The Relationships of the Causes and Acceptance of Mental Illness and Behaviour - Research Paper Example

The relationships of the causes and acceptance of Mental illness and behavior perceived as indicative of illness. This study attempted to examine the relationship shared by the extent to which behavior is perceived as indicative of mental illness and the attribution of the same to physical and psycho-social causes; as well as with the preferred social acceptance of the individual exhibiting the said behavior. The study used a vignette to elicit responses from Australian school students aged 12 – 16 years. The analysis shows that while all three relationships were moderate in strength; only the relationships between behavior perceived as indicative of mental illness and psycho-social reasons and social distance were statistically significant. This leads us to conclude that while students are likely to attribute mental illness to psycho-social factors; they are also likely to prefer a grater social distance from suffers. Introduction A number of researchers have found significant relationships between the labels applied to mental illnesses and the attitudes of groups towards individuals suffering from these disorders. While stigma among the lay populations is expected; studies have found that stereotypes and prejudices are rampant even among the sufferers themselves (Reda, 1996; Thompson, 1989) and care-givers like hospital personnel (Eker & Arker, 1991) and nurses (Brinn, 2000; Chambersa et al, 2010). The use of labels seems to be a greater reason for segregation than the illness itself; and this brings the whole procedure of labeling an individual’s condition under question. Arkar and Eker (1994) have found that labels given to mental illness affect the general public’s attitudes towards individuals with mental illnesses; while Norman and Malla’s (1983) study shows that this effect is visible from a young age; and even seen in school children. Their study shows that children make decisions about unlabeled behavior and are able to hold opinions about the reasons, prognosis of the said behavior; and choose the social distance they wished to maintain from such individuals. This study wishes to verify some of these results with Australian school students. Adolescence is considered to be a critical stage in the development of attitudes (Adelson 1975; Fowler 1976; Kohlberg 1976; Weiss, 1986) and the attitudes formed at this point may become relatively resistant to change over the course of adulthood. There has been a distinct shift in the way the youth attribute reasons to mental illness; with psychosocial factors becoming more acceptable reasons for illness (Link, et al, 1999; Prior, 1993). The present study attempts to understand the causes that today’s adolescents attribute to mental illness; and the extent to which they believe that these causes are significant in the development of the illness. It also attempts to evaluate the extent to which these adolescents’ are accepting of individuals they believe are mentally ill. On this basis, three hypotheses have been developed. The perception that ‘the behavior depicted is indicative of mental illness’ is significantly correlated with the belief that ‘mental illness has a physical cause’. The perception that ‘the behavior depicted is indicative of mental illness’ is significantly correlated with the belief that ‘mental illness has a psychosocial cause’. The perception that ‘the behavior depicted is indicative of mental illness’ is significantly correlated with preferred social acceptance. Method Variables studied The Independent variable studied was the extent to which the indicated behavior was perceived as being indicative of mental illness as measured on a seven point scale. The dependent variables were the extent to which physical causes were attributed to the indicated behavior; the extent to which psycho-social causes were attributed to the indicated behavior; and the proffered social acceptance of the individual exhibiting the indicated behavior. Participants 16 school students within the age group of 12 – 16 were included in the study. Gender was controlled by including an equal number of male and female participants. As the participants of this study were minors; the appropriate procedure was followed, and permission and informed consent were collected from school authorities and parents before approaching the children. Only individuals whose guardians gave explicit permission were included in the study. The study involved minimal harm and zero deception Materials The study vignette was based on Star’s (1955) publication, and questionnaire was adapted from Norman and Malla’s (1983) original material. The vignette showcased behavior that depicted paranoid schizophrenia; and the questionnaire consisted of nine statements, responses to which were collected on a 7-point rating scale, where 1 meant ‘Definitely No’ and 7 meant ‘Definitely Yes’ for all questions. Procedure Students were approached only after the appropriate permissions from school authorities and guardians were obtained. The children who fulfilled these criteria were given a choice of participating, and the final data was collected such that half the sample would comprise of males and half of females. The children were given the vignette to read; and then were given sheets of paper with the 9 questions printed on them; each with a 7-point scale below it. The children were instructed on how to mark the statements; and each questionnaire was checked for completeness. Before analysis, the scores for items 3 and 4 (social factors and past life events) were combined into a single score for each participant; and an average score that represented the Psycho-social factors was derived. The scores on items 5 through 9 were similarly combined to get an average score that represented social acceptance. Results Primary analysis of the data showed that the mean age of the participants was 14.83 with an S.D. of 0.86. This tells us that most of the participants were between 14 and 15 years of age. The means and S.D’s were calculated separately for male and female participants for the study variable; and the values obtained show that the male and female participants were relatively similar in most cases. The only distinct difference was in the preferred social acceptance; with females showing higher acceptance than males. This was taken as reason to combine the scores into one group and study all participants together. The mean and standard deviation values found were: Mental Illness (A) Physical Cause (B) Psycho-Social Cause (C) Average (combined) Social Acceptance (D) Average (combined) Males 5 (1.66) 3.38 (0.99) 5.31 (1.06) 3.85 (0.75) Females 5 (1) 4.5 (0.87) 5.19 (0.56) 5.3 (0.91) The correlation coefficients calculated to verify the hypotheses may be tabulated thus: Physical etiology Psychosocial etiology Social acceptance Perception of mental illness 0.42 0.592* 0.546* We see that the correlation between the perception of symptoms being indicative of mental illness did not have a significant relationship with physical etiology [r = 0.42; df = 14; p > 0.05]; but did have a significant relationship with psycho-social etiology [r = 0.59; df = 14; p < 0.02] and with proffered social acceptance [r = 0.54; df = 14; p < 0.05]. Discussion The study was conducted in order to verify part of Norman and Malla’s (1983) findings with Australian school children. The researcher wished to evaluate the relationship between the certainty with which a child identified certain behaviors as being indicative of mental illness and the extent to which the child attributed these behaviors to physical causes, and to psycho-social causes. The researcher also wished to understand if the identification of behaviors being indicative of mental illness was related to the extent of social acceptance shown towards the individual exhibiting the symptoms. Results of the study have shown that the relationship between physical etiology and perception was a moderately positive but not a significant one. This result differs from the one seen in Norman and Malla’s (1983) study. One possible reason for the non – significance of this relationship may be the the sample size was quite small, and so did not reach the value required to be considered significant. Norman and Malla’s (1983) study was conducted with a much larger sample; and thus, the relationship was deemed significant in spite of the fact that the actual value of correlation they found ( r = 0.30) was lower than the one found in this study. We may have reason to believe that the same results would be acceptable had they been found with a larger sample of students. The relationship with psychosocial etiology was also a moderate one; but reached the required level of significance. This was also a positive relationship. This result was not seen as significant in Norman and Malla’s (1983) study; and may be attributed to the changing social environment. Over the last couple of decades, there has been a distinct shift in the way that lay man attributes reasons for mental illness (Prior, 1993); and exposure to academic and popular material have opened people’s minds to the effects of a psycho-social environment on mental health. The students who participated in this study belong to a newer school of thought which suggests that nurture plays a strong role in the way a person’s mental health pans out. On the other hand, the relationship between perception and social acceptance was a negative, significant one. This was also the strongest correlation observed among the three. Since this study evaluated this variable in terms of acceptance in contrast to Norman and Malla’s (1983) choice to study social distance; it was expected that this relationship would be significant; but reversed from the one found by them. This was verified by the results, as the relationship found by this study was a negative one, while the one found by Norman and Malla’s (1983) study was a positive one. From these results it is evident that even young children prefer to keep higher social distance from and show less social acceptance towards individuals deemed to be suffering from mental illness. This implies that there is a consistency in the extent to which individuals prefer to keep social distance from those who are mentally ill over the years. There have been shifts in the attribution of reasons for mental illness; and the shift does show that the role of external factors in the development of a mental illness has been recognized by the people (Weiss, 1986; Prior, 1993); but this has not lead to greater acceptance. Individuals suffering from mental illness still suffer the same isolation the suspicion that they did 20 years ago; and if the strength of the correlation is taken into consideration – even more so. These findings imply that using labels for mental illnesses does seem to inhibit the chances of the individual being accepted by society. There is reason to treat these results with some caution though; especially the small sample size. The sample could be less representative of the population due to its size; and a larger sample may yield more generalisable results. References Arker, H., & Eker, D. (1994). Effect of psychiatric labels on attitudes toward mental illness in a Turkish sample. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, ( 40), 205-213. Brinn, F. (2000). Patients with mental illness: General nurses’ attitudes and expectations. Nursing Standard. 14, 32-36. Burton, L. J. (2007). An interactive approach to writing essays & research reports in psychology. John Wiley. Burton, L., Westen, D., & Kowalski, R. (2009). Psychology: Australian and New Zealand edition (2nd ed.). John Wiley.  Chambersa, M., Guisea, V., Valimakib, V., Botelhod, M., Scotte, A., Staniulienef, V. & Zanottig, R. (2010). Nurses’ attitudes to mental illness: A comparison of a sample of nurses from five European countries. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47 (3), 350-362. Eker, D., & Arker, H. (1991). Experienced Turkish nurses attitudes towards mental illness and the predictor variables of their attitudes. International Journal of Social Psychiatry. ( 37), 214-222. Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. (1998). Doing psychology: An introduction to research methodology and statistics. London: Sage Publications. Kring, A. M., Davison, G. C., Neale, J. M, & Johnson, S. L. (2006). Abnormal psychology (10th ed.). New York: John Wiley. Link, B. G.,  Phelan, J. C., Bresnahan, M., Stueve A., &  Pescosolido, B. A. (1999). Public conceptions of mental illness: labels, causes, dangerousness, and social distance. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 89 (9) 1328-1333. Norman, R. M., & Malla, A. K. (1983). Adolescents' attitudes towards mental illness: Relationship between components and sex differences. Social Psychiatry, (18), 45-50. Prior, L. (1993). The Social Organization of Mental Illness, London: Sage.  Reda, S. (1996). Public perceptions of former psychiatric patients in England. Psychiatric Services, ( 47), 1253-1255. Thompson, E. H. (1989). Recovery networks and patient interpretations of mental illness. Journal of Community Psychology, (17), 5-17. Weiss, M. F. (1986). Children's attitudes toward the mentally ill: A developmental analysis. Psychological Reports, Vol 58(1), 11-20. Appendices. Appendix i: The questionnaire The Questionnaire This questionnaire is designed to measure opinions about mental illness and the mentally ill. Please try to answer the questions as honestly as possible. You are not required to identify yourself by name. Now read the description of the fictitious person below and answer the questions that follow. Here is a brief description of a young man. Imagine that he is a respectable student attending your school or college. He is very suspicious, doesn't trust anybody and is sure everyone is against him. Sometimes he thinks that people he sees on the street are talking about him or following him. A couple of times he has picked fights with people who don't even know him, because he thought they were spying on him and plotting against him. The other night he began to curse his mother terribly, because he said she was working against him too - just like everybody else. Please bear in mind that the questions are not intended as a test of any kind. We merely wish to know your personal opinions concerning them. When you answer, please place a circle around the number that best reflects your opinion. (1) To what extent do you believe the person described to be mentally ill? Definitely NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Definitely YES (2) Do you think that the person's behavior is the direct result of physical causes, such as the condition of the brain and nervous system, and/or what has been inherited from the parents? Definitely NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Definitely YES (3) Do you think that the person's behavior is the direct result of present life circumstances such as home life, relationships in school or college, relationships with friends, and so on? Definitely NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Definitely YES (4) Do you think that the person's behavior is the direct result of past experiences; that is, what happened to him and how he felt as a child? Definitely NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Definitely YES (5) If you knew this person would you speak to him on the street? Definitely NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Definitely YES (6) If you knew this person would you have lunch with him? Definitely NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Definitely YES (7) If you knew this person would you do school or college work with him? Definitely NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Definitely YES (8) If you knew this person would you go to a party at his home? Definitely NO ; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Definitely YES (9) If you knew this person would you invite him to a social gathering at your home for an evening? Definitely NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Definitely YES Appendix 2: Calculations for Means and S.D’s. Mean and Standard Deviation for the age group Mean = Total/number of student = 13+15+14+15+13+13+14+15+15+13+14+14+15+14+13+15 = 225 Number of student = 16 Mean = 225/16 = 14.06 Age Deviation from the mean D D? 13 13 – 14.06 = -1.06 -1.06 x -1.06 = 1.12 15 15– 14.06= 0.94 0.94 x 0.94 = 0.88 14 14– 14.06= -0.06 -0.06 x -0.06 = 0.02 15 15– 14.06= 0.94 0.94 x 0.94 = 0.88 13 13– 14.06= -1.06 -1.06 x -1.06 = 1.12 13 13– 14.06= -1.06 -1.06 x -1.06 = 1.12 14 14– 14.06= -0.06 -0.06 x -0.06 = 0.02 15 15– 14.06= 0.94 0.94 x 0.94 = 0.88 15 15– 14.06= 0.94 0.94 x 0.94 = 0.88 13 13– 14.06= -1.06 -1.06 x -1.06 = 1.12 14 14– 14.06= -0.06 -0.06 x -0.06 = 0.02 14 14– 14.06= -0.06 -0.06 x -0.06 = 0.02 15 15– 14.06= 0.94 0.94 x 0.94 = 0.88 14 14– 14.06= -0.06 -0.06 x -0.06 = 0.02 13 13– 14.06= -1.06 -1.06 x -1.06 = 1.12 15 15– 14.06= 0.94 0.94 x 0.94 = 0.88 SD=v ?D2 / N ?D2 = 1.12+0.88+0.02+0.88+1.12+1.12+0.02+0.88+0.88+1.12+0.02+0.02+0.88+0.02+1.12+0.88 = 10.98 N = 16 SD=v10.98/16 SD=0.83 Mean and SD for mental illness component (M) Mean = Total/number of male Total =3+2+7+5+5+5+6+7 =40 Number of male = 8 Mean =40/8 = 5 Gender Mental Illness (A) Deviation from the mean D D? M 3 3-5=-2 -2x-2=4 M 2 2-5=-3 -3x-3=9 M 7 7-5=2 2x2=4 M 5 5-5=0 0x0=0 M 5 5-5=0 0x0=0 M 5 5-5=0 0x0=0 M 6 6-5=1 1x1=1 M 7 7-5=2 2x2=4 SD=v ?D2 / N ?D2 = 4+9+4+0+0+0+1+4 = 22 N=8 SD=v22/8 SD=v2.75 SD= 1.66 Mean and SD for mental illness component (F) Mean = Total/ number of female Total = 6+5+4+6+5+6+5+3 = 40 Number of female = 8 Mean = 40/8 = 5 Gender Mental Illness (A) Deviation from the mean (D) D? F 6 6-5=1 1x1=1 F 5 5-5=0 0x0=0 F 4 4-5=-1 -1x-1=1 F 6 6-5=1 1x1=1 F 5 5-5=0 0x0=0 F 6 6-5=1 1x1=1 F 5 5-5=0 0x0=0 F 3 3-5=-2 -2x-2=4 SD=v ?D2 / N ?D2= 1+0+1+1+0+1+0+4 ?D2=8 N = 8 SD=v8/8 SD=v1 SD =1 Mean and SD for physical cause (M) Mean = Total/number of male Total=2+4+3+3+2+4+4+5 = 27 Number of male = 8 Mean = 27/8 =3.38 Gender Physical Cause (B) Deviation from the mean D D? M 2 2-3.38=-1.38 -1.38x-1.38=1.90 M 4 4-3.38=0.62 0.62x0.62=0.38 M 3 3-3.38=-0.38 -0.38x-0.38=0.14 M 3 3-3.38=-0.38 -0.38x-0.38=0.14 M 2 2-3.38=-1.38 -1.38x-1.38=1.90 M 4 4-3.38=0.62 0.62x0.62=0.38 M 4 4-3.38=0.62 0.62x0.62=0.38 M 5 5-3.38=1.62 1.62x1.62=2.62 SD=v ?D2 / N ?D2 =1.90+0.38+0.14+0.14+1.90+0.38+0.38+2.62 = 7.84 N= 8 SD=v 7.84/8 SD=0.99 Mean and SD for physical cause (F) Mean = Total/ number of female Total= 5+4+4+6+5+5+4+3 = 36 Number of female = 8 Mean= 36/8 = 4.5 Gender Physical Cause (B) Deviation from the mean D D? F 5 5-4.5=0.5 0.5x0.5=0.25 F 4 4-4.5=-0.5 -0.5x-0.5=0.25 F 4 4-4.5=-0.5 -0.5x-0.5=0.25 F 6 6-4.5=1.5 1.5x1.5=2.25 F 5 5-4.5=0.5 0.5x0.5=0.25 F 5 5-4.5=0.5 0.5x0.5=0.25 F 4 4-4.5=-0.5 -0.5x-0.5=0.25 F 3 3-4.5=-1.5 -1.5x-1.5=2.25 SD=v ?D2 / N ?D2 =0.25+0.25+0.25+2.25+0.25+0.25+0.25+2.25 =6 N = 8 SD=v6/8 SD=v0.75 SD=0.87 Mean and SD for psychosocial cause (M) Mean = Total/number of male Total = 5.5+3+7+5+5.5+5+5.5+6 = 42.5 Number of male= 8 Mean = 42.5/8 = 5.31 Gender Psycho- Social Cause (C) Combined Psycho- Social Cause (C) Average (C Combined / 2) Deviation from the mean D D? M 11 11/2=5.5 5.5-5.31=0.19 0.19x0.19=0.04 M 6 6/2=3 3-5.31=-2.31 -2.31x-2.31=5.34 M 14 14/2=7 7-5.31=1.69 1.69x1.69=2.86 M 10 10/2=5 5-5.31=-0.31 -0.31x-0.31=0.10 M 11 11/2=5.5 5.5-5.31=0.19 0.19x0.19=0.04 M 10 10/2=5 5-5.31=-0.31 -0.31x-0.31=0.10 M 11 11/2=5.5 5.5-5.31=0.19 0.19x0.19=0.04 M 12 12/2=6 6-5.31=0.69 0.69x0.69=0.48 SD=v ?D2 / N ?D2=0.04+5.34+2.86+0.10+0.04+0.10+0.04+0.48 = 9 N= 8 SD=v9/8 SD=1.06 Mean and SD for psychosocial cause (F) Mean = Total/number of female Total=5+5.5+5+5.5+6+5+4+5.5 Total=41.5 Number of female=8 Mean=41.5/8 =5.19 Gender Psycho- Social Cause (C) Combined Psycho- Social Cause (C) Average (C Combined / 2) Deviation from the mean D D? F 10 10/2=5 5-5.19=-0.19 -0.19x-0.19=0.04 F 11 11/2=5.5 5.5-5.19=0.31 0.31x0.31=0.10 F 10 10/2=5 5-5.19=-0.19 -0.19x-0.19=0.04 F 11 11/2=5.5 5.5-5.19=0.31 0.31x0.31=0.10 F 12 12/2=6 6-5.19=0.81 0.81x0.81=0.66 F 10 10/2=5 5-5.19=-0.19 -0.19x-0.19=0.04 F 8 8/2=4 4-5.19=-1.19 -1.19x-1.19=1.42 F 11 11/2=5.5 5.5-5.19=0.31 0.31x0.31=0.10 SD=v ?D2 / N ?D2=0.04+0.10+0.04+0.10+0.66+0.04+1.42+0.10 ?D2=2.5 SD=v2.5/8 SD=0.56 Mean and SD for social acceptance (M) Mean = Total/number of male Total =4+5.2+3.6+2.8+4.2+4.6+3.2+3.2 =30.8 Number of male = 8 Mean = 30.8/8 = 3.85 Gender Social Acceptance (D) Combined Social Acceptance (D) Average (D Combined / 5) Deviation from the mean D D? M 20 20/5=4 4-3.85=0.15 0.15x0.15=0.02 M 26 26/5=5.2 5.2-3.85=1.35 1.35x1.35=1.82 M 18 18/5=3.6 3.6-3.85=-0.25 -0.25x-0.25=0.06 M 14 14/5=2.8 2.8-3.85=-1.05 -1.05x-1.05=1.10 M 21 21/5=4.2 4.2-3.85=0.35 0.35x0.35=0.12 M 23 23/5=4.6 4.6-3.85=0.75 0.75x0.75=0.56 M 16 16/5=3.2 3.2-3.85=-0.65 -0.65x-0.65=0.42 M 16 16/5=3.2 3.2-3.85=-0.65 -0.65x-0.65=0.42 SD=v ?D2 / N ?D2=0.02+1.82+0.06+1.10+0.12+0.56+0.42+0.42 =4.52 N=8 SD=v4.52/8 = 0.75 Mean and SD for social Acceptance (F) Mean = Total/number of female Total =4.8+6.2+6.4+4.2+5+4.2+5+6.6 Total =42.4 Number of female=8 Mean = 42.4/8 = 5.3 Gender Social Acceptance (D) Combined Social Acceptance (D) Average (D Combined / 5) Deviation from the mean D D? F 24 24/5=4.8 4.8-5.3=-0.5 -0.5x-0.5=0.25 F 31 31/5=6.2 6.2-5.3=0.9 0.9x0.9=0.81 F 32 32/5=6.4 6.4-5.3=1.1 1.1x1.1=1.21 F 21 21/5=4.2 4.2-5.3=-1.1 -1.1x-1.1=1.21 F 25 25/5=5 5-5.3=-0.3 -0.3x-0.3=0.09 F 21 21/5=4.2 4.2-5.3=-1.1 -1.1x-1.1=1.21 F 25 25/5=5 5-5.3=-0.3 -0.3x-0.3=0.09 F 33 33/5=6.6 6.6-5.3=1.3 1.3x1.3=1.69 SD=v ?D2 / N ?D2=0.25+0.81+1.21+1.21+0.09+1.21+0.09+1.69 ?D2=6.56 N=8 SD=v6.56/8 SD=0.91 Appendix iii: Calculations for Correlations. 1. perception of behavior as indicative of mental illness with belief in physical causes ID Number (X) (X?) (Y) (Y?) (X.Y) 11 6 36 5 25 30 23 5 25 4 16 20 31 4 16 4 16 16 29 6 36 6 36 36 15 5 25 5 25 25 26 6 36 5 25 30 17 5 25 4 16 20 38 3 9 3 9 9 19 3 9 2 4 6 21 2 4 4 16 8 33 7 49 3 9 21 41 5 25 3 9 15 20 5 25 2 4 10 14 5 25 4 16 20 36 6 36 4 16 24 28 7 49 5 25 35 n =16 ?X=80 ?X?=430 ?Y=63 ?Y?=267 ?XY=325 “Perception of behaviour as indicative of mental illness” will be the “X” score. In the first correlation, the “Y” score will be the responses for “belief that mental illness has a physical cause”. THE PEARSON FORMULA OR WHERE A = B =  C=  A = = (16.325) – (80.63) = 5200 – 5040=160 B = = (16.430) – (80.80) = 6880 – 6400=480 C= = (16.267) – (63.63)= 4272-3969=303 r= +0.420 D.f = N – 2 D.f = 16 – 2 = 14 Thus, P > 0.05 2. perception of behavior as indicative of mental illness with belief in psycho-social causes ID Number (X) (X?) (Y) (Y?) (X.Y) 11 6 36 5 25 30 23 5 25 5.5 30.25 27.5 31 4 16 5 25 20 29 6 36 5.5 30.25 33 15 5 25 6 36 30 26 6 36 5 25 30 17 5 25 4 16 20 38 3 9 5.5 30.25 16.5 19 3 9 5.5 30.25 16.5 21 2 4 3 9 6 33 7 49 7 49 49 41 5 25 5 25 25 20 5 25 5.5 30.25 27.5 14 5 25 5 25 25 36 6 36 5.5 30.25 33 28 7 49 6 36 42 n =16 ?X=80 ?X?=430 ?Y=84 ?Y?=452.5 ?XY=431 “Perception of behaviour as indicative of mental illness” will be the “X” score. In the second correlation, the “Y” score will be the responses for “belief that mental illness has a psychosocial cause” THE PEARSON FORMULA OR WHERE A = B =  C=  A == (16.431)-(80.84)=6896-6720=176 B = = (16.430)- (80.80) = 6880- 6400 =480 C=  = (16 x 452.5) – (84.84) = 7240 – 7056 = 184 r = +0.592 D.f = N – 2 D.f = 16 – 2 = 14 Thus, P < 0.02 3. perception of behavior as indicative of mental illness with preferred social acceptance ID Number (X) (X?) (Y) (Y?) (X.Y) 11 6 36 4.8 23.04 28.8 23 5 25 6.2 38.44 31 31 4 16 6.4 40.96 25.6 29 6 36 4.2 17.64 25.2 15 5 25 5 25 25 26 6 36 4.2 17.64 25.2 17 5 25 5 25 25 38 3 9 6.6 43.56 19.8 19 3 9 4 16 12 21 2 4 5.2 27.04 10.4 33 7 49 3.6 12.96 25.2 41 5 25 2.8 7.84 14 20 5 25 4.2 17.64 21 14 5 25 4.6 21.16 23 36 6 36 3.2 10.24 19.2 28 7 49 3.2 10.24 22.4 n =16 ?X=80 ?X?=430 ?Y=73.2 ?Y?=354.4 ?XY=352.8 “Perception of behaviour as indicative of mental illness” will be the “X” score. In the third correlation the “Y” score will be the responses for “preferred social acceptance”. THE PEARSON FORMULA OR WHERE A = B =  C=  A = = (16x352.8)-(80x73.2)=5644.8–5856=-211.2 B = = (16x430)-(80.80)=6880-6400=480 C= =(16x354.4)-(73.2x73.2)=5670.4-5358.24=312.16 r=-0.546 D.f = N – 2 D.f = 16 – 2 = 14 Thus, P < 0.05 Read More