AN INVESTIGATION OF EDUCATORS' ATTITUDES
TOWARD PHYSICALLY DISABLED PEOPLE
IN RELATIONSHIP TO
FEAR OF DEATH, LOCUS OF CONTROL AND PURPOSE IN LIFE
by
ROSALENE SALESKI
B A University of Winnipeg 1968 B Ed University of Manitoba 1970 M Ed University of Manitoba 1973
A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
in
THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
(Department of Counselling Psychology) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
January 1984 (cj Rosalene Saleski, 1984 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.
Department of /^C^C^^ Date O^^/ J*, 'fry ABSTRACT This exploratory descriptive study investigated educators' attitudes toward physically disabled people in relationship to their purpose in life, fear of death and locus of control. The sample consisted of 457 subjects from approximately 71 elementary and 42 junior and senior high schools (226 teachers, 137 administrators and 65 counsellors) in seven suburban Winnipeg school divisions. Volunteers completed: a demographic question• naire, the Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scale (ATDP), the Internal-External Locus of Control Scale (I-E), the Collett-Lester Fear of Death Scale (FOD), and the Purpose in Life Test (PIL). An ANOVA calculated for the ATDP scores of school administra• tors, counsellors and teachers found no statistically significant difference at the .05 level of significance. Pearson r correlations were calculated for ATDP scores paired with FOD, PIL and I-E scores obtained by a) educators, b) teachers, c) school administrators, and d) school counsellors. Correlations for ATDP scores paired with the FOD, PIL and I-E scores of educators and teachers were all statistically significant. ATDP and I-E correlations were statis• tically significant for administrators; ATDP and FOD scores correla• ted significantly for counsellors. The ATDP and FOD scores of educators, teachers and counsellors correlated negatively. Those with the most positive attitude toward disabled people tended to have the least fear of death. ATDP and PIL scores correlated ii iii positively for educators and teachers. Those with a more positive attitude toward physically disabled people tended to have a stronger purpose in life. ATDP and I-E scores of educators, teachers, and administrators correlated negatively. Those with a more positive attitude toward physically handicapped people tended to see them• selves as more internally controlled. ANOVA calculations were made for sex, age and number of years employed in education. The female ATDP scores were slightly higher than the male in all professional groupings however the difference was statistically significant only for administrators. No statis• tically significant difference was found for age or number of years employed in education. Elementary school educators demonstrated a significantly more positive attitude toward physically handicapped people than those employed in junior or senior high schools. There were no significant differences in ATDP scores between elementary and high school a) administrators, b) counsellors, c) teachers. The elementary-high school attitude difference was considered to be a statistical arti• fact and not a true significant difference. There were no statistically significant differences between disabled and nondisabled educators on ATDP, PIL and FOD scores. Handicapped educators scored significantly higher (felt significantly more in control of their lives) on the I-E scale. Both the female and male nondisabled educators' means were significantly more posi• tive than the norms for the general female and male nondisabled iv population. The disabled female mean was significantly higher than the norm for the general disabled female population. Educators who were of the opinion that physically disabled students should attend special schools for the disabled had a significantly less positive attitude toward physically disabled people than those who did not choose this programing option. Educators who were of the opinion that physically disabled students should attend regular classes and receive the assistance of special support services had a significantly more positive attitude toward physically disabled people than educators who did not choose this option. Two other options were nonsignificant. The study concluded with a discussion of the statistical findings, limitations of the study, implications for further study and a summary. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I extend my deepest gratitude to Dr. William Borgen, Department Head, Counselling Psychology, my dissertation committee chairperson and Dr. Harold Ratzlaff, Assistant Professor, Educational Psychology, my statistics advisor. Their invaluable assistance and continuous encouragement were fundamental to the accomplishment of this research. I am also grateful to the Dissertation Examination Committee members who contributed generously of their time and expertise: Chairman: Dr. Torrie Westermark, Acting Department Head, Language Education University Examiners: Dr. Ron Neufeld, Associate Professor, Director of Field Development, Department of Educational Psychology Dr. Marvin Westwood, Associate Professor, Department of Counselling Psychology External Examiner: Dr. Jim Vargo, Associate Professor, Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Alberta A particular thanks is due the greater Winnipeg educators who volunteered their time to complete the study questionnaires. I wish to gratefully acknowledge my husband, Dr. Gerry Saleski, for his patience and support during the length of this study. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract ii Acknowledgements v Table of Contents..... vi Chapter I: Introduction 1 Importance of the Present Study 1 Evolution of Mainstreaming in Manitoba 2 Rationale for the Present Study 5 Definition of Terms 7 Chapter II: Review of Literature 11 Attitude Toward Disabled People 11 Historical and Theoretical Perspectives 11 Variations in Attitudes Toward Disabled People.. 12 Demographic Variables.... 15 Attitudes of Educators 19 Attitudes of Other Professionals 20 Attitudes of Handicapped People 22 Internal-External Locus of Control 25 Internal-External Locus of Control - The Construct 26 I-E's Extensive Use 27 I-E and Personality Characteristics 30 I-E and Work Orientation 34 I-E and Minority Groups 37 vi vii Page Fear of Death and Dying 38 Fear of Death - The Construct 39 Demographic Variables 4-0 Fear of Death and Adult Personality Characteristics 44 Attitudes Toward Death and the Dying 47 Purpose in Life 50 Purpose in Life - The Construct 51 Demographic Variables 55 Commitment to Religion and to Other Group Membership 59 Personality Variables.... 60 Summary 62 Chapter III: Method 65 Statement of the Problem 65 Statement of Hypotheses.... 65 Population and Sample 66 Data Collection Procedure 67 Instrumentation 67 The Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scale 67 Internal-External Locus of Control Scale 69 Collett-Lester Fear of Death Scale 72 The Purpose in Life Test 74 Design and Statistical Analysis 77 viii Page Chapter IV: Results 78 Educators' Attitudes Toward Physically Disabled People 78 Sex Comparisons for ATDP Scores 82 Age Comparisons for ATDP Scores 83 ATDP Scores and Number of Years in Education 84 Elementary and Junior-Senior High School ATDP Comparisons. 84 ATDP Scores of Educators With a Handicapped Student in Their School or Class 86 Personal Contact with Physically Disabled People and ATDP Scores 88 Handicapped and Nonhandicapped Educators' Test Scores 90 Educators' Programing Preferences for Physically Disabled Students 93 Chapter V: Discussion and Summary 99 Discussion 99 Sex Comparisons for ATDP Scores 104 Age Comparisons for ATDP Scores 105 Number of Years in Education and ATDP Scores 106 Elementary and Junior-Senior High School ATDP Comparisons 106 ATDP Scores of Educators With a Handicapped Student in Their School or Class 107 Personal Contact with Physically Disabled People and ATDP Scores 108 Handicapped and Nonhandicapped Educators' Test Scores 109 ix Page Educators' Programing Preferences for Physically Disabled Students 110 Limitations of the Study 111 Implications for Further Study 112 Summary 113 References 116 Appendicies 14-1 Appendix A Demographic Questionnaire 14-2 Appendix B Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scale 14-6 Appendix C Internal-External Locus of Control Scale 150 Appendix D Collett-Lester Fear of Death Scale.... 154 Appendix E Purpose in Life Test 158 Appendix F Correspondence 162 Appendix G Figures... 181 Figure 1 Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scale Frequency Bar Chart 182 Figure 2 Internal-External Locus of Control Scale Frequency Bar Chart 183 Figure 3 Collett-Lester Fear of Death Scale Frequency Bar Chart... 184 Figure 4 Purpose in Life Test Frequency Bar Chart 185 Appendix H Tables 186 Table 1 Distribution of Subjects.... 187 X Page Table 2 Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scale, Mean and Standard Deviation 188 Table 3 ATDP Comparison of Teachers, Counsellors and Administra• tors 189 Table 4A Educators' ATDP Scores - Statistics and Correlation Coefficients 190 Table 4-B Teachers* ATDP Scores - Statistics and Correlation Coefficients 191 Table AC Administrators' ATDP Scores - Statistics and Correlation Coefficients 192 Table 4-D Counsellors' ATDP Scores - Statistics and Correlation Coefficients 193 Table 5 Distribution of Subjects by Sex 194 Table 6A Comparison by Sex of Educators' ATDP Scores 195 Table 6B Comparison by Sex of Teachers' ATDP Scores 196 Table 6C Comparison by Sex of Counsellors' ATDP Scores.... 197 Table 6D Comparison by Sex of Administrators' ATDP Scores 198 Table 7A Mean Age of Educators 199 Table 7B Distribution of Counsellors, Teachers and Administrators by Age 199 xi Page Table 7C Distribution of Elementary and High School Educators by Age 200 Table 7D Age and Sex of Educators.... 200 Table 8 Comparison by Age of Educators' ATDP Scores 201 Table 9A Mean Number of Years Employ• ed in Education 202 Table 9B Years Employed in Education and Educational Position.... 202 Table 9C Sex and Number of Years in Education 203 Table 10 ATDP Scores and Number of Years in Education 204 Table 11A Elementary and Junior-Senior High Educators' ATDP Scores. 205 Table 11B Elementary and Junior-Senior High Counsellors' ATDP Scores 206 Table 11C Elementary and Junior-Senior High Teachers' ATDP Scores.. 207 Table 11D Elementary and Junior-Senior High Administrators* ATDP Scores 208 Table 12A Educators With Handicapped Students in School or Class 209 Table 12B Elementary and High School Educators With and Without Handicapped Students 209 Table 12C Sex of Educators With and Without Handicapped Students in School or Class 210 xii Page Table 12D Counsellors, Teachers and Administrators With and With• out Handicapped Students in School or Class 210 Table 12E Frequency of Educators With Student in School or Class Categorized According to Disability 211 Table 13A ATDP Comparison for Educators With and Without Handicapped Students in Their School or Class 212 Table 13B ATDP Comparison for Coun• sellors With and Without Handicapped Students in Their School or Class 213 Table 13C ATDP Comparison for Teachers With and Without Handicapped Students in Their School or Class 2U Table 13D ATDP Comparison for Administrators With and Without Handicapped Students in Their School or Class.... 215 Table 14A Educators Who Had Personal Contact With A Disabled Person 21 6 Table 14B Elementary and High School Educators and Personal Contact With A Disabled Person 216 Table 14C Sex of Educators and Personal Contact With A Disabled Person 217 Table 15A Educators' ATDP Scores and Personal Contact With Physically Disabled People.. 218 xiii Page Table 15B Teachers' ATDP Scores and Personal Contact With Physically Disabled People.. 219 Table 15C Counsellors' ATDP Scores and Personal Contact With Physically Disabled People.. 220 Table 15D Administrators' ATDP Scores and Personal Contact With Physically Disabled People.. 221 Table 16A ATDP Comparisons for Handi• capped and Nonhandicapped Educators 222 Table 16B I-E Comparisons for Handi• capped and Nonhandicapped Educators 223 Table 16C PIL Comparisons for Handi• capped and Nonhandicapped Educators 224 Table 16D FOD Comparisons for Handi• capped and Nonhandicapped Educators 225 Table 16E Educators' ATDP Scores Compared with ATDP Norms.... 226 Table 17A Educators' Program Preferences for Physically Disabled Students 227 Table 17B Handicapped and Nonhandi- capped Educators' Programing Preferences for Physically Disabled Students 228 Table 17C Programing Preferences for Handicapped Students by Educators Categorized According to Age 229 XIV Page Table 17D Counsellors', Teachers' and Administrators' Programing Preferences for Physically Disabled Students 230 Table 17E Elementary and High School Educators' Programing Preferences for Physically Disabled Students 231 Table 17F Programing Preferences for Handicapped Students of Educators With and Without Handicapped Students in Their School or Class 232 Table 17G Programing Preferences for Handicapped Students of Educators With and Without Personal Contact With a Disabled Person 233 Table 18A ATDP Comparisons for Educators Who Selected Opinion 1 and Those Who Did Not 234 Table 18B ATDP Comparisons for Educators Who Selected Opinion 2 and Those Who Did Not 235 Table 18C ATDP Comparisons for Educators Who Selected Opinion 3 and Those Who Did Not 236 Table 18D ATDP Comparisons for Educators Who Selected Opinion 4- and Those Who Did Not 237 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION This exploratory descriptive study investigated educators' attitudes toward physically disabled people in relationship to other selected variables. Physically disabled people are taking a more prominent place in society; this is reflected in an education• al trend toward mainstreaming handicapped children wherever possible (Latter, 1976). For teachers, principals and school counsellors involved in the education of handicapped children, it is important to understand the attitudes toward members of this special needs group and to possess an awareness of factors which may affect educators' ability to relate positively to handicapped individuals within the public school system. Importance of the Present Study It has long been accepted that students learn a great variety of things in school. "School is one of the major instruments for socializing children in terms of our cultural values, traditions, attitudes, beliefs, knowledge and skills" (Gazda, Asbury, Balzer, Childers & Walters, 1977, p. 5). It has long been known that an individual's self appraisal arises out of what others think and feel about him (theory of reflected appraisals - Cooley, 1902). Consequently children develop their self concepts and sense of self -1- 2 worth from the attitudes and values held of them by others. The attitude of the teacher toward the disabled student can seriously affect (positively or negatively) the attitude of able-bodied class• mates as well as the disabled student's self concept and ability to learn. "If a child learns to associate either the school or the teacher with strong feelings of anxiety, guilt, frustration, aggression, inadequacy or worthlessness, then plainly, that school or teacher is not effective" (Gazda, et al., 1977, p. 7). The results of this study will aid in the understanding of educators' attitudes toward physically handicapped children and consequently may assist in making their shared school experience more positive. Evolution of Mainstreaming in Manitoba Physically disabled and other special needs children are now frequently found in regular classrooms. Concern about the attitudes of teachers toward these children is increasing as government places emphasis on mainstreaming. Before investigating the attitudes of educators toward what now exists, it is helpful to understand how the practice of mainstreaming handicapped children evolved in Manitoba. Retarded children were one of the earliest groups to be recog• nized as needing specialized education. Special classes for the education of retarded students have been operating in Manitoba since 1913 (Christiansson, 1965). Separate classes for deaf children have 3 been in operation, in Manitoba since the 1890's. Generally, between 1950 and 1967 the emphasis was on segregation (Latter, 1976). An article in Exceptional Children (Dunn, 1968) seriously questioned the American school practice of transferring "misfits" out of regular classes. Dunn viewed the special schools and classes as raising serious educational and civil rights issues. (His con• cern was with those children labeled as being mentally retarded but the weight of his argument was equally applicable to other "special" children, such as the physically handicapped.) Several civil suits resulted in a moderate swing toward desegregation of special needs classes in the American school system. A 1967 decision was made against the tracking system in the District of Columbia; in 1968 a suit on behalf of Mexican-American parents was won against the Santa Ana Unified School District (Dunn, 1968); in 1972, two suits were won on behalf of retarded children in Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia "establishing the principle that all children may demand and all school systems must provide, free education at public ex• pense as a matter of right" (Benderly, 1980, p. 244)• In 1970, the Manitoba government introduced a resource teacher program whereby grants for qualified resource teachers were given to school divisions in accordance with student populations. This pro• vided assistance to special needs children in regular classrooms and consequently encouraged the move toward mainstrearning. Bill 58, Section 4-65(22) stipulated that: Every school board shall provide or make provision for the education of all resi• dent persons who have the right to attend 4 school and who require special programs for their education. (Inter- Departmental Working Group on the Education of Children and Youth with Special Needs, 1975, p. 1) The philosophy underlying the government's efforts was that children benefit most from the program which is closest to the regular school program (Inter-Departmental Working Group on the Education of Children and Youth with Special Needs, 1975). In 1978 high cost, low incidence funding was introduced to assist school divisions in their efforts to mainstream special needs programming and provide special programs as close to the mainstream as possible. In 1981 the Ministry of Education introduced a three year support program which provided an improved formula for funding school divisions for special education personnel and additional categorical funding for each special needs student. The changes have been gradual but significant over the years with a move toward increased assistance to special needs students combined with com• plete or partial integration with regular students wherever possible. Mainstreaming is a fact of life in the Manitoba school system. Little has been done to prepare teachers for this gradual influx of special needs students. Of the 457 educators surveyed for this study, 323 indicated that they had a physically handicapped student in their school or class. It is important that research such as this provide information on the attitudes of educators toward physically handicapped people. 5 Rationale for the Present Study Many studies have assessed the attitudes of various groups of people toward handicapped children and adults (Alessi & Anthony, 1969; Bell, 1962; Benlifer & Kiesler, 1972; Chigier & Chigier, 1968; Colman, 1971; Comer & Piliavin, 1972; Cumming, 1977; Donaldson, 1980; Gaier, Linkowski & Jaques, 1968; Harder, 1973; Westwood, Vargo & Vargo, 1981). Those studies which have attempted to investigate the features of these attitudes have not included the following variables; fear of death, purpose in life and locus of control which may all be important contributing dimensions of attitudes toward the disabled. Many people avoid those who are dying as a form of safeguard. By keeping their distance they avoid a confrontation with their own feelings (Kavanaugh, 1977). Death is an inevitability only for the old, and contact with a young person who is dying can give adults a feeling of guilt that a generation has been skipped (Gyulay, 1978). Many adults feel very helpless before a child in pain. It is suspec• ted that this feeling of helplessness is strongest for those individ• uals with an external control orientati on. "One of the reasons why we tend to reject the aged is that they remind us of death" (Feifel, 1969, p. 66). One of the reasons why we tend to reject the disabled may be that they remind us that we too could be disabled ("there but for the Grace of God go I"). Pattison (1977) described two profes• sional distortions which he referred to as exaggerated detachment and exaggerated compassion. Teachers who come in contact with disabled 6 children experience reactions which may be comparable to the exag• gerated detachment and exaggerated compassion described. There is reasonable evidence to support the suspicion tha"t there is a relation• ship between fear of death and attitude toward disabled students (Schoenberg, et al., 1970). Many teachers may demonstrate different attitudes toward the disabled children in their classrooms than they do toward the other students. Teachers' attitudes may correlate with a number of variables: (a) the way they see their purpose in life. People with a strong purpose in life tend to be involved in more activities and have a stronger social conscience (Doerries, 1970; Frankl, 1966). It is possible that they will be less resentful of what may be per• ceived as additional expectations and workload created by having a physically handicapped student. (b) the degree to which they view their lives as being controlled internally or externally. Internals are better informed and more likely to take the initiative to solve problems (Davis & Phares, 1967; Seeman, 1963). Internals may be less hesitant to work with disabled children and have more normal expectations of disabled children than those with an external orientation. (c) Those with greater fear of death may be more likely to avoid contact with disabled children in their classes. (A disability can be mourned as a loss of normality.) Studies have shown that people withdraw emotionally and physically from those who have experienced, or are experiencing, profound loss by death (Glaser & Strauss, 1974, 7 1976). Teachers may also avoid contact with the disabled students in their classes, for comparable reasons. The implications of this study are widespread. It may provide useful information to those who do workshops for teachers with handi• capped students in their classes, and courses in teacher training institutes, particularly in special education departments offering courses for resource teachers and others who are training to work with physically handicapped students. The results of this study may be useful to administrators involved in recruiting staff to work with handicapped students and in placement of physically handicapped students with the most supportive teacher, in the most appropriate classroom environment. Counsellors may find the information from this study of assistance to them in counselling educators to improve their attitudes toward physically handicapped students in their school or class. The findings may also be of interest to those in the field of rehabilitation as well as to parents of physically disabled children and all others interested in understanding and improving attitudes toward physically disabled people. Definition of Terms 1. Physically disabled children - includes those who are blind, partially sighted, deaf, hard of hearing, speech impaired, orthopedi- cally impaired or have other health impairments. James Vargo (1979) stated that the term "disabled" referred to the physical abnormality and that the individual was handicapped only when the physical dis• ability limited the individual's ability to perform certain tasks. 8 Consequently, the term disabled is preferred over the term handicap• ped. However, Goffman (1963) referred to the term disabled as a "deeply discrediting" stigma. Dunham and Dunham (1978) stated "Most people including the disabled, do not usually differentiate between 'disability' and 'handicap'" (Goldenson, 1978, p. 12). It appears that there is not total agreement as to which term is preferable. In the many articles reviewed in Chapter II the terms were used inter- changably without discriminating between them. For purposes of this study, the term disabled is used interchangably with the term handi• capped. Physical disabilities include the following: (a) Blind - visual acuity in both eyes with proper refractive lenses is 20/200 (6/60) or less with Snellen Chart or equivalent, or where the greatest breadth of the visual field in both eyes is less than 20 degrees. (b) Partially Sighted - visual acuity ranges from 20/50 to 20/200 in the better eye after all possible correction. (c) Deaf - profound hearing loss, more than 75 decibels, resulting in inability to use hearing to understand language with a need for specialized instruction not involving a major use of the sense of hearing. (d) Hard of Hearing - more than a 20 decibel loss but retaining hearing adequate to acquire language skills. This includes indivi• duals who have learned to speak before losing their hearing. (e) Speech Impaired - marked communication disorder such as stuttering, impaired articulation, a language impairment or a voice impairment which adversely affects a child's educational performance. 9 (f) Orthopedically Impaired - refers to children with a marked orthopedic defect including impairments caused by congenital anomaly (e.g., clubfoot, absence of some member, etc.), impairments caused by disease (e.g., poliomyelitis, bone tuberculosis, etc.), and impairments from other causes (e.g., fractures or burns which cause contractures, amputation, cerebral palsy, etc.) (g) Other Health Impairments - include limited strength, vitality or alertness, due to chronic or acute health problems such as heart condition, tuberculosis, rheumatic fever, nephritis, asthma, sickle cell anemia, hemophilia, epilepsy, lead poisoning, leukemia or diabetes. (The definitions of the various physical handicaps are similar to those employed by Christianson (1965) and Savage (1977).) 2. Mainstreaming - permitting and encouraging the inclusion of handicapped students in the mainstream of regular classes to the maximum degree possible for the individual. 3. Purpose in Life - as defined by Crumbaugh and Maholick's The Purpose in Life Test (1969) referred to in the text as PIL. 4.. Locus of Control - as defined by Rotter's Internal-External Locus of Control Scale (1966) referred to in the text as I-E. 5. Attitude toward Handicapped Students - as defined by the Atti• tude Toward Disabled'Persons Scale by Yuker, Block and Younng (1970) referred to in the text as ATDP. 10 6. Fear of Death - as defined by the Collett-Lester Fear' of Death Scale (1969) referred to in the text as FOD. 7. Public School System - schools which fall within Department of Education geographic subdivisions are referred to as School Divisions. 8. Educators - refers to all those employees in the public school system commonly referred to as principal, vice principal, teacher, school counsellor, resource teacher, teacher aide or other educational specialist. (a) Principal, vice principal, teacher, school counsellor, resource teacher, teacher aide - anyone who was so designated by the employer was considered as such for the purpose of this study. 9. School Administrator - anyone who was designated as a principal or vice principal by the employer was considered a school administra• tor for the purposes of this study. 10. Student - any person enrolled in the public schools included in the study, at the time of the study. This is a descriptive exploratory study which surveyed school personnel to investigate attitudes toward the physically disabled, in relation to fear of death, purpose in life, and locus of control. The review of literature found in Chapter II consists of findings relevant to the above variables followed by a statement of the major hypotheses, a description of the instruments used, method of obtaining the sample, data collection and data analysis in Chapter III. Chapter IV and V include results and discussion respectively. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Attitude Toward Disabled People Historical and Theoretical Perspectives The Masai Indians murdered their disabled children; the Azand tribe loved and protected theirs. The Chagga of East Africa used their disabled to ward off evil; the Jukun of the Sudan felt that they were the work of evil spirits and abandoned them to die. The Sem Ang of Malaysia used their crippled as wise men to settle tribal disputes; the Balanese made them a societal "taboo". The ancient Hebrew saw illness and physical defects as a mark of the sinner; the Nordics made them Gods. During the Middle Ages, the mentally and physically dis• abled were often seen as being possessed by the Devil, and thus, burned as witches; during the Renaissance many individuals with these same impairments were seen as unfortunate and were hospitalized and treated with care. (Buscaglia, 1975, p. 171). Attitudes toward the disabled and their treatment by the non- disabled varied among cultures and individuals in times past and in modern society. At present, two-thirds of the world has no special medical or educational facilities for the disabled. In much of the other third, they are labeled and segregated from the remainder of the population (Buscaglia, 1975). -11- 12 In some instances personality theory has been employed to explain psychological reactions of the able-bodied toward the dis• abled (English, 1971; McDaniel, 1969). According to psychoanalytic theory a nondisabled person with a prejudicial attitude toward disabled people is "a relatively immature individual with unexpress• ed hostilities and a need to feel psychologically superior" (English, 1971, p. 36). Adlerian psychology interprets prejudicial attitudes of the able-bodied toward the disabled as part of the life style to achieve superiority, even at the expense of others. The body image theory maintains that those for whom body image is important have a more negative attitude toward the physically disabled than those for whom physical appearance is not particularly important. Research findings have provided support for this theory (English, 1971). Role theory on the other hand maintains that people relate to one another in terms of their prescribed roles; disability disrupts established role patterns and leads to a reorganization of roles. Consequently individual psychopathology expressed by a disabled person is direct• ly related to the severity of the disability (English is of the opinion that research does not support this theory.). Variations in Attitudes Toward Disabled People Attitudes toward the disabled are more complex, than simply positive or negative. Just as in other attitude formations, there are many variations in the attitudes toward the disabled. 13 Disabled people are frequently relegated to a minority status by able-bodied peers. Research by Szuhay (1961) indicated that children in the fourth and sixth grades held similar attitudes toward Negroes and physically disabled people. Chesler (1965) also found that among college students attitude toward disabled people parallel• led prejudice toward minority groups in general. Tenny (1953) was of the opinion that the nonhandicapped generally placed the handi• capped in a minority status comparable to that of other commonly identified minority groups. Several studies (Richardson & Green, 1971; Richardson & Royce, 1968) have found that physical disability is such a powerful cue in establishing preference that it masks preferences based on skin colour. Research has indicated that nondisabled people often report that they are uncomfortable and uncertain when interacting with physically disabled individuals (Richardson, Goodman, Hastorf & Dornbusch, 1961). Kleck, Ono and Hastorf (1966) using psycho• galvanic skin response found significantly greater change when being questioned by a researcher in a wheelchair than by the same indivi• dual when he presented himself as being able-bodied. Goffman (1963) contended that the social implications of a stigma generally tend to spread. As a result, the nonhandicapped "will tend to avoid any long-term relationship with the handicapped lest the implications of the latter's stigma spread to them" (p. 425- 26). The uneasiness experienced by nonhandicapped people in the presence of handicapped has been identified as a strong factor in u the creation and maintenance of negative attitudes toward disabled persons (Evans, 1976). Langer, Fiske, Taylor and-Chanowitz (1976) in three experiments supported their hypothesis that nondisabled people avoid contact with disabled people because of discomfort created over a conflict between a desire to stare and a desire to adhere to cultural norms against staring. They found that staring (unobserved by the recipient) increased when the recipient's appearance was more unusual, and that when the nonhandicapped were given a chance to partake in sanctioned staring prior to contact, the "avoidances" of contact were significantly reduced. Telford and Sawrey (1967) point out that social and cultural attitudes toward exceptional people are closely related to the visibility or identifiability of the deviation. High visibility of the defect helps to focus attention on the problem and may act as a source of feelings of aversion toward the afflicted indivi• duals. Several studies have indicated that those disabilities having the least cosmetic and functional implications were also those reacted to most favorably and those subjects with more obvious disabilities were viewed more negatively (Shontz, 1964; Siller, 1963; Smits, 1964). Several studies (Mussen & Barker, 1944; Ray, 1946; Strong, 1931) have indicated that in response to overt questioning nondisabled people responded mostly positively. They saw the disabled as being alert, friendly, self-relient, persistent and brave. However, when covert measures were used, results indicated that they pitied the 15 disabled, had fewer expectations, predicted greater pain and had less hope for them than for the able-bodied. Opinions about the disabled are sometimes exaggerated in a positive direction; some people attribute special qualities to the handicapped. There are those who believe that deaf people have better visual acuity, blind people have greater auditory perception and that those who have suffered a disability have a greater depth of understanding and tolerance of life's tribulations (Buscaglia, 1975). Demographic Variables Numerous studies have been conducted to determine if demographic variables such as the age and sex of the able-bodied affect their attitude toward physically disabled people. Age: Richardson (1970) demonstrated that between the ages of six and eighteen, young people's values shift toward the values of their parents; by age eighteen the values of fathers and sons and of mothers and daughters are almost identical. Unfortunately this was a cross age study and not longitudinal. Consequently differences between the age groups may have resulted from historical factors affecting both the children and adults. It cannot be assumed that it was the parents' attitudes which were the sole change factor. Siller (1963) investigated the attitudes of college, high school and junior high school students toward physically handicapped people and found that college students were consistently more accepting in 16 their attitudes toward the disabled than were high school and junior high students (the latter two were quite similar). McDaniel (1969) stated that research indicated that the degree of acceptance of disabled persons varied with sex, age, maturity, and possibly, level of education and sophistication as well. Yuker, Block and Younng (1970) pointed out the discrepancies in research investigating age as a variable factor in attitude toward the disabled by referring to five studies which reported an age correlation (Auvenshine, 1962; Lukoff 6 Whiteman, 1963; Siller, 1964; Simmons, 1949; Wilson, .1963) and four which did not (Bell, 1962; Gilliland, 1965; Siller, 1963; 1964; Siller & Chipman, 1965). Level of Education: Other studies have found a positive relationship between educational level and attitudes toward disabled persons (Knittel, 1963; Roeher, 1959; Siller, 1964). However, Bell (1962) and Tutaj (1964) both indicated that there is only a small amount of evidence to support the relationship between attitudes toward disabled persons and the level of education of adults. Horowitz, Rees and Horowitz (1965) found college students to have a more positive attitude toward the deaf than either high school stu• dents or sixth graders. Also Parent Teacher Association members were more favorable in their attitudes than the sixth graders, suggesting to the authors that level of education may well be a contributing factor in the development of a positive attitude toward the handicapped. 17 Sex: Several studies have found women to show a more positive attitude toward the physically handicapped than men (Chesler, 1965; Ferketic, 1964.; Fischbein, 1964; Freed, 1964; Maglione, 1965; Siller, 1963; Yuker, Block & Campbell, 1960). As has been found with other variables, a comparable number of studies have found no significant difference between the sexes: Bell (1962), Felty (1965), Fishbein (1962), Siller and Chipman (1965) using adult samples, and Coggin (1964), Freed (1964), Knittel (1963) and Siller (1964) using college and high school students. Marital Status: Bell (1962) and Yuker, Block and Campbell (1960) found no significant differences between married and nonmarried able- bodied people in their attitude toward disabled people. Cultural Differences: Despite the fact that studies have shown that societal attitudes toward the handicapped have improved over the years, (Shakespeare (1975) made reference to the years 1949 to 1964], cultural differences remain. Utilizing the ATDP scale, a study of attitudes of nondisabled students from Denmark, Greece and the United States was conducted (Jaques, Linkowski & Sieka, 1970). Statistical analysis indicated that one-third of the variance of ATDP scores could be accounted for by culture. Most positive attitudes were found in the United States, followed by Denmark and Greece. In the United States, there was no observed difference between males and females, in Denmark males were more positive than females, and in Greece, females were more positive than males. 18 A study of able-bodied black, white and Puerto Rican American children (Richardson, Goodman, Hastorf & Dornbusch, 1961) found no significant differences among their attitudes toward disabled children. All groups ranked their order of preference as: (a) a child with no physical handicap, (b) a child with crutches and a brace, (c) a child sitting in a wheelchair, (d) a child with a hand missing, (e) a child with a facial disfigurement on the side of the mouth, (f) an obese child. A later study showed that adults dis• played the same preference pattern toward the various disabilities (Goodman, Richardson, Dornbusch & Hastorf, 1963). They also found that Jewish children preferred the facially disfigured and the obese child to a greater degree than did children in the normative group. Italian children preferred the facially disfigured child to any of the other handicapped children, however, the obese child remained conspicuously last. Chigier and Chigier (1968) repeated the same study in Israel and found the preference pattern to be identical to that of the Jewish American children (no disability, facial palsy, hand missing, obese, leg in brace, in wheelchair). Yuker (1983) criticized the picture ranking method used by Richardson and his associates on the grounds that: different instructions yield differ• ent results, some rankings are situation dependent, and the source of comparative evaluations are unknown (certain types of contact may lead to changes in the preference hierarchy). He maintained that the results of Picture Ranking Tasks should not be generalized. Alessi and Anthony (1969) also questioned the methodology and considered the results ungeneralizable. 19 Cowen and Cowen (1963) indicated that attitudes of American students were significantly more favorable toward blind persons than were those of French college students. Social Class; Several studies have found no differences between the attitudes of middle and lower class people toward people with physical handicaps (Dow, 1965; Lukoff & Whiteman, 1964). There are indications that people who feel confident and secure in their relation to others will be more acceptingly positive toward disabled persons (Siller, 1963; Yuker, Block & Younng, 1970). Attitudes of Educators It has been recognized that labels such as "handicapped" and "disabled" have an effect on how the individual is viewed by society. In reference to educators, Dunn (1968) stated: "We must expect that labeling a child 'handicapped' reduces the teacher's expectancy for him to succeed" (p. 9). Comparable sentiments were expressed by Reynolds and Balow (1972). Parish and his associates (Green, Kappes & Parish, 1979; Parish 6 Copeland, 1978; Parish, Dyck & Kappes, 1979; Parish, Eads, Reece & Piscitello, 1977) have conducted a number of studies which indicated that teachers and student teachers generally perceive handicapped children more negatively than nonhandicapped children. Normal child• ren were evaluated most favorably; followed in descending order by physically handicapped, learning disabled and emotionally disturbed. There were no differences for sex, age or educational background of the teachers (Parish, Dyck 6 Kappes, 1979). The ranking was the same 20 for teachers, aides and ancillary personnel; there was no difference between institutional and public school teachers (Green, Kappes & Parish, 1979). In a study of education students, special education majors were significantly more positive in their pre- and post-course evaluations than other education students (Parish, Eads, Reece & Piscitello, 1977). Murphy (1960) had teachers rank eight types of exceptional child• ren with respect to their attractiveness as pupils. The emotionally disturbed were rated last and the blind second last. Kvaraceus (1956) found that graduate students would prefer to teach the physically, handicapped rather than deaf or blind students. Murphy, Dickstein and Dripps (1960) found that education students would also prefer to teach the physically handicapped rather than the hearing impaired. However, Warren, Turner, and Brody (1964) found education students would pre• fer to teach the hearing impaired and the visually impaired rather than the brain-injured. In a study by Rickard, Triandis and Patterson (1963) school administrators ranked disabled people in the following order of pre• ference as potential employees: ex-tubercular, wheelchair handicapped, deaf, epileptic. In a comparable study by Nikoloff (1962) principals ranked disabilities as to their employability as teachers as follows: artificial leg or crutches, speech handicap, blind or deaf. Attitudes of Other Professionals Educators are similar to other professionals in many ways. They are required in some instances to work with physically disabled peers 21 and to teach physically disabled students. Much research has been done investigating the attitudes of other professionals toward physically disabled people. Findings of these studies may aid in understanding the attitudes held by educators. Karl Seifert (1979) surveyed almost 2,000 working people (blue and white collar) regarding their attitudes toward disabled people. His findings indicated that general knowledge about disabilities (occurence, causes, chances of recovery) were very limited. Most respondents viewed the disabled as emotionally different and at least partly responsible for their own disability; most requested partial or complete segregation of the disabled; most believed that employers preferred nondisabled (when equally qualified). Most saw the disabled as being less capable vocation• ally and prone to more accidents and absenteeism. Also, emotional reactions tended toward affective negativism (insecurity, fear of becoming disabled oneself) or toward pity and readiness to help. In summary, the results showed wisespread negative and discrimina• ting attitudes toward disabled persons. Bell (1962) administered the ATDP to rehabilitation workers, hospital employees who had a friend or family member who was disabled, and hospital employees with no personal contact with disabled people. He found that the attitudes of rehabilitation workers were not sig• nificantly different from those of hospital employees with no personal contact with disabled people. Hospital employees with a personal friend or family member who was disabled had a significantly more 22 positive attitude toward the disabled than either of the other two groups. Arnholter (1963) reported that professionals and staff working with disabled people at Goodwill Industries demonstrated a signifi• cantly more positive attitude (as measured by the ATDP scale) than did the disabled themselves. Attitudes of Handicapped People The present study investigated the attitudes of educators on several scales. Some educators identified themselves as being phy• sically handicapped; test results of handicapped educators were compared with those of nonhandicapped educators. Numerous researchers have studied the attitudes of physically handicapped people, both students and adults, in various walks of life. Alessi and Anthony (1969) replicated the study by Richardson, Goodman, Hastorf and Dornbusch (1961) referred to earlier. They showed the same pictures to physically handicapped children and found the rank order preference to be the same (no physical handicaps, crutches and brace, wheelchair, hand missing, facial disfigurement, obese). The results were questioned, however, since no child chose this particular rank order (rank results represented the group means). Richardson, Hastorf and Dornbusch (1964.) studied children's (handicapped and nonhandicapped) self concepts through the use of 23 individual open ended interviews the content of which was analyzed. It was found that handicapped children talked more about "handicap", less about spatial location, less about relationships with siblings, less about membership in a specific collective, and more about con• cern with the past. There were indications that handicapped children shared and accepted the value of their able-bodied peers which emphasized physical activities. Handicapped children indicated a higher degree of egocentricity and lower percentage of references to others which the authors suggested was a reflection of their social impoverishment. Handicapped children made a higher proportion of negative statements about themselves. Linkowski and Dunn (1974) studied disabled adults (university students) and a positive correlation was found between self-esteem and satisfaction with social relationships. The findings "suggest that the manner in which people view disability (college student with physical disability in this instance) bears a relationship to how they view themselves in their relationships with others" (p. 31). It is possible that this is not different from the feelings of their able-bodied peers. It is unfortunate that a control group of non- disabled peers was not utilized in this study. Weinberg-Asher (1976) measured disabled and nondisabled persons' self ratings on a variety of personality traits and attitudes. The results indicated that the disabled persons perceived themselves in much the same way as able- bodied persons. It was found that whether the subjects were.male or 24 female had a greater impact on self-description than whether the person was able-bodied or disabled. On the other hand, Parish, Baker, Arheart and Adamchack (1980) and Parish and Copeland (1978) found that both normal and exceptional elementary school children tended to evaluate exceptional children more negatively than normal children. Smits (1964) also compared the handicapped and the non• handicapped on a variety of psychological measures. It was found that the handicapped subjects were significantly poorer than the nonhandicapped at predicting socially effective behavior. Both the handicapped and nonhandicapped were better at predicting the social behavior of the nonhandicapped group than of the handicap• ped. The nonhandicapped displayed a significant preference for nonhandicapped friends; the handicapped also preferred nonhandicapped friends but this preference was not statistically significant. Comer and Piliavin (1972) found that both physically disabled and physically able subjects gave off nonverbal cues of "discomfort" in a normal-handicapped interaction (terminated the interaction sooner, showed greater motor inhibition, exhibited less smiling behavior, less eye contact and admitted to feeling less comfortable) than they did in a normal-normal and handicapped-handicapped inter• view. A study of twenty orthopedically disabled hospital patients (Colman, 1971) indicated that the severely disabled were more self- accepting and less neurotic than the marginally disabled subjects. Smits (1964) found the opposite to be true. In his study, severely 25 disabled adolescents had a significantly lower self-concept than adolescents whose physical disabilities were mild. He also found that physical disability had its most negative (and most significant) effect on severely disabled females. Cameron, Gnadinger, Kostin & Kostin (1973) found that physically handicapped and nonhandicapped subjects rated their lives as being equally satisfying. There are indications (Cameron et al, 1973; Weinberg & Williams, 1978) that only a small percentage of disabled people think their disability is a terrible thing or the worst thing that ever happened to them, rather, most view it as a fact of life. Wright (i960) and Yuker, Block and Younng (1970) were of the opinion that personality factors and self esteem variables play the major role in how the disabled perceive their physical handicap. Internal-External Locus of Control All subjects in this study were asked to complete the Internal- External Locus of Control Scale in addition to three other attitude scales and a demographic questionnaire. It was predicted that internality-externality related to attitudes toward physically dis• abled people. A review of literature which investigated or employed the I-E Scale was conducted. It is helpful to understand the construct, and the scale's various uses in order to develop a basis for understanding the relationship between the I-E and ATDP scale results for educators. 26 Internal-External Locus of Control - the Construct According to Prociuk (1976) in his summary of Rotter's theory, there are three basic concepts employed in the prediction of behavior. Each takes two forms - one used when predicting specific behavior, and the other more global form used when predicting a set of behaviors: when interest is focused on predicting a particular behavior in a given situa• tion, behavior potential (i.e., the potentiality of a behavior to occur in a given situation as calculated rela• tive to the available reinforcements) is a function of the reinforcement value of the goal and the expectancy that the behavior, in the given situation, will result in the attainment of the desired outcome. When predicting a set of behaviors, the more global forms for behavior potential, reinforcement value and expectancy are employed, i.e., need potential, need value and freedom of movement, respectively The mean expectancy for obtaining positive rein• forcements is a function of a combination of specific and generalized expectancies. generalized expectancies are develop• ed from long time experiences with similar behavior-reinforcement sequences, i.e., the individual generalized to the present from his past experiences in similar situations, (p. 20 - 21) Social learning theory is an integration of two personality theories - reinforcement (stimulus-response) theory and cognitive (field theory). It is hypothesized in social learning theory that when an organism perceives two situations as similar, then his expectancies for a particular kind of reinforcement, or class of reinforce• ments will generalize from one situation to another. (Rotter, 1975, p. 57) 27 The internal-external locus of control construct specifies the location of those causal forces a person believes to be responsible for his reinforcements. An internal is an individual who has a generalized expectancy that reinforcements are contingent upon his own ability, effort or capacity. An external perceives reinforce• ments as under the control of powerful others, luck, chance or fate. In summary, the locus of control construct is a measure of generaliz• ed expectancy for reinforcements across a wide variety of situations and represents one's expectation of having control over the rein• forcement consequences of one's behavior (Rotter, 1966). Cone (1971) proposed that locus of control and social desirability are causally related, however, a study by Schreiber (1980) using the methods provided by signal detection theory, indicated that this is not the case (correlation .07). Internal-External Scale's Extensive Use This study investigated the relationship between educators' I-E and ATDP scores. Although this relationship does not appear to have been previously investigated the I-E scale has been widely used in a great variety of test situations. Prociuk (1976) cited literature reviews and research bibliographies which indicated that over 1500 studies on locus of control had been reported during the period from 1966 to 1975. A perusal of more recent literature reveals a con• tinued interest in employing this construct in research. Internal- 28 external control has been shown to relate to a wide variety of variables. Internality has been positively correlated with greater attain• ment of information and understanding of their own disease by tuberculosis patients (Seeman & Evans, 1963), creativity among Mexican college students (Richmond & de la Serna, 1980), positive attitude toward computers (Coovert & Goldstein, 1980), higher levels of politi• cal commitment (Abramowitz, 1973), preference for certain consumer products (Rudnick & Deni, 1980), learned helplessness (Hiroto, 1974-)» disbelief in supernatural phenomena (Scheidt, 1973) and faith in one• self (Tipton, Harrison & Mahoney, 1980). Catholics were found to be more external than Protestants (Geist & Bangham, 1980), but certainty of religious belief did not relate to I-E scores (Sexton, Leak & Toenies, 1980). Maqsud (1980A) found that v individuals at Stage 3 of Kohlberg's moral reasoning tended to exhibit significantly more internality than those at Stages 1, 2 and 4. Adams- Webber's study (1969) suggested that internals have a more developed sense of "right" and "wrong" than do external subjects. Johnson and Gormly (1972) found a positive relationship between resistance to temptation and internality, while Midlarsky (1971) found internals to be more likely to help another individual than externals. In unmarried subjects it was found (MacDonald, 1970) that a significantly higher rate of birth control was practiced by internals than externals. Segal and Du Cette (1973) found that white, middle- 29 class pregnant girls tended to score externally and nonpregnant girls tended to score internally; black, lower-class pregnant girls tended toward internal!ty and non-pregnant toward externality. The researchers maintained that this reflected values that made pregnan undesirable to the white middle-class and desirable to black lower- class females. Internality has been found to correlate positively with realis tic and cautious betting behavior (Liverant & Scodel, 1960). Crown and Liverant found that when given money to bet, the externals yielded to the majority much more often than did internals (Rotter, 1971). Externally oriented college students were more likely to gamble at activities in which chance played a large role and less likely to gamble at activities in which skill and judgement played a large role (Lester, 1980). Indians who live on reserves scored more internally than those living outside of the reserves; also heavy drinkers were more internal than light drinkers (Whitley, 1980). He cited a number of studies supporting the view that internally oriented persons are more prone to become alcoholics than external scorers (Butts & Chotios, 1973; Distefano, Pryor & Garrison, 1972; Gozali & Sloan, 1971; Gross & Neviano, 1972). Other studies support the opposing view that alcoholics may learn to drink in order to cope with situations over which they have no control (external orientation) (Hamburg, 1975; Kraft, 1971; Marlatt, 1976; Miller, Hersen, Eisler & Hilsman, 1974; O'Leary, O'Leary & Donovan, 1976; Sells, 1970; Walker, Van Ryn, Frederick, Reynolds & O'Leary, 1980). 30 Gerson (1975) found no significant differences in locus of con• trol orientation of smokers and the obese. However, Phares (Rotter, 1971) and Berman (1973) found that nonsmokers were significantly- more internal than smokers, and male smokers who quit were more internal than male smokers who did not. Internal-External Locus of Control and Personality Characteristics It may be assumed that well adjusted people have a more posi• tive attitude toward disabled people. It is also a commonly held belief that well adjusted individuals are better teachers and well adjusted children are more successful students. The I-E scale has been utilized in a variety of personal adjustments studies. Johnson and Sarason (1978) concluded that internals cope better with stress than externals. Schill, Toves and Ramanaiah (1980) reported that externals were significantly less affected by loneliness than internals. Severely handicapped children frequently find themselves isolated from their peers, suggesting that handicapped children with an external orientation would feel less affected by being left out. Warehime and Foulds (1971) found a significant correlation for females, between internality and personal adjustment as measured by the Personal Orientation Inventory. Harrow and Ferrante (1969) administered the I-E scale to psychi• atric patients and found that the overall sample scores were within the average range for nonpatients. Schizophrenics were more external 31 than nonschizophrenics, older patients were more internal, and patients with greater psychopathology and fewer social skills were more external. Also, I-E scores correlated significantly with scores on self-confidence and frustration. Correlations between assertion and internality have also been found (Hartwig, Dickson & Anderson, 1980; Replogle, O'Bannon, McCullough & Cashion, 1980). Some researchers have found that individuals more internally oriented are higher performers under stress (Houston, 1972; Watson & Baumel, 1967) however repetition of Houston's study (Molinari & Khanna, 1980) did not reiterate these results. Nowack and Sassenrath (1980) found support, for the theory that high-risk coronary-prone individuals are more likely to possess high external control and high anxiety profiles. They found that externals tended to be more impatient, time urgent, tense and restless suggesting that external teachers may have more difficulty dealing with handicapped children who may be physically slower or require more repetitions, etc. A review of related literature and study by Naditch, Gargan & Michael (1975) indicated a significant interaction effect of anxiety and locus of control in accounting for the variance in depression. Gupton (1972) found internals to be more responsive to socially cued anxiety than externals. It has also been found that externals are significantly more anxious than internals (Strassberg, 1973; Strassberg and Hartman, 1973). Lower expectations of achievement are associated with both higher levels of anxiety and greater extern- 32 ality (Strassberg, 1973). Bandt (1967) found externals to be rela• tively anxious, inflexible, lacking in self-confidence, with low needs for social approval and lacking in repressive defense mechanisms. Internals scored as being more self-assured with greater capacities to avoid overt anxiety through repressive defenses and social conform• ity. Several investigators have presented evidence which suggests that the I-E scale is not unidimensional but multidimensional in nature and taps a variety of personality characteristics. Hersch and Scheibe (1967) found that individuals who score low in the I-E scale (internals) scored more homogeneously on a variety of other personality tests than externals, which may suggest a diversity on the psychological meaning of externality. They suggested that the extent to which a person considers external forces to be benevolent as opposed to malevolent may be an important factor to take into consideration. Collins (1974-) investigated the external component of Rotter's I-E scale identifying four component subscales. The respondent may score externally because he believes: the world is difficult, the world is unjust, the world is governed by luck or the world is politically unresponsive. Gurin, Gurin, Lao and Beattie (1969) and Sanger and Walker (1972) reported two factors (personal control and control ideology) while Mirels (1970) and Cherlin and Bourque (1974-) isolated two different factors (general control and political control). Schneider and Parsons (1970) reported that five 33 categories (general luck, respect, politics, leadership and success) could be successfully derived from traditional I-E responses. Phares (1976), however, concluded that research addressing multidimension- ality of the locus of control construct primarily reflects either variations in methodology or population characteristics and consequently is open to criticism. Subjects with an internal control orientation have been found to be more willing to engage in efforts to change their behavior in order to deal with personal problems (Phares, Ritchie & Davis, 1968) and were superior to externals in actively seeking (Davis & Phares, 1967) and learning (Seeman, 1963) information relevant to problem solution. By implication, teachers who are internally oriented may be better informed about how best to help the disabled child in their classrooms (as well as about the disability). MacDonald and Hall (1969) found a significant correlation between locus of control and ratings of the seriousness of emotional disorders. Internally oriented subjects viewed physical disorders as less debilitating than, emotional disorders, while externally oriented subjects did not. MacDonald and Hall did not directly address the question of attitudes toward disabled people, however, their findings lend crendence to the contention that internals will respond more favourably toward physically handicapped people than will externals. These findings, like those of the other studies referred to, support the hypothesized relationship between educators' ATDP and I-E scores. 34 Rotter (1971) stated that research had shown that average scores on the I-E scale had varied as societal conditions changed. Studies involving large numbers of college students in numerous locales showed that between 1962 and 1971 there was a large increase in externality on college campuses, i.e., college students felt more powerless to change the world and control their own destinies in the 70's than they did ten years earlier. Clearly the I-E scale is complex and sensitive to community and the more global situations as seen through the eyes of the respondent. Internal-External Locus of Control and Work Orientation Educators vary in their attitude toward work just as they do in their attitude toward physically disabled people. The I-E scale has been used extensively in employment related and work attitude studies. Since educating children (some of whom are physically disabled) is the work of educators it may be useful to review the literature on the I-E scale as it relates to work orientation. For example, Batlis (1978) found that locus of control correlated significantly with perceptions of effort-performance expectancies within the academic work setting. Handicapped children frequently are considered to require more effort (both by the teacher and the student) to achieve results comparable to that of nonhandicapped students. Consequently, internally and externally oriented teachers may have different attitudes toward mainstreaming handicapped children and toward the children themselves. However, in a later study, Batlis (1980) found no correlation between locus of control and role perception nor between locus of control and individual outcomes. Runyon (1973) found job involvement to be related direct• ly to employee internality. In a study by Dailey (1980) those subjects with greater internal orientation perceived greater job involvement, job satisfaction, job motivation, psychological growth satisfaction, task difficulty and task variability than individuals with greater external orientation. Those with greater internality did not perceive the relationships between task characteristics and work attitudes differently than the externals. Internal subjects (from a management course) perceived the more informal sources of feedback, i.e., self, co-worker, as more useful providers of information than the formal sources of feedback, i.e., supervisor, company newspaper. Alternately, external subjects per• ceived formal feedback sources as more useful than informal sources (Quaglieri, 1980). This suggests that internally oriented teachers with handicapped students who give positive feedback will find the experience to be rewarding while externally oriented teachers will appreciate more the positive strokes of their administrators and of students' parents. In other employment related studies, women over 65 who had worked full time until at least age 50 were significantly more internal (they were comparable to men with similar age and work history) than women who had never worked (Teski, Arcuri & Lester, 1980). Eichler (1980) found that subjects who were in closely supervised occupations 36 performing routine and non-complex tasks scored externally while sub• jects whose occupations were relatively complex and had little close supervision and routine tended to score internally relative to the former group. There is no indication if this is a causal or merely correlational relationship, however, it suggests that educators may tend to score internally. In a Navy sample, it was found that internals reported better health, greater general satisfaction and higher levels of family strain due to separation (Butler & Burr, 1980). However, a military and corporate business investigation (Rothberg, 1980) suggested that a sense of externality does not prevent attainment of positions of power and influence but it does affect behavior. This suggests that externals may be found among school administrators but they may behave differently in that role than their internal counter• parts. This was supported in a study by Durand and Shea (1974) which indicated that activity scores of internals were significantly higher than those of externals. Internally oriented individuals with a high need to achieve were significantly more active than all others. It was inferred that thoughts are more successfully trans• lated into action when the individual perceives himself as being in control of his fate and recognizes steps that are instrumental in reaching goals. There was also a weak correlation between locus of control and achievement motivation. By implication internal educators may be more motivated and more actively involved in teach• ing the mainstreamed handicapped student. 37 Satisfaction with supervision was found to be a function of the interaction between supervision style and employee internality, (Runyon, 1973), i.e., employees who tended toward internality pre• ferred participative management while those who tended toward externality preferred more directive supervision. Internal-External Locus of Control and Minority Groups Disabled children and adults constitute a minority group in society. Frequently the societal attitudes expressed toward phy• sically handicapped people are comparable to those expressed toward other minority groups. It is of interest to review the perceptions minority groups have of their control over their own lives versus the controls exerted upon them (I-E locus of control). Results of a study by Lussier (1976) did not yield any I-E differences in stereotyping intensity. No significant differences were found between African, European and Indian nurses (who were matched for age, sex, education, living conditions). Also, the mean scores were very similar to mean scores of two other African female groups of students tested (Furnham & Henry, 1980). Halpin and Halpin (1981) upon testing American Indians and whites found no differences in locus of control as measured by the Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Questionnaire; however, the whites had a significantly more positive view of the self than did the American Indians. Lefcourt and Ladwig found that among young prisoners, blacks were more external than whites (Rotter, 1971). Also intern- 38 ality was positively associated with the commitments of Southern black college students to take action toward integration (Gore & Rotter, 1963). Locus of control beliefs and socioeconomic status have been shown to be related in a number of studies (Rabinowitz, 1978; Stephens & Delys, 1973; Zytkowskee, Strickland & Watson, 1971). Navarre and Minton (1977) asked employees to evaluate the job performance of fellow employees who were disabled. Internally orien• ted subjects did not differentiate between disabled and nondisabled employees; externally oriented subjects tended to evaluate disabled employees more positively than nondisabled. Fear of Death and Dying A plethora of studies have been conducted on almost every aspect of human behavior, but research by social scientists in the area of death and dying has only recently come into its own. Herman Feifel (1959) and others before him (Faunce 6 Fulton, 1958) recognized the necessity for research in this area but it befell Elizabeth Kulber- Ross (1969, 1974, 1975, 1981, 1983) to popularize the notion of talk• ing with the dying and their families in order to study their feelings, attitudes, etc. Feifel (1959, 1976) stressed that one's concept of death is a determining factor as to how an individual lives his life. Death represents a biological, psychological and social event which influences one's life behavior. One's attitude toward one's own death and the death of others may well parallel one's attitude toward the disabled. It was hypothesized in this study that a correlation exis• ted between the Fear of Death and Attitude Toward Disabled Persons scores of educators. 39 Fear of Death - The Construct A number of standardized tests have been developed to measure attitudes toward death, among them is the Collett-Lester Fear of Death Scale (Collett & Lester, 1969) which differentiated among four fears. The distinction made was between fear of death and dying and between these two fears as they related to self and others. In their initial studies they found low inter-correlation among the four fears. Dying of others was least feared and fear of death was significantly stronger than fear of dying. Fear was also significantly greater when the referent was the self rather than others. A study by Lester and Blustein (1980) indicated that attitudes toward funerals constituted an independent component of attitudes toward death and dying. Handal (1969) administered both a death anxiety and a general anxiety scale to the same group of subjects. The correlation although significant was very low suggesting that the two have little common variance and appear to tap different aspects of anxiety. Shrut (1958) differentiated three concepts of death as seen by adults: (a) death as a tool with which to attempt to achieve certain goals and satisfactions from the environment as in a threat of suicide; (b) death as a passage to another life, which may be seen as gruesome or glamorous and which may be awaited calmly or in fear; and (c) death as a final end. Feifel found that death can be viewed as the natural end process of life or the dissolution of bodily life and the begin• ning of a new life (1959, 1969) and as a relief from pain or as 40 peaceful sleep (1956). Death can also be seen as: punishment, a separation (from loved ones on earth), a reunion (with those in Heaven) or as not real (as in the thoughts of children) (Caprio, 1950), ultimate power over which we have no control (Bowlby, 1960; Chadwick, 1929; Jones, 1957), or a blow to the self-esteem (Diggory & Rothman, 1961). Kastenbaum and Aisenberg (1972) viewed the con• cept of death as being relatively complex in nature and detailed six aspects in their discussion. The concept of death: (a) is relative to one's level of development, (b) is exceedingly complex and not intern• ally consistent, (c) can change within an individual, (d) has develop• mental goals (a mature concept) which are vague and ambiguous, (e) is influenced by situational contexts and (f) influences one's behavior in remote and complex ways. Some researchers and thanatologists (Alexander & Adlerstein, 1976; Feifel, 1969; Kubler-Ross, 1969, 1975; Pattison. 1977) proposed that cultural factors affect one's view of death. These studies indicated that the concept of death and subse• quent attitudes toward death and dying are complex and affected by numerous factors. Demographic Variables This study investigated the relationship between fear of death and attitude toward disabled persons. ATDP scores were also compared for various demographic variables. Although the main focus of the study was in the area of the ATDP, it was also relevant to review demographic studies in the fear of death area. 41 Sex: It was found that females thought about their own death more and feared death more than males (Middleton, 1936); also females feared dissolution of the body more than males (Diggory Sc Rothman, 1961). However, a study by Handal (1969) indicated males to be more defensive about death than females. Sanders, Poole and Rivero (1980) reported elderly white females to have a higher death anxiety than males. Young and Daniels (1980) found female high school students to have a higher death anxiety than males. In fear of death studies no sex differences were found, in elderly psychi• atric patients (Christ, 1961), in normal elderly subjects (Rhudick & Dibner, 1961; Swenson, 1961), and in preoccupation with death among college students (Selvey, 1973). Dickstein (1978) administered four different death attitude scales and found no significant sex differences among them. Age: Most researchers agree that age is not a significant vari• able in relation to fear of death among adults (Christ, 1961; Feifel, 1959; Klemmack, Durand & Roff, 1980; Nehrke, 1977; Rhudick & Dibner, 1961; Swenson, 1961; Templer, Ruff & Franks, 1971). However, Corey (1961) found through administration of projective tests that young adults tended to show acceptance of death and neutralization of affect while older adults tended to avoid this interpretation. Feifel and Branscomb (1973) found that older dying people feared death less than younger dying people. Attitudes toward death and concepts of death among children vary significantly with age, in relation to levels of mental maturity (Dunton, 1970; Gyulay, 1978; 42 Nagy, 1938, 1948; Natterson & Knudson, 1960; Peretz, 1970; Portz, 1965; Safier, 1964; Schilder & Wechsler, 1934). Among adults, however, life experience and personality factors may be more impor• tant determiners of attitude toward death than age. Lester, Monfredo and Hummel (1979) found senior citizens and college stu• dents to be equally positive about their current life but the senior citizens expressed much less fear of aging. Lester (1967b) reported higher fear of death by elderly subjects with more inconsistent attitudes toward death. Klemmack, Durand and Roff (1980) repeated part of the Lester et al (1979) study and found no correlation between age and fear of aging. It was also discovered that individuals over 60 had lower fear of death scores than other age groups tested (adolescents and youth, young adults, and middle-aged adults) (Stevens, Cooper & Thomas, 1980). Education: Swenson (1958, 1961) found college educated adults to fear death less than those with less education. Nehrke (1977) found that years of education were not related to death anxiety among the elderly. Christ (1961) and Rhudick and Dibner (1961) did not find amount of education to be a relevant variable. Occupation; Occupational status was also not a relevant vari• able (Swenson, 1958). This suggests that there is not likely to be a significant difference between teachers' and school administrators' fear of death scores. However, Farly (1971) found that high death anxiety persons tended to be of higher socioeconomic status than those who expressed less death anxiety. 43 Health: Rhudick and Dibner (1961) found that among older people those with the strongest health concerns (both physical and mental) had the greatest fear of death. Templer (1970) found no signifi• cant difference in death anxiety among smokers, ex-smokers and nonsmokers; however, among smokers there was a significant negative correlation between death anxiety and the number of cigarettes smoked. Berman (1973) found no significant correlation between the amount smoked by smokers and death anxiety. Nowack and Sassenrath (1980) reported that coronary prone individuals tended to be gener• ally more anxious than the normal population. Race: Davis and Martin (1978), Osborne (1976), Sanders, Poole and Rivero (1980) and Young and Daniels (1980) all found blacks to have a significantly greater fear of death than whites. Religion: Some studies have found that religious individuals tend to be more afraid of death than nonreligious (Alexander & Adlerstein, 1960; Faunce & Fulton, 1958; Feifel, 1959, 1969). Others have found nonreligious subjects to be more fearful of death than religious individuals (Feifel & Branscomb, 1973; Jeffers, Nichols & Eisdorfer, 1961; Martin & Wrightsman, 1965; Swenson, 1961; Young & Daniels, 1980). Yet others have found no significant correlation between religious commitment and fear of death (Feifel, 1965; Kalish, 1966; Templer & Dotson, 1970). It is suggested that the extensive range of definitions and variety of measurement instruments of both religiousness and fear of death have contributed to the conflicting results. 44 Fear of Death and Adult Personality Characteristics This study investigated the relationship between the Fear of Death and Attitude Toward Disabled Persons scores of adults (educators). At a conscious level people of Western society do not appear to be seriously concerned with thoughts of death. How• ever, studies have indicated a concern at the unconscious level (Alexander & Adlerstein, 1976; Caprio, 1946; Christ, 1961; Meissner, 1958). Despite claims of indifference to thoughts of death by large numbers of people, it appears that unconsciously it represents a viable concern. Farley (1971) found that high death anxiety individuals were lower in the sense of competence than moderate or 1 ow death anxiety subjects, and Vargo and Batsel (1981) found low fear of death to be associated with a greater acceptance of self and a more positive view of human nature. On the other hand, Blakely (1977) found no significant difference in death anxiety between high self-esteem and low self-esteem chronic renal failure patients. Several studies have found a positive correlation between death anxiety and general anxiety (Dickstein, 1972, 1975; Farley, 1971; Handal, 1969; Handal & Rychlak, 1971; Lucas, 1972; Nogas, Schweitzer Sc Grumet, 1974; Templer, 1970, 1973; Templer, Lester & Ruff, 1974). Nevertheless, it is generally agreed (Farley, 1971; Handal, 1969; Blakely, 1977 and authors of death anxiety scales such as Templer 45 and Lester) that death anxiety scales measure a more specific anxiety than do general anxiety scales and tap feelings that are unique to the fear of death alone. Studies have indicated that schizophrenics, obsessive- compulsives, and depressed persons have a high level of death anx• iety relative to that of the normal population (Brodman, Erdmann & Wolff, 1956; Templer, 1970; Templer, Ruff & Franks, 1971). Greenberg (1964) found no correlation between death anxiety and ego strength in schizophrenics. There was affect arousal in female sub• jects when they spoke about death but not in male subjects. Schilder (1936) found that murderers with psychopathic and psychotic tenden• cies were more preoccupied with thoughts of death than those without psychotic tendencies. Rhudick and Dibner (1961) found high death concern to correlate with high scores on the hypochondriasis, hysteria, dependency and impulsivity subscales of the MMPI. However, Selvey (1973) found no significant relationship between death concerns and personality characteristics such as dependency, guilt or hostility. Feifel (1959) found that few normal people visualize themselves as dying by means of an accident while a large proportion of mentally ill patients saw themselves as dying by "crashing in a plane", "being run over by a tractor", etc. On the other hand, he found that the degree of mental disturbance had little effect on the patients' over• all attitudes toward death. Attempts have been made to reduce fear of death through counsel• ling, group discussions and workshops. McClam (1980) found no 46 significant changes in.the fear of death of individuals in health care and helping professions who had taken part in a two-day death education workshop. Durlak (1978) found that experientially oriented death education reduced death fear scores significantly when compared with those of the control or didactic group. Boyd (1977) found that a didactic and experiential death education pro• gram of three sessions significantly reduced the participants' (elementary school teachers) fear of death. The fact that McClam's workshop lacked an experiential component may have contributed to the nonsignificant results. The. major component appears to be contact with one's feelings about death. If fear of death parallels one's attitudes toward the disabled, it suggests that workshops on mainstreaming disabled children should also have a major experien• tial component, providing participants with an opportunity to contact their own feelings toward disabled people and their feelings about what it would be like to be disabled. Hofling (1975) stated that an accident or near accident arouses the anxiety of death; Schoenberg and Carr (1970) indicated that the loss of a body part or function can be viewed as a partial death of an individual. Johnson (1980) found that the death anxiety scores of rehabilitation counsellors and disabled adults did not differ significantly from those of the general population. There were no indications in the study of how much personal contact and involvement there was between the counsellors and disabled people. The rehabili• tation counsellors were selected on the basis of having graduated 47 from a Masters degree program in rehabilitation counselling. There was nothing to indicate if these graduates were employed in the field of rehabilitation nor was there a statement concerning the amount of contact (if any) with disabled people. Attitudes Toward Death and the Dying One of Freud's earliest contributions to the clinical problem of mourning was "the process of identification with the lost object" (Bowlby, 1980, p. 29). Disabled children are frequently viewed as having suffered a loss (loss of the ability to be like other'children) and consequently it can be inferred that the identi• fication process will occur and result in comparable mourning; hence the implied relationship between attitude toward death and dying and attitude toward disabled people of this study. Dying people lack a social role; they lose their status and former value. People generally withdraw emotionally and physically from the dying and avoid interaction with them (Bowers, Jackson, Knight & LeShan, 1975; Glaser & Strauss, 1974, 1976). A pretense of normalcy is sometimes carried on; no one talks about the impend• ing death. This can result in the patient feeling that he/she is cloaked in deception. People may view the disabled as lacking in social significance and respond with attitudes similar to those held toward the dying. What seems to occur within our culture, is the placement of the terminally ill into a separate category, much as the blind or crippled are similarly 48 stigmatized Functionally this serves to ease the psychological difficulties in interaction with the dying. (Epley & McCaghy, 1978, p. 381) Comparable observations have been made by others (Goffman, 1963; Katz, 1975; Quint, 1965). The dying and the disabled are generally not viewed as capable economic contributors and consequently the work ethic oriented Western society tends to place less value on their intrinsic worth as human beings. Kalish (1966) studied the attitudes of college students toward the dying and found a clearly expressed desire (strongest among females) to avoid contact with a person dying from an incurable disease. "The social isolation of the dying is a very real occur• ence" (p. 154-). Epley and McCaghy (1978) found dying people to be viewed more negatively than either healthy or ill individuals. "Simply put, if one wants to be viewed positively by others, stay healthy, or if necessary become ill, but never run the risk of being labeled as dying" (p. 391). This is comparable to disabled people's apparent desire to be seen as normal rather than handicapped due to the conscious or intuitive knowledge that normal people are more highly valued than are handicapped. Lester (1967b) reported that people with more inconsistent attitudes toward death had a higher fear of death than those who were less inconsistent. As a result of a later investigation (Lester, 1972) he concluded that the association was valid but quite weak. 49 There is an implied belief that if we do not talk about it, death can be discouraged or even banished (Weisman, 1970). To talk to and work with dying people evokes a variety of personal feelings, among them "extinction, helplessness, abandonment, disfigurement, and loss of self-esteem" (Pattison, 1977, p. 13). Pattison stated that because a posture of compassionate detachment is difficult to attain and maintain, two major distortions have emerged on the part of professionals who work with the dying. The first is "exaggerated detachment" (p. 14). This is achieved through professionalization, where death is treated like a disease and therefore becomes an impersonal external problem rather than a subjective experience. The second distortion is "exaggerated compassion" (p. I4). This occurs when the professional identifies with the dying person to the extent that he seeks to work through his own death anticipation needs. This is a form of defence in the sense that when the patient has died the professional is still alive and has "beaten death". Pattison also pointed out, as have others (Quint, 1965; Kubler-Ross, 1969) that many professionals deny death by avoiding the dying patients. These reactions by professionals toward the dying may parallel the treatment disabled people receive from some profession• als. They are sometimes overindulged or avoided, and the reasons may be the same. Many of the attitudes, misgivings and apprehensions of the dying patient are acquired from doctors, other medical staff and family members (Weisman, 1970). Similarily, the self-concepts of the dis- 50 abled persons may be acquired from society in general and signifi• cant people in their lives (which most likely include school personnel). Feifel (1969) stated that many hopelessly sick people feel guilty because they: (a) feel that somehow their illness is their own fault, (b) are dependent on their family, (c) envy those who are alive and unconsciously may wish someone else to die in their place and (d) are forcing those closest to them to face death. Shrut (1958) found a significant correlation (for elderly females) between degree of independence in living arrangements and lack of fear of death. There were indications that the more inde• pendent living arrangements prompted greater social alertness, and greater productivity. If generalizations to other age groups can be made from this study, the implications support the concept of mainstreaming for handicapped individuals. It suggests that those in the mainstream of society (both adults and children in public schools) are more likely to be productive and socially alert than those who are isolated from the mainstream in institutions. Purpose In Life This study hypothesized that a correlational relationship existed for Attitude Toward Disabled Person scores and Purpose In Life scores of educators surveyed in the greater Winnipeg area. It was predicted that people's outlook on life (the sense of meaning or purpose) would relate to their feelings about, and attitude toward, physically handicapped people. 51 Purpose in Life - The Construct Viktor Frankl (1946, 1966, 1967, 1969) maintained that people have an inherent need for meaning and values in their lives - a "will to meaning". His logotherapy was an application of the prin• ciples of existential philosophy to clinical practice. He was of the opinion that most neuroses arose as a response to a sense of complete emptiness, a lack of purpose in life, an "existential vacuum". Existential frustration was created by a vacuum of per• ceived meaning in personal existence and manifest by the symptoms of boredom. He called the new type of neurosis, noogenic neurosis. He maintained that half of Western society knew this experience of inner emptiness (Frankl, 194-6). The concept of purpose in life was very aptly explained by Battista and Almond (1973): Thus when an individual states that his life is meaningful, he implies (1) that he is positively committed to some concept of the meaning of life; (2) that this concept of the meaning of life provides him with some framework or goal from which to view his life; (3) that he perceives his life as related to or fulfilling this concept of life; (4) that he experiences this fulfillment as a feeling of integration, relatedness, or significance. (p. 410) Based on Frankl's theory, Crumbaugh and Maholick developed the Purpose In Life Test (PIL) which lent support to the concept of noogenic neurosis (Crumbaugh & Maholick, 1963, 1964). The PIL is an attitude scale designed to measure the degree to which an 52 individual experiences a sense of meaning and purpose in life. Studies which have reported on the reliability and validity of the PIL (Crumbaugh & Maholick, 1964, 1981; Meir & Edwards, 1974; Reker, 1977; Reker & Cousins, 1979) have shown it to be a psychometrically sound instrument (Crumbaugh also developed the Seeking of Noetic Goals Test which is an attitude scale designed to measure the strength of the motivation to find meaning and purpose in life (Crumbaugh, 1977).). Reker and Cousins (1979) found that greater incongruency in attitudes between present and future life was related significantly to meaning and purpose in life and a strong desire to search for meaning and purpose. Purpose in life was also strongly associated with satisfactory life experiences and positive future expectations. Crumbaugh and Maholick (1964) and Crumbaugh (1968) found that the PIL distinguished very significantly between normal and psychi• atric outpatients. Correlations between the PIL and the Minnesota Multivariate Personality Inventory scales revealed one relationship which remained constant over the two studies, the relationship between the Depression scale of the MMPI and the PIL. It may be concluded that the PIL does not measure the usual forms of pathology, except that it may tap some aspects of depression. Investigations of correlations of the PIL with several other scales have been undertaken. The PIL did not correlate signifi• cantly with the Attitudinal Values Scale (Dansart, 1974) indicating 53 that they measure different variables (the AVS was designed to measure Frankl's construct of attitudinal values toward guilt and death) • The correlation between the PIL and the Srole Anomia Scale (Crumbaugh, 1968) was moderate, suggesting that although an overlap between the concept of existential vacuum and anomia may exist, they are not identical (The Srole Anomia Scale was designed to measure the individual's sense of social cohesion or "self-to-others" alienation.). Garfield (1973) administered the PIL and two anomia tests (Srole Anomia Scale and McClosky-Schaar Anomia Scale) to five diverse groups of subjects and found no significant relationships. He also concluded that the anomia scales and the PIL were not measur• ing the same attribute. Garfield also found no consistent relation• ship between the PIL and any of the scales of the California Psychological Inventory which purports to measure characteristics important for ordinary social participation categorized as (1) poise, ascendancy and self-assurance, (2) socialization, maturity and responsibility, (3) achievement potential, (4) Intellectual efficiency. Sharpe and Viney (1973) investigated the relationship between the PIL and aspects of the Weltanschauung or world view of subjects. As was hypothesized, subjects with low PIL scores showed their experienced lack of purpose in that their "world views were more negative than positive, lacked purpose and lacked transcendent goals" (p. 491), 54 Crumbaugh and Maholick (1964) found no significant relationship between the PIL and the six values assessed by the Alport-Vernon- Lindzey Scale of Values. Crandall and Rasmussen (1975) found low PIL scores to be associated with values of pleasure, excitement and comfort on the Rokeach Value Survey. The value of salvation was associated with high scores on the PIL. These findings support Frankl's contentions that a hedonistic approach to life contributes to an existential vacuum and that an intrinsic religious orientation may help to foster a greater perceived purpose in life. A study by Simmons (1980) suggested that a sense of purpose in life is reflected in current satisfactions and future aspirations but is independent of the quality of the individual's past living conditions (as measured by Cantril's Self-Anchoring Striving Scale). However, there was not a significant correlation with the Hartman Value Profile suggesting that a high score on the PIL is related to a capacity for evaluating what is important about being a person but is unrelated to the capacity for judging what is more or less important in the environment. Garfield (1973) administered the PIL to five different socio• economic groups after which several subjects from each group were interviewed regarding some of the interpretations of some of the items. It was found that in the PIL there exists "some specific assumptions grounded in white, middle class, capitalist establish- mentarianism" (p. 4O2). Since it can be assumed that a very large majority of Canadian educators are either part of the white middle class or at least understand middle class values and ideas, this aspect of the scale represents no specific concern for purposes of this study. Demographic Variables Various demographic variables have been statistically investi• gated in relation to the ATDP scale. These comparisons were not made for the PIL since the main focus of this study was to explore and describe the attitudes of educators toward physically handicapped people in relation to selected variables. However, a review of the literature which investigated the PIL scale in relation to various demographic variables may increase the understanding of the dimen• sions of the PIL scale. Sex: For both psychiatric patients and nonpatients there were no significant differences between sexes (Crumbaugh & Maholick, 1964.), however, female scores were more variable than male scores. Numerous studies have found no significant PIL differences between the sexes (Butler & Carr, 1968; Jacobson, Ritter & Mueller, 1977; Matteson, 1974; Meier & Edwards, 1974; Murphy, 1967; Roberts, 1978; Sallee & Casciani, 1976; Sharpe & Viney, 1973). Crumbaugh (1968) found sex differences but suggested that they may have been a func• tion of uneven distribution of male and female subjects among the groups used. Doerries (1970) also reported sex differences but he failed to indicate if sex distribution among his groups was uniform. 56 Among 4I6 grade ten students, Padelford (1974) found females to have a significantly stronger purpose in life score. Coffield (1981) tested university students and also found females to have significantly higher PIL scores. Pearson and Sheffield (1975) tested psychiatric patients and found females to have significantly weaker scores than males. Although, in general, it appears that sex is not a significant contributing factor to PIL scores, the evidence is not conclusive. Age: Murphy (1967)-who grouped subjects according to age, found significant age differences, however, Cavanagh (1966), Crumbaugh (1968), Crumbaugh and Maholick (1964) and Yarnell (1971) did not group their subjects and found no significant differences. Pearson and Sheffield (1974) and Reker (1977) did not group subjects according to age and found a significant correlation with age. Frankl stated that people discover their purpose in life rather than have it given to them, which is indirectly supportive of an age correlate. McGowan (1977) grouped celibate and noncelibate Catholic females and found no correlation between age and sense of meaning in life. Coffield (1981) also placed his subjects in age groupings and found no significant correlations. Meir and Edwards (1974) found no significant age-sex interac• tion, but Coffield (1981) did (under 21 year old females found a greater amount of meaning in life than did their male counterparts). 57 IQ and Education: Crumbaugh and Maholick (1981) reported no consistent relationship between IQ and PIL. Yarnell (1971) failed to find a significant relationship between IQ and PIL score for both normals and schizophrenics. Reker (1977) found a very moderate relationship between IQ and PIL which he attributed to a very large IQ range among his subjects. In general, IQ does not appear to contribute significantly to PIL scores. The education variable has been found to be nonsignificant for inmates and normal populations (Reker, 1977) and for psychiatric and nonpsychiatric subjects as well (Crumbaugh, 1968). Occupation: Reker (1977) found that occupation had no effect on PIL scores for the normal population nor for inmates. Employment status at the time of arrest and type of offence were not related significantly to PIL scores. However, Matteson (1974-) found PIL positively related to having made a vocational choice as well as to involvement in hobbies or sports. Socioeconomic status was not found to have a significant relationship to PIL (Crumbaugh, 1968; Matteson, 1974; Nyholm, 1966). Lewis (1974) found no significant difference between active and retired counterparts of professionals, professors or clergy. It appears that occupation per se does not affect PIL scores. However, plans for the future in the form of making a vocational choice may give the individual a sense of purpose. 58 Nationality: Several studies have investigated PIL differences among ethnic groups. Sharpe and Viney (1973) found a wider spread and generally lower scores for a sample of American students than for a comparable sample of Australian students. Padelford (1974) found purpose in life to be significantly higher among Anglo- American grade ten students than among their peers of Mexican- American descent. Philbrick (1980) found extremely low norms for subjects in East Africa. Butler and Carr (1968). administered the PIL to 195 students from one high school and two colleges in a southern U.S. state and found that blacks scored significantly higher on the PIL than did the whites. Although ethnic differences do emerge, no clear cut patterns appear. It may be necessary to investigate the particulars of each group studied in order to explain the differences that exist. It may be found that differences may be attributable to factors other than ethnic background. Although handicapped people are frequently relegated to ethnic minority group status, PIL results of disabled people may or may not be comparable to those of other minority groups. Family Relationships: It has been found that number of siblings and marital status were not related significantly to PIL scores (Reker, 1977). However, there was a significant association of high PIL scores with reported "close to normal" family relationships suggesting that a healthy family bond is an important antecedent to a greater purpose in life. Padelford (1974) found that PIL was significantly higher for students who had a strong father image as opposed to students with a weak father image. Commitment to Religion and to Other Group Memberships Significant relationships were found to exist between member• ship in organized groups and purpose in life (Matteson, 1974). Level of commitment to ethnic, religious and political points of view were positively related to purpose in life. It is conceivable that teachers and other educators with a commitment to the educa• tion of physically handicapped students may also have a strong sense of purpose in life. McGowan (1977) found that celibate Catholic women (nuns) scored significantly more positively than noncelibate Catholic women on sense of purpose in life. Retired clergymen scored significantly higher in purpose in life than retired professors (Acuff, 1967). However, there was no significant difference between active and retired clergy (Lewis, 1972). Stones (1980) showed that integration of South African Caucasian subjects into socially active religious communities resulted in individuals' lives taking on greater purpose and mean• ing. Stones and Philbrick (1980) administered the PIL to 100 South African Caucasians who had recently undergone religious conversion (or in the case of Catholics, newly initiated into study for the priesthood) and again four months later. They found that the Hare Krishanas had the lowest initial mean scores, and made the greatest 60 gain. The Catholic group had the highest mean, both initially and after four months had elapsed. In general, results supported other findings (Stone, 1980) that integration into a religious group resulted in a greater sense of purpose in the lives of the subjects. The PIL scores of Dominican nuns in training were comparable to those of motivated business and professional people (Crumbaugh, Raphael & Shrader, 1970). There was also a significant correlation between the sisters' PIL scores and their success in training. Soderstrom and Wright (1977) administered the PIL and other questionnaires to 4.26 college students in six colleges. The re• sults indicated that intrinsically motivated subjects, committed subjects and "true believers" had significantly higher PIL mean test scores than did extrinsically motivated subjects, uncommitted subjects and nonbelievers. Crandall and Rasmussen (1975) admini• stered the Intrinsic-Extrinsic Religious Orientation Scale to 71 psychology students and found that purpose in life correlated with an intrinsic religious orientation but not an extrinsic orientation. These findings support Frankl's notion that religious commit• ment provides individuals with meaning in life (1946). Personality Variables Purpose in life may be viewed as a personality variable similar to attitude toward such things as disabled people. The PIL has been administered in conjunction with a number of other personality tests. Some studies have found correlations, while others have not. 61 Frankl stated that lack of purpose in life resulted in noogenic neurosis. The PIL test successfully discriminated between psychiatric outpatients and nonpatients (Crumbaugh, 1968; Crumbaugh & Maholick, 1964-) J there was also a progressive decline in mean scores with degree of pathology. In a study of outpatient neurotics, Pearson and Sheffield (1974) found that patients with a higher purpose in life were less neurotic and more sociable than those with a low purpose in life. In a later study (1975), they tested psychiatric patients and found that for males, purpose in life related positively to conservatism, idealism, religion-puritanism and anti-hedonism but only to idealism and anti- hedonism for females. Yarnell (1971) studied Air Force servicemen and hospitalized male schizophrenics and found that PIL was inversely related to anxiety and anxiety proneness. Reker (1977) administered several tests to a group of inmates in a Life Skills program and found PIL to be positively correlated with general satisfaction with present life experience and an enjoyment of planning and organizing things and events. Goodman (1980) tested women who were members of a religious congregation that encouraged taking personal initiative for one's life. She found that self-actualization and openminded- ness contributed to the prediction of sense of meaning in life. The dimension of time-competence also related to sense of meaning. This supports Frankl's theory that meaningfulness in life is related to a sense of well being about'the present, and confidence in plans for the future. 62 Crandall (1975) developed a scale to measure Adler's concept of social interest (Social Interest Scale) which he found correla• ted positively with PIL results; this social interest "is positively related to an affirmative attitude toward life and being in harmony with the universe" (p. 193). The finding (that a commitment to other people is beneficial to finding meaning in life) lends support to the view that individuals with a strong purpose in life will also have a positive attitude toward physically disabled people. Doerries (1970) administered the PIL to 122 college undergradu• ates and found that individuals with high PIL scores were characterized as having more meaning and direction, better defined goals and objectives as well as greater self-confidence than subjects in the low PIL category. Summary The main focus of this descriptive study is to investigate the attitudes of educators toward physically disabled people. Previous studies (Buscaglia, 1975; Goffman, 1963; Mussen & Barker, 19445 Richardson, Goodman, Hastorf & Dornbusch, 1961; Richardson & Green, 1971; Szuhay, 1961; Telford & Sawrey, 1967) have investigated various attitudes toward physically handicapped people. It was found that disabled people are frequently relegated to a status comparable to that of ethnic minority groups (Chesler, 1965; Richardson & Green, 1971; Szuhay, 1961; Tenny, 1953), that nonhandi• capped people tend to avoid long-term relationships with handicapped people because of discomfort (Langer, Fiske, Taylor & Chanowitz, 63 1976) and fear of stigma (Goffman, 1963), and that attitudes toward the disabled are affected by the visibility of the handicap (Shontz, 1964; Smits, 1964). The current exploratory study investigated different aspects of attitudes toward disabled people - including the relationship between attitudes toward the disabled and fear of death, purpose in life, and locus of control. Attitude toward death is a complex concept (Kastenbaum & Aisenberg, 1972). It is relative to one's level of development, is not internally consistent, can change within an individual, can be seen as ultimate power over which there is no control (Bowlby, 1960) or a blow to the self-esteem (Diggory & Rothman, 1961).. Many of the same things can be said of attitudes toward the physically disabled and hence the search for a correlation. The relationship between locus of control and attitude toward disabled people does not appear to have been previously investigated. Adams-Webber (1969) suggested that internals have a more developed sense of "right" and "wrong" than do people with an externally oriented locus of control, and Midlarsky (1971) found internals to be more likely to help others than were externals. These studies imply that internals may have a more positive attitude toward physically disabled people, and consequently the quest for a correla• tional relationship. Crandall (1975) found that a commitment to other people is beneficial to finding meaning in life, suggesting that individuals 64 with a strong purpose in life will also have a greater commitment to humanity, and a more positive attitude toward physically disabled people. This suggestion led to an investigation into the correla• tional relationship between attitudes toward physically disabled peo• ple and purpose in life. Attitudes held toward physically disabled people relate to one's views of life, death, and sense of control over events in one's life. This leads directly to the research question: What are the attitudes of educators toward physically disabled people, and how do those attitudes relate to the educators' purpose in life, locus of control and fear of death? CHAPTER III METHOD Statement of the Problem The purpose of this study was to investigate the attitude of school personnel toward physically disabled people and the relation• ship of this variable to three other variables: fear of death, locus of control and purpose in life. It is predicted that the Attitude Toward Disabled Persons scores will correlate negatively with the Fear of Death scores and the Internal-External Locus of Control scores and positively with the Purpose in Life scores. Statement of Hypotheses To achieve the study's purpose, the following null hypotheses were tested at the 1. Attitude toward physically disabled persons as reflected by the mean score on the Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scale are in- varient among teachers, school administrators and school counsellors. 2. There are no statistically significant paired Pearson Product Moment correlations between the Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scale scores and the scores of the three other scales (Fear of Death Scale, Purpose in Life Test and Internal-External Locus of Control Scale) obtained by a) educators, b) teachers, c) school administrators and d) counsellors. -65- 66 Population and Sample Population was defined as Canadian urban educators. For purposes of this study the accessible population of Greater Winnipeg educators was utilized. There was no apparent evidence to indicate that subjects drawn from this group were significantly different from other Canadian urban educators. Letters were sent to the school superintendents of the nine greater Winnipeg surburban school divisions explaining the purpose and procedure of the study and requesting permission to survey school personnel in their division (See Appendix F). Seven responded posi• tively and each provided the researcher with a letter of introduction to school principals (See Appendix F for superintendents' responses). School principals in the seven consenting school divisions were then contacted. The purpose and procedure of the survey were explained and arrangements made for the researcher to visit the schools on an agreed upon date to distribute the questionnaires. Subject participation in the survey was voluntary and subjects' confidentiality and anonymity was assured. The sample consisted of 4-57 subjects from approximately 71 ele• mentary and 4-2 junior and senior high schools - 226 teachers (116 junior-senior high and 110 elementary), 137 administrators (52 junior- senior high and 85 elementary) and 65 counsellors (55 junior-senior high and 10 elementary) completed the questionnaires distributed (See Appendix H, Table 1). The 4-57 subjects who completed and returned the questionnaires represented approximately 75% of the educators soli• cited. 67 Data Collection Procedure Upon receipt of permission from school superintendents and prin• cipals, the battery of five questionnaires (Internal-External Locus of Control Scale (Appendix C), Purpose in Life Test (Appendix E), Collett-Lester Fear of Death Scale (Appendix D), the Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scale (Form A) (Appendix B) and the demographic ques• tionnaire (Appendix A) were distributed to school personnel in their home schools. Subjects were informed of the purpose of the study and were assured that all results would remain anonymous and confidential. Educators who volunteered were instructed to complete the question• naires individually without consultation. It took approximately one half hour for individuals to complete the battery. Questionnaires were collected from the schools and late completions were mailed to the researcher. After data collection in each school division was complete, letters of thanks were sent to school superintendents, principals and staff of schools which participated in the survey (See Appendix F). Instrumentation The Attitude Toward Disabled Persons. Scale (Form A). (Appendix B) The Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scale (ATDP) was developed by Harold E. Yuker, J.R. Block and Janey H. Younng at the Human Resources Centre, Albertson, New York, in 1959 (Yuker, Block & Younng, 1970). Three forms of ATDP (0, A and B) were developed to measure the atti• tudes of both disabled and able-bodied.people toward those who are disabled. Form 0 has 20 items, Form A and B have 30 items (Form A 68 has been used in the current study). The subjects use a six point Likert scale (from +3: I agree very much to -3: I disagree very much) to respond to each item. When the respondent perceives disabled per• sons to be quite similar to nondisabled persons the resultant score on the test is higher; this is interpreted as a positive attitude. When the perceived differences are high, the respondent perceives dis• abled persons as being different from able-bodied persons. Yuker et al, (1970) contended that a strong perceived difference has negative connotations. The resulting low score reflects a perception of the disabled person as.being disadvantaged or inferior to some degree. Consequently, a high score on the ATDP test indicates a positive attitude while a low score indicates a negative attitude. Studies of the reliability of the ATDP scale (Yuker et al, 1970) suggest a degree of reliability comparable to other attitude scales of similar length. Eight stability coefficients for Form 0 range from .66 to .89 with a median of approximately .73. The single es• timate for Form A is .78 while the two values for Form B are .71 and .81. Time intervals range from two weeks to 18 months. In terms of ATDP validation, numerous studies correlated ATDP scores with scores on other measures of attitudes toward disabled persons. Knittel (1963) correlated ATDP scores (Form 0) with scores on Auvenshine's Attitudes Toward Severely Disabled Students scale (1962) and obtained significant coefficients of correlation of +.64 for 50 eighth graders and +.52 for 58 eleventh and twelfth graders. (Yuker et al, 1970, p. 71). 69 Using a sample of 65 adults and adolescents classified as having predominantly aversive attitudes toward disabled persons, Siller and Chipman (1965) found a correlation of .55 (significant at the .01 level) between ATDP-0 and a composite measure of general acceptance of the disabled (GA-1) (Yuker et al, 1970). Parametric statistics were used in all ATDP test result calculations. The ATDP scores were distributed normally (See Appendix G, Figure 1) and the ATDP test was considered to be a quasi-interval scale. Based on the argument presented by Gardner (1975) parametric statistics were considered to be appropriate. The Internal-External Locus of Control Scale. (Appendix C) The Internal-External Locus of Control (I-E) Scale was developed by Julian Rotter in 1966. The variables xrere defined as follows: When a reinforcement is perceived by the subject as following some action of his own but not being entirely contin• gent upon his action, then, in our culture, it is typically perceived as the result of luck, chance, fate, as under the control of powerful others, or as unpredictable because of the great complexity of the forces surrounding him. When the event is interpreted in this way by an individual, we have labeled this a belief in external control. If the person perceives that the event is contingent upon his own behavior or his own relatively permanent characteristics, we have termed this a belief in internal control. (Rotter, 1966, p. 1) The I-E scale consists of 29 pairs' of statements. Respondents are requested to select one of each pair which they mostly believe to be true. On the basis of their responses, subjects are classi• fied as being either internally or externally oriented. The scores 70 range from zero (the consistent belief that individuals can influence the environment - that rewards come from internal forces) to 23 (the belief that all rewards come from external forces) (Rotter, 1971). Rotter indicated that as societal changes occur (greater or fewer social, economic, political, freedoms, etc.) so do the way people score on the I-E scale. In 1971, the norm appeared to have been in the vicinity of eleven (Rotter, 1971). Initial data on the psychometric characteristics of the I-E scale were reported by Rotter (1966). Biserial correlations with total score, with the item removed, were calculated for samples of 200 males, 200 females and for the combined group. The values ranged from .52 to .004 for males, from .44 to .13 for females, and from .48 to .11 for the combined group. Rotter (1966) concluded that these correlations "are moderate but consistent" (p. 10). The test- retest reliability values reported by Rotter (1966) for different subject samples and intervening time periods, from one or two months, ranged between .48 and .84 for a two-month interval. In these studies of test-retest reliability, the scale means on the second administration were typically one point lower, indicating a slight retest shift toward internality. Employing psychiatric subjects, Harrow and Ferrante (1969) found, over a six-week period, a test- retest reliability of .75 which is similar to the values obtained using normal samples. Finally, internal consistency estimates of reliability reported by Rotter (1966) ranged from .65 to .79, with most values greater than .70. 71 A number of studies have been conducted which lend support to the validity of the I-E scale. Adams-Webber (1969) compared the forced-choice I-E scores with scores from a story-completion test. The 103 subjects were divided into groups based on the number of external endings for the three story completions. Analysis of Variance indicated a highly significant difference among the groups (p<.001). Cardi (1962) developed a measure of internal-external control from a semistructured interview. She obtained a biserial correlation of .61 (p<.002) for her 25 subjects between subjects rated high or low from the interview data and I-E scale scores. In summary, the test (I-E scale) shows reasonable homogeneity or internal consistency, particularly when one takes into account that many of the items are sampling a broadly generalized charac• teristic over a number of specific or different situations Relationships with such test variables as adjustment, social desirability or need for approval, and intelligence are low for samples studied and indicate good discriminant validity. (Rotter, 1966, p. 17) The Internal-External Locus of Control Scale has been transla• ted into six languages and four children's versions of the scale have been developed (Rotter, 1971). For purposes of this study, it is assumed that this is a quasi-interval scale allowing the employment of parametric statistics in the statistical procedure (based on the rational pre• sented by Gardner, 1975). (See Appendix G, Figure 2, for frequency distribution of test results). 72 Collett-Lester Fear of Death Scale. (Appendix D) The Collett- Lester Fear of Death Scale was developed by Lora Jean Collett and David Lester in 1969 (Collett & Lester, 1969). It consists of 36 statements with a 6 point Likert scale response (+3 strong agreement to -3 strong disagreement). There are four separate subscales: fear of death of oneself, fear of death of others, fear of dying of one• self, and fear of dying of others. Of the 36 items 20 are keyed positively and 16 negatively. The higher the score, the stronger the fear of death. There are no established norms. Vargo (1980) found the Templer Death Anxiety Scale and the Collett-Lester Fear of Death Scale to correlate moderately ("product- momemt correlations were largest for scores between the Templer Death Anxiety Scale and the Fear of Death of Self (r = .609), follow• ed by the Fear of Death and Dying of Self (r = .524), Fear of Death of Others (r = .434), and Fear of Dying of Others (r = .396) sub- scales" (Vargo, 1980, p. 561).). Collett and Lester (1969) developed four subscales to measure fear of death of self, fear of death of others, fear of dying of self and fear of dying of others. Intercorrelation between the four subscales ranged from .03 to .58 and were especially low where the type of fear and the referent of the fear differed. From the various studies reviewed, the internal consistency of the Collett-Lester Fear of Death Scale appears to be respectable. 73 Durlak (1972) examined four different psychometric scales that assess fears and anxieties about death: scales developed by Lester, Boyar, Sarnoff and Corwin, Taylor and Collett and Lester. The scales all correlated moderately at the .01 level of significance. The med• ian correlation among the scales was .515. This study offered evidence that sup• ports the concurrent validity of four different measures of death fear or anxiety currently in use. Analyses indicated that the death scales were correlated significantly, had no sub• stantial association with social desirability response parameters, and seemed more prominently to measure attitudes toward personal death and dying rather than generalized fears and feelings about death. (Durlak, 1972, p. 547). Dickstein (1978) administered six death scales including the Fear of Death Scale. For females, correlations ranged between .181 and .521 with a median correlation of .362. Six of the twelve correlations were significant while two more approached significance. For males, correlations ranged between .034- and .761 with a median correlation of .422. Seven of the correlations were significant while three approached significance. For females, three of the six intercorrelations were significant and the median correlation was .522. There was no correlation between responses on the Fear of Death Scale and social desirability. (Dickstein, 1978; Durlak, 1972). The correlational studies cited indicate the Collett-Lester Fear of Death Scale to possess adequate construct validity. 74 The greater Winnipeg educators' Collett-Lester Fear of Death Scale results were distributed normally (See Appendix G, Figure 3). Also the test was considered to be a quasi-interval scale. Based on Gardner's presentation (1975) parametric statistics were deemed to be appropriate. The Purpose in Life Test.(Appendix E) The Purpose in Life Test was developed by James C. Crumbaugh and Leonard T. Maholick in 1969. It is based on Victor Frankl's logotherapy concepts: Man is not free from conditions, be they biological or psychological or sociological in nature. But he is, and always remains, free to take a stand toward these conditions, he always retains the freedom to choose his attitude toward them. (Frankl, 1967, p. 3) Based on the notion that people develop their own purpose in life, Crumbaugh and Maholick developed a test designed to measure the degree to which individuals have developed a purpose in life. The twenty-item attitude scale is designed to evoke responses which re• late the degree of purpose in life experienced by individuals. The test items are rated on a seven-point scale with a high score (6 to 7) indicative of a clear meaning and purpose, an intermediate score (3 to 5) indicative of indecision, and a low score (1 to 2) indica• tive of a clear lack of meaning and purpose in life. The scale's measures of attitude are indirect, in that attitudes are measured by having the subjects respond to statements about their lives. Although similar to the Likert method, the quantitative extremes of each item are set by descriptive phrases. The score is 75 determined by summing the individual ratings assigned to each item. Items 6, 11, 15, 16 of the test are based on Frankl's contention that attitudinal values can contribute to a greater meaning in life, or that an individual can experience meaning in death, suffering, etc. Crumbaugh and Maholick (1964) investigated the existence of Frankl's no'ogenic neurosis - breakdown due to"existential frustration" or lack of perceived meaning or "purpose" in life. The Purpose in Life Test was administered to 225 subjects selected from five sub- populations. It demonstrated a significant discrimination between patients and nonpatients.. . Pearson r's between the total score and the score on each item (N = 225) revealed a correlation range of from -.06 (item 19) to .82 (item 9). Seventeen items were above ..50 and 20 above . 4O. The reliability of the PIL revised total score, determined by the odd-even method (Pearson r, N = 225) was .81. Spearman-Brown corrected to .90. The norms for the PIL (means, rounded to the nearest whole number) are: nonpatients 119, patients 99, females 111, males 107. The scores of patients were found to be more variable than those of nonpatients. A partial concurrent validation of the PIL revised total score against one type of criterion, ratings assigned by patients' thera• pists of each PIL item as the therapists thought the patients should have rated themselves in order to be accurate, yielded an r of .27 (Pearson product-moment, N = 39). The total score of the Frankl Questionnaire was found to correlate .68 (Pearson product-moment, 76 N = 136) with the total score of the PIL. The K (Validity) and D (Depression) scores of the MMPI showed a substantial relationship to the PIL (respectively .39 and -.30, Pearson product-moment, N = 4-5). Meier and Edwards (1974-) administered the PIL and the Frankl Questionnaire (FQ) (which was used as a criterion to assess the validity of the PIL) twice, one week apart, to 57 subjects. A test- retest reliability coefficient of .83 (p<.0l) was obtained for the PIL and of .66 (p<.01) for the FQ. Cavanagh (1966) and Murphy (1967) made comparable findings. The validity study of the PIL which used FQ (Meier & Edwards, 1974-) yielded a Pearson correlation coefficient of .56 (p<.01). This compares with the .59 reported by Murphy (1967). However, Crumbaugh and Maholick (1964-) and Cavanagh (1966) reported a correlation of .68. Reker (1977) empirically investigated the validity and reli• ability of the PIL and found a significant correlation between the PIL and semantic differential ratings on the concepts Life at Present and Life in the Future with a tendency for the PIL to be related inversely to Present-Future Life discrepancy scores. The research cited indicated that the Purpose In Life Test main• tains respectable reliability and validity as an attitude survey. It is apparent that this is a quasi-interval scale and paramet• ric statistics may be employed in the statistical procedure based on the rational stated by Gardner (1975) (See Appendix G, Figure 4, for frequency distribution of PIL results.). 77 Design and Statistical Analysis Descriptive Statistics. Totals as well as means (where appli• cable) were calculated for all demographic variables: age, sex, number of years employed in the field of education, educational position (teacher, counsellor, administrator), handicapped student in subjects' school or class, contact with physically handicapped people by subjects, opinion regarding placement of physically handi• capped children in the school system. Means and standard deviations were calculated for ATDP, I-E, FOD, and PIL scores for a) all educators, b) school administrators, c) school counsellors, and d) school teachers. Appendix H portrays the results in table forms. Inferential Statistics. To test Hypothesis 1, an Analysis of Variance was calculated for the Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scale scores of school administrators, counsellors and teachers. To test Hypothesis 2, in regard to correlations between the Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scale and the other three scales: Internal-External Locus of Control Scale, Collett-Lester Fear of Death Scale, and the Purpose in Life Test, a Pearson r was calculated: a) for educators, b) for teachers, c) for administrators, and d) for counsellors. Additional comparisons were calculated for selected demographic variables. CHAPTER IV RESULTS Four attitude scales were completed by educators within the greater Winnipeg public school system. This chapter presents the results of the statistical analysis performed to test the hypotheses as well as the results of other statistical analyses. Educators' Attitudes Toward Physically Disabled People Hypothesis 1: Attitude toward disabled persons as reflected by the mean score on the Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scale are invarient among school administrators, counsellors and teachers (=<= .05). In seven greater Winnipeg school divisions, 457 educators completed the test battery. Of these, 137 were administrators, 65 counsellors and 226 teachers (See Appendix H, Table 1). An analysis of variance was calculated for ATDP scores of school administrators, counsellors and teachers which showed no statistically significant differences among the means of the three groups (Means and standard deviations are found in Appendix H, Table 2). The null hypothesis that no significant difference existed among the attitudes of these three professional groups toward physically disabled people was upheld. The findings appear in Appendix H, Table 3. The mean for school -78- 79 administrators was 130.91, for teachers 130.18, and for school counsellors 127.27. Hypothesis 2: There are no statistically significant paired correlations (<=><= .05) between the Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scale and each of the other three measures: Fear of Death Scale, Purpose in Life Test and the Internal-External Locus of Control Scale, for scores obtained by a) educators, b) teachers, c) admini• strators, d) counsellors. a) A Pearson r was calculated for ATDP scores paired with the FOD, PIL and I-E scores of educators (Table 4A, Appendix H). All correlations (ATDP and FOD, r = -0.24; ATDP and PIL, r = 0.18; ATDP and I-E, r = -0.20) were statistically significant (p = .0001) resulting in a rejection of the null hypothesis at the .05 level of significance. The ATDP and FOD scales correlated negatively (r = -0.24.) indicating that the educators with a more positive attitude toward physically handicapped people tended to have less fear of death while those with a less positive attitude toward physically handi• capped people had a greater fear of death. The ATDP and PIL scores correlated positively (r = 0.18). Educators who had a positive attitude toward physically disabled people tended also to feel they had a stronger purpose in life, and inversely, those who saw less purpose in their lives tended to have a less positive attitude toward physically disabled people. The ATDP and I-E correlation was negative (r = -0.20); educators who had a more positive view of physically 80 handicapped people tended to see themselves as more internally controlled while those with a less positive attitude toward physi• cally handicapped people tended to see themselves as more externally controlled. b) A Pearson r was calculated for ATDP scores paired with FOD, PIL and I-E scores of teachers (Appendix H, Table 4-B). All correla• tions (ATDP and FOD, r = -0.37, p = 0.0001; ATDP and PIL, r = 0.20, p = 0.0043; ATDP and I-E, r = -0.21, p = 0.003A) were statistically significant at the .05 level of significance. Consequently the null hypothesis was rejected. The ATDP and FOD scales correlated negatively (r = -0.37) suggesting that the teachers who viewed physically handicapped people more positively tended not to fear death as greatly as those with a less positive attitude toward physically disabled people. The ATDP and PIL scores correlated positively (r = 0.20). Those teachers with a more positive attitude toward physically disabled people were of the opinion that their lives held more purpose and meaning than did those teachers who held less positive views of physically disabled people. The ATDP and I-E correlation was negative (r = -0.21) indi• cating that teachers who held more positive attitudes toward physically disabled people tended to see themselves as more internally controlled while those with a less positive attitude toward physically disabled people viewed themselves as more externally controlled. c) Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients were calcul• ated for ATDP scores paired with FOD, PIL and I-E scores for admini• strators (See Appendix H, Table 4-C for results). 81 Administrators' ATDP scores did not correlate significantly with their FOD scores (r = -0.08; p = 0.36.) nor with their PIL scores (r = 0.13; p = 0.15); the null hypothesis was not rejected. The ATDP and I-E correlation was significant and the null hypothesis was rejected (r = -0.21; p = 0.02) indicating that administrators (like teachers) who were more positive in their attitudes toward physically handicapped people saw themselves as more internally con• trolled than those with a less positive attitude (Table 4-C, Appendix H). d) Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients were calcula• ted for ATDP scores paired with FOD, PIL and I-E scores for counsel• lors (See Appendix H, Table 4D for results). The ATDP scores correlated significantly with the FOD scores (r = -0.26; p = 0.05) and the null hypothesis was rejected. Counsellors with a more posi• tive attitude toward physically disabled people tended to fear death less than counsellors who had a less positive attitude toward physically disabled people. Counsellors' ATDP scores did not corre• late significantly with PIL (r = 0.17; p = 0.12) nor with the I-E scores (r = -0.04; p = 0.76) and the null hypotheses for these correlations were not rejected. (Table 4D, Appendix H). ATDP scores correlated significantly (p(0.05) with the FOD, PIL and I-E test scores for all educators in the study and for teachers. School counsellors' ATDP scores correlated significantly with FOD, and administrators' ATDP scores correlated significantly with their I-E scores. 82 Sex Comparisons for ATDP Scores There were 268 male and 186 female educators who completed the survey. Of these, 137 were administrators (118 male and 19 female), 65 counsellors (34- male and 31 female) and 226 teachers (107 male and 119 female (Table 5, Appendix H). An analysis of variance was calculated for ATDP scores of the 254 male and 176 female educators surveyed (Results are found in Table 6A, Appendix H). There was no statistically significant dif• ference between the slightly higher female mean (131.56) and the male mean (128.94-) (p = 0.1 5). ATDP scores for 99 male and 109 female teachers were also com• pared by an analysis of variance (Table 6B, Appendix H). Again, the female mean score (131.04-) was slightly higher than the male mean score (129.23), but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.49 ). An analysis of variance was calculated for ATDP scores of the 33 male and 30 female counsellors surveyed (Table 6C, Appendix H). There was no significant difference between the slightly higher fe• male mean (127.97) and the male mean (126.64) (p = 0.75). A comparison of the ATDP scores of the 19 female and 112 male school administrators was made (Table 6D, Appendix H). An analysis of variance was calculated for their mean group scores. The female mean ATDP score (139.11) was significantly higher than the male mean score (129.52). 83 In all professional groupings, the female scores in this sample were higher than the male, and for administrators the difference was statistically significant at the .05 level of statistical signifi• cance. Age Comparisons for ATDP Scores Subjects were asked to indicate their ages by checking one of five age categories: under 29 years, 30 to 39 years, 4-0 to 4-9 years, 50 to 59 years, 60 to 69 years. The mid-point of each category was taken to be the subject's age and used to calculate mean ages for each professional group (See Table 7A, Appendix H). Tables were also constructed to demonstrate the distribution of the age group• ings according to school position (counsellor, teacher, administrator), (Table 7B), elementary and high school educators (Table 7C) and sex (Table 7D, Appendix H). An analysis of variance was calculated to compare the ATDP scores of the five age groups in the sample (See Table 8, Appendix H, for ANOVA results). The mean ATDP scores for each age group were as follows: under 29 years, mean = 130.56; 30 to 39 years, mean = 130.88; 4.0 to 49 years, mean = 129.76; 50 to 59 years, mean = 127.4-6; 60 to 69 years, mean = 127.78. The differences among the means were not statistically significant (p = 0.83) at the .05 level of statistical significance. 84 ATDP Scores and Number of Years in Education Subjects were asked to indicate the number of years they had worked in the field of education by checking one of six categories: 0 to 5 years, 6 to 10 years, 11 to 15 years, 16 to 20 years, 21 to 25 years, 26 or more years. The mid-point of each category was taken to be the number of years employed in education for that subject and was used to calculate the mean number of years employed in education for each professional group (See Table 9A, Appendix H). Tables were also constructed to demonstrate the distribution of years employed in education by counsellors, teachers and administrators (Table 9B) and males and females (Table 90, Appendix H). An analysis of variance was calculated for the ATDP scores of educators categorized according to the number of years they had worked in the field of education (See Table 10, Appendix H). The mean ATDP scores varied from group to group (3 years in education, mean = 129.64; 8 years in education, mean = 130.21; 13 years in education, mean = 131.26; 18 years in education, mean = 134.22; 23 years in education, mean = 125.33; 30 years in education, mean = 126.92), however, none of the differences in ATDP mean scores were statistically significant (p = 0.15) at the .05 level of signifi• cance. Elementary and Junior-Senior High School ATDP Comparisons Of the educators who completed the ATDP questionnaire, 213 worked in elementary schools and 217 in junior or senior high schools (Table 11 A, Appendix H). An analysis of variance was calculated to compare the ATDP scores of elementary educators (mean = 132.14) and junior-senior high school educators (mean = 127.93). There was a statistically significant difference between the two (p = 0.02); the elementary educators had a significantly more positive attitude toward physi• cally disabled people than did high school educators (Table 11 A, Appendix H). Elementary school counsellors had a slightly lower mean ATDP score (122.70) than did high school counsellors (128.13) however the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.35) (Table 11B, Appendix H). An analysis of variance was calculated to compare the mean ATDP scores of the elementary (mean = 131.85) and junior-senior high school (mean = 128.53) teachers. Although the elementary teachers appeared to demonstrate a slightly more positive attitude toward physically disabled people, the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.21) (Table 11C, Appendix H). Elementary school administrators had a larger mean ATDP score (mean = 133.06) than did high school administrators (mean = 127.31), however, the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.09) (Table 11D, Appendix H). Elementary educators' attitudes toward physically disabled people were significantly more positive than those of educators who worked in 86 the junior or senior high school setting. Although elementary tea• chers and administrators achieved stronger ATDP scores than did their high school counterparts, the difference was not statistically sig• nificant. The opposite held true for counsellors; those working in high schools had a more positive mean score although, again, the difference was not statistically significant. It appears that the difference between high school and elemen• tary educators is not attributable to any one professional group. A two-way analysis of variance was calculated to determine if there was an interaction effect between the professional group factor (admini• strators, teachers, counsellors) and level of education factor (elementary, secondary). No statistically significant interaction was found (p = .30). Further investigation, using Bartlett's test for homogeneity of variances, revealed no significant differences among the variances for 2 the six cells of the 3x2, two-way ANOVA referred to above (x =2.68; p>.05). Hence, the apparent significant difference between elementary and secondary educators, but not for any one of the component groups, remains unexplained. The result is likely a statistical artifact attributable to the interplay of means, variances and sample sizes. ATDP Scores of Educators With a Handicapped Student in Their School or Class Subjects responded to the question: Do you have a handicapped student: a) in your school No Yes b) in your class(es) No Yes 87 Of the 457 educators who volunteered to participate in the study, 323 indicated that they had handicapped students in their school or in their class (Table 12A, Appendix H). Of these, 155 worked in elementary schools and 168 in high schools (Table 12B, Appendix H). More male educators (195) than female (128) indicated that they had handicapped students in their school or class (See Table 12C, Appendix H). Of those educators involved in the study, 56 counsellors 128 teachers, and 102 administrators stated that they had a physically handicapped student in their class or school (Table 12D, Appendix H). Educators who stated that they had a handicapped student in their school or class were asked to indicate the nature of the handi• cap by checking one or more of the five categories provided. The responses were as follows: 85 had blind or partially sighted students in their school or class, 180 had deaf or hard of hearing students, 115 had orthopedically handicapped students, 132 had speech impaired and 129 had students with other health impairments (See Table 12E, Appendix H). To compare the mean ATDP scores of educators who had a handi• capped student in class with those who did not, an analysis of variance was calculated. There was no statistically significant difference (p = 0.69) between the mean ATDP scores of educators with a handicapped student in school or class (mean = 130.24), and those with none (mean = 129*45) although the former's mean score was slightly higher (Table 13A, Appendix H). ATDP scores for counsellors who had a physically handicapped student in their school or class and counsellors who had none were compared by means of an analysis of variance calculated for their 88 mean group scores (Table 13B, Appendix H). Those with a handicapped student in their school or class had a slightly higher mean ATDP score (127.52) than those without (mean = 125.29), however, the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.74)• A comparison of the attitudes (toward physically disabled people) of teachers who had a handicapped student in their school or class with those who did not was made by calculating an analysis of variance of their ATDP scores (See Table 13C, Appendix H). There was no statistically significant difference (p = 0.74) between the slightly higher mean of those with handicapped students (mean = 130.52) than those without (mean = 129.63). An analysis of variance was calculated for the ATDP scores of the 102 school administrators who had handicapped students in their school (mean = 131.13) and the 29 administrators (mean = 130.14) who did not (See Table 13D, Appendix H). Although those with handicapped students in their schools had a slightly more positive mean score, the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.80). All professional groups with a handicapped student in their school or class had higher mean ATDP scores than did their counter• parts without the contact with physically disabled students, however, in no instance was the difference statistically significant. Personal Contact with Physically Disabled People and ATDP Scores Subjects were asked if they had personal contact with a physi• cally handicapped child or adult a) at school, b) outside of school, 89 or c) within their family. Of those educators who responded, 336 indicated some form of contact and 121 stated that they had no per• sonal contact with physically handicapped people (Table I4B, Appendix H). One hundred and fourteen administrators, 58 counsellors and 14O teachers stated that they had personal contact with disabled people (See Table I4A, Appendix H). Of these, 170 worked in elemen• tary schools and 166 in high schools (See Table I4B); 128 were female and 208 were male (See Table I4C, Appendix H). An analysis of variance was calculated to compare the mean ATDP scores of educators with personal contact with disabled people and those without (See Table 15A, Appendix H for ANOVA results). Although the mean for those with personal contact (130.69) was slightly higher than those with no personal contact (mean = 128.17) the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.21.) at the .05 level of significance. ATDP scores for teachers with personal contact (127 subjects) and teachers with no personal contact with physically disabled peo• ple (81 subjects) were compared by an analysis of variance. Those with personal contact had a slightly higher mean ATDP score (130.64) than those without personal contact (129.46), however, the difference also was not statistically significant (p = 0.67) (See Table 15B, Appendix H). An analysis of variance was calculated for ATDP scores of the 57 school counsellors who had personal contact with someone who was physically disabled and the 6 school counsellors who did not (See 90 Table 15C, Appendix H). There was no significant difference between the slightly higher mean of those counsellors who had contact with physically disabled people (mean = 127.4-0) and those who had no personal contact (mean = 126.00) (p - 0.85). A comparison of the ATDP scores of school administrators with (108 subjects) and without (23 subjects) personal contact was made by an analysis of variance of their ATDP scores (See Table 15D, Appendix H). The administrators who had personal contact with a physically disabled person had a mean ATDP score (131.70) which was slightly higher than the mean score (127.17) of those with no personal contact with disabled people, however, the difference was not signifi• cant (p = 0.29). All the professional groups with personal contact with physi• cally disabled people had higher ATDP mean scores than those with no personal contact although none of the differences were statistically significant at the .05 level of significance. Handicapped and Nonhandicapped Educators' Test Scores Of the educators who voluntarily agreed to complete the ques• tionnaires, 15 indicated that they had a physical handicap. There was no significant difference between the mean ATDP scores of handicapped educators and nonhandicapped educators as a result of an analysis of variance calculated for these two groups (Table 16A, Appendix H), although the handicapped group mean (133.80) was slightly higher than the nonhandicapped mean (129.73). 91 The handicapped and nonhandicapped educators differed signifi• cantly on the I-E scale (Table 16B, Appendix H) as indicated by analysis of variance calculations. The nonhandicapped group mean (8.00) was significantly higher than the mean for the handicapped (mean = 5.80) (p = 0.05), indicating that the handicapped subjects felt somewhat more in control of.their lives than did the nonhandi• capped educators. An analysis of variance was calculated for the PIL scores of handicapped (mean = 119.27) and nonhandicapped (mean = 112.11) educators (Table 16C, Appendix H). The mean Purpose in Life score of the handicapped group was slightly stronger than that of the non• handicapped, however, the difference was not statistically signifi• cant (p = 0.09). (The Manual of Instruction for The Purpose in Life Test states: "scores above 112 indicate the presence of definite purpose and meaning in life". It appears that both handicapped and nonhandicapped educators in this study had a sense of meaning and purpose in their lives.) The nonhandicapped educators had a slightly higher fear of death score (mean FOD = -5.90) than did handicapped educators (mean FOD = -15.57). However, based on the analysis of variance calculated, the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.16) (Table 16D, Appendix H). Yuker, Block and Younng, the authors of the Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scale have done considerable research using their scale and have developed a set of standardized norms. The ATDP was 92 administered to 1035 disabled and nondisabled males and females by the Human Resources Centre, New York. The norms were developed from these test results and from test data submitted by approximate- \ ly 15 other test users. The ATDP results of this study were compared with the norms and two tailed t tests were calculated for sex and disability groupings (Table 16E, Appendix H). The female, nondisabled educators' mean (131.K) was significantly higher (p<0.001) than the norm (114.18) for the general female nondisabled population. The male nondisabled educators' mean (128.74) was also significantly higher (p^0.001) than the norm (106.65) for the general male nondisabled population. A two tailed t test was calculated to compare the ATDP scores of the disabled educators with the ATDP norms for disabled people, however, the numbers of disabled people in the sample (6 females, 9 males) was so limited as to make the statistical comparisons for inferential value tenuous. The results, however, are of interest as an indication of the trends of the attitudes of the disabled educa• tors (in this study) toward physically disabled people, when compared with the attitudes of the general population of disabled people. The disabled female mean (14-3.83) was significantly higher (p<0.05) than the norm (123.58) for the general disabled female population. The disabled male mean (127.11) was higher than the norm (120.43) for the general disabled male population, however, the difference was not statistically significant. 93 In general, both the disabled and nondisabled educators in this study had a more positive attitude toward disabled people than did their general population counterparts. Educators' Programing Preferences for Physically Disabled Students Question 10 of the questionnaire distributed to educators in greater Winnipeg stated: In your opinion, physically disabled children should: attend special schools for the disabled (e.g., Manitoba School for the Deaf) attend special classes for disabled children in public schools attend regular classes in public schools attend regular classes and receive the assis• tance of special support services other (specify) The numbers of positive responses along with percentages are reported in Table 17A, Appendix H. Most educators (325 or 71.12?) were of the opinion that physically disabled children should attend regular classes and receive the assistance of special support services, 38 or 8.32% were of the opinion that physically disabled children should attend regular classes in public schools (by implication, without special support services). Of those who responded, 59 or 12.91? felt that physically disabled children should attend special schools for the disabled, and 68 or 1^.88% indicated that they should attend special classes for disabled students in the public schools. 94 The-opinion option "other" was selected by 51 or 11.16? of- the respondents. The explanations fell into two main categories: some respondents chose more than one option (generally special schools and regular school classes with special assistance, depending upon the needs of the child); a number of others stated that they were unable to choose from among the options provided since planning for handicapped children must be done on an individual basis. Tables were generated which detailed the opinions of educators based on: disabled and nondisabled educators (Table 17B), age (Table 17C), educational position (Table 17D), elementary and high school educators (Table 17E), handicapped students in school or class (Table 17F) and personal contact with a disabled person (Table 17G, Appendix H). Most handicapped (73.33?) and nonhandicapped educators (71.4-3?) were of the opinion that physically disabled students should attend regular classes and receive the assistance of special support ser• vices (Table 17B, Appendix H). The largest difference in opinion was in regard to Opinion 3; 33.33? of the physically handicapped educators were of the opinion that physically handicapped children should attend regular classes in public schools (without special help) while only 7.49? of the nonhandicapped educators selected this programing option. In all age groups, the largest proportion of educators chose the fourth programing option for physically handicapped students which stated that they should attend regular classes and receive the assistance of special support services (Table 17C, Appendix H). By far the largest proportion of each profession (73.85? of counsellors, 61.95? of teachers and 83.21? of administrators) indi• cated a preference for placing physically handicapped students in regular classes and providing them with the assistance of special support services (See Table 17D, Appendix H). The least preferred option chosen by teachers was to place students in regular classes (without support services), while the least preferred option of counsellors and administrators was to place physically handicapped students in special schools for the physically handicapped. Placing physically handicapped students in regular classes and providing them with the assistance of support services was the most preferred programing option of both high school (67.95? of subjects) and elementary school (74-. 44? of subjects) educators (Table 17E, Appendix H). The least preferred alternative of both groups was to have students attend regular classes in public school (by implica• tion, without special support services) although fewer elementary (4.93? of subjects) than high school educators (11.54? of subjects) selected this option. The general pattern of programing preferences for elementary and high school, educators were very similar. The largest proportion of educators (74-61? of subjects) with a physically handicapped student in their school or class preferred handicapped students to attend regular classes and be provided with special support services. Twenty-nine or 8.98? were of the opinion that handicapped students should attend special schools for the disabled, 29 or 8.98? felt they should attend regular classes in 96 public schools, and 4O or 12.38? thought they should attend special classes in public schools (Table 17F, Appendix H). Most of the edu• cators without a physically disabled student in their school or class (84 or 62.89? of subjects) also believed that physically dis• abled students should attend regular classes and receive the assistance of special support services. However, more educators with handicapped students (29 or 8.98? of subjects) than with no handicapped student in their school or class (9 or 6.72? of subjects) .believed that physically handicapped students should attend regular classes (without special support services). Approximately the same number but a much smaller proportion of educators with a handicapped student (29 subjects or 8.98? of subjects) and those without (30 subjects or 22.39? of subjects) believed that physically handicapped students should attend special schools for the physically disabled. Most subjects who have had personal contact with a physically disabled person (at school, outside of school, or within the family) stated that physically disabled students should attend regular classes and receive special support services assistance (75.89? or 255 educators). Thirty-four or 10.12? felt they should attend special schools for the physically disabled, 42 or 12.50? thought they should attend special classes for disabled children in public schools, and 27 or 8.04? believed they should attend regular classes in public schools. Of those educators with no personal contact with a physi• cally disabled person, most (70 subjects or 57.85?) stated that physically disabled students should attend regular classes and receive 97 the assistance of special support services while the fewest (11 sub• jects or 9.09?), with no contact, believed that they should attend regular classes in public school (presumably without special assis• tance) (Table 17G, Appendix H). Four one-way analyses of variance were calculated to compare the ATDP scores of those who selected and those who did not select each of the four programing options (Table 18, Appendix H). Signifi• cant differences were found for the first and fourth option, but not for the second and third (Table 18, Appendix H). Those educators who were of the opinion that physically handicapped students should attend special schools for the disabled (Opinion 1, mean = 125.19) had a significantly less positive attitude toward physically disabled people than those who did not select this option (mean = 130.89) (p = 0.03) (Table 18A). There was no significant difference (p = 0.90) between the slightly lower mean scores of educators who indicated that physically handicapped children should attend special classes for disabled children in public schools (Opinion 2, mean = 129.89) and those who did not choose this option (mean = 130.21) (Table 18B). Educators who had indicated that physically handicapped children should attend regular classes in public school (Opinion 3) had a higher mean ATDP score (132.59) than educators who did not select this option (mean = 129.95), however, the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.4-3) (Table 18C). Those educators who were of the opinion that physically handicapped children should attend regular classes and receive the assistance of special support services (Opinion 4, mean = 132.00) had a significantly more positive attitude toward physically disabled people (p = .0007) than those who did not select this option (mean = 125.19) (Table 18D). CHAPTER V DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY This chapter presents a discussion of the research results, limitations of the study, recommendations for further study, and a summary. Discussion Hypothesis 1 The first hypothesis compared the attitude toward disabled persons as reflected by the mean scores on the Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scale of school administrators, counsellors, and teachers («K= .05). An analysis of variance showed no statistically significant difference among the three groups. Although teachers, administrators and counsellors have different roles in the education• al system, different relationships with students and some differences in training, it is hot surprising that the differences in ATDP scores are not statistically significant. Principals, teachers and counsellors generally have similar educational back• grounds and most had spent a number of years in the teaching profes• sion. They generally began as teachers before becoming counsellors -99- 100 or administrators (in some instances, teachers become counsellors and then administrators). Consequently it is not surprising that there is no statistically significant difference among the attitudes of administrators, counsellors and teachers toward physically handi• capped people. Educators, in general, tend to come from middle class society. Consequently it is expected that attitudes among educators would be similar. Findings of Yuker, Block and Younng (1970) support the findings of this study. A comparison of the ATDP scores of 14-5 nurses and those of 263 other subjects who were attending various academic courses in non health-related disciplines found no statistically significant differences. Also a t-test analysis of ATDP scores of educators and other academic majors found no significant difference. Felty (1965) found no statistically significant difference between the ATDP scores of rehabilitation workers and those of spe• cial educators. Hypothesis 2 The Pearson r correlations calculated for ATDP scores paired with the FOD, PIL and I-E scores of educators and teachers were all statistically significant. ATDP and I-E correlations were statis• tically significant for administrators; ATDP and FOD scores correlated significantly for counsellors (°< = .05). The ATDP and FOD scales of educators, teachers and counsellors correlated negatively. Those with the most positive attitude toward 101 disabled people tended to have the least fear of death,, while those who had the least positive attitude toward physically disabled people tended to fear death more. Because disability and death are both experienced as profound loss, individuals may react to them in a similar fashion (Vargo, 1979). Schoenberg and Carr (1970) indica• ted that the loss of a body part or function can be viewed as a partial death of an individual. Those who fear death, may also fear becoming disabled. They may similarly avoid contact with the dis• abled and the dying. The disabled are sometimes viewed as responsible for their own disability and the dying are sometimes viewed as having been the cause of (or could have prevented) their own death. Several authors (Fried, 1967; Kastenbaum, 1969, 1975, 1977; LeShan, 1973) refer to the "pecking order of death" indicating that most people view death as occuring in logical sequence with the oldest generation dying first. When someone dies out of order, it can be very disturbing because it upsets the individual's implicit pecking order making one less "safe" from death's grasp. Similarly, people can be disturbed by encounters with disabled children. Children are supposed to have the opportunity to grow up normally. If this could happen to a child, then it could also happen to the adult observer. There may also be some guilt experienced by the able-bodied, in as much as they have escaped disability (or death) while the disabled (or dying) individual has not. Those close to the disabled person may experience sympathy and overprotection mixed with resentment and guilt (Vargo, 1979). The same experiences can occur for those close to dying people. 102 In Western society the work ethic is strong and people are valued in accordance with their contribution. The disabled (like the elderly or dying) are frequently unemployed and are not viewed as contributing citizens and consequently are considered of less value. Naus (1973) found that males with a high fear of death, relatively less contact with the elderly and parents of fairly high socioeconomic status were somewhat predictive of viewing older men as ineffective. Vargo and Basel (1981) found low fear of death to be associated with a greater acceptance of self and a more positive view of human nature. This may also include a more positive view of physically handicapped people. The ATDP and PIL scores correlated positively for educators and teachers. Those with a positive attitude toward physically dis• abled people tended, also, to have a strong purpose in life. Subjects with a less positive view of physically handicapped people had less of a sense of purpose to their lives. Reker (1977) found PIL to be positively correlated with general satisfaction with life experience and an enjoyment of planning and organizing things and events. Perhaps educators who are generally satisfied with life and enjoy planning (having a special needs child in one's class can require additional planning) have a more positive view of physically handicapped people than do those who view life less positively. They are content with life and do not see physically handicapped people as disruptive. This is supported by Crandall's study (1975) which identified a correlation between PIL results and social interest 103 (defined as "an affirmative attitude toward life and being in harmony with the universe" p. 193). It appears that people with a strong purpose in life have a commitment to people. In this study, this commitment is exemplified in a significantly more positive attitude toward handicapped people. ATDP and I-E scores of educators, teachers and administrators in this study correlated negatively. Those with a more positive attitude toward physically handicapped people tended to see themselves as more internally controlled while those with a less positive attitude toward physically handicapped people tended to see themselves as more extern• ally controlled. Phares, Ritchie and Davis (1968) found that subjects with an internal control orientation were more willing to engage in efforts to change their behavior in order to deal with personal problems. Internals have been found to be superior to externals in actively seek• ing (Davis & Phares, 1967) and learning (Seeman, 1963) information rele• vant to problem solving. By implication internally oriented educators may be more knowledgable about disabilities and more willing to learn how to help the disabled students. They may see being disabled as hav• ing additional problems and with a positive view toward problem solving they are less likely to view physical disabilities negatively. Midlarsky (1971) found that internals were more likely to help another individual than were externals; this may partially account for their more positive attitude toward physically handicapped people. Navarre and Minton (1977) found that internally oriented subjects differentiate between the job performance of disabled and nondisabled fellow employees. Ex• ternally oriented subjects tended to evaluate disabled employees more 104 positively than nondisabled. These findings are supportive of the current study; internals tended to see disabled people as being more similar to nondisabled than did externals. A study by MacDonald and Hall (1969) found that internally oriented subjects viewed physical disorders as less debilitating than emotional disorders while externally oriented subjects did not. In the current study internally oriented educators were more positive in their attitudes toward physically handicapped people than externals; they saw them as being more like able-bodied people than did the externally oriented people. Handicapped people are a minority group and consequently are some• times viewed as second, class citizens. Externally oriented people are more concerned about what others think and therefore are less likely to choose to be associated with physically handicapped people. Externally oriented individuals see themselves as being controlled by external forces (God, luck, chance, fate, etc.) and may be fearful of associa• tion with handicapped people because of the strong reminder that this could also happen to them, that such occurances may be out of their control. Sex Comparisons for ATDP Scores The female ATDP scores were slightly higher than the male in all professional groupings however the difference was not statistically significant, except in the case of administrators. There is no evi• dence to indicate that male and female educators come from dissimilar backgrounds and. they generally receive comparable education. The 105 results of this study support the findings of previous studies which have found no significant difference between the sexes (Bell, 1962; Felty, 1965; Fischbein, 1962; Siller & Chipman, 1965) and those which have found that women showed a more positive attitude toward physically handicapped people (Chesler, 1965; Ferketic, 1964; Fishbein, 1964; Freed, 1964; Maglione, 1965; Siller, 1963; Yuker, Block & Campbell, 1960). Cloerkes (1979) reviewed 300 studies and stated that positive and statistically secured correlations were found for the sex variable indicating women to be more ready to accept dis• abled people than were men. Previous studies generally found no significant differences or found females to have significantly strong• er ATDP scores than males; none appear to have found males to have stronger ATDP scores. The trend of this study parallels that of previous studies. Age Comparisons for ATDP Scores The subjects were divided into five age categories and a compari• son of their scores was made. In general, the younger age groups had stronger ATDP scores; however, the differences were not statistically significant. The small size of the age categories (five years) may have been a factor. Previous studies of age correlations tend to be inconclusive. Yuker, Block and Younng (1970) cited five studies which reported a significant age correlation (Auvenshine, 1962; Lukoff & Whiteman, 1963; Siller, 1964; Simmons, 1949; Wilson, 1963) and four which did not (Bell, 1962; Gilliland, 1965; Siller, 1963; 1964; Siller Sc Chipman, 1965). However, Giinther Cloerkes (1979) in his review of 106 300 studies stated that positive and statistically secured correla• tion coefficients could be found for chronological age and attitudes toward the disabled - older people tend to have more negative atti• tudes than younger people. The findings of this study do not parallel Cloerke's findings but the trend is in that direction. Number of Years in Education and ATDP Scores Subjects were categorized according to the number of years they had worked in the field of education, and their ATDP scores were com• pared. There were no statistically significant differences among the groups. It was anticipated that findings would parallel the ATDP scores for the age comparisons since subjects with more years of teaching experience tend to be older.. This, however, was not the case. This suggests that working in the field of education over an extended period of time does not significantly change one's attitude toward physically handicapped people. The changes that occur in educators as a result of teaching for a number of years do not appear to change their views of physically disabled people. Elementary and Junior-Senior. High School ATDP Comparisons Educators employed in elementary schools demonstrated signifi• cantly more positive attitudes toward physically handicapped people than those employed in junior or senior high schools. Although elementary teachers and administrators achieved stronger ATDP scores than did their high school counterparts, the difference was not sig- s 107 nificant. High school counsellors had a more positive mean score than elementary counsellors, however, the difference was not signifi• cant. These results are somewhat unusual, and may appear to be contradictory in that the significant difference between elementary and high school educators does not appear within any of the three professional groups. It is not surprising to find elementary educators to have a more positive attitude toward physically handicapped people than high school educators. Traditionally elementary school educators have been more involved in the development of the whole child. They have tied shoe laces, wiped noses and checked to see that the child• ren are eating proper lunches. Elementary educators' greater involve• ment in the day to day lives of children with various physical capabilities may have resulted in more normal expectations for handicapped children. The training and thinking of high school educators may be more subject oriented; the training and thinking of the elementary educator more child centred. It is unusual, however, that this difference is not evident within the three professional groups. The very large number of educators (n = 4-30) may have caused a nonsignificant difference to appear significant. There were no interaction effects (two-way ANOVA), and all of the assumptions re• quired for a valid analysis of variance of the data had been met. ATDP Scores of Educators With a Handicapped.Student in Their School or Class All professional groups (educators, teachers, administrators 108 and counsellors) with handicapped students in their school or class had a slightly more positive attitude toward physically disabled people than those who had none, however, the difference was not statistically significant. Research has shown that contact with, or knowledge of, physically handicapped people in one's daily environment is not sufficient to result in significantly more posi• tive attitudes toward physically handicapped people (Donaldson, 1980). Personal Contact with Physically Disabled People and ATDP Scores The mean ATDP score for educators with personal contact with physically disabled people (130.69) was slightly higher than the mean ATDP score of educators who had no contact (128.17). The same held true for all professional groups surveyed (teachers, admini• strators, counsellors), although the difference was not statisti• cally significant for any professional group. Studies have indicated that social contact is not enough to significantly change people's attitudes toward physically handicapped people. The contact should be between people of equal status (or the physically disabled person should have superior status) in a structured interaction which provides information about disabilities and the disabled person's feelings (Donaldson, 1980; Donaldson & Martinson, 1977; Evans, 1976; Langer, Fisk, Taylor & Chanowitz, 1976; Lazar, Gensley & Orpet, 1971; Marsh & Friedman, 1972; Sadlick & Penta, 1975; Shakespeare, 1975; Yuker, Block & Younng, 1970). Since this is frequently not the case in community and family contact it may 109 explain why subjects with contact with physically disabled people were not significantly more positive than those without. Handicapped and Nonhandicapped Educators' Test Scores Of the 4-57 educators who completed the questionnaires, 15 indi• cated they had a physical handicap. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups on three of the four tests administered. It appears that the physically disabled educators in this study were not very different from the able-bodied educators in the area of attitude toward disabled persons, fear of death, and purpose in life. The handicapped educators felt signifi• cantly more in control of their lives than did the nonhandicapped educators. Perhaps having physical limitations has caused them to consciously take greater control of their lives. The ATDP results from this study were compared with the norms provided by Yuker, Block and Younng (1970). The findings indicated that the attitudes of handicapped educators in this study were more similar to those of their nonhandicapped counterparts than they were to the handicapped norming population. Both groups had a significantly more positive attitude toward physically handicapped people than the norms produced by Yuker, Block and Younng (1970). Educators are generally better educated than the general population which may, in part, account for their more accepting attitude. Also, educators' training and orientation is generally geared toward teaching self help and educating for independence. Westwood, Vargo 110 and Vargo (1981) maintain that the attitudes toward disabled people seem to be more a function of the perception of self, degree of self-acceptance and perception of the disability by others, than a function of the disability. Educators' Programing Preferences for Physically Disabled Students Educators who were of the opinion that physically handicapped students should attend special schools for the disabled had a sig• nificantly less positive attitude toward physically disabled people than those who did not choose this programing option. The implications of their programing choice are rejectionistic in nature, suggesting that they prefer that physically disabled students not be a part of the educational mainstream.. Their less positive atti• tude implies a comparable attitude of either rejection or of viewing physically disabled people as being less capable of being part of the societal mainstream. Educators who were of the opinion that physically disabled students should attend regular classes and receive the assistance of special support'services had a significantly more positive atti• tude toward physically disabled people than educators who did not choose this option. This choice suggests that educators who chose this option had a more positive attitude toward physically disabled people, were willing to have them in their schools and classes, and wanted them to be provided with any special assistance they might need. 111 Limitations of the Study There were several limitations to the study. Subject partici• pation was voluntary and although most of the educators approached completed the questionnaires, it was not possible to know the opinions of those who chose not to participate. It may have been for lack of interest in the concerns of disabled people, which might have changed the findings of the study. Some subject groups had a very small n which may have limited generalization to the general population. Had a larger population been available it would have been possible to conduct a multivariate study taking into consideration age, sex, etc. in each professional group surveyed. School division superintendents provided the researcher with letters of introduction to school principals. This may have resulted in administrators responding more positively on the questionnaires than they would have had they been approached through a nonsupervis- ory source. All of the subjects were Winnipeg educators who when approached volunteered to participate in the study. It is assumed that they are representative of other Canadian educators (similar education, training requirements, working conditions, etc.); however, -there are no guarantees that this is so. The instruments used were of a quasi-interval nature and, therefore, were not entirely precise in the measurement of differ- 112 ences. The reliability of the instruments was satisfactory but not outstanding and consequently not totally precise. The tests were hand scored allowing for some possibility of error. There was also a slight possibility of error in transcribing the information to the Fortran Coding Forms and in keypunching. Implications for Further Study The results of this study suggest the merits of additional research. v The correlational relationships found between attitude toward physically disabled people and the other variables investigated (fear of death, purpose in life and locus of control) raise ques• tions for further study. It is suggested that this study be repli• cated with other populations (other professional groups, the general public, etc.). It may be that this relationship is unique to people in the helping professions, educators, social workers, psychologists, medical personnel, etc. These relationships merit more intensive study using a variety of instruments in order to determine the source of this relationship. A replication of the investigation of high school versus elemen• tary educators attitudes toward physically disabled people is warranted. An interesting sequel would be a replication of this study tak• ing into consideration the adult life stages of the subjects. A 113 study employing a larger sample of handicapped educators and a lar• ger sample of counsellors would allow for inferential investigation. Future studies could include students and compare their results with those of their teachers and parents. Summary This exploratory descriptive study investigated educators' attitudes toward physically disabled people in relationship to other variables (fear of death, purpose in life and locus of control). Hypothesis 1 compared the attitudes of teachers, counsellors and administrators toward physically handicapped people and found no statistically significant differences among them. Hypothesis 2 tested the paired correlations between ATDP scores and each of the other three measures for educators, teachers, administrators and counsellors. ATDP scores correlated significantly with the FOD, PIL and I-E test scores for educators in the study and for teachers. School counsellors' ATDP scores correlated signifi• cantly with FOD scores and administrators' ATDP scores correlated significantly with their I-E scores. Neither sex nor age differences were significant factors in the subjects' attitudes toward physically handicapped people. The number of years the subjects had worked in the field of education did not significantly affect their attitudes toward physically handicap• ped people. Elementary educators demonstrated significantly more 1U positive attitudes toward physically handicapped people than did junior and senior high school educators; however, these results are questionable. All professional groups with a handicapped student in their school or class and all professional groups with personal contact with physically disabled people had higher ATDP scores but none of the differences were significant. There were no significant differences between handicapped and nonhandicapped educators in attitude toward disabled people, fear of death and purpose in life. Disabled people saw themselves as more internally controlled than did nondisabled people. Disabled female and nondisabled male and female educators demonstrated significantly more positive attitudes toward physically handicapped people than their general population counterparts. For disabled males the difference was nonsignificant. Educators who were of the opinion that physically handicapped students should attend special schools for the disabled had a signifi• cantly less positive attitude toward physically disabled people than those who did not choose this programing option. However, educators who were of the opinion that physically disabled students should attend regular classes and receive the assistance of special support services had a significantly more positive attitude toward physi• cally disabled people than educators who did not choose this option. The results of this study may be useful to those who provide training to educators with physically disabled children in their 115 classes. The information may assist administrators in staff recruit• ment and disabled student placement and may be of interest to those in the field of rehabilitation, parents of physically disabled children, and disabled people. This study has helped in deepening the understanding of attitudes toward physically disabled people in general. 116 REFERENCES 117 REFERENCES Abramowitz, S.I. Internal-external control and social political activism: A test dimensionality of Rotter's internal-external scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1973, 40, (2), 196-201. Acuff, F.G. Retirement, meaning and adjustment: the emeritus professor and retired clergy of a southwestern state. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia, 1967. Adams-Webber, J.R. Generalized expectancies concerning locus of control reinforcements and the perception of moral sanctions. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychological, 1969, 8, 340-343. Alessi, D.F., & Anthony, W.A. , The Uniformity of children's attitudes toward physical disabilities. Exceptional Children, 1969, 35, 543-545. Alexander, I.E., & Adlerstein, A.M. Affective responses to the concept of death in a population of children and early adolescents. In R. Fulton (Editor), Death and identity. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1976. Alexander, I.E., & Adlerstein, A.M. Studies in the psychology of death. In H.P. David & J.C. Brengelman (Editors) Perspectives in personality research. New York: Springer, 1960. Anthony, S. The child's discovery of death. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1940. Arnholter, R.G. Attitudes toward the disabled. Rehabilitation Counselling Bulletin, 1963, 6 (1), 26-30. Auvenshine, CD. The development of a scale for measuring attitudes toward severely disabled college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, 1962. Bandt, P.L. Generalized control expectancies and perceptual responses to threat. Dissertation Abstracts, 1967, 28, 3869B-3870B. Batlis, N.C. Job involvement and locus of control as moderators of role-perception/individual-outcome relationships. Psychologi• cal Reports, 1980, 46, 111-119. Batlis, N.C. Relationships between locus of control and an instru• mentality theory predictor of academic performance. Psychological Reports, 1978, 43, 239-245. 118 Battista, J., & Almond, R. The development of meaning in life. Psychiatry, 1973, 36, 409-427. Bell, A.H. Attitudes of selected rehabilitation workers and other hospital employees toward the physically disabled. Psychologi• cal Reports, 1962, 10, 183-186. Benderly, B.L. Dancing without music, deafness in America. Garden City, New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1980. Benlifer, V.E., & Kiesler, S.B. Psychotherapists' perceptions of adjustment and attraction toward children described as in therapy. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1972, 6, 169-177. Berman, A.L. Smoking behavior: How is it related to locus of control, death anxiety, and belief in afterlife? Omega: Journal of Death and Dying, 1973, 4 (2), U9-155. Blakely, K.B. Chronic renal failure: a study of death anxiety in dialysis and kidney transplant patients. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Manitoba, 1977. Bowers, M.K., Jackson, E.N., Knight, J.A., & LeShan, L. Counselling the dying. New York: Thomas Nelson, 1975. Bowlby, J. Attachment and loss (Volume 3) Loss, sadness and depression. New York: Basic Books, Incorporated, 1980. Bowlby, J. Separation anxiety. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 1960, 4J_, 89-113. Boyd, D.E. Evaluating the preparation for teachers of dying and death. Unpublished master's thesis, University of British Columbia, 1977. Brodman, K., Erdmann, A.J., & Wolff, H.G. Manual for the Cornell medical index. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Medical College, 1956. Buscaglia, L. The disabled and their parents: a counselling challenge. Thorofare, N.J.: Charles B. Slack, Inc., 1975. Butler, M.C, & Burr, R.G. Utility of a multi-dimensional locus of control scale in predicting health and job-related outcomes in military environments. Psychological Reports, 1980, 47, 719-28. Butler, A.C., & Carr, L. Purpose in life through social action. Journal of Social Psychology, 1968, 7J., 243-50. 119 Butts, S.V., & Chotios, J. A comparison of alcoholics on perceived locus of control. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, . 1973, 3A, 1327-1332. Cameron, P., Gnadinger, D.T., Kos'tin, J., & Kostin, M. The life satisfaction of nonnormal persons. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1973, 41 (2), 207-2U. Caprio, F.S. Ethnological attitudes toward death: a psychoanalytic evaluation. Journal of Clinical Psychopathology, 194-6, 7, 737-752. Caprio, F.S. A study of some psychological reactions during-pre- pubescence to the idea of death. Psychiatric Quarterly, 1950, 24,, 495-505. Cardi, M. An examination of internal versus external control in relation to academic failures. Unpublished master's thesis, Ohio State University, 1962. Cavanagh, M.E. The relationship between Frankl's "Will to Meaning" and the discrepancy between the Actual Self and the Ideal Self. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Ottawa, 1966. Chadwick, M. Notes upon fear of death. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 1929, 10, 321-334. Cherlin, A., & Bourque, L. Dimensionality and reliability of the Rotter I-E scale. Sociometry, 1974, 37, 565-582. Chesler, M. Ethnocentrism and attitudes toward the physically dis• abled. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 1965, 2, 877-82. Chigier, E., & Chigier, M. Attitudes to disability of children in the multi-cultural society of Israel. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 1968, 9, 310-317. Christ, P.E.I. Attitudes toward death among a group of acute geriatric psychiatric patients. Journal of Gerontology, 1961, 16, 56-59. Christianson, J.A. A study of the education of handicapped children in Manitoba; Report on the education and training of handicap• ped children. Winnipeg: Manitoba Department of Education Publication, 1965. 120 Cloerkes, G. Determinants of attitudes and behavior toward physi• cally disabled persons. Results of a secondary analysis. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 1979, 2 (3), 382-383. Coffield, K.E. Student apathy: a comparative study. Teaching of psychology, 1981, 8 (1), 26-28. Coggin, D.L. Personal communication, 1964. Cited by H.E. Yuker, J.R. Block and J.H. Younng, The measurement of attitudes toward disabled persons. Albertson, New York: Human Resource Centre, 1970. Collett, L.J., & Lester, D. The fear of death and dying. Journal of Psychology, 1969, 72, 179-181. Collins, B.E. Four components of the Rotter international scale: Belief in a difficult world, a just world, a predictable world, and a politically responsive world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974,'29 (3), 381-191. Colman, A.M. Social rejection, role conflict and adjustment: psychological consequences of orthopaedic disability. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1971, 33, 907-910. Comer, R.J., & Piliavin, J.A. The effects of physical deviance upon face-to-face interaction; the other side. Journal of Personal• ity and Social Psychology, 1972, 23, 33-39. Cone, J.D. Locus of control and social desirability. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1971, 36, 449. Cooley, C. Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribner's, 1902. Coovert, M.D., & Goldstein, M. Locus of control as a predictor of users' attitude toward computers. Psychological Reports, 1980, £7, 1167-73. Corey, L.G. An analogue of resistance to death awareness. Journal of Gerontology, 1961, 16, 59-60. Cousinet, R. The idea of death in children. Psychological Abstracts, 1940, 14, 499. Cowen, E.L.,. & Cowen, R.S. A comparison of the attitudes of American and French college students toward deafness and blindness. Paper presented at American Psychological Associa• tion, Philadelphia, August 1963. Crandall, J.E. A scale for social interest. Journal of Individual Psychology, 1975, 31_, 187-195. 121 Crandall, J.E., & Rasmussen, R.D. Purpose in life as related to specific values. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1975, 31. (3), 483-485. Crumbaugh, J.C. Cross-validation of Purpose in Life Test based on Frankl's concepts. Journal of Individual Psychology, 1968, 24, 74-81. Crumbaugh, J.C. Manual of instructions for the Seeking of Noetic Goals Test. Munster, Indiana: Psychometric Affiliates, 1977. Crumbaugh, J.C, & Maholick, L. The case for Frankl' s "Will to Meaning". Journal of Existential Psychiatry, 1963, 4_> 43-48. Crumbaugh, J.C, & Maholick, L.T. An experimental study in existentialism: the psychometric approach to Frankl's concept of noogenic neurosis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1964, 20 (2), 200-207. Crumbaugh, J.C, & Maholick, L.T. Manual of instruction for the Purpose in Life Test. Munster, Indiana: Psychometric Affiliates, 1981. Crumbaugh, J.C, Raphael, M., Shrader, R.R. Frankl's will to mean• ing in a religious order. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1970, 26, 206-207. Cumming, D.B. Maladjustment among the physically disabled: a test of the social-re.jection and role-conflict hypothesis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Manitoba, 1977. Dailey, R.C Relationships between locus of control task charac• teristics and work attitudes. Psychological Reports, 1980, 47, 855-61. Dansart, B.R. Development of a scale to measure attitudinal values as defined by Viktor Frankl. Unpublished doctoral disserta• tion, Northern Illinois University, 1974-. Davis, D.F., & Martin, D.A. Relationship of fear of death and level of self-esteem in college students. Psychological Reports, 1978, 42- 419-422. Davis, W.L., & Phares, E.J. Internal-external control as a deter• minant of information-seeking in a social influence situation. Journal of Personality, 1967, 3_5, 547-561 . 122 Dickstein, S. Attitudes toward death, anxiety and social desir• ability. Omega: Journal of Death and Dying, 1978, 8, 369-378. Dickstein, L.S. Death concern: measurement and correlates. Psychological Reports, 1972, 30 (2), 563-71. Dickstein, L. Self-report and fantasy correlates of death concern, Psychological Reports, 1975, 37, U7-158. Diggory, J.C., & Rothman, D.Z. Values destroyed by death. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 63, 205-210. Distefano, M.K., Jr., Pryor, M.W., & Garrison, J.L. Internal- external control among alcoholics. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1972, 28, 36-37. Doerries, L.H. Purpose in life and social participation. Journal of Individual Psychology, 1970, 26, 50-53. Donaldson, J. Changing attitudes toward handicapped persons: a review and analysis of research. Exceptional Children, 1980, 46, 504-5U. Donaldson, J., & Martinson, M.C. Modifying attitudes toward physi• cally disabled persons. Exceptional Children, 1977, 43_ (6), 337-341. Dow, T. Social class and reaction to physical disability. Psychological Reports, 1965, V7, 39-62. Dunham, J.R., & Dunham, C.S. Psychosocial aspects of disability. In R.M. Goldenson (Editor in Chief), Disability and rehabilitation handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1978. Dunn, L.M. Special education for the mildly retarded - is much of it justifiable? Exceptional Children, September 1968. Dunton, H.D. The child's concept of grief. In B. Schoenberg, A.C. Carr, D. Peretz, & A.H. Kutscher (Editors), Loss and grief: psychological management in medical practice. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970, 355-361. Durand, D., & Shea, D. Entrepreneurial activity as a function of achievement motivation and reinforcement control. The Journal of Psychology, 1974, 88, 57-63. Durlak, J.A. Comparison between experiential and didactic methods of death education. Omega: Journal of Death and Dying, 1978, 9, 57-66., Durlak, J.A. Measurement of the fear of death: an examination of some existing scales. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1972, 28 (4), 545-547. 123 English, R.W. The application of personality theory to explain psychological reactions to physical disability. Rehabilitation Research and Practice Review, 1971 , 3 (1 ), 35-4-7. Epley, R.J., & McCaghy, CH. The stigma of dying: attitudes toward the terminally ill. Omega: Journal of Death and Dying, 1978, 8 (4), 379-393. Evans, J.H. Changing attitudes toward disabled persons: an experi• mental study. Rehabilitation Counselling Bulletin, 1976, 19, 572-579. Farly, G.A. An investigation of death anxiety and the sense of competence (Doctoral dissertation, Duke University, 1970). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1971, 3J_, B 7595. Faunce, W., & Fulton, R. The sociology of death: a neglected area of research. Social Forces, 1958, 36, 205-209. Feifel, H. Attitudes toward death: a psychological perspective in E.S. Shneidman (Editor), Death: current perspectives. Palo Alto, California: Mayfield Publishing Co., 1976. Feifel, H. Attitudes toward death in normal and mentally ill popu• lations. In H. Feifel (Editor), The meaning of death. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959, 114-130. Feifel, H. Death-relevant variables in psychology. In R. May (Editor), Existential psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Brandom House, 1969. Feifel, H. Older persons look at death. Geriatrics, 1956, 11, 127-130. Feifel, H. Religious conviction and fear of death among the healthy and the terminally ill. In R. Fulton (Editor), Death and identity. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1965. Feifel, H., & Branscomb, A.B. Who's afraid of death? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1973, 8J_ (3), 282-288. Felty, J.E. Attitudes to physical disability in Costa Rica and their determinants: a pilot study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965. Ferketic, F.A. Personal communication, 1964. Cited by H.E. Yuker, J.R. Block and J.H. Younng, The measurement of attitudes toward disabled persons. Albertson, New York: Human Resource Centre, 1970. 124 Fishbein, J. An experimental investigation of the relationship between attitudes toward teaching and attitudes toward the physically disabled. Unpublished manuscript, Human Resources Library, 1964. Fishbein, J. An investigation into the relationship between certain social attitudes, the degree of social contact with the dis• abled and the attitudes toward the physically disabled. Unpublished manuscript, Human Resources Library, 1962. Frankl, V.E. The doctor and the soul: from psychotherapy to logotherapy (2nd edition). New York: Vintage, 1966. Frankl, V.E. Man's search for meaning: an introduction to logo- therapy. Boston: Beacon Press, 194-6. Frank!, V.E. Psychotherapy and existentialism, selected papers on logotherapy. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1967. Frankl; V.E. The will to meaning. New York: World, 1969. Freed, E.X. Opinions of psychiatric hospital personnel and college students toward alcoholism, mental illness, and physical dis• ability: an exploratory study. Psychological Reports, 1964, J_5 (2), 615-618. Fried, B. The middle age crisis. New York: Harper and Row, 1967. Furnham, A., & Henry, J. Cross-cultural locus of control studies: Experiment and critique. Psychological Reports, 1980, 47, 23-29. Gaier, E.L., Linkowski, D.C, & Jaques, M.E. Contact as a variable in the perception of disability. Journal of Social Psychology, 1968, 74, 117-126. Gardner, P.L. Scales and statistics. Review of Educational Research, 1975, 45 0 ), 43-57. Garfield, C.A. A psychometric and clinical investigation of Frankl's concept of existential vacuum and of anomia. Psychiatry, 1973, 36, 396-408. Gazda, G.M., Asbury, F.R., Balzer, F., Childers, W.C., & Walters, R.P. Human Relations development; a manual for educators. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, Inc., 1977. 125 Geist, C.K., & Bangham, W.K. Locus of control and religious affili• ation. Psychological Reports, 1980, 4/7, 1281-82. Gerson, A.C. Cognitive style and locus of control in the obese and the smokers. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Manitoba, 1975- Gilliland, A.K. Personal communication, 1965- Cited by H.E. Yuker, J.R. Block and J.H. Younng, The measurement of attitudes toward disabled persons. Albertson, New York: Human Resources Centre, 1970. Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. Awareness of dying. Chicago: Aldine, 1974. Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. Contexts and social interaction. In R. Fulton (Editor), Death and identity. New York: The Charles Press Publishers, Inc. 1976. Goffman, E. Stigma: notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963. Goldenson, R. (Editor in Chief) Disability and Rehabilitation Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978. Goodman, R.M. The relationship between meaning in life and sense of belonging to self-actualization and open mindedness among members of a value-based organization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, St. John's University, 1980. Goodman, N., Richardson, S.A., Dornbusch, S.M., & Hastorf, A.H. Variant reactions to physical disabilities. American Sociological Review, 1963, 28, 4.29-435. Gore, M., & Rotter, J. A personality correlate of social action. Journal of Personality, 1963, 31, 58-64. Gozali, J., & Sloan, J. Control orientation as a personality dimension among alcoholics. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcoholism, 1971, 32, 159-161 . Graham, S. Level of self-disclosure as a variable of death atti• tudes. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Florida, 1 970. Green, S.C., Kappes, B.M., & Parish, T.S. Attitudes of educators toward handicapped and non-handicapped children. Psychological Reports, 1979, 829-830. 126 Greenberg, I.M. Attitudes toward death in schizophrenia. Journal of the Hillside Hospital, 1964, ]3_, 104-113. Gross, W.F., 6 Neviano, V.J. I-E control orientation, male alcoholics. Psychological Reports, 1972, 32, 4O6. Gupton, T. Locus of control, socially cued anxiety and performance on high and low interference tasks. Unpublished doctorial dissertation, University of Manitoba, 1972. Gurin, P., Gurin, G., Lao, R.C, & Beattie, M. Internal-external control in the motivational dynamics of Negro youth. Journal of Social Issues, 1969, 25, 29-53. Gyulay, J.E. The dying child. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1978. Hafer, M., & Narcus, M. Information and attitudes toward disabil• ity. Rehabilitation Counselling Bulletin, 1979, 23, 95-102. Halpin, G., & Halpin, G. Locus of control and self-esteem among American Indians and whites: a cross-cultural comparison. Psychological Reports, 1981, 4J3, 91-98. Hamburg, S. Behavior therapy in alcoholism: a critical review of broad-spectrum approaches. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcoholism, 1975, 36, 69-87. Handal, P.J. The relationship between subjective life expectancy, death anxiety and general anxiety. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1969, 25.(1 ), 39-42. Handal, P., & Rychlak, J. Curvilinear!ty between dream content and death anxiety and the relationship between death anxiety and repression-sensitization. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1971, 77, 11-16. Harder, M. A study of attitudes- of junior and senior high school students toward orthopedically handicapped. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Manitoba, 1973. Harrow, M., & Ferrante, A. Locus of control in psychiatric pat• ients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1969, 33, 582-589. Hersch, P.D., & Scheibe, K.E. Reliability and validity of internal- external control as a personality dimension. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1967, 31 (6), 609-613. Hartwig, W., Dickson, A., & Anderson, H. Locus of control and assertion. Psychological Reports, 1980, 4_6» 1345-4-6. 127 Hiroto, D.S. Locus of control and learned helplessness. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974-, 102, 187-193. Hofling, CK. Textbook of psychiatry for medical practice (3rd edition). Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1975. Horowitz, L.S., Rees, N.S., & Horowitz, M.W. Attitudes toward deaf• ness as a function of increasing maturity. Journal of Social Psychology, 1965, 66, 331-336. Houston, B.K. Control over stress, locus of control, and response to stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 21, 249-255. Inter-departmental Working Group on the Education of Children and Youth with Special Needs. Working Papers on Educational Alternatives and Legislation. Unpublished paper, Province of Manitoba, October, 1975. Jacobson, G.R., Ritter, D.P., & Mueller, L. Purpose in life and personal values among adult alcoholics. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1977, 33 (1), 3U-316. Jaques, M.E., Linkowski, D.C, .& Sieka, F.L. Cultural attitudes toward disability: Denmark, Greece and the United States. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 1970, 1_6, 54-62. Jeffers, F.C, Nichols, C.R., & Eisdorfer, C. Attitudes of older persons toward death: a preliminary study. Journal of Gerontology, 1961, 16, 53-56. Johnson, J.C. Death anxiety of rehabilitation counsellors and clients. Psychological Reports, 1980, 4j>, 325-326. Johnson, CD., & Gormly, J. Academic cheating: the contribution of sex, personality and situational variables. Developmental Psychology, 1972, 6, 320-325. Johnson, J., & Sarason, I. Life stress, depression and anxiety: Internal-external control as a moderator variable. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 1978, 22, 205-208. Jones, E. The life and work of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 3). New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1957. Kalish, R.A. Social distance and the dying. Community Mental Health Journal, 1966, 2, 152-155. 128 Kastenbaum, R.J. Death and bereavement in late life. In A.H. Kutscher (Editor) Death and bereavement. Springfield, 111: Charles Thomas, 1969. Kastenbaum, R.J. Death, society, and human experience. St. Louis: The C.V. Mosby Co., 1977. Kastenbaum, R.J. Is death a life crisis? On the confrontation with death in theory and practice. In N. Datan & L.H. Ginsberg (Editors) Life-span development psychology normative life crisis. New York: Academic Press, 1975. Kastenbaum, R., & Aisenberg, R. The psychology of death. New York: Springer Publishing Co. Inc., 1972. Katz, J. Essences as moral identities: verifiability and respon• sibility in imputations of deviance and charisma. American Journal of Sociology, 1975, 80, 1369-1390. Kavanaugh, R.E. Facing death. New York: Penquin Books, 1977. Kleck, R., Ono, H., & Hastorf, A.H. The effects of physical deviance upon face to face interaction. Human Relations,. 1 966, 19, 4-25-36. Klemmack, D., Durand, R., & Roff, L.L. Re-examination of the relationship between age and fear of aging. Psychological Reports, 1980, 4_6, 1320. Knittel, M.G. A comparison of attitudes.toward the disabled between subjects who had a physically disabled sibling and subjects who did not have a physically disabled sibling. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of. South Dakota, 1963. Kraft, T. Social anxiety model of alcoholism. Perceptual Motor Skills, 1971, 33, 797-798. Kubler-Ross, E. Death the final stage of growth. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1975. Kubler-Ross, E. Living with death and dying. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1981. Kubler-Ross, E. On children and death. New York: Macmillan Publish• ing Co., 1983. Kubler-Ross, E. On death and dying. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1969. Kubler-Ross, E. Questions and answers on. death and dying. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1974-. Kvaraceus, W.C. Acceptance-rejection and exceptionality. Exceptional Children, 1956, 22, 238-341• 129 Langer, E.J., Fiske, S., Taylor, S.E., & Chanowitz, B. Stigma, staring and discomfort: a novel-stimulus hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1976, 12, 451-4-63. Latter, J. Educational direction for tomorrow. Unpublished paper. Child'Development and Support Services, Department of Education, Province of Manitoba, August, 1976. Lazar, A., Gensley, J., & Orpet, R. Changing attitudes of young mentally gifted children toward handicapped persons. Exceptional Children, 1971, 37 (8), 600-602. Le Shan, E. The wonderful crisis of middle age. New York: David McKay, 1973. Lester, D. Choice of gambling activity and belief in locus of control. Psychological Reports, 1980, 47, 22. Lester, D. Relation of fear of death in subjects to fear of death in their parents. Psychological Records, 1970, 20, 541-54-3. Lester, D. Studies in death attitudes, Psychological Reports, 1972, 30, 440. Lester, D., & Blustein, J. Attitudes toward funerals: A variable independent of attitudes toward death. Psychological Reports. 1980, 46, 1074. Lester, D., Monfredo, L., & Hummel, H. Attitudes toward life and aging: an exploratory comparison of elderly and young adults. Psychological Reports, 1979, Al, 562. Lester, D. Inconsistancy in the fear of death in individuals; Psychological Reports, 1967, 20, 1084. Lewis, H.C. Meaning and adjustment: a study of active professionals, professors and clergy of a southwestern state. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University, 1972. Linkowski, D.C, & Dunn, M.A. Self-concept and acceptance of dis• ability. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 1974, 18, (1 ), 28-32. Liverant, S., & Scodel, A. Internal and external control as deter• minates of decision making under conditions of risk. Psychological Reports, 1960, 7, 59-67. Lucas, R.A. A comparative study of measures of general anxiety and death anxiety among three medical groups including patient and wife. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1972. 130 Lukoff, I.F., & Whiteman, M. Attitudes toward blindness. Paper presented at American Federation of Catholic Workers for the Blind, New York, 1964. Lukoff, I.F., & Whiteman, M. A summary of attitudes and blindness: components, correlates and effect's. Unpublished manuscript, Human Resources Library, 1963. Lussier, R.J. Internal-external locus of control and ethnic stereotyping. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Manitoba, 1976. MacDonald, A.P. Jr. Internal-external locus of control and the practice of birth control. Psychological Reports, 1970, 27, 206. MacDonald, A.P., & Hall, J. Perception of disability by the non- disabled. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1969, 33, 654-666. Maglione, W.G. Attitudes toward the handicapped among rehabilita• tion students and college undergraduates. Unpublished manuscript, Human Resources Library, 1965. Maqsud, M. Locus of control and stages of moral reasoning. Psychological Reports, 1980, 46, 1243-48. (a) Maqsud, M. Relationship of locus of control to age and level of aspiration. Psychological Reports, 1980, 46_, 766. (b) Marlatt, G.A. Alcohol, stress and cognitive control. In I.G. Sarason & CD. Spielbergen (Eds.), Stress and Anxiety 3. Washington, D.C: Hemisphere, 1976. pp. 271-296. Marsh, V., & Friedman, R. Changing public attitudes toward blind• ness. Exceptional Children, 1972, 38, 426-428. Martin, D., & Wrightsman, L.S. The relationship between religious behavior and concern about death. Journal of Social Psychology, 1965, 65, 317-323. Matteson, R.E. Purpose in life as related to involvement in organi• zed groups and certain sociocultural variables. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University, 1974-- McClam, T. Death anxiety before and after death education: negative results. Psychological Reports, 1980, 46, 513-514. McDaniel, J.W. Physical disability and human behavior. New York: Pergamon Press, 1969. 131 McGowan, O.P.C.A. Celebacy, sexuality and meaning in life: a comparative study of religious and Catholic lay women. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston College, 1977. Meier, A., & Edwards, H. Purpose in Life Test: Age and sex differ• ences. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1974, 30 (3), 384-386. Meissner, W.W. Affective responses to/psychoanalytic death symbols. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1958, _5_6, 295-299. Middleton, W.G. Some reactions toward death among college students. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1936, 3J_> 165-173. Midlarsky, E. Aiding under stress: the effects of competence, dependency, visibility, and fatalism. Journal of Personality, 1971, 39, 132-149. Miller, P.M., Hersen, M., Eisler, R.M. & Hilsman, G. Effects of social stress on operant drinking of alcoholics and social drinkers. Behavioral Research and Therapies. 1974, 12» 67-72. Mirels, H. Dimensions of internal versus external control. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1970, 3_4_, 226-228. Molinari, V., & Khanna, P. Locus of control and the denial of anxiety. Psychological Reports, 1980, 47, 131-140. Murphy, A. Attitudes of educators toward the visually handicapped. Sight-saving Review, 1960, 30, 157-161. Murphy, L. Extent of Purpose-in Life and four Frankl-proposed life ob.j ectives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Ottawa, 1967. Murphy, A.T., Dickstein, J., & Dripps, E. Acceptance, rejection, and the hearing handicapped. Volta Review, 1960, 62 (5), 208-211. Mussen, P.H., & Barker, R.G. Attitudes toward cripples. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1944, 39, 351-55. Naditch, M.P., Gargan, M.A., & Michael, L.B. Denial, anxiety, locus of control, and the discrepancy between aspirations and achievements as components of depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1975, M» (D. 1-9. Nagy, M. The child and death. Psychological studies of the University of Budapest, 1938, 2, 152-157, 192-194- Nagy, M. The child's theories concerning death. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1948, 73, 3-27. 132 Natterson, J.M., & Knudson, A.G. Children and their mothers: observations concerning the fear of death in fatally ill children. Psychosomatic Medicine, 1960, 22, 4-56-4.65- Naus, P.J. Some correlates of attitudes towards old people. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 1973, 4 (3), 229-243. Navarre, K.A., & Minton, H.L. Internal-external control and attitude toward disability. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1977, 4J (5), 961-962. Nehrke, M.F. Death anxiety, locus of control and life satisfaction in the elderly. Journal of Death and Dying, 1977, 8, 359-368. Nikoloff, O.M. II Attitudes of public school principals toward employment of teachers with certain physical disabilities. Rehabilitation Literature, 1962, 23 (11), 344-345- Nogas, C, Schweitzer, K., & Grumet, J. An investigation of death anxiety, sense of competence, and need for achievement. Omega: Journal of Death and Dying, 1974, 5 (3), 245-255. Nowack, K.M., & Sassenrath, J.M. Coronary-prone behavior, locus of control and anxiety. Psychological Reports, 1980, LJ_, 359-364- Nyholm, S.E. A replication of a psychometric approach to exis• tentialism. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Portland, 1966. O'Leary, D.E., O'Leary, M.R., & Donovan, D.M. Social skill acquisition and psychosocial development of alcoholics: a review. Adiction Behavior, 1976, 1_, 111-120. Osborne, C. Fear of the unknown. In Release from fear and anxiety. Waco, Tx: World Book Club, 1976, 103-110. Padelford, B.L. Relationship between drug involvement and purpose in life. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1974, 30 (3), 303-305. Parish, T.S., Baker, S.K., Arheart, K.L., & Adamchak, P.G. Normal and exceptional children's attitudes toward themselves and one another. Journal of Psychology, 1980, 104., 249-253. Parish, T., & Copeland, T. Teachers' and students attitudes in mainstreamed classrooms. Psychological Reports, 1978, A^3» 54- Parish, T., Dyck, N., & Kappes, B. Stereotypes concerning normal and handicapped children. Journal of Psychology, 1979, 102, 63-70. 133 Parish, T., Eads, G., Reece, N., & Piscitello, M. Assessment and attempted modification of future teachers' attitudes toward handicapped children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1977, 44, 540-542. Pattison, E.M. The experience of dying. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1977. Pearson, P.R., & Sheffield, B.F. Purpose-in-life and the Eysenck Personality Inventory. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1974, 30, 562-564. Pearson, P.R., & Sheffield, B.F. Purpose in life and social atti• tudes in psychiatric patients. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1975, 31, 330-332. Philbrick, J.L. Meaninglessness and purposelessness in East Africa: a cross-cultural test of Frankl's concepts. Unpublished manu• script, California State Palytechnic University, Pomona, 1980. Peretz, D. Reaction to loss. In B. Schoenberg, A.C. Carr, D. Peretz, & A.H. Kutscher (Editors), Loss and grief: psychologi• cal management in medical practice. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970. Phares, E.J., Ritchie, D.E., & Davis, W.L. Internal-external control and reaction to threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 10, 402-405. Portz, A.T. The meaning of death to children. Dissertation Abstracts, 1965, 25, 7383-7384. Prociuk, T.J. A psychometric analysis of the internal-external control scales. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Manitoba, 1976. Quaglieri, P.L. Locus of control and perceived utility of feedback. Psychological Reports, 1980, 46, 859-62. Quint, J.C. Institutionalized practices of information control. Psychiatry, 1965, 28, 119-132. Rabinowitz, R. Internal-external control expectancies in black children of differing socioeconomic status. Psychological Reports, 1978, 42, 1339-45. 134 Ray, M.H. The effect of crippled appearance on personality judg• ment. Unpublished master's thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 194-6. Reker, G.T. The Purpose in Life Test in an intimate population: an emperical investigation. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1977, 33 (3), 688-693. Reker, G.T., & Cousins, J.B. Factor structure, construct, validity, and reliability of the Seeking of Noetic Goals (SONG) and the Purpose in Life (PIL) tests. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1979, 35 (1 ), 85-91 . Replogle, W., O'Bannon, M., McCullough, P.W., & Cashion, L.M. Locus of control and assertive behavior. Psychological Reports, 1980, 4J, 769-770. Reynolds, M.C., & Balow, B. Categories and variables in special education. Exceptional Children, 1972, 38, 357-366. Rhudick, P.J., & Dibner, A.S. Personality and health correlates of death concerns in normal aged individuals. Journal of Gerontology, 1961, 16, 44--4-9.1 Richardson, S.A. Age and sex differences in values toward physical handicaps. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 1970, 11, 207-214. Richardson, S.A., Hastorf, A.H., & Dornbusch, S.M. Effects of physical disability on a child's description of himself. Child Development, 1964, 35, 893-907. Richardson, S.A., Goodman, N., Hastorf, A.H., & Dornbusch, S.M. Cultural uniformity in reaction to physical disabilities. American Sociological Review, 1961, 26, 241-247. Richardson, S.A., & Green, A. When is black beautiful? Coloured and white children's reactions to skin colour. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1971, 4J_, 62-69. Richardson, S.A., & Royce, J. Race and physical handicap in child• ren's preference for other children. Child Development, 1968, 39, 467-480. Richmond, B.O., & de la Serna, M. Creativity and locus of control among Mexican college students. Psychological Reports, 1980, 46, 979-83. Rickard, T.D., Triandis, H.C, & Patterson, CH. Indices of employer prejudice toward disabled applicants. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1963, 4/7, 52-55. 135 Roeher, G.A. A study of certain public attitudes toward the orthopedically disabled. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1959. Rothberg, D.L. Professional achievement and locus of control, a tenuous inference reconsidered. Psychological Reports, 1980, 46, 183-88. Rotter, J. External control and internal control, Psychology Today. 1971, 5, 37-42, 58-59. Rotter, J.B. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 1966, 80, No. 1. Rotter, J.B. Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1975, 42 (1)» 56-67. Rudnick, C, & Deni, R. Use of the internal-external control scale to predict preferences for products. Psychological Reports, 1980, 47, 1193-94. Runyon, K.E. Some interactions between personality variability and management styles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1973, 57 (3), 288-94- Sadlick, M., & Penta, J.B. Changing nurse attitudes toward quad• riplegics through use of television. Rehabilitation Literature, 1975, 36, 274-278; 288. Safier, G. A study in relationships between the life and death concepts in children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1964, . 105, 283-294. Sallee, D.T., & Casciani, J.M. Relationship between sex drive and sexual frustration and purpose in life. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1976, 32 (2), 273-275. Sanders, J., Poole, T., & Rivera, W.T. Death anxiety among the elderly. Psychological Reports, 1980, ^G, 53-54. Sanger, S., & Walker, H. Dimensions of internal-external locus of control and the women's liberation movement. Journal of Social Issues, 1972, 28, 115-129. 136 •Savage, D.G. Educating all the handicapped; what the law says and what schools are doing. Arlington, Virginia: National School Public Relations Association, 1977. Scheidt, R.J. Belief in supernatural phenomena and locus of control. Psychological Reports, 1973, 32, 1159-1162. Schilder, P., & Wechsler, D. The attitudes of children toward death. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1934, 45, 406-451. Schill, T., Toves, C., & Ramanaiah, N. Coping with loneliness and locus of control. Psychological Reports, 1980, 4.7, 1054. Schneider, J.M., & Parsons, O.A. Categories on the locus of control scale and cross cultural comparisons in Denmark and the United States. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 1970, 1_, 131-138. Schoenberg, B., & Carr, A.C. Loss of external organs: limb ampu• tation, mastectomy and disfiguration. In B. Schoenberg, A.C. Carr, D. Peretz, & A.H. Kutscher (Editors), Loss and grief: psychological management in medical practice. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970. Schreiber, W.K. Locus of control and social desirability. Psychological Reports, 1980, 46, 1135-36.. Seeman, M. Alienation and social learning in a reformatory. American Journal of Sociology, 1963, 69_, 270-284. Seeman, M., & Evans, J. Alienation and learning in a hospital set• ting. American Sociological Review, 1963, 69, 270-284. Segal, S.M., & Du Cette, J. Locus of control and pre-marital high school pregnancy. Psychological Reports, 1973, 33, 887-90. Seifert, K.H. The attitudes of working people toward disabled persons, especially in regard to vocational rehabilitation. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 1979, 2 (1), 79-80. Sells, S.B. On the nature of stress. In J.E. McGrath (Ed.), Social and psychological factors in stress. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970. pp. 134-139. Selvey, C.L. Concerns about death in relation to sex, dependency, guilt about hostility and feelings of powerlessness. Omega: Journal of Death and Dying, 1973, i (3), 209-219. 137 Sexton, P.M., Leak, G., & Toenies, F. Relationship of locus of control and modernity to certainty of religious beliefs. Psychological Reports, 1980, 46, 1285-86. Shakespeare, R. The psychology of Handicap. London, England: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1975. Sharpe, D., & Viney, L. Weltanschauung and the Purpose in Life Test. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1973, 29 (4-), 489-491. Shontz, F. Body-part size .judgement, final report. VRA project, No. 814, University of Kansas, 1964. Shrut, S.D. Attitudes toward old age and death. Mental Hygiene, 1958, 42, 259-266. Siller, J. Personality determinants of reaction to the physically disabled. American Foundation for the Blind Research Bulletin, 1964, No. 7, 37-52. Siller, J. Reactions to physical disability. Rehabilitation Counselling Bulletin, 1963, 7, 12-16. Siller, J., &• Chipman, A. Personality determinants of reaction to the physically handicapped: II, Projective techniques. Unpublished manuscript, Human Resources Library, 1965. Cited by H.E. Yuker, J.R. Block, ,and J.H. Younng, The measurement of attitudes toward disabled persons. Albertson, New York: Human Resources Centre, 1970. Simmons, D.S. Purpose in life and the three aspects of valuing. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1980, 36, 921-922. Simmons, H.E. The attitudes., of the sighted toward the blind. American Association of Workers for the Blind, 1949, 54-57. Smits, S.J. Reactions to self and others to the obviousness and severity of physical disability (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, 1964). Dissertation Abstracts, 1964, 25_, 1324. Soderstrom, D., Sc Wright, E.W. Religious orientation and meaning in life. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1977, 33 (1), 65-68. Stephens, M., Sc Delys, P. A locus of control measure for preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 1973, 9, 55-65. Stevens, S., Cooper, P., Sc Thomas, I.E. Age norms for Templer's Death Anxiety Scale. Psychological Reports, 1980, 46, 205-206. 138 Stones, C. Personal religious orientation and Frankl's Will-to- Meaning in four religious communities. South African Journal of Psychology, 1980, 10, 50-52. Stones, C, & Philbrick, J. Purpose in life in South Africa: A comparison of American and South African beliefs. Psychological Reports, 1980, 47, 739-742. Strassberg, D.S. Relationships among locus of control, anxiety and valued-goal expectations. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1973, 41 (2), 319. Strassberg, D.S., & Hartman, D. A closer look at the relationship between locus of control and anxiety. Paper presented at the 19th annual meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Associ• ation, New Orleans: April 1973. Strong, E.K., Jr.: Changes of interests with age. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1931. Swenson, W.M. Attitudes toward death in an aged population. Journal of Gerontology, 1961, \G, 49-52. Swenson, W.M. A study of death attitudes in the gerontic popula• tion and their relationship to certain measurable physical and social characteristics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1958. Szuhay, J.A. The development of attitudes toward the physically disabled (Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, 1961). Dissertation Abstracts, 1961, 22, 2641 . Telford, C.W., & Sawrey, J.M. The exceptional individual. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1967. Templer, D.I. The construction and validation of a death anxiety scale. Journal of General Psychology, 1970, 82, 165-177. Templer, D.I. Relatively non-technical description of the death anxiety scale. In C.H.W. Montefiore, J.R. Cautela, & R.N. Butler, Death anxiety: normal and pathological aspects. New York: M.S.S. Information Corporation, 1973. Templer, D.I., & Dotson, E. Religious correlates and death anxiety. Psychological Reports, 1970, 26, 895-897. Templer, D., Lester, D., & Ruff, C. Fear of death and femininity. Psychological Reports, 1974. 35, 530. Templer, D.I., Ruff, C.F., & Franks, C. Death anxiety: age, sex and parental resemblance in diverse populations. Developmental Psychology, 1971, 4_ (1), 108. 139 Tenny, J.W. The minority status of the handicapped. Exceptional Children, 1953, 19, 260-64. Teski, M.P., Arcuri, A.F., & Lester, D. Locus of control in elderly women who have worked and those who have not. Psychological Reports, 1980, 46, 1304. Tipton, R., Harrison, B.M., & Mahoney, J. Faith and locus of con• trol. Psychological Reports, 1980, 4_6, 1151-54. Tutaj, W.M. An investigation of the relationship between the attitudes toward the disabled of high school senior-girls and the attitudes of their mothers. Unpublished master's thesis, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1964. Vargo, J.W. The disabled wife and mother: suggested goals for family counselling. Canadian Counsellor, 1979, 13 (2), 108-111. Vargo, M. Relationship between the Templer death anxiety scale and the Collett-Lester fear of death scale. Psychological Reports, 1980, 46, 561-562. Vargo, M.E., & Batsel, W.M. Jr. Relationship between death anxiety and components of the self-actualization process. Psychologi• cal Reports, 1981, 4J3, 89-90. Walker, R.D., Van Ryn, F., Frederick, B., Reynolds, D., & O'Leary, M.R. Drinking-related locus of control as a predictor of attrition in an alcoholism treatment program. Psychological Reports, 1980, 47, 871-877. Warehime, R.G., & Foulds, M.L. Perceived locus of control and per• sonal adjustment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1971, 37 (2), 250-252. Warren, S.A., Turner, D.R., & Brody, D.S. Can education students' attitudes toward the retarded be changed? Mental Retardation, 1964, 2 (4-), 235-242. Watson, D., & Baumel, E. Effects of locus of control and expectation on future control upon present performance. Journal of Person• ality and Social Psychology, 1967, 6, 212-215. Weinberg, N., & Williams, J. How the physically disabled perceive their disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation, 1978, 3, 31-33. Weinberg-Asher, N. The effect of physical disability on self- perception. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 1976, 20 (1), 15-20. 1 4.0 Weisman, A.D. Misgivings and misconceptions in the psychiatric care of the terminal patient. Psychiatry, 1970, 33, 67-81. Westwood, M.J., Vargo, J.W., Sc Vargo, F. Methods for promoting attitude change toward and among physically disabled persons. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counselling, 1981, 1_2, 220- 224-- Whitley, G.P. Reservation versus non-reservation American Indians loci of control and consumption of alcohol. Psychological Reports, 1980, 4_6, 431-34. Wilson, L. Personal communication, 1963. Cited by H.E. Yuker, J.R. Block and J.H. Younng, The measurement of attitude toward disabled persons. Albertson, New York: Human Resource Centre, 1970. Wright, B.A. Physical disability - A psychological approach. New York: Harper & Row. 1960. Yarnell, T.D. Purpose-in-life: further correlates. Journal of Individual Psychology, 1971, 27, 76-79. Young, M., St Daniels, S. Born again status as a factor in death anxiety. Psychological Reports, 1980, 4J7, 367-370. Yuker, H.E. The lack of a stable order of preference for disabilities: a response of Richardson and Ronald. Rehabilitation Psychology, 1983, 28 (2), 93-103- Yuker, H.E., Block, J.R., & Campbell, W.J. A scale to measure attitudes toward disabled persons: Human Resources Study Number 5. Albertson, N.Y.: Human Resources, 1960. Yuker, H.E., Block, J.R., Sc Younng, J.H. The measurement of attitudes toward disabled persons. Albertson, New York: Human Resources Centre, 1970. Zytkowskee, A., Strickland, B., Sc Watson, J. Delay of gratification and internal versus external control among adolescents of low socioeconomic status. Developmental Psychology, 1971, 4_, 93-98. 141 APPENDICIES APPENDIX A DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE U3 TO QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONDENTS: The purpose of this study is to develop a better understanding of the dimensions of views held about handicapped children and adults. It is anticipated that information which you and others provide will help in developing programs and workshops for those in the helping professions who work with handicapped people. Following are five questionnaires. Please complete all questions to the best of your ability. With the exception of the Demographic Questionnaire, all others ask for your opinions, feelings and views on various topics. There are no right or wrong answers. No one answer is superior or worse than any other. There are only individual differences. If you have difficulty understanding the written instructions or do not understand a question, please ask me. I will be pleased to help you since it is important that the responses are as accurate as possible. Please complete the questionnaires individually; do not discuss the questions or your responses with others. Please be assured that your responses will remain anonymous and confidential. Participation in this survey is voluntary. Should you choose not to participate please return the unanswered questionnaires to the researcher. You are free to withdraw at any time or to refuse to answer any questions without prejudice. Time required for completion of the questionnaire is approximately \ hour. Thank you very much for helping me with my study, I appreciate the effort and time you have taken to assist me. 1U DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE Please check the appropriate responses. 1. I am a: male .female 2. My age is: Under 29 years 30 to 39 years 40 to 49 years 50 to 59 years 60 to 69 years 3. I have worked in the field of education for: 0 to 5 years 6 to 10 years 11 to 15 years 16 to 20 years 21 to 25 years 26 or more years other (specify) 4. I spend at least % of my school time as a: principal vice principal school counsellor teacher resource teacher teacher aide other (specify) 5. At present, I teach, counsel, or administrate the following grade level(s): K 4 8 12 1 5 9 Other (Specify) 2 6 10 3 7 11 U5 For purposes of this study the following definitions of physical handicaps will be used: a) blind or partially sighted - visual acuity of 20/200 or less after all possible corrections. b) deaf or hard of hearing - more than a 20 decibel loss (require a hearing aid). c) speech impaired - marked communication disorder. d) orthopedically impaired - marked orthopedic defect. e) other health impairments - limited strength, vitality or alertness due to health problems. 6. Do you have a handicapped student: a) in your school no yes About how many? b) in your class (es) no yes About how many? 7. If you have answered "yes" to either part of question 6, check the following. Is this child (children): blind or partially sighted deaf or hard of hearing orthopedically handicapped speech impaired other health impairment 8. Do you have personal contact with a child or adult who has a physical handicap? a) At school yes no b) Outside of school yes no c) Within your family yes no 9. Do you have a physical handicap? yes no 10. In your opinion physically disabled children should: attend special schools for the disabled (e.g., Manitoba School for the Deaf) attend special classes for disabled children in public schools attend regular classes in public schools attend regular classes and receive the assistance of special support services other (specify) APPENDIX B ATTITUDE TOWARD DISABLED PERSONS SCALE U7 ATDP SCALE Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the statements about disabled people. Put an "X" through the appropri• ate number from -3 to +3, depending on how you feel in each case. -3: I Disagree Very Much +1: I Agree A Little -2: I Disagree Pretty Much +2: I Agree Pretty Much -1: I Disagree A Little +3: I Agree Very Much PLEASE ANSWER EVERY ITEM DVM PPM DL AL APM AVM 1. Disabled people are often unfriendly. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 2. Disabled people should not have to compete for jobs with physically normal persons. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 3. Disabled people are more emotional than other people. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 4. Most disabled persons are more self-conscious than other people. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 5. We should expect just as much from disabled as from non-disabled persons.-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 6. Disabled workers cannot be as success• ful as other workers. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 7. Disabled people usually do not make much of a contribution to society. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 8. Most non-disabled people would not want to marry anyone who is physically disabled. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 9. Disabled people show as much enthusiasm as other people. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 10. Disabled persons are usually more sensitive than other people. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 11. Severely disabled persons are usually untidy. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 U8 DVM PPM DL AL APM AVM 12. Most disabled people feel that they are as good as other people. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 13. The driving test given to a disabled person should be more severe than the one given to the non-disabled. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 14. Disabled people are usually sociable. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 15. Disabled persons usually are not as conscientious as physically normal persons. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 16. Severely disabled persons probably worry more about their health than those who have minor disabilities. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 17. Most disabled persons are not dissatisfied with themselves. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 18. There are more misfits among disabled persons than among non- disabled persons. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 19. Most disabled persons do not get discouraged easily. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 20. Most disabled persons resent physically normal people. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 21. Disabled children should compete with physically normal children. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 22. Most disabled persons can take care of themselves. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 23. It would be best if disabled persons would live and work with non-disabled persons. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 24. Most severely disabled people are just as ambitious as physically normal persons. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 25. Disabled people are just as self- confident as other people. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 26. Most disabled persons want more affection and praise than other people. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 U9 DVM DPM DL AL APM AVM 27. Physically disabled persons are often less intelligent than non-disabled ones. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 28. Most disabled persons are different from non-disabled people. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 •29. Disabled persons don't want any more sympathy than other people. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 30. The way disabled people act is irritating. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 APPENDIX C INTERNAL-EXTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL SCALE 151 I-E Scale This is a questionnaire to find out the way in which certain important events in our society affect different people. Each item consists of a pair of alternatives lettered a and b. Please select the one statement of each pair (and only one) which you more strongly believe to be the case as far as you are concerned. Be sure to select the one you actually believe to be more true than the one you think you should choose or the one you would like to be true. This is a measure of personal belief: obviously there are no right or wrong answers. Also, try to respond to each item independently when making your choice. Do not be influenced by your previous choices. Put an "X" on either (a) or (b). 1. (a) Children get into trouble because their parents punish them too much. (b) The trouble with most children nowadays is that their parents are too easy with them. 2. (a) Many of the unhappy things in people's lives are partly due to bad luck. (b) People's misfortunes result from the mistakes they make. 3. (a) One of the major reasons why we have wars is because people don't take enough interest in politics, (b) There will always be wars, no matter how hard people try to prevent them. 4. (a) In the long run people get the respect they deserve in this world. (b) Unfortunately, an individual's worth often passes unrecognized no matter how hard he tries. 5. (a) The idea that teachers are unfair to students is nonsense, (b) Most students don't realize the extent to which their grades are influenced by accidental happenings. 6. (a) Without the right breaks one cannot be an effective leader, (b) Capable people who fail to become leaders have not taken advantage of their opportunities. 7. (a) No matter how hard you try some people just don't like you. (b) People who can't get others to like them don't understand how to get along with others. 1 52 8. (a) Heredity plays a major role in determining one's personality, (b) It is one's experiences in life which determine what they're like. 9. (a) I have often found that what is going to happen will happen, (b) Trusting to fate has never turned out as well for me as making a decision to take a definite course of action. 10. (a) In the case of the well prepared student there is rarely, if ever, such a thing as an unfair test, (b) Many times exam questions tend to be so unrelated to course work that studying is really useless. 11. (a) Becoming a success is a matter of hard work, luck has little or nothing to do with it. (b) Getting a good job depends mainly on being in the right place at the right time. 12. (a) The average citizen can have an influence in government decisions. (b) This world is run by the few people in power, and there is not much the little guy can do about it. 13. (a) When I make plans, I am almost certain that I can make them work. (b) It is not always wise to plan too far ahead because many things turn out to be a matter of good or bad fortune anyhow. 14. (a) There are certain people who are just no good, (b) , There is some good in everybody. 15. (a) In my case getting what I want has little or nothing to do with luck. (b) Many times we might just as well decide what to do by flipping a coin. 16. (a) Who gets to be the boss often depends on who was lucky enough to be in the right place first, (b) Getting people to do the right thing depends upon ability, luck has little or nothing to do with it. 17. (a) As far as world affairs are concerned, most of us are the victims of forces we can neither understand nor control, (b) By taking an active part in political and social affairs the people can control world events. 18. (a Most people don't realize the extent to which their lives are controlled by accidental happenings. (b There really is no such thing as "luck". 153 19. (a) One should always be willing to admit mistakes, (b) It is usually best to cover up one's mistakes. 20. (a) It is hard to know whether or not a person really likes you. (b) How many friends you have depends upon how nice a person you are. 21. (a) In the long run, the bad things that happen to us are balanced by the good ones, (b) Most misfortunes are the result of lack of ability, ignorance, laziness, or all three. 22. (a) With enough effort we can wipe out political corruption, (b) It is difficult for people to have much control over the things politicians do in office. 23. (a) Sometimes I can't understand how teachers arrive at the grades they give. (b) There is a direct connection between how hard I study and the grades I get. 24. (a) A good leader expects people to decide for themselves what they should do. (b) A good leader makes it clear to everybody what their jobs are. 25. (a) Many times I feel that I have little influence over the things that happen to me. (b) It is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck plays an important role in my life. 26. (a) People are lonely because they don't try to be friendly. (b) There's not much use in trying too hard to please people, if they like you, they like you. 27. (a) There is too much emphasis on athletics in high school, (b) Team sports are an excellent way to build character. 28. (a) What happens to me is my own doing. (b) Sometimes I feel that I don't have enough control over the direction my life is taking. 29. (a) Most of the time I can't understand why politicians behave the way they do. (b) In the long run the people are responsible for bad government on a national as well as on a local level. APPENDIX D COLLETT-LESTER FEAR OF DEATH SCALE 155 THE FoD SCALE Here is a series of general statements. You are to indicate how much you agree or disagree with them. Record your opinion by putting an "X" on the corresponding number to the right of each item according to the following scale: -3 strong disagreement +1 slight agreement -2 moderate disagreement +2 moderate agreement -1 slight disagreement +3 strong agreement Read each item and decide quickly how you feel about it; then record the extent of your agreement or disagreement. Put down your first impressions. Please answer every item. StD MP SID S1A MA StA 1. I would avoid death at all costs. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 2. I would experience a great loss if someone close to me died. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 3. I would not feel anxious in the presence of someone I knew was dying.-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 4. The total isolation of death frightens me. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 5. I am disturbed by the physical degeneration involved in a slow death. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 6. I would not mind dying young. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 7. I accept the death of others as the end of their life on earth. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 8. I would not mind visiting a senile friend. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 9. I would easily adjust after the death of someone close to me. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 10. If I had a choice as to whether or not a friend should be informed he/ she is dying, I would tell him/her. -3 -2-1 +1 +2 +3 11. I would avoid a friend who was dying.-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 156 StD MD SID S1A MA StA 12. Dying might be an interesting experience. -3 -2 - +1 +2 +3 13. I would like to be able to communi• cate with the spirit of a friend who has died. -3 -2 +1 +2 +3 14. I view death as a release from earthly suffering. -3 -2 +1 +2 +3 15. The pain involved in dying frightens me. -3 -2 +1 +2 +3 16. I would want to know if a friend were dying. -3 -2 +1 +2 +3 17. I am disturbed by the shortness of life. -3 -2 - +1 +2 +3 18. I would not mind having to identify the corpse of someone I knew. -3 -2 +1 +2 +3 19. I would never get over the death of someone close to me. -3 -2 +1 +2 +3 20. The feeling that I might be missing out on so much after I die bothers me. -3 -2 +1 +2 +3 21. I do not think of dead people as hav• ing an existence of some kind. -3 -2 - +1 +2 +3 22. I would feel uneasy if someone talked to me about the approaching death of a common friend. -3 -2 - +1 +2 +3 23. Not knowing what it feels like to be dead does not bother me. -3 -2 - +1 +2 +3 24. If I had a fatal disease, I would like to be told. -3 -2 +1 +2 +3 25. I would visit a friend on his/her deathbed. -3 -2 - +1 +2 +3 26. The idea of never thinking or experiencing again after I die does not bother me. -3 -2 - +1 +2 +3 157 StD MP SID S1A MA StA 27. If someone close to me died I would miss him/her very much. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 28. I am not disturbed by death being the end of life as I know it. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 29. I would feel anxious if someone who was dying talked to me about it. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 30. The intellectual degeneration of old age disturbs me. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 31. If a friend were dying I would not want to be told. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 32. I could not accept the finality of the death of a friend. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 33. It would upset me to have to see someone who was dead. -3 -2-1 +1 +2 +3 34. If I knew a friend were dying, I would not know what to say to him/her. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 35. I would not like to see the physical degeneration of a friend who was dying. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 36. I am disturbed by the thought that my abilities will be limited while I lie dying. -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 APPENDIX E PURPOSE IN LIFE TEST 159 PIL Form A For each of the following statements, circle the number that would be most nearly true for you. Note that the numbers always extend from one extreme feeling to its opposite kind of feeling. "Neutral" implies no judgement either way; try to use this rating as little as possible. I am usually: 1 2 6 7 completely (neutral) exuberant, bored enthusiastic Life to me seems: 7 6 2 1 always (neutral) completely exciting routine In life I have: 1 2 6 7 no goals or (neutral) very clear goals aims at all and aims +. My personal existence is: 12 3 4 6 7 Utterly meaningless (neutral) very purposeful without purpose and meaningful 5. Every day is: 7 6 5 4 2 1 constantly new (neutral) exactly the same If I could choose, I would: 1 2 3 4 6 7 prefer never to (neutral) Like nine more have been born lives just like this one After retiring, I would: 7 6 5 4 2 1 do some of the (neutral) loaf completely exciting things the rest of my I have always life wanted to 160 8. In achieving life goals I have: 1 2 3 4 6 7 made no progress (neutral) progressed to whatever complete fulfillment My life is: 1 2 3. 4 6 7 empty, filled only (neutral) running over with despair with exciting good things 10. If I should die today, I would feel that my life has been: 7 5 4 2 1 very (neutral) completely worthwhile worthless 11, In thinking of my life, I: 12 3 4 6 7 often wonder (neutral) always see a why I exist reason for my being here 12. As I view the world in relation to my life, the world: 1 2 3 4 5 b 7 completely (neutral) fits confuses meaningfully me with my life 13. I am a: 1 2 3 4 5 7 very (neutral) very irresponsible responsible person person 14, Concerning man's freedom to make his own choices, I believe man is: 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 absolutely free (neutral) completely to make all bound by life choices limitations of heredity and environment 15. With regard to death, I am: 7 6 5 4 2 1 prepared and (neutral) unprepared and unafraid frightened 161 16. With regard to suicide, I have: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 thought of (neutral) never given it it seriously a second thought as a way out 17. I regard my ability to find a meaning, purpose, or mission in life as: 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 very great (neutral) practically none 18. My life is: 7 6 5 4 2 1 in my hands and (neutral) out of my hands I am in control and controlled of it by external factors 19. Facing my daily tasks is: 7 6 5 4 2 1 a source of (neutral) a painful and pleasure and boring satisfaction experience 20. I have discovered: 1 2 3 6 7 no mission or (neutral) clear-cut goals purpose in life and a satisfying life purpose APPENDIX F CORRESPONDENCE APPENDIX G FIGURES ci 0° o o co IS ******* co ***;! vO ***>: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -t- ;;t -;t *********************** * * * ******** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * # * * ***** * * * * * * * ***** * * * * ** * * * * * ********* * * * * * * * * * ** * < o co **************************************************** co ***************************************************,;< 3 O **************************************************** CO En **************************************************** cr; w "< PH X EH O S Q *************************************************************** I—I ************************************* O T 7 7 2 ? ? ? 12 ? f 2 r ? 2 X 2 2 2 * * * * ************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * on PH w i—t pq ************** ************************************** at p<£a * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * X=> CO >n O 1—1 o h-1 Q is PH PH W Q O 1=) EH cr; cr; * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * o PH *************************************************** o EH **************************************************** **************************************************** *************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * O E&n E-H EH < oo ********************************mmmmummmmmmmz* o ********************************* * * * * * ********* * ******* * * * * * * * * ** * ********** ON ********** **** co **** 53 o o o o o o o o o o oo ^o cn cr; pH FIGURE 2 INTERNAL-EXTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL SCALE 1*3 N = 426 FREQUENCY BAR CHART FREQUENCY *** *** *** *** 110 *** *** ;t* *** -::-** 100 **i 7(- -jr-jf-Je # * ***** ***** ***** ***** *** ***** 90 *** **** *** * * * * *** * * * * *** **** * **** 80 **** **** -A -A * * * * **** ***** **-:• ***** ***** 70 ***** ***** ***** **** 7**f 1* ~r* **** **-; ***** ***** * * * * * Tr ~r\ -I* * * * * * * * * * 60 ***** **** *** -/f 7\- ?f •>(• •$£/ *** ***** **-::-* *** * ?\- * * * **** *** ***** **** *** ***** •>£ •>(• 7C ifc 50 *** * * * * * 7$ 7C "/\ * * * * ii ***** ***** **** 7*f 7C •)(• 7C it .JJ. * * * ***** 1'-1'-1'. ***** 7f 7 ***** 7f/ -)(- 7(- 7f 40 **-: *** •>£ •)?• •)$• *-!H *** -if- -.(- V- **-: *** ***** ww IS" IS" -Jr -jf- 7f -)r -::-** * * * * * \- 7f -c • *** ***** -)r •Si' 7r ***** 7f 7C7C7C * 30 **-: ** 7\ 7C 7C / 7f 7C 7\ 7 '\- *** r** f" TV * * ***** ***** r • 20 _ ***** 7r r • ***** I 0; ***** ) t) ; ***** • 7f 10 ***-!H • •>£• ***** *** • 7T ***** ***** f" W ?f -jf -i ***** ***** "0" it it i> J*" it • 7i" - *"*"*"*"# 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 I-E MIDPOINT f 0° CO ****** ************* ******************** ******************* * < ******************** ******************%mssmmmm* O ******************** ** co ********************* ***** ****** ec < EH erf o < O o *************** c^ erf ******* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * < **************************** %mmm******** W < eq ******************************* ******** cc; ************************** ******** ;=> a cc: o Pi—Mi EH CO pq erf ****** PM *%mmmm%msmsmmmmm * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ******** * * ******** * * * * * ** * * * * ******** I FH ********** EH ***************** (-^ yl O O a******* *********** ******* 1111 ******* *** i SSilS ******** co ******** i vO ******** I I ** ****** O O o o o o o o o o o O ON CO -4- G? pi] erf PM FIGURE 4 PURPOSE IN LIFE TEST N 453 FREQUENCY BAR CHART FREQUENCY ***** ***** ** *** ***** ***** 220 * * * * * ***** ***** ****7^ •>£ -Jr /{• *?c * * * * * 200 ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 180 * * * * * * * * * * ***** * * * * * ***** ***** 160 ***** ***** ***** ***** * * * * * ***** UO J- ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 120 ***** ***** ~n * * * * ***** * * * * * * * * * * -«**** ***** ***** ***** * * * * * * * * * * 100 \- ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ** * * * * * * * 80 ***** * H ***** if t* * * * * * 7i" 7'f ***** 74- •?? 7f * * * * * 7T * 7r 7r 7r ?r -Jf ***** (" ' ***** ***** 60 ***** ***** ;*~ TV •>(• -Jr 4c 7f ***** £ • * * * * * * * * * * ;-* * * * * * ***** ***** 40 ***** 7^ f: ***** ***** H ***** ***** {) ) ***** 20 ***** J ; ***** •Jc "Jr 7C 7f 7r ***** 7C ?f ***** ***** * * * **** * 16 32 4.8 64 80 96 112 128 144 PIL MIDPOINT APPENDIX H TABLES 187 TABLE 1 DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS ELEMENTARY JUNIOR-SENIOR SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL Educators 4.57 Administrators 85 52 137 Counsellors 10 55 65 Teachers 110 116 226 Other 29 188 TABLE 2 ATTITUDE TOWARD DISABLED PERSONS SCALE MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION Educators 130.01 18.51 Administrators 130.91 18.70 Junior-Senior High 127.31 18.06 Elementary 133.06 18.85 Counsellors 127.27 16.68 Junior-Senior High 128.13 17.24 Elementary 122.70 13.09 Teachers 130.18 18.94 Junior-Senior High 128.53 18.20 Elementary 131.85 18.83 189 TABLE 3 ATDP COMPARISON OF TEACHERS, COUNSELLORS AND ADMINISTRATORS STANDARD MEAN DEVIATION Counsellors 127.27 16.68 Teachers 130.18 18.94 Admini strators 130.91 18.70 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF SUM OF MEAN VARIATION SQUARES df SQUARE PROB. Between 583.63 291.82 0.85 0.4282 Within 136979.73 399 343.31 Total 137563.36 401 190 TABLE 4A EDUCATORS' ATDP SCORES t STATISTICS AND CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS STATISTICS N MEAN STD. DEV. MINIMUM MAXIMUM ATDP 430 130.01 18.51 80.00 177.00 FOD 443 - 6.25 25.34 -77.00 67.00 PIL 453 112.36 15.91 11.00 U0.00 I-E 426 7.91 4.26 0.00 22.00 PEARSON PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOD PIL I-E ATDP -0.24 0.18 -0.20 p .0001 .0001 .0001 N 420 427 408 191 TABLE 4B TEACHERS' ATDP SCORES : STATISTICS AND CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS STATISTICS N MEAN STD. DEV. MINIMUM MAXIMUM ATDP 208 130.18 18.94 81.00 174.00 FOD 218 - 3.82 24.81 -77.00 57.00 PIL 225 110.17 15.87 11.00 U0.00 I-E 212 8.59 4-25 0.00 22.00 PEARSON PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOD PIL I-E ATDP -0.37 0.20 -0.21 P 0.0001 0.0043 0.0034 N 203 207 200 192 TABLE 4C ADMINISTRATORS' ATDP SCORES: STATISTICS AND CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS STATISTICS MEAN STD. DEV. MINIMUM MAXIMUM ATDP 131 130.91 18.70 80.00 177.00 FOD 133 -10.16 24.62 -70.00 67.00 PIL 135 1U-36 18.37 11.00 139.00 I-E 130 6.69 4.25 0.00 21.00 PEARSON PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOD PIL I-E ATDP -0.08 0.13 -0.21 P ' O.364 0.151 0.017 N 128 130 125 193 TABLE 4D COUNSELLORS' ATDP SCORES. STATISTICS AND CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS STATISTICS N MEAN STD. DEV. MINIMUM MAXIMUM ATDP 63 127.27 16.68 88.00 162.00 FOD 63 - 5.95 28.11 -66.00 72.00 PIL 64 114.56 10.79 80.00 138.00 I-E 59 7.97 3.96 2.00 19.00 PEARSON PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOD PIL I-E ATDP -0.26 0.17 -O.O4 P 0.045 0.120 0.755 N 61 62 58 194 TABLE $ DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS BY SEX PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL N MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE Educators 268 1l Administrators 118 19 25.99 4-19 Junior-Senior High 46 5 Elementary 71 14 Counsellors 34 31 7.49 6.83 Junior-Senior High 30 25 Elementary 4 6 Teachers 107 119 23.57 26.21 Junior-Senior High 76 40 Elementary 31 79 Other 11 1! 195 TABLE 6A COMPARISON BY SEX OF EDUCATORS' ATDP SCORES STANDARD SEX N MEAN DEVIATION Male 254 128.94 19.04 Female 176 131.56 17.65 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF SUM OF MEAN VARIATION SQUARES df SQUARE PROB. Between 714.49 714.49 2.09 0.1489 Within 146231.43 428 34.1.66 Total 146945.92 429 196 TABLE 6B COMPARISON BY SEX OF TEACHERS' ATDP SCORES STANDARD SEX MEAN DEVIATION Male 99 129.23 20.19 Female 109 131.04 17.79 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF SUM OF MEAN VARIATION SQUARES df SQUARE PROB. 0.47 0.4940 Between 168.91 1 168.91 Within 74105.51 206 359.74 Total 74274.42 207 197 TABLE 6C COMPARISON BY SEX OF COUNSELLORS' ATDP SCORES STANDARD SEX N MEAN DEVIATION Male 33 126.64 17.92 Female 30 127.97 15.46 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF SUM OF MEAN VARIATION SQUARES, df SQUARE F PROB. Between 27.81 27.81 0.10 0.7546 Within 17212.60 61 282.17 Total 17240.41 62 198 TABLE 6D COMPARISON BY SEX OF ADMINISTRATORS' ATDP SCORES STANDARD SEX N MEAN DEVIATION Male 112 129.52 18.74 Female 19 139.11 16.63 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF SUM OF MEAN VARIATION SQUARES df SQUARE PROB. Between U93.15 U93.15 4-38 0.0383 Within 43971.75 129 340.87 Total 45464.90 130 199 TABLE 7A MEAN AGE OF EDUCATORS ELEMENTARY JUNIOR-SENIOR SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL Administrators 44.76 44.23 Counsellors 36.00 40.37 Teachers 35.09 35.95 TABLE 7B DISTRIBUTION OF COUNSELLORS, TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS BY AGE AGE MIDPOINT COUNSELLORS TEACHERS ADMINISTRATORS 25 4 56 1 35 37 116 40 45 U 40 62 55 7 11 30 65 2 2 3 200 TABLE 7C DISTRIBUTION OF ELEMENTARY AND HIGH SCHOOL. EDUCATORS BY AGE AGE ELEMENTARY JUNIOR-SENIOR MIDPOINT SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL 25 38 28 35 94 114 45 60 60 55 23 27 65 6 3 TABLE 7D SEX AND AGE OF EDUCATORS AGE MIDPOINT FEMALE MALE 25 47 19 35 80 128 45 38 81 55 12 38 65 7 2 2C1 TABLE 8 COMPARISON BY AGE OF EDUCATORS' ATDP SCORES AGE STANDARD MIDPOINT N MEAN DEVIATION 25 63 130.56 14.25 35 194 130.88 18.27 45 115 129.76 20.07 55 46 127.46 19.78 65 9 127.78 24.66 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF SUM OF MEAN VARIATION SQUARES df SQUARE PROB. Between 515.08 128.77 0.37 0.8280 Within 145727.98 422 345.33 Total 146243.06 426 202 TABLE 9A MEAN NUMBER OF YEARS EMPLOYED IN EDUCATION ELEMENTARY JUNIOR-SENIOR SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL Administrators 21.58 20.52 Counsellors 11 .50 13.64 Teachers 11.50 11.39 TABLE 9B YEARS EMPLOYED IN EDUCATION AND EDUCATIONAL POSITION YEARS IN EDUCATION MIDPOINT COUNSELLORS TEACHERS ADMINISTRATORS 3 5 37 1 8 17 83 4 13 26 62 32 18 16 21 26 23 2 12 35 30 5 10 39 203 TABLE 9C DISTRIBUTION OF EDUCATORS BY SEX AND NUMBER OF YEARS EMPLOYED IN EDUCATION YEARS IN EDUCATION MIDPOINT FEMALE MALE TOTAL 3 35 12 47 8 59 51 110 13 52 81 133 18 15 44 59 23 14 . 36 50 30 11 45 56 204 TABLE 10 ATDP SCORES AND NUMBER OF YEARS IN EDUCATION YEARS IN STANDARD EDUCATION N MEAN DEVIATION 45 129.64 11.80 103 130.21 18.71 13 124 131.26 17.65 18 58 134.22 18.34 23 46 125.33 21.78 30 53 126.92 21.04 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF SUM OF MEAN VARIATION SQUARES df SQUARE PROB. Between 2745.79 549.16 1.62 0.1530 Within 143669.25 423 339.64 Total -146415.04 428 205 TABLE 11A ELEMENTARY AND JUNIOR-SENIOR HIGH- SCHOOL EDUCATORS' ATDP SCORES STANDARD MEAN DEVIATION Elementary 213 132.U 18.49 High School 217 127.93 18.33 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF SUM OF MEAN VARIATION SQUARES df SQUARE PROB. Between 1909.32 1909-32 5.63 0.0181 Within 145036.59 428 338.87 Total 146945-92 429 206 TABLE 11B ELEMENTARY AND JUNIOR-SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL COUNSELLORS' ATDP SCORES STANDARD MEAN DEVIATION Elementary 10 122.70 13.09 High School 53 128.13 17.24 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF SUM OF MEAN VARIATION SQUARES df SQUARE PROB. Between 248.24 248.24 0.89 0.3489 Within 16992.18 61 278.56 Total 17240.41 62 207 TABLE 11C ELEMENTARY AND.JUNIOR-SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS' ATDP SCORES STANDARD MEAN DEVIATION Elementary 103 131.85 18.83 High School 105 128.53 18.10 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF SUM OF MEAN VARIATION SQUARES df SQUARE PROB. Between 573.47 573.47 1.60 0.2069 Within 73700.95 206 357.77 Total 74274.42 207 208 TABLE 11D ELEMENTARY•AND JUNIOR-SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS' ATDP SCORES STANDARD MEAN DEVIATION Elementary 82 133.06 18.85 High School 49 127.31 18.06 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF SUM OF MEAN VARIATION SQUARES df SQUARE PROB. 5 ewe en 1015.80 1015.80 2.95 0.0884 Within 44449.10 129 344.57 Total 45464-90 130 209 TABLE 12A EDUCATORS WITH HANDICAPPED STUDENT IN SCHOOL OR CLASS ELEMENTARY JUNIOR-SENIOR SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL Admini strators 66 42 108 Counsellors 9 48 57 Teachers 65 73 138 Educators 323 TABLE 12B ELEMENTARY AND HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATORS WITH AND WITHOUT HANDICAPPED STUDENTS' NO HANDICAPPED WITH HANDICAPPED STUDENTS STUDENTS Elementary School 155 Junior-Senior High School 66 168 Total 134 323 210 TABLE 12C SEX OF EDUCATORS WITH AND WITHOUT HANDICAPPED STUDENTS IN SCHOOL OR CLASS NO HANDICAPPED WITH HANDICAPPED STUDENTS STUDENTS Female 59 128 Male 75 195 Total 134 323 TABLE 12D COUNSELLORS, TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS WITH AND WITHOUT HANDICAPPED STUDENTS IN SCHOOL OR CLASS NO HANDICAPPED WITH HANDICAPPED STUDENTS STUDENTS Counsellors 7 56 Teachers 80 128 Administrators 29 102 211 TABLE 12E FREQUENCY OF EDUCATORS WITH STUDENT IN SCHOOL OR CLASS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO DISABILITY NUMBER OF EDUCATORS TYPE OF DISABILITY OF STUDENT 85 Blind or partially sighted 180 Deaf or hard of hearing 115 Orthopedically handicapped 132 Speech impaired 129 Other health impairment 212 TABLE 13A ATDP COMPARISON FOR EDUCATORS WITH AND WITHOUT HANDICAPPED STUDENTS IN THEIR SCHOOL OR CLASS STANDARD N MEAN DEVIATION No Handicapped 124 129.45 19.19 Students With Handicapped 306 130.24 18.25 Students ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF SUM OF MEAN VARIATION SQUARES df SQUARE F PROB. Between 55.10 1 55.10 0.16 0.6888 Within 146890.81 428 343.20 Total 1 46945.91 429 213 TABLE 13B ATDP COMPARISON FOR COUNSELLORS WITH AND WITHOUT HANDICAPPED STUDENTS IN THEIR SCHOOL OR CLASS STANDARD MEAN DEVIATION No Handicapped 125.29 17.82 Students With Handicapped 56 127.52 16.68 Students ANALYSIS.OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF SUM OF MEAN VARIATION SQUARES df SQUARE PROB. Between 31.00 31.00 0.11 0.74U Within 17209.41 61 282.12 Total 17240.41 62 2U TABLE 13C ATDP COMPARISON FOR TEACHERS WITH AND WITHOUT HANDICAPPED STUDENTS IN THEIR SCHOOL OR CLASS STANDARD N MEAN DEVIATION No Handicapped 80 129.63 20.47 Students With Handicapped 128 130.52 18.00 Students ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF SUM OF MEAN VARIATION SQUARES df SQUARE F PROB. Between 39.74 39.74 0.11 0.7402 Within 74234-68 206 360.36 Total 74274.4-2 207 215 TABLE 13D ATDP COMPARISON FOR ADMINISTRATORS WITH AND WITHOUT HANDICAPPED STUDENTS IN THEIR SCHOOL OR CLASS STANDARD N MEAN DEVIATION No Handicapped 29 130. U 16.89 Students With Handicapped 102 131.13 19.26 Students ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF SUM OF MEAN VARIATION SQUARES df SQUARE PROB. Between 22.11 22.11 0.06 0.8026 Within 45442.80 129 352.27 Total 45464.90 130 216 TABLE UA EDUCATORS WHO HAD PERSONAL CONTACT WITH A DISABLED PERSON ELEMENTARY JUNIOR-SENIOR SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL Administrators 73 41 114 Counsellors 9 49 58 Teachers 71 69 uo TABLE UB ELEMENTARY AND HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATORS AND PERSONAL CONTACT WITH A DISABLED PERSON ELEMENTARY JUNIOR-SENIOR SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL No Personal 53 68 121 Contact Personal 170 166 336 Contact 217 TABLE UC SEX OF EDUCATORS AND PERSONAL CONTACT WITH DISABLED PERSON SEX FEMALE MALE TOTAL No Personal 59 62 121 Contact Personal 128 208 336 Contact 218 TABLE 15A EDUCATORS' ATDP SCORES AND PERSONAL CONTACT WITH PHYSICALLY DISABLED PEOPLE PERSONAL STANDARD CONTACT N MEAN DEVIATION Yes 315 130.69 18.15 No 115 128.17 19.43 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF SUM OF MEAN VARIATION SQUARES df SQUARE PROB. Between 531.51 531.51 1.55 0.2133 Within 1464I4.41 428 342.09 Total 146945.92 429 219 TABLE 15B TEACHERS' ATDP SCORES AND PERSONAL CONTACT WITH PHYSICALLY DISABLED PEOPLE PERSONAL STANDARD CONTACT N MEAN DEVIATION Yes 127 130.64 17.93 No 81 129.46 20.53 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF SUM OF MEAN VARIATION SQUARES df SQUARE PROB. Between 68.98 68.98 0.19 0.6621 Within 74205.44 206 360.22 Total 74274.42 207 220 TABLE 15C COUNSELLORS' ATDP SCORES AND PERSONAL CONTACT WITH PHYSICALLY DISABLED PEOPLE PERSONAL STANDARD CONTACT N MEAN DEVIATION Yes 57 127.40 17.09 No 6 126.00 13.25 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF SUM OF MEAN VARIATION SQUARES df SQUARE PROB. Between 10.69 10.69 0.04 O.8464 Within 17229.72 61 282.45 Total 17240.41 62 221 TABLE 15D ADMINISTRATORS' ATDP SCORES AND PERSONAL CONTACT WITH PHYSICALLY DISABLED PEOPLE PERSONAL STANDARD CONTACT N MEAN DEVIATION Yes 108 131.70 18.92 No 23 127.17 17.56 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF SUM OF MEAN VARIATION SQUARES df SQUARE PROB. Between 389.08 389.08 1.11 0.2933 Within 45075.82 129 349.42 Total 45464.90 130 222 TABLE 16A ATDP COMPARISONS FOR HANDICAPPED AND NONHANDICAPPED EDUCATORS STANDARD MEAN DEVIATION Handicapped 15 133.80 20.82 Nonhandi capped 4-03 129.73 I8.48 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF SUM OF MEAN VARIATION SQUARES df SQUARE F PROB. Between 239.03 239.03 0.69 0.4054 Within U3330.99 416 344.55 Total 1 43570.02 417 223 TABLE 16B I-E COMPARISONS FOR HANDICAPPED AND NONHANDICAPPED EDUCATORS STANDARD N MEAN DEVIATION Handicapped 15 5.80 4.59 Nonhandicapped 401 8.00 4.26 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF SUM OF MEAN VARIATION SQUARES df SQUARE F PROB. Between 70.30 1 70.30 3.85 0.0505 Within 7562.39 414 18.27 Total 7632.69 415 224 TABLE 16C PIL COMPARISONS FOR HANDICAPPED AND NONHANDICAPPED EDUCATORS STANDARD MEAN DEVIATION Handicapped 15 119.27 10.88 Nonhandicapped 426 112.11 16.13 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF SUM OF MEAN VARIATION SQUARES df SQUARE PROB. Between 742.56 1 742.56 2.90 0.0891 Within 112275.97 439 255.75 Total 113018.52 44O 225 TABLE 16D FOD COMPARISONS FOR HANDICAPPED AND NONHANDICAPPED EDUCATORS STANDARD MEAN DEVIATION Handicapped U •15.57 17.80 Nonhandicapped 4I8 • 5.90 25.63 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF SUM OF MEAN VARIATION SQUARES df SQUARE PROB. Between 1267.83 1 1267.83 1.96 0.1622 Within 278134-01 430 646.82 Total 279401.83 431 226 TABLE 16E EDUCATORS' ATDP SCORES COMPARED WITH ATDP NORMS NONDISABLED STD. SEX OR DISABLED N df MEAN DEV. NORM VALUE PROB Female Nondisabled 167 166 131 .U 17.72 1U.18 12.38 0.001 Male Nondisabled 236 235 128.74 18.97 106.65 17.96 0.001 Female Disabled 6 5 U3.83 13.32 123.58 3.72 0.050 Male Disabled 9 8 127.11 22.85 120.43 0.88 0.500 227 TABLE 17A EDUCATORS' PROGRAM PREFERENCES FOR PHYSICALLY DISABLED STUDENTS In your opinion, physically disabled children should: RESPONDED OPINION POSITIVELY' PERCENTAGE 1 attend special schools for the disabled (e.g., Manitoba School for the Deaf) 59 12.91 attend special classes for disabled children in public schools 68 I4.88 attend regular classes in public schools 38 8.36 attend regular classes and receive the assistance of special support services 325 71.12 5 other (specify) 51 11.16 TABLE 17B HANDICAPPED AND NONHANDICAPPED EDUCATORS' PROGRAMING PREFERENCES FOR PHYSICALLY DISABLED STUDENTS OPINION FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE Handicapped 15 3 3 5 11 3 Educators 20.00? 20.00? 33.33? 73.33? 20.00? Nonhandicapped 442 54 62 32 305 45 Educators 12.65? U-52? 7. 71.43? 10.54? 229 TABLE 17C PROGRAMING PREFERENCES FOR HANDICAPPED STUDENTS BY EDUCATORS CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO AGE OPINION AGE MIDPOINT 12 3 4 5 25 4 17 4 43 8 35 38 31 16 145 26 45 10 11 13 95 7 55 4 7 5 35 9 65 2 1 0 6 1 230 TABLE 17D COUNSELLORS', TEACHERS1, AND ADMINISTRATORS' PROGRAMING PREFERENCES FOR PHYSICALLY DISABLED STUDENTS OPINION FREQUENCY N 1 2 3 5 Counsellors 65 7 9 8 48 10 10.77? 13.85? 12.31? 73.85? 15.38? Teachers 226 45 44 15 no 27 19.91? 19.47? 6.64? 61.95? 11.95? Administrators 137 5 12 13 114 U 3.65? 8.76? 9.49? 83.21? 10.22? 231 TABLE 17E ELEMENTARY AMD HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATORS' PROGRAMING PREFERENCES FOR PHYSICALLY DISABLED STUDENTS OPINION Elementary 223 27 38 11 166 23 Educators 12.11? 17.04? 4-93? 74.44? 10.31? High School 234 32 30 27 159 28 Educators 13.68? 12.82? 11.54? 67.95? 11. 232 TABLE 17F PROGRAMING PREFERENCES FOR HANDICAPPED STUDENTS OF EDUCATORS WITH AND WITHOUT HANDICAPPED STUDENTS IN THEIR SCHOOL OR CLASS OPINION N 5' Handicapped Student 323 29 40 29 241 44 in School or 8.98? 12. 74.61? 13.62? Class No Handicapped Student 134 30 28 9 84 7 in School or 22.39? 20.90? 6.72? 62.89? 5.22? Class 233 TABLE 17G PROGRAMING PREFERENCES FOR HANDICAPPED STUDENTS OF EDUCATORS WITH AND WITHOUT PERSONAL CONTACT WITH A DISABLED PERSON OPINION FREQUENCE No Personal 121 25 26 11 70 7 Contact 20.66? 21.49? 9.09? 57.85? 5.79? Personal 336 34 42 27 255 44 Contact 10.12? 12.50? 8.04? 75.89? 13.10? 234 TABLE 18A ATDP COMPARISONS FOR EDUCATORS WHO SELECTED OPINION 1 AND THOSE WHO DID NOT STANDARD MEAN DEVIATION Responded 54 125.19 20.64 Positively Did Not Respond 372 130.89 18.02 Positively ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF SUM OF MEAN VARIATION SQUARES df SQUARE PROB. Between 1533.09 1533.09 4.54 0.0336 Within 143067.41 424 337.42 Total 1446OO.50 425 235 TABLE 18B ATDP COMPARISONS FOR EDUCATORS WHO SELECTED OPINION 2 AND THOSE WHO DID NOT STANDARD MEAN DEVIATION Responded 63 129.89 17.71 Positively Did Not Respond 363 130.21 18.59 Positively ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF SUM OF MEAN VARIATION SQUARES df SQUARE PROB. Between 5.61 5.61 0.02 0.8980 Within 144594-89 424 341.03 Total 144600.50 425 236 TABLE 18C ATDP COMPARISONS FOR EDUCATORS WHO SELECTED OPINION 3 AND THOSE WHO DID NOT STANDARD N MEAN DEVIATION Responded Positively 34 132.59 18.18 Did Not Respond 392 129.95 I8.48 Positively ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF SUM OF MEAN VARIATION SQUARES df SQUARE PROB. Between 217.09 217.09 O.64 0.4251 Within 144383.41 424 340.53 Total U4600.50 4-25 237 TABLE 18D ATDP COMPARISONS FOR'"EDUCATORS WHO SELECTED OPINION 4 AND THOSE WHO DID NOT STANDARD MEAN DEVIATION Responded 311 132.00 17.47 Positively Did Not Respond 115 125.19 20.10 Positively ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF SUM OF MEAN VARIATION SQUARES df SQUARE PROB. Between 3895.71 3895.71 11.74 0.0007 Within 140704.79 424 331.85 Total 1446OO.50 425