Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Interpersonal Perception Between Physically Handicapped 'Problem' And 'Non-Problem' Adolescents And Their Mothers
(USC Thesis Other)
Interpersonal Perception Between Physically Handicapped 'Problem' And 'Non-Problem' Adolescents And Their Mothers
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
INTERPERSONAL PERCEPTION BETWEEN PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED "PROBLEM"AND "NON*PROBLEM" ADOLESCENTS AND THEIR MOTHERS by Robert Michael Aber , A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Education) June 1970 71-16,398 ABER, Robert Michael, 1938- INTERPERSONAL PERCEPTION BETWEEN PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED "PROBLEM" AND "NON-PROBLEM" ADOLESCENTS AND THEIR MOTHERS. University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1971 Education, special University Microfilms. A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor. Michigan t u t c n T C S F R T A T T n N H A fi SEEM MTCROFILHED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED UNIVERSITY O F SO U TH ERN CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA SO O 07 This dissertation, written by ROBERT_ MIGH AEL _ ABER........... under the direction of hh.f.... Dissertation Com mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Gradu ate School, in partial fulfillment of require ments for the degree of D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y Dean Dale... DISSERTATION COM MITTEE Chairmai Interpersonal Perception Between Physically Handicapped Problem* 1 and "Hon-Problem" Adolescents and Their Mothers To You * * T ’ Jhat, reduced, to their simplest reciprocal form, were Bloom's thoughts s>>out Stephen's thoughts about Bloom and Bloom's thoughts about Stephen's thoughts about Bloom's thoughts about Stephen? He thought that he thought that he was a Jew wherea.s he knew that he t^ew that he knew that he was not," James Joyce, Ulysses li T*BLE f1 - 1 CC'TE’ TS Fage Chant cjr 1 Introduct ion Statement of the Problem hypothesis Some Definition of Terms The Strategies Used in Solving this Research Froblem Historical Bachmround and Philosophy of the Froblem Interpersonal Perception Phenomenology in the Psychology of Percent ion Uniqueness of the Present Froblem Nature of the Experimental Condition Characteristics of the Physically Handicapped (PH) Samrle Type and Severity of the Physical Disability Characteristics Of the Experimental (PH) Croup Procedures Used in Testing the Non-Physically Handicapped (NFH) Contrast Group Description of the Tool and Instruments Used The Basic Schema of the IFM II III 39 IV 80 Discussion V 90 Conclusions, Limitations, and Recommendations Conclusions limitations Cher'ter PeconiTendnt ions .*rre"dlxes........................... . • . • I. Classification of Sixtv Issues II. IP>T Interpersonal Perception Method P i t l 5 Ofrraphy..................................................................................... lv Ps rre 9P 120 CHAPTER I Introduction This study concerns the Interpersonal perceptual processes which operate between physically disabled adoles cent males and their mothers or mother-fisrures. The relevance of out-of-class adolescent behavior to in-class, In-school behavior is seen in three popularly held assumptions by psychologists and educatorsi 1. Proper classroom behavior reflects a psycho logically healthy home environment; improper classroom behavior reflects the opposite type of home environment. 2. The Interpersonal perceptual processes of disabled pupils and their parents and teachers differ significantly from those of non-physioal- ly handicapped pupils and their parents and teachers, 3. The interpersonal perceptual processes of phys- j j ically disabled pupils rated as "behavior prob- j lems" by school officials differ significantly < from the interpersonal perceptual processes of physically disabled pupils not rated as "behav- 2 lor problems1 1 by school officials; that the same relationship holds for non-physlcally handicapped pupils, ("problem" and "non-problem') Wright (I960, p. 376) has described the attitudes of the general public towards the physically handicapped as follows: Public, verbalized attitudes towards persons with physical disability are on the average mildly favorable. An appreciable minority openly express negative attitudes though these are more frequently revealed Indirectly. Conditions giving rise to positive as well as negative attitudes can be seen in some Instances as primarily the product of cul tural milieu and in others as residing in the nature of social-psychological man. Parental overprotec tion (of handicapped children) is more common than overt rejection and genuinely positive bonds between parents and their handicapped children are not un common. What evidence there is on the attitudes of persons towards their disabilities suggests that these vary widely, have little relation to degree of disability and are influenced in the direotion of acceptance via change In the person's value system. Statement of the Problem This study examined certain aspects of the processes of interpersonal perceptions between a group of physically handicapped adolescent males and their mothers (or mother- figures). These perceptual processes were contrasted with those of a group of non-physlcally handicapped adolescent males and their mothers (or mother-figures). The perceptual, processes of these mother-son dyadic pairs (l«e., patterns of agreement or disagreement) were examined in relation to school behavior as perceived by school authorities. Such a problem generates a number of questions. Among these are the following! 1. Is the labelling by school authorities of students as "problem" or "non-problem" reflec tive of the quality of the student's out-of school interpersonal relationships? 2. Do the intterpersonal perceptions of the dis abled son-mother dyads in the "problem" group differ from those in the "non-problem" group? How do they differ and to what extent, if at all? The purpose of this thesis is to attempt an answer to some of these questions. A formal statement of the hypotheses tested is found below. Hypotheses This study was concerned with the attitudes of physically handicapped adolescent males toward their mothers, and of the mothers' attitudes toward their handi capped sons. Would the interexperience of handicapped son- mother pairs where the son had been rated by school author ities as a "behavior problem" differ from handicapped son- mother pairs where the son had been rated by the same school authorities as a "non-problem"? And would non- physically handicapped son-mother interexperience differ significantly from that between physically^ handicapped sons and their mothers? Skepticism by the investigator of these popular beliefs led to the formulation of these two hypotheses« 1. Interexperience between "problem" physically handicapped sons and their mothers does not differ significantly from the interexperience of "non-problem" physically handicapped sons and their mothers. Interexperience between physically-handicapped son-mother pairs does not differ significantly from the interexperience of non-physically handicapped sons and their mothers, regardless of behavior-rating by school authorities. Testing these two hypotheses formulated the ration ale of this study. Some Definitions of Terms Interpersonal Perception is the cornerstone of this study and deserves more than passing definition. Heider (1958, p.l) uses the term "interpersonal relations" to denote relations between a few, usually two, peoplei how one person thinks and feels about another person, how he perceives him and what he does to him, what ' he expects him to do or think, how he reacts to the actions of the other. Heider's focus, in discussing interpersonal relations, is on the person as the basic unit to be inves- ; 5 tigated, rather than the two-rerson group and its proper ties as a superindividual unit, Heider (Ibid., p.22) goes on to the definition of perception as that term is peculiarly used in Inter personal Perceptioni At the outset we should like to distinguish two roles of perception in interpersonal perception. In the first, the emphasis is on the conditions that lead 'p' to perceive his environment and the people in it as he does. In the second, "p’s" attention is directed toward *o* as a percelverj there the main problems concern the conditions that lead 'p* to realize that 'o' is perceiving something, the effects of "o's" perception on himself as understood by *0*, and how all of this affects "p’s" behavior and feelings. One might say that the first role deals with perceiving the other person, whereas, the second deals with the other person as the perceiver. The very structure of interpersonal perception implies an operative process of communication. Heider (in Tagiuri and Petrullo, 195^, P»30) views the function of perception as being determined by the function of representation, since perception usually has the effect of more adequate and more complete represen tation. Heider points to three consequences of represen tation and perception 1 (a) control over the part of the environment that is represented (b) evaluation (c) communion between people These three functions of perceptions, having to do with power relations, with sentiments, and with unit formation will mainly determine our reaction to being perceived by another! they will determine whether or not we want another person to have a 6 more complete representation of ourselves. In the terms of the present study, 'Interpersonal Perception1 will be taken to mean the Interpretation of each other's non-verbal communication In a social context by two persons who have previously established a profound relationship with and towards one-another. Satire (1064) writes of "communication" thus: The word "communicate" Is generally understood to refer to non-verbal as well as verbal behavior within a social context. Thus "communication" can mean Interaction or transaction. "Communica tion" also Includes all those symbols and clues used by persons In giving and receiving meaning. Taken In this sense, the communication techniques which people use can be seen as reliable Indicators of Interpersonal functioning. Berne (1961) has made use of this definition of "transaction" to construct his psychotherapeutic schema of "Transactional Analysis." Transactional Analysis posits the person to consist of three centers (parent, adult and child) that Interact with equivalent or comple mentary elements In the other person; i.e., the other person's ^parent," "adult," and "child." Berne (Ibid.. p.86) presents a statement which quite clearly identifies "transactions" as synonymous with "social intercourse": The overt manifestations of social Intercourse are called transactions. Typically these occur In chains: a transactional stimulus from X elicits a transactional response from Y ; this response becomes a stimulus for X, and X's response in turn beoomes a new stimulus for Y. Transactional Anal- 7 ysls is concerned with the analysis of such chains and particularly with their programming. It can be demonstrated that once a chain is initiated, the resulting sequence is highly predictable if the characteristics of the Parent, Adult and Child of each of the parties concerned is known. In certain cases...the converse is also possible! given the initial transactional stimulus and the transactional response, not only the ensuing sequence, but also some of the characteristics of the Parent, Adult and Child of each of the parties concerned can be deduced with a consider able degree of confidence. Lalng, et al. (19**.p.8) refers to such a paradigm as a theory of gamesi The failure to see the behavior of one person as a function of the behavior of the other has led to some extraordinary perceptual and conceptual aberrations that are still with us. For instance, in a sequence of moves in a social Interaction between person (a) and person (b) al-bl-a2-b2-a3- b3, the sequence al-a2-a3 is extrapolated. Direct links between al-a2-a3 are made and this artifi cially derived sequence is taken as the entity or process under study. It is, in turn, "explained" as an Intrapersonal process due to lntrapsychle pathology...games theory has not fully addressed itself to the (Interpersonal) sector... Turning back to the interpersonal perceptual processes of the physically disabled, Goffman (19*3) uses the term "stigma" in the following manneri ...Stigma, then, will be \sed to refer to an attri bute (of a given person) that is deeply discredit ing, but it should be seen that a language of relationships, not attributes, is needed. An attri*- bute that stigmatizes one type of possessor can confirm the usualness of another, and is therefore neither creditable nor discreditable as a thing in ; itselfii, (While a stranger is before us,) evidence can arise of his possessing an attribute that makes him different from others in the category of persons available for him to be, and of a less 8 desirable kind - in tbe extreme, a person who is quite thoroughly bad, or dangerous, or weak. He is thus reduced in our minds from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one. Such an attribute is a stigma, especially when its dis crediting effect is very extensive; sometimes it is called a falling, shortcoming or handicap, (p.3) It should be emphasized that in use of the passages from Berne and Goffman, we are not mainly concerned with their idiosyncratic use of terms (Parent, Adult, Child, and "Stigma", respectively) except as these point up the patterns of interpersonal perception, and its analysis of persons with physical disabilities. The question arises here as to the manner in which disabled persons perceive others and themselves in terms of the transactional sti mulus and and response model. Harry Stack Sullivan (195^» p.15^) describes the point from which a disabled person may begin some inter personal exchange; The awareness of inferiority means that one is unable to keep out of conciousness the formulation of some chronic feeling of the worst sort of in security, and this means that one suffers anxiety and perhaps even something worse, if jealousy is really worse than anxiety. The fear that others can disrespect someone because of something he shows means that he is always Insecure in his con*> tact with other people; and this insecurity arises, not from mysterious and somewhat disguised sources, as a great deal of our anxiety does, but from some thing he knows he cannot fix. Now that represents an'almost fatal deficiency of the self-esteem, since the self is unable to disguise or exclude a definite formulation that readsi "I-am inferior. Therefore people will dislike me and i cannot be secure with them." Prom Sulllvan*s formulation, it seems possible, to 9 Infer that the physically disabled adolescent may feel unsure in his relationship with his parent or his teacher. The extent to which he actually does feel unsure would seem dependent on the people, the handicap, and the cir cumstances in the relationship, Laing (I960) and Laing et al (1966) place emphasis upon a contention that theories of interpersonal percep tion, game theories and various other schemata have never fully addressed themselves fully to that phenomenological experience of behavior. According to Laing et al (1966, p,122)i Experience in all cases entails the perception of the act and the interpretation of it. Within the area of perception is the issue of selection and reflection. Prom the many things that we see and hear of the other we select a few to remember. Acts highly significant to others may be trivial to us. We happen not to have been paying atten tion at that moment 1 we missed what, to the other, was his most significant gesture or state ment, But even if the acts selected for inter pretation are the same, even if each individual perceives these acts as the same act, the inter pretation of the same act may be very different. She winks at him in friendly complicity, and he sees it as seductive... It should be easy to extrapolate Laing's example to the interpersonal experience and behavior of the physi cally disabled individual. Wright (I960, p.212) cites such an interpersonal exchange between an elderly, well- intentioned lady and an amputee teen-aged girli "My poor girl, I see you*ve lost your leg!" "How careless of me," The reactions of the two dyadic members are most 10 predictablei the girl sees the old lady's remark as unnecessarily Intrusive and patronizing; the girl would view her response as being appropriate and a properly deserved "put-down"j the old lady's remark was made in some mixture of sympathy and friendly curiosity; she would view the glfl's retort as uncalled-for hostility, possibly feel guilty at having volunteered the solicitation and resolve to avoid disabled people in the future. Strategies Used in Solving This Research Problem The instrumeht of choice in this study was the Interpersonal Perception Method devised by Laing, Phlllip- son and Lee, That the IFM is capable of reflecting a com plexity of interpersonal interactions will be demonstrated in succeeding sections of this research report. The research problemjUltiraately, is to determine whether parent-child interaction accurately reflects the labelling of these child-pupils by school authorities. Miller (1966) is one of several writers who have suggested that the child's personality is not a direct result of the mother's attitude and behavior, but rather a result of a series of complex interactions. Yet, there is general agreement that the mother's attitudes and behav iors exert a great influence upon the child. Childhood I difficulties seem to be related to parental traits of over- protection, rejection, dominance, authoritarian control, 1 and undue submission. 11 filler (Ibid.. p.20) goes on to list several per sonality factors of parents which tend to affect the later behavioral development of the physically disabled child: 1. The Ferlod of Mourning— This is the one aspect of the emotional reaction by parents to the birth of a physically disabled child after the anticipation and plans for a healthy and normal baby. When parents realize that their child is "different" there is a tendency to mourn the loss of the loved normal child. As with each of these traits, they affect the personality development of the child in relation to the intensity and the length of time they are experienced by the parents and, of course, by subsequent events. 2. A Sense of Inadequacy— In producing a baby, mothers often are meeting a cultural expec tancy and fulfilling a biological role. To produce a healthy baby provides her with a sense of accomplishment and fulfillment; to produce an imperfect child provides consider able impetus for feeling an inadequate mother. Asher child is "different" or "not as good," so she feels as well. 3. A Sense of Guilt— When a defective child is born, the parents almost inevitably ask them selves "What have we done?" as if the child is somehow punishment for an unspecified sin. Filler reports the finding that the defective child may evoke guilt by representing the con sequences of unacceptable feelings and thoughts. Uncertainty as to whether the defect is or is not genetically based often causes parents to go from doctor to doctor for assurances that it was not they themselves who caused the defect. k. A Sense of Resentment— Outrage at the fate that is theirs often is sublimated by the parents into rejection or overprotection of the dis abled child. Though both forms of behavior stem from the same feelings, over-protection is more common as it is more socially sanc tioned. Denhoff (195*0 reports as follows: 12 A mother unconsciously regards her child as an Imago of horseIf and rosonts any reminder that the child Is Imperfect since that fact Implies that she too Is Imperfect. This resentment Is shown most frequently In the socially acceptable form of overprotectlon. It seems evident that there Is a good deal of room for misinterpretation In the transactions between disabled and non-disabled persons, even when a relation ship between the two has been developed over a period of time. The terms "understand" and "misunderstand"; "real ize" and "failure to realize" will receive extensive use in this paper within the context of Laing et al*s Inter personal Perception Fethod. (IPf) It seems well to pre sent Laing*s usage of these terms: What happens when two people do not agree on the meaning assigned a particular act? A very com plicated process ensues. If communication Is opt imum, they understand that they differ on tlv* inter pretation of the act, and they also realize that they both understand that they differ on the inter pretation. . .However , often In human affairs where there Is a disagreement there Is also a misunder standing and a failure of realization of misunder standing . (Ibid.. p.12-13) Within the notation system of the IPM (described in Chapter III) it Is possible to characterize and pin point the levels and pattern of disruption of this kind that occur In transactions between the physically dis abled and their interpersonal correspondents. Bell (1958) cites several problems which research ers encounter In the attempt to make Inferences from the general type of data obtained in attitude scales:: 13 1. Frobleras of Social Context Studies of factors affecting conformity to group pressures and group norms have in general, in dicated that different measured attitudes can be elicited from the same subjects in different social situations and that an attitude can be modified by different relationships between a respondent and the individual to whom he is expressing an attitude, (Ibid.. p.324) 2. Item-phrasing Solutions to the Problem of Social Context ...The more recent parental attitude questionnaires show a definite tendency to cope with the problem of social context primarily by providing the parent with items having content in opposition to current theories,..To reduce expressions of dis agreement by parents the content in opposition to certain theories is disguised by phrasing which make the item either slightly vague, aphoristic, or somewhat attractive by virtue of rationalizations provided. 3. Problems Raised by Use of Vague or Devious Unacceptable Items Interpretation of single items is precarious. Basically it is comparable to attempts to interpret a single factor showing loading on only one test... it is especially important that an Investigator writing proj . tive or vague items to define his concept with a demonstration of internal consis tency in a group of items. A problem posed especially by the high satura tion of questionnaires with socially unacceptable content and the use of vague, ambiguous items is that of measuring such sets as acquiescence, eva siveness, speed, and guessing. Cronbach haS sum marized evidence to indicate that such sets, which are most obtrusive in precisely the fixed category response situation used almost exclusively in parental attitude questionnaires, £i»e maximized by stimulus situations which are ambiguous to the subject, are likely to change with different item content, and may reduce validity unless partialled out and used exclusively to present a criterion. (Ibid.. p.327) 4. Problems of Attitude Change Over Times Ik If investigators accept the notion that parental attitudes are changed as a result of living with children, or simply show spontaneous change over time, it becomes very difficult logically to re late developmental events in time segments A-B of the child’s life to parental attitudes measured at times B and C. This problem is again minimized by carrying out studies on parents of children at lower age levels, particularly at the nursery school level. However, many Important adjustment characteristics emerge only later in life and there are no exist ing ways to link early adjustment with such later characteristics, 5, Direct Studies of Attltude-Behavlor Linkage The home remains, for all practical purposes a "little black box"; parental attitudes, measures, home visits, and interviews with parents and children represent some ways of obtaining esti mates of its internal processesj the behavior of children in community facilities is a readily observable output. It is easy to observe child ren, but difficult to observe parents and children in the home. In order to test the thesis that parental attitudes toward child-rearing and the family life are an important influence in the personality development of the child, Schaefer and Bell (1958) devised the Parental Attitude Research Inventory (PARI), Miller (19^) gives a descrip tion of the PARI which is partially reproduced herei SChaeferartd Bell developed their instrument because they wanted a set of rating scales de fined in behavioral terms which would be communi cable and would permit reliable ratings by relative ly unskilled personnel. The authors studied many behaviors fostered in parent-child interactions and organized these into a limited number of concepts. They began with items which previous investigators had found to have statistically discriminatory ability. Three clinical psycholo gists sorted the items into groups which seemed psychologically homogeneous. Groups were then 15 standardized, on samples of 100 mothers. Some Items were dropped and new ones written. These were tried In short exploratory forms with success ive small samples of mothers and then standardized with larger groups. It was found that scales which stated approved child-rearing were not reliable because the mothers tended to answer in the socially approved manner. To counteract this, the authors used scales stating attitudes contrary to the usually approved child- rearing opinions. These scales differentiated more effectively} however, the mothers were unhappy because they did not see any items with which they could agree. Therefore three "Rapport Scales" were included. These were items with which the mothers could agree. The authors did not expect these to discriminate effectively but they were added in order to create a better atmosphere. The "Raprort Scales" werei Equalitarianism, Comrade ship and Sharing, and Encouraging Verbalization, The final form of the FARI (Form IV) consisted of 23 five-item scales designed to measure paren tal attitudes toward child rearing and family life. These items are arranged through 115 state ments. Subjects are asked to note whether they "agree strongly,’ 1 , ' *agree somewhat(* , ' "disasrree strongly,'.1 or "disagree slightlv.l Below are the 23 scales of the PARIi Encouraging verbalization Fostering dependency Seclusion of the mother Breaking the will Martyrdom Fear of harming the baby Marital conflict — Strictness Irritability Excluding outside influences Deification of the parent Suppression of aggression Rejection of the homemaking role Equalitarianism Approval of activity Avoidance of communication Inconsiderateness of husband Suppression of sexuality Ascendance of the Mother Intrusiveness Comradeship and sharing 16 Acceleration of development Dependency on the mother Factor analysis done by the authors revealed three factors in the test: Factor I included 16 of the 23 scales and was considered to be a controlling-authoritarian factor; Factor II included four scales and was considered a hostility-rejection factor; Factor III Included three scales and was considered to be a democratlc-equalitarian factor; this was the "Rapport Scale" mentioned previously. (Ibid.. pp.11-13) The PARI'S item selection and pencil-and-paper form bears strong similarity to that of the IPM. The crucial difference, of course, is that the PARI is not an interpersonal perception scale. That is, the mother ex presses attitudes about the offspring but there is no pro vision made for measuring the offspring's attitudes about the mother and for observing the agreement-disagreement patterns. Schaefer limits his thesis to testing the not ion that parental attitudes toward childrearing strongly influence the personality development of interacting fac tors. They suggest the difficulties to be encountered in experimental design solutions to the problems of social contex. The PARI is the major instrument devised to this point to measure parental attitudes. A more than passing presentation of its features seemed relevant in order to examine some of the more general features and problems to be encountered in parental attitude research. In suggesting the need for a research instrument capable of reflecting a picture of the parent-child re lationship from both points of view, we are particularly concerned with the psychological and emotional problems of those children who are physically disabled. The use of the Interpersonal Perception Method to investigate the interpersonal relationship patterns of physically disabled adolescents is an obvious, if not optimum, choice A detailed presentation of the IPM’s features may be found in a later section of this study. Here, we are dealing with the reasons for making the IPM the in strument of choice in this study. Lainsr, Philllpson and Lee (Ibid., p.38) state the general purpose of the IPM in the following manner» Specifically, the Interpersonal Perception Method (IPM) is designed to measure and provide under standing of the interpretations, or the conduc tions and disjunctions, of two individuals in respect of a range of key issues with which they may be concerned in the context of their dyadic relationship. The method, in common with others that are concern ed with the study of the dyadic system, takes the fulcrum of understanding away from the profession ally developed and controlled transference-counter- transference relationship and places it inside the dyadic experience and interaction of everyday life, where transference, countertransference and non-transference processes are only beginning to be understood# 18 Laing* Phillipson and Lee noint out that, along with psychoanalytically oriented psychotherapy, the devel opment of the. projective method in psychodiagnostic test ing has been a major influence on the development of the IPM. Following an extensive survey of publications dealing with the effects of physical disability on person ality, Barker (1953) stated "...physically disabled per sons more often than physically normal ones exhibit be havior which is commonly termed maladjusted." Cowan and Triune (in Cruickshank, 19^3* pp.526-7) amplify Barker's finding in the following manneri This (Barker's) conclusion is in keeping with the notion that impaired functioning and negative social evaluation represent additional problems with which disabled people must contend in their attempts to achieve maximally effective social functioning. Reference to the increased pre valence of maladjustment among the disabled pro vides support for the plea to make psychothera peutic services more readily available for this group. Although more recent research findings suggest that the relation between disability and disturbance is not simple and direct, the need for widespread utilization of effective psychia tric, psychological, and social-work services with the disabled is indicated to the extent that further research supports the generalization made by Barker, Cowan and Trippe (Ibid., pp.5^0-1) cite Hollings- head's observation thati "Severe physical handicap places intrinsic limitations on the child in his attempts to reach the ordinary life goals of his age group." Cowan and Trippe appear to equivocate on the potential for 19 psychic damage Produced by tbese factors in the follow ing: passa^ei Certainly there is no reason to believe that mal adjustment is any less prevalent among the disabled than it is amorr the non-handicapped. This alone Is sufficient reason for great concern over the technical development and the availability of psy chotherapy and other promising provisions for re ducing the almost intolerable tensions to be found in disturbed disabled children and youth. Obviously there is no immediate answer as to the extent to which physical disability and maladjustment exacerbate one another. Indeed, what is labelled mal adjustment is subject to endlessly hairsplitting dis tinctions and is not profitable to this discussion. It is equally obvious that the psychotherapeutic nosology which influenced the development of the IPM is also of use in determining the appropriate educational, vocation al, and interpersonal strategies to be offered the physi cally disabled client. If we are to offer the best ther apeutic suggestions to physically disabled persons we must know whether their interpersonal relations' are'bhar- acteristically different from those of non-disabled per sons. Ve should also know whether or not the physical disability itself affects the labelling of these young people by school authorities as "problem" ("disturbed") or "non-problem" ("non-disturbed"). The assertion by Laing et al that the IPM allows the behavioral scientist to study the interpersonal ex- perlence outside the traditional psychotherapeutic setting by itself is insufficient to Justify its application to these problems posed by the physically-disabled adoles cent in the school environment. But if we view the socio- psychological consequences of physical handicap as the development of a faulty self-concept by the disabled stu dent. remediation of its in-sohool aspects will be facil itated if we have an idea of "what makes him tick." The IPM gives such an idea through testing the pupil's trans ference, countertransference and non-transference pro cesses in its day to day setting. It is merely incidental that the key issues of the IPM are far more suited to measure familial and/or long time close relationships between pupils and teachers. Such an IPK would allow the direct study of the in-class circumstance. It would also alleviate the necessity of inferring whether or not the labelling of pupil behavior by school authorities accurately reflects the student's interpersonal experience. Pupil-teacher interexperlenoe could be matched against that of pupil-parent on a similar set of interpersonal issues. CHAPTER II Historical Background and Philosophy of the Problem On page 4 of Laing et al (19*6), Lalng writesi The critical realization here Is that I am not the only percelver and agent in my world. The world is peopled by others, and these others are not simply objects in the worldi they are centres of orientation to the objective universe. Nor are these others simply other I's, The others are you, him, her, them, etc. By this definition, Laing's theoretical framework seems obviously phenomenological. Anyone familiar with the situation knows that as soon as he uses the term "phen omenology w he enters a sphere of ambiguity. The term was used as early as 1765 in philosophical writings, and Kant occasionally had recourse to it. Nevertheless, it was only with Hegel that a well defined technical meaning be came attached to it, (Kockelmans, 1967). For Hegel, phe nomenology was not knowledge of the Absolute-in-and-for- itself. In the spirit of Fichte or Schelling, Hegel wished to consider knowledge as it appears to consciousness. Thusi, phenomenology for Hegel wte the science describing the de velopment the natural phenomenal consciousness undergoes by way of science and philosophy toward the absolute know ledge of the Absolute (Ibid., p.2k), The object of Hegel's 22 Investigations, then, was phenomenal knowing. On the other hand, at the beginning of the 20th century, empirical naturalism sought criteria for the validity of knowledge in a self-governing Reason, which it regarded as the only authority in matters of truth (Tymienieka, 1Q62). In the search for an exclusively valid oognition as opposed to various prejudices perpe tuated by "tradition and superstition," naturalists adopt ed a methodological radicalism (Ibid., p.5). The question, then, is how can a naturalistic, scientific view be ade quate to the world as we find it in our everyday exper ience? The absolute rejection of all Judgment alien to experience seems to limit severely the framework of scien tific and philosophic inquiry. The phenomenology of Fdmund Husserl helped to re solve this question by such inquiries, not in the rejection of any single fundamental principle, but in an entire field of original experiences (Kockelmans; Ibid., p.29) What holds good for me personally, also holds good, as I know, for all other men whom I find present in my world-about-me. Experiencing them as men, I understand and take them as pgo-subJects, units like myself, and related to their natural surround ings. But this in such wise that I apprehend the world-about-them and the world-about-me objectively as one in the same world, which differs in each case through affecting consciousness differently. (Husserl; in Kockelmans, 19&7) The above is a reasonable summation written in 1921 by Husserl of the phenomenologloal method employed by 23 Laing in constructing the IPM in 19^5* But it was Alfred Schutz who first adapted Husserl's phenomenology for re search in the social sciences (Tymieniecka, 19^2). As Schutz himself stresses, Husserl's contribution to the foundation of social science is that each science— whether of nature or of culture— consists of meanings instituted by the scientist. Therefore scientific notions and con cepts are rooted in the pre-theoretical 'lived-in-world', as the 'lived-world' of the scientist and his fellow men, out of which they arise in connection with life and its deepest concerns (Ibid,, p.105) Another antecedent to Laing's system, from Husserl's phenomenology is cited by Tymieniecka, She writest The appearance of the Other in my subjective field of constitutive consciousness makes my lived-in world an intersubjectlve world of culture,,.It is intersubjective because we live in it as men among other men, bound to them through common influences and work, understanding others and being an object of understanding for others...Our common life with others in all its aspects not only takes place in our lived-world but is its essential constituent. Therefore, all forms of the social world can and should be investigated within the framework of the lived-world. The social world refers constltutlve- ly to specifically ^social" forms of subjective activityi BEHAVIOR and ACTION. (Tymieniecka, 1962, p.106) Merleau-Ponty has stressed the importance of con text in the phenomenological description of behavior and/ or experience. He writesi Properly human acts— have no significance in their own right. They are understood in reference to the aims of 1ife«..language is an adaptation to the 2k "unorganired mass"...But the Purely motor notion of action which psychologists make use of is accepted by psychology Just as it is. Following reflexive analysis, the psychologically simple, the specifi- celly irreducible element of perception, is the affirmation which confers existence in the proper sense* it is the judgment... such a Judgment doubt less implies no determination of any content what soever. . .This Judgment, which in no way carries with it the determination of its object is nevertheless that which marks the point of contact with reSlity, that which is irreducible in experience and with out which our thought would no longer be rooted in being... (Merleau-Ponty, lQk2, p.1^3) What Merleau-Ponty suggests here is that phenomen ology is the study of phenomena— not empirical and opera- tionalistic data, Sartre (19^8) has gone into the basic ally uneasy relationship between phenomenology and opera tional method in psychologyi We can understand, at the present time, the reason for the psychologist’s mistrust of phenomenology. The psychologist’s firfet precaution consists of considering the psychic state in such a way that it removes from it all signification. The psychic state is for him always a fact and, as such, al ways accidental. And this accidental character is just what the psychologist holds to most. If one should ask a scientist "Why do bodies attract' each other in accordance with Nekton’s Law?" he will reply, "I know nothing about that* because it happens to be so." And if one should ask him* "What does this attraction signify?" he will reply* "It signifies nothing. It is." In like manner, the psychologist, when questioned about emotion, is quite proud of saying* "It is. Why? I know nothing about that. I simply state it. I know nothing about its signification. (Sartre, 19^8) The differentiation between the development of the phenomenological method and positivistic experimentation is corroborated bv Skinner (1950) in the following passage* In a third type of learning theory the explanatory 25 events are not directly observed. The writer's (Skinner's) suggestion that the letters CNS be regarded as representing, not the Central Nervous System, but the Conceptual Nervous System seems to have been taken most seriously. Many theorists point out that they are not talking about the ner vous system as an actual structure undergoing phys iological or bio-chemical changes but only as a system with a certain dynamic output. Theories of this type are multiplying fast, and so are parallel operational versions of mental events, A purely behavioral definition of expectancy has the advan tage that the problem of mental observation is a- volded and with it the problem of how a mental event can cause a physical one. But such theories do not go so far as to assert that the explanatory event is identical with the behavioral events they purport to explain. (Skinners 1950, p.^0) Interpersonal Perception Bruner and Tagiuri (195*0 present an extensive resume of the earlier research studies on Interpersonal perception. They divide their resume into two tradition al areas of inquiry! (l) recognition or identification of emotions in otherss (2) the Judgment or perception of personality. In the first area, several technical questions arise. Several are presented below, together with re search that has attempted to answer themi a. What is the nature of the discrimination de manded of the subject in the emotion-Judging taskf Woodworth (in Bruner and Tagiuri, 195*0 reports that the size of the error has frequently not been taken into consideration. But in order to determine the magni tude of a discrimination failure it is necessary to scale « 26 emotional expressions in terms of their relative discrim- inability, one from the other. In principle, there are two ways of doing thisi (1) the physical properties of the stimulus are scaled by ranking their respective modalities and (2) to order emotional stimuli in such a manner as to produce maximum confusion between neighboring pairs. b. What is the nature of the identifying labels judges are asked to use? Munn (Ibid.* 195*0 has shown that subjects reach higher agreement in Judging if they are allowed to use their own terminology and categories. But Bruner and Tagiuri suggest that there is no reason to assume that different individuals are equally inclined to utilize the same categories for ordering emotional expression. c. What are the requisite cues that need be pre sent for recognition of emotion? The best available evidence Indicates that there is no invariable pattern of expression accompanying spe cific emotions. Expression seems to vary with the situa tion. This means that the Judge may require more infor mation than is provided by the stimulus properties pre sented, 'say, in a phbtograph or a drawing. Woodworth (Ibid.,) reports that inaccuracies in Judging photos may ; result from the portrayed emotions being "forced" and, thus, not representative. d. What is the variability with which individuals express the same emotion? 27 Little empirical attention has been given this problem. The question is shrugged off by saying that differences occur both inter- and lntra-culturally. In these instances, prior knowledge of the surrounding cul ture has the effect of drastically reducing the number of alternative emotions likely (Ibid., 195*0# e. What characteristics of a judc-e aid in the recognition of emotion? (Bruner and Tagiuri, 1Q5*0 Ferhaps this is the key factor in interpersonal perception. The first question is whether the capacity to recognize emotion is innate or acquired? That there is evidence of very early ability to distinguish certain "emotions" in others is incontrovertible. The fact that young babies can be made to cry by a contorted face made by the mother Indicates certain primitive dlscrlmitlve capacities (Bruner and Tagiuri, 195*+)# Hebb (19*+6) has shown that chimpanzees can be precipitated into a fear reaction by presentation of an unusual mask, Buhler and Hert (in Bruner and Tagiuri, 195*+) have shown a lack of specificity in the stimuli capable of evoking a smile in the baby. Buhler concludes that recognition is not pre sent at all in the first months of life, a position which must be questioned on the basis of Fantz*s (19^3) findings the perceptual capacities of 10-to30-mlnute-old infants. f. How do the various determinants of "accuracy" vary in importance? At the outset, knowledge of the purpose of the procedure Increases accuracy (Paterson, 1023)i ss does the Interest of the Judge In the rating procedure (Conrad, 1933)• The more a trait being Judged Is behaviorally visible, the easier the Judgment, (Estes, 193?) and Inso far as the trait to be Judged Is Important in the Inter personal relationship between Judge and the Judged, It will be more easily Judged, (Chodhry and NewComb, 1952), Bender and Hastorf (1950) found that subjects could better predict their friends responses to social situation items such as those in the Allport Ascendence-Submission Scale, than items regarding social feelings. The earliest study that anticipates the general procedure of the Laing IPM is that of Notcutt and Silver (1951)* They found that when husbands and wives predicted each others' self-ratings accuracy of predictions exceed ed chance and that successes were greater on those items in which husband and wife were most similar in their self-ratings. Confidence in one's Judgment has an equivocal re lationship to accuracy 1 some writerd find a positive re lation* others a negative on (Bruner and Tagiuri, 195*0* Openness of a subject was found to be a critical factor affecting accuracy (Estes, 193?) and one might investigate the personality characteristics of "open" and "concealed" expressive types. 29 Phenomenology In the Psychology of Perception According to MacLeod (19^7) the term "social per ception" is used in two senses as referring, on one hand, to the problem of social determination in perception and, on the other hand, to the perception societal determinants. Heider (1957, p.22) has discussed some phenomenolog ical aspects of person perception in this mannert In contrast to things, persons are rarely merely manipulandaj rather, they are action centers, they can do something to us, benefit or harm us inten tionally and we can benefit or harm them. Persons are perceived as having abilities, as acting or watching us. They are systems having representa tions, they can be our friends or enemies, and each has his characteristic traits. Enumerating the contents of the perception of other persons is equal to listing the concepts of naive, common- sense psychology. Attitude measurement has traditionally proceeded in a unidimensional manner which reflects attitude toward the effects of experimental situations on interpersonal relationships. Thurstone and Chave’s The Measurement of Attitude (1929) devised a sociometric scale consisting of seven questions which were known to correspond to diff erent strengths of attraction. The respondent was to check that statement which he felt best reflective of his own attitude toward a given relationship. Phenomenological philosophy has concerned Itself with the critical realization that the "I" is not the only perceiver and agent in my world. The world is peopled by others, and these others are not simply objects in the 30 world? they are centers of reorientation to the objective universe. Over a hundred years ago, Feuerbach effected a pivotal step in philosophy in discovering that phil osophy had been exclusively oriented around the "I". No one had realized that the "you** is as primary as the "I", It may be quickly seen that the Thurstone Attitude Scale, as constructed, lends itself to perceiving a relationship with the other as an abstraction. No direct measure is made of any effect of the perceptions of the ’ ’you"'on the responses of the "I", and there is no measure whatever of the interpersonal relationship between the perceiver and the perceived, Heider (1958) has given us some basic constructs for a genuinely interpersonal psychology. He approaches this task as follows? We shall make use of the unformulated or half-for mulated knowledge of interpersonal relations as it is expressed in our everyday language and ex- perience--this source will be referred to as com- mon-sense or naive knowledge and insights of sci entific investigation in order to make possible a conceptual systematization of the phenomena under study... (Heider, 1958, p.^t) This summarizes the difficulty encountered by in vestigators attempting the study of interpersonal percep tion. We know that these factors exist but it is entirely ! a different matter to demonstrate them by other than re ference to highly personalized experience. In her foreward to I-aing's book, Jahoda suggests the IPM» 31 . ...Incorporates the most constructive trends in modern psychology! it encompasses the full com plexity of human experience} it demonstrates that quantification need not be limited to insignificant and artificially isolated aspects of psychological phenomena} and it presents an original method commensurate with the underlying theory. Dealing T*rith the question of quantifying phenomen ological and Intrinsically subjective person-variables. Lalng (19*0) has written* It may be maintained that one cannot be scientific without retaining one's "objectivity'*. A genuine science of personal existence must attempt to be as unbiased as possible. Physics and the other sciences of things must accord the science of persons the right to be unbiased ih a way that is true to it's own field, of study. If it is held that to be unbiased one should be "objective" in the sense of depersonalizing the person who is the "object" of our study, any temptation to do this under the lmpressidn that one is being scientific is to be vigorously resisted. Depersonalization in a theory that is intended to be a theory of persons is as false as schizoid depersonalization of others and is no less an intentional act. Al though constructed in the name of science, such reification yields false "knowledge". It is Just as pathetic a fallacy of things as the false per sonalization of things. In the literature of interpersonal perception sur veyed thus far no means for measuring this process is mentioned. Moreover, the relationship -/ itself is ban ished to the domain of literature and philosophical spe culation. As an example of this difficulty in quantifi cation, Newcomb (195?)* in a paper 6n the cognition of persons as cognizers, asserts that "an individual tends to be attracted toward others who are seen as viewing as Important the same things that he regards as important 32 and as taking attitudes toward them that are seen as sim ilar to his own." Thus Interpersonal perceptions of two (or more) people toward a given object are measured in the following way and conclusions are drawn therefrorpi (The Cognizer) Av— »B-(The Cognized Person) X (The Cognized Object) Yet interpersonal perception here is mediated and measured through'its relationship to an outside object. No in quiry is made as to what A thinks of B independent of that object. It goes without saying that there is no Inquiry into what A thinks B thinks of A independent of that object. As in the ThurStone Scale (Ibid.. 1929) interpersonal perception of attitude is an abstraction and bears little relationship to the face-to face exper ience of A to B and vice-versa. An approach to the study of trait implication and trait similarity has been Suggested by Hays (1958). This model is a statistical approach which, in Hays* wordsj "(a)...suggests a relatively simple methodology for ex ploring these "implicit theories" (i.e. attitudes) for one or more Individuals, and (b) both the genotypic and phenotypic aspects of this (Hays') approach preserve, so i far as possible, the qualitative character which, in the author's (Hays') opinion, is important in achieving relevant results in this area," Hays' model orders sub- categorical traits under major trait rubrics. For In- 33 stance, "intelligent dominant" subsumes (in descending order) "intelligent warm," intelligent generous," "in telligent cold," "intelligent submissive," and "intelli gent stingy." Hays insists that "these models have no distinction whatever as psychological theory." This is presumably be cause of Hays' posltivistlc approach; but the method does, as he puts it, represent "...a foot in door" towards quantification of attitude measurement research. Yet Hays' model, like Newcomb's, mediates person perception or interpersonal perception through its relationship to some imposed outside factor rather than suggesting the means for measuring agreement, understanding and realiza tion of understanding between the Judge and the Judged. Macleod (1958) seems to have made the most pessi mistic statements upon the applicability of any scaling technique to the phenomenological study of person and/or Interpersonal perception. He writes: 1. The phenomenological method, in social psy chology, as in the psychology of perception, can never be more than an approach to scienti fic inquiry...Social psychology today is suf fering from confusion— as to subject matter and as to method-...It is the contention of this paper that the confusion can be consider ably reduced if we profit from the history of the psychology of perception, suspend for the time being our present theoretical constructs and take a fresh look at the phenomena which are there for us. The phenomenal world is, in fact, a social world, structured in terms of 34 selves, other persons...as well as simple ob jects ordered In time and space, 2. Our Immediate need is clearly for improved methods of observation. In this connection the products of casual, uncontrolled obser vation must not be scorned. The alert psy chologist is alwavs in touch with his subject- matter, and much can be gained from the per sistent attempt to note and describe the phe nomena which occur incidentally in one's ex perience. .. 3. ...An attitude cannot be regarded either as a property or as a possession of a person, any more than a perceived object can be so regarded. An attitude is a structure which has both ob jective and subjective components. If we are to characterize accurately an "attitude towards religion" we must specify xtfhat is objectively there as symbolized by the term "religion" and also what is subjectively felt in relation to that objective structure... 4. Can a social phenomenology lead to a social psychology which is useful? The answer to this question is a matter of faith. Uniqueness of the Present Problem The problem under present investigation is to mea sure the attitudes of physically disabled male adolescents and their mothers (or mother figures) towards themselves and towards each other on a variety of interpersonal is sues, In the preceeding sections reference has been made to the problems of measuring Interpersonal perception. The previous models and scientific rationales have shown that attitude comparisons are made between people with reference to some abstracted third party, and not with reference to characteristics of the coresponddntSttakiftg^ 35 the test. These are some of the reasons advanced in this thesis for employing Lalng's IPM. To the writer's best information, the IPM is too recent an Instrument to have been used to test the interpersonal relationships of that <?roup of individuals falling into the categories of "phy sically handicapped" or "physically disabled.*J The prob lem, therefore, is quite unique and the actual mechanics ! of testing this group will be discussed in subsequent sec tions of this thesis. A review of some attitude measurements already done with the physically disabled or physically handi capped group shotild prove useful at this point, Meyerson (1963) differentiates "disability" from "handicap": a disability is seen as an impairment having an objective or medical aspect while a handicap is seen as an impairment in a particular kind of social and psy chological behavior. Wright (i960) asserts thati A handicap must be evaluated in terms of the de mands of the situation in which the person finds himself. We are led to the interesting conclu sion that a physical attribute is a physical hand- j leap only when it is seen as a significant bar rier to the accomplishment of particular goals. That means that, in the individual case, a physical j disability may or may not be a physical handicap, j Moreover, a physical attribute may become handi- I capping not because it is physically limiting but because it adversely affects social relationships. Crulckshank (1963) reports several categories of attitudes: 1. Attitudes of the physically disabled child toward culture 2. Attitudes towards the physically disabled child 3.. Attitudes of "normal'’ individuals toward phys ical disability Attitudes of parents wi^h crippled children 5. Attitudes of parents as a factor in the psycho logy of illness. By no means does this list exhaust the possibilities for permutation of these attitudes. Intriguing questions may be raised comparing attitudes of disabled adults as well as children toward culture. Do childhood attitudes undergo maturational changes while physical disability remains static? Do those attitudes simply ossify as the disabled child achieves adulthood and remain essentially unchanged? The same questions may be asked of society's attitude toward physically disabled children and adults. Society's expectancies for children are different than for adults but does the variable of disability affect this difference and, if so, to what extent? A table pre pared by Cruickshank (1952) compares a srroup of disabled children with a non-disabled group in responding to sen tences dealing ^lth the child's adjustment to people and society in general, Cruickshank*s conclusions on the re sults were as follows» 1. The adolescent children *T ho have physical im pairments demonstrate better relations with the mother person than with the father person. 2. The handicapped children show a real interest in comparing themselves with others in an effort to determine their standing with others. This is considered a positive characteristic since it suggests that the children are main taining a relatively aggressive attitude in 3? social relationships, but at the same time it indicates insecurity and anxiety in social situations. 3. The disabled children Indicate ccT-eater dissat isfaction with adults and adult society than the non-disabled group. U, The handicapped children frequently indicate a desire to be treated like other children rather than as children with disabilities. "A number of conclusions point to the fact that the disabled adolescent group has difficulty in effecting happy social and emotional adjustments." 1. The disabled child seems less able to evaluate interpersonal relationships, and thus they pro duce more ambivalent and neutral responses and also omit many responses. 2. The responses of the handicapped group indicate a definite tendency to withdraw from social con tacts. The group is apparently satisfied with current adjustments despite the fact that the status quo is unsatisfactory with regard to social relations. 3. The disabled children show fewer normal adol- scent Interests than the non-disabled group, and indicate they are seeking substitute grati fications in fantasy. 4. The adjustment of disabled children appears to be on a more immature level than that observed in non-disabled children of the same age and sex. 5. The Impact of the physical disability is im pressed on the disabled adolescents more by adults than by their peer group, Cruickshank refers to Coughlin's 19^1 study of par ental attitudes towards their orthopaedlcally disabled children and notes that four broad categories of attitudes were Observedi "The attitude considered most constructive was thet of the small number of parents who had sufficient intellectual Insight and were so well adjusted personally that they were able, while fully realizing the implica tions of the orthopaedic problem, to accept it and turn their attention toward finding a means of compensating for it.’ ' A second generally positive attitude was expressed by some parents who apparently had a "complete acceptance of a disabled child on an emotional level with very little or no intellectual Insight." A third group of parents had an adequate intellectual understanding of the child’s problem but emotionally were unable to provide him with complete acceptance. Finally a group of parents was un able to accept the child either emotionally or intellec tually. Cruickshank notes the scarity of research in this area but more pressing seems to be the lack of adequate analysis of the factors making up these attitudes. CHAPTER III The Nature of the Experimental Condition Two croups of adolescent son-mother pairs were used in the studyi a physically disabled son-mother sam ple (18 pairs) formed the experimental groupi tKe*non- physically handicapped son-mother dyads (10 pairs) were used as a contrast group. Use of the terra "contrast group" instead of "con trol group" is quite deliberate and may be Justified in the following manneri Research problems in Social Psy chology, Special Education,and Sociology use groups of selected humans which are not as subject to matching techniques as are laboratory animals. The latter may be subject to conditions which render their circumstances approximately the same} for instance, the experimenter is free to regulate nourishment, lighting, and the immediate reinforcement-punlshment schedule, Experiementers are not free to control the living conditions of their human sample populations as completely as those which affect their animals. Beyond the variables of sex and the presence or non-presence of physical handicap there were no truly 39 40 controlled variables in this research problem. Reality circumstances which precluded contolling age, race, socio economic status end,,to a limited degree, intellectual ability make the term "control group" clearly inappropriate. A statement by Miller (Ibid., 19**) points up the difficulties in matching control and experimental groups in educational research and rather clearly implies the usefulness of contrast grouping in this form of research! The experimental and control groups were not matched (in her study) according to socio-economic status. It was recognized by Sears and others that child-rearing attitudes and methods vary according to socio-economic class. However, in this study it was not possible to match the subjects in this way. The order of placement of the handicapped child in the family may affect the parental attitudes, ! but this was not controlled in this study. It was also not possible to determine the attitudes of the mother before the blfrth of the defective child. These attitudes may determine to some de gree how a mother reacts to her handicapped child. Child-bearing is but one part of the mother's total life. She is a person as well as a mother, and she has been Influenced by a srood many things in her life. Study and. analysis of the relation between maternal attitudes and child-adJustment is a complicated and precarious undertaking, even when attempted by experienced and. skilled researchers, (ojd, clt.. p.8) Many of these factors will be found in the present study. Given that answering the IPM in a meaningful fash ion requires a host of personal characteristics best termed "social awarenessi" several factors are required to fulfill the definition of the "experimental" and "control" groupi M the following limitations in selecting physically disabled and non-physically disabled samples were presenti all physically disabled subjects were drawn from the Joseph Wldnev High School in Los Angeles. This 5s the city's largest public facility serving the educational needs of physical1y handicapped high school-age students, Widney has facilities for teaching Educable Mentally Retarded as , well as those for children with normal scholastic aptitude.. Widney is Los Angeles' central high school facility for handicapped students. Much of the content in the cumulative records at Widney High was inevitably subjective in nature and in cluded a good deal of description of classroom misbehavior1 phrased in rsvchodlagnostic language. Use of this Jargon by teachers not trained in this area is most questionable, according to Redl (19^5. r.v); Classroom teachers and all Interested professionals need to know just what concepts and techniques have been developed by the clinical sciences in their efforts to grasp the phenomena of emotional disturbances and childhood conflicts; and they need a mental picture of what actually happens in a given fclae&room with a given teacher when the new concepts and hechniques are aprlied. Thus, whether or not the Los Angeles Board of ■Education stresses "disturbed" or "behavior problem" as the proper rubric for a recalcitrant rurl^the implication Is that emotional disturbance is present in the puril described as a "behavior problem.I' According to Cruickshank (19^3)* "...the basic adjustment problems of the cripp1ed child ere the same as t’ -iose of physically normal children of comparable chrono logical and mental development." Elsewhere, Cruickshank (19^8) sroes on to savi It is seen that the physically handicapped child in his social relationships is, as are all child ren, attempting to insure not his physica1 self, but his phenomenal self, the concept of himself of which he is cognizant. Two types of problems are to be observed in the handicapped child from this point of viewi (l) adjustment problems which mi/rht occur in the normal developmental process of any person who is simultaneously straining for ex pansion of self and:the improvement of the self- concept that is already developed, and (2) adjust ment problems which are sdleljt resultant from the fact that a physical handicap is inserted between the goal and the desire to achieve such a goal. Finally, Cruickshank (19^3) says that: "It is re cognized that such a dichotomy is artificial and that no such clean-ciit separation of the problem ever exists. However, t>e failure to recognize the duality of the prob lem accounts for much misunderstanding with reference to the physically handicapped." That the practical judgment "adjustment" or "mal adjustment" is approached from quite a different perspec tive by school boards across the country is described by Leton and Schmidt (in Magary, 19^7. ch.8)i The referral action (to the school psychologist) varies a great deal from one school to another. In some situations, the referral action is merely the addition of the pupil's to a list awaiting indivi dual intelligence examination. In other situations, the teacher or counselor may actually carry out a preliminary study as a part of the referral pro- ces,..In most school systems, the assemblage of background information by the teacher, principal, or counselor is part of the referral process. The referral and the pre-study inquiry together com prise the first step in the case-sturty because they represent the initial collection of data (p.212). Characteristics of the Physically Handicapped (PH) Sample' Pour characteristics were used in selecting the PH sample: age, intelligence and related personality factors, socio-economic status (S^S), and factors of "pro blem classroom status" vs. "non-problem classroom status." I. Age: the PH sample (eighteen subjects) ranged in age from 15 years k months to 18 years 7 months. The rationale governing selection of at least a high school- aged sample may be stated as follows. The IPM has been used as a marriage counselling device with Lalng's descriptive research lnoludlng only husbands and wives. On page 133. Laing refers to the possible uses of the IPM in familial relations. The formal structure of the IPM provides a frame work that enables many hypotheses to be tested. Generally, the method can be used ideographlcally or nomothetically. For example: One can compare a set of dyads using one set of persons as a control for the other— husbands and wives, for Instance. Do husbands understand their wives or feel understood, correctly, better them wives understand their husbands or feel understood by them, etc.? One can look at the seune set of dyads at different times to gauge what has taken place, e.g., marital couples before, during and after counselling or psychotherapy. One can com pare one set of dyads with another set of dyads, e.g., mother-daughter compared to father-daughter 44 relations... (La ing, et al, 19^6) The point to be stressed here is that Laing has not researched any notion of a lower age limit— that is, how young may children be who take the IPM? The format of the test ("How woiild she answer the following?" How would she think you have answered the following?) pre supposes an ability for the respondent not only to put himself in the place of the other— to empathlze--but to judge his own responses in terms of the other's antici pated counter-responses, This ability for abstraction— "as if" thought, perhaps— is a cornerstone of Piaget's developmental ap proach (Flavell, 19^3) and has been elaborated upon by i Erickson (19^0), Lurla (19*4), and Brown and Berko (1964),, Piaget suggests ages 11 to 15 as the developmental period during which thought processes gain ascendence and domin ance over perception and action (Bellugi and Brown, 1964). Piaget terms "as if" thought the Stage of Formal Operations (Flavell, 1963) wherein the child becomes "ca pable of adult reasoning," "...the child can identify all possible factors j that are relevant to a problem under investigation. He can use comblnat6rial analysis to form all pos sible combinations of these factors, one by one, two at a time, three at a time, and so on. He can formulate hypotheses, draw conclusions from them and test them against reality. Moreover, he ~ * * of propositions about With the developmental hypotheses of Piaget in mind! it was decided to choose the sample from a population of ■pupiIs attending high school. Thus the ages of the FH sample (15 years b months to 18 years 7 months) are well within the Piagetian developmental phase of Formal Opera tions. It is thought by the investigator that the ages give maximum assurance of the ability of respondents to empathize and, thus, respond to IPM questions in a meaning ful fashion. II. Intelligencei the preceding section on the chronological age of the PH samnle implies that under standings' the IPM items presumes a certain Intellectual level on the part of all respondents. The tested PH sam ple members ranged in IQ from 56 to 112. That recorded IQ scores should not be taken too literally in the PH sample is illustrated by one respondent with a Stanford Binet IQ of 83 who is an honor student (GPA of 3*3) ®nd is student body president of the high school from which ■ the PH sample was obtained. Newland (in Cruickshank, 19^3) sums up the diffi culties in accurately testing the intelligence of excep tional children! The examination of exceptional children and youth is, by the very nature of their being exceptional, an exacting and difficult task requiring the ser vices of skilled and highly qualified persons. The presence of motor and sensory handicaps and of ma jor emotional involvements, singly or in combination, materially complicates the process. The psychol ogical assessment of these children and youth, U6 necessitates synthesizing the results of physical, intellectual, socio-emotional, achievement and apt itudes measurements, is even more difficult. While sound research is badly needed to show us how to make these processes more scientific and less a matter of art, their results can still play a sig nificant part in the educational and social plan ning for, and understanding of, the exceptional. (Ibid.. p.112) III, Socio-Economic Status (SES)> the FH sample used in the study represented a range from members of fam ilies subsisting on welfare checks to one subject who lives with his parents in an exclusive housing development where homes are in the .$70,000 to $100,000 price range. The wide SES range at Widney High is of course due to the school's serving as the central public high school facility serving PH children in the Los Angeles.area, ThuS Widney's SES distribution is not so homogenous as the pop ulations of most regular high schools in Los An/zeles. Ac cording to Widney's principal, Widney's location in a pre- : dominantly Wegro section of the city does not significant ly affect the SES distribution of the school population due to the eligibility requirements for attendence at Wid-j I ney. III. "Problem" versus "Non-problem" Handicapped Pupilsi the Los Angeles City School District rejects categorizations of pupils as being "adjusted" or "malad justed", or "disturbed" or "non-disturbed,A formal di agnosis of this sort may not be made by a School Ps.ycholo- ; b7 gist of, and entered into the cumulative record of, that pupil. School authorities make any such distinction of pupils in terms of whether or not that pupil does or does not present consistent behavioral problems within the classroom setting, (Stella Cable? Director of Special Services for Exceptional Children? personal communication, 19*8), The term "behavioral problem” is preferred in the descriptions of recalcitrant children by school personnel. The rationale for such specifid-terminology is to remove the teacher from the role of psychodiagnostician and to encourasre her to participate actively in the modification of on-going classroom behavior (Peter, 19*5» Haring and Phillips, 19*2). The criterion used in this study comprisedi 1, Examination of the cumulative records of each pupil, "Problem" pupils were chosen as those pupils with : 75% unfavorable comments by teachers on their respective in-class behaviors. "Unfavorable" comments were specific i teacher references to "acting up" in class? hostility to j the teacher? other recognized authority (such as the school i bus driver), to other children? non-cooperation with fail-1 ure to perform class-room assignments? unacceptable dress? profanity? etc. 2. Pupils with less than 75% unfavorable comments were with-held temporarily from inclusion in the "problem 4 8 group" until the author could consult with the head coun selor and the school psychologist as to whether the given pupil was, in their opinion, a "problem" pupil. 3. Pupils with more than 75# favorable comments from teachers writing in their respective cumulative files were Judged to be "non-problem" Pupils. Since only four subjects had impressed teachers sufficiently to write favorable items in their folders, the author consulted the Head Counselor and School Psychologist for their Judgments as to whether they thought these pupils to actually be "non-problem" Pupils. As much as was possible, the author attempted to leave Judgments of "problem" or "non-problem" categoriza tion to school authorities. Ultimately, this categoriza tion was determined through: (a) inspection of cumulative records, comments by teachers, records of grades, "work habits," and "cooperation." (b) consultation with Widney's Head Counselor and School Psychologist on "borderline," "problem," and "non-problem" children. "Borderline" pu pils, of course, were those pupils whose school deportment could not be determined by the arbi trary 75^ favorable-unfavorable comment cri terion described above. To this extent, the tested Intelligence of PH's, especially the severely Involved PH, cannot be accepted strictly within the rubrics of his recorded IQ. There are obvious questions of test conditions and rapport with 1 + 9 the psychometrist which are more vital In order to accur ately tent physically handicapped students. For these reasons, the Head Counselor and the School Psychologist were asked to recommend candidates for the study who seemed to "demonstrate a sooial Intel ligence above that of the typical retarded child." It is therefore quite possible that while the PH sample selected was of at least "normal social intelligence," not every PH was truly "non-retarded" by the strictures set up by the IQ tests. Before testing, each PH student was interviewed by the investigator at school. This was done under the most casual of conditions— usually on the athletic field during physical education. Seleotion was made by the author on quite subjec tive criteria including responsiveness to non-verbal as well as verbal aspects of the situation, and appropriate affect. Attitudes of the subjects towards the investiga tor and/or the testing situation ranged from friendly cooperation to verbalized hostility. Only those whose hostility precluded testing at all were eliminated from the sample. Ten of the original 28 names submitted by the Head Counselor and the School Psychologist were dropped from the experimental groups. Of the ten candidates, five were eliminated because of parental refusal of test cooperation. Three of the 50 remaining five demonstrated inability to translate sup posed verbal understanding of the test instructions into actual test performance. All three showed evidence of a deficiency in "social intelligence"! i.e., the ability to cognize characteristics of their own social relation ships as abstract descriptive categories. Excessive de pendence on the investigator for advice, failufce to grasp the meaning of "what I think she thinks" (and the like"), and a majority of "Idon't know" responses to test questions constituted evidence of either deficient social intelli gence or passive non-cooperation. The other two showed hostility for the testing situation that prevented IPM administration altogether. ! The Interpersonal Perception Method was adminis tered by the Investigator to two groups of son-mother pairs» (1) the experimental group, consisting of eighteen physically handicapped son-mother dyadic pairsj and (2) the contrast group, consisting of ten non-physlcally hand icapped son-mother dyadic pairs. Several factors contri buted to differences in the method of administration. j i i l ! Type and Severity of Physical Disability j The PH group's physical disabilities ranged, in cosmetic appearance, from one subject with Haemophilia to another with quadriplegic athetoid cerebral palsy of near ly debilitating severity. This range in motoric severity - r - t r-^-v* * i - ...v...*-- o*->. i . , • f-! - . • n / • % , ,\\~l .... .... 51 meant that some subjects completed the IFK easily and with few, if any, delays. Other more severely disabled subjects required special arrangements to complete the pencil and paper form. In the cases of three PH’s verbal indication of whether the response was "very true," "slightly true," "slightly untrue," or "very untrue" was given by the PH subject to the investigator who recorded the response in an identical IPK questionnaire. Each of these subjects gave their responses immediately or with about as much consideration as was appropriate for a written response. The length of the test (720 questions) and the overlapping nature of the questions possibly served to minimize any Initial changes caused by 3s responding verbally to the questions due to self-consciousness. Test length or over lapping questions would not reveal a systematic change caused by the way questions were answered. Cooperation of the mothers in the PH group was solicited by a letter, and followed up with a telephone call to answer questions about the nature and usefulness of the study. The letter, sent to each mother and on USC stationery was as follows: "Dear Parent: Nr. Perez, Prinoipal of Widney High School, has approved my asking your cooperation in a study involving you and your son and how both of you see one another. 52 The study itself is part of a project being carried out at the USC Department of Exceptional Children (745 5250). All that is required is the completion of a ques tionnaire by you and an identical questionnaire by your son. About 70 minutes of your time is needed to complete the form. Your son will complete his form at Widney, while yours may be filled out at home at any convenient time. Results of the study will be explained to you in full. I am certain that you will find a comparison of the way you see your son and the way your son sees you quite useful and enlightening. The results are yours alone. They will not become part of the school's records and neither vou or your son will be identified by name when the study is complete. Your approval and coopera tion is deeply appreciated.. We will be contacting you within the next few days to answer any questions you have with regard to this study. Robert Aber Research Fellow Department of Exceptional Children Univ. of So. California" The parent was phoned in order to confirm her ap proval, answer questions, and arrange an appointment with her to take the IPM. Only one refusal was encountered over the telephone. The mother's IPM was always obtained • 53 before the form was administered to her son for two rea sons > 1. Without testing both members of the mother-son pair the IPM is totally useless. 2. If the mother's consent is obtained the more critical member is gotten first, on the basis that the son-pupil talcing the IPM at school is under a certain amount of coercion and, within reason, doesn't have great choice in whether or not he will take the test. Testing the mother took place in her home, at a time when she felt most free from household duties. The mother was given the following instructions to read on the front of the test: Read each question and mark the answer form thus (/) to show how true you think the following statement is:' If you feel the statement is very true, put a mark ; in column $ If it is slightly true, put a mark in column + If it is slightly untrue, put a mark in column - If it is very untrue, put a mark in column =+ You will see that each of the 60 items has three sections A,B, and C. In Section A. the questions are direct. In Section B. you will be putting in the answers you think "he" would give and in Sec tion C. you will be putting in the answers that you think "he" would think you would give to each question. There.will be some questions that you may find dif ficult because they are true or untrue sometimes but not at other times. When this is very strongly the case, you should still try to decide whether it is in balance true or untrue, but add also a mark in the last column (?), It is best to do the questions quite quickly, because your first thoughts will be the most use ful, and because there are a great manv questions to do. Test instructions for the sons were identical, save that the pronoun "she" was substituted for "he", as in "...the answers you think •she* would give," Each mother in the PH group filled out the IPM in her home with the investigator rresent, T '-'e onlv assis tance provided was to offer clarification of the meaning of specific critical issues if the respondents asked questions on the subject. Their sons took the IPM at school during free periods and only after their mothers had completed the form. Little reluctance to take the IPM was found among the PH sons. VHiere there was such reluctance, it was dispelled by allowing the student to take the form during the class period of his choice. In these few cases there was the inducement of "getting out" of an especially disliked class. Test-taking time periods varied, among PH mothers (65 minutes to 205 minutes) and among PH sons (55 minutes to 190 minutes) and the results showed no significant difference owing to this time 'variation. Variation in filling out the IPM form Itself was caused by the inability of several PH sons to check off their answers in the book. In these instances the subject read questions from a blank IPM book, and responded verbal 55 i.y "verv true*!' "slightly true, V "slightly untruef I * or "very untrue”. The investigator recorded these answers i" another blank IPM booklet. The only procedural change made in administering the IPM to the non-physically handicapped (NPH) contrast group was that sons and mothers filled out the form at the same time with the investigator present. Characteristics of the Experimental (PH) Group 1. Ages PH sons ranged in age from 1^ years 10 months to 1? years 11 months. PH mothers ranged in age from 36 to 53 years.* 2. Educational Achievement PH sons were all full-time students at the Joseph Wldney High school. One was in the 9th grade, six were in the 10th grade, five were in the 11th grade, arid six were in the 12th grade. One PH mother had graduated from college. Six had attended college. Six more had graduated from high school* i The remaining six had dropped out of elementary schools at levels ranging from ^th to 8th grade. 3. Racial Composition Eight mother-son pairs were Negro. Ten mother-son pairs were Caucasian. * None of the PH mothers had physical handicaps them selves. 56 4. Incidence and Types of Physical Handicap. All sons In the experimental group were possessed of significant physical disability. The following are the incidences and types of handicaps in the experimental group sonsi Cerebral Palsy— 8 Haemophilia--l Epilepsy— 1 Post Polio--5 Heart Disease— 3 This list refers to type of physical disability rather thah the severity or the attendant difficulties encountered by the PH Offspring. 5. Intelligence Test Scored Fourteen of the eighteen PH sons had had IQ tests with scores recorded in their cumulative records at school. Scores of these sons in the PH group ranged from 66 to 112, 6. Siblings One PH son had 7? seven PH's had 3* two had 2; three had. 1; five PH's were only children, i Characteristics of the Contrast (NPH) Group (6 son-mother pairs) 1, Ages NPH sons ranged in age from 13 years 11 months to 18 years 1 month, NPH mothers ranged in age from 37 to 56 years of a ire. 57 2. Educational Achievement All NPH sons were full-time students in three dif ferent high schools in Los Angeles. Three were in the 9th grade, one was in the 10th s-rade, two were in the 11th grade, and two were in the 12th grade. Pour NPH mothers were college graduates. The other' four NPH mothers had graduated from high school, and one had attended some college. 3. Racial Composition Five son-mother pairs were Caucasianj one pair was Negro. Intelligence Test Scores No recorded IQ scores were available for any son in the contrast group. This was due to the contrast group's not being selected through formal high school channels. Selection was made through the investigator's acquanintance with either mother or son. Physically disabled students were placed into "problem" or "non-problem" groups through the following methodsi 1, The head counselor and:the school psychologist at ! Widney presented to the investigator a list of 29 male pupils who were deemed suitable candidates for testing with the IPM. 2. The investigator went through the cumulative records of each pupil, examining these fox information pertaining 58 to race, age, IQ, approximate socioeconomic status, achievement test data, grades. Above all, emphasis was placed on determining the nature of comments on the pupil's behavior by teachers and other school authorities. Were these generally favorable, neutral or unfavorable? 3. The Investigator avoided preliminary meetings with anv pupil in the preliminary sample list. This was to re duce the chance of exuerimentor bias in judging whether school authorities Judgments of problem or non-problem status were well grounded, b. Members of the "problem group" were chosen from those rupils whose cumulative records contained school authority comment describing their behavior that was more than 75# unfavorable, 5. Members of the "non-problem" group were chosen from those pupils whose cumulative records contained school authority comment describing their behavior that was more than 75#.favorable. 6. "Unfavorable" comments included references to* acting up in class hostility shown to school authorities hostility to other children non-cooperation with or failure to do classroom assignments profane language unacceptable dress 7. "Favorable" comments included references toi proper classroom behavior cooperation with school authorities 59 making extra effort to overcome the physical dis ability doing classroom assignments correctly and complete ly cooperation with other children 8. Both favorable and unfavorable teacher comments about students were inferred from grade records of each pupil. Ratings of "E" (excellent) or "U" (unsatisfactory") in'the categories of Cooperation and Work Habits served to cor roborate or contradict written comments about classroom behavior, 9. Grade records with a preponderence of "S"'s (satis factory) were not inferred to be suplementary to teacher comment about the classroom behavior of each student. An "S" is generally taken to be a rating Indicative of neither outstandingly good or outstandingly bad behavior. An "S" says little about a student's problem or non-problem stat us, These were, thus, entirely disregarded, 10. Pupils with less thah 75# favorable or unfavorable comments by school authorities written in their cumulative records were temporarily with-held from inclusion in eith-I er the "problem" or the "non-problem" groups. j i 10a, Consultation with Widney High's counselling j staff was held in order to gain further Information on these "doubtful" students. 10b. Interviews were held with teachers who were felt to be in a position to give information on a given student not contained in the student's cum- , ulative record. 10c. Placement in either group was made only after school authorities made confident statements as to whether a given student presented behavior prob lems . 11. The experimenter took pains to avoid interactions with any student until their "problem” or "non-problem" status was determined. This was in order to avoid a bias ing effect in terms of the experimenter's helping decide what students belonged in what group. In this manner, assignment of students to either of the groups was made exclusively by school authorities. This was felt to be consistent with one purpose of the present research: to use the IPM in order to discover whether school authori ties' perception of problem or non-problem behavior could be verified by the patterns of agreement and disagreement in the son-mother interaction. 12. Before final Inclusion in either of the two experi mental groups cooperation of the mother of each subject was solicited by a cover letter. A few days later, each mother was contacted by telephone in order to set up an appointment with her to take the IPM and to answer any questions about procedures and use of data. Bach mother took the IPM in her home with the experimenter present. In all but three instances, PH pupils took the test at school. 61 Procedures Used In Testing the Non-Physlcally Handicapped (NPH) Contrast Group 1. Selection Six adolescent male high school students and their mothers cooperated 1^ the study. All NFH's were, to some extent, acquaintances of the experimenter, and were se lected on the basis of their not having some publicly de tectable physical handicap which could stigmatize their Interpersonal relationships and/or their school status (Cf. Goffman, 1963, p.3). 2. Characteristics of the Non-Physlcally Handicapped (NPH) Sample Ss ranged In age from 13 years 11 months to 18 veers 1 month. Since the sample was drawn from a circle of acquaintances no testing data was available for any member of the contrast group. All were reported to be progressing well In college-preparatory courses at school. No behavior outside school that involved direct encounters with the police was reported by NPH students or their mothers. Dissatisfaction with parents or school was not verbalized except for the amount of casual complaining to be expected from male offspring at this age. All sons and mothers appeared to be of atlftast nor mal Intelligence and readily understood the Instructions and meaning of the test instrument. There was little de pendence upon the experimenter for verbal Interpretation 62 of specific, questions and both the sons and mothers com pleted the IFM at home and at the same time. Completion times ranged approximately from h-5 to 70 minutes. The purpose of this group was to act as a contrast to the FH son-mother pairs in order to determine whether the absence of physical disabiltiy affects the pattern of agreement-disagreement between sons and their mothers. This also was felt to be consistent with one more purpose of the present study. Of course, there was no way ot determining whether teacher perceptions of NFH subjects as "problem" or "non problem" students was reflective of the quality of the mother-son interaction in terms of that interaction’s "disturbed" or "non-dlsturbed" state. Thus, the question of whether disability does or does not affect the accuracy of "problem"-"non-problem" by school authorities was never answered, though it could easily have been raised, 3. Statistics to be Used The design presented above lends itself most im mediately to the Chi Square method of data analysis. The categories of responses asked of Ss are discrete instead of continuous measurements. However, although Chi Square is not the most rigorous method available for data analy sis, several reasons should here be advanced to Justify this test’s selection! a. The IPM is e scale of attitudes. If we are trying to describe attitude through a behavioristic ra tionale, we may conclude that certain actions performed by a subject presume certain attitudes on the part of that subject. Even if we assume that the behaviors are truly representative of these attitudes, we are not free to assume that behavior measurements Include the subjec tive aspects of the attitudes. We must ultimately rely upon the introspective reports of the person for infor mation concerning the subjective domain. b. Because we cannot verify the person's report by any instrumental means presently known we are not free to dismiss attitude as a psychological domain unworthy of further attention. If we do, we stick to replicable phy sical manifestations which yield quantifiable arid "hard" measurement data. Such data justify the use of statisti cal procedures which employs multiple regression designs and winnow out factors which produce undue behavioral variance. c. Attitude makes up part of the subjective domain which eludes quantification by lnstument at the current levels of sophistication. If Attitude Examinations are at all Justified in academic research procedures they must be taken wholly, with all their operational shortcomings. The IPM model presents a method of verifying one persons attitude on a given subject by comparing what he says it 6k is with what the other person involved in that given sub ject thinks the attitude of the first person is. Thus, the IPM does not attempt to analyze the subjective con tent of the attitudes. It presents a profile of the un derstandings and mis-understandings between the partici pants of a dyadic relationship. The only remaining ques tion is of utilityi after the educator, psychologist and participants know the results, how can they use them? Or can such data by used, at al1 ? Hopefully, these questions will be answered later in a satisfactory manner. For the present, the nature of the variables under consideration does not seem to Justify a research design and statistical treatment more rigorous than the Chi j Square, ' Description of the Tool and Instruments Used A Presentation of the Interpersonal Perception Method (IPM) of Laing, Phillipson, and Lee (1966). The IPM was devised as an aid in marriage counsel- i ling by Laing, Phillipson and Lee in 196k and tested on a ; sample of "disturbed" and "non-disturbed" marriages at thei Tavistock Clinic, London, England. The IPM is based on ! two axioms common to any science of persons* 1, Behavior is a function of experience 2. Both experience and behavior are always in re lation to some one or something other than selfi The verv simplest schema for the understanding of the behavior of one person has to Include at least two persons and a common situation. Thusi (Laing, et al, 1966) In terms of this schema, Peter's behavior towards Paul is in part a function of Peter's experience t>f Paul, Peter's experience of Paul is in part a function of Paul's behavior towards Peter. Paul's behavior towards Peter is in turn partly a function of his experience with Peter, which is in turn partly a function of Paul's behavior to wards him. Thus, the behavior of Peter towards Paul, and of Paul towards Peter, cannot be subsumed under an exclu sively inter-behavioral schema, much less any lntraperson- al schema, if Peter and Paul are axiomatic persons. Cor roborative of this is Newcomb's interpersonal schema, de scribed above. For, if Peter and Paul are persons, the behavior of each toward the other is mediated by the ex perience by each of the other, Just as the experience of each is mediated by the behavior of each. The transformation of Paul's behavior into Peter's experience entails all the culturally-conditioned and constitutionally learned structures that contribute to the way Peter construes his world. Much of this learning has Feter Peter's behavior (B) Paul's Experience (E) Paul Feter's experience Paul 's behavior (B) 66 never been open to reflective evrareness. To a much great er extent than most of us realize, we have been "program med* to handle incoming data according to prescribed in structions. Often this has been accompanied by meta-in structions against. being aware that we are thus Instructed, This is an additional factor in the frequently great dif ficulty that many people have in opening their own "pro gramming" to their own conscious reflection. In order for the other’s behavior to become part of "self's" experience, "self" must percfelve it. The very act of perception entails interpretation. To feel loved is to perceive and interpret, that is, to experience, the actions of the other as loving. The alteration of m£ ex perience of nyr behavior to your experience of m£ behavior ! is the nexus of the question of interpersonal perception, I act in a way that is cautious to me, but cowardly to you. , She sees herself as vivacious, but he sees her as superficial. He sees himself as friendly, she see him as seduc- lve. He sees himself as gallant. she sees him as phony. She sees herself as feminine, he sees her as help less and dependent. He sees himself as masculine, she sees him as over bearing and dominating. Within the issue of perception is the issue of se- j i lection and reception. Acts highly significant to others may be trivial to us. But even if the acts selected for interpretation are the same, even if each individual per ceives these acts as the same act, the interpretati6nrofr *7 the identical act may be very different. She winks at him in friendly complicity and he sees it as seductive. Tbe act is the same, the interpretation an^ hence the ex perience of it disjunctive. What happens when two people do not aerree on the meaning to be assigned a particular act? A rather compli cated process ensues. If communication is ootimum, they understand that they differ on the interpretation of the act, and also realize that they both understand that they differ in its interpretation. Once this is established they may get into a struggle over whether or not to change the act under consideration in the future. This struggle may take several forms* Threat— Do this or else Coaxing--Plea.se do this Bribery— If you will do this I will do that in re turn Persuasion— I believe it is a good idea for you to do this because,.. However, often in human affairs where there is dis agreement, there is also a misunderstandlng and a failure of realization of misunderstanding. This may be dellber8 ^ r, ate, i.e., a simple attempt to ignore the other person's point of view, or it may be an unwitting overlooking of the opposition viewpoint. In either case, a disruption in communication occurs. In Laing's view, the IPM's no tation makes it possible to characterize and pinpoint the levels and patterns of disruption of this kind. 68 Human beings are constantly thinking about others and about what others are thinking about them, and what others are thinking they think about the others, and so on. One sees that this area is the very heart of many relationships and we have in fact verv little systematic and scientificaldv tested information about it. Projection is a form of action directed at one's own experience of the other. It is called a "mental liiech- anlsm", This is misleading since it is neither mental nor mechanical. It is an action whose intentional object is one's own experience of the other. Sometimes, what appear® to be projection is reallv a complicated mismatching of expectations, i.e., the interpretation that Peter gives i to Faul's not fulfilling his expectation. A spiral of re-! clprocal perspectives ("perspective'' used by Laing inter changeably with interpersonal perception) begins to build Paul i 1. Peter is upset, 2. I'll try to help •him by remain- , ing calm and just listening.: i 3. He is getting even more upset, I must be even more calm. 4. He is accusing me of trying to, hurt him, ! and whirl something like thisi Peteri 1. I am upset. 2. Paul is acting calm and very dispassionately. 3. If Paul cared about me and wanted to help he would get involved and show some emotion. 4, Paul knows that this upsets me. 69 5. If Paul knows that his behavior upsets me, he must be intending to hurt me. 5. I'm really try ing to help. 6. He must be cruel, sadls- 6, He must be pro jecting. tic. Maybe he gets pleasure out of it, etc. One or both persons in a twosome may spiral off in to a third, fourth, or even fifth level of what will be called metaperspeotlves. Such a spiral develops, for in stance, whenever two people mistrust each other. We do not know how people resolve mistrust that takes on this formal structure, but we know that such mistrust is common. Logioally, the possibilities are that it may end by uni lateral or bilateral disarmament: by unilateral separa tion or mutual divorce; or by a parametric change occur- ing. At this point it seems wise to solidify some defini tions of terms which have been previously discussed. The IPM deals with three dyadic perspectives: the direct per spective. the meta-perspeotlve. the meta-meta-perspectlve. 1. The direct perspective is A's perception of issue X. 2. The meta-perspective is what A thinks B thinks of issue X. 3. The meta-meta-perspective is what A thinks B thinks As perception of issue X may be. Understanding can be defined as the conjunction be tween the meta-perspective of one person (B) and the direct perspective of the other (A). In terms of the present discussion: Being; Understood Is the conjunction between the meta-meta perspective of one person (B) and the meta-perspective of the other (A). The Feeling of Being Understood Is the conjunction- of one’s own direct perspective with one's own meta-meta perspective. The IPM Is designed to measure and provide under standing of the interpretations, or the conjunctions and disjunctions, of two individuals in respect to a number of key issues with which they may be concerned in the con text of their dyadic relationship. The method, in common with others that are concerned with the study of the dy adic system, takes the fulcrum of understanding away from the professionally developed transference-countertransfer- ence and places it inside the dyadic experience and inter action of everyday life, where transference, countertrans ference and non-transference processes comIngle in ways which are only beginning to be studied, much less under stood. The IPM makes use of 60 dyadic issues around each of which 12 questions require to be answered. The 60 is sues are presented as phrases that express interaction and inner experience. All can be used with self and self- other reference. Tbey were culled from a larger group of some 2000 words and phrases that were derived form a small standard dictionary. This list (see Table 2) was reduced by eliminating redundancies, synonyms and antonyms, aid later, after experience with 300 and then 160 remaining 71 Issues, 84 were chosen, excluding those that were most difficult for the subjects to understand. Finally these 84 lssure were reduced to 60 following test-retest stud ies and Item analyses. The 60 Issues used range from those which tend to foster Interdependence and autonomy to those which tend to be destructive of such "healthy" processes. Within this range the Issues may be grouped into six categories, according to the extent to which they expressi A. Interdependence and autonomy B. Warm concern and support C. Disparagement and disappointment D. Contentions: fight/flight E. Contradiction and confusion F. Extreme denial of autonomy It should be clear that any question around the 60 issues has to be stated from a specific perspective if it is to be meaningful within a dyad. In addition, it has to be pointed in a specific direction. A dyad contains two epicenters of experience, two points of view, for example, Peter's perspective and Pa\;l's; husband and wife's; mother and daughter's; etc. The Four Relationships as seen from each Perspective 1. Mother's relationship with herself 2. Mother's relationship with daughter 3. Daughter's relationship with daughter 4. Daughter's relationship with mother The Basic Schema of the IPM We can now state the hasic schema of the method 72 and represent It in the shorthand we have adopted. The issues in this technique are confined to the relationships (MM), (MD), (DD), (DM). The perspectives on these issues are those of M and D. Each person's perspective is directed to his own relationships to self and other, and the other's relation to other and self. The levels of perspective are direct, meta and meta-meta. That is, The Basic Schema of the IPM First level M— (MM) and D— (MM) M--(MD) D— (MD) M— (DD) D— (DD) M— (DM) D--(DM) or M— (MM)— D M— (MD)— D M— (DD)— D M— (DM)— D Second (meta) level M— D— (MM) D— M— (MM) M— 0— (MD) D— M— (MD) M— D— (DD) D— M— (DD) M— D— (DM) D— M— (DM) or M— D— (MM)— M— D (MD)— M— D M— D— (DD)— M— D M— D— (DM)— M— D Third (meta-meta)^level M— D— M— (MM) D— M— D— (MM) 73 M— D--M--(MD) M— D--M--(DD) M— D--M— (DM) D--M— D ~ (MD) D--M— D— (Dfi) D-*M— D— (DM ) or M— D— M— (MM) — D— M--D M— D— M ~ (MD) — D— M— D M— (DD)— D— M— D M— D~M— (DM)— D~M— D One of the facts of reality we can explore by the IPM is the extent to which the dyad as a system may pos- ess patterns of conjunction and disjunction unbeknown to either of its members, which may however influence the way they enteract and interexperience themselves in this situation. There are a number of formal reciprocally matched comparisons'that can be made in this dyadic sys tem. Two kinds of comparisons are now possiblei 1. non-reciprocally matched comparisons. 2. reciprocally matched comparisons. In a non-reciprocally matched comparison one simply gathers information about how each person sees the other and constructs a profile of his viewpoint. For example, a husband might see his wife as cold and mean but very bright, or a wife might see her husband as weak and wishy- washy but quite charming. By this method we gather a set of characteristics that each person attributes to self and to other, to the meta-meta level of perspective. How ever, we are more concerned with the pattern that emerges whan we match A's views (direct, meta, meta-meta) with B*s views (direct, meta, meta-meta) of the same questions and issues. The moment we match one person's view with ano ther person's view we are in an entirely different arena. It no longer matters per se if a husband sees his wife as kind or mean to him. What matters Instead is whether or not the husband's view is concordant or discordant with how she sees herself as treating him, and how she sees him as viewing her treatment of him. It is the pattern of concordant or discordant attribution made at each level of analysis which now becomes significant, not one person's set of attributions considered in isolation. By the method of reciprocally matched coranarison we ^ave direct access to the relationship itselff as well as to each person in the relationship. By reciprocally matched comparison, the profile disclosed by the technique is the profile of the relationship between two points of view. The following are the reciprocally matched compar isons that seem likely to be the most Important. Comparison between one person's view and another's on the same issue tells us whether they are in agreement or disagreement. If one person is aware of the other's point of view we say he understands him. If he fails to recognize the other person's view, we say he misunderstands. In agreement or disagreement we are comparing direct perspectives on the same Issues. In understanding and misunderstanding we are com paring one person's meta-perspective with the other person's direct perspective on the same issue. There is no constant term for the comparison between se- 75 cond and third order perspectives, but, as we have seen, they are just as relevant to the way the dyad is kept in a steady state as the first two levels. Within this sche mata, one mayi feel understood correctly feel understood incorrectly feel misunderstood correctly feel misunderstood incorrectly Whether or not one is correct or incorrect to feel understood or misunderstood is given by comparing that per son *s meta-meta perspective with the other person*s meta- cerspective. To summarize! I 1. Comparison between the one person’s direct per spective and the other person's direct perspective on the same issue, gives agreement or disagreement. 2. Comparison between the one person's meta-per- spective and the other person's direct perspective on the same issue srives understandlng or misunder standing. 3. Comparison between one person's meta-meta per spective and his own direct perspective gives the feeling of being understood or the feeling of being misunderstood. 4. Comparison between the one person's meta-meta perspective and the other person's meta-perspective on the same issue gives realization or failure of realization. Whether or not this is a realization or failure of realization of understanding entails a comparison of all three levels. We have seen in the basic schema of the IPM that its logical skeleton can be represented as followsi M D M (MM) D M D M D M (MD) D M D M D M (DD) D M D M D M (DM) D M D meta-meta meta direct (X) direct meta meta-meta 76 Conjunction between Ml and D1 gives agreement. Henceforth let A stand for agreement. Disjunction between Ml and D1 or between D1 and Ml gives disagreement. Henceforth let D stand for disagreement. Conjunction between M2 and D1 or between D2 and Ml gives understanding. Henceforth let U stand for understanding. Disjunction between M2 and D1 or between D2 and Ml gives misunderstanding. Henceforth let M stand for misunderstanding. Conjunction between M3 and D2 or between D3 and M2 gives realization. Henceforth let B stand for realization. Disjunction between M3 and D2 or between D3 and M2 gives failure of realization. Henceforth let P stand for failure of realization. Conjunction between M3 and Ml, or between D3 and D1 gives the feeling of being understood. Disjunction between M3 and Ml, or between D3 and D1 gives the feeling of being mlsunderstood. Note that R or F requires a comparison between the person's feeling that he is or is not understood, and whe ther, in fact, he is or is not understood. Thus, a person may feel understood (B3=Al), when he is (A2=B1) or when he is not (A3=*l). In the first case he realizes that he is understood; in the second case he fails to realize that he is not. If there is agreement or disagreement there may bei understanding or misunderstanding; understanding and realization of understanding; understanding and failure to realize understanding; misunderstanding and realization of misunderstand ing; misunderstanding and failure to realize misunder standing, 77 Given the spiral A B A (X) B A B the following are some of the possibilitiesi (1 ) R U A U R That is, there is agreement, bilateral understanding, and bilateral realization that one is understood. (2) R U D U R There is disagreement, but each understands the other and each realizes that he is understood. (3) R M A U R There is agreement but B misunderstands. That is, B thinks that there is disagreement. A realizes, however, that B misunderstands him while B- realizes that A under stands B, Since answers dichotomize in this test into Yes (+) and No (-) we see that there can be two types of agreement according to whether agreement is positive or negative, A B + Agree or - Disagree or - + + Considering both sides, many possible profiles come to light. Some of these are shown below: 78 A B A (X) B A B Agreement + + Agreement a n r ! , under standing + + + + Agreement, bilateral understanding anti reali zation that one is under stood + + + + + + Unilateral failure to realize that one is under- + + + + + stood + + + + Bilateral failure to realize that one is + + + understood + + + + Unilateral impression that one is understood + - + + + + when one isn’t + + + + Agreement that is uni laterally not recognized - + + + and this failure is in turn not recognized + - + + + + We can see already that only the total spiral de rived from the matching of both individuals gives us a pro file of the dyad as a svstem at any point in time. The relation of agreement and disagreement to second and third order levels is given by the following eight-celled proper ty space. Realization Failure of realization Understanding/Misunderstanding Understanding/Misunder standing Agreement RUA RMA FUA FMA Dis- Agreement RUD HMD FUD FMD To summarise, the IFNI enables usi to look at a reported, detailed snapshot of one dyad at one time* to compare one point in time with another; to compare interdyadic differences; to make interdyadic comparisons in terms of any aspect of the patterns of conjunctions and disjunc tions that the method reveals reliably. The method arrears to have most value when the sys tem properties of the dyad are correlated with the behavior and experience of the agents who comprise it. In general, the logical structure is applicable in any situation of bargaining or negotiations— when two people, or two groups, sets, blocks, are involved in figuring out what the other thinks of them, and what they think we think thev think, etc. One can compare a series of dvads using one set of persons as a control for the other— for Instance, husbands and wives. Do husbands understand their wives or feel un derstood, correctly, or incorrectly, better than wives un derstand their husbands or feel understood by their hus bands? One can look at the same set of dyads at different times to gauge what has taken place, e.g., mother-daughter compared to father-daughter relations, or mother-dauschter compared to mother-son relations. CHAPTER IV Discussion This study attempted, the comparison of out-of school interpersonal attitudes of two groups of physically handicapped studentsi one group rated as "problem" by school authorities, the other group rated as "non-problem" by the same school personnel. These attitudes were con trasted with those of a non-physically handicapped sample whose school behavior wss not rated as either "problem" or "non-problem" for this study. To carry out the investigation, the Interpersonal Perception Method was administered to 18 physically hand icapped male high school students and their mothers. The same test was given to six non-physically handicapped male high school students and their mothers. Statistical analysis revealed no significant diff erences in interpersonal attitudes among the son-mother pairs tested. The findings show that the null hypothesis could not be rejected. The overall results for both FH groups are summar ized. in Table 1 which gives the mean scores for each phy sically (PH) group. Table 2 gives the mean scores for the 80 81 non-physically handicapped (NPH) group. A cursory inspection of these tables will show that, yiven the comparitively small number of mother-son pairs involved, this technique could not meaningfully differen tiate among the "problem" PH, "non-problem" PH, and NPH mroups. Lest the Instrument itself be suspected of insen sitivity to overall proup personality characteristics, it should be noted that Laing, Phillipson, and Lee (19^6) ob tained hi/rhly significant results with the IPM in a com parison between married couples seeking psychiatric help for their unhappy marriages and married couples reporting satisfaction in their connubial lives. If the expectation were borne out that "problem" students extend problem behavior into out-of-school inter personal relationships (the Son-Mother relationship in this instance) there should be more overall disjunction between "problem" son-mothers than for "non-problem" son- mothers. A cursory inspection of Table 1 shows no greater disjunction for the "problem" PH group than for the "non problem" PH group, A second popular assumption is that the son-mother relationships of high school aged students are significant ly different when the son is physically handicapped. Con trasting the result for both the "problem" and "non-prob lem" PH groups with those for the NPH group falls to reveal 82 the presence of over-all conjunction-dis Junction differ ences. The small number in the NFH sample must limit any refutation of this popular assumption, though the present results indicate a trend in that direction. The embodiment of the theory of reciprocal perspec tives in this form offers the two people in the dyad an opnortunity to present Independently of the other each his own point of view. According to Laing, Phillipson, and Lee (Ibid,. p. ) "...the Mon-Disturbed group has a high degree of harmony." Laing, Phillipson, and Lee go on to report that one finds, amonsr non-dlsturbed couples, many straight flushes in the spirals when each person's three levels of perspec tives are matched with the other's. In terms of the present study, the "non-problem" straight flush would hei Son says that he loves her that he thinks she thinks he loves her that he thinks she thinks he thinks he loves her. Mother says he loves her that she thinks he thinks he loves her that she thinks he thinks she thinks he loves her. That is S M S SM M S M + + + (he loves + + + her) Laing found that his non-disturbed group, in the vast majority of issues upon which we are conditioned to place a positive value, there are positive straight flushes, and in the vast majority of Issues that are negatively valued there are negative straight flushes (see Laing's breakdown of positively and negatively valued issues in Appendix I), In the present study that both "problem" and "non problem" PH groups held to the same patterns of straight flushes-16,evident. Again there is no significant differ ence between "problem" and "non-problem" PH groups as well as between either of the PH samples and the NPH contrast group, It will be useful to discuss some of the comparl- tlve findings in detail. This will be done by considering Tables 1 and 2, section by section, taking in turn the comparitlve scores between the "problem" and "non-problem* * PH groups and the NPH contrast group. S M S M S -M S M AGREEMENT SM MS MM SS PH ("problem") 46 46 46 46 48 48 44 44 PH ("non-problem") 45 45 4? 47 45 45 44 44 NPH 45 46 46 46 4? 46 45 44 Agreement, that is, the comparison of S and M*s di rect perspective on the same issues is revealed to be of statistically Insignificant difference among three groups. Agreement Scores of the two PH groups are almost numeri cally Identical. According to Laing et al (1966, p,8l)» 84 The function that Agreement has in a dyad can only be gauged by placing it in the context of the total pattern of conjunction and disjunction between all levels of perspective. That is, one son-mother pair have a stable relation ship based on seeing eye-to-eye on practically everything* (that is, a reversal of paying lip-service to socially sanctioned attitudes). Agreement may or may not indicate an honest expression of feeling. UNDERSTANDING (Conjunction between S's metaperspective and M's direct perspective, and vice versa) S* M** S M S M S M SM MS MM SS PH ("problem") 47 47 46 47 49 45 44 44 FH (’ ’non-problem'*) ^8 47 ^8 48 46 47 42 42 NPH 46 48 49 47 48 48 45 44 S*i that is, son's understanding of mother in res pect of his relation to her M**i that is, mother's understanding of son in respect of his relation to her In the three groups sons understand mothers to about the same extent that mothers \mderstand sons. The measure of understanding in the "problem'' PH groups is not signifi cantly different from that found in the other two groups. Laing,et al (Ibid., p.82) found the measure of understand ing between "non-dlsturbed" couples to be consistantly and significantly higher (p>.001) than between the "disturbed", couples. The prediction of no significant differences be tween sons and their mothers in the three groups appears to be confirmed in this area. 85 AGREEMENT plus UNDERSTANDING (A+U)i mean scores where conjunction between direct per spectives (A) is associated with conjunction be tween metaperspective of "p" and direct perspective of "o" (U). S M S M S M S M SM MS MM ss PH (problem) 45 46 bb bb 45 45 44 44 PH (non-problem) 40 39 bl 41 0 00 r 42 42 NPH 43 40 41 42 38 37 00 0 -3- In the three samples, son's scores are quite close to those of their mothers. No significant difference exists among the three groups. If there is any trend to wards differences in Interpersonal A+U, the PH group rated as "presenting problems" by school authorities seem slight ly, but consistently higher in this area. On the other hand, Laing's "disturbed" group was significantly lower in A+U (p>,00l) than couples reporting satisfactory mar riages (Ibid,. p.83), If the popular notion that problem behavior In the classroom reflects tension at home Is true, our "problem" group should have *>een lowest In A+U. Like wise, If physical disability presented barriers to satis factory parent-child relationships, our NFH group should have scbred higher than either PH group In the Agreement plus Understanding modality. The NPH dyads scored lowest instead, and only the limited size of the NPH contrast group prevents the direct questioning of this second popu lar notion. 86 A corollary to these scores is that the combination of agreement plus misunderstanding occurs rarely in both the PH grouns and in the NPH sample. The rarity of the A+M combination precludes statistical analysis, but inspec tion of these results reveals no sharp break between the PH samples, or between either PH group and NPH contrast group. Laing (Ibid.. p.8*0 has suggested that where agree ment exists understanding usually exists as well, A+M night be a situation where both parties are in agreement but think there is disagreement. The frequency of A+M re ports in Laing's study is comparable to its frequency in the present investigation! AGREEMENT plus MISUNDERSTANDING (A + M)i mean scores where conjunction between direct perspec tives (A) is associated with disjunction between the metaperspective of "p" and the direct perspective of "o" (M). S SM M S MS M S M MM S M ss PH (problem) 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 l PH (non-problem) 4 5 4 4 3 4 4 3 NPH 4 2 3 4 1 3 3 2 Two other areas, disagreement plus understanding (D +U) and disagreement plus misunderstanding (D + M) carry frequencies too small to test for significance, DISAGREEMENT plus UNDERSTANDING (D + U)i disjunction be tween direct perspectives and conjunction between the one person’s metaperspective and the other's direct perspective. 87 s M SM S MS M S M MM S M SS PH (problem) 10 10 10 9 11 11 11 11 PH (non-probl en) 8 1^ 9 9 11 12 10 10 NPH 11 12 13 8 10 11 8 11 These frequencies aprroximate those obtained by Laing et al. using "disturbed" and "non-disturbed" married couples. (Ibid.. p.85-6) In both D + U and D + M, fre quencies for the "disturbed" group consistently exceeded those for the "non-disturbed" sample. No such trend is apparent for the son-mother dyads comprising the PH and NPH samples in this investigation. Laing et al. (Ibid., p.85) reports that the trend of their figures suggests that disagreement is less frequent ly recognized or assumed than agreement. The above frequen cies of this study appear to support that suggestion. While the trend of frequencies in the Laing study for A+M, D + U, and D + M tend, to be lower for "non- dlsturbed" couples, our "problem" PH pairs failed to show either statistical or numerical differentiation from the other groups. This factor throws further doubt upon the out-of-school validity of school-diagnosed categories of "problem" or "non-problem" behavior.in recognizing or ad mitting to Interpersonal disagreement. REALIZATION (mean scores of conjunction between "p*s" meta metaperspective and "o's" metaperspective) 88 S M SM S M MS S M MM S M SS PH (problem) 47 4? 45 48 48 45 44 PH (non-problem) 48 47 49 45 44 45 46 48 Frequencies of Realization In the Lainor study con sistently favored the "non-disturbed" group at confidence levels ranging from .01 to .001.(Ibid., p.76) Scores in the present study neither consistently favored any of the three samp1es tested nor approached signlficance. Laing (Ibid.. d ,86) suggests that realization may be the correct appraisal of either understanding or misunder standing. The heavy trend in Laing*s study suggesting high conjunction of meta-metaperspectives of "p" with the meta perspectives of "o" are, in his opinion, a further reflec tion of the reciprocal assumption, recognition or illusion that the other thinks as self thinks and will think that self thinks what other thinks, Laing further suggests that this assuming process is less apparent in the "disturbed" sl*->ce this rrroup is obviously much less sure of themselves and of each other at all. levels. The remainder of the interpersonal modalities cor responding to Realization may be found in Table-1 . These modalities are Feels Understood (FU)j Feels Misunderstood (FM)} R + U of partner (Feels understood correctly)} R + M of partner (Feels misunderstood correctly)} F + U of part- UFH 49 46 46 46 43 47 46 47 89 r.er (Feels misunderstood, incorrectly)} F + M of partner (Feels understood incorrectly). The Realization scores for the three groups failed to demonstrate a consistent trend in favor of any group used in this investigation. Scores did. not approach con fidence levels that would justify an analogy between Laing's "disturbed." sample and the "problem" student sam ple used in this investigation. Recommendations concerning both use and abuse of the term "problem behavior" by Counselors, Teachers, and School Psychologists are made in the final section of this survey. CEAPTr 7 R V Conclusions. Limitations, and Recommendations Conclusions IPM results were used to test the popularly held assumption that in-class problem behavior Is a reflection of Interpersonal disturbance which commonly occurs In the "problem student's" home. This assumption Is especially prevalent In Special Education, where It Is also assumed that the physical handloap is productive of both disturbed sohool behavior and disturbed out-of-school behavior. Using teacher-made labels of "problem" classroom behavior, IPM results from a sample of "problem" handicap ped male hlgh-school students and their mothers. To test the second assumption, both Physically Hand icapped (PH) groups' IPM results were compared with those from a group of Non-physically Handioapped male high sohool students and their mothers. The following conclusions may be derived from the IPM results: 1. As there was no significant difference in fre quency of AGREEMENT, REALIZCTON, or UNDERSTANDING respon ses between "problem" and "non-problem" dyads, there is no 90 91 reason to suggest that "problem” classroom behavior is a reflection of problems in the home. 2. As there was no significant difference in IPM responses between either of the FH groups and the NPH con trast group, there is no reason to suggest that presence of physical disability alone is sufficient to cause prob lem behavior in school. Selection of "problem" and "non-problem" PH groups were made through inspection by the investigator of each student*s cumulative record. Characteristics of these "cume cards" and their uses are as followsi a. Cumulative records contain comments by school authorities which are psycho-diagnostic in na ture. A student presenting a classroom behav ior problem is viewed by some school personnel as "disturbed"? the student who is not a class room behavior problem is seen by some school personnel as non-disturbed. Comparing the lack of significant difference between teacher,-counselor, and school psycho logist-diagnosed "problem" and "non-problem" group with the highly significant differences between "disturbed" and "non-disturbed" found by Laing, Phillipson and Lee (1966), the fol lowing conclusions are offered! There are provisions in the education codes stating that teachers, counselors, and school psychologist shall not function as psycho-diag nosticians . School authorities having access to cumulative records are admonished by their instructors to insert only objective behavioral commentary in to the records and to simply note when the stu dent has been referred for psychological, health or outside assistance. Despite codified provisions and care taken by individual school personnel not to insert per sonal assumptions about a student's psycholo gical health, the investigator found frequent references to the internal psychic state of the student. Students who disturb order in the classroom tend to disturb teachers more than students who sim ply do not hand in assignments. The investi gator bases this conclusion on the more numer ous, lengthy and emotionally charged nature of teacher complaints about disorderly students. 04«t and apathetic students, on the whole, re ceive quick and cryptic teacher comment such as "timid," "dull," "shy," and only occasion ally "uncooperative." Comments about more 93 boisterous students tend to contain more refer ences to the student’s internal psychic state. Cooperative students tend to have cumulative records which contain scanty but favorable behavioral references by teachers and counse lors. Unfavorable references, in cumulative files on the whole, were lengthier, more de tailed, and more frequent than favorable.refer ences . f. Teacher-diagnosed "problem" students are often possessed of real otat-of school interpersonal problems as are so called "non-problem" students. This may be observed both bv the closeness of Agreement, Understanding, and Rellzation mean scores, and that these scores are higher than those of Lalng’s (Ibid., 19^6) "disturbed" group, but lower than Lalng's "non-disturbed" group. The latter factor leads the investigator to believe that both of our teacher-diao-nosed sam ples include individual pairs which could be diagnosed by other criteria as having disturbed or non-disturbed interpersonal relationships. Limitations Several factors limit the applicability of the find ings in this studyi 9^ 1. The nature of the issues comprising the IPM pre cludes administration to school personnel in relation to students. The impersonal nature and limited time of the actual interaction prevents meaningful answers by most teachers and pupils on such issues as loves," "depends on," "worries about,” and'taakes the center of world." 2. The IPM's other factors of inapplicability to the teacher-pupil relationship (testing-time length; high school students seeing several teachers in a day) mad** it necessary to infer the validity of teacher evaluations of a pupil's personality by comparing the pupil's grades and 'cume'card with the pupil's relationship with the mother. Direct testing of teacher-pupil relationship is most desir able, but of doubtful immediate prospect. 3. The actual meaningfulness of the IPK test resultB by some mother-son pairs is questionable. On some issues there was doubt by testees as to what was meant by the term. On some issues, lack of intellectual, and education al background accounts for some of the doubt. But the in vestigator heard questions by some intellectually gifted respondents (mothers and sons) as to the proper interpre tation of "analyses,” "detached from,” etc. 4. IPM administration applied to the present school situation is at best an exeroise in finger-pointing. IPM applicability to the school setting simply tells us some thing that we knew already: that there are teachers and 95 students who spend semesters with one another with no idea of what the other has in mind. The IPM here showed only that teacher labels of "problem" and "non-problem" students do not carry the same meaning as psyohiatrio la bels of "disturbed" or "non-disturbed." The more relevant question that oannot be answered by the IPM is that of the means to improvement teaching techniques. Identifying obviously maladjusted and incompetent teachers and students does not require as indirect a method as the IPM. 5. The limited size of the NPH sample also serves to limit the conclusions one may draw about the contribu tions of physical disability to disturbed interpersonal functions. We are limited to stating that this sample, however limited, provides an interesting direction for future research. Recommendations The present study explored the characteristics of the Interpersonal relationship between physically handi capped (PH) male high school students and their mothers. The instrument of choice was the Interpersonal Perseption Method (IPK) developed in 1966 by Laing, Fhlllipson, and Lee. The total FH sample was divided into two groups; one rated by school authorities and cumulative records as presenting "problem classroom behavior" while the other group was rated by the school authorities as characterls- 96 tically presenting satisfactory classroom behavior. For the purposes of this study, these two groups were desig nated PH "problem" and PH "non-problem." A contrast group of non-physically handicapped male high school students (NPH) and their mothers were tested with the IPK in order to determine whether or not the presenoe of physical handi cap served to alter the general pattern of son-mother inter personal processes. The two hypotheses of this study were that (1) no differences would be found between "problem" and "non- problem" PH son-mother groups in the overall quality of that relationship; and (2) no differences would be found between either of the PH groups in the son-mother relation ship and that of the NPH contrast group/ Both hypotheses were borne out by the results. That no significant difference oould be found in groups labelled "problem"and "non-problem" when Laing, Phillipson, and Lee found highly significant differences in using the IPM with married couples diagnosed as "disturbed" and "non-dis- turbed" oan be attributed to some of the following factors: 1. Problem classroom behavior is not neoessarily disturbed behavior. It is possible that both our experi mental groups contain "disturbed" and "non-disturbed" mem bers. Cumulative record reports of "problem"behavior tend to be equated with psyohiatrio categories of "disturbed" behavior. Despite admonishments to desoribe behavior only. 97 teacher reports contain considerable amounts of Implicit and/or explicit psychiatric diagnosis. Cumulative reports, referral , and labelling of students tends to contain en tries by non-psychiatric personnel but are given psvcho- dlagnostic credence by parents, students, and school per sonnel . 2. Presence of physical handicap seems not to be a factor determining significant differences in the inter personal relation of son-mother dyads. The small size of PH and HPH samples limits the confidence which may be placed in this conclusion. 3. Behavior evaluations by teachers and other school authorities should be entered in permanent records by trained personnel familiar with behavioristic descriptions of student conduct. This technique may help to eliminate emotional and subjective cume-card comments which follow a student through his career. APPENDICES Original Data Sheets may be found at the American Insti tute of Documents, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C, V 98 APPENDIX I Classification of the Sixty Issues Directions; po op pp oo A Interdependence and autonomy understands lets be self depends on (pp, oo only) Is honest with takes seriously ean face eonfllets respects thinks a lot of loves readily forgives takes responsibility for (pp, oo only) A_ believes In Is afraid of worries about has a warped view of B Warm concern and support depends on Is good to takes good care of Is at one with takes responsibility for (po, op only) fi ls mean with is kind to analyzes couldn’t care less about • Is detached from Disparagement__________________________ Cg Disappointment torments is disappointed in finds fault with pities mocks doubts blames lets down belittles expects too much of makes a clown out of has lost hope for humiliates future 99 100 is sorry for C- puts on a pedestal D Contentions* fight/flight can’t come to terms with fights with can 't stand gets on nerves woul d like to get away from hates tries to outdo is hitter towards E Contradicting and confusing makes contradictory demands on deceives creates difficulties ior bewilders gets into a false position F Extreme denial of autonomy makes up mind for won't let be is wrapped up in makes into a puppet makes center of world spoils treats like a machine owes everything to APFEMDIX II IPM Interpersonal Perception Method The following Is a copy of the IPM (He-She form) as devised, by Lai^g, Phillipson, and Leei (the instructions can be found on P.53) Item 1 A. How true do you think the following are? 1. She understands me. 2. I understand her. 3. She understands herself. b, I understand myself. B. How would SHE answer the following? 1. "I understand him.1 1 2. "He understands me." 3. "I understand mvself," b. "He understands himself." C. How would SHE think you have answered the following? 1. She understands me. 2. I understand her. 3. She understands herself. b. I understand myself. Item 2 A. How true do you think the following are? 1. She makes up my mind for me. 2. I make up her mind for her. 3. She makes up her own mind. b, I make up my own mind. B. How would SHE answer the following? 101 102 1. "I make up his mind for him.'' 2. "He makes up ray mind for me.1 * 3. "I make up mv own mind." b, "He makes up his own mind.'* C. How would SHE think you have answered the following? 1, She makes up mv mind for me, 2, I make up her mind for her. 3, She makes up her own mind, I make up my own mind. Item 3 A, IIow true do you think the following are? 1, She is wrapped up in me. 2, I am wrapped up in her, 3, She is wrapped up in herself, b, I am wrapped up in myself. B, How would SHE answer the following? 1, "I am wrapped up in him." 2, "He is wrapped up in me,” 3, "I am wrapped up in myself." "He is wrapped up in himself." C, How would SHE think you have answered the following? 1. She is wrapped up in me. 2. I am wrapped up in her. 3. She is wrapped up in herself. b. I am wrapped up in myself. Item ^ A. How true do you think the following are? 1. She depends on me. 2. I depend on her. 3. She depends on herself, b. I depend on myself. B. How would SHE answer the following? 1. "I depend on him." 2. "He depends on me." 3. "I depend on myself." k. "He depends on himself." 103 C. How would SHE think you have answered the following? 1. She depends on me. 2. I depend on her. 3. She depends on herself. b, I deoend on myself. Item 5 A. How true do you think the following are? 1. She can't come to terms with me. 2. I can't come to terms with her. 3. She can't come to terms with herself. b. I can't come to terms with myself. B. How would SHE answer the following? 1. "I can't come to terms with him.1 * 2. "He can't come to terms with me." 3. "I can't come to terms with myself." b. "He can't come to terms with himself," C. How would SHE think you have answered the following? 1. She can't come to terms with me, 2. I can't come to terms with her. 3. She can't come to terms with herself. b. I can't come to terms with myself. Item 6 A. How true Ho you think the following are? 1. She takes me seriously, 2. I take her seriously. 3. She takes herself seriously, b, I take myself seriously. B. How would SHE answer the following? 1. "I take him seriously." 2. "He takes me seriously." 3. "I take myself seriously." 4. "He takes himself seriously." C. How would SHE think you have answered the following? 1. She takes me seriously. 2. I take her seriously. 3. She takes herself seriously. 10^ I take myself seriously. Item 7 A. Row true do you think the following are? 1, She is disappointed in me, 2. I am disappointed in her. She is disappointed in herself. I am disappointed in myself, B. How would SHE answer the following? 1. "I am disappointed in him." 2. "He is disappointed in me," 3. "I am disappointed in myself," 4. "He is disappointed in himself," C. How would SHE think you have answered the following? 1. She is disappointed in me. 2. I am disappointed in her, 3. She is dlsrppolnted in herself, 4. I am disappointed, in myself. Item 8 A. How true do you think the following are? 1. She can't stand me, 2. I can't stand her, 3. She can't stand herself. 4. I can't stand myself, B. How would SHE answer the following? 1. "I can't stand him." 2. "He can't stand me," 3. "I can't stand myself." 4. "He can't stand himself," C. How would SHE think you have answered the following? 1. She can't stand me, 2. I can't stand her, 3. She can't stand herself, 4. I can't stand myself. Item 9 A, How true do you think the following are? 105 1. She takes good care of me. ?. I take good care of her. 3. She takes good care of herself. I take good care of mvself. B. How would SHE answer the following? 1. "I take good care of him," 2. "He takes good care of me." 3. MI take good care of myself." 4. "He takes good care of himself." C. How would SHE think you have answered the following? 1. She takes good care of me. 2. I take good care of her. 3. She takes good care of herself. h. I take good care of mvself. Item 10 A, How.true do you think the following are? 1. She would live to get away-from me. 2. I would like to set away from her. 3. She would like to get away from herself. I would like to get away from myself. B, How would SHE answer the following? 1. "I would like to get away from him." 2. "He would like to get away from me," 3. "I would like to get away from myself." k, "He would like to get away from himself." C, How would SHE think you have answered the following? 1. She would like to get away from me. 2. I would like to get away from her. 3. She would like to get away from herself, k, I would like to get away from myself. Item 11 A. How true do you think the following are? 1. She is a•''■~aid of me. 2. I am afraid of her. 3. She is afraid of herself. b, I am afraid of myself. 106 B. How would SHE answer the following? 1. *1 am afraid of him." 2. "He is afraid of me." 3. "I am afraid of myself." b. "He is afraid of himself." C. How would SHE think you have answered the following? 1. She is afraid of me. 2. I am afraid of her. 3. She is afraid of herself. b, I am afraid of myself. Item 12 A. How true do you think the following are? 1. She respects me. 2. I respect her. 3. She respects herself, b. I respect myself. B. How would SHE answer the following? ' > 1. "I respect him," 2. "He respects me." 3. "I respect mvself, b, "He respects himself." C. How would SHE think you have answered the following? 1. She respects me. 2. I respect her. 3. She respects herself. b. I respect myself. Item 13 A. How true do you think the following are? 1. She makes me the center of her world. 2. I make her the centre of my world. 3. She makes herself the center of her world. b. I make mvself the center of my world. B. How would SHE answer the following? 1. '•iMake him the center of my world." 2. "He makes me the center of his world." 3. "I make myself the center of my world." b. "He makes himself the centre of his world,? 107 C. How would SHE think you have answered the following? 1. She makes me the center of her world. 2. I make her the center of my world, 3. She makes herself the center of her world. 4. I make myself the center of my world. Item I**. A. How true do you think the following are? 1. She is mean with me. 2. I am mean witvi her, 3. She is mean with herself. J+. I am mean with myself. B. How would SHE answer the following? 1. nT am mean with him." 2. "He is mean with me." 3. "I am mean with myself." b. "He is mean with himself.H C. How would SHE think you have answered the following? 1. She is mean with me, 2. I am nea" with her. 3. She is mean with herself. b. I am mean with myself. Item 15 A. How true do you think the following are? 1. She loves me. 2. I love her. 3. She loves herself, b. I love myself. B. How X'fould SHE answer the following? 1. "I love him,** 2. "He loves me." 3. "I love myself," b. "He loves himself." C. How would SHE think you have answered the following? 1. She loves me. 2. I love her. 3. She loves herself. b. I love myself. 108 Item 16 A. How true do you think the following are? 1. She tries to outdo me. 2. I hr.y to outdo her. 3. She tries to outdo herself. I try to outdo mvself. B. How would SHE answer the following? 1. "I try to outdo him." 2. "He tries to outdo me," 3. "I try to outdo mvself,1 * "He tries to outdo himself," c. How would SHE think you have answered the 1. She tries to otitdo me. 2. I try to outdo her. 3. She tries to outdo herself. I try to outdo myself. Item 17 A. How true do you think the following are? 1. She fights with me. 2. I fight with her. 3. She fights with herself. I fight, with myself. B. How would SHE answer the following? 1. "I ficrht with him," 2. "He fights with me." 3. "I fight with myself." "He fights with himself." C. How would SHE think you have answered the 1. She fights with me. 2. I fight with her. 3. She fights with herself. 1*. I fiarht with myself. Item 18 A. How true do you think the following are? 1. She torments me. 109 2. I tornient her, 3. She torments herself. b. I torment myself. B. How would SHE answer the following? 1. "I torment him." 2. "He torments me." 3. "I torment myself." b. "He torments himself." C. How would SHE think you have answered the following? 1. She torments me, 2. I torment her, 3. She torments herself, b. I torment myself. Item 19 A. How true do you think the following are? 1. She takes responsibility for me, 2. I take responsibility for her, 3. She takes responsibility for herself. b. I take responsibility for myself. B. How would SHE answer the following? 1. "I take responsibility for him," 2. "He takes responsibility for me." 3. I take responsibility for myself." b, "He takes responsibility for himself." C. How would SHE think you have answered the following? 1. She takes responsibility for me, 2. I take responsibility for her. 3. She takes responsibility for herself. b, I take responsibility for myself. Item 20 A. How true do you think the following are? 1. She finds fault with me. 2. I find fault with her. 3. She finds fault with herself. I find’fault with myself. B. How would SHE answer the following? 110 1. "I find fault with him,” 2. "He finds fault with me." 3. "T find fault with mvself." * 4 - . "He finds fault with himself." C. How would SHE think you have answered, the following? 1. She finds fault with me, 2. I find fault with her. 3. She finds fault with herself, b, I find fault with myself’. Item 21 A. How true do you think the following are? 1. She lets me be myself. 2. I let her be herself, 3. She lets herself be herself. b, I let myself be myself, B. How would SHE answer the following? 1. "I let him be himself." 2. "He lets me be myself." 3. "I let myself be myself." b, "He lets himself be himself." C. How would SHE think vou have answered the following? 1. She lets me be myself. 2. I let her be herself. 3. She lets herself be herself. k. I let mvself be myself. Item 22 A. How true do you think the following are? 1. She couldn't care less about me. 2. I couldn't care less about her. 3. She couldn't care less about herself. b. I couldn't care less about myself. B. How would SHE answer the following? 1. "I couldn't care less about him." 2. "He couldn't care less about me." 3. "I couldn't care less about myself." b. "He couldn't care less about himself." C. How would SHE think you have answered the following'? 1. She couldn't care less about ae, 2. I couldn't care less sbo^t her, 3. She couldn't care less about herself,. h, I couldn't care less about myself. Iter 23 A. How true do vou think the following are? 1 . She pities me. 2. I pity her. 3. She pities herself. 't. I pity myself. B. How would SHE answer the following? 1. "I pity him," 2. "He pities me," 3. "I nity myself." k. "He pities himself." c. How would SHE think you have answered the 1. She pities me. 2. I pity her. 3. She Dities herself. b. I nity myself. Item 2b A. How true do you think the following are? 1. She doubts me. 2. I doubt her. 3. She doubts herself. b. I doubt myself. B. How would SHE answer the following? 1, "I doubt him.** 2, "He doubts re," 3, "I doubt, myself," b, "he doubts himself," C. How would SHE think you have answered the following? 1. She doubts me. 2. I doubt her. 3. She doubts herself. 112 I dou^t myself. A. How 1 2 3 k B. How 1 2 3 h c. How 1 0 3 h Item 2 6 A. How 1 2 3 B. How I, 2, 3. c. How 1, 2, 3, Item 27 A, How How would SHE ansvrer the following? "I make contradictory demands on him," HHe makes contradictory demands on me." "I make contradictory demands on myself," "He makes contradictory demands on himself," How would SHE think you have answered the following? She makes contradictory demands on me. I make contradictory demands on her. She makes contradictory demands on herself, I make contradictory demands on myself. How true do you think the following are? She gets on my nerves. I get on her nerves. She gets on her own nerves, I get on my own nerves. How would SHE answer the following? "I get on his nerves," How would SHE think you have answered the following? 113 1. She mocks Tie. 2. I mock her. 3. She mocks herself, b, I mock mvself. B. How would STJE snswr the following? 1. "I mock him," 2. "He mocks me," 3. "I mock myself." I t - . "He mocks himself." C. How wouM SHE think you have answered the following? 1. She mocks me. 2. I mock her. 3. She mocks herself. 4. I mock myself. Item 28 A. How true do you think the following are? 1.. She is honest with me, 2. I am honest with her, 3. She is honest with herself. h, I am honest with mvself, B. How would SHE answer the following? 1. "I am honest with him." 2. "He is honest with me," 3. "I am honest with myself," 4-. "He is honest with himself," C. How would SHE think you have answered the following? 1. She is honest with me, 2. I am honest with her. 3. She is honest with herself. I am honest with myself. Item 29 A. How true do you think the following are? 1. She hates me, 2. I hate her, 3. She hates herself. b. I hate myself. 11^ B. How would SHE answer the following? 1. "I hate him." 2. "He hates me." 3. "I hate myself." b, "He hates himself." C, How would SHE thin1 ' you have answered the following? 1. She hates me. 2. I hate her. 3. She hates herself. h, I hate myself. Item 30 A. How true do you think the following are? 1. She analyzes me. 2. I analyze her. 3. She analyzes herself, k. I analyze myself. B. How would SHE answer the folloxvin^? 1. "I analyze him." 2. "He analyzes me." 3. "I analyze myself." "He analyzes himself." C. How would SHE think you have answered the following? 1. She analyzes me. 2. I analyze her. 3. She analyzes herself. I analyze myself. Item 31 A. How true do you think the following are? 1. She treats me like a machine. 2. I treat her like a machine. 3. She treats herself like a machine. 4. I treat myself like a machine. B. How would SHE answer the following? 1. "I treat him like a machine." 2. "He treats me like a machine." 3. "I treat myself like a machine." 115 h, "He treats himself like a machine." C. How would SHE think you have answered the following? 1. She treats me like a machine. 2. I treat her like a machine. 3. She treats herself like a machine. * ( - . I treat myself like a machine. Item 32 A. How true do you think the following are? 1. She lets me down. 2. I let her down. 3. She lets herself.down. k. I let m.yself down. B. How would SHE answer the following? 1, "I let him down." "He lets me down." 3* "I let myself down." 4. "He lets himself down." C. How would SHE think you have answered the following? 1. She lets me down. 2. I let her down. 3- She lets herself down. b. I let mvself down. Item 33 A. How true do you think the following are? 1. She expects too much of me. 2. I expect too much of her. 3. She expects too much of herself. b. I expect too much of myself. B. How would SHE answer the following? 1. "I expect too much of him," 2. "He expects too much of me." 3. "I expect too much of myself." U. "He expects too much of himself." C. How would SHE think you have answered the following? 116 1. She expects too much of me. 2. I expect too much of her. 3. She expects too much of herself. I expect too much of myself. Item 31 * - A. How true do you think the following are? 1. She is good to me, 2. I am crood to her. 3. She is good to herself. I am good to mvself. B. Hot- t would SHE answer the fallowing? 1. "I am good to him." 2. "He is good to me." 3. "I am good to myself," b, "He is good to himself.'' C. How would SHE think you have answered the following? 1. She is good to me, 2. I am good to her; 3. She is good to herself. b. I am good to myself. Item 35 A. How true do you think the following are? 1. She worries about me. 2. I worry about her. 3. She worries about herself. b, I worry about myself. B. How would SHE answer the following? 1. "I worry about him.'' 2. "He worries about me." 3. "I worry about myself." b, "He worries about himself." C. How would SHE think you have ansi'rered the following? 1. She worries about me. 2. I worry about her. 3. She worries about herself, b. I worry about myself. 117 Item 36 A. How true do you think the following are? 1. She can face up to my conflicts, 2. I can face up to her conflicts, 3. She can face up to her own conflicts, U, I can face up to my own conflicts, B. How would SHE answer the following? 1, "I can face up to his conflicts." 2. "He can face up to my conflicts,'* 3, "I can face up to my own conflicts," 4. "He can face up to his own conflicts," C. How would SHE think you have answered the following? 1, She can face up to mv conflicts, 2, I can face up to her conflicts, 3, She can face up to her own conflicts. * 4 - . I can face up to rav own conflicts. Item 37 A. How true do you think the following are? 1. She is at one with me. 2. I am at one with her,- 3. She is at one with herself, * i - . I am at one with myself, B. How would SHE answer the following? 1, "3 am at one with him." 2, "He is at one with me." 3, "I am at one with myself." "He is at one with himself," C. How would She think you have answered the following? 1, She is at one with me. 2, I am at one with her, 3, She is at one with herself, k. I am at one with myself. Item 38 A, How true do you think'the ’ fallowing are? 1. She won't let me be. 118 2. I w on't l e t her b e. 3. She w on't l e t h e r s e l f b e. b, I won't l e t m y s e lf b e, B. How would SHE Answer t h e fo llo w in g ? 1. "I w on't l e t him b e ," 2. "He w on't l e t me b e ." 3. "I w on't l e t m y s e lf b e ," b. "He w on't l e t h im s e lf b e ." C, How would SHE th in k you have answered th e fo llo w in g ? 1. She w on't l e t me be. 2 . I w on't l e t her b e. 3. She w on't l e t h e r s e l f . b e . b. I w on't l e t m y s e lf b e. Item 39 A. How tr u e do you th in k th e f o ll o w i n g are? 1. She blames me. 2* I blame her. 3. She blames h e r s e l f . -b. I blame m y s e lf . B. How would SHE answer th e fo llo w in g ? 1 . "I blame him ." 2 . "He blames me." 3. "I blame m y s e lf ." b . "He blames h i m s e l f , " C. How would SHE t h in k you have answered th e f o llo w in g ? 1. She blames me. 2. I blame h e r . 3. She blames h e r s e l f , b . I blame m y s e lf . Item *+0 A. How tr u e do you th in k th e f o l l o w i n g are? 1. She t h in k s a l o t o f me. 2. I th in k a l o t o f h er. She th in k s a l o t o f h e r s e l f , I th in k a l o t o f m y s e lf . B. How would SHE answer th e f o llo w in g ? 119 1. "I th in k a l o t o f him .* 2. "He t h in k s a l o t o f me." 3. "I th in k a l o t o f m y s e lf ." b. "He t h in k s a l o t o f h i m s e l f , " C. How would SHE th in k you have'answ ered th e f o llo w in g ? 1. She t h in k s a l o t o f me. 2. I th in k a l o t o f h er, 3. She t h in k s a l o t o f h e r s e l f . 4. I th in k a l o t o f m y s e lf . Item *11 A. How tru e do you th in k t h e f o l l o w i n g are? 1. She d e c e i v e s me. 2. I d e c e i v e h er. 3. She d e c e i v e s h e r s e l f . b. I decfeive m y s e lf . B. How would SHE answer th e f o llo w in g ? "I d e c e i v e him." 2. "He d e c e i v e s me." 3. "I d e c e i v e m y s e lf ." b. "He d e c e i v e s h i m s e l f . " C. How would SHE th in k yoti have answered th e f o llo w in g ? 1. She d e c e i v e s me. 2. I d e c e i v e h er. 3. She d e c e i v e s h e r s e l f . b. I d e c e i v e m y s e lf . Item bZ A. How tru e do you th in k th e f o ll o w i n g a re? 1. She has l o s t hope fo r my f u t u r e . 2. I have l o s t hope fo r h er f u t u r e . 3. She has l o s t hope f o r h er 6wh f u t u r e . *+. I have l o s t hope f o r my own f u t u r e . B. How would SHE answer t h e fo llo w in g ? 1. "I have l o s t hope f o r h i s f u t u r e ." 2. "He has l o s t hope f o r my f u t u r e ." 3. "I have l o s t hope f o r my own f u t u r e ." b . "He has l o s t hope f o r h i s own f u t u r e ." 120 C. How would SHE t h in k you have answered th e fo llo w in g ? 1. She has "'ost hope fo r my f u t u r e . 2. I have l o s t hope f o r her f u t u r e . 3. She has l o s t hope f o r h er own f u tu r e , b. I have l o s t hope f o r my own f u tu r e . Item b3 A. How tr u e do you th in k th e f o l l o w i n g 1are? 1. She l i k e s me. 2. I l i k e h er. 3. She l i k e s h e r s e l f . b. I l i k e m y s e lf . B. How would SHE answer th e f o llo w in g ? 1 . "I l i k e h im ." 2. M He l i k e s me." 3. "I l i k e m y s e lf ." b. "He l i k e s h i m s e l f , " C. How would SHE th in k you have answered th e fo llo w in g ? 1. ^he l i k e s me. 2. I I ik e h er. 3. She l i k e s h e r s e l f . b. I l i k e m v s e lf . Item bb A. How tru e do you th in k th e f o l l o w i n g are? 1. She has a warped view o^ me. 2. I have a warped view o f h er. 3. She has a warred view o f h e r s e l f . b. I have a warped view o f m y s e lf . B. How would SHE answer th e f o llo w in g ? 1. M I have a warped view o f him ." 2. "He has a warped view o f me," 3. HI have a warped v iew o f m y s e lf ." "He has a warped view o f h i m s e l f . " C. How would SHE th in k you have answered th e fo llo w in g ? 1« She has a warped view o f me. 2. I have a warped view o f h e r . 3# She has a warped view o f h e r s e l f . 121 b . I have a warped view o f m y s e lf . Item US A. How t r u e do you th in k th e f o ll o w i n g a r e ? 1, She r e a d i l y f o r g iv e s me, 2 , I r e a d i l y f o r g i v e h er. 3 , She r e a d i l y f o r g iv e s h e r s e l f , k, I r e a d i l y f o r g iv e m y s e lf. B. How would SHE answer th e fo llo w in g ? 1 , "I r e a d i l y f o r g iv e him,'* 2 , " H e -r e a d ily f o r g iv e s me," 3, "I r e a d i ly f o r g iv e m y s e lf ." b. "He readily forgives himself," C. How would SHE th in k you have answered th e f o ll o w i n g ? 1 . She r e a d i l y f o r g iv e s me. 2. I r e a d i l y f o r g iv e h er. 3 . She r e a d i l y f o r g i v e s h e r s e l f . b. I r e a d i l y f o r g iv e m y s e lf. Item h6 A. How tr u e do you th in k th e f o ll o w i n g a r e ? 1 . She puts me on a p e d e s t a l , 2. I put her on a p e d e s t a l , 3 . She p u ts h e r s e l f on a p e d e s t a l. b, I put m y s e lf on a p e d e s t a l , B. Hot* would SHE answer the following? 1 . "I nut him on a p e d e s t a l , " 2 . "He r u ts me on a p e d e s t a l.’" 3 . "I put m y s e lf on a p e d e s t a l . " k. "He p u ts h im s e lf on a p e d e s t a l , " C. How would SHE th in k you have answered th e f o ll o w i n g ? 1 . She p u ts me on a p e d e s t a l . 2 . I put h er on a p e d e s t a l , 3 . She p u ts h e r s e l f on a p e d e s t a l . b, I put m y s e lf on a p e d e s t a l . Item b? A. How true do you think the following are? 122 1 . She i s b i t t e r towards me. 2. I am b i t t e r towards h er. 3. She i s b i t t e r towards h e r s e l f , 4 . I am f i t t e r towards m y s e lf . > - 3. How would SHE answer th e f o llo w in g ? 1. *1 am b i t t e r towards lolm• * • 2. "He i s b i t t e r towards me." 3. "I am b i t t e r towards m y s e lf ." 4 . "He i s b i t t e r towards h im s e lf ." C, Hot-' would SHE th in k you have answered th e f o llo w in g ? 1, She i s b i t t e r towards me, 2. I am h i t t e r towards h e r , 3. She i s b i t t e r towards h e r s e l f , 4, I am hitter towards myself. Item ^-8 A. How tr u e do you th in k th e f o l l o w i n g are? 1, She c r e a t e s d i f f i c u l t i e s f o r me, 2. I c r e a t e d i f f i c u l t i e s fo r h er, 3. She c r e a t e s d i f f i c u l t i e s f o r h e r s e l f . 4, I c r e a t e d i f f i c u l t i e s f o r m y s e lf . 3 . How would SHE answer th e fo llo w in g ? 1. "I create d i f f i c u l t i e s fo r him." 2. "He c r e a t e s d i f f i c u l t i e s f o r me," 3. "I c r e a t e d i f f i c u l t i e s f o r m y s e lf ," 4 . "He c r e a t e s d i f f i c u l t i e s f o r h im s e lf ," C, How would SHE th in k you have answered th e fo llo w in g ? 1, She C reates d i f f i c u l t i e s f o r me. 2. I c r e a t e d i f f i c u l t i e s fo r h e r , 3. She c r e a t e s d i f f i c u l t i e s f o r h e r s e l f , 4, I c r e a t e d i f f i c u l t i e s fo r m y s e lf . Item k9 A. How tr u e do you th in k th e f o ll o w i n g are? 1 . She b e l i t t l e s me. 2 , I b e l i t t l e h e r , 3. She b e l i t t l e s h e r s e l f . 4, I belittle myself. 123 B'. How would SHE answ er t h e fo llo w in g ? 1 . "I b e l i t t l e him." 2. "He b e l i t t l e s m e .” 3. ”1 b e l i t t l e m y s e l f . ” 4 . "He b e l i t t l e s h im se lf.'* C. How would SHE th in k you have answered th e f o l l o w i n g ? 1 . She b e l i t t l e s me. 2. I b e l i t t l e h er. 3. She b e l i t t l e s h e r s e l f . b. I b e l i t t l e m y s e lf . Item 50 A. How tru e do you th in k th e f o ll o w i n g are? 1. She i s d eta ch ed from me. 2. I am d etach ed from h er. 3. She i s d eta ch ed from h e r s e l f . b. I am d etach ed from m y s e lf , B. How would SHE answer t h e f o llo w in g ? 1 . HI am d etach ed from him." 2. **He i s d eta ch ed from m e .” 3. ”1 am d eta ch ed from m y s e l f . ” b, ”He i s d eta ch ed from h i m s e l f , ” C. How would SHE t h in k you have answered th e f o l l o w i n g ? 1 . She i s detach ed from me. 2. I am detached from him. 3. She i s d eta ch ed from h e r s e l f . b. I am d etached from m y s e lf. Item 51 A. How tr u e do you th in k t h e f o ll o w i n g are? 1 . She makes a clown o f me. 2. I make a clown o f h er. 3. She makes a clown o f h e r s e l f . I make a clown o f myself, B. How would SHE answer t h e f o llo w in g ? 1 . ” 1 make a clown o f h im .” 2. ”He makes a clow n o f me." 3. "I make a clown of myself,” 12b b. "He makes a clown of himself." C. How would SHE think you have answered the following? 1. She makes a clown of me. 2. I make a clown of her. 3. She makes a clown of herself. b, I make a clown of myself. Item 52 A . How true do you think the following are? 1. She bewilders me. 2. I bewilder her. 3. She bewilders herself. b, I bewilder myself. B. How would SHE answer the following? 1. "I bewilder him." 2. "He bewilders me." 3. "I bewilder myself." b. "He bewilders himself." C. How would SHE think you have answered the following? 1. She bewilders me. 2. I bewilder her. 3. She bewilders herself. b. I bewilder myself. Item 53 A . How true do you think the following are? 1. She believes in me. 2. I believe in her. 3. She believes in herself. b. I believe in myself. B. How would SHE answer the following? 1. "I believe in him." 2. "He believes in me." 3. "I believe in myself." b. "He believes in himself." C. How would SHE think you have answered the following? 1. She believes in me. 125 2. I believe In her. 3. She believes In herself. I believe In myself. Item 5^ i\. How true do you think the following are? 1. She humiliates me. 2. I humiliate her. 3. She humiliates herself. b. I humiliate myself. B. How would SHE answer the following? 1. "I humiliate him.” 2. Hfe humiliates me." 3. "I humiliate myself." b, "He humiliates himself." C. How would SHE think you have answered the following? 1. She humiliates me. 2. I humiliate her. 3. She humiliates herself. b. I humiliate myself. Itea.Jj A . How true do you think you following are? 1. She is sorry for me. 2. I am sorry for her. 3. She is sorry for herself. b. I am sorry for myself. B. How would SHE answer the following? 1. "I am sorry for him." 2. "He is sorry for me." 3. “I am sorry for myself." b. "He is sorry for himself." C. How would SHE think you have answered the following? 1. She is sorry for me. 2. I am sorry for her. 3. She is sorry for herself. b. I am sorry for myself. Item 56 126 A. How t r u e do you th in k th e f o l l o w i n g a re? 1. She makes me in t o a p u rp et, 2. I make her in t o a pupnet, 3. She makes h e r s e l f in t o a p u p r e t, I make m y s e lf in t o s puppet. B. How would SHE answer th e f o ll o w i n g ? 1 . "I make him in t o a o u p p e t." 2. "He makes me in t o a p u p p e t ." 3. "I make m y s e lf in t o a p u p p et." b, "He makes h im s e lf in t o a p u pp et." C. How would SHE th in k you have answered th e f o llo w in g ? 1. She makes me in t o a p uppet. 2. I make her in t o a puppet. 3. She makes h e r s e l f in t o a nuppet, b. I make m y se lf in t o a puppet. Item 57 A, How t r u e do you th in k th e f o l l o w i n g are? 1 , She s p o i l s me. 2, I s p o i l her. 3, She s p o i l s h e r s e l f , U. I s p o i l m y s e lf. B, How would SHE answer th e f o ll o w i n g ? 1. "I s p o i l him." 2. "He s p o i l s m e ." 3. "I s p o i l m y s e lf ." b. "He s p o i l s h i m s e l f . " C, How would SHE th in k you have answered th e fo llo w in g ? 1. She s p o i l s me. 2. I s n o i l her. 3. She s p o i l s h e r s e l f . b . I s p o i l m y s e lf . Item 58 A. How t r u e do you th in k th e f o l l o w i n g are? 1. She owes e v e r y th in g t o me. 2. I owe e v e r y th in g t o her* ~ . 3. She owes e v e r y th in g t o h e r s e l f . 127 I owe everything to mvself. 3. How would SHE answer th e fo llo w in g ? 1, "I owe everything to him." 2, "He owes everything to me." 3, "I owe e v e r y th in g to m y s e lf ," b, "He owes e v e r y th in g to h im s e lf ," C, Hov/ would SHE th in k you have answered th e f o llo w in g ? 1, She owes everything to me, 2, I owe everything to her, 3 , She owes e v e r y th in g to h e r s e l f , b. I o™e e v e r y th in g t o m y s e lf. Item 59 A. How tr u e do you th in k th e f o l l o w i n g are? 1. She gets me into a false position. 2. I get her into a false position. 3. She prets h e r s e l f in t o a f a l s e p o s i t i o n . I g e t mvself in t o a f a l s e p o s i t i o n , B. How would SHE answer th e f o ll o w i n g ? 1. "I get him into a false position." 2. "He gets me into a false position." 3» "I met myself into a false position." b. "He g e t s h im s e lf in t o a f a l s e p o s i t i o n , " C. How would SHE th in k you have answered t h e f o ll o w i n g ? 1. She gets me into a false position. 2. I get. her into a false position. 3. She gets herself into a false position, I g e t m y s e lf in t o a f a l s e p o s i t i o n . Item 60 A. How true do you think the following are? 1 . She i s kind to me, 2. I am kind to her, 3. She is kind to herself. I am kind to myself. B, How would SHE answer th e f o ll o w i n g ? 1, "I am kind to him," 128 2 . "He i s kind to me." 3. "T am kind to m v s e lf ." k. "He i s kind t o h im s e lf ," C, How would SHE th in k you hove answered- th e folHowino;? 1 . She i s kind to me. 2. I am kind to h e r . 3. She i s kind t o h e r s e l f . U, I am kind to m y s e lf . BIBLIOGRAPHY * 3. - f T \ # t f r - + * , c 1 Ar ! ^ i i S'u- Wi £V 3 t to TVlYfiool ic*^ r' ■v-r] IT1 ncssl CmT e^.." ' "<-■’ ■ ■ Y-ir’rs Sofisl ' ’c'encc w— r,■■fT^r^oiuicn. , i°5 3). «.-.V , P.O., fi-'l S m a c ^ m , E . 3 . "B eyf-lopm ent o f a A tt it ud e Rec-m- reh Instrument" C’ -ilcl Dev- ‘ r - 1 or ” 'en t XXIX. "o. 3 (Sp’ -te-^n;, ' ,950)# 330-3-1. ®rnder, I.E. and Rsatorf, A.H. r n , ‘ " ' ' Percent ion of m' - . r e - ~ Persons! EorecostlnK Another r ’ non's ke- s~c'°s0 on ' ’ ’ Kree T 'er, sor.al. i ' 1” 3col.es, j, AAv'© 1 ■ - , * ■ - * ?oc ?o' * f Pmc"1 -. ' 1 r>r^ , - ' ( ■ 7, — r A A ' . Eerne, Eric Transact 1 - tt 1 Ann A trpis In I,°vctcterary Gnove Fress , a a ^ n t Bruner, J.2, and Tm el m-l., r , mhc P^rcert j People (in the Hao^hoo1' of 3oc ir.l 7 .nvcholoirv ed. 5 ■ * ■ e d ov l'r, ' 1ni ?r ’ l iodzov) Add.1 son. —Ves1 ev T• » i V i " * , Pc , , Inc., T O 0(l Oo/| O f ^ / | ^ f - - ' J ■ ’ • nr , T'if ) R, orid T , p.rho, ■ J, ”ord - oFoclat1 on end ■the Ae on 1 s It 1 on of Gro-ri’ oor fin the T Tond.v , oov o** Social royohnl 0 -v ed a ted hy Gardner T indrrey) Add 1 son- ’ ■'e^pv Fubl . Co., Tr>c. , IGf/i, hfik-hl 3 , CFott^v"-, b, ovid TAp^oot-'h, T.T. The Relative Abilities of I-e^.d crs ord TTor-T podpos to Estimate Of 1 rd ons of Their Onn Gronrr 7", ,vnor”nl and Soc, Psvch., 10“ 52, W j ■ ' ' 1 -r "'. Conrad, E.G., ^he Personal E-nrgt 1m An Ratings 1 II: A Cyst enot ic Valuation J~ Rd.no. Psychol,, 1°35. JoZJiTT, Co?.T en, E.T. p-nd ^rlr.fe, M.J. Psychotherapy and Play Techniques - • - * th the Exception?! Child, end Youth, Povcholop-y of Exceptional Children Youth edited hy T f r ’, C m i c h? h . o . n v f Frenticc—Ho1 3 Inc, E. n - ^ A ewood Cliffs, E.J., 1 0 ^ 3f < ^ - 5 9 1 . CrnicVshonV. TT.E. Psychological Considerations T - rlth A CC * > - . O f t 1 * . f t < • - 1. 1 V — t o<0 ^ * • ■ > . T . . ^ ^ 4 - 1 ?n n u * i n-.-.rl ' r 'j t' 4 . 4 ^ T T , 1 1 1 ' I ^ " C " t > » 11 w l r T T * » * ^ 1 . 1 , 7 . . 4 - K - v r > , . 1 ^ 4 - 4 - - . n T ' V ■ • » • • t ^ ■ ■ ■ . . ' f ' ^4 , . . - T. 4 T 4 « - ,. 4-.. ^ ^ c ^ - I A - T 4,, , , A.-p ^..-4. j l v^..r j ^ . . . r, TTT^T TTTj ^ t ^TTTTT^r” w ” i o r ' o » - » « ' r ^ c r u^--• * c-i v- T Tp..^ 4 - j ^ i ’ . i 1 j 4 - V 1 f t rvc f ^ ... a. _ ^ . * ? n r* 1 « > O A O _ O ^ V ■ ■■»■/, , 1 l . f ’- f J1- -■-’ : S-;c:.--‘--.r 'V ;, ,-t,-,r ® Co. 1 «-n r* ^ > ■ 11 of I. • - 1 <x:- on ‘ h “ • * • • • • • r - - ’ TT- ’ • • s ’ . tv, ^ 0~n , ■luC ‘ Oro"T - e ’ , J . : ' . r T ” ■ e ’ sychv1^ ^ o" -Tc.^n ‘ •.a 1 . 'T w . ■ ■ • • > Co. l^h. * u t e s o n t h e M a n o , - ; e n e n f c o f ^v7 1'ifV' "a .‘ -z, P. "•■■ I . • : ' v 71 j tor: to ^-'„horn In r I ■ ; fcivncv, A r ’1 " ' ’0^3, T’ !0, r' . fO^-ho?, X. .:, An Arrovc’; to the 37 k1v of T.v-lt >pli- , - . . . i ' . ■ • . ' T ’ rn : t "' • • ^ - - • ^ 1- i T v-r.-:'jo ’ '-■"C;-' t'o' <r.;A C ’• •••--; • ; 1 r,v . ^ , - 1 # V . , , m , : r * V | v ' 5 q ^ r 5 I * ' „ j . . . . . , * ’ i . O i ....^ n , - i ’t —• ... n Or*. o a o - * • | ~ t TT^', 9.0. ! > . - ■ ■ Mon 3n Yan vid Animal: an "nalyals O ' " ’ * • ’ -r - I' ! - u ’ 1 ' ■ • trocesr of Pecos:::: * : ion rcvcho"! , TV- 1 n / t / r " > d A - 7 n ^ ■ ' ' ' ■ • » I v i ~ • T T e 1 ' t ' " f ( r ? v ~ + ;_ - f . ; f; 1 ■ o r v V 1 n ' . - f r o c ° v t - o v ~ T o H n , - T i T n ' / t 21. ^oc’^el'oans $ J, J, rheoorn&oo'! ov : the fh* ^ osor-hy of V f _ 1 ■ • r ..i •t.-i f .ifsprl I f .e"is Anchor Boo’ os; D c o ^ lerl& y 8 c Co,, Inc., Ve- vor-r, lo^<. ” , I a i n 5 , 1 . 1 . C ' l v l - l e - 1 S e l f F e n ^ n i v . ^ q V S , 1 9 ^ 0 , ?3. Tain;;, 2.D., fti if ir.gon, TT. , Lee, T I. Interpersonal I ^rcertl on s a mheory an^ a Method of Res e-arch Springer I'rhl . Co . , 1 °1 ^ . ~ ~ Lurie, A. ?iP Verhel peo~iAlatlon of ^ehavlor in "Read- 1 * v. Oh1 " * • ! * ■ w phr;*'f ' > ■ * ' * • er> , hy 0, 1 ^ er>n<1 ■ - A 511 on, TF "c-os'-t, »-• o, * " . ’ or"* Inc. i , 0OO_li » • - • nr^ t, 3, T ' > , ‘ T 'h . % ri-- . 0 ^.-,11 ■ ■ ’ oh to o 5 r i ’• • ..~i 0. _ . , r'r'v:;’ i. nrv * ' ■ • • • ' , i of; ° Oirj~”F"o0 _0 10 , °^t 1 - o ■ ’ oo t,r, ”, T'"i e S^'n.ictiT'? o * * ’ ’php \» ? -»r 1 0 *o p on - ’ f-■ ' £ • • , T , OSt "'l v " , 3 3 • M l .»n 1 ^r , Hut h T. A Co":p:~;.rl?QM or A .tt* s of ^of-'crs o r rjtp1* ' ?4 ’rf f ; tv**' pVt1 * ■ Mo cK-^Vc ■ ’ T* 1 o f . ] c ( “of * r ' A ' t i c A [ “ ^ At t t t ' 1 " ' 1 v * oP So-ither” ~r '1 i 1 o, . °n, , hyrofl''f-1 r r , t", ' T 1 he Co on 11 ~ ioy i r> ,rgors as Co.mlzers ] , , T-e^f;on F- rc- ' ■ ! . 11 o ~ r i ' 1 In* e . c , rev‘ g , nn£l °e'iovlor e 1t1 *3 T ’1 ' H, r n ' ' o 1 uri r , n ' j T . Thrnl ^ o, Stonford tv. it*.-rcit 7 T 're?f: 1 o<p r. , i/’ o-'] oo, 20, wnf Cip , t , 13. and 351v-=, h.T.v . 1 :-■ o f e th e r r C'OI'V- J, A^'norra 1 c j v i , - ’ 0 c 1 0 d T S y C't O" ! O 77 , 1^1,, ■ ' ■ f , 30-37. , r ■ ■ e^'-'or i P# ^ o ^ Pc*^ i i ' i ^ ^un-n '^'nollA ies A 1 ' • ' I ^ , . .Vrfl, rOl, Sc 5., T'b, rr, c , 1-0 3. 73 , S', tir, Vlr. 7* r i.o ^on. 1 o 1 nt ^ 1 • ni* ! y Ther£ - . py T S'^cho" 1 0: - rT - Of' . " 1 n S.cOC 1 ' t r=s , "JO^, ?S, 3’ fTnoer, ’ ’.F, SirroP at! ve Fecor^i (-re Theories of T.esrolnsy Foo esnary ?) Aprl Ftoo-Ci:otn.ry-Crof tr , tnc, , 7p,,r vorv( 1050, 33. Sii" 11 . iv:-'n, T T,S. lotorv-ersonal m|^(jrr of Fsychigtry t f . F . Norton, 3/ 1, TyrnT eolecvo • Z 1 - . r’ '.eno'r i f e r i o 7 Qfry an<1 Sciencp . 1 0 Contem porary FnroPr ' C . n Thoviprht woori^gy Tross (1 7■ ? rr-T, Strouss onr* Cu-ivhy), ln^°, 3 5. T , T ris^t, Beatrice Fhysical Disahll. lty-a rsyctolopcloal Approach 'T,Y. s Ilarpe" 4 How, 1350,
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Confirmation Of Expectancy And Changes In Teachers' Evaluations Of Student Behaviors
PDF
The Effects Of Two Types Of Experimenter Intervention And Schedules Of Reinforcement On Verbal Operant Conditioning Of Affective Self-References
PDF
Ethnicity And Measures Of Educability: Differences Among Navajo, Pueblo And Rural Spanish-American First Graders On Measures Of Learning Style, Hearing Vocabulary, Entry Skills, Motivation And H...
PDF
Auditory Perceptual Si Factors As Non-Predictors Of Reading Achievement In An Upper-Class And Upper-Middle-Class Population
PDF
Prescriptive Teaching As A Supplement To Behavior Modification In The Remediation Of Learning Disorders
PDF
Effects Of Success And Failure On Impulsivity And Distractibility Of Three Types Of Educationally Handicapped Children
PDF
The interrelationships of cognitive and affective variables in a sample of educationally handicapped pupils in three types of class placement and in three age groups
PDF
Testing Attitudes Toward Physical Handicap: Stereotyping And Objectivityin A Partially Integrated Elementary Program
PDF
Transfer Of The Partial Reinforcement Extinction Effect Across Tasks In Normal And Retarded Boys
PDF
Job Satisfaction And Dissatisfaction Among Teachers Of Secondary Educablementally Retarded
PDF
An Experimental Study Of The Degree Of Affective Response Elicited By Several Mediated And Nonmediated Instructional Methods
PDF
Reading Achievement And In-Grade Retention Rate Differentials For Mexican-American And Black Students In Selected States Of The Southwest
PDF
An Analysis Of Perceptions Of The Role Of The California Junior College Faculty Senate In Academic Governance
PDF
Academic And Non-Academic Achievement Of Freshmen And Seniors At Azusa Pacific College
PDF
The Problems Of Secondary Educationally Handicapped Students As Perceivedby Their Teachers
PDF
Development Of An Adapted Systems Model For Design Of College Level Instruction
PDF
Automatic Patterning Of Grammatical Structures And Auditory And Visual Stimuli As Related To Reading In Disadvantaged Mexican-American Children
PDF
Perceptions Of Administrative Practice In California'S Development Centers For Handicapped Minors Program
PDF
An Experimental Study Of The Effect On Babbling Of Visual Interaction Between Mother And Infant
PDF
An Experimental Study Of Two Moral Responses Of Two Socioeconomic Groups Based On Four Paradigms
Asset Metadata
Creator
Aber, Robert Michael
(author)
Core Title
Interpersonal Perception Between Physically Handicapped 'Problem' And 'Non-Problem' Adolescents And Their Mothers
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Education
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
education, special,OAI-PMH Harvest
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Advisor
McIntrye, Robert B. (
committee chair
), Coss, Joseph Glenn (
committee member
), Olinger, Leonard B. (
committee member
), Peter, Laurence J. (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-463430
Unique identifier
UC11363283
Identifier
7116398.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-463430 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
7116398
Dmrecord
463430
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Aber, Robert Michael
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA
Tags
education, special