NOTE: THE BIOBLIOGRAPHY REFERENCES BELOW ARE STILL IN DRAFT FORM. WE ARE WORKING TO COMPLETE AND EDIT THESE, AND WILL UPDATE THEM WHEN THAT WORK IS DONE. IN THE MEANTIME, WE HOPE THAT THE REFERENCE INFORMATION BELOW, EVEN IN ROUGH FORM, IS USEFUL.

 

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]