Indian Journal of PsychiatryIndian Journal of Psychiatry
Home | About us | Current Issue | Archives | Ahead of Print | Submission | Instructions | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact | Login 
    Users online: 2404 Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Print this article Email this article Bookmark this page
 


 

 
     
    Advanced search
 

 
 
     
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    Abstract
    Introduction
    Methods
    Results
    Discussion
    Conclusion
    References
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed4174    
    Printed127    
    Emailed2    
    PDF Downloaded201    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


 
ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPERS Table of Contents   
Year : 2006  |  Volume : 48  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 154-158
Deficiencies in social relationships of individuals with neurosis


Institute of Mental Health and Hospital, Agra, Uttar Pradesh, India

Click here for correspondence address and email
 

   Abstract 

Background: Social interaction and network of individuals with neurosis have been reported to be inadequate. Aim: To measure deficiencies in the social network of individuals with neurosis. Methods: Fifty consecutive patients with neurosis attending the OPD of the Department of Psychiatry, King George's Medical College, Lucknow, who were diagnosed as per the criteria of ICD-9, were included in the study. A control group of 40 healthy persons matched for age, sex, education and marital status was also taken. Interaction with the primary group (defined as consisting of all kin, nominated friends, work associates and neighbours) was measured by the Social Interaction Schedule of Henderson et al. as modified for the Indian population. Results: Patients reported significantly higher mean duration of unpleasant but affectively intense interaction with one person within or outside the primary group and affectively unpleasant and intense interaction with more than one person within or outside the primary group or affectively superficial but unpleasant interaction with one or more person of the primary group. Healthy subjects reported more of pleasant interaction with one person within or outside the primary group and affectively intense and pleasant interaction with more than one person within or outside the primary group or affectively superficial but pleasant interaction with one or more persons of the primary group; the difference was statistically significant as compared to patients with neurosis. Conclusion: The primary group of patients with neurosis was significantly smaller in numerical size as compared with that of controls and in terms of the total time spent with members of the primary group, patients with neurosis reported more interactions of unpleasant type and less of pleasant type as compared with healthy controls.

Keywords: Primary group, neurosis, social interaction

How to cite this article:
Srivastava S. Deficiencies in social relationships of individuals with neurosis. Indian J Psychiatry 2006;48:154-8

How to cite this URL:
Srivastava S. Deficiencies in social relationships of individuals with neurosis. Indian J Psychiatry [serial online] 2006 [cited 2019 Oct 23];48:154-8. Available from: http://www.indianjpsychiatry.org/text.asp?2006/48/3/154/31578



   Introduction Top


It is important to study the social relationships of individuals with neurosis because a person's ability to establish and maintain relationships may be impaired by the presence of psychiatric illness or social relationship may serve as a protective function against psychiatric morbidity in the face of adverse life experiences.[1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6] The lack of social relationships has also been proposed as a causal factor in the develop­ment of neurotic disorders independent of adverse life experiences.[7],[8] Investigators have found that psychologically distressed persons have less rewarding social network and social ties.[9],[10],[11] Negative correlations between social support and stress and dysfunction has been demonstrated by Indian researchers too.[12] In psychiatric epidemiology, particularly in relation to neurosis, some of the observed differentials in prevalence rates can partly be explained by deficiencies in social bonds.[13],[14],[15] The relevance and need for a systematic study of social relationship and neurosis is, therefore, self­evident. There is a large literature on social networks but qualitative analysis of interaction has not been given much attention; instead the structure of relationships or the composition of the primary group has received more attention.[16],[17],[18],[19],[20] These studies, therefore, reveal little of what is psychologically important in social relationships.

The most important component of social environment of an individual is his 'primary group'; a concept introduced by Cooley[19] and defined concisely by Broom and Selznick[21] as immediate social network formed by individuals with whom one has interaction and commitment. As is evident from the definition, the boundaries of primary group are not hard and fast but mainly consist of household members, neighbours, close relatives and good friends. The group, being persistent and close, is important for the psychological health of an individual as social support in the face of stress is mediated through the primary group and psychiatric illness is likely to have an early effect on a person's relationships with members of the primary group.

The present study was designed to find out deficiencies, if any, in the structure of primary group and interaction of individuals with neurosis as measured on duration, intensity and affective quality of interaction with members of the primary group in comparison to healthy controls.


   Methods Top


An index group of 50 consecutive patients with neurosis who fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria was taken from the OPD of the Psychiatry Department of King George's Medical College, Lucknow. One inclusion criterion was that the patient should be diagnosed to be suffering from a neurotic disorder as per the ICD-9.[22] Exclusion criteria included the presence of a concurrent physical illness, education less than class VIII and rural domicile. Minimum education up to class VIII was ensured so that subjects did not have any difficulty in following the Social Interaction Schedule used in this study. Patients residing in rural areas were excluded because interaction via telephone is also recorded by the instrument of the study, and this could have seriously affected the homogeneity of the sample. A control group of 40 healthy subjects of urban domicile was taken matched on the parameters of age, sex, education and marital status with that of the index group.

The subjects in the index group were first administered a semi-structured proforma to record identification data, sociodemographic characteristics and findings of psychiatric evaluation. Similarly, identification data and sociodemographic characteristics were recorded on a preset proforma for subjects of the control group and presence of psychiatric illness was excluded by a clinical examination and evaluation on Cornell Medical Health Questionnaire.[23]

The operational definition of primary group, as given by Henderson et al.[1] has been taken, which states that 'the primary group of a person is a group made up of all his kin, nominated friends, work associates and neighbours'. To measure the interaction with the primary group for both the patients with neurosis and subjects of the control group, Modified Social Interaction Schedule of Henderson et al. [8] was administered. The schedule was developed by Henderson et al. [8] and was modified for the Indian population by Sethi et al.[24],[25] It identifies subject's primary group and examines interaction with members of the primary and non-primary groups. The schedule first records numerical size and composition of an individual's household members, number of all other kin in the community considered by respondent as close relative, and persons whom he or she considers as good friends.

The interview then evaluates details of the subject's interaction 7 days before the interview regarding the person or persons with whom he or she interacted, contents of interaction, whether it was affectively intense or superficial, the duration of interaction, mode of interaction, i.e. direct, on telephone or by letter, and whether the subject considered the interaction as pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. Duration of interaction was recorded in the intervals of 5 minutes with minimum interaction taken as of 2 minutes. The interactions have been divided into three types as follows:

Type-I: Affectively intense interaction with one person only which may be within or outside the primary group.

Type-II: Affectively intense interaction with more than one person within or outside the primary group or affectively superficial interaction with one or more persons who are within the primary group.

Type-III: Affectively superficial interaction with one or more persons who are outside the primary group.

Intensity of interaction was not defined and it was based totally on subject's impression. Chi-square test was used to determine any significant difference between the composition of the index and control groups. Student t-test was applied to evaluate significant differences in the means between the index and control groups on variables of size of the primary group, duration of interaction and quality of interaction.


   Results Top


[Table - 1] shows the distribution of patients and controls matched for age, sex and marital status. Chi-square test did not show any statistically significant difference between the two groups on these parameters. Majority of the patients were unmarried (56%), males (58%) and of the age group 21-30 years (50%). [Table - 2] shows that the index sample consisted of patients mainly of neurotic depression (38%), anxiety state (30%) and hysteria (26%) while patients of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) were few (6%).

[Table - 3] shows the data on the size of the primary group; the numerical size of household members of patients was smaller (p<0.05) as compared with that of the control group. Further, patients had significantly lesser number of close relatives (p<0.01) and good friends (p<0.001) as compared with controls.

[Table - 4] presents mean and standard deviation of the total duration of interaction in hours in the index week of patients and controls with members of the primary subgroups or non­primary group. The patients did not differ significantly with the control group in terms of total interaction with household members, total interaction with primary group members other than household members, and in total interaction outside the primary group. [Table - 4] shows that mean duration of Type-I positive (pleasant) interaction of patients was significantly less than that of controls (p<0.01), whereas mean duration of interaction of Type-I negative (unpleasant) interaction was higher in the patients (p<0.001). Patients reported significantly lower Type-II positive interaction (p<0.001) in comparison with controls, but patients had a higher Type-II negative interaction as compared with healthy controls (p<0.001). No significant difference was found between the index group and the control group on Type-III interaction, i.e. affectively superficial interaction with one or more persons who are outside the primary group.

[Table - 5] shows qualitative break-up of interaction with members of the primary group both for the index group and the control group. The control subjects had significantly higher mean duration of Type-II positive interaction with household members as compared with patients (p<0.01) and the patients differed significantly on mean duration of Type-II negative interaction with household, which was higher in the index group in comparison with controls (p<0.01). On Type-I unpleasant interaction with household members, mean duration of Type-I negative interaction for the control subjects was significantly less as compared with that of patients (p<0.05). On interactions with members of the primary group outside household the patients reported more of Type-I negative interaction in comparison with controls; the difference was highly significant (p<0.001). No significant difference in interaction with persons outside the primary group between the index group and control subjects was observed.

On inter-diagnostic group comparison on the quantity and quality of interaction between anxiety state and hysteria, between anxiety state and neurotic depression, and between neurotic depression and hysteria no statistically significant difference was found. The OCD group was excluded from comparison as it was thinly represented.


   Discussion Top


In patients with neurosis, a causal relation of inadequacy of or pathological interaction with social network has been pointed out by several workers.[8],[26] In the present study, it was observed that the primary group of the patients was numerically smaller as compared with that of the controls. Henderson et al. [8] also reported a similar observation. Sethi et al. [25] did not find any significant difference between the size of the primary group of patients with neurosis in comparison to healthy controls (which might have been due to the smaller sample size of the study as realized by the authors too). Implications of this finding are difficult to analyse and it can be interpreted either way. Smaller number of close relatives and of good friends may be causally related to neurosis as reported by other observers or it may be due to altered perception of the patient due to the illness or due to the subject's inability to enter into or maintain relationships due to morbidity.[3],[4],[7] However, the third component of the primary group, i.e. number of household members, is likely to have a contributory effect on the development of neurosis because the numerical size of household members is less likely to be influenced by the altered perception though it is likely to be influenced by the behavioural illness of the patient.

In respect of affective quality of interactions, healthy subjects reported more of Type-II pleasant interaction with household members. In patients, significantly higher mean duration of Type-I unpleasant interaction with household members and persons outside household but within the primary group was reported. Simply stated, patients reported significantly more of their interaction as unpleasant with members of the primary group as compared to controls. Again, it may be a primary influencer related to the subsequent development of neurotic illness or it may be a secondary influencer due to changed perception as a symptom of the illness. As intra-group comparison in subjects of the index group between different neurotic illnesses did not reveal any significant difference, the finding appears more likely to have a causal influence on the neurotic illness because cognitive distortions vary in different neurotic illnesses. Sethi et al. [25] did not find any deficiency in the affective quality of interaction of patients with members of the primary group in comparison with control, being contrary to findings of Henderson et al. [8] and which they felt could have been due to social desirability and reticence in openly discussing family problems. These observations lend support to the concept that persons who view their relationships as inadequate have an increased risk of developing neuroses.[27],[28],[29]


   Conclusion Top


The study shows that the primary group of patients with neurosis was significantly smaller in size as compared with controls. Of the total time spent with members of the primary group, interaction of patients were more of unpleasant type and less of pleasant type in comparison with healthy controls. A major limitation of the study is that it is a retrospective study based on the reporting based on recall of patients. Neurotic illnesses are known to colour perception and influence recall varying from forgetting to selective attention. Secondly, the week prior to the day of observation for interactional analysis may be more representative of the perception of the patient and is less likely to display interactional patterns leading to the development of illness. A period prior to onset of illness is more likely to be of aetiological significance but that could not be taken for the reason of poor recollection by the subjects. A prospective study on a large healthy population for such a period as to have statistically analyaable size of patients with neurosis using similar tools, though difficult, would overcome these limitations and is therefore desirable.

 
   References Top

1.Foulds GA. Personality and personal illness. London: Tavistock Publications; 1965.  Back to cited text no. 1    
2.Foulds GA. The hierarchical nature of personal illness. London: Academic Press; 1976.  Back to cited text no. 2    
3.Lemert EM. Human deviance, social problems and social control. Englewood Cliff: Prentice-Hall; 1967.  Back to cited text no. 3    
4.Gruenberg EM. The social breakdown syndrome and its prevention. In: Arieti S (ed). The American handbook of psychiatry. Vol.11. New York: Basic Books; 1974:697-710.  Back to cited text no. 4    
5.Cassel J. The contribution of social environment to host resistance. Am J Epidemiol 1976;104:107-23.  Back to cited text no. 5  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
6.Brown GW, Harris T. Social origins of depression: A study of psychiatric disorder in women. London: Tavistock Publications; 1978.  Back to cited text no. 6    
7.Lin N, Ensel WM, Simeone RS, et al. Social Support, stressful life events and illness: A model and an empirical test. J Health Soc Behav 1979;20:108-19.  Back to cited text no. 7  [PUBMED]  
8.Henderson AS, Duncun-Jones P, McAuley H, et al. The patient's primary group. Br J Psychiatry 1978;132:75-86  Back to cited text no. 8    
9.Holohan CJ, Moss RH. Social support and psychological distress: A longitudinal analysis. J Abnormal Psychology 1981;49:365-70.  Back to cited text no. 9    
10.Gottlieb BH. Social support strategies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1983.  Back to cited text no. 10    
11.Cohen S, Wills TA. Stress, social support negative life events and mental health. Br J Psychiatry 1985;166:29-34.  Back to cited text no. 11    
12.Kulhara P, Chopra P. Social support, social dysfunction and stressful life events in neurotic patients. Indian J Psychiatry 1996;38:23-9.  Back to cited text no. 12    
13.Gove WR. Sex differences in mental illness among adult men and women: An evaluation of four questions raised regarding the evidence of higher rates for women. Soc Sci Med 1978;12:187-98.  Back to cited text no. 13    
14.Nathanson CA. Illness and the feminine role: A theoretical review. Soc Sci Med 1975;9:57-62.  Back to cited text no. 14    
15.Weissman MM, Klerman GL. Sex differences and the epidemiology of depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1977;34: 98-111.  Back to cited text no. 15    
16.Barnes JA. Class and committees in Norwegian island parish. Human Relations 1954;7:39-58.  Back to cited text no. 16    
17.Adams B. Interaction theory and the social network. Sociometry 1967;30:64-78.  Back to cited text no. 17    
18.Mitchell JC. Social networks in urban situations: Analyses of personal relationships in Central African towns. Manchester: Manchester University Press; 1969.  Back to cited text no. 18    
19.Cooley CH. Social organization: A study of the larger mind. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons; 1909:23.  Back to cited text no. 19    
20.Bates AP, Babchuck N. The primary group: A reappraisal. Sociology Q 1961;2:181-91.  Back to cited text no. 20    
21.Broom L, Selznick P. Sociology. New York: Harper & Row; 1973:132.  Back to cited text no. 21    
22.World Health Organization. Manual of international classifi­cation of diseases, injuries and causes of death. 9th ed. Geneva: WHO; 1977.  Back to cited text no. 22    
23.Broadman K, Erdman AJ Jr, Lorge I, et al. The Cornell Medical Index-an adjunct to medical interview. JAMA. 1949;140:530.  Back to cited text no. 23    
24.Sethi BB, Sharma M. Social interaction and neurosis. Paper presented at 33rd Annual Conference of the Indian Psychiatry Society, Ahmedabad, 1980.  Back to cited text no. 24    
25.Sethi BB, Sharma M, Srivastava A. Social interaction and neurosis (The family and primary group)-A pilot study. Indian J Psychiatry 1981;23:33.  Back to cited text no. 25    
26.Caplan G. Support system and community in mental health. New York: Behavioural Publications; 1974.  Back to cited text no. 26    
27.Fairbairn R. Object relations, theory of personality. New York: Basic Books; 1952.  Back to cited text no. 27    
28.Chodoff P. The depressive personality. A critical review. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1972;27:666-73.  Back to cited text no. 28    
29.Guntrip H. Psychoanalytic object relation theory. In: Arieti S (ed). American handbook of psychiatry. Vol. I. New York: Basic Books; 1974.  Back to cited text no. 29    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Sunil Srivastava
Institute of Mental Health and Hospital, Agra, Uttar Pradesh
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0019-5545.31578

Rights and Permissions



 
 
    Tables

  [Table - 1], [Table - 2], [Table - 3], [Table - 4], [Table - 5]



 

Top