personalin profiles of parents of handicapped children · 2018-01-04 · abstract the centrestage...
TRANSCRIPT
PERSONALin PROFILES OF PARENTS OF HANDICAPPED CHILDREN
BY
NEELU JAIN
ABSTRACT
Thesis submitted to The Department of Psychology
Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh (India) For the award of the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy IN
PSYCHOLOGY
1996
ABSTRACT
The centrestage of the present study are the parents in relation to
the handicap of their children. The handicap of the child presumably
alters the personality profiles of parents, or to put it in other words, the
personality profiles of parents of handicapped children and parents of
normal children will not be the same.
t he study focus on four personality dimensions - attitude towards
disability, alienation, self-consciousness and social support in relation to
the independent variables of nature of child's handicap - sensory and
orthopaedic, SES of parents - UMSES and LSES and Gender — Mother
and Father. '
The sample consisted of 192 subjects with parents of handicapped
children (n=?46), drawn from schools and homes, ment especially for such
children.jA control group of parents of normal children (n=96) is also
drawn for a comparative profile study.
The scale for attitude towards handicapped (Yuker, Block and
Campbell, 1960) consists 20 items with five response categories.
Alienation scale developed by Kureshi and Dutt (1979) consists of 21
items, expressing the varying shades of feelings and beliefs. Self
consciousness scale developed by Mittal and Balsubramanian (1987)
consists of 19 items, to measure self consciousness: private, public, and
social anxiety. The measure of social support (Power, Champion and
Aris, 1988) Consists of 10 pems to measure actual and ideal level of
support.
Some of the, major questions raised for being answered are:
1. Whether the fact of being parent of a handicaped/ normal child has
an impact on personality profiles?
2 Whether gender of the parent is of any relevance to the personality
profile of the parents?
3. Does it make a difference to the personality of parents if the nature
of handicap is orthopaedic or sensory?
4. Whether SES of parents has anything to do with the personality
profiles?
These questions are broken in the form of hypotheses to be tested
by appropriate statistical technique. ANOVA is used to determine the
role of socio-demographic variables on each treatment group. Means
are converted into z scores that are plotted in graph and are codded on
the basis of range in decending order, so as to have a complete overview
of the personality profiles in relation to nature of handicap SES and gender
on dependent measures - attitude towards disability, alienation, self-
consciousness and social support.
Findings of the study indicate that pers.onality profiles of parents of handi
capped children differ from that of the parents of normal children on the depen
dent measures - attitude towards disability, alienation, and self-consciousness.
While no such differences are found on social support.
Nature of handicap came as a strong factor in attecting personality pro
file of parents, parents of sensory handicapped children are found to be having
less positive attitude, more alienation and more self consciousness than that of
parents of orthopaedically handicapped children.
SES came as an influence in effecting the personality measures of par
ents of handicapped and normal children. LSES parents show less positive
attitude towards handicapped children and also LSES parents show greater
discrepancy in actual and ideal level of support than UMSES parents. While
UMSES parents of handicapped children fee! more alienation than LSES par
ents.
Mothers and fathers^o not differ in regard to their attitude towards dis
ability, and any of the personality variables.
The configurational comparison between the personality profiles of dif
ferent groups indicate differences in the pattern of their scores in different de
pendent variables. The profile codes of the groups are as below:
A
1. Profile coding of parents of normal and handicapped children.
Sensory 2, 1- 3/- 4/-
Orthopaedic 1* 2/+ 4/- 3 #
Normal 3/+ 4/- 2: 1 #
2. Profile coding relating to gender of parents of normal and handicapped
children:
PNC PHC
Mother 3- 4/- 2: 1# 1, 2- 4- 3/-
Father 3/- 4/- 2: 1# 1, 2- 4/- 3:
3. Profile coding relating to SES of parents of normal and handicapped
children.
PNC PHC
UMSES 3- 4/- 2/- 1 #
LSES 3/+ 4/- 2 # 1 #
2- 1/+ 3/- 4/-
2- 4 - 1/+ 3:
The findings have been compared with findings of earlier studies
and their theoritical and applicational implications are presented.
PERSONALITY PROFILES OF PARENTS OF HANDICAPPED CHILDREN
J ^
BY
NEELU JAIN
(
Thesis submitted to The Department of Psychology
Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh (India) For the award of the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy IN
PSYCHOLOGY
1996
t' Ace No.
b:, T-^c?5/ % i^u'sl 'M UNlvERi
W<i
T4851
DEDICATED TO
CHAIRMAN DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY AUGARH-2O200I
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that Ms. Neelu Jain worked under my supervision for her
Ph.D. thesis which is entitled "Personality Profiles of Parents of Handicapped
Children".
Ms. Neelu Jain has been engaged in full time study for the required period
as prescribed in the Ordinances of the university. She has fulfilled the
requirements of attendance in the department and residence in Aligarh as laid
down by the Academic Council.
Ms. Jain's work is original and is fit for submission to the examiners for
evaluation for the award of Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology.
(Prof. Qamar Hase
"r^e- in^^iUn-e-fC »$€€• «- t^t ^<yt- ^4A- u^t^nu-d^in-^ ^eatetn^^, ^i-a44tAtaJiiH-^
C»UA^4>o^^M^Mt cued- /k-en^-e^itif/^ ct^Cv*-ce. CCU^VCH^ C^ cowva^ <^ t ^
^tucUf-. Ot 6^ ^^n^ t^^it 4 e C9<ctd itot tio^ to- d-ce-1^ 4.u^HUa-a4^^
o^ tA4-A euon^i CK Ct4^ frie^-ent ^o>v0c.
/4^ten. t ^ ec*ttctH-el^ de-nU^^ o^ "^lo^. ^^f^it 'TCfcrcA-Al,
"^n^. tZt!utt<it/v '^a-a-^iM^, ^A<z{n4H^u€', ^e^li^xnttfceHt o^ "^^-^c/ioto-^^,
<M»e t^n-o-ec^A t ^ t^^ltea.cn-i^ cued 4>ec^ii-&u/i^-d-e-d tA^ ^^cdneiA^^Co^ o^
tAe- tAcA^a, CH- ita^ /Itn^a-CMt ^onitc. 0 e-x^m-e^^ ttctf- ftcttittcdc to- ACHC
^on, Aca- a^dcf^a^e- cued e^ecoMn-cef^^fccttt Ae- ^-cuf^ to tfce- cit tAe- tCtfce-
*? a-*»c ^^uitc^eU to- '^to^. 7H*ia.. 't^cutcCcUi, ^AHCCUC. ^on, A&t
CH-c-occfi^^cH-^ >vcMtcin4i4. cutd e^^$cHte4tta- tA-^it ^i:t-04te^ Mt^ HcofuUe-.
0 €*-tH- <^Ci^ ^n^zte^eU to. "Pn-o^. SecU^sut- 4Ae<^n- cutd ^ r ^A^<tn,
'^ecA^.^x^H^ ^on^ tAe4x CKCo<tn-cef-e»H-cHt cued ^^cf-f^-AtiOH' tA^t^cc^A^cet
iH^ n-ea-e-ixn^ et^on^. ^% ^<U*^ /4c^ci^ cCe^^&uAea- ttuf- ^n-ctte^ui-
a^le-fon^-oCaXCo-H- ^on- tAe. Aet^ 4 ^ e-xtctecCe-d to- •$ee- in- v-ctfUoua^ €«tce^.
0 tA^M-A^ t<t- ttctf^ cotect-f4cea- cutd ^t-icM-cCa- /4tt^<c«»t- j4>i^
''P<^titAi', Tleuf^d *?4f6€U-. 'Keefut-^, T^eteft Odex^, l^e/ieutce. Sci^
S/i<^•^icH', SeutcecfUt. ^<^/ic^.aut^ Set^u. ^cUieuttC, ct^tt^ t/ic UA^m-cCen'
^(B^SS"?^ ^c6n,<tKtf.. 'H^ST^'^ l^e^^a^vcA eupcC 'Do^i€<^H^nt^itco^
'JAc &vc<iit 0]^ tAc<i^ e4Aon4i. ^<^eA to cAo4^ /t<xn^Hta^, et^Ao^^
itcKOce^tC eon<^nMr a^ctC eM^Aeca4^ia^»i' Ael^lrc^C Mce- tM^t^ Ctt ttt^
^tx^c^^te- to at,cA<^<AC «M^ ^ca^cCe^M^-e- ^-ocU'. *? «r M- tA^M^i-^ect to t/ie-
cUfvccton^, 'P'tet.^^taifvei.ef^m- "TfCoo^ ^auCAOv Sa'Ht4tc, ^A-Hca^d^
ScAoot &^ 1Bte4t«U., 'TfCotA&t ^&I€A^ ScAool- ^on, OntA^o^^taie-cCCceUtif'
A<!tM^Uc^z/i.^^€C, aM<C ^.'Jt.^. "TH^^UceU ^oCCe^, /4Ci^^in4., ^o^
tAe6n- 4^t^it^tont clctn4M^ cUttci- cotte^tiOH', eaitAoeit eu-Ao^^ Ael^
tooA^m^Ca- ccCeMtc^4^uzt£o^c o^ ^^utt-^tte- tAe- ^^tccd^fr coectcC ttot ActAAC
6^^-H- taU&^n- o^.
^ etAOuM- U^ie- to ie^4At&v a.^^^M^ o^ tA^zst^ to tn^ Acca^^^uccC
Ito etAon-dd- ctAte- a^tCe^ecctte- to cx^in^^^ i*t4f- ^octctt^ o^ ^n^ttitccd-e-
to tH^ /tt^tn-CMta^, eutd fo^tAte-ttA^CMr-Ccutf-, w-Ao ^^/i^tftcd 0to c^^tH^c^ o^
t^etiil 70L.U-V
7:>at€^: ^^tftU f996
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements
CHAPTER ONE: Introduction
1. Handicap: Concept, meaning and reactions.
2. Components of Proposed Personality Profiles.
Page No.
i - ii
1 - 3 6
CHAPTER TWO:
CHAPTER THREE:
CHAPTER FOUR:
CHAPTER FIVE:
Method and Plan
Results
Discussion
Summary and Conclusion
37-44
45-60
61 -69
70-76
REFERENCES
APPENDIX-A: ATDP Scale
77-91
APPENDIX-B
APPENDIX-C
APPENDIX-D
Alienation Scale
Self-consciousness Scale
Social Support Scale
tAr€ir9t tn^e onMa^^e^ £n^7MA«tv»i^ Ukno^n- *tfi,tu^» onr04^ to- V9vstcte^» ^oMt
tA» in^i^t>it» aH>^tl Of io4tn<l a/tva 00/0^1^.
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
1. Handicap: Concepts, meaning and reactions.
2. Components of Proposed Personality Profiles.
To parent a handicapped child is probably among the worst that
can happen to humans. It's hell of an experience involving a sense of
wretchedness and misery, agony and helplessness for the parents to
see their children struggling with day-to-day activities and playing a
restricted role in society. The handicapped suffers in his own way. He
experiences a sense of irrelevance to others, but his significant others
suffer in greater measure, finding their dear and near ones deprived of a
sense of well being.
Parents of handicapped children are consistently under constraint
to present themselves in a good light, "to be impossibly^good" forever
understanding forbearing and self sacrificing . They are expected to
be able to respond to the child's need whatever his age, to take him for
the appointments without much reward and without much consideration
for the other demands on them. They can not complain about their burden
without feeling - and being seen by others as "rejecting" their child"
(Younghusband, Davie, Birchall and kellmer - Pringle, 1970). Literature
on families of handicapped children reveals contradictory views on how
such families react to their predicament. This contradiction extends
beyond general comments to research into the dynamics of family
interaction. The majority of studies representing one view claim to show
that parents find the birth of a handicapped child an overwhelming shock
from which they rarely fully recover and about which they feel a variety of
negative emotions particularly guilt, chronic sorrow and anxiety.
(Sommers, 1944, Cohen, 1962; Olshansky, 1962, McMichael, 1971). A
minority subscribing to the other view-point however, draws attention to
the capacity of many parents to make a satisfactory adjustment (Booth,
1978; Matheny and Vernick, 1969; Roith, 1963).
A feature of these and other studies of the kind in general is the
lack of concern with parents and their problems. A review by Burden
(1981) of some sixty studies published between 1959 and 1979 lands
support to the observation where it is revealed that very little account
has been taken of parent's analysis of their own problems. Carrying out
research following rigorous experimental design in this area is not an
easy affair, because handicapped children have a way of not fitting neatly
into specific categories and also there are problems of obtaining
appropriate control group, and experimental manipulations. Moreover,
true reflection of parents' response to their situation is another challenge.
This would require parents to be interviewed in a relaxed atmosphere of
their homes by people who are both trained and conscious of finer
- 2 -
sensibilities of person under such situation.
Addressing a complex and sensitive issue as this, may perhaps
not be very productive in terms of information even if well designed postal
questionnaires are the test material.Secondly, most studies are devoid of
a theoretical frame work, leading to contradictory findings and blurring
those that can lead to a constructive action. Indeed, for want of a
theoretical perspective, our understanding will remain superficial.
Therefore, it is imperative to have a conceptual frame work that enables
us to differentiate parents in terms of their attitude, thinking, feeling and
action in relation to the handicap.
A psychological probe, focussing on certain attitudinal and
personality dimensions of those on whom these children are dependent,
seems to open up possibilities of working out strategies for helping parents
to cope with the situation arising of the handicap of their children. The
parents of the handicapped children rather than children themselves are
therefore the target group of the study. The handicap of the child is
presumed to alter the personality profiles of parents of handicapped
children and the profile of parents of normal children are most likely to be
unlike those of the former.
Understandably, research on personality characteristics of parents
of handicapped children is scarce, barring a few on general reactions
- 3 -
and attitudes of parents of such children. In the strict sense, therefore
the present study hardly has any background literature. The personality
dimensions along which the study of the profiles of parents of handicapped
children could be carried out were to be chosen on the strength of their
relevance to the perceptual, attitudinal and affective aspects of parent
child relationship. Thus, the present study of the suffering of the parents
vis-a-vis their children's handicap would focus on the four personality
dimensions - attitude towards disability, alienation, consciousness and
social support. Before taking up all these variables with their concepts
and meaning it would be proper first to define the meaning of the term
handicap and its social {psychological consequences.
1
Handicap: Concepts, Meaning and Reactions
The term 'handicap' refers to the disadvantages brought about by
impairment or disability of an individual in terms of his potential and
achievement. The extent to which one is handicapped depends on his/
her perception of such a condition as well as social attitude associated
with an impaired state bearing implications for personality and the style
of life of the individual.
The terms 'disability' and 'handicap' have been defined both
variously and synonymously and additional terms introduced, such as
impairment and limitations, in an attempt to agree on a common
terminology for health surveys and other purposes (Hamilton, 1950; Barry,
1971; Haber, 1973; WHO, 1980). Whatever terms are used it is important
to distinguish two main concepts disability and handicap. Disability refers
to limitation of function stemming directly from an impairment at the level
of specific organ or body system, the concept of handicap express the
actual obstacles the person encounters in the pursuit of goals in real life,
no matter what its sources are. This distinction is basically in line with
the terms adopted by WHO, 1980 (cf. Wright, 1983).
However some authors, have used these terms interchangeably
(Bates, 1965). Hamilton and Kessler (Bates, 1965) have been insistent
on the distinction between the terms 'handicapped' and 'disabled'.
Hamilton (Coft and Tindall, 1974) refers to disability as a condition of
impairment, physical or mental, having an objective aspect that can be
usually described by a physician. A handicap on the other hand, is a total
effect on a cumulative result of the hinderance or obstacles which the
disability interposes between the individual and his maximum functional
level. Kessler (Bates, 1965) is also of the view that physically disabled
are those who have a physical defect, obvious or hidden, limiting their
physical capacity to work, or which elicits an unfavourable social attitude.
He adds further that disability may not necessarily constitute a handicap;
it will be so only when the defect causes an actual restriction on activity,
or arouses a psychological prejudice.
A fundamental point is that the source of obstacles and difficulties,
that is what actually handicaps a person, can not be determined by
describing the disability alone. Thus, although the disability itself may
also contribute to difficulty in goal achievement, architectural, attitudinal
legal and other social barriers are handicapping, as are negative attitudes
on the part of the person with a disability. Moreover, as we shall see, a
person with a disability may or may not be handicapped, and a person
who is handicapped may or may not have a disability.
Whatever term (i.e. disability or handicap) the workers may have
chosen, each one has also been classified from the medical and
psychological perspective depending upon their approach and orientation.
Physical disability (viz sensory handicap and Orthopaedically handicap)
and mental disability are the usual classified categories (Bhatt, 1965).
Some researchers have categorized these in accordance with the
specified function or organ system: impaired vision, auditory impairment,
speech defects, orthopaedic handicap, brain injury and mental retardation.
Physical handicap consists of impairment both of sense modalities and
- 6 -
of orthopaedic origin (Sen, 1988).
Looked upon as the crux of behavior inf luencing both the
expectations of society and that of self from the person, handicap is
believed to have an all-pervasive effect on the functioning of an individual's
life. The fact of being handicapped is not just the same as feeling
handicapped, the latter bearing greater social psychological implications.
Stigma towards the disabled person seems to lie at the very root of
handicap which supports the stand point that society is a highly relevant
factor in the feeling and the perception of people towards handicap.
Reactions of Society towards handicap
Research indicates that person stigmatized by physical impairments
frequently elicit certain specific response tendencies In others. On the
one hand their presence create discomfort as reflected in avoidance
(Kleck, Ono^and Hastorf, 1966; Snyder, Kleck, Strenta and Mentzer, 1979),
distortion of attitudes (Kleck, 1968), and large interaction distances (Kleck,
Buck, Galler, London, Pfeiffer and Vukcevic, 1968). Such discomfort may
arise from personal threat, a lack of familiarity with disability or the
unattractiveness of the disfigurement. (Langer, Fiske, Taylor, and
Chanowit?,1976; Novach and Lerner, 1968; Richardson, 1976). On the
other hand, the presence of physically stigmatized persons elicits a
willingness to help. Such response tendencies may be mediated by a
- 7 -
norm of social responsibility that prescribes that persons, especially those
not in need by choice, deserve help (Piliavin, Rodin, and Piliavin, 1969;
Piiiavin and Piliavin 1972; Schopler and Matthews, 1965). It has always
been recognized that disabilities have social consequences. Popular and
professional observers highlight the following; (a) non disabled persons
behave differently toward the disabled; (b) disabled feel uncomfortable
in normal social situations; (c) frustration and feeling of inadequacy
stemming from limited competence lead to inappropriate social behavior;
(d) sensory, motor, or intellectual inadequacies debilitate social interaction
(CruickShank, 1980, Kureshi and Jain, 1992; Jain and Kureshi 1992a
and 1992b.
Handicapped are generally seen as different from normal people,
and some common stereotypes about them are, that they are dependent,
isolated depressed and emotionally unstable (Yuker et al, 1960, 1966;
Altman 1981). Such public stereotypes create labels confounding the
individuality of the person whose impairment imposes restrictions on going
beyond a limited role and reducing the possibilities of improved behavior
and higher expectations (Schroedel, 1978).
Parents Reaction to the birth of a handicapped child
Arrival of a handicapped child in the family is the most unpleasant
happening and full of stress for the parents who react to this reality almost
invariably in a deviant manner. There seems to be a consensus among
- 8 -
researchers on the effects of having a handicapped child in the family.
All of them agree that the child's birth precipitates major family stress
(Cohen, 1962; Gumming, Bayley and Rie, 1966; Farber, 1960; Hare,
Lawrence, Paynes and Rawnsley, 1966; Johns, 1971; Roskies, 1972).
Many studies have stressed the need for a better understanding of
parental adjustment to this event. The manner in which parents deal with
this crisis can have a long term consequences for the parents, the family
and the child (Davis, 1975).
Clinical observations indicate that the emotional trauma which the
parents of the handicapped children undergo upon discovering that there
child is handicapped fills them with anxiety fear and guilt which do not go
with the birth of a normal child (Sheimo, 1951). Parents' reactions to the
frustration associated with this happening have been found to take several
different forms. For example, strong feelings of anger and rejection may
lead the parent to retaliate by being harsh to the child or the environment
(Fletcher, 1974; Poznaski, 1973). Parents may blame themselves
and subsequently feel guilt, inadequacy and anxiety. Clinical
observations suggest that parents often express anxiety about raising
a retarded child, stemming out mainly from lack of confidence in
their ability to meet the child's needs. The parents may also feel
frustrated because they think that their child's handicap is a "blow to
their success as parents" and because their aspirations for the child will
not be fulfilled. Grebler (1952) describes the handicapped child as a "threat
to the parents narcissistic wish to live on in their children". Olshansky
(1962) describes the parents of the mentally defective child as suffering
from chronic sorrow. Solnit and Stark (1961) analysed the 'mourning
process' find among parents, and suggest that some parents may tend to
cover up their grieving by being overindulgent and forming a guilty
attachment to the child, at the cost of other family members.
On the basis of observations gathered from interviews with parents
of handicapped child, Dro2tar et al (1975) conclude that the parents of
the handicapped children express similarly identifiable emotional
reactions. As true of any kind of traumatic experience handicap of the
child too has some phases which are highly frustrating to the parents but
they soon get acclimatized to it. Periods of initial shock, disbelief and
intense emotional upset give way to a period of gradual adaptation which
is marked by a decrease in activity and increase in the parents ability to
take greater care of their child, and in so doing, experiencing satisfaction.
Parents adaptation patterns
Inview of the fact that coping with a disabled child is a highly
challenging proposition, a host of studies have been devoted to discussing
the patterns of parental adjustment while bringing up their handicapped
- 1 0 -
children. Studies dealing with this issue are based on conceptualization
of bereavement (Bowlby, 1960; Kubler-Ross, 1969; Lindemann 1944;
Worden, 1982). Within this context, parents adaptation to a disabled child
is seen as taking place in a series of stages, which include an initial
phase, often labelled as shock followed by a period of disorganization.
During the disorganization stage, parents pass through a number of stages
characterized by feelings of denial, guilt, shame, anxiety, hopelessness,
blame, anger and fear. Drawing on grief literature, some models identify
a bargaining phase, when parents go out for a better diagnosis.
Eventually, according to these paradigms, parents reach the point of
saturation which may be indicated by a plateau of reorganization and
acceptance (Boyd, 1951; Bristor, 1984; Drotar, Barkiewiez, Irwin,
Jenmall and Klaus, 1975; Emde, and Brown, 1978; Fortier and Wanless,
1984; Gath, 1985; Kenedy, 1970; Parks,1977). Solnit and Stark (1961)
discuss the problems parents' experience as they grieve the loss of the
"wished for child" and grow to accept their disabled child. Based upon his
clinical observation, Olshansky (1962) describe the parents of mentally
retarded children as living in a state of chronic sorrow. He disagrees with
the viewpoints held by social workers and other mental health care
professionals that there is something like the final phase of acceptance.
According to him, all parents, whether they have normal or mentally
- 1 1 -
defective children, accept and reject them at various times and in various
situations. That is, there is no fixed phase of acceptance or rejection.
Building on this model, some experts suggest that parents go through
repeated period of grieving and crisis. Their ability to manage their
circumstances depends on social and therapeutic support, cultural and
ethnic factors, the nature of disability and various other factors (Fraley
1988; Jackson, 1974; Wikler; Wasow and Hatfield, 1981). Researchers
find that personal adjustment is affected by moderator variables within
the environment (Dunst and Trivette, 1986; Gallengher, Backman and
Cross, 1983).
Dunst and Trivette (1986) also find that increased personal well
being is associated with greater social support among parents. Though
these findings point to the need for providing assistance to those parents
who lack the necessary supportive networks, the findings do not account
for individual differences nor do they explain why some parents who are
provided services still experience problems.
Davis (1987) refers to social and ethnic reactions to the reality of
parenting a handicapped child. Certain cultures may demand that a mother
accepts a handicapped child as God's will thus stifling the grieving
process. In other cultures, the stigma of a handicapped child might reflect
on a father's manhood, thus causing him to deny a disability, reject the
- 1 2 -
child, or blame the mother. Parents are faced with the dual expectation
to mourn and accept, with the implications that prolonged sorrow is wrong
and pathological.
2
Components of the proposed personality profile
(a) Attitude
Attitude of parents towards disability is not simply a matter of the
painful awareness of parents towards the handicap of their children, but
more of their perceptions and apprehensions of their handicapped
children and of others around. This seems to interact in all their
complexities, underlying the need to look at the problem from the parents'
point of view in relation to the reactions of the children and others towards
the handicapped. Both actual and perceived factors contribute to the
formation of attitude towards the handicap. The kind of reactions
expressed or perceived to have been expressed by each towards the
other in respect of the handicap have an important bearing on what kind
of attitude will be held by parents.
Allport (1935) defines attitude as a^mental or neural state of
readiness to respond, organize through experience, exerting a directive
or dynamic influence upon the individual's response to all objects and
situations with which it is related!'This has been an ideal definition till
-13-
present which incorporates all its central ingredients, cognitive, affective
and behavioral. To put it in simple terms, attitude involves what people
think about, feel about and how they would like to behave towards an
attitude object.
The traditional question of whether attitudes are unidimensional or
multidimensional continues to receive research attention. Whereas the
unitary view regards attitude as affective orientation toward objects,
Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), the multidimensional view takes one of the
two forms. The tripartite model (e.g. Katz and Stotland, 1959), assumes
that attitude have an affective, cognitive behavioral component, with each
varying on an evaluative dimension. Criticism that this model obscures
the attitude behavior relation (e.g. Mc^uire, 1969, Fishbein, and Ajzen,
1975) have led some researchers to delete the behavioral component
and to regard attitude as a two dimensional construct, (e.g. Bagozzi and
Burpfkrant 1979, Zajonc and Markus 1982).
Despite a long history of research on attitude there is no universally
agreed upon definition on attitude. Attitude theorists variously define
primarily in terms of evaluation (e.g.'a psychological tendency that is
expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favour or
disfavour', Eagly and Chaiken, 1992), affect (e.g. "the affect associated
with a mental object', GreenWald, 1989), Cognition (e.g. 'a special type
- 1 4 -
of knowledge, notably knowledge of which content is evaluative or
affective! Kruglanski, 1989), a behavioral disposition (e.g. 'a state of
person that predisposes a favourable or unfavourable response to an
object, person or idea' Triandis, 1991).
Behaviour is not only determined by what people would like to do,
but also by what they think they should do. This brings in the social norms,
governing their actions. Attitude helps a person (a) To understand the
world around him, by organizing and simplifying a complex input from
their environment (b) protect their self esteem, by making it possible for
them to avoid unpleasant truth about themselves (e) help them to adjust
in a complex world and (d) allow them to express their fundamental values.
(Smith. 1947; Smith, Bruner and White, 1956; Katz 1960).
According to Cohen (1980) attitudes with their affective, cognitive
and behavioral dimensions may not always covery with behavior or internal
feelings. However, they provide an estimate of a persons attitudes and
an indication of their possible behavior. Parents' attitude exert a lasting
influence on the outcomes of their offsprings' actions. The moot question
is whether a child, perceived in a negative light, will introject this to let it
become his own perception about himself. Parents' attitude about the
handicap of their children may also partly that of general public whom
they represent.
-15-
While studying parents' attitude we can not ignore the reactions of
society at large towards the handicap. The way society perceives the
handicap, affects the attitudes and motivational level of parents Shattuck
(1946) note that the major handicap of disabled children is not their
specific disability but the attitude of the general population towards them.
This is the group that does not necessarily have an accurate idea of what
physical handicap means in relation to limiting an individuals' life style.
There seems to be a general ignorance among the public regarding the
handicapped individuals and because of the lack of actual contact with
the handicap it is ultimately the stereotypes about the handicap that
governs their perception and attitudes. A consistent finding in the research
literature is that attitude towards people with disabilities are correlated
with attitudes towards other minority groups (English, 1971). Handel
(1960) studies attitude toward blind persons and concludes that common
stereotypes of the blind person usually place him in an inferior social
role. The author further reflects on the tone of his own analysis and
remarks that this report 'sounds as though we are considering a problem
of race relations instead of disability'. A similar study was undertaken by
Himes (1960), His findings indicate that the more intimate the proposed
relationship with a blind person, the more clearly and intensely the blind
person is rejected by the physically normal. Wright (1983) also states
-16-
that there seems to be a lot of commonality between attitude of people
towards other minorities and attitude towards person with disability.
Lewin (1975), while reviewing negativism towards minority group
has pointed out that personality and social needs of majority group
members are fulfilled by means of attitude. Minorities are used as 'targets
for displaced aggression' and serve Individuals with a 'negative reference
group' against whom they compare themselves positively in an attempt
to hold, sustain, preserve or enhance their own self image.These studies
support the view that attitude expressed towards physically disabled
person have much in common with attitudes expresed towards ethnic
minorities.
Persons with a disability, like members of other minority groups,
may be represented as subject to two different and often conflicting
demands at the same time. On one hand, considered disabled they are
subject to the expectations of how a person with a disability should act
on the other hand, the wish to be 'just like any one else' predispose them
towards normal patterns of behavior.
Attitudes of parents towards handicapped
Studies on the attitude of parents in respect of the handicap of
their children are not many and whatever body of research exist on the
subjects, are addressed to the overall social-psychological situations of
- 1 7 -
the parents. Sommers (1944) highlights the general formation of attitudes
towards a handicapped child. Thus, the meaning the child's handicap
held by his parents, especially his mother, the intensity of her emotional
reactions and the kind of adjustment she is able to make seem to depend
largely on the psychological make-up of the individual parent, her marital
relationships and her own personal and social adjustments to life. Sommer
has listed five types of parental attitudes toward the handicapped child :
(a) acceptance of the child and his handicap (b) denial reactions (c) over
protection (d) disguised rejection (e) overt rejection. The list resembles
very closely to attitude that Kanner (1972) distinguishes as operative for
children in general : acceptance, perfectionism, non rejecting over
protection, rejection, overt hostility and neglect. The category of
perfectionism closely resembles Sommers denial reaction.
Sommers (1944) has made a thorough study to find out the
relationship between parental attitudes and actions and the blind child's
behaviour pattern and attitudes towards handicap. He r e p o ^ the
persistent feelings of frustration, arising from a sense of unfulfillment of
the expectations and a sense of inadequacy on the part of the parents of
such children. The case studies indicated four different reasons why
parents manifest conflicts in their relationship with handicapped child (1)
blindness is considered a symbol of punishment and divine disapproval,
-18-
(2) fear of being suspected of having a social disease, (3) feeling of guilt
and the transgression of the moral or social code, (4) blindness in a child
is considered a personal disgrace to the parents.
Nursey (1990) compares the attitudes towards people with mental
handicaps held by a group of parents of children with mental handicaps
and a group of doctors. The Likert type attitude scale used in the study
assesses the effect of presence of a handicapped child in the family on
independence and autonomy of the family. Parents are found to have
more positive attitude than doctors except with regards to independence.
However, doctors expect parents to have more positive attitude towards
handicapped children than they are assumed to have.
Alienation
Alienation is another personality variable that is used in the profile
analysis, in view of its affective and attitudinal properties tapping the
psychological state of the parents of handicapped and normal children.
The study of alienation has a long history in social sciences.
Yet, there is a continuing lack of an agreed upon meaning for the
concept. Historical and social analysis (e.g. Bell 1960; Blauner, 1964,
Durkheim, 1897/1951; Marx 1844/1964; Simmel, 1902/1950; Waber
1958) typically focus socio-structura! factors which appear to be linked
- 1 9 -
to conditions of widespread alienation within society; for example,
automation, anonymity, bureaucratization, normlessness, and economic
inequality.
Psychological and philosophical analysis (e.g. Camus, 1956;
Keniston, 1965, Kierkegaard; 1959; Seeman, 1959) place a greater
emphasis upon the individuals experience and expression of alienation.
Alienation is viewed either as a personality disposition or as a priori
condition of human existence. Many present formulation of alienation draw
on Durkheim's works (1897) on the disintegration or breakdown in
systems of social regulation and control. He uses the term 'anomie'
to stand for a state of normlessness at the societal level. Kierkegaard
(1955) without using the term alienation has commented on the loss
of modern man in a crowed. For him modern man is anonymous,
empty and dependent. Tillich (1967) believes that our present
situation is characterized by a profound and desperate feelings of
meaninglessness. In Nisbet's (1966) analysis, as society moved
from traditionalism to modernism, five qualities of life were affected,
namely, community, authority, status, the sacred and alienation
from community. For Nisbet, alienation is a historical perspective
within which man is seen as estranged, anomie and rootless when
cutoff from ties of the community and moral purpose. Like Marx,
-20-
Nisbet thought, alienated man is estranged from himself, from his
fellowmen and the values and principles of the society. Fromm (1955)
elaborates Marx conception of alienation and adopts it to contemporary
situation and defines alienation as a mode of experience in which the
person experience himself as an alien.' He has become, one might say,
estranged from himself. He does not experience oneself as the center of
his world, as the creator of his own acts, but his acts and their
consequences have become his masters whom he obeys, or whom he
may even worship? The alienated person is out of touch with himself, as
he is out of touch with any other person.
Seeman's (1959) approach to alienation is an attempt to clarify the
meaning of the term in sociological thought, thus making it more amenable
to empirical research. He treats alienation from a social psychological
point of view, and conceptualizes it by distinguishing its five relatively
non- overlapping meanings, i.e. powerlessness, normlessness,
meaninglessness, isolation and self estrangement. David's (1955)
' formulat ion of Alienation syndrome' represents personality and
motivational characteristics. It consists of five interrelated disposition,
i.e. egocentricity, distrust, pessimism, anxiety and resentment. Keniston
(1965) reserves the term alienation for only one of the many possibilities
- for an explicit rejection 'freely' chosen by the individual, of what he
- 2 1 -
perceives as the "dominant values or norms of his society", "it i s . . . an
unwi l l ingness to accept the opt imist ic sociocentr ic, af f i l ia t ive,
interpersonally oriented and culturally accepting values." Stoklos (1975)
views, individual's alienation develops within the control of an ongoing
relationship between himself and some other entity - a person, group,
society or culture for instance. The experience of alienation is brought
about through a decline in the quantity of one's relationship with a
particular context, and thus perceived deterioration evokes dissatisfaction
with the present situation and a yearning for something better, which has
either been lost, or as yet unattained. Gould (1964) has defined alienation
from the stand point of the individual experiencing alienation, rather than
in terms of social norms. A limited number of Indian studies are available
on concept of alienation (Srivastava et al 1971; Verghese, 1973). Singh
(1971) comments alienation combined with a perception of change in the
society and a sense of optimism. Increased socio-political modernity and
aspirations are probably the most important factors of social change in
contemporary India...' contrary to most western research findings,
alienation is found to be powerful motive for social change in an emerging
society'.
Sinha and Sinha (1974)^ factor analyze Seeman's variants of
alienation and find five factors: normlessness, conformity, nurturance,
-22 -
unfair means and morality. Kureshi & Dutt (1979) conducts a factor analytic
study Five factors emerged as a result of factor analysis despair,
disil lusionment, psychological vacuum, unstructured universe and
narcissism. Alienation is found not to be a unitary phenomenon. However,
it carries a negative effect, designated as the 'alienation syndrome'.
Alienation: Personal and Social Factors
During the past decade researchers have liked alienation to a v\/ide
array of social and personal factors. Social factors include: infrequent
contact with friends (Cutrona, 1982), having few friends and spending
time alone (Russell, Peplau and Cutrona, 1980), low supportive behaviour
(Stokes, 1985), unhelpfullness of the support network (Schultz and
Saklofske, 1983), and low intimacy of relationships with best friends and
low sociometric popularity (Williams and Solano, 1983)
Individual characteristics includes self consciousness (Jones,
Freeman, and Goswick 1981; Moore and Schultz, 1983), low trust of,
and altruism toward others, a sense of powerlessness, normlessness,
and social isolation, and a view of the world as unjust (Jones et al, 1981).
Alienation has also been linked to deficits in social skills (Jones, 1982),
such as inappropriate self-disclosure (Solano, Batten and Parish, 1982).
Studies by Jones et al (1981) suggest that negative perceptions of self
and others are more prominent among lonely individuals than are social
-23-
skill deficits.
Alienation can so threaten the fabric of relationship that form part
of the foundation of personal existence that it can appear as one of the
most dreadful experience imaginable, what Binswanger (1942) referred
as 'naked horror". One factor that contributes to the distress of loneliness
is the felt awareness that there is an unnatural or unexpected emptiness
at the core of one's personal world. In the context of frustrated
expectations we respond to loneliness by longing for a presence to fill an
absence, by searching for a bond to connect the broken network of
relationship, by looking for a way of sharing that will overcome one's lack
of involvement.
Self-Consciousness
Still another personality variable that seems to be relevant to the
understanding of the psychological conditions of parents of handicapped
children may be self-consciousness, proposed to be component in drawing
the personality profile of parents. In view of our general observation and
as suggested by various theoretical approach's to the study of social
behaviour, the presence of others tends to make us self-conscious, that
is, awareness of the self as a social object that can be observed and
evaluated by others. Goffman (1959) has argues that when one is
attending to and involved in an ongoing interaction, that interaction can
-24 -
proceed smoothly and naturally, but if one is engaged in self focused
thought during that interaction, then concern is shifted away from what is
being said towards whether what one says will be received favourably or
unfavourably.
Argyle (1969) speculates about the impact of self awareness on
social interaction, he proposes that self- consciousness, conceived of as
the activation of the 'self system', produces a decreased concern with
evaluating the behaviour of others and an increased concern with the
personal and public assessment of one's own behaviour. It follows that
when the self-system remains dormant relatively less thought is given to
one's own behaviour or its effects on others.
Duval and Wicklund (1973) experimentally demonstrate a state of
self-focused attention causes one to engage in self examination and self
evaluation. He examine both the effect of stimuli that direct attention
towards the self (mirrors and cameras) and the effect of motor activity
and external distractions that move attention away from the self. These
manipulations have affected such diverse behaviours as aggression
(Scheier, Fenigstin, and Buss, 1974), attribution (Duval and Wicklund,
1973) and self-esteem (Ickes, Wicklund and Ferris, 1973).
Underlying all these approaches to self consciousness are several
common but crucial assumptions: (a) During a social encounter, attention
-25-
may be directed either towards or away from the self, (b) when attention
is self-directed, the person becomes conscious of the self as an object of
attention to others; conversely, when attention is directed away from the
self toward external stimuli, there is little consciousness of the self as a
social object, and (c) a major consequence of self consciousness is an
increased concern with the presentation of self and the reaction of others
to that presentation. Feningstein, Scheier, and Buss (1975) construct and
extensively administer a scale to measure self- consciousness, define
as the enduring tendency of persons to direct attention towards
themselves. Factor analysis of the scale consistently yield two stable
self-consciousness dimensions: public and private.
The public self-consciousness is thought to account for awareness
of the self as a social object having an affect on others, that is, awareness
that others are aware of the self. People high in public self-consciousness
are considered as outer directed conformist and interested in getting along
by going along. They are more concerned about their personal appearance
and believe appearance is important for smooth interaction (Miller and
Cox, 1982); they consider social as opposed to personal aspects of identity
important (Cheek and Briggs, 1982); they are more susceptible to
pressures to conform (Froming and Carver, 1981; Scheier, 1980); they
try to distinguish themselves from a negative reference group by reporting
-26-
different attitudes (Carver and Humphries, 1981); and they are more
likely to withdraw from a group following a social rejection compared to
low public self conscious subjects (Fenigstein, 1979). Shepperd and Arkin
(1989) find high public self conscious subjects to be more likely to self
handicap, thereby insuring against any loss efface.
Private self-consciousness is meant to account for the tendency to
attend one's inner thoughts and feelings. Private self consciousness
reflects a chronic awareness of inner aspects of self that are personal
and covert, such as beliefs, values, and moods. People high in private
self-consciousness are characterized as autonomous and independent
in the face of social demands (Buss, 1980; Carver and Scheier, 1985;
Feninstein, 1987). Research indicates that (a) they are less susceptible
to pressure to conform in groups (Froming and Carver, 1981; Scheier,
1980), (b) they consider personal as opposed to social aspects of identity
important (Check and Briggs, 1982), and (c) they behave more
consistently with their privately endorsed attitudes (Scheier, Buss, and
Buss, 1978). It is been suggested that privately self conscious people
regulate their behaviour by attending 'to private autonomous, egocentric
goals. These are goals that do not necessarily involve considering, or
even recognizing the opinions or desires of other people' (Carver and
Scheier, 1985). In social situations they are depicted as simply 'behaving'
-27-
not 'presenting' themselves to others.
A third factor reflecting discomfort felt in the presence of others
social anxiety also emerges from the analysis of the scale. Social anxiety
presumably deviates from public self-consciousness in the sense that
person keenly aware of himself as a social object may become
apprehensive. Social anxiety is experienced where people are motivated
to create a desired impression on others but doubt they can do so. Under
these conditions, people become self conscious in everyday sense. They
act in ways that seem awkward, labored, effortful and inferior (Schlenker
and Leary, 1982). Social anxiety is associated with nervous responses
(e.g. fidgeting, self-manipulating), communication difficulties, the tendency
to avoid or withdraw from social participation and a protective self-
presentational style all of which generally create poor impressions on
onlookers (Arkin and Sheppard, 1990; Depaulo et al 1990). The
performance of anxious people appears to be debilitated because of self
preoccupation, excessive worry tendencies to escape psychologically and
emotionally, all of which interfere with successful self regulation.
People who are concerned with how they will be evaluated by
others, including those who are socially anxious and low in self esteem,
are more likely than usual to blush, thereby signaling their social difficulties
(Leary and Meadows 1991) Giving Impaired social capabilities, it is not
-28-
surprising that socially anxious people are less accurate at judging when
other people are trying to deceive (Depaulo and Tang 1991).
Social Support
A large body of literature demonstrates that stressful life events
play a precipitating role in the onset of physical and psychological
disturbance. Parents of handicapped children are perhaps represent a
miserable segment of our society generally deprived of the attention they
deserve and needing our help and support.
Social support is usually defined as the existence or availability of
people on whom we can rely, people who let us know that they care about,
value and love us. Bowlby's theory of attachment (1969, 1973, 1980)
relies heavily on this interpretation of social support. Bowlby believes
that when attachment figures is available to them children become self-
reliant, learn to extend as supports to others, and have a decreased
likelihood of psychopathology in later life.
According to Caplan's theory (1974) social support implies enduring
pattern of continuous or intermittencies that play a significant role in
maintaining the psychological and physical integrity over time. It has been
suggested that in times of psychological needs social support network
can provide emotional substenance and informational guidance as well
as tangible assistance.
- 2 9 -
Cobb (1976), defines social support more specially as information
that leads individuals to believe that they are cared for and loved, are
esteemed and valued, and belong to a network of communication and
mutual obligation. These three areas of information provide the individual
with specific kind of support; esteem support, emotional support, and
community support, respectively (Cobb, 1976; De Araujo, Van Arsdel,
Halmes and Dudby 1973; Nukolls, Cassel and Kalplan, 1972;).
In addition. House (1981) suggests that social support be examined
in the context of 'who gives what to whom regarding which problems'. He
elaborates the forms of social support in terms of a source by context
matrix. In this matrix, sources of support include spouse/partner, other
relatives, friends, neighbours, work supervisor, co-workers, service or
caregivers, self help group, and health/welfare professional; content of
supportive acts includes emotional, appraisal, informational and
instrumental support.
The above observations have led to the conclusion that social
support (a) contributes to positive adjustment and personal development
and increased well being in general (Cohen and Wills, 1985); (b)
provides a buffer against the effect of stress (Cohen and Syme, 1985,
Cohen & Wills, 1985, Kessler and MCleod, 1985). In general social
support provides relief from psychological distress during crisis (Holahan
-30 -
and Moos, 1981; Sarason, and Sarason, 1985). Social support may
influence positive well being either through direct or buffering effect by
being integrated into a social network; individual may experience greater
positive affect, higher self-esteem, or feel more in control of environmental
changes (all direct effects). Each of these cognitive factors might protect
an individual from physical illness through a variety of physiological
mechanisms (e.g. Immune system functions; Jemmott and Locke 1984)
or by encouraging the individual to make healthy life style changes. At a
more general level, social support via an integrated social network may
have direct effects on health by providing the individual with a predictable
set of role relationship, a positive social identity and experiences of
mastery and control (Thoits, 1983).
Social support can play a role in buffering the impact of negative
events and other stressors by eliminating or reducing the stressors itself,
bolstering the ability of the individual to cope with the stressor, or by
attenuating the experience of distress after it is already been triggered.
(Cohen and Mc Kay, 1984; House 1981). Direct effects are more likely to
be obtained when support is defined as the degree to which a person is
integrated into social network; buffering effects are typically discovered
when support is operationalized as the social resources available to the
person undergoing stressful events (Cohen and Syme, 1985; Kesslerand
- 3 1 -
Mcleod, 1985; Wethington & Kessler, 1986).
Whereas on alienation and self-consciousness practically no
studies existed, some studies have been reported on social support in
the samples of parents of handicapped children. Since this is close to
the objective of our study, these may be mentioned.
In a study by Quittner, and Glueclauf (1990) the parenting stress
is assessed among mothers of deaf children and matched controls. It is
found that social support mediated the relationship between stressors
and outcomes. Mothers of hearing impaired children are significantly more
depressed, interpersonally sensitive, anxious and hostile than controls.
Chronic parenting stress is associated with lowered perception of
emotional support and greater symptoms of depression and anxiety.
Dohovan (1988) investigates perceptions of family stress among
mothers of autistic or mentally retarded adolescents and examines the
mothers coping strategies with their handicapped adolescents. Findings
indicate that the mothers rely heavily on community resources and
professional help for coping.
Minnes, McShane, Forkes and Susam (1989) assess the stress
experienced by parents of children with mild to severe developmental
handicaps and explore the coping strategies and resources that mediated
such stress. Measures assess the family system as a resources, the use
-32 -
of outside support system and parental stress associated with learning a
child with handicaps. Severity of handicap is the only child characteristic
to predict stress, and internal family resources emerge infrequently as a
mediator. However, social support significantly predict reduced stress in
all but two analyses, social support is the strongest predictor to emerge
in each case, accounting for a relatively large percentage of variance.
Having treated in this rather protracted discussion the concept of
handicap, the reaction of the society in general and those of parents in
particular, and the components of proposed personality profile e.g.
Attitude, Alienation, Consciousness,and Social Support, questions to be
answered by the present study and hypotheses to be tested are to be
specified.
The present study has been carried out to answer the following
questions :
1. Whether the fact of being parent of a handicap (PHC)/parent of
normal child (PNC) has an impact on personality profile ?
2. Whether gender of the parent is of any relevance to the the
personality profile of the parents ?
3. Does it make a difference to the personality of parents if the nature
of handicap is orthopaedic or sensory ?
4. Whether socio-economic status of parents has anything to do with
-33-
the personality profile ?
These questions may perhapes be broken into more specific
statements in the form of testable hypotheses.
1. PHC and PNC will differ in their attitude towards disability.
2. Parents of sensory handicapped children and parents of
orthopaedically handicapped children will differ in their attitude
towards disability.
3. Mothers and fathers of handicapped children will differ in their
attitude towards disability.
4. PHC belonging to UMSES and LSES will differ in their attitude
towards disability.
5. PNC will differ in their attitude towards sensory and orthopaedically
handicapped children.
6. Mothers and fathers of normal children will differ in their attitude
towards disability.
7. Parents of normal children belonging to UMSES and LSES will differ
in their attitude towards disability.
8. PHC and PNC will differ in alienation.
9. Parents of sensory handicapped children and parents of
orthopaedically handicapped children will differ in alienation.
10. PHC belonging to UMSES and LSES will differ in alienation.
- 3 4 -
11. Mothers and fathers of handicapped children will differ in alienation.
12. PNC belonging to UMSES and LSES will differ in alienation.
13. Mothers and fathers of normal children will differ in alienation.
14. PHC and PNC will differ in self-consciousness.
15. Parents of sensory handicapped chi ldren and parents of
or thopaedica l ly handicapped chi ldren wi l l differ in self-
consciousness.
16. PHC belonging to UMSES and LSES wil l differ in self-
consciousness.
17. Mothers and fathers of handicapped children will differ in self-
consciousness.
18. PNC belonging to UMSES and LSES wil l differ in self-
consciousness.
19. Mothers and fathers of normal chi ldren will differ in self-
consciousness.
20. PHC and PNC will differ in discrepancy in perceived available and
expected social support.
21. Parents of sensory handicapped chi ldren and parents of
orthopaedically handicapped children will differ in discrepancy in
perceived available and expected social support
22. PHC belonging to UMSES and LSES will differ in discrepancy in
-35-
perceived available and expected social support.
23. Mothers and fathers of handicapped children will differ in
discrepancy in perceived available and expected social support.
24. PNC belonging to UMSES and LSES will differ in discrepancy in
perceived available and expected social support.
25. Mothers and fathers of normal children will differ in discrepancy in
perceived available and expected social support.
36-
CHAPTER TWO
Method and Plan
The methodology and plan are worked out In accordance with the
objectives of the study which consists of an assessment of personality
profile of the parents of handicapped children viz., attitude towards dis
ability, alienation, consciousness and social support. The sample of par
ents of normal children was matched to the parents of handicapped chil
dren in respect of age, sex, SES, professional level and child sex.
The general procedure of study was to identify children suffering
from sensory and orthopaedic handicap, and to approach their parents
for the collection of data. A matched group of parents of normal children
were also approached for the collection of data required for study. Infor
mation about the demographic variables that are SES, Gender and na
ture of handicapped was also obtained. The details about the sample,
instruments used for data collection and statiistical analysis are as fol
lows :
Sample
The sample consisted of 192 subjects with parents of handicapped
children, sensory and orthopaedically, (n=96) and the parents of normal
children (n=96) with an age range of 30-45. The parents were selected
37
taking into consideration certain socio demographic variables (used as
independent variables in present study): Socio-economic status - upper
middle socio-economic status (UMSES) and low socio-economic status
(LSES); gender of parents - mother and father; nature of child's handi
cap - sensory and orthopaedically handicap.
Parents were approached through handicapped children (age rang
ing from 8-16 yrs) taken from various institution of Aligarh - Ahmadi school
for the blinds, Pragnarain mook -badhir vidyalaya samiti, JNU medical
college, Mother Teresa school for orthopaedically handicapped children
and from neighbours and relatives of such children.
Subjects whose monthly income was 1000-2500, were included in
the lower socio-economic status (LSES) category and those with 3500-
6000 were considered to represent the upper middle socio-economic sta
tus (UMSES). By profession the LSES subjects were semi-literate, petty
shop owners, clerks, laboratory assistants, peons; in the UMSES group
were office-executives, contractors, doctors, teachers and businessman.
Subjects belonging to higher socio-economic status were a few, on this
count, this category was dropped out so that the variables was repre
sented by the subjects belonging to upper middle and lower socio-eco
nomic status. Parents with only one handicapped child was included in
the sample. Families with both father and mother were considered. Single
38
parent families were excluded.
The size of the sample was determined by the factor of availabily
of parents of handicapped children. In all about 225 parents of handi
capped children were approached but the final sample comprised 192
subjects because certain cases had to be left out for such reasons as
non-cooperation from the subjects, inadequate information and so forth.
In a matched sample of the parents of normal children parents were
equated with those of the parents of handicapped children in respect of
age, sex, socio-economic status, professional level and child sex (parent
of girl child or boy child). Family history is also taken into consideration.
Only those parents were selected who has no past family history of handi
capped children and who are not in much exposure of such children.
In selecting the sample, the researchers had to pass through dif
ferent stages which involved a fairly long time-about a year. To begin
with, information about the availability of the sample had to be gathered.
On approaching the parents first time, they were requested to grant favor
the researcher by giving responses and providing required information.
Measures Used
Attitude Scale - A modified version of the 'Attitude towards Disabled
person' scale (ATDP) devised by Yuker Block and Campbell (1960) was
used.
39
Implicit in the design of the ATDP is the assumed direct relation
ship between attitude of acceptance of the disabled and attitude that the
disabled person does not differ significantly from the non disabled per
son (represented by a high scores on the ATDP) or in a negative sense
an assumed direct relationship between attitude of non-acceptance of
the disabled and attitude that the disabled person is different from the
non-disabled (represented by a low scores on the ATDP).
The ATDP is a 20 item, Likert types 7-point scale. It is divided into
two equal section; item referring to the characteristics of the handicapped
and items related to how handicapped people should be treated.
The scale was modified in two ways. Wordings of one or two items
were slightly adjusted. The term disabled person was replaced by 'such
children' or 'most of these children'. To begin with, a sentence was added
- 'Those children who suffer from sensory or ortheopadically handicap'
(as the prefix before each statement).
As there were 20 items with 7 response categories (6-0), the maxi
mum possible scores could be 120 (6x20) and the minimum 0(6x0). The
direction of scoring was determined by the nature of the item (whether
an item showing positive or negative attitude) towards handicapped chil
dren.
40
Alienation Scale-Alienation scale developed by Kureshi, and Dutt(1979)
ws used to find out the alienation syndrome among parents of normal
and handicapped children.
The alienation scale based on psychological approach to alien
ation, that includes the individual's perception of himself, others around
him, and the society (i.e. manifest and experienced alienation) as against
the traditional sociological approach where the individual is viewed as
conforming to the norms of society or otherwise and alienation is gener
ally evaluated in the social context.
The scale consisted of 21 items with four alternative response cat
egories - always, often, sometimes, never. Thus, the maximum possible
score could be 84 and the minimum 21. Some items were positively toned
and some were negatively toned. This was mainly to cancel the effect of
set and expectation.
Self Consciousness Scale - Self-consciousness scale devised by Mittal
and Balsubramanian (1987) was used. It is a modified version of FSB
scale developed by Fenigsten^Scheier,and Buss (1975). The scale has
five underlined dimensions; two for private self-consciousness self re
flectiveness and internal state awareness), two for public self-conscious
ness (Style consciousness and appearance consciousness), and one for
social anxiety. The scale is consisted of 19 items with five alternative
41
response categories varying from 'exteremly characteristic' (scored zero)
to 'extremely uncharacterstic' (scored four). Thus the maximum possible
score could be 95 and the minimum 19.
Social Support Scale - For measuring social support variable among
parents of handicapped children, 'significant others scale' (SOS) devel
oped by Power, Champion and Aris (1988) was used. The scale is de
signed to examine the quality of an individual's relationship with signifi
cant others. The measure provides information about the quality of cur
rent relationships, that is, whether or not the support is perceived to be
adequate, or whether it fails to match up to the individual's expectations
for that relationships (Cohen and Wills, 1985, and Handerson et al., 1981).
The scale measure perceived support in preference to received support,
because received support may be confounded with individual's level of
stress, (e.g. Cohen and Wills, 1985; Wethington and Kessler, 1986). It
may nevertheless be useful to measure the level of support received
during crisis, but the scale described initially to focus on perceived rather
than received support.
There were 10 items in the questionaire. All 10 items were pref
aced with the phrase -'To what extent can you...?'. Two version of the
questionaire were produced. The first was labelled 'actual support' and
the respondent was asked to rate the level of support on each of the 10
42
support function on 1 to 7 scale (1= never and, 7= always). The second
version of the scale was worded to measure the ideal level of support.
Again, they were asked to rate the level of support on each of the 10
functions on a 1 to 7 scale. Thus, the differences between the ideal and
actual support are reflected in discrepency score.
Apart from completing these four scale the subjects were requested
to write their name, age, sex, SES (interms of income and professional
status), nature of childs handicap, number of children with handicaps in
the family. Data were gathered Individually from the subjects. The scales
were administered in two different sessions.
Before administering these tests the investigator had to establish
the rapport with the subject and they were convinced that there informa
tion will be kept strictly confidential and will be used only for research
purpose. It was also acertained that the test items involved no language
difficulties. An structured interview was held in order to further ensure
from the subjects whether these test really tapped the problems of the
parents of handicapped and normal children.
Data Analysis
Analysis of variance was computed to find out the significance of
difference between the personality variables of parents of handicapped
children and the parents of normal children and to determine the differ-
43
ential effect of certain socio-demographic variables on these four depen
dent variables, (attitude towards disability, setf-alienation, consciousness
and social support)
While providing Information about the influence of the demographic
variables on the dependent variables, ANOVA does not indicate the di
rection of difference which is to be determined on the basis of mean
values of the comparision groups worked out in respect of each the de
mographic variables.
For preparing profile of the scores of the subjects on different vari
ables it is necessary that the scores are represented in equal units . For
this transformation of raw scores into z scores was made. Mean scores
were converted in standard scores by finding the distance of the means
from the means of all the subject and converting the distance into z units
of the standard deviation of all the subjects, z scores are plotted in graphs
so as to represent each dimension of personality on the same line and to
make comparision meaningful.
44
CHAPTER THREE
Results
The present study was carried out to answer the four major
questions regarding the difference between the parents of normal and
handicapped children in respect to the dependent variables, some of the
question were also concerned regarding the relevance of demographic
variables to the difference in the dependent measures for the groups
under comparison. The questions were broken in to specific statements
in the form of testable hypotheses. The findings obtained after analysis
of data are presented below in the same sequence as the hypotheses
have been listed in chapter one. It is to be reminded out that the
hypothesis have arranged in the following sequence of dependent
variables - Attitude towards disability, Alienation, Self-consciousness and
Social support.
Hypotheses 1 to 7 are regarding the group differences in attitude
towards disability. The findings relevant to these hypotheses are
presented in 4th and 5th table. Hypotheses 8 to 13 are about the group
differences in respect to alienation. The relevant tables are 6 and 7.
Intergroup differences with respect to self-consciousness have been
stipulated in hypotheses 14 to 19. The tables 8 to 9 are about these
hypotheses. Hypotheses regarding the intergroup differences with respect
to social support are enumerated from 20 to 25 and the relevant tables
are 10 and 11.
45
As the main purpose of the study was to find differences in the
profiles of parents of handicap children (irrespective of the nature of
handicap of the child) and the parents of normal children, hypotheses
number 1, 8, 14, 20 are about the overall differences between the two
groups. We have presented the data relevant to these hypotheses in
table number 3. Means of all the dependent measures for different groups
are given in table 1 to show the overall view of the total personality profile
of the parents.
The findings regarding the group differences in respect of each of
the dependent variables do not inform us about the difference in the group
profiles. To study configurational difference mean scores of different
groups are converted into z scores. This transformation is necessary to
make the units of measurement comparable. The z scores are plotted in
graphs (Fig.1,2,3) to draw the personality profiles of different groups.
46
Table 1. Means of parents of normal children and parents of handicapped, children falling in different demographic categories on measures of attitude towards disability, alienation, self-consciousness, and social support.
ATTITUDE ALIENATION SELF- SOCIAL SUPPORT TOWARD CONSCIOUSNESS HANDICAP
PNC PHC PNC PHC PNC PHC PNC PHC
Nature of Handicap:
Sensory 70.813 76.396 - 60.167 -
Orthopaedic 72.938 80.333 55.229 57.542 59.438
SES:
UMSES 72.292 81.542 56.542 58.625 59.771 LSES 71.498 75.188 53.917 59.083 59.104 Gender: Mother 72.333 78.813 55.458 59.375 60.479 Father 71.417 77.917 55.000 58.333 58.396
59.396 55.479
57.896 56.979
57.917 56.958
-13.989
14.063 13.917
14.146 13.833
15.063 13.917
13.625 15.354
15.104 13.875
47
Table 2. z scores corresponding to means of parents of normal children and parents of handicaped children falling in different demographic categories for the dependent variables:
Nature of Handicap:
Sensory Orthopaedic
SES:
UMSES LSES
Gender:
Mother Father
ATTITUDE TOWARD HANDICAP
PNC
-00.508
-00.443 -00.573
-00.436 -00 580
PHC
00.200 00.816
01.005 00.011
00 578 00.438
ALIENATION
PNC
-00.310
-00.086 -00.534
-00.271 -00 349
PHC
00.534 00.086
00.271 00.349
00.399 00.221
SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS
PNC
00.179
00.238 00.119
00.364 -00.007
PHC
00.171 -00.528
-00.097 -00.261
-00.093 -00.264
SOCIAL SUPPORT
PNC
-00.073
-00.051 -00.094
-00.027 -00.118
PHC
00.024 -00.094
-00.178 00.324
00.251 -00.105
48
Table 3. Mean and F-ratio of parents of normal and parents of
handicapped children on dependent measures.
Attitude
Alienation
Self-Consciousness
Social Support
x-Scoi
PNC
71.875
55.229
59.438
13.989
res
PHC
78.365
58.854
57.438
14.489
F-Ratio
65.963
20.172
6.258
1.007
Level of Significance
< .01
< .01
<.05
NS
Table 3. Shows that the parents of normal children and the parents of handicapped children differ significantly on attitude towards disability(< .01), alienation (< .01 level) and self consciousness (<.05 level). The two groups do not differ social support.
49
Table 4. Summary of 2*2*2 ANOVA for the influence of nature of handicap, SES and gender on the dependent measures of attitude of parents of normal children.
Source of Variation
Sum of Square
df MS
ASS (Nature of 108.375 Handicap)
BSS(SES)
ACSS
BCSS
ABCSS
16.666
CSS (Gender) 42.666
ABSS 5.042
3.375
0.665
3.375 1
42.666
5.042
3.375
0.665
3.375
F-Values
108.375 4.534
16.666
Level of Signifi cance
P< .05
0.697
1.785
0.210
0.141
0.028
0.141
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Within Treatment 2103.167 88 23.899 error
The perusal of table 4 indicates that the main effects of nature of handicap is significant (P < .05 level) whereas SES and Gender shows no significant effect on attitude of parents of normal children. Significant main effect of nature of handicap along with difference in means of the groups shows that parents of normal children have a more positive attitude towards physical handicap than towards sensory handicap.
50
Table 5. Summary of 2*2*2 ANOVA for the influence of nature of handicap,
SES and gender on the dependent measures of attitude of parents of handicapped children.
Source of Variation
Sum of Square
df MS F-Values Level of Significance
(Nature of Handicap)
BSS (SES)
CSS (Gender)
ABSS
372.094
969.011
19.261
19.259
1
1
1
1
372.094
969.011
19.261
19.259
15.748
ACSS
BCSS
ABCSS
10.009
68.343
3.012 1
10.009
68.343
3.012
Within treatment 2079.251 88 23.628 error
0.815
0.815
0.424
2.892
0.127
< .01
< .01
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
The perusal of table 5 indicates that the main effect of nature of child's handicap and of SES of parents is significant (P < .01). Taking Into consideration the means of the group it becomes evident that parents of handicap children have more positive attitude towards Orthopaedic handicap than towards sensory handicap and parents belonging to UMSES show more positive attitude towards handicap of their children than parents belonging to LSES.
51
Tables. Summary of 2*2*2 ANOVA for the influence of nature of handicap, SES and gender on the dependent measures of alienation of parents of normal children.
Source of Variation
BSS (SES)
CSS (Gender)
BCSS
Within Treatment error
Sum of Square
165.375
5.041
145.042
3039.500 .
df
1
1
1
92
MS
165.375
5.041
145.042
33.038
F-Values
5.005
0.153
4.390
Level of Significance
< .05
NS
< .05
Table 6 showing the main effect of the variable SES is significant (P < .05 level), mean values indicates that UMSES parents of normal children feel more alienated than LSES parents. BC interaction also shows significant effect (P < .05 level).
52
Table 7. Summary of 2*2*2 ANOVA for the influence of nature of handicap, SES and gender on the dependent measures of alienation of parents of handicapped children.
Source of Variation
(Nature of Handicap)
BSS (SES)
CSS (Gender)
ABSS
ACSS
BCSS
ABCSS Within Treatment error
Sum of Square
165.375
5.043
26.041
57.042
135.375
57.042
22.042 2118.000
df
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 88
MS
165.375
5.043
26.041
57.042
135.375
57.042
22.042 24.068
F-Values
6.871
0.209
1.081
2.370
5.625
2.370
0.915
Level of Significance
< .05
NS
NS
NS
< .05
NS
NS
Table 7 indicates that the main effect of the variable nature of handicap is significant (P < .05); mean values indicate that parents of sensory handicap children are more alienated than parents of orthopaedically handicap children. AC interaction is significant at .05 level.
53
Table 8. Summary of 2*2*2 ANOVA for the influence of nature of handicap, SES and gender on the dependent measures of self-consciousness of parents of normal children.
Source of Sum of df MS F-Values Level of Variation Square Significance
(SES) 10.667 1 10.667 0.420 NS
CSS (Gender) 104.167 1 104.167 4.096 < .05
BCSS 425.041 ' 1 425.041 16.713 < .01
Within Treatment 2339.750 92 25.432
error
Table 8 indicates the main effect of the variable Gender of parents is significant (P < .05 level). Significant main effect shows that mother of normal children are more conscious than fathers. BC interaction is also significant at .02 level.
54
Table 9. Summary of 2*2*2 ANOVA for the influence of nature of handicap, SES and gender on the dependent measures of self-consciousness of parents of handicapped children.
Source of Variation
ASS (Nature of Handicap)
BSS (SES)
CSS (Gender)
ABSS
ACSS
BCSS
ABCSS
Within Treatment
error
Sum of Square
368.167
20.167
22.042
187.041
293.999
130.667
165.375
2142.334
df
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
88
MS
368.167
20.167
22.042
187.041
293.999
130.667
165.375
24.345
F-Values
15.123
0.828
0.905
7.683
12.076
5.367
6.793
Level of Significance
< .01
NS
NS
< .01
< .01
< .05
< .05
Table 9 indicates the main effect of the variables 'nature of handicap' is significant (P < .01 level). Mean values shows that parents of sensory handicapped children are more self-conscious than that of parents of normal children.
55
Table 10. Summary of 2*2*2 ANOVA for the influence of nature of handicap, SES and gender on the dependent measures of social support of parents of normal children.
Source of Variation
BSS (SES)
CSS (Gender)
BCSS
Sum of Square
0.511
2.344
44.010
df
1
1
1
MS
0.511
2.344
44.010
F-Values
0.053
0.245
4.600
Level of Significance
NS
NS
< .05
Within Treatment 880.125 92 9.567
error
Perusal of Table 10 indicates that SES and Gender effect on social support is not significant. However BC interaction is found to be significant.
56
Table 11. Summary of 2*2*2 ANOVA for the influence of nature of handicap, SES and gender on the dependent measures of social support of parents of handicapped children.
Source of Variation
ASS (Nature of
Handicap)
BSS (SES)
CSS (Gender)
ABSS
Sum of Square
31.511
71.761
36.261
1.759
df
1
1
1
1
MS
31.511
71.761
36.261
1.759
F-Values
2.465
5.614
2.837
0.138
Level of Significance
NS
< .05
NS
NS
ACSS 46.759 1 46.759 3.658 NS
BCSS 3.759 1 3.759 0.294 NS
ABCSS 19.263 1 19.263 1.507 NS
Within Treatment 1124.917 88 12.783 error
Table 11 shows the main effect of the variable SES is significant at .05 level. Significant main effect show that parents belonging to LSES are showmg greater discrepancy in perceived expected and perceived observed social support than UMSES.
57
Profile comparison — The profile shown in figure Nos.1,2 and 3
give configuration of scores of different groups in the dependent measures
— attitude towards disability, alienation, self-consciousness and social
support.
For a better understanding of salient features of the profiles of the
three groups complete profile coding was done. First of all variables
were assigned serial numbers in the following manner. 1 for attitude, 2-
for alienation, 3 for self consciousness and 4 for social support. Once
the variables were ordered they were designated by their serial numbers,
z scores according to means of a group are arranged in a descending
order. Serial numbers designating the variables were followed by certain
symbols, available in the ordinary type writer to indicate the magnitude
of discrepancy from the average that Is zero. The symbols corresponding
to different z scores are as below:
z scores .8 .6 .4 .2 0 -.2 -.4 -.6 -.8
Symbols * " , - /^ .- # =
1. Codes of profiles shown in Fig.1 are as below:
Sensory - 2, 1- 3/ 4 /-
PHClOrthopaedically - 1* 2/^ 4/ 3 #
PNC - 3/, 4/. 2: 1 #
58
2. Codes of profiles shown in Fig.2 are as below:
PHC PNC
UMSES 2- 1 / , 3 / . 4/_ 3- 4 / . 21 _^ 1#
LSES 2- 4 - 1 / , 3: 3/^ 4 / . 2# 1 #
3. Codes of profiles shown in Fig.3 are as below:
PHC PNC
Mother
Father 1,
1,
2-
2-
4-
4/.
3/_
3:
3-
3/.
4 / . 4/-
2:
2:
1#
1#
Considering the rank order of z scores of different groups and
location of the variations in the profiles, it is observed that Parents of
normal children differ from parents of handicapped children on the
dependent measure that are nature of handicap, gender and SES.
Profiles of parents of sensory handicapped children being different
from parents of orthopaedically handicapped children reflects that
Alienation comes at first place (.534) in the hierarchy, followed by attitude
towards disabled (.200), self-consciousness (.171), and social support
discrepancy (.0214). While parents of physically handicapped children
show positive attitude towards disabled (.816) at first place, followed by
al ienation (.086), social support discrepancy (-.094) and self-
consciousness (-.534).
59
Profile of the parents of handicapped children differ fronn parents
of normal children in elevation and shape on the variable SES. While
parents of normal children (UMSES/LSES) show more or less the same
pattern. In the case of parents of handicapped children alienation comes
at the top (.271), followed by attitude (1.005), self-consciousness (-.097),
and social support perceived discrepancy (-.178). LSES group also show
alienation at first place (.349) and followed by social support discrepancy
(.324), attitude towards disabled (.811) and, self-consciousness - .261.
The profile of the two group show that PHC and PNC differ on gender
variable. Attitude towards disability came at first place in the case of PHC,
(while at the last place in the case of PNC), followed by alienation, social support,
and consciousness (both among mothers and fathers).
On the basis of the findings discussed above, it can be concluded that
the group of parents of normal children and the parents of handicapped children
differ in the personality dimensions: Attitude towards disability, alienation, self-
consciousness and social support and if we consider the variation in the profile
of parents of handicapped and normal children separately, group differences
are observed on dependent measures. The findings of the study are discussed
in detail in chapter four.
60
CHAPTER FOUR
Discussion
The results presented in the preceding chapter may now be
discussed and interpreted in respect of the hypotheses of the
investigation, and where research data are available, in the light of studies
lending support to or appearing at variance from our observation.
The hypothesis that the parents of handicapped children and the
parents of normal children will differ in their attitude towards disability,
was confirmed .
Although being a part of the society in general, the parents of
handicapped children as they are placed in a peculiar situation arising
from the fact that their children are handicapped, show a bit of greater
immunity to the impact of stereotype about the handicap, whereas the
parents of normal children appear to be swayed by the stereotype .
Both the parents of normal and handicapped children are found to
be prone to stereotypical influence but in varying magnitude (Jain, 1993).
Being the parents of handicapped children presumably moderates the
influence of the stereotypes. As may be inferred from the observation,
that this group rather than the group of parents of normal children has a
more positive attitude towards handicap may be attributed to such factors
61
as denial, emotional bond, rationalization and intimate contact, which act
as mechanisms towards maintenance of self esteem and possibility of
coping with their situation .
The absence of first hand exposure to handicap among parents of
normal children is one important reason for their susceptibility to the
societal stereotypes about handicap. They are generally more ignorant
about what the handicap is like and what kind of services are available
for such children. They generally believe handicapped as dependent,
isolated, depressed and emotionally unstable and so forth (Shattuck,
1946; Winthrop and Taylor, 1957 ; Yuker et al., 1960 ; Altman, 1981).
Handicap as such may be a cause of concern to the parents of the
handicapped and normal children, but one may anticipate a difference in
respect of the nature of handicap viz. sensory or orthopaedically. As
hypothesized, for both parents of handicapped and normal children,
sensory handicap as compared to orthopaedically handicap, has been
found to be a more dreadful proposition arousing greater negative
feelings. Attitude about various forms of handicap ranging on a contiuum
of seriousness vary and it is generally sensory handicap, which comes at
the top in comparision to other forms of handicap. This observation
receives support from another study (Murphy et al., 1960) where positive
attitude was found to be strongest towards the physical than to the
62
sensory and least positive to mental handicap. The parents of the
handicapped children belonging to the UMSES have a more positive
attitude toward handicap, in comparision to LSES parents . An
unexpected finding though, what seems to be the plausible reason for
this is perhaps a greater understanding and awareness among this group
about the reality and its implications, which by virtue of the social and
economic well-being, tend to dilute their concern emanating from their
state of being parents of handicapped children . Handicap of a child
does not remain that serious and crippling for them because perhaps
they find themselves in a position where their economic sufficiency and
better social status provides compensatory function. The same handicap
of the child with the parents of LSES groups comes heavily on them as it
tends to add to their socio-economic disadvantages and a greater liability,
(Jain, 1993). Very few studies are available either to support or contradict
this observation. Barring a few (viz. Jorden, 1962), where there is some
indication to the contrary of what we have to offer. In that study the
parental response to handicap was found to vary with socio-economic
class. The UMSES families expressed a more extreme mourning reaction
which was believed to be a culture-bound phenonenon. Involving a
somewhat different culture in our UMSES parents of handicapped children,
something of a reverse position exists, whatever is true with Jorden's
63
UMSES group is true of our LSES group.
Differences of SES having been discovered to be not much
consequence in so far as parents of normal children are concerned
Children belonging to UMSES and LSES groups, tend to question the
soundness of the presumption that SES may be a potential source of
variation in attitudes and perceptions towards handicap of offsphng. There
is no other study to offer a parallel observation come to the fore.
No significant differences on attitude of parents of handicap/normal
children are found on gender variable, v^hich is at variance from the
available studies indicating that females have a more positive attitude
towards handicapped than males (Siller and Chipman, 1964; Greenbaun
and Wang, 1965).
Parents of handicapped children have shown a greater feelings of
alienation than parents of normal children . An expected observation as
it seems, the handicap of children may be a sufficient cause or at least a
concomitant experience of feelings of being left out, forgotten or sidelined.
They, as compared to parents of normal children experience themselves
as different from others, and sometime alien among their own people.
They feel themselves out of touch with their own selves as also with any
other person. Their feelings of embarrassment>inadequacy, lowered self
worth may lead to social withdrawal. Loneliness, however painful may it
64
be, came as an adaptive defense against feeling of inadequacy and threat
to social position.
Findings of the study indicate that the parents of sensory
handicapped children feel more alienated than parents of orthopaedically
handicapped children. Handicap of any kind is a matter of parent's despair
but of the sensory kind a greater source of distress and agony. The
explanation advanced earlier in respect of attitude applies here as \Ne\\.
Where sensory handicap is considered more sever than orthopaedically
handicap and sensory handicap, as compared to orthopaedic handicap
bearing greater, personal and social implications.
Alienation has not been found to respond to socio-economic
influences as far as the parents of handicapped children are concerned,
while among parents of normal children it has come out as an influence.
Further, it is the UMSES parents of normal children (especially mothers)
who are more alienated than LSES parents.
Gender has not emerged as an influence on alienation in case of
both parents of normal and parents of handicapped children. Interaction
between gender and nature of handicap shows that fathers of sensory
handicapped children show more alienation than mothers of sensory
handicapped children and fathers of orthopaedically handicapped children
than mothers, while mothers express an equal concern and sensitivity to
65
their children disability. Viewed as disability of varying order, sensory
handicapped is considered as more incapacitating than orthopaedic,
fathers react in accordance with this realization. For mothers the very
fact of their children being handicapped is seen as gestalt; mothers
respond to the total reality rather than reacting to the distinction - sensory
or orthopaedic.
Parents of handicapped and normal children show significant
differences on self consciousnes. The parents of handicapped children
presumably look at the handicap of their children rather as an unavoidable
fact and seem to have learn to live with what they have been destined -
something of an adjustment and coping on their part with their situation.
Parents of handicapped children find themselves an object of others
curiousity. They become more conscious of his/her presence, attributions
or feelings. And they may try to adjust with their circumstances by
developing a self-depreciative^wards attaining an unassailable and safe
perspective to interect with the environment.
As anticipated, the parents of sensory and orthopaedically
handicapped children differ in respect of self-consciousness. Parents of
handicapped children, showing a higher sense of self consciousness in
respect of the sensory rather than orthopaedic handicap, find themselves
as an object of others curiosity and unwelcome attention. Admittedly,
66
sensory handicap entails more serious social psychological repercussion
and, compare to orthopaedic disability, this is generally a more dreadful
proposition arousing feelings of withdrawal, anxiety and self-depreciation.
SES as main effect in differentiating the parents of the handicapped
and parents of the normal children on self consciousness, has been found
to be insignificant though in interaction with gender and nature of
handicap, it has came out as a significant variable.
Also, the Gender var4able show that while mothers of normal
children have shown greater amount of over concern and anxiety in
general, as compared to fathers belonging to this group, no such
difference has been observed in the case of parents of handicapped
children.
Contrary to our hypothesis, the parents of normal children and
parents of handicapped children did not show significant differences on
perceived discrepency in actual and ideal level of support.
Parents of handicapped children did not show any selective
sensitivity to the handicap in question, sensory or orthopaedically, in
relation to perceived social support. No gender effect was observed among
parents of handicapped and among parents of normal children in respect
of the available assistance, sympathy and affection from the significant
others.
67
Our findings show that socio-economic status affects the perception
of social support by parents of handicapped children. Among parents of
normal children no SES differences were found. Parents belonging to
LSES show greater discrepancy between actual and ideal support than
that of parents belonging to UMSES. The presence of the handicapped
child or the child with special needs requires increase parental involvement
and attention to his/her daily care needs. Such an intensive involvement
with a handicapped child will be a stressful task for the lower socio
economic status parents. The handicap of their child comes heavily on
them as it tendsto add to their socio-economic disadvantages. This may
be associated with lowered perception of emotional support and greater
symptoms of depression and anxiety.
68
CHAPTER FIVE
Summary and Conclusion
Parents of handicapped children are perhaps the worst victims of
the former's dependence and helplessness, incompatibility with the social
situation, and distincted role in the affairs of day to day life. The handicap
suffers and may have a sense of irrelevance to others but others who are
significant to him, suffer in greater measure to see their near and dear
ones deprived of a wholesome sense of well-being for want of certain
physical or sensory adequacy . Parents of handicapped children represent
a miserable segment of our society generally deprived of the attention
they deserve and needing help and support.
Numerous studies exist on handicapped children. Just an addition
to this list is not the purpose of the study. Rather, a psychological probe,
focussing on certain personality dimensions of those on whom these
children are dependent, is what this study aims at. While providing an
insight in to the problems, the study held out possibilities of developing
strategies of coping among parents with the problems arising from the
disability of children. By focussing on parents of the handicapped rather
than the handicapped themselves, the study has taken cognizance of
the painful psychological situation of a large number of persons who have
70
to suffer in the suffering of those intimately associated with them.
The present study aimed at investigating personality profile on four
personali ty d imensions: att i tude towards disabi l i ty, a l ienat ion,
consciousness and social support of parents of handicapped and normal
children with regard to certain socio-demographic variables : types of
handicap, gender and SES .
The sample comprised of parents of handicapped children (n=96)
and the parents of normal children (n=96) . The parents of handicapped
children (sensory and orthopaedically ) were aproached through
handicapped children taken from various institution of Aligarh district.
The selection of parents was witht the consideration of certain
socio-demographic variables ( used as independent variables in the
present study), nature of childihandicap (sensory and orthopaedically)
gender of parents (mother and father), and SES - (UMSES and LSES).
A matched group of parents of normal children was also included that
served as a reference group in this study .
A modified version of attitude towards disabled person scale
(ATDP), devised by Yuker,Block and Campbell (1960) was used as an
instrument to measure attitude of parents towards handicapped children.
Alienation scale (Kureshi and Dutt, 1979) is used to find out individual's
perception of himself others around him and the society. Consciousness
71
scale devised by Mittal and Balsubramaniam(1987) was used which is a
modified version of the scale developed by Fenigsten, Scheier and Buss
(1975). For measuring social support variables among parents of
handicapped children 'significant others scale' developed by Power,
Champion and Aris (1988) has been used.
Analysis of variance was used to determine the role of socio-
demographic variables on each treatment group.
The observations vis-a-vis our hypothesis are :-
1. Parents of handicapped children are more positive in their attitude
towards disable children than parents of normal children.
2. Parents of sensory handicapped children show more positive
attitude towards handicapped than parents of orthopaedic disability.
3. PHC belonging to UMSES have more positive attitude towards
disabled children.
4. Mothers and fathers of handicapped children do not differ
significantly in their attitude towards disability .
5. PNC show more positive attitude towards orthopaedic handicapped
than towards sensory handicapped .
6. PNC belonging to UMSES/LSES do not differ in their attitude
towards disability .
72
7. Mothers and fathers of normal children do not differ in their attitude
towards disability.
8. PHC are more alienated than PNC.
9. Parents of sensory handicapped children are more alienated than
parents of orthopaedic handicapped.
10. PHC belonging to UMSES and LSES do not differ in alienation.
11. Mothers and fathers of handicapped children do not differ in
alienation .
12. PNC belonging to UMSES show more alienation than LSES .
13. Mothers and fathers of normal children do not differ in alienation.
14. PHC and PNC differ on self consciousness.
15. Parents of sensory handicapped children reflect more self
consciousness than parents of orthopaedically handicapped
children.
16. UMSES parents of handicapped children do not differ from LSES
parents of handicapped children in self- consciousness.
17. Mothers and fathers of handicapped children do not differ in self-
consciousness.
18. PNC belonging to UMSES and LSES do not differ on self-
consciousness.
19. Mothers and fathers of normal children do not differ on self-
consciousness.
73
20. PHC do not differ from PNC in perceived discrepency in actual and
ideal level of support.
21. Parents of sensory handicapped chi ldren and parents of
Orthopaedically handicapped children do not differ on perceived
discrepancy of social support.
22. PHC belonging to LSES show high discrepancy on social support
than UMSES.
23. Mothers and fathers of handicapped children do not differ in their
perception of social support.
24. PNC belonging to UMSES and LSES do not differ in their
perception of social support.
25. Mothers and fathers of normal children do not differ in perceived
social support.
Certain inferences that can be drawn from these observations,
suggest further probe into the personality dimension of parents.
Parents of handicapped children differ from parents of normal chil
dren on the personality dimensions attitude towards disability alienation
and self-consciousness. While no differences are observed on social sup
port, discrepency. Parents of sensory handicapped children are found to
be having less positive attitude, more-alienation and more self conscious-
74
SES came as an influence in affecting the personality measures of
parents of handicapped and normal children. LSES parents show less
positive attitude towards handicapped children and also LSES parents
show greater discrepancy in actual and ideal level of support than UMSES
parents. While UMSES parents of handicapped children feel more alien
ation than LSES parents.
Mothers and fathers>^o not differ in regard to their attitude towards
disability, and any of the personality variables.
The configurational comparison between the personality profiles
of different groups indicate differences in the pattern of their scores in
different dependent variables. The profile codes of the groups are as
below.
1. Profile coding of parents of normal and handicapped children.
Sensory 2, 1- 3/- 4/-
Orthopaedic 1* 2/+ 4/- 3 #
Normal 3/+ 4/- 2: 1 #
2. Profile coding relating to gender of parents of normal and handicapped
children:
PNC PHC
Mother 3- 4/- 2: 1# 1, 2- 4- 3/-
Father 3/- 4/- 2: 1# 1, 2- 4/- 3:
75
3. Profile coding relating to SES of parents of normal and handicapped
children.
PNC PHC
UMSES 3- 4/- 21- 1 # 2, 1/+ 3/- 4/-
LSES 3/+ 4/- 2 # 1 # 2- 4/- 1/+ 3:
On the basis of findings of other studies and of present studies we
can conclude that parents of handicapped children are perhaps the worst
victim of the circumstances. Their child's handicap fills them with anxiety
fear and guilt stemming out mainly from lack of confidence in their ability
to meet the child's needs and the demands of the environment. Out of
their affection for the handicapped child and fear of being socially ac
cused for not taking proper care of the handicapped child, parents un
avoidably make an effort to maintain positive attitude towards the child.
However, this kind of effort is not without an adverse impact on the psy
chological make-up of the parents.
The findings of have been compared with findings of earlier stud
ies their theoretical and applicational implications are presented.
76
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
Allport, G.W. (1935). Attitudes. In C. Murcweon (Ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology, Worchester: Clark University Press, 796-844.
Altman, B. (1981) Studies of attitude toward the handicapped; The need for a new direction. Social Problems. 28, 321-337.
Argyle, M. (1969). Social Interaction. Chicago; Aldine.
Arkin, R.M. and Sheppard, J.A. (1990). Strategic Self Presentation. An Overview. See Dy and Mclaughlim, 175-193.
Bagozzi, R.P., and Burkrant, R.E. (1979). Attitude organization and the attitude-behaviour relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 913-929.
Barry, J.R. (1971). Behavioural classification of the physically disabled. Psychological Aspects of Disability, 18, 136-142.
Bates, R.E. (1965). Meaning of'Disable' and 'Handicapped': Their Relationship to Each Other and Specific Defects. Microfilmed doclorl dissertation. University of Houston.
Bell, A. (1962). Attitude of selected rehabilitation workers and other hospital employes toward the physically disabled. Psychological Reports 10 183-186.
Bell, D. (1960). The End of Ideology. Glencoe, I, II: Free Press.
Bhatt. U. (1965). The Physically Handicapped in India. (A Growing National Problem). Bombay-7. India.
Binswanger, L. (1942). Ground Formen andErkenntinis, Menschlichen Daseins. Zurich. Nielans.
/ i t / Acc No
Blauner, R. (1964). The autoworker and the assembly line: Alienation intensified. The Factory Worker and His Industry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Booth, T.A. (1978). From normal to handicapped child; Unrevelling the idea of subnormality in families of mentally handicapped children. Sociology, 203-221.
Bowlby, J. (1960). Grief and mourning in infancy and early childhood. Psychoana/yf/c Study of the Child, 15, 9-52.
Bowlby, J. {^969). Attachment and loss: Attachment, 1, London: Hogarth press.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Seperation, Anxiety and Anger London: Hogarth press.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Loss, 3, New York, Basic Books.
Boyd, D. (1951). The three stages in the growth of a parent of a mentally retarted child. American Joumal of Mental Deficiency.
Bristor, M. (1984). The birth of a handicapped child: A holistic model for grieving. Family Relations, 33, 25-32.
Burden, R.L. (1981). The Evaluation of Early Intervention Programmes with Families of Severally Handicapped Infants. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Exter.
Buss, A.H. (1980). Self-consciousness and Social Anxiety, San Fransico, Freeman.
Camus, A. (1956). The Rebel. New York: Knopf.
Caplan, G. (1974). Support System and Communuity and Mental Health, New York: Behavioural publications.
C ^ e r , C.S. and Humphries, C. (1981). Hanana day dreaming; A study of self consciousness and negative reference group among Cubans Americans. Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 545-552.
78
Carver, C.S. and Scheier, M.F. (1985). Aspects of the self and the control of t)ehavior. In B.R. Schlenker (Eds.), The Self and Social Life. (PP 146-174). New York; Mc Graw Hill. (1927).
Champion, L.A. and Power, M.J. (1988). Cognitive Approacties to Depression: Towards a New Synttiesis (submitted for publication). WHO, 1980.
Cheek, J.M. and Briggs, S.R. (1982). Self-consciousness and aspects of identity. Journal of Research in Personality, 16,401-408.
Cobb, S. (1976). Social support as a moderator of life stress, Psychosomatic Medicine, 38, 5, 300-314.
Coft, L. and Tindall, R. (1974). Definition of handicap: as a function of age and sex, Psychological Reports. 1197-1198.
Cohen, P. (1962). The impact of the handicapped child on the family. Social Case Work, A3, ^37-^42.
Cohen, S. and Syme, S.L. (Eds.) (1985). Social Support and Health. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Cohen, S. and Wills, T.A. (1985). Stress, Social support and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 2, 310-357.
Cohen, S. (1980). Improving attitude towards the handicapped. In D.K. Smith ( Ed.). Readings in the Classroom Teacher and the Special Child. Guilford, CT ; Special learning corporation.
Cohen and Mc Kay, G. (1984). Social support. Stress and The Buffering Hypothesis: The thoretical analysis; in A. Baurn, J.E. Singer, and S.E. taylor (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology and Health, 4, Hilsdate: LEA. pp. 253-267.
Cruick Shank, W.M. (1980). Psychology of Exceptional Children and Youth (IV ed.). Prentice hall Inc., Englewood cliffs.
Cumming$, S., Bayley, H., Rie (1966). Effects of the Child's Deficiency on the " Mother.
79
Cutrona, C.E. (1982). Transition to college: Loneliness and the process of social re adjustment. In L.A. Peplau and D. Perlman (Eds.) Loneliness: A Sourcebook of Current Theory, Research and Therapy (PP. 291-309). New York: Wiley Inter science.
Davids, A. (1955). Alienation, Social apperception and ego structure: Journal of Consulting Psychology, 19, 21-27.
Davis, B.H. (1987). Disability and grief. Social Case Work, 68,352-357.
Davis, R.E. (1975). Family of the disabled child. New York State Journal of Medicine, 6, 1039-1041.
De Ar^yjo, G., Van Arsdel, P.P., Jr., Holmes, T.H., and Dudey, D.L. (1973). Life change, coping ability and chronic intrinsic asthma. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 1973, 17, 359-363.
Depaulo, B.M., and Tang, J. (1991). Social anxiety and social judgement; the example of detaching deception. Journal of Personality, 58, 623-640.
Depaulo, B.M., Epstein, J.A., Le May, C.S. (1990). Responses to the socially anxiouss to the prospect of interpersonal evaluation. Journal of Personality, 58, 623-640.
Dohovan, A.M. (1988). Family stress and ways of coping with adolescents, who have hadicaps: Mental perceptions, American Journal on Mental Retardation, 92, 6, 503-509.
Drotar, D., Barkiewiez, A., Inwin, N., Kennell, J., and Klaus, M. (1975). The "adaptation of parents to the birth of an infant with a congenital
malfonnation: A hypothetical model. Pediatrics, 56, 710-717.
Dunst, C.J., and Trivette, CM. (1986). Mediating influences of social support: ^ Personal, family and child outcomes. American Journal of Mental
Deficiency, 92, 403-417.
Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide. New York Free Press (Originally published, 1897).
Duval, S. and Wicklund, R.A. (1973). Effects of objective self-awareness on -attribution of causality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
80
Eagly, A.H., Chaiken, S. (1992). The Psychology of Attitudes. San Diego, C.A.: Harcurt Brace Janovich.
Emade, R.N., and Brown, C. (1978). Adaptation to the birth of Down's syndrome infants. Grieving and maternal attachment. American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 17, 299-323.
English, W.R. (1971). Con-elates of stigma towards physically disabled persons. Rehabilitation Research Practice Review, 2, 1-17.
Farber, B. (1960). Perception of crisis and related variables in the impact of a retarded child on the mother. Journal of Health and Human Behaviour, 1, 108-118.
Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M.F., and Buss, A.H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness; Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 522-527.
Fenigstein, A. (1979). Self-consciousness, self-attention and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 75-86.
Fenigstein, A. (1987). On the nature of public and private self-consciousness. Journal of Personality, 55, 543-554.
Fishbein, M. Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An introduction to Theory and Research, Readings, M.A.: Addison-Wasley,
578.
Fletcher, J.(1974). Attitudes towards Defective Newborns. Hastinggs Center Studies, 2, 21-32.
Fortier, L.M. and Wanless, R.L. (1984). Family crisis following the diagnosis of ^a handicapped child. Family Relations, 33, 13-24.
Fraley, A.M. (1988). Chronic sorrow in parents of premature children. Children's Health Care, ^5 {2), ^^A-^^5.
Froming, W.J., and Carver, C.S. (1981). Divergent influences of private and ^ public self-consciousness in a ccompliance paradigm. Journal of
Research in Personality, 15, 159-171.
81
Fromm, E. (1955). The Sane Society, New York: Rinehart and Co.
Gallagher, J., Backman, P. and Cross, A. (1983). Families of handicapped ' children. Sources of stress and its imehoration. The Exceptional Child,
50, 10-19.
Gath, A.(1985). Parental reaction to loss and disappointment. The diagnosis of Down's Syndrome. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 27, 392-400.
Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City. NY: Double day.
Gould, Laurence, J. (1964). The Alienation Syndrome: Psychosocial Con-elates and Behavioural Consequences; Doctoral Disertation, Michigan: University of Connecticut, Ann Arbor, University Microfilms, No.66848.
Grebler, A.M. (1952). Parental attitudes toward mentally retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 56,475-483.
Greenbaum, J. and Wang, D. (1965). A Gemantic differential study of the "concepts of mental retardation. Journal of General Psychology, 73,257-272.
GreenWald, AG. (1989). Why Attitudes are Important Defining Attitude and Attitude Theory 20 Years Later See Partkanis et al., 1989, pp.429-440.
Haber, L.D. (1973). Some parameters for social policy in disability. A cross-rational comparison. Health and Society, 51, 319-340.
Hamilton, K.W. (1950). Councelling the handicapped in the Rehabilitation Process, New York, Ronald Press.
Handel, A.F. (1960). Community attitudes and adjustment to disability. Outlook for the Blind, 54, 361-367.
Henderson,S., Byrne, D.G. and Duncan, J.P. (1981). Necrosis and the social ,- environment, Sydney: Acedemic press.
Hare, EH., Lawrence, K.M., Paynes, H., and Rawnsley K., (1966). Spina Bifida, ^ Cystica and Family Stree, British Medical Journal, 2, 257.
82
Henderson, S. Byrne, D.G. & Duncan Jones, P. (1981). Nurosis and the social y Environment. Sydney: Academic Press.
Himes, J.B. (1960). Measuring social distance in relations with the Blind. Outlook for the Blind, 5A-58.
Holahan, C.J., and Moos, R.H. (1981). Social support and psychological distress: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 99, 365-370.
House, J.S. (1981). Work, Stress and Support. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.
Ickes, W., Wicklund, R.A. and Ferris, C.b. (1973). Objective self awareness and self system. Journal of Expenmental Social Psychology, 9, 202-219.
Jackson, P.L. (1974). Chronic grief. American Journal of Nursing, 74, 1289-1291.
Jain, N. and Kureshi, A. (1992a). Concept formation ability among normal and 'handicapped children -A comparative study. Journal of Personality and
Clinical Studies, 8,107-110.
Jain, N. and Kureshi, A. (1992b). Picture frustration study of the normal and handicapped children: Implications for adjustment. Journal of
Community Guidance and Research, 9, 292-294.
Jain, N. (1993). Attitude towards Disbility and Need Pattem among Parents of Sensory Handicapped Children. Unpublished M. Phil, dissertation, A.M.U., Aligarh.
Jemmott, J.B. and Locke, S.E. (1984). Psychosocial factors, immunologic ^ mediatiion, and human susceptibility to infectitious diseases. How much
do we know ? Psychological Bulletin, 95, 78-108.
Johns, N. (1971). Family Reactions to the Birth of a Child with a Congenital Abnormality, 1,277-282.
Jones^W.H., Freeman, J.E. and Goswick, R.A. (1981). The persistance of loneliness: Self and other determinants. Journal of Perssonality 49 27^8. ' '
Jones, W.H. (1982). Loneliness and Social Behavior. In L.A. Peplau and D. Perlman (Eds). Loneliness: A Sourcebook of Current Theory, Research, and Theropy (PP.238-254), Newyork: John Wiley.
83
Jorden, T. (1962). Research on the handicapped child and the Family. Merit-Palmer Quarterly, 8(4), 243-260.
Kanner, L. (1972). Child Psychiatry, (4th ed.) Spring Field, 111; Charles C. Thomas.
Katz, D., Stotland, E. (1959). A Priminary Statement to a Theory of Attitude Structure and change in Psychology: A Study of Science In S. Koch (Eds.) 3: 423-75, New York: McGraw Hill.
Katz, D. (1960). The functional apporoach to the study of attitudes. Public Opinion Quarteriy, 24, 163-204.
Keniston, K. (1965). The Uncommitted: Alienated Youth in American Society, New York, Dell.
Kennedy, J.E. (1970). Maternal reactions to the birth of a defective baby. Social Casewori<, 51,410-416.
Kessler, R.C., and McCleod, J.D. (1985). Social support and mental health in community samples. In S. Cohen and S.L. Syne (Eds.) Social Support and Health (pp 219-240), SAn Diego, C.A.: Academic Press.
Kierkegaard, S. (1955). Fear and Trembling and the Sickness unto Death. Translated by Walter Lawrie, New York: Anchor Books.
Kierkegaard, S. (1959). Either/Or {2 vols.). New York: Anchor Books.
Kleck, RM., Buck, P.L., Galler, W.I., London, R.S., Pfeiffer, J.R. and Vukcevic, D.P. (1968). Effects of stigmatiging conditions on the use of personal space. Psychological Reports, 23,111-118.
Kleck, R^E. Ono, H.,and Hastorf, A.H. (1966).The effect of physical deviance upon face to face interaction. 19, 425-436.
Kleck, R.E. (1968). Physical stigma and non-verbal cues emited in face to face interaction. Human Relations, 21, 19-28.
Kruglanski, A.W. (1989). Lay Epistemics and Human Knowledge: Cognitive and Multi-National Bases, New York: Plenum.
84
Kubler-Ross, E. (1969). On Death and Dying, New York: Macmillian.
Kureshi, A. and Dutt, M. (1979). Dimensions of Alienation - A Factor Analytic ^ Study, Psychologia, 22, 99-105.
Kureshi A. and Jain, N. (1992). Hierarchy of needs among handicapped and normal children: Towards developing a stretegy for happy living. Journal of Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, i B, 29-32.
Langer, E.J. Fiske, S., Taylor, S.E. and Chanovitz, B. (1976). Stigma staring and discomfort: A novel-stimulus hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 451-463.
Leary, M.R. and Meadows, S. (1991). Predictors, elictors and concomitants of "social blushing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60,254— 262.
Lewin, J. (1975). The Function of Prejudice, New York: Harper and Row.
Lindemann, E. (1944). Symptomatology and management of acute grief. Amehcan Journal of Psychiatry, 101, 118-128.
Marx, K. (1844). Economic and philosophical manuscripts in T.B. Battomore (Trans, and Ed.), Early Writings, New York: McGraw Hill (originally published in 1844).
Marx, K. (1964). 'Early Writings'. Translated by J.B. Bottomore, New York: Mc Graw-Hill Book Co., Inc., (Originally Published, 1844).
Matheny, A.P., and Vernick, J. (1969). Parents of the mentally retarded child: -^emotionally overwhelmed infonnally deprived? Journal of Paediatrics,
74, 953-959.
Mc Gurie, W.J. (1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. Handbook of Social Psychology. In G. Lindzey, E. Aronson (Eds.), 3: 136-314, Reading, M.A. Addison-Wesley, 2nd ed.
Mc Michael, J.K. (1971). Handicap: A Study of Physically Handicapped Children and their Families. Stapler Press, London.
85
Millar L.C. and Cox, C.L. (1982). For Appearances Sake: Public Self-/consciousness and nnake-up use. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 8, 7A8-45^.
Mimes, P., Mcshane, J., Forkes, S., Green, S. et. al. (1989). Coping resources of parents of developmently handicapped children living in rural communities of Austria and Newzealand. Journal of Development Disabilities, 15, 109-118.
Mittal B., and Balasubramanian, S.K. (1987). Testing the dimensionality of the self-consciousness scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 51 (1), 53-69.
Moore, D. and Schultz, N.B. (1983). Loneliness at adolescence: correlates, attributions and coping. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 12, 95-100.
Murphy, A. Dickstein, J., and Dripps, E. (1960). Acceptance, Rejection and the " Hearing Impaired, New York: HR, C.
Nisbet, K.B. (1966). The Sociological Traditions, New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Novah, D.W. and Lerner, M.J. (1968). Rejection as a consequence of percieved -^milarity, Journal of Personality of Social Psychology, 13, 289-299.
Nuckolls, K.B., Cassel, J., and Kaplan, B.H. (1972). Psychosocial assets, life "Arises and the prognosis of pregnancy. America Journal of Epidemiology,
95,431-441.
Nursey, D., Rhode, J.R., and Farmer, R.D. (1990). A Study of Doctors and -^Parents Attitudes to People with Mental Handicaps, Journal of Mental
Deficiency Research, 34, 2, 143-135.
Olshansky,J.(1962). Chronic sorrow: A response to having a mentally deficient child Social Case Work, 43 190-193.
Parks, R.M. (1977). Parental reactions to the birth of a handicapped child. Health and Social Work, 2(3), 52-65.
Piliaviryl.M., Rodin, J. and Piliavin, J.A. (1969). Good Samaritanism: An underground phenomenon. . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 289-299.
86
Piliavin, J.A. and Piliavin, I.M. (1972). Effects of blood on reaction to a victim. ' Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 353-361.
Power, M.J., Champion, L A , Aris, S.J., (1988). The development of a measure of social support; The SOS scale. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 27, 349-358.
Poznanski, E.O. (1973). Emotional issues in raising handicapped children. Rehabilitation Literature, 34, 322-326.
Quittner, A.L., Glueclauf, R.L, Jackson, D.M. (1990). Chronic Parenting Stress: Moderatus versus mediating effect of Social Support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,1266-1278.
Richardson, S.A. (1976). Attidues and behaviour towrards the physically handicapped. Birth Defects: Ohginal Astidel Senes, 4, 15-34.
Roith, A.I. (1963). The myth of parental attitudes: Journal of Mental Subnormality, 9, 51-54.
Roskies, E. (1972). Abnormality and Normality: The Mothering of the lodomide Children. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
RussellJ>., Peplau, L.A., and Cutrona, C.E. (1980). The revised UCLA loneliness scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 472-480.
Sarason, I.G. and Sarason, B.R. (Eds.) (1985). Social Support: Theory Research and Application. The Hague, the Netherlands: martinus Niyhoff.
Scheier, M.F., Buss, A.H., and Buss, D.M. (1978). Self consciousness, self-report of aggressiveness, and aggression. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 3, 324-332.
Scheier, M.F., Fenigstein, A., and Buss, A.H. (1974). Self awareness and physical aggression. Joumal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 264-273.
Scheier, M.F. (1980). Effects of public and peivate self-consciousness on the public expressions of personal beliefs. Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39,541 -521.
87
Schlenkej, BR. and Leary, M.R. (1982). Social anxiety and self presentation; A ' conceptualization and model, Psychological Bulletin, 92, 641-669.
Schopler, J., and Mathews, M.W. (1965). The influence of the perceived causal ' locus of partner's dependence on the use of interepersonal power.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 609-612.
Schroedel.J. {^978).Attitude Towards Persons with Disablities: A Compodium of Related Literatures, New York: HRC.
Schultz, B.J., and Saklofske, D.H. (1983). Relationship between social support and selected measures of psycholoical well being. Psychologiclal Reports, 53, 847- 850.
Seeman, (1959). On the meaning of Alienation. American Sociological Review, 24,783-791.
Sen, A. (1988). Psychosocial Integration of Handicapped: A Challenge to Society. Mittal publication, Delhi.
Shattuck, M. (1946). Segregation versus non-segregation of exceptional children. Exceptional Children, 32, 443-450.
Shepperd, J.A. and Arkin, (1989). Self handicapping. The moderating roles of public self-consciousness and task importance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 252-265.
Shiemo, S.L. (1951). Problems in helping parents of mentally defective and handicapped children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 56, 42-47.
Siller, J., and Chipmen, (1964). Faclorial structure and Correlates of the attitude towards disabled persons scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 24, 831-840.
Simmel, G. (1950). The metropolies and mental life. In G. Simmel, The metropolies and mental life. In G. Simmel, The Sociology. Georg, Simmel Glencoe, 111: Free Press, (Original published, 1902).
88
Singh, A.K. (1971). Alination and Social Change in India, paper presented at a trans-national symposium on socio-psychological dimention of social change in American Psychological Associations' convention, Washington, D.C., Sept. 3-7.
Sinha, S.R., Sinha, J.B.P (1974). Campus Activism as a Function of Alination among Students, paper presented at the Indian Science Congress, Nagpur.
Smith, MB., Bruner, J.S., and White, R.W. (1956). Opinions and personality. ''New York: Wiley.
Smith, M.B. (1947). The personal settings of public opinion: A study of attitudes towards Russaa. Public Opinion Quarterly, 77, 507-523.
Solano^.H., Batten, P.G., Parish, E.A. (1982), Loneliness and patterns of self disclosure Joumal of Personality and Psychology.
Solnit, ^ . J . and Stark, M.H. (1961). Mourning and the birth of a defective child. Joumal for the Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 16, 523-737.
Sommers, V.S. (1944). The Influence of Parental Attitudes and Social Environments on the Personality development of the Adolecent blind. New York: American Foundation for the Blind.
Srivastava, P.K., Sinha, S.N., Jain V.C. (1971) Some correlates of Alienation / among Indian female students. Indian Joumal of Psychology, 43, 395-
398.
Stokes, J.(1985). The Relation of social Network and Individual difference variables and loneliness. Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 981-990.
Stoklos, D., (1975). Towords a psychological theory of alienation; Psychological Rewe^v, 82(1).26-44.
Synder, M.L., Kleck, R.E. Strenta, A., and Menther, S.J. (1979) Avoidence of ' the handicapped: An attributional ambiguity analysis, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2297-2306.
89
Thoits, P.A. (1983). Multiple Identities and Psychological well being: A Reformulation and Test of Social Isolation Hypothesis. American Social Rewevv, 48, 174-187.
Tillich, P. {^9Q7).Systematic Ttieology. Chicago, University of Chicago press.
Triandis, H.C. (1991). Attidue and Attitudes Change. In Encyclopedia in Human Biology,, 485-496, San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Verghese, (1973), Education, Modernization and Alienation. A Study of Relationship in Andhra University: Indian Journal of Social Sciences, 2, 178-179.
Waber, M. (1958). Bureaucracy, In H. Gerthand C.W. Milk (Eds.), New York: Oxford University Press.
Wethington, E., and Kessler, R.C. (1986). Perceived support, received support and adjustment to stressful life events. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 27, 78-89.
Wikler, L., Wasow, M. and Hatfield, E. (1981). Chronic son-ow revisited: Attitudes ^ o f parents and professionals about adjustment to mental retardation.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 51, 63-70.
Williams, J.G., and Solano, C.H. (1983). The social reality of feeling lonely: Friendship and reciprocation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 237-242.
Winthrop, H., and Taylor, H. (1957). An inquiry concerning the prevalence of popular misconceptions relating to mental deficiency. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 62, 344-348.
Worden, J.W. (1982). Grief councelling and grief Therapy, A Handbook forthe Medical Practioner, New York: Springer.
World Health Organization (1980). International Classification of Impaimients-Disabilities and Handicapps: A Mannual of classification Relating to the Consequences of Disease Geneva.
Wright, B.A. (1983). Psysical Disability-A Psycho-Social Approch, (II ed.). Harper and Raw.
90
Younghusband E., Davie, R., Birchal, D., and Kellmer-Pringle, M.L. (1970). Living with Handicap. London; National Bureau for Cooperation in Child Care.
Yuker, H.E., Block, J.R. and Young, J.M. (1966). The measurement of attitudes toward disabled persons. Human Resources, Study No.7, Albertson, N.Y.: Human Resources Centre.
Yuker, N.E., Block, J.R. and Campbell, W. (1960). A Scale to Measure Attitude towards Disabled Persons. Albertson, N.Y.: Human resources foundation.
Zajonc, R.B., Markus, (1982). Affective and cognitive factors in preferences. Journal of Research in Persality, 9, 123-131.
91
APPENDICES
APPENDIX-A
Directions-
Below are given certain statements regarding the attitudes
towords the disabled. You are requried to rate each statement on a
seven point scale by putting a tick mark on any of the seven alternative
response catagories.
6 - Totally agree 2 - Somewhat disagree
5 - Agree 1 - Disagree
4 - Somewhat agree 0 - Totally disagree
3 - Uncertain
Those children who suffer from Sensory Disability (Blindness):
6 5 4 3 2 1 0
1. Such children are just as
sensible as other children - - - - - - -
2. Such chi ldren are
usually easier to get
alongwith than other
children. - - - _ . . .
3. Most of these children
feel sorry for them
selves.
4. Most of these children
worry a great deal.
5. Such children are as
happy as other children.
6. Totally handicap people
are no harder to get
alongwith than those with
partial handicap.
7. Such children tend to
keep to themselves much
of the time.
8. Such children are more
easily upset than other
children.
9. Most of these children
feel that they are not as
good as other children.
10. Such children are often
corss.
11. Parentsof such children
should be less str ict
than other parents.
12. Such children are the
same as anyonelse.
13. There should not be special
school for these children.
14. It would be best for such
children to live and work in
special communities.
15. It is upto the government to
take care of these children.
16. Such children should not
be expected to meet the
same standards as other
children.
17. It is almost impossible for
a handicap children to lead
a normal life.
18. You should not expect too
much from these children.
19. Such children cannot have a
normal social life.
20. You have to be careful of what
you say when you are with
such children.
HR^ t 31FT^ 9 r ^ SI Tsq ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ M 3Nf ^ ^ ^ ^ f ^ *¥l t r ^ at fJ ^T ^
5 - W m 1 - 3RT?^
4 - sqt?I ^ W W 0 - 1 ^ 3 T W ^
3 - a r f ^ r f ^
6 5 4 3 2 1 0
3- ^ adfe KR W^ 3Ttf ^ if ^
T5^ f I
^ t l
6- ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ft+di'l ^ t
t 3iraB ?tcll t %cRT ^ 3|t%^ ^
tl
8. ^ ^^ 3n^ w ^ ^ ar^^n ^SR^
10- ^ ^ ^ a' 'ER ^51^ ^ r a i ^ f I
1 2 - ^ ^ ^ 3??^ ^ ^ ^ T'TH ^ i t^ t l
13- ^ ^ ^ % i ^ 3 ! ^ ^ f Rt ^ ^
14. ^ ^ ^ ' % %q ^[^p^ ^x?^" % araf
^ 1 ^ 3rcR i t ^ l
15- ^ ^ ^ ^ tel Hl rl ^ iM ^R^^ ^
f F^grft t i
16- ^ ^ ^ % ^3cT^ ^ ? ^ ^ 3 p ^ TTfl'
17- ^ ^ ^ % ^ yi^lM ': f ^ z | ^
18- ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 3 l i ^ 3IM ^ ' ^
19- ^ ^ ^ ^PIRT ^IHll^+ ^^ft^ c z j ^
20. ^ aiiq ^ ; ? ^ ' % ^arq i t ^ t cit
APPENDIX-B
Directions-
Every one has his own characteristic way of thinking and feeling about
his own self and the different aspects of life. Below are given some statements
about which you have to think and put a tick mark { ) on one of the four
altemative responses given against each item that best represents your feelings.
4. Always - 4 3. Often - 3 2. Sometime - 2 1. Never - 1
1. I feel I am not as happy as
others are.
2. I feel if one can't face the
hard realities of life the only
way is to keep busy with
more pleasant things.
3. I feel our lives are governed
by some discoverable laws.
4. I feel one is sometimes
forced to take intoxicants to
forget the troubles and mis
eries of life.
5. I feel it is safer not to confide
in any one.
6. I feel there is no end to one's
miseries, as long as one
lives.
7. I feel disgusted to see
others success as I know I
could be far more
successful had I been
treated fairly.
8. I feel worried beyond reason
over minor matters.
9. I feel one can be more
contented by withdrawing
from situations that are full
of risks and uncertainties.
10. People sometimes put me
in such a state of mind that
I feel Hke tearings them in
pieces.
11. I feel one is justified in
hittng back as hard as
possible if provoked
unreasonably.
12. I feel firm conviction and
well founded ideologies
are the hall mark of mod
ern age.
13. I feel I am good for noth
ing.
14. I feel love and affection
don't matter as much in life
as working relationships.
15. I feel there are no well-de
fined objectives to guide
me.
16. I feel dissatisfied even with
my best performance.
17. I feel one is free to adopt
his own way of life.
18. I feel the universe is gov-
emed by the principles of
equality, fair protection
and equality of opportu
nity.
19. I think I am the best judge
of my actions.
20. I like to do things all on my
own.
21. I feel it is not difficult for
me to take a decision in
the face of moral conflicts.
P l ^
f ^
<n<=w<
^ - ^ » ^
^ ^ '
4
3
2
1
1. ^ 3T «T ^5Tcn/^T^ f f% # sM" ^
^ ^ t ^ t ^ 3 ^ ^ ' FT ^ 3Frr ^ ' t l
7. ^ ^ ^ «4>^dl feJ+< ^ # 5 itcfT t
10- ^ ^ ^ ' R : ^ « # ^ ^ f % ^
vjrclFHd ^J '^ ^ ^ 3CTR t f^C^ ?5R
^^M ^W^ PTcT t l
12- ^ 3I «T^ itclT t f% ^ f^9^RI 3Jk
t l
13- # 3f «7^ ^TTcn/^iT^ f f^ ^ f ^ ^
14. # 3T^ q ^ 5 7 H / ^ ^ I fe ^ ^ ^
ciJ«l lR+ ^ P ^ ^ T ^ t l
4
15- t 3i «T ^:^/^^ ^ 1^ ^ ftr?^
16- # 3T^«R ^TclT/^T?^ f ^ ^ ^
19. t 3T tq^ HFM/^JT^ f f% t 3Tq ^
APPENDIX-C
Directions-
Below are given certain statements. You are required to rate each state
ment on a five point scale by putting a tick mark ( ) on any of the five alternative
response categories.
1. 2. 3.
Always Frequently Occasionly
4. 5.
Rarely Never
1. I am always trying to figure
myself out.
2. I'm concerned about my
style of doing things.
3. Generally, I'm not very
aware of myself.
4. It takes me time to over
come my shyness in new
situations.
5. I reflect about myself a lot.
6. I'm concerned about the
way I present myself.
7. I have trouble working when
someone is watching me.
8. I get emban^assed very eas-
ily.
9. I'm self-conscious about the
way I look.
10. I'm generally attentive to
my inner feelings.
11. I usually worry about mak
ing a good impression.
12. I'm constantly examining
my motives.
13. I feel anxious when I
speak in front of a group.
14. One of the last things I do
before I leave my house
is look in the mirror.
15. I sometimes have the feel
ing that I'm off somewhere
watching myself.
16. I'm concerned about what
other people think of me.
17. I'm alert to changes in my
mood.
18. I'm usually aware of my
appearance.
19. I'm aware of the way my
mind works when I work
through a problem.
^^
^ f S <i<W« ^ f^ t" fe ^ ^fl|3 ?%^ ( I '
t l W^ % 7 ^ ^^(^ 3 1 T ^ 3Tr!RT 3 r g ^ i t^ ^ ^ ^ W^ 3lr5cT yfcl <jl i t^ cT^
^ 3irijf^4i 3 T ^ 5
^ ^Fft S F ^ 3
1. t f*lW ajq^ ajFT ^ ^ ^ ' ^ STOT
JHT 311 ^ +1( 1 1 ^TTcTT/ J^ f I
2- ^ 3 1 ^ ^ ^T^ ^ ^T ^ ^|rT
^|cT 3 l j ^ ^ / ^ f I
^ ^ ^ ft? F*nT ^nrai t i
5- # 3PT; ^ ^' Wp f^^rR WJ^m/^^
6- ^ 3 1 ^ 3fiqqFt g ^ SF^ % ?^ %
7- ^ JT^ ^T'? ^ ^ ^ cqH ^
^ TIT i t cit ^ ^ ^R^ ^' ^ f e ^
9- # ?^ ^ ' W^ ^B% T ^ t '^ ^
10- # ^ I^Md: 3N^ 3JHR=h *7I5HT3?f ^
11- ^ p i «lTcT ^ { PTTT TW^ t fe ^
12- ^ w ^ arq^ ^5^ grf^ ^ ^
13- ^ ^?^ % W^ « i t^ ^' ai RR
1 4 - ^ ^ ^IWl ^ ^ ^TH^ ^' 3 n ^ Tf
3 n ^ %?j ^31^ ^ o m / ^ ^ f i
15- ^ ^ i ^ - ^ * ! ^ H w itar t fe
3N?IT Jj^^i+H ^ ^ f I
16- ^ f^ ^ ^ ^F^ TW^ t f^ ^ ^
17- # arr^ qR MR=t(H j J % ^
IR^TH T ^ f I
1 8 - ^ 1 ^ «?H ^ ^ E2n^ ^^cU t 1%
# #?^ ^ T5T f I
19. ^ # f ^ PIFTT ^l f^^R ^nrar f
cit ^ 'T? ' ^ T?cn t f% 'f'a f ^ ^
^ ajt ^ ^ ^ t l
IPT 3115
^ / ^ ^ : i n f e ^ 3JPT :
APPENDIX-D
Directions-
Below are given certain statements referring to the support functons.
You are required to rate each relationship (Spouse, Mother, Mother-in-Law,
best friend, best nieghbour) on each of the ten support functions on a seven
point scale. You have to rate each relationship that you feel is currently appli
cable in terms of the actual/ideal level of support by putting a tick mark ( ) on
one of the seven alternative responses.
Always
Very frequently
Frequently
Occasionally
Rarely
Very rarely
Never
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1. To what extent can you
Trust, talk to frankly and
share feelings with others.
2. To what extent can you
leave on & turn to in times
of difficulty on others.
3. To what extent can you get
intrests, reassurance & a
good feeling about yourself.
4. To what extent can you get
physical comfort from oth
ers.
5. To what extent can you re
solve unpleasent disagree
ments if they occur.
6. To what extent can you get
financial & practical help.
7. To what extent can you get
suggestion, advice & feed
back.
8. To what extent can you visit
them or spent time with so
cially.
9. To what extent can you
get help in emergency.
10. To what extent can you
share interest & hobbies
and have fun with.
P l ^
^ f l5 ^ ^g rar f ^ fiT t f^R^ W^^ ^HlPl+ W^ % ^ ^ t l
^RTR H / \ WK^ JT?n t l
^T^ 7
3lr^[l<+ i^l^I 6
^|tlT 5
lir^ 3
dlc l =h ^?:^ 2
^'ft ^ ' 1
1. 3lTq f%?T # n cRJ ^ ^ * ^ ftsjclW ^
«Tr 3Jt" ^ SflcfR-SRH ^ ^ ? ^ t l
2- 3JTq f ^ #Jn cl^ ^ # ^ % W^
fH^ ' ^ 1 ^ ^ ^ ^ t 3f«RT ^ ^
^gWdl ^ ^ l ^ t l
3- 3nq # n CRJ arq^ Tf ^^'
W cT ^ ^ T ^ t l
4- ^ ^ % ?n«f W{ f ^ #RT ^T^ *ftfcf^
5 . 3?FT f ^ #f|T cT^ -FRt' ^ 3#ET
6- 3?Tq f ^ f ^ cT^ ^TT^' ^ 3 ? f c c M
7- 3Pf f ^ #P[T cT^ ^Hd' ^ ^?TT=f,
8- 3?N f ^ # ^ cf^ ;5Td" % W^ ^FRT
^ 2 ? ^ ^ ^ f 3TIERT ^ 3 ^ ^ ^ t l
9- 31N f ^ ^ ^ ^^F^ % '^m^ ^^
^ WTTcn ^ ^ T ^ t i
10- 3TR f ^ #TT cT^ STT^ ^ ^ f ^ Bf ?fl^
^ ^ ^ ' % ^nq fi|d4)< ^ ^ ^ ^'
31FF? ^ t l