Men RESUME NOTE
men RESUMEEC 301 394ED 347 776AUTHORTITLEPUB DATENOTEPUB TYPEEDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORSIDENTIFIERSWard, Alan J.Self-Destructive Behavior in PublicStudents.Apr 9214p.; Paper presented at the AnnualAmerican Association of SuicidologyIL, April 2-5, 1992).Speeches/Conference Papers (150) -Research/Technical (143)SchoolConference of the(25th, Chicago,ReportsMF01/PC01 Pius Postage.Adolescents; Behavior Disorders; Depression(Psychology); Emotional Disturbances; *FamilyRelationship; *High Risk Students; IntermediateGrades; Interpersonal Relationship; Junior HighSchools; Magnclt Schools; *Public Schools; Runaways;Self Concept; *Self Destructive Behavior; *StressVariables; Student Attitudes; *StudentCharacteristics; Substance Abuse; *SuicideChicago Public Schools ILABSTRACTThe Adolescent Attitude Survey (AAS) was developedand administered to 214 sixth and eighth graders, 79 from the Chicago(Illinois) Public Schools and 135 from a Chicago magnet school wheresubjects were more academically oriented and homoceneous. Theinstrument assessed the subjects' self-image, demographic variables,and factors associated with self-destructive ideation and attempts.Analysis indicated that, compared to magnet school subjects, thepublic school subjects reported significantly more family conflicts,exposure to suicidal models in the family peer group, depression,suicidal ideation, suicidal threats and attempts, snbstance abuse,and runaway behavior. Survey responses are seen as being supportiveof the hypothesis that th.E.re is a significant group of "normal"adolescents who are at risk for self-destructive behaviors inassociation with a wide range of interpersonal conflicts and lifestresses. The significant differences in AAS results betwen thepublic school and magnet school subejcts are seen as providingsupport to the hypothesis that such behaviors are differentiallyeffected by the levels of interpersonal stress and conflictexperienced by the adolescents. (11 references) **************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that cam 1,.! madefrom the original ******************************
UAL 011PARTISENT OF EMLIC.ATIONONvio of Ecluostionsi RetalFCh and IMPOrefAeRiEDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATICACENTER (ERICIThes docvmenI has bow reptoduced rikeracerved front the penal Or OrganuellonmgelatmodPenor Changes heye been made to gni:worerepiorductran Outttrts,Points Over. O( or,tionselatedm thedoCirrnent do nCt wessa NY represent Mc&OEM posl,on or pc, I cySelf-Destructive Behavior In Public School StudentsAlan J. Ward, Ph.D. A.B.P.P.Director of Internal ResearchInstitute for Juvenile ResearchDepartment of Psychiatry - College of MedicineUniversity of Illinois at Chicago907 South Wolcott AvenueChicago, Illinlis 60612"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEERANTED BYOOPTO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER IERIC)"Presented At:25th Annual ConferenceAmerican Association of SuicidologyWestin HotelChicago, IllinoisApril 2-5, 1992:)2 .4BEST COPYMAU LE
Self-Destructive Behavior In Public School StudentsIt is hypothesized that adolescent suicide is only one of a number ofself-destructive behavioral responses to intractable, chronic interpersonalstress and conflict, rather than being solely or specifically related to apsychiatric diagnosis of mental illness.several studies have revealed thatlarger percentages (20% - 60%) of the public school population have reportedsuicidal ideation or attempts than are usually seen as being in need of mentalhealth services (20%).This hypothesis was used as the theoretical basis for the development ofthe 105-item Adolescent Attitude Survey (AAS)1,11 was administered to 214sixth and eighth graders from the Chicago Public Schools (79) and a ChicagoMagnet School (135) to assess their self-image, demographic variables andfactors associated with self-destructive ideation and attempts.Analysis andcomparison of resultant data disclosed that the Public School Ss reportedsignificantly (P .000 - P .001, ANOVA) more Famf.ly Conflicts, exposure tosuicidal Models in the Family Peer Group, Depression, Suicidal Ideation,Threats and Attempts, Substance Abuse and Runaway Behavior than the moreacademically oriented and homogeneous Magnet School Ss.
Self-Destructive Behavior In Public School StudentsAlan J. Ward, Ph.D., A.B.P.P.Director of Internal ResearchInstitute for Juvenile ResearchDepartment of Psychiatry - College of MedicineUniversity of Illinois at Chicago907 South Wolcott AvenueChicago, Illinois 60612Presented At:25th Annual ConferenceAmerican Association of SuicidologyWestin HotelChicago, IllinoisApril 2-5, 1992
Self-Destructive Behavior In PUblic School StudentsbyAlan J. Ward, Ph.D., A.B.P.P.Director of Internal ResearchInstitute for Juvenile ResearchDepartment of PsychiatryCollege of MedicineUniversity of Illinois at Chicago907 South Wolcott AvenueChicago, Illinois 60612I.The ProblemOngoing concern continues to be manifested in regards to the highrate of teen suicide and other self-destructive behaviors (Alcohol,Teen suicide has shown a 300% increase since 1960 (Peck,1989).Farberow and Litman 1985), with comparable increases in the rates ofteen pregnancy, substance abuse, and conduct problems. Although manyof these adolescents have been reported to be mentally ill (depressed, schizophrenic, borderline personality disorder, etc.) there is asignificant percentage of adolescents who experience and express selfdestructive behavior, who have not met criteria for a psychiatricdiagnosis.Indeed, it has been agreed that there is a significant percentageof adolescents who have manifested suicidal behavior, who fail to meetany criteria for psychiatric disorder ((ovacs & Puig-Antich, 1989),that there is no specific relationship between suicidal behavior andany particular psychiatric diagnosis (Haberman & Garfinkel, 1988) andthat from 20% - 60% of the non-clinical U.S. adolescent populationshas experienced suicidal ideation (Smith & Crawford, 1986 ).This fact has resulted in the development of the view that adolescentself-destructive behavior should be viewed, at least in part, ashaving its etiology in environmental-individual situations andinteractions, rather than wholly resulting from individual psychopathology.The increase in the incidence and prevalence of adolescent suicideover the last 30 years has been related to significant changes infamily structure and the supporting social fabric. These changes havebeen listed as including 1) Tncrease in number of single-parentfamilies, 2) Focus upon the nuclear family as opposed to the extendedfamily, 3) Increase in family mobility, 4) Increase in two-career(parent) families, 5) Decrease in speficity of identification of sexrole characteristics, 6) Loss of relevance of life and work experienceof parental generation to planning for and preparation of adolescentgeneration for their adult relationships and careers and 7) Increase5
Thus, it has been hypothesized (Ward,1988) that ain divorce rate.significant portion of the increase in adolescent suicide should berelated to a decrease in the availability of familial supportive andeducative resources during a time of increasing complexity andFurthermore, itrapidity of social, vocational and political change.is hypothesized that the above-described societal and vocationalchanges have diminished the closeness of communication between parentsand adolescents, with an emphasis being experienced by someadolescents as being upon perfor-mance rather than upon support,acceptance and being valued for themsolves, regardless of their levelThe hypothesis has been presented that adolescentof performance.self-destructive behaviors may be seen as problem-solving efforts, inresponse to chronic refractory interpersonal situations that haveresulted in adolescents with negative self-image and a long-termpattern of self-blame for things that go wrong in their immediateenvironment (Ward, 1988; Brent, 1990).Review of the background of suicidal adolescents has revealed afrequent pattern of 1) low self-esteem, 2) dysfunctional familyaffective support system and 3) patterns of self-blame wheneveranything goes wrong in the immediate environment.It has been hypothesized (Ward, 1988, 1990) that the abovedescribed situation results in the development of a situation ofextreme interpersonal stress that diminishes the adolescent's problemsolving capacity over an extended period of time. Research hasdemonstrated that stress results in a diminishing of the ability tosee more than one answer to a problem (Shneidman, 1970; Ward, 1990),and this phenomenen of "cognitive narrowing" or "cognitive freeze" hasInbeen identified as the necessary precursor to suicidal behavior.addition, other research has demonstrated a statistical associationbetween the rates of adolescent suicides and the rates of such selfdestructive behaviors as 1) Runaway Behavior, 2) Conduct Problems, 3)It has beenSubstance Abuse, and 4) Teen Pregnancy; (Ward, 1987).suggested that these self-destructive behaviors could be viewed as ahierarchy of responses to the hypothesized interpersonal conflictsituations, with the failure to communicate the personal distress andcreate the desired change in that relationship resulting in themanifestation of the next level of such self-destructive behavior,culminating in either suicide or homicide.Methodology:11.A.InstrumentThe above-listed perspective resulted in the development of theAdolescent Attitude Survey (AAS), a 105-item survey instrument whosestructure, content and details of reliability have been presentedelsewhere (Ward, 1989a, b, c); and which allows for the examination ofdemographic information, the gathering of information about and theexperience of suicidal ideation and attempt, teen sexuality andpregnancy, substance abuse, assaultive behavior, runaway behavior,tnterpersonal conflict, social support system and self-image. The AAShas been developed for use with subjects 10 years of age and above.('
B.SubjectsThe Ss reported on were drawn from 2 schools of the Chicago PublicSchool system and a Magnet School in the city of Chicago. A total of79 girls and boys (Mean agl of 13. 6 and 13.3 years) were surveyed fromthe 6th and 8th grades of the two public schools (see Table III),INSERT TABLE III HEREalong with 63 boys (Mean Age - 11.5 years old) and 72 girls (Mean Age- 11.5 years old) from the 5th through the eighth grades in the MagnetSchool (see Table IV).INSERT TABLE IV HEREIII. Resqlts:Analysis of the AAS results for the 2 public schools showed significantcorrelations (p .01 - .001) among Suicidal Ideation and Attempts and Stressover 6 Months and 12 Months, Suicide Models In Environment, Suicide Models InFamily, Family Conflict, Negative Affect, Depression and Substance Abuse (seeTable I).INSERT TABLE I HEREAnalysis of the AAS results from the 135 Magnet School Ss disclosed significant correlations (p .01 - p .001 among Suicidal Ideation, Attempts andSuicide Models in the Environment, Suicide Models in the Family, NegativeAffect and Depression, with significant negative correlation (p .05) withSocial Support (see Table II). Comparisons between the Public School Ss'andINSERT TABLE II HEREMagnet School Ss' responses revealed multiple scales on which they differed inChicago Public School Ss reported more stressfultheir response to items.life events (p .0001), more Family Conflict (p .0001), more Suicidal ModelsIn Families (P .0001), more Avoidant Behavior (p .05), a trend towards more
Negative Affect (p .07), more Substance Abuse (p .0005), more Depression (p .0005), and more Suicide Ideation, Threats and Attempts (p .0001) (See TableThe only scaled variable on which the two groups of Ss did not differ wasV).Self-Esteem, on which the Public School Ss scored nonsignificantly lower thanthe Magnet School Ss. The intercorrelations among the variables are similarfor both the Public School Ss and Magnet School Ss, ,Iuggesting that the samevariables are important regardless of subgroup membership.INSERT TABLE V HEREIV.Conclusions:The results of the analysis or the AAS responses of 114 Chicago PublicSchool and Magnet School Ss are seen as being indicativ of the effectivenessof the AAS in demonstrating a relationship among the variables of interpersonal stress, familial conflict, models of suicidal threat and behavior andthe self-destructive behaviors of 1) Suicidal ideation, eireats and attempts;2) Avoidant behavior such as running away; 3) Substance aLxse; 4) Sexualacting-out including concerns about and becoming pregnant; and 5) AssaultiveInasmuch as these Ss were not identified as being "mentally ill",behavior.their responses are seen as being supportive of the hypothe.is that there is asignificant group of "normal" adolescents who are at risk f.ir self-destructivebehaviors in association with a wide range of interpersonal conflicts and lifestresses.The significant differences in AAS results between the Public School Ssand the Magnet School Ss in regards to self-destructive behaviors, are seen asproviding support to the hypothesis that such behaviors are differentially effected by the levels of interpersonal stress and conflict experienced by theadolescents. Thus, those Ss who reported more stressful life events, familyconflict, suicidal models in families and with peers and less social supportwere found to demonstrate more depression, substance abuse and suicidalideation, threat and attempts. The study is seen as documenting a significantrelationship between a group of previously identified self-destructivebehaviors and those situations and stimuli thc.t were hypothesized as beingassociated with the choice of these behaviors. In addition, the documenteddifferences between these two groups strongly suggest that these factors couldbe used to more effectively identify those "normal" adolescents who are bothat-risk for self-destructive behavior and to develop appropriate and effectiveprograms of intervention. The difference between these two groups ofadolescents suggests that further research is needed with different adolescentpopulations to determine the level of commonality among all adolescents aswell as the possible differences among different racial and ethnic groups andsocial classes.
ReferencesAlcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration.Report of cheSecretary's Task Force On Youth Suicide, Volume I: Overviiw andDHHS Publ. No. (ADM) 89-1621. Washington, D.C.:Recommendations.of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1989.Supt.Suicide amonzthe voung : Psychodynamics and Demography. in YouthSuicide by Peck, M. L., Farberow, N.L., & Litman, E. E., Springer Publisher, New York, 1985.Hendin, H."Major Psychiatric Disorders" As Risk Factors InKovacs, M. & Puig-Antich, J.Youth Suicide In Alcohol . Vol. II Risk Factors for Youth Suicide, DHHSWashington, D.C.: Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt.Pub. No. (ADM) 89-1622.Print. Off., 1989.Litman, R.E., & Diller, J. Case studies in youth suicide in Youth Suicide byPeck, M. L., Farberow, N. L., & Litman, R. E., Springer Publisher, NewYork, 1985.Peck, N. L., Farberow, N.L. & Litman, r.E.:New York, 1985.Publisher,Youth Suicide, SpringerShaeffer, D., Garlan ., Gould, M., Fisher, M. S., & Trautman, P. PreventingTeenage Suicide: A Critical Review. J. Amer. Acad. Child & Adolesc. Psychiatry, 1988, 27, 6:675-687.In E. S. Schneidman,Orientation towards deatli.Shneidman, E. S. (1970).Farberow, N. L., & Litman, R. E. (Els ), The psychology of suicide, pp. 3Sciencc House.New York:45.Presented atWard, A. J. A developmental perspective on teenage suicide.39th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Ps chiatric Servicesfor Children in San Santonio. Texas 1988.Ward, A. J. Adolescent self-destructive behavior: A strategy of prevention,early identification and intervention in Illinois. Presented at 40thAnnual Meeting of the American Association for Children's PsychiatricServices for Children in Durham. NC, . 1989.Ward, A. J. Adolescent Suicide and Other Self-DestructiveIllinois Survey Data and Interpretation.Presented at 33rdBehaviors:Annual Meetinz of the American Association of Children's ResidentialCenters in Phoenix. Arizona. 1989.From runawayWard, A. J. Adolescent problem-solving strategies in the '90's:Presented at 41st Annual Meeting of thebehavior to parent murder.Psychiatric Services tor Children in San Diego. CA,. 1990.
ANALYSIS OF ADOLESCENT ATTITUDE SURVEYCHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOL Ss-(N-79)CORRELATIONS OF ESSNEG. ESS12SCHMODELCorrelations:ESTEEMSOCIALDEPRESSNEG. ONDUCTFAMCONDRUGPSROSEPSNEW* P .01,** P 87**.3075.7206**-.3479*.04871 - Tailed 483.1754.6417**6417** 1.0000.8740** 72.0363FAMCOM.0581-.1578.2985.4135*.4559**.5490 6197** .2289-.3218-.3511*.0067.1469
ANALYSIS OF ADOLESCFAT ATTITUDE SURVEYMAGNET SCHOOL Ss (N-135)CORRELATIONS OF RESPONSESTABLE EEMFAMCONDRUGDEPRESSNEG. NEG. 41.0000.0602.4011**.3613**-.2912*-.0457* P .01,** P .0011.2004.2671*1.0000.0290.0969-.0779.2689- Tailed 87-.0346.1832-.05391.0000
AGE DISTRIBUTIONPUBLIC SCHOOL Ss(N-79)*TABLE IIINumberMale34MeanAge13.3 YrsAgeRange11,8-15,4NumberFemale47MeanAge13.6 YrsAgeRange11,2-15 Yrs* Complete AAS Questionnaires were available for analysis of 79 of 81 Ss.
MAGNET SCHOOL Ss(N-135)ACE DISTRIBUTIONTABLE IVNumberMaleClass A13MeanAge13.13 YrsRange12-14 YrsNumberFemale11MeanAzeRan gt13.3 Yrs12,11-14 YrsClass B1012.24 Yrs11,11-12,8 Yrs1412.65 Yrs11,2-12,1 YrsClass C1211.31 Yrs11-11,9 Yrs1711.4 Yrs10,6-12,3 YrsClass D1110.49 Yrs10-10,11 Yrs1710.41 Yrs9,11-10,11 YrsClass E1710.41 Yrs10-11,1 Yrs1310.53 Yrs10-11,6 Yrs6311.5 Yrs10-14 Yrs7211.5 Yrs10-1
COMPARISON ON AAS SCALE RESPONSES BETWEENCHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOL Ss fN-79 AND MAGNET SCHOOL Ss (N-135)SANOVA)TABLE VPublicSchoolMagnetSchoolSignificanceLife Stress(12 Mos.)3.60002.1493.0001Family Conflict5.78954.3672.0001Suicidal ModelsIn Family3.56963.1353.0001Rum.away Behavior2.32052.1429.05Negative Affect11.225010.4328.07Substance 055.51904.4519.0001Suicidal BehaviorConduct Problems14.4231Social Support29.653'11.0310.000131.4655.034.0001Suicidal Models10.92319.5308Self Esteem15.612515.8450.598
men RESUME ED 347 776 EC 301 394 AUTHOR Ward, Alan J. TITLE Self-Destructive Behavior in Public School. Students. PUB DATE. Apr 92. NOTE 14p.; Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the. American Association of Suicidology (25th, Chicago, IL, April 2-5, 1992). PUB TYPE Speeches/Con
42 wushu taolu changquan men women nanquan men women taijiquan men women taijijlan men women daoshu men gunshu men nangun men jianshu women qiangshu women nandao women sanda 52 kg women 56 kg men 60 kg men women 65 kg men 70 kg men 43 yatching s:x men women laser men laser radiall women 1470 men women 49er men 49er fxx women rs:one mixed
Men's health in Canada 19 Men's health in Denmark 25 Men's health in England & Wales 29 Men's health in Ireland 35 Men's health in Malaysia 41 Men's health in New Zealand 47 Men's health in Norway 53 Men's health in Scotland 59 Men's health in Switzerland 65 Men's health in the USA 69 Men's health in Europe: an overview 75
100 Men 3 500 awarded to top 5 places 100 Men 4 500 awarded to top 5 places 90 Men 5 , 19-39 Medals to 1st-3rdplaces 90 Men 5, 40 Medals to 1st-3rd places 100 Men 35 500 awarded to top 5 places 100 Men 45 500 awarded to top 5 places 95 Men 55 300 awarded to top 3 places 90 Men 65 /70 /75 Medals to 1st-3rd places in each age group
Oct 06, 2021 · Men’s 55 AAA: Finance of America Men’s 60 Major: Action Auto Parts Men’s 60 AAA: The Ockers Company Men’s 60 AA: Diamond Dawgs Men’s 65 Major: Promotion Men’s 65 AAA: Talaga Construction Men’s 70 AAA: Syracuse Cyclones Men’s 75 AAA: Long Island Jaguars Southern Championships
Why Men Want Women to Dress Like Tarts (But Never in Public) Why Men Are Three-Minute Wonders The Ball Game Balls Have Brains Too Men and Ogling What Men Need to Do What We Really Want, Long-Term Why Men Want 'Just One Thing' Why Sex Suddenly Stops What Men Want From Sex What Women Want From Sex Why Men Don't Talk During Sex
attached to Asian and African American men. Why do you think that a U.S. culture dominated by white men would tell stories that paint Asian men and black men, and other men of color, as violent, and in particular as a danger to white women? Do you see examples of those stereotypes that persist today? Be Like You (MEN, Part 9)
Why Women are more Macho than Men Women are 100% more likely to see a doctor for preventive care than men More women have health coverage than men Society portrays: Risk taking and unhealthy behaviors in men and boys as COOL! Now that’s Macho!? Men who address health problems early are weak Men die at higher rates than women in the top 10 causes of death in the US
wishy-washy, led a man on, flirted with men for fun and pleasure, teased men, broken up with men for no reason, avoided men, flaked on men, given out my number with intention of answering the phone, had one night stands, been in long term relationships with men and placed men in the friend zone when they deserved a romantic chance.
