BEHAVTOURAL ASPECTS - Shodhgangashodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/.../10603/543/13/13_chapter6.pdf ·...

CHAPTER V1

BEHAVTOURAL ASPECTS

The behavioural aspects in wives of alcoholics and wives of non-

alcoholics such as self-concept and assertiveness are analysed in two sections.

The results are given io the following pages.

SECTION I SELF-CONCEPT

The self-concept Scale

This scale was used to measure the self-concept of wives of alcoholics and

non-alcoholics. ms scale consists of 4 sub-scales. They are (a) Personal self-

esteem, (b) F d y self-esteem, (c) Social self-estean and (d) Self-confidence.

The test was done individually to all the two groups of samples. The scoring was

followed as given by the author. The score of the two groups of the subjects on

each of the four sub-scales were separately subjected to mean, 't' test, S.D., and

ANOVA test to find out the relationship of these four areas with various socio-

demographic data, between the groups and to test if it is significantly different

between the groups and to test the relationship of four areas of self-concept with

Wives of Alcoholics and Non-Alcoholics and its relationship with various socio-

demo~aphi~data.Tnesummariesofthemean,~t'test,mdANOVAtestforfou~

sub-scales of self-concept scale are also presented in tlus chapter.

The relationship of self-concept with various socio-economic demographic

data between the groups are given below.

Table 6.1.1

Personal self esteem Vs Age between the groups

The above table depicts that in both the groups ' 3ge is not an important

duencing factor in building up personal self-esteem. When the age group 50

Age

20-30

30-40

40-50

50and above

and above showed highest mean value of 33.17 in wives of non-alcoholics,

Wives of non- alcoholics

29.3500

29.8696

26.8837

3 1.8929

33.1667

among wives of alcoholics, 40-50 age group showed highest mean value (M=

No. of cases

100

23

43

28

6

Wives of alcoholics

19.6400

19.6667

19.0877

21.1364

19.3333

21.14). In both the groups, 30-40 age group showed lowest personal self-esteem.

But taking into account both group separately, the wives of non-alcoholics

No. of cases

100

15

57

22

6

showed better personal self esteem than the wives of alcoholics (M= 29.3 5 Vs M

Table 6.1.2

Family self esteem Vs Age between the groups

The above table states that age has no::: -. ;role - in building up of family

Age

20-30

3 0-40

40-50

50and above

self-esteem. Among wives of non-alcoholics, accordmg to the increase of age the

family self esteem increases except for 20-30 age group (M= 23.82 to M= 26.5).

Wives of alco holica

22.7200

23.7333

22.5263

22.5909

22.5000

But in wives of alcoholics age and family self-esteem are not related. There the

age group 20-30, showed hlghest (M= 23.73) family self-esteem. When the age

No. of cases

100

15

57

22

6

group 50 and above showed lowest family self-esteem in wives of alcohol the

same age group showed highest family self-esteem in wives of non-alcoholics.

Considering the study group and control group separately wives of alcoholics


24.2900

23.8261

23.7907

24.9643

26.5000

possessin y more family self-esteem.

No. of cases

1 00

23

43

28

6

Table 6.1.3

Social Self esteem Vs Age between the groups

The table pertaming to social self esteem Vs age shows that, age is not an

integral part in the determination of social self esteem, Since both the yroups

No. of cases

100

23

43

28

6

Age

20-30

30-40

40-50

50and above

does& show any particular pattern for mean value. But the higher mean value,

i.e., and 24.99 in wives of non-alcoholics states that they are having better social

self-esteem than the study group. Among wives of alcoholics and wives of non-

Wiies of non- alcoholics

24.9900

23.0000

23.9767

27.7 143

27.2 667

Wives of alcoholics

22.8700

21 -3333

23.2281

23.3636

2 1.5006

alcoholics the age group between 40-50 showed good social self esteem and the

No. of cases

100

15

57

22

6

age group between 20-30 showed lowest social self esteem.

Table 6.1.4

Self -confidence Vs Age between the groups

The above table states that the age is an indicator only in the case of wives

of an alcoholics when measuring the self confidence in them. Among the wives of

alcoholics the mean value decreases from 25.40 to 23. 67. Hence we could

interpret that according to the increase of age the self-confidence of wives of

alcoholics decreases. But t h ~ s is not true in the case of wives of non- alcoholics.

Among them, 40-50 age group showed hghest mean value of 20.43. The total

self-confidence also was very low in wives of alcoholics (M=19.81) when

compared to the control group (M=24.94).

Age

20-30

3 0-40

40-50

SOand above

Wiies of non- alcoholics

19.8100

19.3913

19.9767

20.4286

17.3333

No. of cases

1 00

23

43

28

6

W i i e s of alcoholics

24.9400

25.4000

25 B877

24.5909

23 -6667

No. of cases

100

15

57

22

6

Table 6.1.5

Personal self -esteem Vs Education between the groups

From the above table it is clear that in wives of alcoholics with the

Education

Primary

Secondary

Undergraduate

Graduate

Postgraduate

in crease of the education personal self-esteem also increases. Because the mean

value shows gradual increase fiom 18.36 to 24.5 for them. In the case of wives of

non-alcoholics except in primary level of education, and postgraduates the mean

W i i e s of alcoholics

19.6400

18.3600

19.2286

19.8800

22.0000

24.5000

value shows gradual increase. It means that education has an important role in the


29.3500

27.0455

26.8 1 82

32.357 1

33 B952

30.7000

No. of cases

1 00

25

35

25

13

2

determination of the personal self-esteem. Considering both groups separately, the

No. of cases

100

22

33

14

21

10

wives of non-alcoholics show higher personal self-esteem (M= 29.35 Vs M=

Table 6.1.6

Family self -esteem Vs Education between the groups

The table shown above states that lugher the education the family self

esteem in wives of alcoholics increases but it is not true in the case of wives of

non-alcoholics. Considering the study group and the control group separately the

wives of non-alcoholics showed better family self esteem with regard to the

education levels. (M= 24.29 Vs M=22.72)

Education

-W

Secondary

Undergraduate

' Graduate

Postgraduate

No. of cases

100

22

33

14

21

10

Wives of alcoholics

22.7200

22,0800

22.0000

23.2400

24.0000

28.5000

No. of cases

100

25

35

25

13

2


24.2900

23.909 1

22.4545

26.0000

26.0476

25.1000

Table 6.1.7

Social self esteem Vs Education between the groups

It is observed from the above table that in wtves of non-alcoholics hgher

educated one shows better social self esteem than the study group. When the

No. of cases

1 00

22

33

14

21

10

mean value in wives of non-alcoholics increases from primary to graduate level


24.9900

23.7273

22.7273

26.5714

28.3810

25.9000

Education

Primary

Secondary

Undergraduate

Graduate

Postgraduate

i.e. 23.73 to 28.38, the mean value in post graduates shows 25.9. All these scores

.. : in&cate to better social self-esteem. But in wives of alcoholic' S mean value

Wives of alcoholics

22.8700

22.0000

22.7714

23.9600

22.7692

22.5000

shows no increase. So it could be concluded that more social self-esteem was

No. of cases

100

25

35

25

13

2

reported by wives of non-alcoholics.

Table 6.1.8

Self confidence Self -esteem Vs Education between the groups

The above table states that according to the lugher education level . self

confidence also increases except in secondary level educated ones among wives

of alcoholics. The tugher mean value in wives of alcoholics shows that (M=

24.94) they are more confident than the wives of non-alcoholics (M=19.81) with

regard to education levels. But in wives of non-alcoholics accordmg to the

increase of education level the self-confidence decreases.

No. of cases

100

22

33

14

21

10

Education

Primary

Secondary

Undergraduate

Graduate

Postgraduate

No. of cases

1 00

25

35

25

13

2

Wives of Alcoholics

24.9400

24.5200

25.37 14

23.9600

22.8462

23.5000

Wives of Non- alcoholics

19.8100

22.409 1

20.3333

18.3571

18.3810

1 7.4000

Table 6.1.9

Personal self -esteem Vs Social status between the groups

The table shown above states that with the increase of the social class

level, wives of alcoholics shows higher personal self-esteem. But in wives of non-

alcoholics social status has no such role in the determination of personal self-

esteem. Among them, middle class wives have more personal self-esteem and it

is low in upper class wives. However the mean value shows that personal self-

esteem is high in wives of non-alcoholics (M= 29.35 Vs M= 19.64).

I

Social status

Low class

Middle class

Upper class

Wives of non- a1 co h ol ics

29.3500

26.6 154

3 1.5714

25.8000

No. of cases

l00

39

56

5

Wives of alcoholics

19.6400

19.5833

29.6210

20.6667

No. of cases

100

36

61

3

Table 6.1.10

Family Self -esteem Vs Social status between the groups

It is noticeable fiom the above table that in both the groups the middle

class people reported good family self-esteem. (Wives of alcoholics M=24.82,

wives of non-alcoholics M= 24.82). In all together good f d y self-esteem was

seen among wives of non-alcoholics (M=24.29 Vs M=22.72).

Table 6.1.11

Social self -esteem Vs Social status between the groups

No. of cases

100

39

56

5

Social status

Low class

Middle class

Upper class

Social status

Low class

mddle class

Upper class

Wives of alcoholics

22.7200

21.4722

23 -5246

21.3333

I

No. of cases

100

36

61

3


24.2900

23.6923

24.8214

23.0000

Wives of alcoholics

22.8700

22.7222

22.8852

24.3333

No. of cases

100

36

61

3


24.9900

23.23 08

26.3750

23.2000

No. of cases

100

39

56

5

The above table depicts that higher social self-esteem with regard to social

status is shown by wives of non-alcoholics. (M=24.99 Vs M=22.87). In wives of

alcoholics according to the increase of class level slight increase in mean value

was seen (M= 22.72 to M= 24.33). But h s trend was not tme in wives of non-

alcoholics. Among them middle class wives showed highest social self-esteem

Table 6.1.12

Self -confidence Vs Social status between the groups

The above table depicts that, with the increase of social status level, the

self-confidence also increases in either group. But comparatively higher self-

confidence was reported by wives of alcoholics. (Wives of alcohoiics M= 24.94,

and wives of non-alcoholics M= 19.81).

Social status

Low class

Middle class

Upper class

Wives of alcoholics

24.9400

25 -2222

24.8525

23.3333

No. of cases

100

36

61

3


19.8100

22.2308

1 8.6429

14.0000

No. of cases

100

39

56

5

Table 6.1.13

Personal self -esteem Vs Employment status between the groups

It is observed fkom the above table that employment status is an important

factor in the determination of the personal self-esteem. Because in both the

groups, the employed ones showed hgher mean value (m= 21.5 and M= 3 1.41)

withm the groups. Since the mean value of wives of alcoholics is 19.64 and in

wives of non-alcoholics in 29.35, it could be concluded that the wives of non-

alcoholics are having more personal self-esteem than the study group.

Table 6.1.14

Family Self -esteem Vs Employment status between the groups

Employment status

Employed

Unemployed

Wives of dcoholics

19.6400

21 .S000

19.23 17

Employment status

Employed

Unemployed

No.ofcases

100

27

73

1Yo.of cases

100

18

82

No. of cases

100

27

73

Wivesofnon- alcoholics

29.3 5 00

3 1.4074

28.5890

Wives of non- a1 coh olics

24 2900

24.8889

24.0685

Wives of alcoholics

22.7200

22.7222

22.7 195

No. of eases

100

18

82

Table 6.1.14 states that family self esteem is not related with the

employment status for both the groups. The mean value of employed and

unemployed ones of study group and control group are 22.72 and 24.29

respectively. If shoes that wives of non-alcoholics are having more family self

esteem than the wives of alcoholics.

Table 6.1.15

Social Self -esteem Vs Employ men t status between the groups

The above table shows that the employment satus have an important role

in the maintenance of social self esteem in both the groups. Because in both the

groups employed wives showed . . . hgher mean value (wives alcoholism

M=23.39 and wives of non- alcoholics M=26.96). Considering each group

separately, wives of non-alcoholics reported better social self esteem than wives

of alcoholics (M=24.99 Vs M=22.87).

No.of c88es

100

27

73


24.9900

26.9630

24.2600

Employment status

Employed

Unemployed

Wives of alcoholics

22.8700

23.3882

22.7561

No.ofcases

100

18

82

Table 6.1.16

Self-confidence Vs Employment status between the groups

The table shown above shows that, in both the groups, the employed ones

shows better self-confidence. Considering both group separately, the wives of

non-alcoholics show. poor self-confidence than the study group (Wives of

a1 coholics M=24.94 and wives of non -alcoholics, M= l 9.8 1 ).

Table 6.1.17

Personal self -esteem Vs Personal income between the groups

No. of cases

100

27

73

Employment status

Employed

Unemployed

Wives of alcoholics

24.9400

25.4146

22.7778

Personal income

No income

Less than Rs. 1000

Rs. 1000-2500

Rs.2500-5000

Rs. 5000 and above

No. of cases

100

18

82

Wives of alcoholics

1 9.6400

19.1059

22.3333

21.3333

24.6667

24.6667


19.8100

20.1096

1 9.0000

No. of cases

100

82

6

6

3

3


29.3500

28.6761

28.0000

34.8000

3 1 .a000

30.61 11

No. of cases

100

73

2

5

2

18

Since the above table shows no pdcular pattern it is clear that personal

income and personal self-esteem are not related. When among the wives of non-

alcoholics the highest mean value of 34.8 shown by the RS.lOOO-2500 income

level groups, the hghest personal self esteem (M= 24.67) was shown by the

Rs. 5 000 and above group in wives of alcoholics. In wives alcoholics according to

the increase of personal income level, personal self-esteem also increases except

for less than Rs.1000 category. Takmg into account for both the groups, the high

personal self-esteem was seen in wives of alcoholics.

Table 6.1.18

Family self-esteem Vs Personal income between the groups

The table pertaining to family self esteem Vs personal income are not

showing any particular pattern for mean value, for both the groups. It means

personal income is not an important factor in measuring family self-esteem. But

Personal income

No Income

Less than Rs. 1000

Rs. 1000-2500

2500-5000

Rs.5000 and above

Wives of alcoholics

22.7200

22.6588

25.3333

23.0000

21.6667

22.3 3 3 3


24.2900

24.3099

20.5000

24.0000

28.5000

24.6667

No. of cases

100

82

6

6

3

3

No. of cases

100

73

2

5

2

18

comparatively higher mean value scored by wives of non-alcoholics (M= 24.29

Vs 22.72) shows that they are having more family self esteem than the wives of

alcoholics. When the income level less than Rs. 1000 shows highest mean value in

wives of alcoholics that category scored lowest mean value in wives of non-

alcoholics. When the income level Rs. 2500- 5000 scored highest mean value in

wives of non-alcoholics that category scored lowest mean value in wives of

alcoholics (M= 21 -67).

Table 6.1.19

Social Self -esteem Vs Personal income between the groups

The table pertaining to social self esteem Vs personal income shows that

in the determination of social self esteem, personal income has no role. Because

in both the groups the mean value is not showing any particular pattern. In both

Personal income

No Income

Less than Rs. 1 000

Rs. 1000-2500

Rs.2500-5000

Rs.5000 and above

Wives of alcoholics

22.8700

22.8000

20.6667

22.8333

25.6667

24.3333

No. of cases

100

82

6

6

3

3


24.9900

24.4085

20.50000

26.6000

23 .OOOO

28.0556 L

No. of cases

100

73

2

5

2

18

the group the income level less than Rs. 1000 showed lowest social self esteem

score. However, the higher mean value i.e. M=24.99 shows that wives of non-

alcoholics are having more social self esteem than the other group (M=22.87).

Table 6.1.20

Self-confidence Vs Personal income between the groups

The above table shows steady decrease of mean value in wives of

alcoholics (M=25.31 to M=20.33). It means, among them as the personal income

increases, the self-confidence decreases. But in wives of non-alcoholics personal

income and self-confidence are not related. The self-confidence is also less in

wives of non-alcoholics with regard to personal income between the groups

(Wives of alcoholics, M=24.94 and wives of non- alcoholics, M= 1 9.8 1).

No. of cases

100

73

2

5

2

18

Personal income

No Income

Less than Rs. 1 000

Rs. 1000-2500

Rs.2500-5000

Rs.5000 and above

Wives of alcohoiics

24.9400

25.3059

23 -6667

23 -6667

23.0000

20.3333

No. of cases

100

82

6

6

3

3


19.8100

20.1690

17.0000

2 9.4000

22.5000

18.8333

Table 6.1.21

Personal Self-esteem Vs Status in house between the groups

The above table states that among wives of alcoholics the status in house

has an important role in measurjng personal self-esteem. In wives of alcoholics

accordmg to the increase in good attitude of the husbands, the wives' personal

self-esteem increases from 1 7.79 to 2 1.18. But in wives of non-alcoholics status

in house has not a good role in determining the personal self-esteem. Among

them more personal self-esteem is reported by the wives, those who are getting no

acceptance from their alcoholic husbands. However more personal self-esteem is

reported by the wives of non- alcoholics.

No. of cases

l00

70

26

4

Status in house

Good acceptance

Little acceptance

No acceptance

Wives of Alco holies

19.6400

21.1842

19.0930

17.7895

No. of cases

1 00

38

43

19

Wives of Non- aleo holics

29.3500

29.6429

28 -3 846

30.5000

Table 6.1.22

Family Self-esteem Vs Status in house between the groups

It is observed fiom the above data that in wives of non- alcoholics alone,

status in house has an important role. Because accorchng to the acceptance fiom

the husband the wive's family self-esteem is increasing among them (M=22.5 to

24.66) But in wives of alcoholics status in house has no such role. There the mean

value is not showing a stsdy pattern. Considering the total samples, more family

self esteem was shown by the wives of non-alcoholics. (M=24.29 Vs M=22.72).

Table 6.1.23

Social Self-esteem Vs Status in house between the groups

No. of cases

100

70

26

4

Status in house

Good acceptance

Little acceptance

No acceptance

Wives of Alcoholics

22.7200

22.6316

23.0698

22.1053

Status in house

Good acceptance

Little acceptance

No acceptance

No. of case8

100

38

43

19

Wives of Non- aleo h 01 ics

24.2900

24.6571

23. S769

22.5000

I

Wives of AI coh olics

22.8700

22.1316

23.6512

22.578 1


24,9900

25.6714

22.8846

26.7500

No. of cases

1 00

38

43

19

No. o f cases

100

70

26

4

The table shown above states that in both the groups the social status in

house and social self esteem are not related.. since its shows difference in mean

values. But the higher mean value (i.e. M= 24.99 Vs M= 2287) in wives of non-

alcoholics shows the hgher social self esteem in them, with regard to status in

house. Among wives of non-alcoholics, those who are not gettmg acceptance

fiom their husband showed highest mean value of 26.75 than those who are

getting acceptance from their husband rated mean value of 25.67. But among

wives of alcoholics those who are getting little acceptance fiom the husband

scored hlghest social self-esteem (M= 23.65)

Table 6.1.24

Self confidence Vs Status in house between the groups

The table shown above states that self-cudidence is more in wives of

alcoholics (wives of alcoholics, M=24.94, and wives of non alcoholics

M= 19.8 1). In both the groups, those wives who are not getting any acceptance

from their husband reported lowest self-confidence (wives of alcoholics M =

Status in house

Good acceptance

Little acceptance

No acceptance

No. of cases

100

70

26

4


19.8100

19.4429

20.7308

20.2500

Wives of alcoholics

24.9400

24.1579

25.279 1

No. of cases

100

38

43

25.7368 19

24.94 wives of non-alcoholics M=19.81). Those who are reported of getting

consideration fully or little fiom their husbands showed comparatively better

self-confidence in either group.

Table 6.1.25

Personnel self esteem Vs interest in social activities between the groups

From the above table it is clear that interest in social activities could not

built up good personal self-esteem in wives. When, those who are not interested

insocial activitiesreportedhigherpmsond selfesteem(M=22.25) andno

response category reported lowest (M= 1 9.00) personal self esteem in wives of

alcoholics. In wives of non-alcoholics no response group reported lugher

personal self esteem M=3 1 -8 1) . However, scores on persbnal self esteem was

higher in wives of non-alcoholics (M= 29.3 5 Vs 1 9.64).

No. of cases

100

57

7

36

Interest in social activities

Yes

No

No response

Wives of alcoholics

19.6400

20.8214

22.2500

19.000

No. of case9

100

28

4

68

Wives of non- alcoholic^

29.3500

28.0526

27.2857

3 1.8056

Table 6.1.26

Family self esteem Vs Interest in social activities between the groups

The above table states that interest in social activities has no duence in

making family self esteem. When the "no response" group showed hghest

(M=26.17) and those are not interested in social activities showed lowest (M=

2 1 .57) family self esteem in wives of non-alcohol ics , in wives of alcoholics (M=

26.1 7), its just reverse was true in wives of non-alcoholics. Comparing both the

groups, the wives of non-alcoholics showed more family self esteem (M= 24.29)

than the study group (M= 22.72).

No. of cases

100

57

7

36

Wives of Non- dcoholics

24.2900

23.4386

21.5714

26.1667


Yes

No

No response

Wives of AIcoholics

22.7200

23,4643

24.5000

22.3088

No. of cases

100

28

4

68

Table 6.1.27

Social self esteem Vs Interest in social activities between the Groups

The above table shows that the higher social self esteem with respect to

interest in social activities was shown by wives of non-alcoholics (M=24.99 Vs

M=22.87) when "no response" group scored highest social self esteem (M=27.5)

in wives of non-alcoholics, those are interested in social activities showed

hghest social self est eern in wives of alcoholics (M=23.29).

Table 6.1.28

Self-confidence Vs Interest in social activities between the groups


Yes

No

No response

Wives of alcoholics

22.8700

23.2857

2 1.2500

22.794 1

No. of cases

100

57

7

36

No. of cases

100

28

4

68


24.9900

24.0702

19.5714

27.5000

No. of cases

100

57

7

36

lnterest in social activities

Yes

No

No response

Wives of alcoholics

24.9400

23.6786

2 1.7500

25.647 1

No, of cases

1 00

28

4

68


19.810'0

20,0526

16.2857

20.1111

It is observed f+om above table that interest in social activities and self-

confidence are related. Because in both the groups those who are not sure about

the social involvement (no response group) reported highest self confidence

(wives of alcoholics Mz25.65 and wives of non-alcoholics M= 25.65) and those

have no interest in social activities reported lowest self confidence (wives of

alcoholics ,M=2 1 .7 5 and wives of non-alcoholics M= 1 6.27). But, while

considering both the groups separately, the wives of alcoholics are having more

self-confidence with regard to interest in social activities.

Table 6.1.29

Personal self-esteem Vs Relation with husband between the groups

It is observed fkom the above table that the relation with the husband has a

Relation with husband

Good

Bad

major role in m h g good personal self-esteem. The wives of non-alcoholics are

having more personal self-esteem than the study group (M= 29.35 Vs M=

Wives of alcoholics

19.6400

20.1538

19.5632

1 9.64). Those wives maintaining good relation with husbands reported higher

No. of cases

1 00

13

87


29.3500

32.7876

28.3247

No. of eases

1 00

77

23

personal self-esteem in both the groups (wives of alcoholics M= 20.15 and wives

of non- alcoholics M= 32.78).

Table 6.1.30

Family self-esteem Vs Relation wit h husband between the groups

It is clear fiom the table that relation with husband has importance in

buildmg up of family self-esteem for both the groups. The higher mean value in

both the groups (wives of alcoholics M= 24.00, wives of non-alcoholics M=

25.39) for good relationship with husband indicates the hgher family self esteem

in them. Taking into account the 100 samples each ( wives of alcoholics and

wives of non-alcoholics ) the hgher family esteem was shown by the wives of


Good

Bad

non- alcoholics.

Wives of Alcoholics

22.7200

24.000

22.5287

No. of cases

1 00

77

23

No. of cases

1 00

13

87


24.2900

75.3913

23.9610

Table 6.1.31

Social self-esteem Vs Relation with husband between the groups

The above table depicts that relationship with husband is an important

factor in the detemimtion of social self-esteem. Because in both the groups the

good relationshp with husband shows hlgher mean value (wives of alcoholics,

M=23.77) and wives of non alcoholics, M=28.57). However considering both the

group separately, the wives of alcoholics are having comparatively hgh social self

esteem (M-24.99) than the wives of non alcoholics (M=22.87).

Table 6.1.32

Self-confidence Vs Relation with husband between the groups


Good

Bad

Wives of alcoholics

22.8700

23.7692

22.7356

Wives of non- dco hoiics

24.9900

28.5652

23.922 1

NO. of cases

100

13

87


19.8160

18.3913

20.2338

No. of cases

1.00

13

87


Good

Bad

No. of cases

100

77

23

No. of cases

1 00

77

23

Wives of alcoholics

24.9400

22.923 1

25.2414

The above table depicts that the relations with husband has very strong

influence in the building up to self confidence. Because in the study group and in

the control group those reported bad relationship with husband scored highest

mean value, which is an indicator of hgh self confidence in them. (wives of

a1 coholics =25.24, wives of non-alcoholics, M=20.23). But when compared both

the groups separately, hgher self-confidence was in wives of alcoholics (wives of

alcoholics, M=24.94 and wives of non-alcoholics, M= 1 9.8 1).

Table 6.1.33

Personal self-esteem Vs Land holdings between the groups

Land holdings

No property

Less than 1 acre

l m e -2 acres

2 acres -3 acres

3 acres -4 acres

4 acres -5 acres

5 acres -6 acres

6 acres -7 acres

Wives of alcoholics

19.6400

22.7333

20.2857

19.8889

19.1053

18.1429

18.3000

17.8889

l 9.0000

No. of cases

100

12

26

8

22

1 1

10

9

2

No. of cases

100

I5

21

9

19

14

10

9

3


29.3500

28.6667

28.1 154

26.7500

26.7273

34.7273

29.4000

3 5.7778

30.0000

The above table describes that personal self-esteem is low in wives of

alcoholics (M= 1 9.64) when compared to wives of non-alcoholics (M= 29.3 5).

When the hgher level of land holders showed better personal self-esteem in

wives of non-alcoholics, in the study group it is just the reverse. In both the

groups the lower level property holders showed better personal self esteem than

the middle level property holders.

Table 6.1.34

Family self-esteem Vs Land holdings between the groups

The above table depicts that wives of non-alcoholics have higher family

self-esteem than wives of alcoholics with respect to land holdings (M=24.29 and

No. of cases

100

12

26

8

22

1 l

10

9

2

Land holdings

No Property

Less than 1 acre .

Wives of alcoholics

22.7200

24.2000

22.0476 .

No.of cases

100

15

21

l acre -2 acre

2 acres -3 acres

3 acres -4 acres

4 acres -5 acres

5 acres -6 acres

6 acres -7 acres


24.2900

24.4 167

24.3077

9

l9

14

10

9

3

22.4444

20.5789

23 -6493

23.6000

25.3333

19.3333

24.2500

22.0909

26.0000

24.7000

26.6667

25.5000

22.72) Since no parbcular pattern for mean value,it is clear that family self esteem

and land holdmg are not moving in the same direction.

Table 6.1.35

Social Self-esteem Vs Land holdings between the groups

The table shown above states that according to the increase in property

level the social self-esteem is not increasing for both the groups. However the

high social self esteem was reported by wives of non-alcoholics (M=24.99) with

regard to land holdmg thm the study group (M=22.87) . In wives of non-

alcoholics, the higher level of landholders showed slightly increased social self-

esteem.

No. of cases

100

12

26

8

22

I l

I0

9

2

Land holdings

No property

Less than 1 acre

1 acre -2 acres

2 acres -3 acres

3 acres -4 acres

4 acres -5 acres

5 acres -6 acres

6 acres -7 acres

No. of cases

100

15

21

9

19

14

10

9

3

Wives of dcoholics

22.8700

24.1333

22.1900

2 1.7778

22.0000

22.357 1

24.9000

24.3333

21.3333


24.9900

23.3333

24.0769

25.2500

22.7273

26.54.55

24.1000

33.8889

26.5000

Table 6.1.36

Self-confidence Vs Land holdings between the groups

The above table pertaining to self confidence and land holding states that,

self confidence shown by wives of alcoholics are higher than the wives of non-

alcoholics, since the mean values are 24.94 Vs 19.81. in both the group, no

pattern was established for mean value. So it could be interpreted that self

confidence and land holding are not moving in the same direction. But it could be

stated fiom the table that in wives of non- alcoholics up to middle level there is

gradual increase in self-confidence.

No. of cases

100

12

26

8

22

1 1

10

9

2

Land holdings

No ProPerty

Less than 1 acre

1 acre -2 acres

2 acres -3 acres

3 acres -4 acres

4 acres -5 acres

5 acres -6 acres

6 acres -7 acres

No. of cases

100

l 5

21

9

19

14

10

9

3

Wives of alcoholics

24.9400

25.0000

24.2381

25.8889

25.0000

25.2 143

22.4000

27.6667

25.3333


19.81000

20.0000

22.46 1 5

18.5000

20.1 818

20.0909

17.5000

15.5556

14.5000

The scores of wives of alcoholics and thereof non-alcoholics on personal

self-esteem, family self-esteem, social self-esteem and self-confidence on S elf

Concept Scale (S.C.S.) are gven below. Difference in mean scores of various

sub-scales on self concept along with 't' value is given in Table 6.1.37. It is

graphically presented in Fig. No. 6.1

Table No 6.1.37

Scores on Self-concept Scale

It is observed that 't value is significant. This shows that there is

significant difference between wives of alcoholics and non-alcoholics on the

Sign i- ficance

<.05

Total

Personal self-esteem

personal self-esteem, family self-esteem, and self-coddence scores. The higher

mean value in wives of non alcoholics shows that they are high in self-esteem on

Family self-esteem

Social self-esteem

Self-confidence

personal, family and social areas but are low in self-confidence.

Wives of alcoholics

M

19.64

22.72

22.87

24.94

l

t

- 1 1.2828

SD

5.0822

Wives of non- alco holies

M

29.35

4.5684

3.7997

4.9233

SD

6.8922

24.29

24.99

19.81

4.475 1

7.8759

4.7005

-2.4428

-2.4121

7.4989

<. 05

x.05

<. 05

Figure 6.1 Scores on Self Concept Scale

0 Personal Family self Soclal self Self sef esteen esteem e s t m confidence

The following table gives the surnmaq of statistics obtained from a sample

of 100 obse~vations each fi-om the alcoholic and non-alcoholics wives.

Analysis of variance two way classifications is used here with groups

decided by the element which is alcoholic and non-alcoholic on one side and one

of the socio-economic and demographic variable as the second classification.

Hence this corresponds to a random effect model and hence the various sum of

squares were calculated through regression. It is done with a purpose of verifying

whether there is any difference in the mean sel f-concept for the different process

considered. The following table provide the result corresponding to various

categories indicate there in.

The table provides 3 different hypothesis being tested. There will be 2

mair ifects and one interaction effect depending upon the probabilities reported

.: respective. F-values are used for declaring whether the effect is sigmficant or

*t.

Table 6.1.38 Personal self esteem score Vs Age between the groups

Source of variation

Between the groups

Age

Two way interactions

R .?sidual - . -7 i l L

F

Sum of squares

4283.842

452.969

150.463

6656.358

11973.995

P

123 S66

4.355

l -447

DF

1

3

3

192

199

Significance o f F

-000

.005

.23 1

Mean square

4283.842

150.990

50.154

34.669

60.171

In the two way analysi S of variance considered to test for average personal

self-esteem score In a two dunensional classification with the experimental groups

as one dunension and the age group as another dunension, the following results

are obtained. The personal self-esteem score seems to have different averages for

the two groups as well as the different age groups. But the averages are in the

same pattern for different age level S, between the two groups.

Table 6.1.39 Family self esteem score Vs Age between the groups

In the two way analysis of variance considered to test for average family

self-esteem score in a two dimensional classification with the experimental groups

as one dimension and the age group as another dunension, the following results

are obtained. The family self-esteem score seems to have different averages for

Significance of F

-023

.712

.515

Source of variation

Between the groups

Age


Residual

Total

Sum of squares

109.173

28.417

47.486

3972.847

4171.995

DF

1

3

3

192

199

Mean square

109.173

9.472

15.829

20.692

20.965

F

5.276

-458

.765

the two groups but had the same averages for the different age groups. Also the

averages are in the same pattern for different age levels, between the two groups.

Table 6.1.40 Social self esteem score Vs Age between the groups

In the two way analysis of variance considered to test for average social


as one dimension and the age group as another dimension, the following results

are obtained. The social self-esteem score seems to have different averages for the

two groups as well as the dfferent age groups. But the averages are in the same

pattern for different age levels, between the two groups.

Significance of F

.016

.057

,270

Source of variation

Between the groups

Age

Two way interachons

Residual

Total

Sum of squares

22 1 -493

283.823

1 46.993

7139.484

7795.020

DF

1

3

3

192

199

Mean square

221.493

94.608

48.998

37.185

39.171

F

5.957

2.544

1.3 18

Table6.1.41 Self confidence score Vs Age between the groups

In the two way analysis of variance considered to test for average self

confidence score in a two dimensional classification with the experimental groups

as one dunension and the age group as another dimension, the following results

are obtained. The self-confidence score seems to have different averages for the

two groups but had the same averages for the Qfferent age groups. Also the

averages are in the same pattern for different age levels, between the two groups.

The four tables shown above show that there is a &ffkrence in various self-

concept S between the wives of alcoholics and their non-alcoholi CS inrespective of

age. The table pertaining to personal self esteem Vs age shows that there is a

hfference in their personal self-esteem between the wives dependmg upon their

age. The other three tables show that there is no difference in family self esteem,

social self esteem and in self-confidence between wives dependng upon their

age-

Source of variation

Between the groups

Age


Residual

Total

F

54.357

.66 1

-324

Significance o f F

-000

.577

-808

Sum of squares

1278.934

46.686

22.886

4517.458

5902.875

DF I

1

3

3

192

199

Mean square

1278.934

15.562

7.629

23.528

29.663

With the increase in age a person is getting more opportunities to go

through various paths of life thus getting more experience in life which enables

him to face life as it is and in this process he becomes more aware of h s worth,

importance, role, image, skills and abilities about themselves whch makes them

proud of their value; self evaluation makes them correct themselves and become

more attractive persons. Thus their personal self-esteem is increasing. That is why

with the increase of age, personal self esteem increases.

But family self-esteem and social self-esteem are measured through the

relationship they are building between family and society. These two are the

mattress of one's socialization process and personality development. The

interpersonal and intra-personal relation ships are important here. Since these two

are something related to behaviour pattern, the age has no influence on it. In the

case of self-confidence also age has no role. Because self-confidence is coming

through the strong appreciation about one's abilities and skills. One's recognition

and realization about hs/her worth in society and the society's remark on it on the

basis of self-confidence. So age has no importance here.

In the four tables shown above a direct relation is established only in

personal self-esteem Vs age. As the personal self esteem score is moving in the

same pattern depending upon their age between the groups we can conclude that

personal self esteem and age are closely related between the groups. Since no

relation is established for family self-esteem, social self-esteem and self-

confidence with their age, the question of pattern of their self-concept with their

age between the groups does not arise.

Table -6.1.42 Personal self-esteem score Vs Education between the groups

In the two way analysis of variance considered to test for average personal

self-esteem score in a two dmensional classification with the experimental groups

as one dimension and the educational level as another dunension, the following

F

123.909

5.627

1.401

Mean square

4124.263

187.297

46.636

33.285

60.171

r

Source of variation

Between the groups

Education


Residual

Total

results are obtained. The personal self-esteem score seems to have hfferent

Significance of F

,000

-000

.235

averages for the two groups as well as the different educational groups. But the

Sum of squares

41 24.263

749.187

186.544

6324.059

11973.995

averages are in the same pattern for different levels of education between the two

DH

1

4

4

190

199

groups.

Table 6.1.43

Family self-esteem score Vs Education between the groups


self-esteem score in a two dvnensional classification with the experimental groups

as one dimension and the educational level as another dunension, the following

results are obtained. The f d y self esteem score seems to have different averages

for the two groups as well as the dfierent educational groups. But the averages

Source of variation

Betweenthegroups

Education


Residual

Total

are in the same pattern for different levels of education between the groups.

Sum of squares

88.307

274.3 50

75.648

3698.752

4171.995

DF

1

4

4

190

199

Significance o fF

-034

-008

.424

Mean square

88.307

68.587

18.912

19.467

20.965

F

4.536

3.523

-971

Table -6.1.44

Social self-esteem score Vs Education between the grou ps


Source of variation

Between the groups

Education

Twowayinteractions

Residual

Total

self-esteem score in a two hens ional classification with the experimental groups

as one dunension and the educational groups as another dimension, the following

Sumof squares

185.090

354.990

183.181

7032.129

7795.020

results are obtained. The social self-esteem score seems to have different averages

for the two groups as well as the different educational groups. But the averages

DF

l

4

4

190

199

are in the same pattern for hfferent levels of education between the two groups.

Table 6.1.45 Self Confidence score Vs Education between the groups

Mean square

185.090

88.747

45.795

37.01 1

39.171

F

5.001

2.398

1.237

Significance ofF

.026

.052

,296

Significance of F,b

-000

.OO 1

-948

Source of variation

Betweenthegroups

Education

Twowayinteractions

Residual

Total

Sum of squares

1116.848

426.377

15.871

4144.782

5902.875

P

51.197

4.886

,182

DF

1

4

4

190

199

Mean square

1116.848

106.594

3 -968

21.815

29.663



as one dimension and the educational level as another dimension, the following

results are obtained. The self-confidence score seems to have Merent averages

for the two groups as well as the educational groups. But the averages are in the

same pattern for different levels of education between the groups.

The four tables shown above depict that there is difference in personal

self-esteem, family self-esteem, social self-esteem and self-confidence between

wives depending upon their level of education. As the level of education increase,

the degree of self concept also increases because self concept sterns fiom a

person' s appraisal of their own worth, significance, alternativemess, competence

and ability to satisfy their aspirations whch to a greater extent depends on

education. In our society well-educated ones are gettmg respect, recognition and

reputation. So naturally their self worth will increase. That is the reason b h d

this relationship of education and self-concept .

Table 6.1.46 Personal self -esteem score Vs Social status between the groups

Source of variation

Between the groups

Social Status


Residual

Total

Sum of squares

4824.457

3 15.367

3 18.934

6625.490

11973.995

DF

3

1

2

194

199

Mean square

4824.457

157.683

159.467

34.152

60.171

P

141.264

'4.617

4.669

Significance of F

-000

,011

.010

In the two way analysis of vauance considered to test for average personal


as one dimension and the social status as another dimension, the following results

are obtained. The personal self-esteem score seems to have ihfferent averages for

the two groups as well as the different social status groups. A1 so the averages are

not in the same pattern for different social status levels between the groups.

Table 6.1.47 Family self-esteem score Vs Social status between the groups


self-esteem score in a two dimensional classfication with the~expmimental groups

as one dimension and the social status as another dimension, the following results

are obtained. The f d y self-esteem score seems to have different averages for

F

6.791

3.217

-241

Source of variation

Betwam the

grouPs

Social Status


Residual

Total

Significance of F

-010

-042

-786

DF

l

2

2

194

199

Sum of squares

136.855

129.653

9.723

3909.374

4171.995

Mean square

136.855

64.827

4.861

20.2 51

20.965

the two groups as well as the different social status groups. But the averages are

in the same pattern for different social status levels between the groups.

Table 6.1.48

Social self-esteem score Vs Social status between the groups


Source of variation

Between the groups

Social Status


Residual

Total

self-esteem score in a two dimensional classfication with the experimental groups

as one dimension and the social status as another dunension, the following results

are obtained. The social self-esteem score seems to have hfferent averages for the

Sum of squares

239.859

128.409

122.958

7318.934

7795.020

two groups but had the same averages for the different social status groups. Also

P

6.358

1.702

1.630

the averages are in the same pattern for chfferent social status levels between the

Significance of F"

-0 12

,185

.l99

DF

. 1

2

2

194

199

group S.

Mean sq uare

239.859

M204

6 1.479

3 7.726

39.171

Table 6.1.49

Self-confidence score Vs Social status between the groups

In the two way analysis of variance considered to test for average self-

confidence score in a two dimensional classification with the expaimental groups

as one dirnenslon and the social status as another dimension, the following results

are obtained. The self-confidence score seems to have different averages for the

two groups as well as the different social status groups. Also the averages are not

in the same pattern for different social status levels between the two groups.

Out of the above four tables, those tables p e h g to personal self-

esteem Vs social status and self confidence Vs social status depict that there is a

Merence in personal self-esteem and self confidence among wives depending

upon their level of social status. There is also difference between wives of

Source of variation

Between the groups

Social Status


Residual

Total

Mean square

1303.887

165.963

76.382

21.146

29.663

Sum of squares

1 303.887

331.926

152.763

4102.341

5902.875

F

61 661

7.848

3.612

DF

1

2

2

194

199

Significance of F

.OOO

.OO 1

.029

alcoholics and their of non-alcoholics in the degree of their personal self-esteem

and self-confidence irrespective of their social status.

Alcoholic's wives are always in a massive stressful situation. They are

always pre-occupied with their drmking husband and miserable conditions at

home. They are pursuing the shame, guilt, grief, anger, hurt, fear, loneliness and

like emotional feelmgs and responses. So they are thinking about themselves, as

inferior to other$, they have no status in society, everyone looks at them with a

contempt and their children will not get a good fbture. These types of thoughts

will reduce their self-worth and self-respect. Due to their negative feelings and

responses they will also lose their confidence in doing the things. But the social

status they are getting will have a major role in determining their personal self-

esteem and self-confidence. Because through higher social status in the society,

their social reputations are r e c o w e d and valued. That is a relief for the

alcoholic's wives. So they are showing better personal self-esteem and self-

confidence than those wives having low social status levels. Their good

connections with other knowledgeable people will boost up their personal self-

image and self-confidence. It will give them better understanding about

themselves and their value in the society. But there is some other personalities

also who do not give importance to others remarks on them. Because they are

confident about their abilities. They are an exemption to the above results.

As the personal self-esteem and self-confidence scores of alcoholic's

wives and there of non-alcoholic's wives are not moving in the same pattern

depending upon their social status between the groups we could conclude that

personal self-esteem and self-confidence are not closely related between the

groups.

The table pertaining to family self-esteem Vs social status and social self-

esteem Vs social status shows a Merence between wives of alcoholic's and

there of non-alcoholics in the degree of their family self-esteem and social self-

esteem. The table far the family self-esteem Vs social self-esteem shows that there

is a hfference in f d y self-esteem between wives depending upon their level of

social status. But the table for social self-esteem Vs social status shows no

difference in social self-esteem between wives depending upon their level of

social status.

Family self-esteem is somehng related to the acceptance the family

members are giving to an individual. It also depends on the love and respect one

could gain in their home. High-class people are always stnct in keeping manners

and their reputation in the society. So they are not interested in flashing out their

home affairs, domestic problems etc to the society. So in the society's view they

are always in cordial relationships. This is the fact behmd the relationshp

between family self-esteem and social status. But when we consider the social

self-esteem, social status has no role in determining it. Thi S is because social self-

esteem is the remark of the society to each one individual. In whatever socd

status they are in, well-mannered interaction with the society will be valued.

In both (family self-esteem and social self-esteem) these tables the scores

of family self-esteem and social self-esteem of wives of alcoholics and non-

alcoholics are moving in the same pattern depending upon their social status,

between the groups. So we could conclude that family self-esteem and social self-

esteem are closely related to social status between the groups.

Table 6.1.50 Personal Self Esteem score Vs Employment status between the groups

In the two way analysis of variance considered to test .for average personal


as one dimension and the employment status as another dimension, the following

results are obtained. The personal self-esteem score seems to have different

Source of variation

Between the soups

Employment


Residual

Total

F

123.810

6.4 14

.071

Sum of squares

4439.038

229,949

2.554

7027.287

11973.995 .

Significance of F

.OOO

,012

.790

DF

l

l

1

196

199

Mean square

4439.038

229.949

2.554

35.854

60.171

averages for the two groups as well as the diEerent employment status groups.

But the averages are in the same pattern for different employment status between

the two groups.

Table 6.1.51

Family Self-esteem score Vs Employment status between the groups

In the two way analysls of variance considered to test for average family

self-esteem score in a two dimensional classfication with the experimental groups

as one dunension and the employment status as another dimension, the following

results are obtained. The farmly self-esteem score seems to have different

averages for the two groups but have the same averages for the different

employment status groups. Also the averages are in the same pattern for different

employment status between the two groups.

Source of variation

Between the groups

Employment


Residual

Total

Significance o fP

,019

.544

.601

Sum of squares

1 15.335

7.623

5.643

4035.484

4171.995

DF

1

1

l

196

199

Mean square

1 15.335

7.623

5.643

20.589

20.965

F

5.602

.3 70

,274

Table 6.1.52

Social self -esteem score Vs Employment status between the groups



Source of variation

Between the l3roUPs

Employment


Residual

Total

as one dimension and the employment status as another dunension, the following

F

4.997

3.004

.g55

results are obtained. The social self-esteem score seems to have Merent averages

Significance of F

.027

.OS5

-330

Sum of squares

189.177

113.722

36.160

7420.417

7795.020

for the two groups but have the same averages for the different employment s t a s

groups. Also the averages are in the same pattern for different employment status

DF

1

l

1

196

199

between the two groups.

Mean square

189.177

113.722

36.160

37.859

39.171

Table 6.1.53 Self -confidence score Vs Employment status between the groups


confidence score in a two dimensional classrfication with the experimental groups

as one dimension and the employment status as another dunension, the following

results are obtained. The self-confidence score seems to have different averages

for the two groups as well as the different employment status groups. But the

averages are in the same pattern for different employment status between the two

groups.

Source of variation

Between the groups

Employment


Resldual

Total

The above tables show that there is a difference between wives of

alcoholics and there of non-alcoholics in the degree of their self-concept

irrespective of their employment status. The tables p e m n g to personal self

esteem Vs employment and self-confidence Vs employment show that there are

Significance of F

,000

-03 1

.353

Sum of squares

1221.33 1

107.207

19.686

4460.137

5209.875

F

53.671

4.7 1 1

-865

DF

1

l

1

196

199

Mean square

1221.331

107.207

19.686

22.756

29.663 .

also differences in personal self-esteem and self-confidence between wives

depending upon their employment status.

Self-concept is an organized knowledge structure, whtch includes

knowledge components like who1 what am I? and the evaluative components

which are the feeling about oneself like traits, physical characteristics, roles,

values, personal goals, benefits etc. When one inhvidual went out for job, they

could understand about themselves each day through different types of

interactions and roles they have to do. The work assigned to them will give an

opportumty for them to understand and reveal their self, principles and belief

towards their life. Our society, whlch gives special respect to the employed

women, will increase their self worth and image. The employed women are

getting more chances than unemployed women to evaluate themselves by

acquiring knowledge about their rights, roles and the demands on their society,

culture and job atmosphere and compare it with where they are standing by most

of the employed women are proud about their position in the society. Since they

are earning they also get an independent personality like their husbands in home

affairs whch will increase their self-respect and worth. So their personal self-

esteem and self-confidence increased.

The tables pertaining to family self esteem Vs employment and social self-

esteem Vs employment show that there is no Qfference in family self-esteem and

social self-esteem between wives depending upon their employment status.

The family members do not see one person in accordance with their

employment status at home. They regard them as a member at home, not in the

image of their employment status. The employed ones are also are so. This is

because at home, they are only wives, sister, mother sister-in-law etc. They could

show the power or status of their employment only at their job atmosphere and not

in the home. So the relationslup at home will be in the light of these facts only. So

the family self esteem and employment status are not related. In the case of social

self esteem also it is the same. The society is giving importance to the individual' S

good personality. In whatever job they are in, the society will remark their

behaviour, manners and culture. If the interaction is good and positive they will be

valued.

The various self-concept scores shown above move in the same pattern

depending upon their employment status, between the groups. Therefore we could

conclude that various self concepts except family self esteem and social self

esteem whch don't have any relation with employment status of wives, are

closely related between the groups.

Table 6.1.54 Personal self -esteem score Vs Personal income between the groups

Source of variation

Between the groups

Personal Income

Twowayinteractions

Residual

Total

Mean square

605.638

12.507

33.134

49.234

60.3 69

F

12.301

.254

6 7 3

Sum of squares

605.638

37.520

99.402

1772.41 1

2595.886

Significance of P

.001

-858

.574

DF

1

3

3

36

43



as one dimension and the personal income group as another dimension, the

following results are obtamed. The personal self-esteem score seems to have

different averages for the two groups but had the same averages for the &fierent

personal income groups. Also the averages are in the same pattern for &&rent

personal income levels between the two groups.

Table 6.1.55

Family self-esteem score Vs Personal income between the groups



as one hmension and the personal income group as another dimension, the

following results are obtamed. The family self-esteem score seems to have the

Significance of F

.491

.849

. l 57

Source of variation

Between the groups

Personal Income


Residual

Total

Sum of squares

9.092

15.028

103.716

675. S00

807.886

F

.48 5

.267

1.842

DF

1

3

3

36

43

Mean square

9.092

5.009

34.572

18.764

18.788

same averages for the two groups as well as the different personal income groups.

Also the averages are in the same pattern for &Eerent personal income levels


Table 6.1.56

Social self esteem score Vs Personal income between the groups



as one dunension and the personal income group as another dunension, the

following results are obtained. The social self-esteem scores seem to have the

same averages for the two groups as well as for the Merent personal income

groups. Also the averages are in the same pattern for different personal income

levels between the two groups.

Source of variation

Between the W'UPS

P e r d Income

Two way hteractions

Residual

Total

Sum of squares

32.582

203.67 1

50.320

4643.978

4995.886

DF

1

3

3

36

43

Mean square

32.582

67.890

16.773

128.999

116.183

F

.253

,526

.l30

Significance of P

.618

,667

.g42

Table 6.1.57 Self confidence score Vs Personal income between the groups


confidence score in a two dimensional classdcation with the experimental groups

as one dimension and the personal income group as another dimension, the

following results are obtained. The self-confidence score seems to have mfferent

averages for the two groups but had the same averages for the different personal

income groups. Also the averages are in the same pattern for mfferent personal

income levels between the two groups.

The above tables show that there is no Merence in self-concept levels of

wives dependmg upon their personal income levels. But the tables perhirung to

personal self esteem Vs personal income and self-confidence Vs personal income

show that there is a difference between wives of alcoholics and there of non-

Source of variation

Between the POUPS

Personal Income

Two way interdons

Residual

Total

Sumof squares

92.228

27.032

39.697

712.867

932.727

DF

1

3

3

36

43

Significance of I?

-03 8

,715

.577

Mean square

92.228

9.01 1

13.232

1 9.802

21 -691

F

4.658

-455

-668

alcoholics in the degree of their personal self-esteem and self-confidence

irrespective of the personal income levels. Money is essential for smooth running

of familial needs. When a wife e m s money it increases her self-worth. The

earning wives are independent without dependmg on husbands' salary. This

increases their personal worth and self confidence.

The table pertaining to f d y self esteem Vs personal income and social

self esteem Vs personal income shows that there is no difference between wives

of alcoholics and non alcoholics in the degree of their farmly self esteem and

social self esteem irrespective of their personal income levels. At home, the

earning member is only a wife. She is not considered as a ' working woman'.

So family self esteem is not connected with personal income. Society gives

respect to those who can mingle with the people in the soclety as per the

standard norms followed by the society. Good social interaction gives the social

self esteem . So social self esteem has no relation with the personal income.

As there is no relation between self-concepts levels and personal income

levels of wives, the question of the pattern of self-concept score for different

personal income levels between the groups does not arise.

Table 6.1.58

Personal self esteem score Vs Status in house between the groups



as one dimension and the status in house as another dimension, the following

results are obtained. The personal self-esteem score seems to have different

averages for the two groups but had the same averages for the Merent statuses in

house. Also the averages are in the same pattern for hfferent statuses in house,


Source of variation

Between the groups

Status in House

interactions

Residual

Total 11973.995 199 60.171

Sum of squares

3641.128

150.28 1

Mean square

3641.128

75.140

DF

1

2

F

100.1 14

2.066

Sipificance of P

.000

.l29

Table 6.1.59

Family self esteem score Vs Status in house between the gmups

In the two way analysis of variance considered to test for average f d y

self-esteem score in a two hensional classification with the experimental groups

as one dimension and the status in house as another dimension, the following

results are obtained. The family self-esteem scores seem to have hfferent

averages for the two groups but had the same averages for the dfferent statuses in

house. Also the averages are in the same pattern for &fferent statuses in house,


Significance of F

-050

-581

-536

Source of variation

Between the groups

Status in House


Residual

Total

Sum of squares

79.970

22.445

25 -766

4000.540

4171.995

DR

I

2

2

194

199

Mean square

79.970

1 1.222

12.883

20.621

20.965

F

3.878

.544

-625

Table 6.1.60

Social self esteem score Vs Status in house between the groups



as one dimension and the status in house as another dunension, the following

results are obtained. The social self-esteem score seems to have different averages

for the two groups but had the same averages for the different statuses in house.

Also the averages are in the same pattern for different statuses in house, between

the two groups.

Source of variation

Between the

groups

Status in House


Residual

Total

Sum of squares

177.644

10.725

197.987

7361.588

7795.020

DP

I

2

2

194

199

Significance of F

-032

-868

-076

Mean square

177.644

5.363

98.993

37.946

39.171

F

4.681

.l41

2.609

Table 6.1.61

Self confidence score Vs Status in house between the groups



as one dimension and the status in house as another dunension, the following

results are obtained. The self-confidence scores seem to have different averages

for the two groups but had the same averages for the ihfferent statuses in house.

Also the averages are in the same pattern for Merent statuses in house, between

the two groups.

The above four tables say that there is a difference in the various self-

concept scores between the wives of alcoholics and there of non-alcoholics. But

Source of variation

Between the W"'PS

Status in House


Residual

Total

F

42.105

1.506

,052

Significance o f F

-000

.224

-949

Sum of squares

979.806

70.087

2.418

4514.525

5902.875

DF

1

2

2

194

199

Mean square

979.806

35.043

2.209

23.27 1

29.663

these tables show that there is no difference in various self-concept scores

between wives depending upon their status at home.

In the majority of the alcoholics' families, the alcoholic husbands do not

understand the value of the wives. Since self-concept is the understandmg about

their real self and the wives of alcoholics are ready to suffer ev-g for the

betterment of them and their children's future. They are not much bothered of

their importance or acceptance at home as they know that they are doing all these

for the betterment of their family life. But they are not ready to mingle with

society because of their shame, fear, anxiety, guilt-feeling etc. They are helpless in

thls matter without active involvement in social activities. Whatever status they

are g e m , these h d s of feelings cannot be changed. It is an &er effect of their

husband's behaviour. However, the inesponsibility of the husband forces her to

manage the whole family needs without any external help. The feeling that

nobody is there to help her will enable her to work hard. That wdl increase her

self-confidence.

As there is no relation between status at home and various self-concept

scores of wives, the question of pattern of various self-concept scores for statuses

in house, between the wives does not arise.

Table 6.1.62

Personal self esteem score Vs Interest in social activities between the groups



as one dunension and the interest in social activities as another bens ion , the

following results are obtained. The personal self-esteem score seems to have

Mment averages for the two groups but had the same averages for the Merent

groups for varying interest in social activities. The averages for different groups

for varymg interest in social activities are in the same pattern, between the two

groups.

Significance ofF

-000

-528

-004

Source of variation

Between the

P O ~ P S

Interest in social work


Residual

Total

Sum of squares

45 14.360

45.118

391 .g05

6822.767

11973.995

DF

1

2

2

194

199

Mean square

4514.360

22.559

1 95.953

35.169

60.171

F

128.362

.64 1

5.572

Table 6.1.63

Family self esteem score Vs lnterest in social activities between the groups



as one dunension and the interest in social activities as another dunension, the

following results are obtamed. The family self-esteem score seems to have

different averages for the two groups but had the same averages for the different

groups for varying interest in social activities . Also the averages are in the same

pattern for ddTerent groups for varying interest in social activities, between the

two groups.

Significance of F

-006

.357

.004

F

7.838

1.035

5.608

Source of variation

Between the

GOUPS



Residual

Tatal

Mean square

153.088

20.222

109.539

19.532

20.965

Sum of squares

153 -088

40.444

2 19.078

3789.228

4171.995

DF

1

2

2

194

199

Table 6.1.64

Social self esteem score Vs Interest in social activities between the groups


self-esteem score in a two hensional classification with the experimental groups

as one dimension and the interest in social activities as another dunension, the

following results are obtained. The social self-esteem score seems to have

cbfferent averages for the two groups as well the different groups for varying

interest in social activities Also the averages are not in the same pattern for

different groups for varylng interest in social activities between the two groups.

Sigaifkance of F

.003

.022

-057

Source of variat ioa

Between the liF"'PS



Residual

Total

Mean square

327.588

141 339

106.203

36.464

39.171

F

8.984

3.893

2.9 13

Sum of squares

327.588

283.879

2 12.406

7074.016

7795.020

DF

l

2

2

194

199

Table 6.1.65

Self confidence score Vs lnterest in social activities between the groups



as one dimension and the interest in social activities as another dunension, the

following results are obtained. The self-confidence score seems to have different

averages for the two groups as well as the different groups for varying interest in

social activities . But the averages are in the same pattern for different groups for

varylng interest in social activities, between the two groups.

The above four tables depict that there is a difference in the various self-

concepts between the wives of alcoholics and non-alcoholics. But the tables

Source of variation

Between the P ~ P S



Residual

Total

pertaining to personal self-esteem Vs interest in social activities and family self

Sum of squares

1004.693

173.268

39.549

4374.213

5902.875

DF

1

2

2

194

199

F

44.559

3.842

377

Mean square

1004.693

86.634

19.775

22.547

29.663

Significance of P

. 000

.023

-4 18

esteem Vs interest in social activities show that there is no difference in personal

self-esteem and family self esteem, between wives dependmg upon their interest

in social activities. And the table pertaining to social self esteem Vs interest in

social activities and self curxEdence Vs interest in social activities show that there

is a difference in social self esteem and self confidence between wives depending

upon their interest in social activities.

Personal self-esteem is not a product of any external forces. Every

Individual knows what he is what is his worth. P e r d self-esteem is one's belief

regardmg self, how well one is living up to the standards of value prescribed by

the worldview. It is an attitude. So involvement in social activities has no direct

relationship in it. In the case of family self esteem also it is the same. One's proud

knowledge about their dealing with the f d y is the family self-esteem. It is a

person' S ability to satisfy their aspirations along with family members. So social

activities don't have any role in it.

Active involvement in social advities will give an indwidual the chance

to show their dull md abilities out of their house. Other active members of those

organizations are strong inspirations for them to work actively. The appreciation

and encouragement, the social beings are giving to the other individual will

certainly increase their self worth and value. It will gve insight to them about

their role and importance in the society and the sense that they can also contribute

something to the society will increase their social self-esteem and self-confidence.

So we can say that involvement in social activities has a major role in detaminhg

the social self-esteem and self-confidence. But disturbed emotions or hurt feelings

are exemption for h s general picture about social self-esteem. Because negative

attitude towards society make the wives of alcoholics as introverts which wdl lose

her confidence and social self esteem.

In the above four tables, social self esteem and self confidence scores only

are moving in the same pattern depending upon their interest in social activities,

between the groups. So we could conclude that social self-esteem and self-

confidence are closely related to interest in social activities, between wives of

alcoholics and non-dcoholics. No relation is established with the interest in social

activities against their personal self-esteem and family self esteem, between the

groups.

Table 6.1.66 Personal self-esteem score Vs Relation with husband between the groups

Source of variation

Between the groups


Two way interactmns

Residual

Total

Sum of squares

4356.975

252.670

103 -229

6903.891

11973.995

P

123.694

7.173

2.93 1

Significance of P

-000

.008

.088

DF

l

1

1

196

199

Mean square

4356.975

252.670

103.229

35.224

60.171



as one dunension and the relation with husband as another dimension, the

following results are obtained. The personal self-esteem score seems to have

hfferent averages for the two groups as well as the chfferent groups of vary1118

degrees of relation with the husband. But the averages are in the same pattern for

Afferent groups of varylng degrees of relation with the husband, between the two

groups.

Table 6.1.67 Family self esteem score Vs Relation with husband between the groups

In the two way analysis of variance considered to test for average farmly

self-esteem score in a two dmensional classfication with the experimental groups

'

Significance of F

.028

-086

-98 1

Source of variation

Between the groups



Residual

Total

DF

1

1

l

196

199

Sum of squares

99.864

60.699

-012

3988.040

4171.955

Mean square

99.864

60.699

-0 12

20.347

20.965

F

4.908

2.983

.OO 1

as one dimension and the relation with husband as another dunension, the

following results are obtained. The family self-esteem score seems to have

different averages for the two groups but had the same averages for the different

groups of varying degrees of relation with the husband. Also the averages are in

the same pattern for Merent groups of varying degrees of relation with the

husband between the two groups.

Table 6.1.68

Social self esteem score Vs Relation with huaband between 'the groups



S one dimension and the relation with husband as another dimension, the

following results are obtained. The social self-esteem score seems to have

different averages for the two groups as well as the different groups of varying

F

4.332

8.302

2.456

Source of variation

Betweenthegroups



Residual

Total

Significance of F

.039

. O M

-119

Sum of squares

158.613

303.962

89.926

7176.412

7795.020

DF

1

1

1

196

199

Mean square

158.613

303.962

89.926

36.614

39.171

degrees of relation with the husband. But the averages are in the same pattern for

different groups of varymg degrees of relation with the husband, between the two

groups.

Table 6.1.69 Self confidence score Vs Relation with husband between the groups

Source of variation

Between the groups


Two way interamons

Explained

Residual

Total

Significance of F

-000

,023

.794

,000

Mean square

1 193.309

119.343

1 S63

478.917

22.786

29.663

Sum of squares

1 1 93.309

119.343

1.563

1436.750

4466.125

5902.875

F

52.369

5.237

.069

21.018

DF

1

1

l

3

196

199



as one dunension and the relation with husband as another dunension, the

following results are obtained. The self-confidence score seem to have different

averages for the two groups as well as the hfferent groups of vsaylng degrees of

relation with the husband. But the averages are in the same pattern for different

groups of varymg degrees of relation with the husband, between the two groups.

The above four tables show that there is a difference between wives of

alcoholics and there of non-alcoholics in the degree of their self-concept

irrespective of the level of their relation with the husband. The table pertaining to

family self esteem Vs relation with the husband shows that there is no Merence

in their family self esteem, between the wives depending upon their relation with

the husband. The other three tables show that there is a difference in their

personal self-esteem, social self esteem self-confidence between wives dependmg

upon their level of relation with their husband.

In marital life wives' backbone and strength is their husbands. If the

relationship is cormal she feels secured in life and that will give her the power to

ovacome all the obstacles wmes to her life. Husband's love, care and the feeling

that he will be always with her are a power for her to pursue her life smoothly.

She feels respected, considered, loved, cared etc by her husband, whtch is

expected the most. Good relationshp with the husband is a must for a satisfied

life. It will increase the wives' self worth, self-respect and self-contidence

because of the above reasons. Happy life d l ylve strength to her to interact well

and make good relationship with the society. It makes her feel good about the

society and that the evaluation about her and her family life is cordial. That makes

her proud about herself and her position in the society. So the social self-esteem is

also related to the relationshp with the husband. But considering the f a d y self

esteem, whatever may be the level of the relationship with the husband, for the

smooth running of their family life especially for the future of their children and

psychologcal balance of themselves, they have to adjust with their f d y

circumstances and must have p o d relationship and express good terms with the

family members. Parents are the models for their chldren. So they must behaves

so. If the mother behave in a proper manner in an alcoholic's house the children

will get at least one parental model. So she should subside her negative

impression and emotions about the family. Because of this awareness, the wives

are adjusting with ail h d s of their negative emotions. That is why family self-

esteem and relation with the husband are not closely related.

In the tables pertaining to personal self esteem Vs relation with husband,

social self esteem Vs relation .with husband and the self confidence Vs relation

with husband, the respective self concept scores are moving in the same pattern

dependmg upon their relation with their husband, between the groups. Therefore

we could conclude that these self-concepts and relation with the husbands are

closely related between wives of alcoholics and non-alcoholics. The self concept

of family self esteem is not closely related to the level of relation with their

husbands between the wives of alcoholics and there of non-alcoholics as no

relation is established between family self esteem and their relation with the

husband.

Table 6.1.70 Personal self esteem score Vs Land holdings between the groups

In the two way analysis of variance considered to test for average home

personal self-esteem score in a two dimensional classification with the

experimental groups as one dimension and the groups for hfferent vo1umes of

land holdings as another dimension, the following results are obtained. The

personal self-esteem score seems to have different averages for the two groups but

had the same averages for the different land holdings groups. But the averages of

chffe~ent levels of land holding are in the same pattern, between the two groups.

Significance of F

. 000

-176

.003

F

240.946

1.517

3.494

Source of variation

Between the groups

Land holdings


Residual

Total

Mean square

4700.259

50.584

116.523

33.348

63.580

Sumof squares

4700.259

303 -502

699.139

5302.322

10935.780

DF

I

6

6

159

172

Table 6.1.71

Family self esteem score Vs Land holdings between the groups


self esteem score in a two dimensional classification with the experimental groups

as one dunension and the groups for different volumes of land holdings as another

dimension, the following results are obtained. The family self-esteem score seems

to have different averages for the two groups as well as the different land holdings

groups. But the averages are in the same pattern for different groups of varying

land holdings, between the two groups.

Significance of F

.006

.007

.957

Source of variation

Between the i F U P S

Land holdmgs


Residual

Total

Mean square

159.539

61 -699

5.137

20.186

21 .&l9

F

7.904

3.057

-254

Sum of squares

159.539

370.194

30.822

3209,544

3752.821

DF

1

6

6

159

172

Table 6.1.72

Social self esteem score Vs Land holdings between the groups

In the two way analysis of variance cansidered to test for average social

self-esteem score in a two dunensional classification with the experimental groups

Source of variation

Between the groups

Land holdings


Residual

Total

as one dunension and the groups for dfferent volumes of land holdmgs as another

Sum of squares

308.41 1

640.444

343.565

6234.301

7503.630

dimension, the following results are obtained. The social self-esteem score seems

Significance of F

.006

.Q1 5

.l95

DF

1

6

6

159

172

to have different averages for the two groups as well as the different land holdmgs

groups. But the averages are in the same pattern for different groups of varying

land holdmgs, between the two groups.

Mean square

308.41 1

106.741

57.261

39.209

43.626

F

7.866

2.722

1.460

Table 6.1.73

Self confidence score Vs Land holdings between the groups


Source of variation

Between the groups

Land holdings


Residual

Total

score in a two dunensional classification with the experimental groups

as one dimension and the groups for different volumes of land holdings as another

dunension, the following results are obtained. The self-confidence score seems to

Sum of squares

1 1 75.824

213.106

41 1.381

3359.988

5129.145

have chfferent averages for the two groups but had the same averages for the

P

55.642

. 1.681

3.245

different land holdmgs groups. But the averages are not in the same pattern for

DP

1

6

6

159

172

Significance of F

. 000

-129

.005

mfferent groups of varying land holdings, between the two groups.

Mean square

:

1 175.824

35.518

68.563

21.132

29.82 1

The four tables shown above show that there is a difference in various self-

concepts between the wives of alcoholics and there of non-alcoholics irrespective

of their land holding. The table pertaining to personal self esteem Vs land self

confidence Vs land shows that there is no difference in these self-concepts

between the wives depending upon their area of land in hand. But the tables

pertaining to family self esteem Vs land holding and social self esteem Vs land

holding shows that there is a difference in these self concepts between the wives

dependmg upon their area of land in hand.

Personal self esteem and self confidence are not related with property in

hand, because personal self esteem is one's sense of contentment and self

acceptance and self confidence is the strong faith in hls shlls and abilities. Both

are part of one's personality. Interaction with the society has an inevitable role in

moulding these two qualities. Land holdmg has no dluence on it. But

considering the family self-esteem and social self-esteem, property has close

relation with it. Our society has a tendency to consider land lords in a high

position in the society, because many people are dependmg upon them for their

daily bread by doing some work for them. In social activities and in organizations

etc they will have good positions. They may have high level contacts also. So

those people coming under that category will have high social self-esteem. The

status the high-level economic strata people get will increase their pride about

their family's position at society. The thought that their family and family

members have very good image in the society d l increase their worth about their

family. That is why property in hand and family self-esteem are closely related.

Out of the four tables shown above, a direct relation is established only in

family self esteem Vs land holding and social self esteem Vs land holding. As

these self concept scores are moving in the same pattern depending upon the

volume of land owned by them, between the p u p s we can conclude that family

self esteem and social self esteem are closely related with the volume of land in

hand, between the wives of alcoholics and there of non-alcoholics. Since no

relation is established for personal self-esteem and self-codiden ce with the

volume of land in hand with them, the question of pattern of these self-concepts

with the volume of land in hand with them, between the groups does not arise.

Significant findings from Self Concept Scale ( Rajini)

The self-concept scale has been used to bring out the understanding of

Wives of Alcoholics and Wlves of Non-Alcoholics about their real self There are

four sub-scales - personal self-esteem, family self esteem, social self-esteem and

self-confidence - whch are compared between the groups. The analysis with

respect to the data of structured interview schedule for the two groups of subjects

have already been presented in h s chapter through various tables. The following

sdent features of the self-concept scales may be hghl~ghted.

Various socio-demographc data ltke age, education, social status,

employment status, personal income level, status in house, interest in social work

activities, relation with husband and land holding and its relationship with

personal self esteem, family self esteem, social self esteem and self confidence

were compared in wives of alcoholics and non-alcoholics. The wives of alcoholics

showed hghest mean value in self confidence. ie. 24.94 Vs. 1 9.8 1 . It shows that

self confidence in wives of alcoholics is very hlgh as compared to control group.

The wives of alcoholics showed poor scores in personal self esteem (WO4

19.64; WONA 29.35). In family self esteem and social self esteem the mean

values were very close but slightly hgher in social self esteem. (Family self

esteem, 22.72 Vs. 24.29; Social self esteem, 22.87 Vs. 24.99). The result shows

that wives of non-alcoholics have better self-concept.

Self Concept Vs Age

In wives of non-alcoholics those belong to 50 and above age group shows

hghest level of personal and family self esteem and 40-50 age group shows

highest level of social self-esteem and self-confdence. But the 30-40 age group

shows lowest personal and fbmily self-esteem. Lowest social self-esteem was in

20-30 age group and lowest self-confidence reported by 50 and above age group.

In wives of alcoholics 40-50 age p u p shows highest personal self-esteem

and social self-esteem. Kghest family self-esteem was in 20-30 age group

whereas self-confidence is decreasing accordmg to the increase of age. Lowest

personal self-esteem was in 30-40 age group. Lowest family self-esteem and

social self-esteem was in 50 and above age group and 20-30 age group

respectively.

Self Concept Vs Education

h wives of non-alcoholics graduates shows hghest and secondary level

educated ones shows lowest personal, family and social self esteem. But self-

confidence is high in secondary level educated and lowest in post graduates.

Graduates and under graduates also have very poor self-confidence. However

general trend is that, upto graduate level according to the increase of education

level self-concept increases, except for self-confidence. With the increase of

education self-confidence decreases.

In wives of alcoholics according to the increase of education level

personal, family and social self-esteem increases.

In wives of non-alcoholics accordmg to the increase of social status self-

confidence decreases. Other components of self -confidence decreases other

.:omponent S of self-concept lke, personal self-esteem, f m i l y self-esteem and

social self-esteem are hghest in middle class and lowest in upper class.

In wives of alcoholics with the increase of social status personal self-

esteem also increases whereas self-confidence decreases. Family self-esteem was

hghest in middle and social self-esteem was in upper class.

Self Concept Vs Employment Status

In both the groups employed ones shows better self-concept. But with

regard to family self-esteem, employed and unemployed ones are having almost

same averages for wives of alcoholics and non- alcoholics.

Self Concept Vs Personal Income

In wives of non-alcoholics personal self-esteem was highest in Rs. 1000-

2500 group and lughest social self-esteem in Rs.5000 and above groups. But

personal self esteem and social self esteem are lowest in less than Rs. 1000 group.

Where Rs. 2500-Rs. 5000 goup are highest in family self-esteem and lowest in

self-confidence, less than Rs. 1 000 group showed lowest family self-esteem and

'~ghest self-confidence.

In wives of alcoholics where less then Rs. 1 000 group are highest in family

self-esteem and lowest in social self-esteem, Rs. 25 00-5000 group showed lowest

family self-esteem and highest social self-esteem. With the increase of personal

income level the personal self-esteem increases and self-confidence decreases.

Self Concept Vs Status in House

In wives of non-alcoholic S, personal self-esteem and social self-esteem are

hghest in those wives who are getting acceptance fiom their husband and lowest

in those wives who are getting 'little acceptance'. Self-confidence is highest in

those wives who are getting 'little acceptance' and lowest in those wives who are

getttng 'acceptance'. But family self-esteem is increasing with the increase of

status in house.

In wives of alcoholics according to the increase of status in house,

personal self-esteem also increases. The trend in family self-esteem and social

self-esteem are almost same in average. These highest family and social self-

esteem was in those wives who are getting little acceptance and lowest in those

wives who are completely neglected by their husbands. Self-confidence was

highest in those wives who are absolutely neglected by their husbands, and lowest

in those wives who are getting acceptance fiom their husbands.

Self Concept VS Interest in Social Activities

In wives of non-alcoholics, those are not sure about their social

involvement shows highest i.e. no response group.

In wives of alcoholics, those are not interested in social activities showed

highest, and those are not sure about their social involvement (no response p u p )

showed lowest personal and family self-esteem. Social self-esteem was highest in

those are interested in social activities and lowest in those are not having any

interest in social activities. In both the groups, self confidence was highest in no

response group and lowest in those are not interested in social activities.

Self Concept Vs Relation with Husband

In both the groups, those wives are in good ~elationship with their husband

showed better personal, family and social self-esteem. Whereas better self-

confidence was shown by those wives are not in good relation with their husband.

Self Concept Vs Land Homing

In both the groups self concept is not showing a particular trend in

connection with land holding.

Result of 't' test

The result of 't' test shows that there is a significant drffaence between

wives of alcoholics and non-alcoholics. It supports our findmg that wives of

alcoholics show better self-concept than the wives of non-alcoholics.

Result of ANOVA

The two-way analysis, which was done for self-concept between the

groups as compared to socio-demographic variable show the following, results.

Personal self-esteem

The ANOVA yielded significant chfferences for age, education, social

status, employment status, personal income 1-1 and relation with husband.

The ANOVA yielded no significant hfferences for status in house, interest

in social activities and land holdings.

Family self-esteem

The ANOVA yielded significant hfferences for education, social status

and land holding.

The ANOVA yelded no sipficant mfferences for age, employment

status, personal income level, status in house, interest in social activities and

relation with husband.

Social self esteem

The ANOVA yielded significant differences for education, interest in

social activities, relation with husband and land holdmgs.

The ANOVA yielded no significant differences for age, soclal status,

employment status, personal income level and status in house.

Self confidence

The ANOVA yielded significant differences for education, social status,

employment status, personal income level, interest in social activities and relation

with husband.

The ANOVA yielded no sigmficant differences for age, status in house

and land holdings.

SECTION II SELF-ASSERTIVENESS

Rathus Assertiveness Schedule

Ths scale assessed the assertive nature in wives of dcoholics and non-

alcoholics. The mean score of various socio-demographc data between the

groups are given in the following pages.

Table 6.2.1

Self Assertiveness Vs Age between the groups

The above table depicts that self-assertiveness is more in wives of

alcoholics with regard to age. When the highest assertiveness score was reported

by the age group 50 and above, next to 20-30 age group, in wives of alcoholics,

the same was reported by the age group 30-40, next to 50 and above in wives of

non-alcoholics. The lowest assertiveness score reported by both the groups was

40-50 age group next to 20-30 age group.

Age

20-30

3 0-40

40-50

50 and above

No. of cages

100

23

43

28

6

1

Wives of alco h oiicsl

74.5600

74.0667

75.0000

71.7143

75.8333

No. of cases

100

15

57

22

6

Wives of non - alcoholics

73.3600

72.3478

75.0000

73.4091

73.1667

An ANOVA test done to see the relationship of self assertiveness with

various socio-demographic data is also given in the following pages.

Table No.6.2.2

Self Assertiveness Vs Education between the groups

The above table depicts that wives of alcoholics are more assertive

(Mz74.56) than the wives of non-alcoholics (M=73.36). Among wives of

alcoholics primary group scored highest assertiveness score (M=78.00) and

secondary educated ones scored lowest assertiveness score of M=7 1.4 next to post

graduates (M=7 1 .5). But in wives of non-alcoholics when secundary educated

ones scored highest assertweness score (M=76.00) the lowest score was reported

by the post graduate (M=70.30) and primary educated ones (M=70.41).

No. of cases

100

22

33

14

21

10

Education

Primary

Secondary

Under graduate

Graduate

Post graduate

Wives of alcoholics

74.5600

78.0000

71.4000

7 5.6800

74.7692

7 1.8000

No. of cases

100

25

35

25

13

2


73.3600

70.409 1

76.0000

71.8571

74.76 19

Table 6.2.3

Self Assertiveness Vs Social status between the groups

The above table states that wives of alcoholics are more asserbveness

than the wives of non-alcoholics. (M= 74.56 Vs M=73.36). Among wives of non-

alcoholics accordmg to the increase of social status level the asserttve behavior

also increases. But in wives d alcoholics, when the upper class shows very high

assertive behaviour (M=86.3 3), the lowest assertive behaviour was shown by the

Social status

Low class

Middle class

Upper class

middle class people (M=72.57).

Table 6.2.4

Self Assertiveness Vs Employment status between the groups

Wives of alco h olica

74.5600

7 6.9444

72.5738

86.3333

No. of cases

100

36

61


73.3600

71.5641

74.3929

No. of cases

2 00

18

82


73.3600

76.7407

72.1096

Employment status

Employed

Unemployed

No. of cases

100

39

56

3 75.8000

No. of cases

1 00

27

73

Wives of alcoh oIics

74.5600

77.8889

73.8293

5

The table shown above describes that employment status is a major factor

in the determination of assertive behaviour in wives. Because in both the groups,

the employed wives showed lugh assertive behaviour (wives of alcoholics, M=

77.89, and wives of non-alcoholics, M= 76.74) than the control group. However,

the assertiveness was more in wives of alcoholics, since their mean value is

higher .

Table 6.2.5

Self Assertiveness Vs Personal income between the groups

It is observed from the above table that when the income group of Rs.

5000 and above showed hlghest assertiveness in wives of alcoholics (M= 79.67)

in wives of non- alcoholics it was shown by the income group of Rs. 2500-5000

(M= 8 5.5). But in both the group S the no income group reported lowest assertwe

Personal income

No income

Less Rs. 1000

Rs. 1000-2500

Rs.2500-5000

5000 and above

No. of cases

100

7 1

4

5

2

18

Wives of alcoholics

74.5600

74.094 1

78.0000

75,3333

77.6667

79.6667

No. of cases

100

85

3

6

3

3


73.3600

7 1.3662

80.0000

76.0000

85.5000

77.6667

behaviour (wives of alcoholics, M= 74.09 and wives of non-alcoholics, M=

7 1 .3 7). When consider both the groups separately, the wives of alcoholics are

more assertive than the wives of non- alcoholics (wives of alcoholics M= 74.56,

wives of non-alcoholics, M= 73.3 6).

Table 6.2.6

Self Assertiveness Vs Status in house between the groups

The above table describes that status in house has major influence in the

measurement of self assertiveness in wives. Because in wives of alcoholics

No. of cases

100

70

26

4

according to the increase of acceptance from the husband the assertiveness

Status in ouse

Good acceptance

Little acceptance

No acceptance

decreases.( wives of alcoholics M=75.79 to 73 -89). But it was just opposite in

No. of cases

100

38

43

19

Wives of aleo h olics

74.5600

73 -8947

74.6047

75.7895

wlves of alcoholics. There, accordmg to the increase of acceptance level the


73.3600

73.8143

73.923 1

61.7500

assertive nature also increases. However, more assertive behaviour was reported

by the wives of alcoholics.

Table 6.2.7

Self Assertiveness Vs Interest in social activities between the groups

It can be interpreted fiom the above table that, among the wives of

alcoholics, those who have no particular involvement or interest in social

activities reported highest assertive nature (M=75.81) and those who have

absolutely no interest in social activities reported lowest assertive nature (M=

70.75). But in wives of non-alcoholics the result is just the reverse to the above.

Among them, those who have no interest in social activities reported the highest

(M= 85.00) and those who have no particular involvement in social a&Vrties

reported the lowest (M= 70.64) assertwe behaviour. When we consider both the

groups separately, wives of alcoholics showed more assmve behaviour (wives

of alcoholics, M= 74.56 and wives of non-alcoholics, M= 73.36).

No. of eases

100

57

7

36


Yes

No

No response

Wives of alcoh olica

74.5600

72.0714

70.7500

75.8088

No. of cases

100

28

4

68


73.3600

73.649 l

85 .OOOO

70.6389

Table 6.2.8

Self Assertiveness Vs Relation with husband between the groups

It is observed fiom the above table that, the wives of alcoholics are more

assertwe than the wives of non-alcoholics (wives of alcoholics M= 74.56, wives who

of non-alcoholics M= 73.36). However in both the groups those,are in bad

No. of I

cases

l 00

77

23


Good

Bad

relationship with their husbands showed more assertive nature.

Table 6.2.9

Self Assertiveness Vs Land holding between the groups

Wives of alcoholics

74.5600

69.7692

75 -2759

No. of cases

100

13

87

Land holding

No property

Less than l acre

1 acre -2 acres

2 acres -3 acres

3 acres -4 acres

4 m e s -5 acres

5 acres -6 acres

6 acres -7 acres


73.3 600

71.1739

74.0130

No. of cases

100

12

26

8

22

l l

10

9

2

Wives of alcoholics

74.5600

73 -4667

74.2857

76.7778

77.7368

69.8571

77.9000

67.1111

88.3333

No. of cases

100

15

21

9

19

14

10

9

3

Wives of non - aIcoholics

73.3600

70.5000

70.3077

73.5000

76.4091

76.0909

76.6000

70.7778

76.5000

The above table states that in wives of non-alcoholics except in 6 acres of

land holders, accordmg to the increase of land, self assertiveness also increases

though below 0.5 difference were seen in some categories. But in wives of

alcoholics, upto 3 areas of land holders, according to the increase of property

assertive behaviuor also increases. After that the pattern is not in an order. Among

the wives of alcoholics those acquired 7 areas of land showed very hgh mean

value (M=88.33) and those posses 6 areas of land showed lowest assertive nature.

The score of wives of alcoholics and there of non-alcoholics on Ruthus

assertiveness schedule along with ' t' value is given below.

Table 6.2.10

Score on Assertiveness Schedule

The result of t test shows that there is a significant difference between

wives of alcoholics and non-alcoholics. It is grqhcdly presented in Fig. No. 6.2.

Groups

Wlves of alcoholics

Wivesofnon-alcoholics

Mean

74.56

73.36

SD

12.1849

12.7323

t

0.6775

Significance

>. 05

Figure 6.2 Scores on Assertive Schedule

The following table gives the s m q statistics obtained from a sample of

1 00 observations each fi-om the alcoholic and non-alcoholic groups.

Analysis of variance two way classltications is used here with groups

decided by the element whch is alcoholic and non-alcoholic on one side and one

of the socio-economic and demographc variables as the second classification.

Hence t h ~ s corresponds to a random effect model and hence the various sum of

squares were calculated through regression. It is done with a purpose of verifying

whether there is any difference in the mean assertive scores for the different

process considered. The following table provide the result correspondmg to

various categories as indicated there in.

The table provides 3 hfferent hypothesis being tested. There will be 2

main effects and 1 interaction effect dependmg upon the probabilities reported the

respective. F-values are used for declaring whether the effect is sipficant or not.

Table 6.2.1 1 Self assertiveness score Vs Age between the groups

Significance ofF

-614

-701

.g65

Source of variation

Between the groups

Age


Residual

Total

Sum of squares

40.462

225.748

43.082

30478.850

30819.680

DF

l

3

3

192

199

Mean square

40.462

75.249

14.361

158.744

154.873

P

.255

.474

.090


assertiveness score in a two dimensional classification with the experimental

groups as one dimension arid the age group as another dunension, the following

results are obtained. The self-assertiveness score seems to have same averages for

the two groups as well as the mfferent age groups. Also the averages are in the

same pattern for Qfferent age levels, between the two groups.

The table describes that there is no difference in the degree of self-

assertiveness between the wives on the basis of their age. There is also no

hfference in their assertiveness between the wives of alcoholics and there of non-

alcoholics irrespective of their age. Assertive behaviour is moulded in their

chldhood days when the parent teaches how to show socially acceptable

expressions. The fieedom they are g e m 8 to express their feelings and emotions

and the life events they are passing though also have a major role in the build up

of their asserhve behaviour. Dependmg upon the training, the assertive nature will

booster up or down along with the recognition these personahties are getting. So

the age has no relation with assertiveness.

Table 6.2.12 Self Assertiveness score Vs Education between the groups



groups as one dimension and the educational levels as mother dimension, the

following results are obtained. The self-assertiveness scores seems to have same

averages for the two groups as well as the educabonal groups. Also the averages

are in the same pattern for different levels of education between the groups.

The above table shows that there is no difference in the degree of self-

asse~lveness between the wives on the basis of the level of education. Self-

assertiveness is a peculiar nature of an io&vidual, whch mainly depends on the

circumstances and atmosphere in which an inhvidual is brought up, rather than

on education. Self-assertive people find it difficult to experience their desires and

emotions and will asset to their r ights. Extroversion is the central nerve of h s

F

.302

,264

1.806

Source of variation

Between the groups

Education


Residual

Total

Significance of F

.584

.90 1

.l29

Sum of squares

46.772

163.60 1

1 1 20.490

29463.590

30819.680

DP

l

4

4

190

199

Mean square

46.772

40.900

280.122

155.072

154.873

type of behaviour or personality. So education can have no role in it and as such

education and self-assertiveness is not closely related.

Table 6.2.13

Self - Assertiveness score Vs Social status between the groups

In the two way analysis of variance considered to test for average self 4


groups as one dimension and the social status as another dunension, the following

results are obtained. The self-assertiveness score seems to have different averages

for the two groups as well as the different social status groups. Also the averages

are in the same pattem for different social status levels between the two groups.

The above table shows that there is no difference in the degree of self-

assertiveness between the wives, on the basis of their social status. There is also

no hfference in the wives of alcoholics and non-alcoholics irrespective of their

social status, because assertiveness is commonly considered a central facet of

extroversion. They would show greater self-confidence in whatever they do.

Source of variation

Between the groups

Social Status


Residual

Total

Sumof squares

91.124

321 -029

7 5 5.43 1

29671.220

3081 9.680

DF

I

2

2

194

199

F

-596

1.049

2.470

Mean square

91.124

160.5 14

377.71 5

152.944

154.873

Significance of F

-44 1

.352

.087

However, since money and social status gve reputation and recogmtion in society

it has some d u e n c e on assertive behaviour.

As there is no relation between the social status and self-assertiveness of

wives of alcoholics and there of non-alcoholics, the question of the pattern of self-

assertive score for chfferent social status levels, between the two groups does not

arise.

Table 6.2.1 4

Self Assertiveness score Vs Employment status between the groups


assertiveness swre in a two h e n sional classification with the experimental

groups as one dimension and the employment status as another dimension, the

following results are obtained. The self-assertiveness score seems to have same

averages for the two lyoups but have different averages for the Merent

Significance of F

-3 67

.039

-894

Source of variation

Between the groups

Employment


Residual

Total

Mean square

125.689

663.227

2.757

1 53.478

154.873

F

319

4.32 1

.018

Sum of squares

1 25.689

663 -227

2.757

30081.696

30819.680

DF

l

1

l

196

199

employment status group S. The averages of different employment status groups

are in the same pattern between the two groups.

The above table shows that there is no difference in sel f-assertiveness

between the wives of alcoholics and non-alcoholics. But there is a Merence in

the degree of self-assertiveness between wives depending upon their employment

status.

Assertiveness is a behaviour pattern, whch is shown by extrovert

personalities. Multiple role hctioning or stressful life etc has no role in it. But

the employment status of an individual has great Influence in it, because our

society gves special weight and status to the employed ones, which will increase

their self-concept. Increase of self-concept is one of the main factors in increasing

of self-assertiveness. That is why the self-assertiveness between the wives shows

differences dependmg upon their employment status. The self-assertiveness scores

are moving in the same pattern depending upon their employment status, between

the groups. Thesefore we can conclude that self assertiveness and employment

status are closely related, between the group S.

Table 6.2.15

Self assertiveness score Vs Personal Income between the groups



groups as one dimension and the personal income group as another dunension,

the following results are obtained. The self-assertiveness score seems to have

same averages for the two groups as well as the different personal income groups.

Also the averages are in the same pattern for mfferent personal income levels


The above table depicts that there is no &Rerence in the degree of self-

assertiveness between the wives, on the basis of the level of personal income.

There is also no difference in the degree of self-assertiveness between the wives

of alcoholics and non-alcoholics irrespective of their personal income.

Assertiveness is a kmd of behaviour, whch c m o t be changed through external

Source of variation

Between the groups

Significance of l?

-774

Sum of squares

10.998

Mean square

10.998

Personal Income 36.518 .279 -840

DF

l

F

.084


Residual

Total

80.99 1

4711.167

4912.432

3

36

43

26.997

130.866

114.243

-206 .89 1

forces or materials. They give importance to their arguments and strongly believe

it to be true. Nobody can change hs or her beliefs. That is why personal income

has no role in it,

Table 6.2.16 Self assertiveness score Vs Status in house between the groups

h the two way analysis of variance considered to test for average self


Significance of F

.474

,912

.l58

Source of variation

Between the groups

Status in House


Residual

Total

groups as one dunension and the status in house as another dunension, the

following results are obtained. The self-asserhveness score seems to have same

Sum of squares

79.985

28.471

579.01 1

30140.198

30819.680

averages for the two groups as well as the groups for the different statuses in

house. Also the averages are in the same pattern for hfferent statuses in house,


DF

1

2

2

194

199

The above table shows that these is no Merence in the degree of self-

assertiveness between the wives on the basis of the statuses in house, There is

Mean square

79.985

14.236

289.505

'1 55.362

1 54.873

F

.5 15

.092

1.863

also no hfference in the degree of self-assmhveness between the wives of

alcoholics and there of non-alcoholics irrespective of their status in house.

Assmve people will not compromise their opinion with others, because their

suppressed emotions and ambitions in their childhood made them that type of

person. So they do not bother about their status or position others are giving to

them. They believe in there self. Their self-concept will always be very high. So

the status in house have no influence on determining the asserhve nature.

Table 6.2.17 Self assertiveness score Vs Interest in social activities between the grou ps


assertiveness score in a two dmensional classification with the experimental

groups as one chmension and the interest in social activities as another

Significance ofF

-498

-239

,026

Source of variation

Between the groups


Two way interachons

Residual

Total

dunension, the following results are obtained. The self-assertiveness score seems

to have different averages for the two groups as well as the different groups for

Sumof squares

69.3 98

43 3.903

1 123.367

29190.41 0

3081 9.680

varying interest in social activities. But the averages are not in the same pattern

F

.461

1.442

3.733

DF

1

2

2

194

199

Mean square

69.398

216.952

561 -683

150.466

154.873

for kfferent groups for varying interest in social activities between the two

groups.

The above table states that there is no difference in the degree of self-

assertiveness between the wives, on the basis of their interest in social advities.

There is also no difference in their self-assertiveness between the wives of

alcoholics and non-alcoholics irrespective of their interest in social activities,

because assertiveness is a part of one's personality. Involvement in social

activities, mingling with other people etc cannot influence their character except

giving intensive training for their behaviour modification methods. That is why

assertiveness in wives of alcoholics and non-alcoholics d ~ d not show any

difference and interest in socd activities also have no role in it.

Table 6.2.18

Self assertiveness score Vs Relation with husband between the groups

Significance o fF

,647

-094

-573

Source of variation

Between the groups



Residual

Total

F

.2 10

2.828

-3 18

Sum of squares

32.4 19

436.587

49.1 1 5

30261.978

30819.680

DF

l

1

1

196

199

Mean square

32.419

436.587

49.1 15

154.398

1 54.873



groups as one dimension and the relation with husband as another dimension, the

following results are obtained. The self-asserhveness score seems to have same

averages for the two groups but had diffkrent averages for the different groups of

varylng degrees of relation with the husband. Also the averages are in the same

pattern for dierent groups of varying degrees of relation with the husband,


The table given above says that there is no difference in the degree of self-

asserhveness between the wives, on the basis of the relation with their husband.

There is also no difference in their self-assertiveness between the wives of

alcoholics and non-alcoholics irrespective of their relationship with their

husbands. Since assertweness is seen among extrovert personalities who always

believe to be right, other persons even their husbands have n o h g to do to

change their behaviour. So the relationshp with husband have no relation with

assertive nature of his wives. Even though the researcher felt during her interview

that those wives are absolutely bad relationshp with husbands are more asserhve.

Table 6.2.19

Self assertiveness score Vs Land holdings between the groups



groups as one dimension and the groups for different volumes of land holdmgs as

another dimension, the following results are obtained. The self-assertweness score

seems to have same averages for the two groups as well as the different land

holdings groups. Also the averages are in the same pattern for Merent groups of

varying land holdmgs between the two groups.

The table shown above depicts that, between the wives, there is no

chfference in the degree of self-assertiveness on the bask of the volume of land

they are holdmg. There is also no dfference in their assemveness between the

wives of alcoholics and o non-alcoholics irrespective of their property in hand.

The reason is that assertiveness i s a behaviour, whch is linked with their inner

1 Source of variation

Between the groups

Land holdings

Significance of P

-636

.l02


Residual

Total

Sum of squares

36.238

1736.961

Mean square

36.238

289.493

DF

I

6

F

-225

1.800

-640 687.434

25577.917

28045.803

114.572

160.867

163.057

6

159

172

.712

feelings and mind. There is no voice for external affairs. So naturally assertive

behaviour is not having any relationshp to the volume of land holdings or

property belonging to them. As there is no relation between the land holding and

self assertiveness of wives of alcoholics and non-alcoholics, the question of the

pattern of self assertiveness score for different levels of property volumes in hand

between the two groups does not arise.

Significant findings from Rathus Self Assertiveness Schedule

Various socio-demographc data like age, education, social status,

employment status, personal income level, status in house, interest in social work

activities, relation with husband, land h o l b g and its relationshtp with self

assertiveness were compared between the groups. The result shows that wives of

non-alcoholics show slightly hlgher mean which indicates that they show more

assertive behaviour than the wives of alcoholics do. Wives of alcohohcs showed

mean value of 74.56 while the control group showed 73.96.

Self Assertiveness Vs Age

In both the groups those who are 50 and above age p u p and 30-40 age

group are hghly assertive and lowest assertiveness was shown by 40-50 age

group and 20-30 age group respectively.

Self Assertiveness Vs Education

In wives of non-alcoholics secondary level and graduates are more

assertive than post graduates and primary educated ones whereas in wives of

alcoholics primary educated and under graduates are hghly assertive and

secondary level and postgraduates are less assertive in nature.

Self Assertiveness Vs Social Status

In wives of non-alcuh01ics accordmg to the increase of social status the

assertive also increases. But in wives of alcoholics upper class shows highest and

middle class shows lowest assertive behaviour.

Self Assertiveness Vs Employ men t Status

In both the groups employed ones are more assertive.

Self Assertiveness Vs Personal Income

In wives of non-alcoholics income group of Rs.2500-5000 group and less

than Rs. 1 000 group are hghly assertive. But in wives of alcoholics those who

belong to high income of Rs.5000 and above group and less than Rs. 1000 group

are hghly assertive. In both the groups least assertwe are those with no income

Self Assertiveness Vs Status in House

In wives of non-alcoholics according to the increase of acceptance level

asserhve nature also increases. But the reverse is in the case of wives of

alcoholics. There according to the increase of acceptance level assertive nature

decreases.

Self Assertiveness Vs Interest in Social Activities

When those are not interested in social activities shows highest assertive

behaviour in wives of non-alcoholics whereas the 'no response' group i.e. those

are not sure about their social involvement are having highest assertive behaviour

in wives of alcoholics. But the lowest assertiveness was found in 'no response'

group in wives of non-alcoholics and in those are not interested in social activities

group in the case of wives of alcoholics.

Self Assertiveness Vs Relation with Husband

In both the groups assertive behaviour was high in those wives who are

having bad relationshp with their husband.

Self Assertiveness Vs Land Holding

In wives of non-alcoholics except in 6 acres of landholders, accorhg to

the increase of land holding, self assertiveness also increases, though below 0.5

differences are seen in some classification. But in wives of alcoholics asserhve

nature and land holhng are not much connected. There 7 acres of land holders

show hghest assertiveness and 6 acres of land holders shows lowest

assertiveness.

The result of 't' test also shows no significant Merence between the

groups.

The result of ANOVA test shows that with respect to assertive behaviour,

only one variable i.e. assertiveness Vs relation with husband shows s i d c m t

difference between the two groups. Other variables ltke age, education, social

status, employment status, personal income level, status in house, interest in social

activities and land holding as against assertiveness show no significant difference

between the groups.

BEHAVTOURAL ASPECTS - Shodhgangashodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/.../10603/543/13/13_chapter6.pdf ·...

Documents

Transcript of BEHAVTOURAL ASPECTS - Shodhgangashodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/.../10603/543/13/13_chapter6.pdf ·...