Advertisement

Coping with Reluctance to Change in Rural Prevention Programming

  • John F. Snyder

Abstract

A person weary of pulling drowning people from the stream was heard to say to his tired companion, “We have to go upstream and stop these people being thrown in the water”. This is an old definition of prevention but in some rural areas it is thwarted by reluctance to even consider going upstream (i.e., change in any fashion). This is not to say that all rural communities are staid and unchanging. Concerning rural-urban differences in attitudes and behavior in the United States, it is concluded by Glenn and Hill, Jr. (1977) that “rather small differences between percentages has often obscured the fact that on most issues the rural and urban populations each has almost as much internal differentiation in attitudes as does the total population” (p.50). This also does not change the reality that within a 50 mile radius in Southern Illinois there is a vast difference between rural communities on the dimension of readiness to change. Many are ultra-conservative, some are slowly but surely changing and others seem to change quite rapidly. The reluctance to change and the difficulty of “outsiders” making entry into a community for prevention programming is the issue at hand in this paper.

Keywords

Drug Abuse Rural Community Rand Corporation Moderate Drinking Internal Differentiation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. DeJong, G.F. and Sell, R.R. 1977. Population Predistribution, Migration and Residential Preferences. Annals. Amer. Acad. Pol. & Soc. Sei. Vol 429, Jan.Google Scholar
  2. Feldenkrais, M. 1972. Awareness through Movement: Health exercises for personal growth. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  3. Glenn, N.D. and Hill, L. Jr. 1977. Rural-Urban Differences in Attitudes and Behavior in the United States. Annals. Amer. Acad. Pol. & Soc. Sei. Vol 429, Jan.Google Scholar
  4. Marshal, R.J. 1972. The Treatment of resistance in Psychotherapy of Children and Adolescents. Psychotherapy, Vol 9, #2, Summer 143–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Noble, E.P. 1976. NXAAA Director Joins Criticism of Alcohol Studies Behavior Today. June 28, Vol 7, No. 26: 2–3.Google Scholar
  6. Parhoff, M.S. and Handlon, J.H. 1968. The Influence of Criticalness on Creative Problem Solving in Dyads, in Interpersonal Dynamics, Dennis, W.G., et al (ed.) Homewood, IL., Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
  7. Popham, R.E. and Schmidt, W. 1976. Should Alcoholics drink moderately? Another view. Behavior Today, August 16.Google Scholar
  8. Sax, S. and Holander, S. (eds.) 1972. Reality Games. New York: Macmillan Co.Google Scholar
  9. Shafer R. 1973. The idea of resistance. Int. J. Psycho-Anal. Vol 54: 259–285.Google Scholar
  10. Signell, K. II. 1976. Succor in the shopping center. Innovations Vol 3(2).Google Scholar
  11. Snyder, J.F., Hill, C.E. and Derkson, T.P. 1972. Why some students do not use University Counseling Facilities. J. Counseling Psychol. Vol 19(4): 263–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Weil, A. 1972. Man’s innate need: getting high. Intellectual Digest. Google Scholar
  13. Weil, A. 1976. Letters from Andrew Weil. J.Psychedelic Drugs. Vol 8(2).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • John F. Snyder
    • 1
  1. 1.Peer Oriented Drug Abuse Educational Network (PODAEN)Southern Illinois UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations