discussion

laels didlly diffa in then depe$ion, Mi.ty, el|{sted! aCige$ion, ndital aid
sual eijsf&tiotr. ft w6 cl€rly @Ni&Fd thal ditr€Enl edMtioml l€vels wuld
@ .ibut to the psycbolosicrl foc.G of inf.diliry. The Bdts ofone Wat Anal)sh
of vdia@ for s6 of inf.nil. on BDl, BAI,ISE ad ISS sho*ed non sienifi@l
.frel or eduorion (Table 5D. -rhe findings implicd rhol 0!e infedile sple
bclonging 1o difleMr €duqtio.d l.vels did not difld in d€picting th€ir depesion,
diety, rr+slen ed *xul erisfacrio..
25t
Tbe Mults orceming rhe sm. bt?olhesis tunh€r show€d sis.ifist
difrer€rces a@ng the six grcups of diffoftnl educalional level on the mdures of
aggEsion ed ntrit l etisfeiion. h M hypoihcsi4d thal aCgssion ed n{ilrl
stbf&tion muld b€ in ditr@r ratctu for ditr @t Smups of bfenjle Fople
b.lo4ing lo ditreql caftgori6 of .ducgtion. Thc nidings ol the pe*nt Fseeh
supporr.d rh. hyporheis which impli.d thlt diflemt Cioups of Bpondeo|s showd
difrcEnt degr of agglsi@ ed n&it l stisf&lion. 'nE findings of posl-n@
(Trbl. 58) t6! perfoded ro *'owins {hicb sDups @ dislanr to @h orhd on
AggEsior Qn slio@irc ffidized 1hat inferile sple eiih naric qualificaio.
e.l infenile suple wiih posl eradutc qu.lilicaiion depicred difereni Fltehs of
aggesive behavior. Sinilaly th€ indioSs fo. mdiral saristaciioo indicated ihe
$iti@t diffeme b€tm bf.rlilc smple lhal e belo* moliic and inf€rlile
spL with F.A qualifiation (Tlble 59), On th. b6is of drse fndhes i1c& be
corclud.