MINORITY
GROUPS – HINDU
Alam, Javed and Saeeduzzafar. 1991. “Dependence Proneness in Relation to Prolonged Deprivation.” Journal of Personality and Clinical Studies vol. 7, pp. 49-53.
Abstract: Investigated the influence
of prolonged deprivation and religious affiliation on the development of
dependence proneness. A 2 * 2 factorial design was used in which 1 personality
variable (prolonged deprivation) and 1 sociological variable (religion) varied
in 2 ways. There were 4 groups of undergraduates (aged 15-28 yrs), with 50 Ss
in each group: nondeprived Hindus, deprived Hindus, nondeprived Muslims, and
deprived Muslims. Ss completed a measure of dependence proneness. Deprived and
nondeprived Ss did not differ with respect to dependence proneness. Muslims
were found to be more dependent prone than Hindus. There was no interactional
effect of religion and prolonged deprivation on the degree of dependence
proneness. [Source: PI]
Jahan, Qamar. 1990. “Study of Communal Prejudice as Related to Adjustment.” Manas vol. 37, pp. 31-39.
Abstract: Tested the
hypothesis that maladjusted persons are more prejudiced than well-adjusted
persons. A 2 * 2 factorial design was used in which adjustment (good adjustment
or maladjustment) and religion (Hindu or Muslim) varied. 850 female
undergraduates (aged 15-20 yrs) completed the Bell Adjustment Inventory and a
prejudice scale. Adjusted Ss were less prejudiced than maladjusted Ss, and
Muslims were more prejudiced than Hindus. Hindu Ss were significantly better
adjusted than Muslims, and there was an interactional effect of adjustment and
religion on the degree of communal prejudice.
[Source: PI]
Singh, Rajendra. 1984. “Adjustment Patterns of Adolescents as a Function of Religious Orientations.” Child Psychiatry Quarterly vol. 17, pp. 104-108.
Abstract: Administered an
adjustment inventory to 100 Hindi and 100 Muslim 14-28 yr old urban males to
study the relationship between religious orientations and adjustment patterns.
Results show no significant differences in any area of adjustment (home, social
and emotional health, or school adjustment). It is suggested that assimilation
of the 2 groups results in similar adjustment patterns. [Source: PI]
Kureshi, Afzal and Rahat A. Khan. 1981. “Fear of Failure Motivation as Related to Certain Social Variables.” Journal of Psychological Researches vol. 25, pp. 89-93.
Abstract: Eight pictures
with marked fear of failure (FOF) cues were used to elicit themes of FOF from
128 16-24 yr olds. Ss were paired on age (16-29 yrs/20-24 yrs), sex
(male/female), religion (Muslim/Hindu), and socioeconomic status (SES;
upper/middle). Analysis showed that Muslims, older Ss, and upper SES Ss had a
greater FOF than their counterparts. There were no sex differences on FOF
scores. [Source: PI]
Kureshi, Afzal. 1977. “Tat Study of the Motives of Hindu and Muslim Adolescents.” BritishJournal of Projective Psychology and Personality Study vol. 22, pp. 1-5.
Abstract: Examined
differences between Hindu and Muslim adolescents in terms of achievement,
affiliation, power, aggression, and security motivation. The TAT responses of 2
groups of adolescents, matched for age, sex, and socioeconomic status were
analyzed. Results indicate that among Hindu adolescents security is the
dominant motive and affiliation is least important. For Muslim adolescents
affiliation is the strongest motive and aggression is the weakest. Differences
with respect to age, sex, and socioeconomic status were also found. [Source: PI]