i s that psychoneurotic and psychopathic characteristics appear to be present i n the personalities of the alcoholic group, and that the.findings agree with those obtained by previous workers. The question of cause and effect appears to remain unanswered. However, when cognizance i s taken of the fact that the present tests were administered to individuals who had already indulged i n alcohol to the point of developing addiction, there i s good reason to believe that the personality characteristics measured might be secondary rather than primary t r a i t s . VI. CONCLUSIONS On the basis of test results, a series of conclusions were reached. These conclusions are as follows: 1. Differences exist between the alcoholic and the nonalcoholic groups in  the childhood and adolescent environment. The alcoholic group differed significantly from the nonalcoholic group on four items of the rating scale. The alcoholics reported a greater number of behaviour d i f f i c u l t i e s i n earlyinfancy; their general health tended to be poorer; and they suf-fered a greater number of accidents and injuries. The alcoholics reported a greater degree of resentment against parental discipline than did the nonalcoholics. The alcoholicswere found to be below their brothers and sisters in occupational and educational achievement, whereas the nonalco-holics were equal or above their brothers and sisters i n achievement. On the Modified Experience Variables Record, the alcoholics reported their mothers to be more attentive and solicitous to their needs than did the nonalcoholics. Mothers of alcoholics rarely used alcohol, whereas mothers of nonalcoholics did so. The alcoholics reported that their fathers tended to have poorer emotional control, and generally demanded a greater degree of obedience from their sons than did fathers of the nonalcoholics. The alcoholics stated that they were more afraid of their fathers and that they confided in them to a lesser extent. The fathers of the alcoholics appeared to use more alcohol than did the fathers of the nonalcoholics. The alcoholics exhibited equal love for both parents, where-as the nonalcoholic* showed preference for the maternal parent. The alcoholics reported that they were less popular i n the home than their brothers and sisters, and that they tended to avoid family-life a c t i v i t i e s . The nonalcoholics were equal in popularity to their brothers and sisters, however, and enjoyed a greater degree of contact with their families. 2. Differences exist between the.alcoholic group and the nonalcoholic  group i n the adult environment: (a) Vocational adjustment was poor for the alcoholics, whereas the nonalcoholics showed adequate adjustment. The alcoholics reported themselves as deriving less satisfaction from their occupations and were more discontent with their jobs than the nonalcoholics. The economic situation of the alcoholic group was found to be markedly poorer. The alcoholics appeared to exhibit a marked lack of drive and incentive, and often seemed to d r i f t without purpose. Their goals were expressed i n vague, hazy and ill-defined terms, whereas the nonalcoholics expressed relatively strong drive .toward well-defined goals. The alcoholics showed a much greater degree of occupational mobility and shifted from one job to another. They appeared to seek those occupat-ions which demanded less responsibility and were not irked by working under others as were the nonalcoholics. The alcoholics were also found to. desire occupations that involved less routine. (b) Marital adjustment was found to be extremely poor for the alcoholic group as compared to the nonalcoholics. Twenty-two per cent of. the alcoholics were separated, and seventeen per cent were divorced, whereas no nonalcoholic was divorced or separated. Those alcoholics who were married showed lack of congeniality with their wives; the nonalcoholics reported relatively -So-good adjustment. The wives of alcoholics opposed the use of alcohol more than did the wives Of the nonalcoholics. The alcoholics reported that their wives had poorer emotional control. The alcoholics were found to be more jealous of their wives than were the nonalcoholics. The alcoholics also reported a greater number of love affa i r s and a greater number of crushes on persons of the same sex. (c) Emotional adj ustment was found to be much poorer for the alcoholic group than for the nonalcoholic group. The alcoholics showed stronger feelings of anxiety, insecurity, resentfulness, and emotional sensitivity. They f e l t as though they were alone i n the world, unwanted and isolated. The most predominant t r a i t was found to be the feeling of resentment, with mood swings secondary. Strong feelings of gu i l t were reported by the alcoholic group, and they f e l t remorseful about their failures to ac-complish success i n l i f e . (d) Social adjustment was generally poor for the alcoholics as compar-ed to the nonalcoholics. Interpersonal relationships appeared noticeably inadequate. The alcoholics reported less group a f f i l i a t i o n , other than Alcoholics Anonymous, whereas the nonalcoholics enjoyed more active p a r t i c i -pation i n church groups, clubs, and societies. The alcoholics were found to pursue recreation i n an active manner, but this recreation was usually hazy, ill-defined and not of a type yielding deep satisfaction. The non-alcoholics, on the other hand, expressed definite interests i n such things as sports, hobbies, reading, community work, and so forth. The alcoholics reported themselves to be more self-conscious and suggestible, but able to accept criticism and "razzing" easier than the nonalcoholics. 3 . The Alcadd Test was found to adequately identify every alcoholic  completing the forms. VII. SUMMARY This study has attempted to determine whether or not there exists any type of constellation of environmental and personality characteristics common to the alcoholic group studied, and whether the similarities ob-served dif f e r significantly from those found in a nonalcoholic group. . Four measuring instruments were employed to ascertain these character-i s t i c s * The instruments were: (a) the Manson Evaluation; (b) the Alcadd Testj (c) a modification of the Chassell Experience Variables Record; and (d) a questionnaire and rating scale. The subjects consisted of two groups of individuals, a group of 69 male alcoholics and a comparison group of 67 male nonalcoholics. The two groups were matched, as well as possible, for mean age, years of education, marital and occupational levels. The responses of the alcoholic group to the test battery were compared with those made by the nonalcoholics, and by means of s t a t i s t i c a l treatment of data, significant differences between the two groups were determined. The specific conclusions of this study, contained in Section VI, lead to the following general conclusions: 1, The alcoholics appear to show, in varying degrees, greater maladjust-ments in the vocational, marital, emotional, and social spheres. I t i s rec-ognized, of course, that these four spheres are interdependent, and that the adjustment in one exerts direct or indirectjyupon the degree of adjustment i n another, 2. While the findings of this study indicate significant differences between the alcoholic and nonalcoholic groups, the alcoholic group does not -88-appear homogeneous with reference to any of the characteristics measured. Thus, a number of alcoholics appear to be better adjusted i n certain areas than do some of the nonalcoholics. 3 . The findings of this study are not intended to prove or disprove anything about inebriates i n general, but are applicable only to the a l -coholics who participated i n the investigation. VIII PROBLEMS' FOR FURTHER STUDY The findings of this study have suggested some pertinent problems requiring further investigation. They are as follows: 1. Comparison of alcoholics who are now abstinent with those who are not abstinent. Analysis of the personality structures of these subjects should reveal significant differences, and may yield data that are valuable insofar as prognosis for recovery from alcoholism is concerned. 2. Following an adequate separation of alcoholics into two groups, viz., primary and secondary addicts, a study of developmental and environ-mental factors affecting the personalities of the two groups might yield valuable information concerning their respective etiologies. 3. A comparison of an alcoholic group of non-neurotics with a non-alcoholic group of neurotics might possibly indicate the degree of similarity or difference between the two modes of adjustment. Such a study would also aim at finding why the alcoholic consciously or unconsciously chooses al-cohol as a means of adjustment in preference to some other defense pattern. 4. A study of alcoholics new to the Alcoholics Anonymous program and study of the same individuals at the termination of a year's time might yield insight into pertinent personality changes due to A.A. therapy. Possibly the Rorschach test would prove the most adequate Instrument for such an investigation, 5. A study of the factors involved in the concept of religious con-version by means of Alcoholics Anonymous would prove extremely enlightening. This study would appear.very closely related to problem number four. -90-APPENDICES. APPENDIX A ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS Alcoholics Anonymous i s a non-professional, informal fellowship of approximately 40,000 former alcoholic men and women who have been convinced that their drinking constitutes an unmanageable problem. These individuals have banded together to form more than 1,200 groups scattered throughout Canada and the United States (56% Alcoholics Anonymous groups are almost autonomous from one another. Nevertheless, the pattern of presentation of the A.A. program i s essent-i a l l y the same for a l l groups. An active relationship i s enjoyed be-tween various local groups, and between J&.A. as a total group i n any city and the Alcoholic Foundation (head office) in New Y 0rk City. Any alcoholic sincerely desirous of sobriety can approach and be accepted by A.A, The fellowship has but one purpose, "to help other alcoholics to recover from their i l l n e s s " ( 5 ). There are no member-ship requirements, fees, or dues, nor demands that the potential mamber adopt any singularistic view point. If alcohol i s an uncontrollable problem to him and he wishes to do something about i t , that i s enough for us. We care not whether his case i s severe or light, whether his morals are good or bad, whether he has other complications or not. Our A.A. door stands wide open, and i f he passes through i t and commences to do anything at a l l about i t , he i s considered a member of Alcoholics Anonymous. He signs nothing, agrees to nothing, promises nothing. (i5;) The fundamental concepts of the A.A. program as a way to permanent sobriety are set down i n the "A.A. Bible", namely the text, "Alcoholics -92-Anonymous." This book was published i n 1939, four years after the founding of the organization in Arkon, Ohio. The program for recovery i s as follows: ( 1 ): 1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol — that our lives had be-come unmanageable. 2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity. 3. Made a decision to turn our w i l l and our lives over to the care of God Mas we understand him.'' 4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves. 5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to other, human beings the exact nature of our wrongs. 6. Were entirely ready to have God remove a l l these defects of character. 7. Humbly asked him- to remove our shortcomings. 8. Made a l i s t of a l l persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them a l l . 9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others. .10. Continued to take personal, inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted i t . 11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious con-tact with God as we understood him, praying only for knowledge of His w i l l for us and the power to carry that out. 12. Having had a spi r i t u a l experience as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles i n a l l our affairs. The forementioned are the "Twelve Steps" which every alcoholic f o l -lowing the A.A. program attempts to f u l f i l l . . Ritchie (56) feels that "the 12 steps may be regarded as the ideology Of the movement." Powdermaker (54) states: "The 12 steps are based on a profound understanding of the alcoholic personality. They take into consideration his compulsion to try to dominate l i f e , his refusal to accept help, and then, i n contradiction to that, the immaturity inherent in his effort to escape from problems and responsibility.'! The basic therapeutic technique adopted by AA. i s the group meeting. At these meetings members, new and old, are encouraged to exchange their views and ideas about alcohol, how they succumbed to alcoholism, and how -93-they overcame i t . The alcoholic who comes to a meeting for the f i r s t time probably feels inadequate and inferior. He has been rejected by family and friends, society in general, and i s therefore a social isolate. He may perhaps view his f i r s t formal contact with AA.with an attitude of skepticism or indifference. But he i s accepted by the group. This f e e l -ing of acceptance i s of prime importance for the creation of positive identification with individuals i n a similar plight as his. Ritchie (56) remarks: "The freedom of interaction and communication f a c i l i t a t e s the exchange of ideas and sentiment. It i s a powerful factor i n the develop-ment of security. I t leads to mutual understanding, to identification, to fellowship." This recognition by AA, that the alcoholic requires social p a r t i c i -pation, i s basic to rehabilitation. Bacon (4) notes that the group would appear to present a "charter or rationale for social l i f e . " But i f the alcoholic new to the program cannot make the grade, cannot socialize himself within the group, or i f the actual situation does not measure up to his beliefs, failure with the program i s probable. The religious factor in Alcoholics Anonymous, the resigning of self to a "Power greater than ourselves" i s regarded by Tiebout (62) as a force operating to undermine the defiance of the alcoholic and teaching him how to l i v e peacefully and harmoniously with his fellows. Ritchie (56) does not regard this force to be a religious concept, but rather a spiritual awakening. The alcoholic becomes more objective, begins to verbalize his problems with the group, and through this, overcomes f e e l -ings of tension. The helping of other alcoholics to sobriety is ah all-important -94-feature of AA. This i s commonly referred to as "Twelfth-Step Work.f One of the originators of AA, " B i l l " W. (7) states: "Without the chance to forget our own troubles by helping others out of theirs,, we would certainly perish. That i s heart of A . A . — i t i s our l i f e blood." A recovery rate of 75 per cent of a l l alcoholics really trying to follow the program i s claimed by A.A. Honesty, openmindedness and willing ness are regarded as the necessary qualifications for achieving a s p i r i t -ual awakening that reorients the individual's perspective of his place in the scheme of things and leads to sobriety. Alcoholics Anonymous believes that alcoholism i s comparable to an allergy. This allergy i s something for which the alcoholic i s in no way responsible and he i s therefore absolved from the.moral responsibility of his excessive drinking. By means of this concept he can view his past drinking as a direct outgrowth of his sickness, he sees others suffering from the same malady and he achieves a sense of security. Ritchie (56) feels that the alcoholic i s a social being in search of a response. But instead of achieving social acceptance, he is reject-ed and thus develops a form of aggression that forces him from further participation in society. The therapy administered by A.A. i s group therapy sponsering in-group activity and also primary-group relationships. These are the fundamental forces acting upon the personality of the alcoholic leading him toward resocialization.' APPENDIX g. 1 MANSON {VALUATION By MORSE P. MANSON, Ph.D. Published by T H E E N C I N O P U B L I S H I N G HOUSE Box 501 Encino, California o o o o o o Name •> 1 Sex .' Age Date Last Name First Name Initial" Occupation: . . . . r Circle one of the following: I am—• - > SINGLE — MARRIED — DIVORCED — SEPARATED — WIDOWED * Circle the last school year you completed: 0-1-2'-3-4-5-6-7-8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 -.13 - 14- 15 - 16- 17 - 18 -19 - 20 DIRECTIONS Your full cooperation is necessary. Answer each question sincerely. Make every effort to answer as many questions as you can. There are no ''right" or "wrong" answers. Many people will answer "yes" to a certain question, while many others will answer "no" to the same question. If your answer to a question is "yes" make a circle around the Y E S for that question. If your answer is "no," circle the NO for that ques-tion. If the question does not apply to you, do not answer it. You will have all the time you need to answer all the questions, but work as fast as you can. YOU MAY NOW TURN T H E PA G E AND BEGIN. Copyright 1948 by THE ENCINO PUBLISHING HOUSE, Encino, California. • All rights reserved. > ; Not to be reproduced In whole or In part without written permission of copyright owner. 1. I had a happy family life as a child. 1. (G) Yes No 2.= I become sad quickly. 2. (B) (C) Yes No 3. My home life is happy. 3. (G) Yes No 4. I am very sensitive and self-analytical. 4. (C) Yes No 5. My life is quiet and peaceful. 5. (GO Yes No 6. I have a strong and clear faith in life. 6. (E) Yes No .7. I often feel I am being held back from doing the things I want to do most. 7. (D ) ( E ) ( F ) Yes No 8. I often have queer sensations in my fingers and toes. 8. (F) Yes No 9. I feel myself to be alone in the world. 9. (A) (F) Yes No 10. I often feel I am being neglected. 10. (D) (G) Yes No 11. I have lived a good life. 11. (E) Yes No 12. I often am afraid I will not be able to sleep. 12. (A) Yes No 13. I often have had a strong desire to leave home. 13. (D) (G) Yes No 14. I quickly lose my interest or enthusiasm. 14. (B) (E) Yes No 15. My friends feel that I am as successful in life as I should be. 15. (E) Yes No 16. I sometimes make movements without being aware ©f them. 16. (A) Yes No 17. I often worry about the things I fear. 17. (A) Yes No 18. I often feel guilty without knowing why I feel guilty. 18. (A) Yes No 19. I like to celebrate when I am happy. 19. (B) Yes No 2a It is easy for me to forget unpleasant experiences. 20. (D) Yes No 21. I always feel there is something between me and the rest of 21. (F) Yes No the world. 22. I often feel tired, have trouble sleeping, and have a poor 22. (A) Yes No appetite. 23. I sometimes become sad or depressed for no good reason. 23. (A) (B) Yes No 24. My mother worried a great deal over me. 24. (G) Yes No 25. I have been unhappy in love. 25. (C) (E) Yes No 26. I am very sensitive to what people think about me. 26. (C) Yes No 27. I feel lonely even when among people. 27. (F Yes No 28. I cry easily. 28. (B) (C) . Yes No 29. I often fool myself. 29. (E) Yes No 30. I often feel uncomfortable and blue. 30. (A)'(B) Yes No 31. I often feel all wound up. 31. (A) Yes No 32. I often am so deep in thought that I do not notice what is 32. (A) Yes No going on around me. 33. I. have trouble sleeping. 33. (A) Yes No 34. I can make up a good story to get out of a tight spot. 34. (E) Yes No 35. I know how to relax and take things easily. 35. (A) Yes No 36. I wish people would stop telling me how to live my life. 36. (D) Yes No 1 1 TOTAL A B G D E F G — 2 — 37. I frequently feel my muscles quivering. 37. (A) Yes No 38. I often am afraid without knowing why I am afraid. 38. (A) Yes No 39. My home life is as happy as it should be. 39. (G) Yes No 40. I become easily annoyed when I am arguing. 40. (C) (D) Yes No 41. I often go out of my way to avoid talking to people I do not like. 41. (D) Yes No 42. I take an active interest in politics. 42. (E) Yes No 43. I am looking for something but I don't know what it is. 43. (F) Yes No 44. I graduated from high school. 44. (E) Yes No 45. I have a strong need for someone to love me. 45. (C) (E) Yes No 46. Too much was expected from me as a child. 46. (E) (G) Yes No 47. People often misunderstand me. 47. CD) Yes No 48. I need the help of God. 48. (F) Yes No 49. I often go without eating for several days. 49. (F) (G) Yes No 50. I am very much interested in my work. 50. (E) Yes No 51. I am satisfied with the way I live. 51. (E) Yes No 52. I would like to be more independent than I am. 52. (E) Yes No 53. My family should be more considerate and understanding. 53. (G) Yes No 54. I spend too much time having a good time. 54. (G) Yes No 55. . People often take advantage of me. 55. (D) Yes No 56. I feel shy with members of the same sex. 56. (C) Yes No 57. My feelings and emotions change rapidly. 57. (B) (C) Yes No 58. I often have feelings of vague restlessness. 58. (A) Yes No 59. I tremble wjben I am excited or afraid. 59. (A) Yes No 60. Lately, I have been mixing with many new groups of people. 60. (E) Yes No 61. I often feel as if I were not myself. 61. (A) Yes No 62. I feel tense and anxious most of the time. 62. (A) Yes No 63. I am moderate in all my habits. 63. (B) Yes No 64. My friends are more polite to me than are my relatives. 64. (G) Yes No 65. I am much more different from most people. 65. (F) Yes No 66. I was often unhappy because of sadness. 66. (B) (C) Yes No 67. I often feel bored and uneasy. 67. (A) (B) Yes No 68. My friends are much happier than I am. 68. (E) Yes No 69. I have had a number of strange and unusual experiences. 69. (F) Yes No 70. I often pity myself. 70. (B) Yes No 71. I swear a good deal. 71. (B) (D) Yes No 72. I eat at regular hours. 72. (F) (G) Yes No — E N D — — 3 — T H E M E P S Y C H O G R A P H PROFILE TRAITS Sex Scores MEAN NONALS % CR. SC. MEAN No. % ALPERS Items Total Test M 0 15 79 21 79 33 72 Total Test F 0 16 86 26 80 38 72 A AN M 0 3 78 5 81 9 19 A AN F 0 4 82 7 77 11 19 B DF M 0 3 77 4 81 7 12 B DF F 0 3 79 5 83 8 12 C ES M 0 3 75 4 68 5 10 c , ES F 0 3 75 5 83 7 10 D RE M 0 2 68 3 76 5 10 D RE F 0 2 77 4 76 6 10 E IN M 0 5 76 6 83 9 17 E IN F 0 5 79 6 86 ,9 17 F AL M 0 2 79 3 71 4 11 F AL F 0 . 2 72 3 74 5 11 G IR M 0 2 65 3 69 5 13 G IR F 0 3 78 4 71 6 13 SUMMARY: APPENDIX C Environmental Record Name . Date Seotion A: In each of the f o l l o w i n g questions, please e n c i r c l e the l e t t e r ( a , b, c, or d) before the item which most n e a r l y answers the question regarding your r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h your mother during the time that you l i v e d at home, as you remember i t j 1; How much i n t e r e s t d i d your mother take i n outside a f f a i r s ? a. She had very strong p o l i t i c a l , c l u b , or church i n t e r e s t s , o r g a n i z i n g work i n several provinces. b. She had broad outside i n t e r e s t s , but d i d not neglect her fa m i l y or home, c. She had some outside i n t e r e s t s , but was p r i m a r i l y concerned w i t h home and home a f f a i r s . d. She was e x c l u s i v e l y a house-wife> or a home-body sort of person. 2. What part of her a t t e n t i o n d i d your mother give you ? a. She was wrapped up i n me, i n my triumphs and my f a i l u r e s ; she governed her movements by mine. b. She was rather s o l i c i t o u s over my w e l f a r e , c. She was busy w i t h church and club work, her large f a m i l y , e t c . , and d i d not concern h e r s e l f pp.rticular l y w i t h me. d. She was i n d i f f e r e n t ; glad t o t u r n me over to others or t o send me away t o school. 3 . Did your mother t r y t o d i r e c t your plans and decisions. ? a. She demanded t h a t her own plans and ideas be c a r r i e d out; she i n s i s t e d on s t r i c t obedience ("Mother knows b e s t " ) . b. She was l i k e l y t o express g r i e f , disappointment, or d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n at d e v i a t i o n s from her wishes. c. She never i n s i s t e d on her way alone; she of t e n made suggestions. d. She cooperated i n my d e c i s i o n s even when not f u l l y understanding or agreeing w i t h them; she encouraged me t o make my own d e c i s i o n s . 4. How f r e q u e n t l y d i d she punish you ? a. She used t o whip me, and go i n t o rages at me; she nagged me c c o n s t a n t l y , shamed and h u m i l i a t e d me, e t c . , b. She o c c a s i o n a l l y spanked me, c. She scolded me, but was quick t o make amends. d. She never scolded or nagged; I never heard a harsh word from her. She t a l k e d t h i n g s over w i t h me. 5, Did you try to satisfy your mother's wishes and plans for you ? a, I gave up strong interests of my own to do things my mother wanted me to do (for example, work for honors at school) b. I made adjustments, to please her, felt selfish or uncomfortable in following my own plans, even when I was sure they were best, c, I followed my own inclinations, making; my own plans end trying to carry them out, d. -I did the opposite of what she wished, striking off in the opposite direction, I felt an antagonism to doing what my mother wanted. 6, What is your estimate of her ? a. I worship and adore her; she is perfect. b. I understand her; I am tolerant and sympathetic of her faults. She is a person who has both good and bad traits. c. I usually feel sympathetic toward her and understand her; at times she distresses or annoys me. d. I feel scorn, disdain, or bitterness toward her. 7. Did your mother use alcohol ? a. She was a tee-totaler; she had strong prohibitionist tendencies. b. She took a glass of beer or wine once in a great while. c. She took alcoholic drinks, but never to excess. d. She drank a great deal; too much. Section B: In each of the following questions, please encircle the letter (a, b, o, or d) before the item which most nearly answers the question regarding your relationship with your father during the time that you lived at home, as you remember i t . 8 . Was your father ambitious to succeed ? a. He was the ambitious sort — tense, more interested in succeeding than in making friends. b. He was somewhat ambitious. c. He was more interested in people than in promotions. d. He was clearly not ambitious. -99-- 3 -9. What was your f a t h e r ' s standing i n the community ? '• a. He was extremely popular, or h i g h l y esteemed; a "big man." b. He was w e l l l i k e d and had an e x c e l l e n t r e p u t a t i o n ; not out-standing. c. He was regarded as ra t h e r crude, a crank; he didn't amount t o much. d. He was looked down on as a drunkard, a drug a d d i c t , or a ne'er-do-well. 10. Were your f a t h e r ' s emotions under c o n t r o l ? a. He was s t a b l e , w e l l - a d j u s t e d , happy; he had a good sense of humor. b. He was sometimes upset, i r r i t a t e d , or "out of s o r t s " , but not u s u a l l y . c. He was l i k e l y t o f l y o f f the handle, t o be angry and un-reasonable; h i s f e e l i n g s were e a s i l y h u r t . d. He was f r e q u e n t l y moody and depressed; he had t e r r i b l e temper s p e l l s . He was unhappy, discouraged, badly adjusted. 11. Did he t r y t o d i r e c t your plans and d e c i s i o n s ? . a. He was very a u t o c r a t i c ; he f o r c e d obedience and i n s i s t e d t h a t h i s plans be c a r r i e d out. b. He was t a c t f u l , but f i r m ; he i n s i s t e d on obedience but was open to reason. c. He gave few commands, many suggestions, and much advice. d. He gave advice when asked; he encouraged me t o decide f o r myself, and accepted my d e c i s i o n s . 12. Were you a f r a i d of him ? a. I was "scared s t i f f " ; I didn't dare do anything f o r fear he might jump\on me. b. I was ra t h e r a f r a i d of him; I always obeyed him promptly. c. I was able t o d i f f e r from him and t o maintain my own point of view, but I h e s i t a t e d t o do so. d. No. I could always go d e l i b e r a t e l y against h i s w i l l when i t was d e s i r a b l e . -100-_ 4 -1 3 . What i s your estimate of your father ? a. . I worship him; I measure a l l other men by him. A " p e r f e c t l y wonderful man." b. I understand him; I am t o l e r a n t and sympathetic of h i s f a u l t s . He i s a person who has good and bad t r a i t s . c. I am at times d i s t r e s s e d , annoyed, or shamed by him; I f i n d i t hard t o be sympathetic or t o l e r a n t . d. I f e e l scorn, d i s d a i n , or b i t t e r n e s s toward him. 1 4 . Did you confide i n him 1 a. We had frequent i n t i m a t e d i s c u s s i o n s ; I could always confide i n him. b. We t a l k e d most things over, w i t h some exceptions. c. We had comparatively l i t t l e intimacy; I found i t d i f f i c u l t or embarrassing t o confide i n him. d. I discussed nothing w i t h him. 1 5 . Did your father use a l c o h o l ? a. He was a t e e - t o t a l e r ; he had strong p r o h i b i t i o n i s t tendencies. b. He took a glass of beer or wine only once i n a great w h i l e . c. He took a l c o h o l i c d r i n k s , but never t o excess. d. He drank a great d e a l ; too much. 1 6 . Which parent d i d you love more ? a. I loved my mother much more than my f a t h e r . b. I loved my mother a l i t t l e more than my f a t h e r . c. I loved my father a l i t t l e more than my mother. d. I loved my father much more than my mother. -101-- 5 -Section C : How many brothers do you have ?...... .How many s i s t e r s do you have ?......... I f you, are an only c h i l d , , you may omit This s e c t i o n . I f you have one or more brothers or- s i s t e r s , , please e n c i r c l e the l e t t e r ( a , b, c, or d) before the i t m which most n e a r l y answers the question regarding- your r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h them, both when you were at home together and at present, 1 7 . How do you compare i n a b i l i t y w i t h your brothers and s i s t e r s ? a. A l l of them seem more t a l e n t e d than I am. b. We are about equal i n a b i l i t y , c. I am a l i t t l e more t a l e n t e d than some of the o t h e r s . d. I am d e f i n i t e l y t h e . c l e v e r e s t one of the c h i l d r e n i n out f a m i l y , 1 8 . How do you compare i n p o p u l a r i t y i n the f a m i l y w i t h your s i s t e r s and brothers ? a. I am d e f i n i t e l y the leader; I am more popular than any of the others. b. I am a l i t t l e more popular than my brothers and s i s t e r s . c. One or more of my b r o t h e r s and s i s t e r s i s a l i t t l e -more popular than I am. d. I am d e f i n i t e l y l e s s popular than any of the o t h e r s . 1 9 . Do you spend your time w i t h your s i s t e r s and brothers i n intimacy and a f f e c t i o n ? a. We are very companionable and i n t i m a t e ; we are great p a l s , and l i k e t o be together. b. We sometimes exchange confidences. • c. We tend t o be d i s t a n t ; we meet as acquaintances, d. Yfe are q u i t e h o s t i l e , or strangers to each other, 20. Do you t r y t o excel your s i s t e r s and brothers ? a. I am always t r y i n g t o surpass the others. b. I am envious of t h e i r a b i l i t y , c l o t h e s , f r i e n d s , achievements, e t c , c. I am sometimes a l i t t l e envious. d. I never f e e l any envy toward them. -102-- 6 -21. To what extent do your parents favor your brothers and s i s t e r s above you ? a. I am d e f i n i t e l y the unfavored or unpopular onej I am compared unfavorably with the other chi l d r e n . b. I am about on a par with the others. c. Comparisons are seldom made, but a l i t t l e p a r t i a l i t y i s shown i n favor of me. d. I am favored above the others.; I am held up as an example. I am indulged more than the others. 22. When you were at home together, how often did you quarrel with your brothers and s i s t e r s ? a. We had frequent v i o l e n t scenes ejid even physical encounters. b. We quarrelled frequently, and got along badly. v c. There was some c o n f l i c t , but i t was not serious. d. There was never any c o n f l i c t . Section Dt In each of the following questions, please e n c i r c l e the l e t t e r (a, b, c, or d) before the item which best answers the question regarding your r e l a t i o n s h i p with both your parents during the time that you l i v e d at home, as you remember i t . 23. To what extent did your parents demand obedience from you ? a. They demanded absolute obedience. b. I had to obey as a general r u l e . c. There were c e r t a i n d e f i n i t e laws which were f i x e d , but otherwise I had free choice. . . d. I was l e f t to decide things for myself mostly. 24. What was your attitude to\vards d i s c i p l i n e ? a. I was openly defiant; I threatened to run away, or did run away. b. I was inwardly r e s e n t f u l , and sometimes openly d e f i a n t . c. I appeared to be d o c i l e to avoid t r o u b l e . d. I was d o c i l e , with no feelings of r e b e l l i o n . -103-25. At what age did you leave home permanently? .., 26. To what degree did you take pleasure in the family li f e at home? a. My most enjoyable times were spent with the rest of the family, doing things with them and talking with them* b. I recall many pleasant experiences enjoyed with the rest of the family although my outside friends and interests were just as important to me. o. I prefered to be with myself or with my friends but on rare occasions I enjoyed being with my family, d. I can't think of any pleasant times with my family. 27. How much group family li f e has there been? 6. Almost a l l our spare time was spent dojing things together. b. We eaoh had friends of our own but on regular occasions, such as week-ends, we would go out together or be together at home. c. On special occasions, such as birthdays, Christmas, etc., we would get together; most of the time we lived our own lives, having interests and friends not shared with the rest of the family. d. We almost never did things together; each membor went his own way. 28. What is your parents' attitude toward religious practice? a. They are sincerely religious; religion is an important factor in their lives. b, Thay take the passive interest of the average church member. c. They are indifferent to i t ; they do not belong to any church, d, Thay are opposed to religion as ordinarily understood. Section Ej In each of the following questions, please encircle the letter (a, b, o, d) before the item which most nearly answers the question. 29. What is your attitude toward religious practice? a. It is my consuming passion- my li f e centres upon i t . b. I am definitely interested; I enjoy publio worship, communion, etc, c, I am interested in the churoh only as a place for sooial meeting, d, I go to churoh only when I must. -104--8-3 0 . How strong i s your f e e l i n g of need for r e l i g i o u s s e c u r i t y ? a. I f e e l a strong imperative need for f e e l i n g s e c u r i t y and a sense of the presence of God. b. I have an i n s i s t e n t urge t o work out a philosophy of l i f e . c. I s c a r c e l y give the matter a moment's thought. d. I have no f e e l i n g of need f o r r e l i g i o u s s e c u r i t y . Do you have a strong sense of s i n and g u i l t ? a. I have a marked f e e l i n g of g u i l t ; I have done very wrong t h i n g s which I hate t o acknowledge even t o myself. b. I have a considerable f e e l i n g of g u i l t ; I have done t h i n g s which I would have d i f f i c u l t y acknowledging to others. c. I have occasional qualms of conscience. d. I have no sense of s i n or g u i l t . What was your parents' a t t i t u d e on sex i n general ? a. They accepted i t . without embarrassment as a part of l i f e , b. They were somewhat embarrassed and i n h i b i t e d about d i s c u s s i n g i t . c. They disapproved and d i s l i k e d the idea of sex. d. They seemed t o abhor sex expression of any s o r t , even dancing, e t c , 33. From what source d i d you acquire sex i n f o r m a t i o n ? a. From teachers, parents, and classes i n school. b. From "respectable" a s s o c i a t i o n s ; from medical books, watching animals, e t c . c. From rather d i s r e p u t a b l e sources; there was a c e r t a i n amount of secrecy and f e e l i n g of naughtiness. d. From " d i r t y s t o r i e s " and "naughty c h i l d r e n . " 34. What i s your present a t t i t u d e toward sex and sex f e e l i n g s ? a. I enjoy i t very much; i t i s a great r e l e a s e and pleasure. I f e e l no shame or aversion* b. I t o l e r a t e sex behavior, w i t h seme shame. c. I f e e l shamed and d i s t r e s s e d by emotional excitement; I f e e l a l o s s of s e l f - r e s p e c t as a r e s u l t of p e t t i n g or masturbation. d. Anything sexual i s d i s g u s t i n g and b e s t i a l . 31. 32. -9-35, Are you w e l l - a d j u s t e d s e x u a l l y ? a. Very s a t i s f a c t o r i l y ; my problems are l a r g e l y solved. b. I have -made as s a t i s f a c t o r y adjustment as my circumstances permit. c. I t i s rather u n s a t i s f a c t o r y . d. I am not w e l l - a d j u s t e d ; I am severely upset by p r a c t i c e s , or t r o u b l e d by u n s a t i s f i e d l o n g i n g s . 36, Have you experienced strong emotional attachments ("crushes") on persons of the same sex as you ? a. There i s always someone to whom I have a strong attachment. b. I have had many crushes, and u s u a l l y some strong attachment. c. There have been only one or two such experiences. d. I have never had any. . 37, Do you take an i n t e r e s t -in going w i t h persons of the opposite sex ? a. I enjoy i t g r e a t l y . I f i n d the opposite sex as i n t e r e s t i n g or more i n t e r e s t i n g than my own sex. b. I take considerable i n t e r e s t ; I go w i t h the opposite sex about the average amount. c. I have t o force myself t o go w i t h persons of the opposite•sex; I f e e l i l l at ease, s t i f f , and formal, w i t h nothing to say. .d. I have no conscious i n t e r e s t i n persons of the opposite sex. 38, How many love a f f a i r s have you had ? a. A great many; there i s always someone. b. Quite a few. c. Very r a r e . d. None. 39, Are you i n t e r e s t e d i n e x c e l l i n g i n a t h l e t i c s ? • - • a. I put great store i n winning; I want to be known as an a t h l e t e . b. I am d e f i n i t e l y i n t e r e s t e d i n sports', but i t i s not my major i n t e r e s t . c. I take l i t t l e i n t e r e s t i n my s k i l l i n games and s p o r t s . d. I am not i n t e r e s t e d i n developing s k i l l i n games and s p o r t s . -106--10 40. How hard did you try for good grades in school ? a. I made particular effort to get good grades; I worked very hard to be a success. b. I worked for grades primarily because my family wanted me to get them. c. I liked the work and study for itself; I was not interested in grades. d. I was content to "get by" without failing. 41. What was your parents' attitude toward your school work ? a. They set great store by my. school success; they demanded that I get good grades. b. They were interested and encouraging; they expected good work and were pleased when I was successful, but they did not emphasize i t . o. They were indifferent; they did not usually know what sort of - work I was doing, d. They opposed my desire for more school, and insisted on my leaving school and going to work as soon as possible. 42. Were your parents' ambitious for your career 1 a. They have always wanted me to be a conspicuous success, to be "somebody." b. They wanted me to go into a profession or a career or servioe, such as doctor, minister, lawyer, or missionary. . c. They were willing to let me ohoose any career I wanted, so long as I would be happy in i t . d. .They would be perfectly content i f I simply stayed at home. 43. Do you prefer public li f e or private activity? a. X want to be an executive in a big concern, to exercise authority, to organize. b. I enjoy being in the bustling bussmess world, to take part in business, to sell. c. I prefer to teach or to work intimately with small groups. d. I prefer quiet study and work at home. 44. Do you prefer people to ideas ? a. I feel happiest when working with persons and things; I usually dislike the world of contemplation. b. I prefer working with persons and things; but I also enjoy con-templation and imagination. o. I prefer contemplation and imagination, but I also enjoy the active world. d. I feel happiest when I am dreaming dreams, reading, enjoying art or music; I would like to withdraw entirely from the active world. -103 -11-—4"5", How f u l l y have you c a r r i e d out your v o c a t i o n a l plans ? a. I am i n the v o c a t i o n I have chosen, or I am headed toward i t . ^ b. I am p r e t t y w e l l s a t i s f i e d and r e c o n c i l e d t o my job, although I am not doing p r e c i s e l y what I wanted t o do. c. I am i n stop-gap work; I canl f i n d the work I want to s e t t l e down t o . d. I am doing something very d i f f e r e n t from what I wanted t o do; I have been blocked i n my ambitions. 46. How important i s an i n t e r e s t i n g job to you ? a. I don't care how d u l l a job i s so l i n g as I'm sure of my weekly pay-check and that my future i s provided f o r . b. I f e e l r e s t l e s s i f a job i s d u l l and monotonous but can s t i c k to i t i f i t i s a very good one. c. I have s a c r i f i c e d good jobs because thay have i n v o l v e d too much r o u t i n e . d. I am completely unable t o work at any r o u t i n e job; I want to do new t h i n g s and meet new people. 47, Do you enjoy being w i t h people ? a. I love to havo people around; I mix f r e e l y and seek the companionship of others. b. I sometimes read or play by myself, but I am ready t o q u i t i n a moment to j o i n the group. c. I u s u a l l y p r e f e r s o l i t u d e and seldom j o i n i n w i t h the group. d. I am s e c l u s i v e and q u i e t , and d i s l i k e t o go out and mix w i t h others. 48. Do you enjoy s o c i a l a f f a i r s ? a. I g r e a t l y enjoy s o c i a l l i f e , I am a good mixer, and sbon f e e l at home i n any group. b. I u s u a l l y enjoy p a r t i e s and get-togethers. c. I am not always at ease i n s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s ; I l i k e them but f e e l shy. d. I s u f f e r from p e r s i s t e n t shyness' and t i m i d i t y ; I don't know what to do i n a la r g e group and shun s o c i a l a f f a i r s . -49. Do you want t o be a leader i n your s o c i a l groups ? a. I have hig h aims; I want t o be s u p e r i o r , t o get o f f i c e s and honors, t o be well-known. b. I enjoy making a good impression and g e t t i n g s o c i a l r e c o g n i t i o n , but I do not crave i t . c. I am not i n f l u e n c e d by s o c i a l ambitions, and do not seek s o c i a l success. d. I am u t t e r l y i n d i f f e r e n t t o s o c i a l success, and am completely sat-i s f i e d w i t h a humble, obscure s t a t i o n i n l i f e . 1 6 8 --12-50. How do you take " r a z z i n g " or c r i t i c i s m ? a. I am o b j e c t i v e and impersonal; I can laugh at myself w i t h . o t h e r s , and f i n d i t easy t o admit mistakes and t o a p o l o g i z e , b. I sometimes get mad or fussed, but not as a usual t h i n g , c. I am l i k e l y t o be upset, at l e a s t t e m p o r a r i l y , and l i k e l y t o be hurt. d. I . s u f f e r i n t e n s e l y and am t e r r i b l y upset by c r i t i c i s m ; I am l i k e l y t o get i n t o the dumps, t o f e e l t h a t I am no good; I may get very mad. 51. How important do you f e e l i t i s t o be able t o get along w i t h others ? a. I t h i n k one of the most important t h i n g s i n l i f e i s t o be w e l l l i k e d ; t o be able to get along w i t h everyone. b. I consider i t very important t o make and keep f r i e n d s but I have .lost f r i e n d s because of my i n a b i l i t y t o agree w i t h them. c. Although i t i s good t o get along w i t h other people I f e e l t h a t i t i s f a r more important t o be tr u e t o one's s e l f and t o express one's views openly. d. I f e e l t h a t the only t h i n g t h a t counts i s t o be myself no matter how many f r i e n d s I have t o s a c r i f i c e . 52. To what extent are ,you i n f l u e n c e d by the opinions of others ? a. I f e e l independent and s e l f - c o n f i d e n t ; I am able to stand against a l l o p p o s i t i o n f o r my own c o n v i c t i o n s . b. I am s e n s i t i v e to others' points of view, but independent. c. I tend t o defend my d e c i s i o n s against what people might say; I am unable t o c r i t i c i z e others or to maintain a d e c i s i o n unfavorable t o them. . d. I can t a l k f r e e l y only w i t h those I know agree w i t h me; I cannot endure c r i t i c i s m or o p p o s i t i o n . 53. Are you s e l f - c o n s c i o u s ? a. I enjoy performing i n p u b l i c ; I am always the " l i f e of the part y . " b. I am only s l i g h t l y bothered by s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s . c. I t i s e s p e c i a l l y hard t o do th i n g s while people look on. I f e e l great a n x i e t y over performing i n p u b l i c . I b l u s h e a s i l y . d. I never l e t myself get the center of a t t e n t i o n . I cannot speak i n p u b l i c ; I. go over t r i v i a l s o c i a l i n c i d e n t s innumerable t i m e s . I . s u f f e r when anyone makes me conspicuous. •109^ - 1 3 -54. Do you. i n s i s t on doing t h i n g s your own way ? a. I have t o be complete boss of whatever I am doing. b. I become a n t a g o n i s t i c and perverse i n the presence of domineering persons. c. I am not i r k e d by working under others.. d. I am s e l f - e f f a c i n g , and hate t o be n o t i c e d ; I p r e f e r t o do j u s t what I am t o l d . 55. How w e l l do you get along w i t h other people ? a. I always get along w e l l w i t h others, whether I am working under them or over them. b. I u s u a l l y get along very w e l l ; I seldom q u a r r e l . c. I am quarrelsome and l i k e l y t o get i n t o scraps. I am tough w i t h others when i r r i t a t e d . I don't seem t o understand how t o handle people. d. I am always g e t t i n g i n t o d i s p u t e s , f i g h t s , and the l i k e . 56. Is l i f e s a t i s f a c t o r y ; do you get happiness from i t . a. I am c o n s i s t e n t l y happy, w e l l - a d j u s t e d ; and contented w i t h l i f e . b. I am p r e t t y w e l l s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h i n g s . c. I have o c c a s i o n a l depressions and periods of marked unhappiness. d. I am l e w - s p i r i t e d most of the time; l i f e seems t o have no meaning. 57. How w e l l do you s t i c k t o t h i n g s you s t a r t ? a. I am able t o concentrate w e l l ; I have a strong w i l l power; I make up my mind q u i c k l y and s t i c k t o i t . b. I have o c c a s i o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s i n concentrating or i n s t i c k i n g t o r e s o l u t i o n s , but not u s u a l l y . c. I am often anxious and w o r r i e d about t h i n g s of no r e a l importance; i t i s hard t c concentrate, t o decide t h i n g s , and sometimes I have t o force myself t o keep on working. I may l e t my work or d u t i e s p i l e up, d. I f e e l confused, don't know what t o do next, am unable t o decide t h i n g s ; I am c o n s t a n t l y changing my mind, and sometimes unable t o keep on w i t h my work. •110--14-58, Do you get on woll with your wife (or husband) ? a. We are extremely congenial; we adjust perfectly together, b. We have slight quarrels or dissatisfactions, but there is nothing serious, c. She/he sfcoldo or nags or is disagreeable in other ways. Wo do not adjust well but try to make the best of i t , d. We are not congenial. I feel that I would get along better and bo happier i f we were to separate or get a divorce. 69 How does your wife/husband feel toward drinking? a. She/he is definitely opposed and bitter toward drinking. b. She/he dislikes to have me drink, but is tolerant except when I go to excess. c. She is tolerant; she does not feel concerned about others' drinking. d. She/he likes conviviality and likes to* associate with others who drink, 60. Are your wif&'s/husband's emotions under control? a. She/he is very stable, balanced, and happy; she/he has a sense of humor. b. She/he is not easily annoyed; she/he loses patience occasionally, but not seriously. c. She/he worries; sometimes nags or scolds, and sometimes cries. d. She/he has a violent temper or has spells of being sulky and acting martyred, 61. Are you ever jealous of your wife/husband? a. I am pleased with attentions paid to her and encourage them; I feel absolutely no jealousy. b. I hardly ever feel jealous and never display any jealousy. c. I am sometimes jealous; I may rebuke my wife/husband for interest in or attention to others. d. I am very jealous; I always feel miserable, suspicious and unhappy when my wife/husband is with other people. 62. Is you wife/husband ever jealous of you? a. She/he never displays the slightest jealousy of me. b. She/he is hardly ever jealous, or only on extreme provocation. c. She is often jealous; she/he sulks, nags, or scolds because of my real or fancied attention to others. d. She/he is extremely, jealous; always upset and suspicious. APPENDIX D ALCOHOLICQUEStIONNAIRE THIS RESEARCH STUDY DOES NOT REQUIRE YOU TO GIVE YOUR NAME.' PLEASE  REMAIN ANONYMOUS• IT IS CONCERNED/WITH GROUPS OF PEOPLE; NOT INDIVIDUALS» ONLY BY ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS HONESTLY AND SINCERLY WILL IT BE OF ANY SCIENTIFIC VALUE. THIS IS ONE WAY YOU MAY HELP OTHERS WITH THEIR ALCOHOLIC PROBLEM. TRY TO BE COMPLETE" IN YOUR ANSWERS. IF YOU LACK ROOM TO WRITE, BY ALL MEANS WRITE ON THE BACK OF THE PAPER. Sex *'. .'Age..........Date of birth.... i ; Place of birth ..... ^.................... i... Nationality (or descent) j Father. •.•Mother....... ............ Who raised you? When did you come to B. CI. .., When did you come to your present home?.... .......... Are you: Married Single Widowed Divorced Separated (circle which) In what churoh were you brought up?.... e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , Date of f i l l i n g out this report?.. ........ How long have you been a member of Alcoholics Anonymous?..................-, Do you attend meetings regularly? ....How often?...;. Do you hold any office? ...Have you had any slips?............... How many? If so, please state approximate dn.to(s) and duration of each. .................... Are you happy in AA? • • ..Can you explain briefly how AA has helped you? How old were you when you first used liquor?.... • Were you a Periodio or Steady drinker? (underline which) What did you drink? Beer, Wine, Gin, Whiskey, Everything (underline) Were you intoxicated 2 or 3 times an hour, a day, a week, a month, a year, 5-10 years? (underline which) Have you ever tried to break off any habit (for example, smoking)?... , Did you succeed?. ....For how long?,... In your attempt to stop drinking, did you ever visitj a psychiatrist, a medical doctor, a sanitarium, a mental institution? (underline which) -112-- l a -If so, how long was your treatment(s)? Did you drink 2 or 5 times — an hour, a day, a week, a month, a year ? (underline which) How old were you when you realized that you couldn't control your drinking? Do you think you can stay off liquor with the help of AA? Without the help of AA? , Is your father living? How much older i s he than you?.,... , His occupation (estimate his present or f i n a l income). What were his interests?........ »,.., Is your mother living? How muoh older is she than you?., , Her occupation? .Interests?. (enclose occupation before marriage in parenthesis) Were your father and mother separated?............How old were you?.,,.,,..,, Did either remarry?,.,.. Did they get along well together?,,.. How many older brothers have you? Younger?.........Older sisters?...., Younger sisters?............Did you have others who are not living? , Please l i s t the education of each of your brothers and sisters and also their present occupation; ( l i s t the grade they reached in school, example* 8th grade, "Ith year university, 2 years normal school, etc.) Estimate present income also. Older brothers: 1) ,ag9? , , 2) .age? 3) ,age?,.,.. , Younger brothers; l).age? , , „.., 2) .age? , . , 3) age? , Older sisters; 1) .age? ,, , 2) .age?... 3) age?. , , Younger sisters? age?... ,, , 2) age? , 3) .age? , Whioh i s your favorite?... Parents' favorite? (indicate by number; example; younger sister, number 2j older brother No* 3j and so forth) -113-'. -2-Was your father very strict with you when you were a child? Y»ur mother? Did they generally have the same ideas about things that concerned you? How were you punished? Were you afraid of your father? Your mother? Did either have i t in for you?. Were they affectionate? Did either spoil you? Let you show off? Did you ever feel that you were not allowed enough freedom? Did you ever feel in the way? . (feel as i f you were not wanted) Did you think other children had nicer fathers? Mothers?.. In what kind of house did you live in as a child? (ovm home, size relative to size of family, etc.) Was your family: Affluent, comfortable, moderate, marginal, dependent-upon others(welfare organizations, etc.) (circle which) Did their income meet the needs and standards of livings completely and easily, adequately, or with difficulty (encircle which) Rate the neighbourhood you lived in when a childj Best part of the community, good, deoent, poor, slum (encircle which) What books did you read as a child?.. , Were you read to? What other cultural advantages? (music, art, etc.) , Was there any language other than English spoken in the home? , How well do you speak it? , Were you a behavior problem in infancy? , (nervous, restless, crying; weaning difficulties, bed-wetting, food fads) Did you have fears? Of what? Did you have temper tantrums? •. .To what age? , .. ., Do you s t i l l have them? How cured?..... What was your general health in infancy? , What was your general health during adolescence? . - i u -- 3 -Were you ever"sickly?" (Constipation, had eyesight, headache, bilious attacks, fainting spells, convulsions, sleeplessness, double-vision, drooling, shortness of breath, head or spine injuries, malaria, sleeping-siokness, gland trouble, nervousness, tremors or tics, bad muscle control, excitability or depression, nervous or mental breakdown.) Did you have serious accidents? Operations? What is your general health at present? Are you right or left handed? Any trouble with muscle development? Speech difficulties? Do you sleep well? How often do you dream? Have nightmares? .Do you walk in your sleep? Are you fussy about food? Do you eat everything? Do you ever get hungry for some specific food? Do you bite your nails? Did you ever do so? Schools attended Age To age Grade reaohed Reason for leaving What was the last grade that you finished in school? (example, finished grade 11; or, 4th yr. university) Where? (where abouts did you finish your schooling?) Why did you stop school when you did? Did you mind stopping? Do you wish now that you had gone further in school? Did your family think an. education was important? Did they urge you to stay in school or to stop school? What was your favorite subject? „ What did you do best in? Poorest? Did you like to read? Do you now? What sort of reading? ; Did you go out for sports in school? What? 115--4-Did you belong to clubs or societies?. ....Hold office?............. Did you have any special lessons outside school?.... Did any teacher ever pick on you? -Did other children like you? Do you plan any further sohool or special study?..... What do you consider your good points, or assets; your liabilities or short-comings? (intelligence, special abilities or characteristics, etc.) What kind of work do you do?. When did you stop your last job?....... Why?,... (approximate time) How long had you held that job?.. ..How many jobs have you had since you began to work? Have you worked mostly at the same kind of work or different kinds?..........; ...... Which kind have you liked best? , Do you like your present work? ...If you had a free choioe, what kind of work would you like best? What was your motive in choosing your vocation? Does that sort of thing mean a great deal to you?...... How do you get along with your fellow-employees?......... . With your superiors?..... .....With subordinates? Do you have any personal maladjustments which interfere with success on your job?. What is the greatest amount of money you have ever earned at one time? , For how long? Are you thrifty about money? , What is your present financial status? (Affluent, comfortable, moderate, marginal, dependent) (underline which) Does your income meet your needs and standards of livingj completely and easily, adequately, or with difficulty? (underline which) -116-- 5 -Do you own your own home? Other real estate?................ Auto?,. In what kind of house do you live? (Own home, size relative to size of family, etc.,) How many dependents do you support?.. ...Ever on relief?.... Rate neighbourhood: Best part of oommunity, good, deoent, poor, slum Do you think that punishment makes people behave better?........ What kind of punishment does you the most good?,. Do you resent otiticism from your associates?.... Superiors?......... Do you care much about politics? Do you vote?.... Do you think the country is being run right? Do you believe that rioh people usually get their money unfairly?.......,... Do you think that most people get a fair deal in this world? Were you ever arrested as a child?.... .Since you grew up?. Did you get a fair deal? , If you find yourself with a half-day to spend as you ohoose, what are you most apt to do? What is your idea of a "perfect" vacation? Do you take your vacation with the same person (or persons) year after year? .With whom? (Family, friends, casual choice, alone) Do you prefer to spend your leisure ina large group, or with few people? Do you spend spare time with the people with whom you work? Does your group inolude people of both sexes, men only, more women,than men? (underline which) Would you rather be with someone toward whom you felt indifferent than to be alone? Are you in fact alone very much? ...What proportion of the time?..,. How many close friends do you have? (None, 1, 2 or 3 , 4 or more) underline Are they your own age, several years younger, several years older, varied? -117--6-Could you trust them to help you out in a pinch, even when i t would be hard for them? Would you do the same for them? Do you prefer a quiet evening at home with your family to going out? Does your wife/husband enjoy the same aotivities that you prefer?... What are her/his favorite recreations? Do you have one or more lasting hobbies? What are they? Do you belong to any lodges or clubs? ...In how many do you pay dues? Have you attended any meetings in the past 6 months? How often? Do you hold office in any lodge or club?......., Have you ever done so? Do ycu belong to any ohuroh? , Do you attend regularly?. ....Do you take regular responsibility in church or oommunity? , Have you ever belonged to the Canadian Army, Air Force, Navy, or Reserves? Are you a member at present? How muoh time does i t take? If you were on active service during the past war, how long were you in the "forces?" , Are you: Married, Single, Widowed, Divoroed, Separated? (enoircle which) Is this the: 1st 2nd......3rd time? (oheck which) How many children have you? Boys? Girls? Are you raising them as you were raised? , How long have you lived in Vancouver? Do you feel as i f you belong here? ....Do you went to stay? , In how many cities have you lived during your life? Do you prefer any of them? Whioh? Why? ................ Do you prefer to live in the city or in the country?.. , Do you keep regular hours for meal-times?.............Do you go to bed and get up on schedule? Do you use an alarm clock to wake you? ,, Do you set aside a definite time eaoh day or week for recreation? , How often do you go to the movies?.. Favorite actor? .., How many books have you read for pleasure in the past month?.... -118-- 7 -Do you have an agreeable personality?...... ..Do most people like you? .Do you wish that you had been more or less strictly raised? (underline which). How is your l i f e kept under control? What is there to keep you from being immoral or bad? At what age do you think one has the most fun in life?.. Do you look forward to old age with pleasure or apprehension? If you could have three wishes, what would you wish for? •D-. • 2) ... 3) . . . . . What do you consider the most worth while things in life?.... Do you worry a great deal about the future?, U U What do you believe about l i f e after death?. NONALCOHOLIC QUESTIONNAIRE PLEASE READ THIS Th i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s one of many which i s b e i n g d i s -t r i b u t e d t o groups of people i n a l l walks of l i f e . I n a sense, i t i s l i k e a p u b l i c o p i n i o n p o l l . I n t h i s i n s t a n c e however, the s e a r c h i s f o r i n f o r m a t i o n d e a l i n g w i t h the problem of a l c o h o l i s m . How does i t b e g i n and what k i n d of i n d i v i d u a l s does i t e f f e c t ? T h i s i s a group survey. We are not. i n t e r e s t e d i n s i n g l e o r i n d i v i d u a l persons - o n l y as Vhey form a group. Some of the q u e s t i o n s are i n t i m a t e but you are asked not to s i g n your name or r e v e a l y o u r s e l f i n any way. You are being asked to f i l l out t h i s blank i n order to compare the nature of your answers wi t h someone who s u f f e r s from a l c o h o l i s m . As we s a i d b e f o r e , we are i n t e r e s t e d i n the problem of how a l c h o l i s m begins and why. You y o u r s e l f are not a v i c t i m - you can , :take i t or leave I t ; : ; you don't need a d r i n k to keep you going. But many do; many more than we are g e n e r a l l y w i l l i n g to r e a l i z e . The important q u e s t i o n i s : How can we h e l p others from f o l l o w i n g the f o o t s t e p s of the a l c o h o l a d d i c t ? The answer i s by r e s e a r c h and your h e l p i s necessary f o r without i t -e v e r y t h i n g f a i l s . You are the key-man. W i l l you h e l p us? Perhaps you have a son or daughter - are you w i l l i n g to spend a few moments educating them about the f a c t s of d r i n k i n g ? N a t u r a l l y . Do you t h i n k you could spare a few more moments h e l p i n g others by f i l l i n g out these forms? We hope so. Romamber: 1) don't give your name - remain anonymous. 2) t r y to be s i n c e r e and honest i n your r e p l i e s . I t i s o n l y w i t h your earnest c o o p e r a t i o n that t h i s study w i l l be of s c i e n t i f i c v a l u e . Please - f i l l i n the form and s l i p ' i n t o the stamped, s e l f -addressed envelope. Then, drop i t i n the m a i l box. Could you f i l l i t i n w i t h i n the next few days? Thank you P.S. The number on your copy i s t h e r e only to keep the v a r i o u s s e c t i o n s of your form t o g e t h e r . •• "'• : . /rl20- . QUESTIONNAIRE THIS RESEARCH STUDY IS CONCERNED WITH GROUPS, NOT INDIVIDUALS. PLEASE REMAIN ANONYMOUS. IF YOU NEED MORE ROOM TO W R I T E , PLEASE USE THE 3ACK OF THE PAPER. Sex .Age.* Date of birth.................................... Place of birth?. Nationality (or descent) j Father?..'...'...'....... .Mother? ..................... Who raised you?..... .When did you come to B. C?..............., When did you come to your present home?............. , Are you: Married, Single, Widowed, Divorced, Separated (encircle which) In what church were you brought up?... Occupation? , (indioate as close as possible the exact job you do) What grade did you finish in school?..................Where?................ Date of f i l l i n g in this report?........ ., Is your father living? How much older is he than you?........., His occupation? .Interests? Is your mother living? How much older is she than you?.......... Her oocupat ion? Interest s ?................ , (enolose occupation before marriage in parenthesis) Were your father and mother separated? .How old were you?....... Did either remarry? Did your parents get along well together? .How many older brothers have you?... ..Younger?........Older sisters? , younger sisters? .Do you have others not living? Please l i s t the age, education, and occupation of each of your brothers and sisters: ' Older brothers: Younger brothers: Older sisters: Younger sisters: Which is your favorite? Your parent's favorite? -121-- 2 -Wae your father very strict with you whon you were a child?..... » Yeur mother? Did they generally have the same ideas about things that concerned you? How were you punished? Were you afraid of your father? Your mother? Did either have i t in for you? Were they affectionate?. ...Did either spoil you? Let you show off? .Did you ever feel that you were not allowed enough freedom? Did you ever feel in the way? (feel as i f you were not wanted) Did you think other children had nicer fathers? Mothers?.. In what kind of house did you live in as a child? ,. (own home, size relative to size of family, etc.) Was your familyi Affluent, comfortable, moderate, marginal, dependent-upon others(welfare organizations, etc.) (cirole which) Did their income meet the needs and standards of living* completely and easily, adequately, or with difficulty (encircle whioh) Rate the neighbourhood you lived in when a child i Best part of the community, good, deoent, poor, slum (encircle which) What books did you read as a child? ....Were you read to? , What other oultural advantages? (music, art, etc.) , Was there any language other than English spoken in the home? How well do you speak it? , Were you a behavior problem in infancy? .., (nervous, restless, orying; weaning difficulties, bed-wetting, food fads) Did you have fears? Of what? .., Did you have temper tantrums? To what age? , Do you s t i l l have them? How cured?........ , What was your general health in infancy? , What was your general health during adolescence?... 122 -5-Were you ever"cickly?". (Constipation, bad eyesight, headache, bilious attacks, fainting spells, convulsions, sleeplessness, double-vision, drooling, shortness of breath, head or spine injuries, malaria, sleeping-sickness, gland trouble, nervousness, tremors cr tics, bad muscle control, excitability or depression, nervous or mental breakdown.) Did you have serious accidents? Operations?......... "What is your general health at present?... Are you right or left handed?... Any trouble with muscle development? Speech difficulties? Do ycu sleep well? ,Eow often do you dream? Have nightmares? Do you walk in your sleep?..... Are ycu fussy about food?. Do you eat everything? Do you ever get hungry for some specific food?..... Do ycu bite your nails? Did you ever do so? Schools attended Age To age Grade reached Reason for leaving What was the last grade that you finished in school? (example, finished grade 11; or, 4th yr. university) Where? (where abouts did you finish your schooling?) Why did you stop school when you did? Did ycu mind stopping? ,.. .Do you wish now that you had gone further in school? Did your family think an education was important? Did they urge ycu to stay in school or to stop school? What was your favorite subject? What did you do best in? ....Poorest? Did you like to read? .....Do you now? What sort of reading? Did you go out for sports in school? What? 123 V .4-Did you belong to clubs or societies? ........Hold office?. ...... Did you have any special lessons outside sohool? Did any teacher ever pick on you? Did other children like you?. Do you plan any further school or special study?. , What do you consider your good points or as setsj 1 ) . . . . . , . . . (intelligence, speoial abilities, characteristics, etc.) . . . . . . . . . . 2 ) 3) . . . What do you oonsider your short-comings and liabilities? 1 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 2 ) . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ) . . , What kind of work do you do? ................................ (give approximate income) ( indicate as olose as possible your exact job) Are you working now?... , If you have changed jobs, when did you quit your last job?.... , Why? .How long have you held your praeent job? * •.., Have you worked mostly at the same kind of work or different kinds?........ How many jobs have you held since you began to work?. ...Which kind of work have you liked best? *"*>*•* What was your motive in choesing your present vocation?. Does that s6rt of thing mean a great deal to you?.. , How do you get along with your fellow employees?.., , With your superiors? With subordinates? Do you have any personal maladjustments which interfere with success on your job? • , What is the greatest salary you have ever earned? ., For how long?.. ..Are you thrifty about money? What is your present financial status? Affluent, comfortable, moderate, marginal, dependent and bankrupt (underline which) Does your inoome meet yo\;r needs and standards of livingicompletely and easily, adequately, or with difficulty? (underline whioh) 124 -5-Do you own your own home?... Other real estate?...... Auto? In what kind of house do you live? (Own home, size relative to size of family, etc.,) How many dependents do you support?. Ever on relief? Rate neighbourhoods Best part of community, good, decent, poor, slum Do you think that punishment makes people behave better? What kind of punishment does you the most good?.. Do you resent ctiticism from your associates? Superiors? Do you care much about politics?.. Do you vote?..... Do you think the country is being run right?.. Do you believe that rich people usually get their money unfairly? Do you think that most people get a fair deal in this world?.. Were you ever arrested as a child? Since you grew up?. Did you get a fair deal? If you find yourself with a half-day to spend as you choose, what are you most apt to do?.... What is your idea of a "perfect" vacation? Do you take your vacation with the same person (or persons) year after year? .With whom? (Family, friends, casual choice, alone) Do you prefer to spend your leisure ina large group, or with few people? Do you spend spare time with the poople with whom you work?. Does your group include people of both sexes, men cnly, more women than men? (underline which) Would you rather be with someone toward whom you felt indifferent than to be alone? Are you in fact alone very much? What proportion of the time?...". How many close friends do you have? (None, 1, 2 or 3, 4 or more) underline Are they your own age, several years younger, several years older, varied? 125 -6-Could you trust them to help you out in a pinoh, even when i t would be hard for them? Would you do the same for them? Do you prefer a quiet evening at home with your family to going out? Does your wife/husband enjoy the same aotivities that you prefer? What are her/his favorite recreations?... Do you have one or more lasting hobbies? What are they?.. Do you belong to any lodges or clubs? In how many do you pay dues? Have you attended any meetings in the past 6 months? How often? Do you hold office in any lodge or club? , Have you ever done so? Do ycu belong to any church?,, , Do you attend regularly?..., Do you take regular responsibility in church or community? ........... Have you ever belonged to the Canadian Army, Air Foroe, Navy, or Reserves? Are you a member at present? How muoh time does i t take? ......If you were on aotive service during the past war, how long were you in the "forces?"...... , Are youj Married, Single, Widowed, Divorced, Separated? (enoirole which) Is this the: 1st.... .2nd..... .3rd......time? (check whioh) How many children have you? Boys? Girls?. Are you raising them as you were raised? , , How long have you lived in Vancouver? , Do you feel as i f you belong here? Do you went to stay?..... , In how many cities have you lived during your life? , Do you prefer any of them? Which?..., ..Why? Do you prefer to live in the city or in the country? , Do you keep regular hours for meal-times?.............Do you go to bed and get up on schedule? Do you use an alarm clook to wake you?......., Do you set aside a definite time each day or week for recreation?. How often do you go to the movies? Favorite actor? How many books have you read for pleasure in the past month? T i t i a n ? 126 - 7 -How old were you when you first used liquor?, Are you a periodic, steady, or occasional drinker? (underline which) What do you drink? Nothing, beer, wine, gin, whiskey , . Drinking habitss 2 or 3 times —an hour, a day, a week, a month, a year, five years (underline whioh) Have you been intoxioated? 2 or 3 times — a day, a week, a month, a year, 5-10 years, 10-20 years, never , , Have you ever tried to break off any habit (smoking, drinking, for example)? .Did you succeed? .For how long? , Do you have an agreeable personality? Do most people like you? , ...... Do you wish that you had been more or less strictly raised?.. , How is your l i f e kept under control? What is there to keep you from being immoral or bad? , At what age do you think one has the most fun in life? Do you look forward to old age with pleasure or apprehension?. If you could have three wishes, what would you wish for? What do you consider the most worth while things in life? Do you worry a great deal about the future? What do you believe about l i f e after death? APPENDIX F, RATING SCALE 1. Early training (Were you a behaviour problem in infancy? Did you have fears? Temper tantrums? Handedness? Defect in motor development? Speech defect? Retardation? Did other children like you?) 1* Complete freedom from mental or nervous handicaps in childhood or later, 2. Practically free from such things, 3. Some difficulty in infancy; outgrovm, left no trace in habits, etc. 4* Definite mental or nervous handicap persists. 5. Handicapped so severely as to be incapacitating. 2. Health; organic functioning (What was your general health in infancy? Were you ever sickly? Did you have serious accidents? Operations? What is your general health at present?) 1. Perfect health throughout entire l i f e ; no accidents or operations. 2. Good health; minor accidents and/or operations. 3. Fair health; may have had serious accidents or major operations; no lasting after-effects. 4» Actively handicapped by persistent chronic disease, or after-effects of illness or accident. 5. Handicapped so severely as to be incapacitating. 3. Emotional relations with parents in childhood. (Did your parents pay much attention to you? Were they affectionate? Did you ever feel in the way? Did you think other children had nicer fathers? Mothers? Which child was your parents* favorite?) 1, Was object of attention and affection from his parents; excellent rapport. 2. Moderate attention or affection from one or both parents; good rapport. 3* Little attention or affection from parents; no indication that he was hurt by this. 4. No attention or affection, some indications of hurt. 5. Neglected, felt in the way, envied other children their parents. -128 A. Stability of the home. (Are both parents living? How old were you at the time of their death? Were your parents ever separated? How old were you? Did either remarry? Did they get along well together? By whom were you reared?) Reared by both parents through adolescence; home harmonious. Reared by both parents through adolescence; occasional friction. Home broken by death or separation, or seriously disrupted by quarrels, after child was 7. (includes "reared by parents", date of death not given.) Parents quarrelled a great deal; or,home broken by death or separation, before child was 7. Never lived in regular home situation; orphanage, or series of foster homes. 5. Parent relationships - discipline (Was your father very strict with you as a child? Your mother? Did they generally have the same ideas? How were you punished? Were you afraid of your father? Your mother? Did you ever feel you were not allowed enough freedom? Did they spoil you? Let you show off? Did they keep you in school? Do you wish you had been more or less strict-ly raised?) 1. No tendency whatever to criticise or resent any detail of his bring-ing- up. 2. Very slight tendency in this direction. 3. Some critical attitude. A. Definitely confirmed critical attitude. 5. Marked resentment. 6. Parent relationships - economic status. (Father*s occupation? Mothers? Financial status of the home? Adequacy of income? Kind of neighbourhood? Why did you stop school? Sports, school clubs, special lessons? Motive in choosing vocation? Did family try to arrange further education?) 1. Recalls economic conditions as entirely satisfactory; describes them with evident pride. 2. Recognizes certain short-comings in the set-up, but does not indicate that they were a handicap. 3. Very slight tinge of apology or "interpretation.* 4. Gives some evidence that he feels he was handicapped by poverty. 5. Definite indication that he feels that his failures or inadequacies were due in the main to family's low economic status. -129« 7. Position in the family (Question of fact, not opinion.) How many older brothers and sisters? Younger? 1 . Intermediate member of large family (four or more.) 2. Intermediate of small family. 3. Oldest. A» Youngest. 5. Only child. 8. Relations with sibs (Are the sibs inferior or superior to the subject in education? In occupational level? Which was your favorite? Parents' favorite?) 1 . Equal or better educational and occupational achievement with sibs. 2. One or more sibs better education or on higher occupational level. 3. About half the sibs did better than subject. A* Excels only one or two of the sibs. 5. Lower than any of the sibs. (no sib lower) 9 . Economic situation - occupation (Occupational level? Compare with that of father and sibs? Previous occupational levels? What have you liked best? Do you like your present work? Motive in choosing work?) 1 . Occupational level approximately that of his ideal occupation. 2 . Occupational level practically that of his ideal; may have had a few blind alley or stop-gap jobs. 3» Occupations have never fallen far below level of ideal. At, Occasionally has attained employment at the level of his ideal; usually lower. 5. Level of employment always lower than ideal. 1 0 . Economic situation - financial adequacy (Employed? Kind of work (level)? Greatest earning capacity? Thrifty? Financial status? Other sources of income? Dependents? Children? Ever on relief? Any indication that family provides home or otherwise supplements income?) 1 . Income meets . needs and standards of living completely and easily; no worries. High financial standing in the community. 2 . Income adequate; some savings or property. 3. Income adequate; but no reserves of money or property; may have car. A* Low income, supplemented by efforts of wife or other members of the family; meets needs with difficulty; or, s t i l l dependent upon parents. 5. Income precarious; has frequently been dependent or on relief. -130-11* Degree of satisfaction with educational and cultural opportunities (Parents' interests? Kind of house as a child? Kind of neighborhood? Did parents feel that an eduoation was important? Did you grow up reading books? What kind of reading? Music, art, dramatics? Foreign language in the home? Age and grade of stopping school? Retardation? School interests? Church background?) 1. Stopped, school voluntarily and has not regretted i t j no plans for future study. 2. Stops school voluntarily but wishes now that he had gone further; may consider further study a possibility. 3. Home finances dictated end of schooling; plans or is carrying on further study. A. Left school unwillingly because (a) family needed his help; (b) of health, responsibilities (older men); regrets i t . May or may not be studying. 5. Left school unwillingly because parents felt that he did not need further education; regrets i t . 12. Dynamic effectiveness of a definite goal (Have you tried and succeeded in breaking any habits? Why did you stop school? Do you wish that you had not? Do yod plan any further study? What was your motive in choosing your vocation? How Is your l i f e kept under control? What do you consider the most worth while things in life? Does he blame his friends for his inability to stop drinking?) 1. Life appears as a well-integrated progress towards a definite goal. 2. Seems to have a well established plan for his l i f e , but not always kept to i t . 3. Some idea of desirability of a plan of l i f e ; occasionally has attempt-ed to follow i t . 4. Drifts through l i f e with l i t t l e expression of any purpose. 5. Appears to have been entirely subject to the whims of chance, no purpose. 13* Satisfaction with work (present or most recent) (Occupation? What work have you liked best? How often have you changed jobs? Why? Do you like your present work? If you had a free choice, what work would you like best? What was your motive in choosing your vocation?) 1. Deep satisfaction and interest in present work; no desire to change the nature of work. 2. Fairly content with his occupation; would like to make some minor change. 3. Accepts his occupation; no discontent. "Its a l l right." A. Discontented with present job, but glad to have i t ; would prefer many other kinds of work. 5. Strongly dislikes present job; has never had a job he liked. 0.31' 14. Occupational stability (How long on present job? How long on last previous job? When and why did you stop it? How many jobs since you began to work? Mostly same kind or different? Which have you liked best? If you had a free choice, what kind would you like best?) 1. Holds job a long time; changes only to another better occupation in the direction of his goal. 2. Holds job a long time; a l l about the same type of work (no advance-ment.) 3. Frequent change of employers but same general type of work. 4. Considerable variation in kind of work; highly impermanent. 5. Jobs a l l temporary; hand to mouth, day labour. 15. Liking for reading, writing, expressing ideas (Do you like to read now? What kind of reading? How many and what kind of books read in the past month? Does he express any interest in writings? Consider fullness of response to blank as a whole.) 1. Marked interest in dealing with ideas; work and most of leisure spent in reading, writing, talking. 2. Definite interest in ideas; leisure largely so occupied. 3. Heads a good deal in leisure time; also enjoys more active outlets. 4. Reads occasionally; not much given to writing or talking about abstract ideas; very practical In his ideas. 5. No interest in reading, Interests seek muscular or mechanical expression. 16. Amount of reereation (Did you go out for sports in school? Did you belong to clubs and societies? How do you spend a leisure half-day? Do you take vacations? How do you spend your leisure? Do you prefer an evening at home to going out? Do you set aside a definite time for recreation? Do you go to the movies? ) 1. Very active in pursuit of recreation in leisure time. 2. More than ordinarily interested. 3. Average amount. 4. Little time seems to be given to recreation. 5. Reports no outlets. 17. Autonomy of recreation (Did he continue sports after school days? How spent a half-day? What is a "perfect vacation?" Hobbies? Movies? Reading?) -1-36-1. Appears to have definite interests which enrich his leisure time, (hobbies, reading, active sports, or active part in organizations). 2. Moderate interest in active employment of leisure. 3. Leisure seems to be spent rather conventionally; vicarious activity. 4. Indefinite and hazy interests; seems to drift. 5. No interest for leisure; either "rests" or has no outlets. 18. Relations with wife (M S;W D Sep? More than once? Has wife same interests? Her favorite recreations? Does he spend his spare time with her? Does he express concern as to the effect of his drinking on her? - or on their relations?) 1. Married; shares leisure interests with wife. 2. Married; l i t t l e in common with wife. 3» Married; definite evidence of strain, (or unsuccessful previous marriage followed by present more successful marriage*) 4* Separated. 5* Divorced. 19. Relations with friends (How do you spend free half -days? Do you take vacations with friends? How many close friends have you? Relative age? Mutual help?) 1. Has a few close friends with whom he spends most of his spare time; may state attitude the friendship is extremely important. 2. Has some relatively close friends. 3. Has large numbers of "friends" (probably acquaintances); apparently no strong loyalties to individuals. 4. Seems to know very few people outside home and place of work; no ties. 5* Never associates with anyone outside the family. 20. Individual contacts (How do you get along with you fellow employees? With subordinates? Do you spend your spare time with fellow workers? How do you spend a free half-day? Do you take vacations with people? Large or small groups? Alone, or with someone to whom you're indifferent? How much are you alone?) 1. Always with other people; almost never alone. 2. With other people a good deal of the time. 3. With other people averagemount. 4e Spends a good deal of time alone. 5* Spends nearly a l l his time in solitude; l i t t l e association with others* -135-21, Group activities (Belong to clubs and societies in school? How is leisure time spent? Membership in lodges or clubs? Church or community affairs? Military service? Interest in politics?) 1. Belongs to many organizations; active participant in political and group affairs; a joiner, 2. Considerable group activity; belongs to two or three organizations, votes, etc. 3. Slight present interest in organized activities. 4. Group affiliations at one time, but l i t t l e activity and no present interest. 5. No group affiliations present or past* 22* Satisfaction with the community (Do you feel that you belong in your present home? Do you prefer present home to others? Do you prefer the city to the country?) 1. Enthusiastic, a booster; loves to live here. 2* Likes the region; has some feeling of belonging. 3* Indifferent to the community; not strongly identified but no antagonism. 4* Would prefer some other place; may or may not like present community. 5* Strongly dislikes i t ; would like to live almost anywhere else, 23. Permanence of residence (When did you come to British Columbia? To Vancouver? How long in present home? How many different homes in life?) 1. Has lived a l l his l i f e in one town. 2. Has lived always in the same section of Canada; very few changes. 3. Has made one major move (e.g., E to W) but otherwise has been relatively fixed. 4. Good many moves. 5. Cannot claim any home, constantly on the move. 24, Antagonism toward authority (Were your parents very strict? Did teachers ever pick on you? How do you get along with your superiors? Does punishment make people behave better? What kind of punishment does you the most good? Do you resent criticism? Do you care about politics? Vote? Is the country being run right? Do rich people usually get their money unfairly? Have you had a fair deal? Do you wish you had been more or less strictly raised?) -134-1. No tendency whatever to combat, resent, or criticise authority, either personalized or in the form of discipline. 2. Very slight tencency toward critical attitude. 3. Some antagonism and lack of sympathy with those in authority or with disciplinary measures. 4. Definitely confirmed critical attitude. 5. Strong antagonism toward authority. 25. Readiness to assume responsibility (Did you hold offices in school clubs? Have you held offices in lodges or clubs? Did you take regular church or cummuhity responsibility? How do you get along with your subordinates? What are your good points? Have you personal maladjustments? What is your ideal occupation?) 1. Occupation implies ability to take responsibility; ideal occupation involves responsibility; has been leader in organizations, church or community. 2. Present position one of minor responsibility; ideal is more responsible. 3. Seems never to have been in a position allowing for responsibility; ideal is one of some responsibility. 4. Occasional responsibility in earlier l i f e ; now seeks occupation requiring less. 5. No responsibility present or past; ideal occupation entirely free from i t . 26. Political conservatism (Is the country being run right? Do you care about politics? Vote? Do rich people usually get their money unfairly? Do most people _et a fair deal?) 1. Sees no justification or need for social, economic, or political change. Reactionary. 2. Advocates only minor changes; generally complaisant. 3. Some evidence of "reformer" tendency; "something ought to be done." 4. Rather definite tendency to demand drastic change in some details. 5. Very strong feeling that the world must be completely made over. 27. Self-criticism (Do most people like you? What are your good points? What are your bad points? Are your habits regular? What kind of outlets do you seek? What are your moral standards? Attitude towards life? Toward old age? Dreams? Ambitions? Do you worry?) 1. No evidence of dissatisfaction with self; sees no faults, does not worry; dreams are a l l attainable. 2. Only slight evidence of dissatisfaction. 3. Considers self as well-adjusted as average; mentions short-comings, but with no evidence of concern. 4. wishes, dreams, worries a l l show some concern. 5. Strongly concerned. 28. Attitude toward alcohol (General details of use? Age f i r s t used liquor? Drinking habits? Frequency and kind? Intoxication? Attempts to break i t off?) 1. Has never used liquor. 2. Takes a drink occasionally (for social reasons?) 3. An occasional drinker; may have been drunk once or twice in l i f e . Considers self a moderate drinker; has been drunk a few times; has never tried to stop. 5. Alcohol is a problem. Drinks periodically or steadily; drunk fairly often? attempts to stop have been unsuccessful. 29. Attitude toward religion (Brought up in a church? Present church membership? Attendance? Responsibility in church? Belief in future life? What keeps you from immorality?) 1. Evidence of deep faith. 2. gome indication. 3. Faith uncertain. 4. Faith very questionable, 5. No belief in higher power. 30. Religious observance (same as scale 29) 1. Church is bis major interest. 2. Takes considerable part in religious observances. 3. Conforms to conventional religious usages. U* Little religious observances. 5. No church attendance. 31. Fulfillment of ideal for self (Brought up in a church? Present church membership? History of alcohol reform? Ideal occupations? Reason for present one? Difference in occupat-ional level? Known maladjustment interfering with success? Training children like self? Spend spare time with fellow workers?) 1. Fulfil l s own ideal in occupational, social, and ethical-moral aspects. 2. Fails to meet ideal only in minor ways. 3. Has not attained ideal, but seems to be trying to do so. 4. Fails to meet ideal in rather serious ways. 5. Does not formulate any recognizable goal; seems to have been discouraged from hone of everv attainlm? one. APPENDIX G T H E A L C A D D T E S T By MORSE P. MANSON, Ph.D. Published by WESTERN PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES BOX 525-BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA Name 000000 Sex Age Date Last Name First Name Initial Occupation: Circle one of the following: I am— SINGLE — MARRIED — DIVORCED - SEPARATED —.WIDOWED Circle the last school year you completed: -0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8 -9-10-11 - 12 -13 -14 -15-16 -17- 18- 19 - 20 D I R E C T I O N S Your full cooperation is necessary. The value of this test to you depends on your sincerity in answering the questions. There are no "right" or "wrong" answers. Many people will answer "yes" to a certain question, while many others will answer "no" to the same question. If your answer to a question is "yes" make a circle around the YES for that question. If your answer is "no" circle the NO for that question. You will have all the time you need to answer all the questions but work as fast as you can. YOU MAY NOW TURN THE PAGE AND BEGIN. Copyright 1949 by WESTERN PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES, Beverly Hills, California All rights reserved. Not to be reproduced in whole or in part without written permission of copyright owner. 1. I like to swim. 1. Yes No (A) 2. I am a good dancer. 2. Yes No (B) (D) 3. I like to read detective stories. 3. Yes No (C) 4. I enjoy watching a football game. 4. Yes No (E) 5. I would rather go to a dinner or banquet than drink. 5. Yes No (B) 6. Drinking speeds up life for me. 6. Yes No (D) 7. I need a drink or two to get started in my work. 7. Yes No (D) 8. I often take a drink or two in the middle of the afternoon. 8. Yes No (A)_ 9. I drink only to join the fun. 9. Yes No (D) 10. I drink at regular times. 10. Yes No (A) 11. I drink because I am unlucky in love. 11. Yes No (D) (E) 12. I would rather go to a dance than drink. 12. Yes No (B) 13. Drinking puts me at ease with people. 13. Yes No (D) (E) 14, I control my drinking at all times. 14. Yes No (C) 15. I prefer to dine in restaurants which serve drinks. 15. Yes No (B) 16. I often have the desire to take a drink or two. 16. Yes No (C). 17. I have good reasons for getting drunk. 17. Yes No (E) 18. A drink or two is the best way to get quick energy or pep. 18. Yes No (D) 19. Drinking has changed my personality a good deal. 19. Yes No (E) 20. I drink entirely too much. 20. Yes No (C) 21. Drinking disturbs my sleep. 21. Yes No (E) 22. I drink to get over my feelings of inferiority. 22. Yes No (C) (E) 23. I drink about a pint or more of whiskey a week. 23. Yes No (A) (C) 24. I drink because I am unhappy or sad. 24. Yes No ( C ) (E) 25. I drink because I like to drink and want to drink. 25. Yes No (B) (D) 26. I would rather attend a lecture or concert than drink. 26. Yes No (B). 27. I drink much more now than five years ago. 27. Yes No (C) 28. Some of my best friends are heavy drinkers. 28. Yes No (B) 29. I drink to make life more pleasant. 29. Yes No 30. I take a drink or two before a date. 30. Yes No (E) 31. A drink or two before a conference, interview, or social affair helps me very much. 31. Yes No (D) (E) 32. I often go to a cheaper neighborhood to do my drinking. 32. Yes No (B) 33. I get drunk about every pay-day. 33. Yes No (A) ( C ) 34. I drink because it braces or lifts me up. 34. Yes No (D) 35. I need the friendship I find in drinking places. 35. Yes No (B) (E) 36. It is necessary for some people to drink. 36. Yes No (D) TOTAL A B C D E 2 37. After a few drinks, I swear easily. 37. Yes No (E) 38. When I am sober, I feel bored and restless. 38. Yes No (D) 39. I drink whenever I have the chance. 39. Yes No (A) (B) 40. I drink to ease my pain. 40. Yes No (J>1 41. 1 go on a bender or binge at least once a month. 41. Yes No (A) (C) 42. I usually pass out after I start drinking. 42. Yes No (O) 43. I often have pleasant burning sensations in my throat. 43. Yes No (C) 44. I drink too fast. 44. Yes No (O) (E) 45. I often have blackouts when I am drinking. 45. Yes No (C) 46. I drink because it takes away my shyness. 46. Yes No (D) (E) 47. I get high about once or twice a week. 47. Yes No (A) (C) 48. I drink often at irregular times. 48. Yes No (A) 49. I take a drink or two when I feel happy. 49. Yes No (D) (E) 50. T drink to relax. 50. Yes No (B) (E) 51. 1 need a drink or two in the morning. 51. Yes No (A) (C) 52. I drink to forget my sins. 52. Yes No (B) (E) 53. I. take a drink or two every day. 53. Yes No ( A l 54. I would rather drink alone than with others. 54. Yes No (C) (E) 55. 1 drink to forget my troubles. 55. Yes No (B) (E) 56. My family thinks I drink too much. 56. Yes No (O) 57. I go on a week-end drunk now and then. 57. Yes No (A) (C) 58. People who never drink are dull company. 58. Yes No (B) 59. My friends think I am a heavy drinker. 59. Yes No (C) 60. My father is (or was) a heavy drinker. 60. Yes No (D) 61. I would rather go to a movie than drink. 61. Yes No (B) 62. I go on a spree every few months and stay drunk for a few days. 62. Yes No (A) (C) 63. A l l people who drink get drunk at some time or another. 63. Yes No (E) 64. A spree gives me a wonderful feeling of release and freedom. 64. Yes No (B) (E) 65. Almost from the very first drink I took, I had a strong craving 65. Yes No (E) for alcohol which nearly always led to my getting drunk. — END — 3 T H E A L C A D D P S Y C H O G R A P H PROFILE TRAITS Sex Scores MEAN NONALS % Crit ica l Scores % MEAN No. ALPERS Items Total Test M 0 6 93 12 96 37 60 Total Test F 0 5 96 14 97 39 60 A Re. of Dr. M 0 1 99 2 98 9 12 A Re. of Dr. F 0 1 97 2 95 7 12 B P. for Dr. M 0 2 98 5 97 7 11 B P. for Dr. F 0 2 93 3 92 7 11 C L. of C. Dr. M 0 2 99 4 99 13 20 C L.of C.Dr. F 0 1 96 3 99 14 20 D Ra.of Dr. M 0 3 96 6 92 13 20 D Ra. of Dr. F 0 3 90 6 98 14 20 E Ex. Em. M 0 2 98 4 96 12 20 E Ex. Em. F 0 2 93 6 97 14 20 SUMMARY: rl38-BIBLIOGRAPHT 1. Alcoholics Anonymous. New York, Works Publishing Co., 1939. 2. Allen, B. B. Emotional factors in alcoholism. N. Y. St. J. Med., 19U, __y '373-378. 3. Allport, G. W. Personality: A psychological interpretation. New Y6rk, Holt, 1937. 4* Bacon, S. D. Inebriety, social integration, and marriage. Quart. J. Stud. A l e , 1944, j>, 86-125. 5. Basic concepts of Alcoholics Anonymous. N. Y. St. J. Med, 1944, 1805-1808. 6. Beecher, Willard. Observations about alcoholics. Indiv. Psychol. Bull., 1947, 6, 71-73. 7 . B i l l W. Who is a member of Alcoholics Anonymous? A.A. Grape-vine, 1946, i , 7. 8. B l l l i g , 0., and Sullivan, D. J. Personality structure and prognosis of alcoholic addiction. Quart. J. Stud. A l e , 1943, 3, 554-573. 9. Bonney, M. E. Parents as the makers of social deviants. Soc. Forces, 1942, 20, 77-87. 10. Buhler, Charlotte, and Lefever, D. Welty. A Rorschach study on the psychological characteristics of alcoholics. Quart. J. Stud. A l e , 1947, 8, 197-260. 11. Chambers, F. T. A psychological approach in certain cases of alcoholism. Ment. Hyg., N. Y., 1937, 21, 67-78. 12. Chassell, J. 0. A clinical revision of the Experience Variables Record. Psychiatry, 1938, 1, 67-77. 13. Chassell, J. 0. The Environmental Experience Variables Record. Univ. Rochester Medical School, New York, 1928. 14. Cranford, V., and Seliger, R. V. Understanding the alcoholic patient. J. clin. Psychopath. Psychother., 1944, 6, 323-34. 15. Dictionary of Occupational Titles. Washington, D. C , U. S. Government Printing Office, 1939. 16. Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Eighth Census of Canada, Vol. 2, Ottawa, King's Printer, 1944. •139' 17. Fleming, R„, and Tillotson, K. J. Further studies on the personality and sociological factors in the prognosis and treatment of chronic alcoholism. New Engl. J. Med., 1939, 221, 741-745. 18. Guilford, J. P. Fundamental statistics in psychology and education. New York,'McGraw-Hill, 1942. 19. Haggard, H. W. The physician and the alcoholic. Quart. J. Stud. A l e , 1945, 6, 213-221. 20. Haggard, H. W., and Jellinek, E. M. Alcohol explored. Garden City, Doubleday, 1942. 21. Halpern, F. Studies of compulsive drinkers: psychological test results. Quart. J. Stud. A l e , 1946, 6, 468-479. 22. Hathaway, S. R., and McKinley, J. C. Manual for the Minn-esota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Minneapolis, Univ. Minnesota Press, 1943. 23. Hewitt, C. C. A personality study of alcohol addiction. Quart. J« Stud. A l e , 1943, \, 368-386. 24. Humm, Doncaster G., and Wadsworth, Guy W. The Humm-Wads-worth Temperament Scale. Amer. J. Psychiat., 1935, 96, 163-200. 25. Jellinek, Elvin M. Effects of alcohol on the individual, Vol. 1, Alcohol addiction and chronic alcoholism. New Haven, Yale Univ. Press, 1942. 26. Kamman, G. R. Alcoholism as a neurosis. Minn. Med., 1941, v 2£, 850-853. 27. Klebanoff, Seymour G. Personality factors in symptomatic chronic alcoholism as indicated by the TAT. J. Con-sult. Psychol., 1947, U, 111-119. 28. Klopfer, B., and Kelley, D. M., The Rorschach technique. New York, World Book Co., 1942. 29. Knight, R. P. The psychodynamics of chronic alcoholism. J. nerv. ment. Dis., 1937, 86, 538-548. 30. Landis, C, Theories of the alcoholic personality. In: Alcohol, science and society, Lecture 11. New Haven, Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 1945. 31. Landis, C, and Bolles, M. M. Textbook of abnormal psychology. New York, Macmillan, 1946 32. Lemere, F., et al. Heredity as an etiological factor in chronic alcoholism. Northw. Med., Seattle, 1943, £2, 110-111. -Ho-33. Lemere, F., et a l . Conditioned-reflex treatment of alcoholism. J. Amer. med. Ass., 1942, 120, 269-270. 34. Lentz, T. F., et al. Personality correlates of alcoholic beverage consumption. Character and Pers., 1943, 12, 54-70. 35. Lewis, N. D. C« Personality factors in alcoholic addiction. Quart. J. Stud. A l e , 1940, 1, 21-44. 36. L o l l i , Giorgio. The addictive drinker. Quart. J. Stud. A l e , 1949, 10, 404-414. 37. MacCurdy, J. T. General etiological factors in the alcoholic psychoses. Brit. Med. J., 1922, 2, 204-208. 38. Manson, Morse P. The Alcadd Test. Beverly Hills, Calif., Western Psychological Services, 1949. 39. Manson, Morse P. The Manson Evaluation. Beverly Hills, Calif., Western Psychological Services, 1948. 40. Manson, Morse P. Manual for the Alcadd Test. Beverly Hills, Calif., Western Psychological Services, 1949. 41. Manson, Morse P. Manual for the Manson Evaluation. Beverly Hills, Calif., Western Psychological Services, 1949. 42. Manson, Morse P. A psychometric analysis of psychoneurotic and psychosomatic characteristics of alcoholics. J. clin. Psychol., 1949, i , 77-83. 43. Manson, Morse P. A psychometric analysis of psychopathic char-acteristics of alcoholics. J. consult. Psychol., 1949, 13, 111-118. 44* Manson, Morse P. A psychometric determination of alcoholic addiction. Amer. J. Psychiat., 1949, 106, 199-205. 45. Manson, Morse P. A psychometric differentiation of alcoholics from nonalcoholics. Quart. J. Stud. A l e , 1948, % 175-206. 46. Marshall, Helen. Alcohols A critical review of the literature. Psychol. Bull., 1941, 18, 193-217. 47. Marshall, Helen. A study of the personality of alcoholic males. Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford Univ., Calif., 1947. 48. Meyer, F. M. The psychology and treatment of alcohol addicts. Brit. J. med. Psychol., 1943, 12, 381-87. -141-49. Miles, W. R. Psychological factors in alcoholism. Ment. Hyg., N. Y., 1937, 21, 529-548. 50. Mueller, Edward E. Personality and social implications in the l i f e of the alcoholic veteran. Quart. J. Stud. A l e , 1949, 1Q, 258-267. 51. Mursell, James L. Psychological testing. New York, Longmans, Green, and Co., 1947. 52. Myerson, Abraham. The psychology of the mental disorders. New York, Macmillan, 1927. 53. Norbury, F. G. Some mental mechanisms in alcoholism. J. Amer. med. Ass., 1942. 118. 25-28. 54. Powdermaker, P. The role of a psychiatrist in Alcoholics Anonymous. A.A. Grapevine, 1945, 1, 8. 55. Richardson, H. K. Alcoholism, its nature, and prevention. A l e Hyg., 1945, 1, 43-59. 56. Ritchie, Oscar W. A sociohlstorical survey of Alcoholics Anonymous. Quart. J. Stud. A l e , 1948, 2> 119-155. 57. Schilder, P. The psychogenesis of alcoholism. Quart. J. Stud. A l e , 1941, 2, 277-292. 58. Seliger, R. V., and Cranford, V. The Rorschach analysis in the treatment of alcoholism. Med. Ree, N. Y., 1945, 15j£ 32-38. 59. Smith, G. Milton. A simplified guide to statistics. New York, Rinehart and Co0, 1946. 60. Strecker, E. A., and Chambers, F. T. Alcohol: One man's meat. New York, Macmillan, 1947. 61. Symbnds, Percival M. The dynamic of human adjustment. New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1946. 62. Tiebout, H. M. Psychological factors operating in Alcoholics Anonymous. In: Glueck, B., ed. Current therapies of personality disorders. Pp. 145-165, New York, Grune and Stratton, 1946. 63. Tiebout, H. M. Psychology and treatment of alcoholism. Quart. J. Stud. A l e , 1946, 7, 214-227. 64. Tillotson, K. J, and Fleming, R. Personality and sociological factors in the prognosis and treatment of chronic alcoholism. New Engl. J. Med., 1937, 217, 611-615. 65. Wall, J. H. A study of alcoholism in men. Amer. J. Psychiat., 1936, 9J, 1389-1401. -142-66. Warren, H. C , ed. Dictionary of psychology. New York, Houghton Mifflin, 1934. 67. Wittman, P. A controlled study of the developmental and per-sonality characteristics of chronic alcoholics. Elgin Papers, 1939, 3, 77-84. 68. Wittman, P. Diagnosis and analysis of temperament for groups of alcoholics compared with controls. Elgin Papers, 1939, 3_, 94-99. 69. Wittman, P. A differential analysis of "adjustment" scores for chronic alcoholics and controls. Elgin Papers, 1939, J, 85-93. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0106776/manifest

Comment

Related Items