“HENRI COANDA” “GENERAL M.R. STEFANIK” AIR FORCE ACADEMY ARMED FORCES ACADEMY ROMANIA SLOVAK REPUBLIC
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE of SCIENTIFIC PAPER AFASES 2013 Brasov, 23-25 May 2013
FRUSTRATION TOLERANCE AND THE DEGREE OF NEUROTICISM OF DEINSTITUTIONALIZED INDIVIDUALS
Camelia DINDELEGAN*, Crina TALPOŞ**, Florina SERAC-POPA***
* Faculty of Social and Human Sciences, University of Oradea, Department of Psychology, Oradea, Romania and “Dr. Gavril Curteanu” Municipal Clinical Hospital Oradea, Romania, **Individual Psychology Practice Crina Talpoş, Oradea, România, ***“Dr. Gavril Curteanu” Municipal Clinical Hospital Oradea, România
Abstract: Being tolerant to frustration is a solution increasingly promoted in the literature, as a prefferential method to deal with the emotional and behavioral reactions. Frustration tolerance implies that frustration is already part of the system. It is obvious that life in institution gives birth to some frustrations at the level of individual personality of the deinstitutionalized young man; these frustrations will rise deep suffering as a result of the family separation and can also degenerate in neuroticism, deviant or anti-social behaviors. In fact, the core of frustration is in the constellation of psychological factors which turned a negative emotion of low or medium intensity into a high negative emotion which unbalances the psyche through a high power of cognitive, emotional and affective energy. The number of children who live in institutions until de age of 18 is about 4500 a year, at a national count. Only some of them , especially those with disorders get into adult institutions. The others have no other institutional alternative because they don’t have families or relatives. The general purpose of this study is to identify, clasify and make some psychological personality profiles in the case of deinstitutionalized people in order to establish possibilities for their professional, social and cultural integration through social politics. Young people who leave the child protection system represent a social category with specific problems and difficulties, being a priority for the general system of heath and welfare in Romania and it requires an immediate intervention. Keywords: frustration tolerance, deinstitutionalization, neuroticism, implication in activities, young people.
Frustation is one’s condition expressed in 1. INTRODUCTION specific feelings and behaviours, it is caused by invincible objective goals occuring while Frustration is a negative affective state achieving a goal or solving a problem. which appears when the individual finds an Frustration is in fact the affective obstacle in his way which stops him from experience of failure, perceived in a more satisfying one of his needs. dramatic and intense way. T. Rudica (1981)- underlines that being Another child who experiences a low conscious of a state of deprivation which will depedence on his parent, may not be so create emotional tensions or the need to free affected by his parent leaving home but he from a situation are signs of frustration. should be more affected by a dominant partner Moreover there are times when the subject in the playground- which can be a strong cannot associate frustration to a certain cause. frustrating factor. Frustration may also appear unmotivated Thus, some children bear more, other bear or not sufficiently motivated from an objective less frustration, but this does not change the point of view. It is specific to persons who fact that frustration arouses anger which leads interpret reality constrained by selfishness, by to an agressive behaviour. their inability to detach from their own Yarrow (1948 – as cited Cicchetti, D., emotions and egotic tendencies, which make 2003) confirms this statement in an them believe they have only rights and no experiment involving 60 preschool children. duties. This category of persons show low In the first stage, children were allowed to tolerance to frustration, because of their play freely for 30 minutes and they could be egotism, their selfishness, and in order to observed by the experimenters through a semi- satisfy their needs they may resort even to transparent mirror in order to notice any illegal attemps. agressive behaviour: hitting with the hand, the Because frustration is expressed in a high foot, threats, injuries etc. negative affective tension, the individual may After this stage, children were divided show a disorganized behaviour- anarchic and intor 3 groups: deviant. Children from the first group were given tasks Not every obstacle has a frustrating effect they couldn’t do- they were frustrated. on the child. It was observed the daily work of Children from the second group were obliged preschool children in different situations (at to play with the same toy for 20 minutes home, at the nursery, on the playground) and because the experimenters assumed that noticed that although children have excessive playing leads to a certain state of encountered different obstacles in the frustration. playground activities (restrictions, loss of toys The control group didn’t do any of the above etc), most of the obstacles don’t cause the mentioned. child a problem- i.e it has no frustrating effect. Finally, the three groups were invited to We may say that, frustration is caused by play freely back again for 30 minutes and the subjective factors, dependent on the previous experimenters noted children’s agressive experiences the individual had and by his behaviour. In this case, the agressive effect of personality. frustration was confirmed in the case of A notable example in this way is given by children from the first two groups. These Mussen (1961)- a parent’s leaving home may children manifested more agressive reactions cause a big frustration to a child who is highly than those from the control group. dependent on this parent; whereas his playmate’s superiority and his violent 1.1. Frustration- agression theory tendency to dominate the playground don’t Frustration- agression theory was one of botter him because he is rather passive and the most influent in this field. It was proposed withdrawn in the game. by a group of psychologists from Yale University – Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer şi
“HENRI COANDA” “GENERAL M.R. STEFANIK” AIR FORCE ACADEMY ARMED FORCES ACADEMY ROMANIA SLOVAK REPUBLIC
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE of SCIENTIFIC PAPER AFASES 2013 Brasov, 23-25 May 2013
Sears – 1939. This theory appeared as a 2.2. Method reaction to the freudian theory. 2.2.1. Subjects Thus, the theory states that any agression In order to test the hypothesis and leads to frustration and any agressive achieve the objectives, the comparative study behaviour is based on frustration. After the was conducted on a total of 129 war, many psychologists have shown that deinstitutionalized people. The group was agression can be determined by other factors, heterogeneous in terms of employment, not only by frustration. gender, background and level of education and In fact, immediately after the publication included people from both rural and urban of this book, there were many critics which areas, people without education or secondary emphasized the fact that frustration doesn’t education and people having different always lead to agression, there are other characteristics. The subjects are between 18 possible reactions such as apathy, the cry of and 37 years old. helpnessness etc. The subjects included in the study were chosen thanks to data provided by ASCO. 2. METHODOLOGY OF RESEARCH All the subjects were involved voluntarily in the clinical trial and in the objective 2.1. Hypothesis: evaluation made according to the two scales. There are significant differencies in terms 2.2.2. Materials of working (absence, working under a Wechsler Test – (D. Wechsler; WAIS- R, contract or on a daily basis) in the case of 1981) deinstitutionalised people according to the Eysenck Personality Inventory (E.P.I.) major issues such as: neuroticism and their (H. Eysenck, S.B.G. Eysenck, 1969). frustration tolerance. 2.3. Results and their interpretation 2.1.1. Variables 2.3.1. Hypothesis. Therea are Independent variables – involving in the significant differences in terms of work environment; deinstitutionalized persons’ involvment in the Dependent variables work field according to their neuroticism and • neuroticism - a1- absent; their frustration tolerance. - a2 - moderate; - a3 - high. Table no. 1 Comparisons between the • frustration tolerance - c1- absent; deinstitutionalized persons as for their - c2 - moderate ; implication in the work environment - c3 - high. according to their neuroticism. 2.1.2. Design Experimental design: unifactorial inter- group Implicati Table no. 2 Comparisons between the on in the work Neuroticism deinstitutionalized persons as for their environ implication in the work environment ment Pears according to their frustration tolerance. mo on Sig. abs hig der Chi- df (2- ent h ate squar sided) e 9 The results in Table no. 2 show that nowhe Count 0 6 24 re there are no significant differences as for the Adjust implication in the work environment in the ed -1.3 -1.5 1.6 case of deinstitutionalized persons according Resid ual to their level of frustration tolerance. The On a significance threshold is p>0.05. daily Count 0 9 23 basis 9 These results are explained by the fact Adjust Implication Pea ed 13.1 -1.3 -.2 .8 6 .041 in the work Frustration rso Resid 35 Sig. environme tolerance n ual (2- nt Chi df side With - a abse mod hig d) squ nt erate h work Count 3 12 14 are contra Co ct Nowhere 0 6 25 unt Adjust On a ed Co 2.6 1.7 -2.5 daily 0 7 25 6.9 Resid unt 4 .137 basis 88 ual With a Co work 1 12 16 unt o As for the neuroticism shown by contract deinstitutionalized persons, the results that deinstitutionalized persons who don’t presented in Table no. 1 show that there are work or simply work on a daily basis have a significant differences between the high level of frustration tolerance- i.e are less deinstitutionalized persons in their implication tolerant, this being a cause for their inability to in the work environment accordind to this enter the work environment, they can’t adapt feature. The significance threshold is p<0.05. to the rules of an institution. This characterises o According to these results, the most the young people who were raised in deinstitutionalized persons who don’t have a institutions and now they reject any form of job or work on a daily basis, ocasionally, show obedience and conformation. a higher level of neuroticism to those who Frustration may also appear unmotivated work legally, with a contract. These results or not sufficiently motivated from an objective can be explained by the fact that neuroticism point of view. It is specific to persons who is part of the deinstitutionalized persons’ interpret reality constrained by selfishness, by personality. This feature of personality is their inability to detach from their own manifested through inability to establish emotions and egotic tendencies, which make positive relationships with others and the them believe they have only rights and no behavioral tendency to disrespect the social duties. Because frustration is expressed in a values and rules. high negative affective tension, the individual may show a disorganized behaviour- anarchic and deviant.
“HENRI COANDA” “GENERAL M.R. STEFANIK” AIR FORCE ACADEMY ARMED FORCES ACADEMY ROMANIA SLOVAK REPUBLIC
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE of SCIENTIFIC PAPER AFASES 2013 Brasov, 23-25 May 2013
Because of the fact that children had a Consequently, we can say that traumatising childhood in which they deinstitutionalized persons who have problems developed many frustrations, their refusal to in involving in the work environment show enter the work environment is a desire to high scores of neuroticism and sometimes escape the conformism of institutionalized their frustration tolerance is rather low. childhood. REFERENCES 3. CONCLUSIONS 1. Cicchetti, D., (2003), Development The children who leave the child and Psychopatology, Cambridge protection system represent a social category University Press with specific problems and difficulties, being 2. Dollard, J., Doob, L.W., Miller, N.E., a priority for the general system of heath and Mowrer, O.H., Sears, R.T. (1939). welfare in Romania and it requires an Frustration and agression, Yale immediate intervention. University Press, New Haven As a result of this study, we concluded that 3. Eysenck, H.J., Eysenck, S.B.G. (1969). deinstitutionalized persons who don’t work Personality Structure and tend to have health problems and experience Measurement. London: Routledge solitude. 4. Mussen, O., (1961). Some antecedents Neuroticism is a feature which manifests and consequents of masculine sex- in the case of deinstitutionalized persons who typing in adolescent boys. Psychology don’t work or simply work on a daily basis Monography, 75, No.2 and it is determined by their inability to 5. Rudica, T., (1981). Family before the establish positive relationships with others and child`s bad behaviors, Editura their tendency to disrespect the social rules Didactica si Pedagogica, Bucharest and values. 6. Wechsler, D. (1981) Manual for the Frustration tolerance determines Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale- significant differences between the Revised. Psychological Corporation, deinstitutionalized childen – i.e those who New York aren’t tolerant prefer moderate activities which imply average difficulty, showing self- protection abilities manifested only under coordination; on the other hand, deinstitutionalized persons having moderate frustration tolerance prefer light activities, the results showing that frustration may also appear unmotivated or insufficiently motivated from an objective point of view.