Posttraumatic stress disorders in the Nanai after pollution of the Amur River: ethnocultural analysis

Table 4 Comparison of Total-I and Total-C between groups divided according to the ethnopsychological questions

	No.	Total-I	Total-C
As a food, fish caught in the Amur River is
Basic and important	60	36.5 ± 21.2	38.7 ± 15.4
Not basic but important	95	30.0 ± 18.2	34.5 ± 16.2
Neither basic nor important	32	26.8 ± 21.8	29.2 ± 16.3 b
Fish inhabiting the Amur River is seriously suffered
No	21	34.8 ± 23.8	35.9 ± 18.1
Yes	166	31.1 ± 19.6	34.8 ± 16.0
After the pollution, do you eat fish in the Amur River?
Yes	103	29.5 ± 18.7	34.8 ± 14.6
Yes, will not	17	35.5 ± 20.5	38.9 ± 11.1
No, will	11	42.9 ± 18.2	40.1 ± 16.2
No	56	31.9 ± 22.3	32.4 ± 19.7
Water pollution in the Amur River is
Disaster	172	32.7 ± 20.1	36.5 ± 15.6
Not terrible	15	17.9 ± 13.7 a	17.2 ± 11.9 a
The Amur River for me is^a
Sacred (S)	16	38.3 ± 18.7	35.8 ± 20.2
Gateway to the ancestor/another world (G)	25	29.4 ± 21.5	32.1 ± 17.7
A way of business (B)	19	24.8 ± 15.2	32.3 ± 12.9
To obtain food (F)	27	43.7 ± 21.2 d	39.6 ± 11.4
Just a river	62	28.7 ± 19.6 e	34.3 ± 16.5
S + G	5	48.2 ± 20.6	39.2 ± 20.7
B + F	9	19.4 ± 14.0 e	37.3 ± 17.2
Other combinations	22	29.6 ± 18.3	35.4 ± 20.7
I will leave this area
Planning	16	35.6 ± 22.2	34.9 ± 14.9
Not planning	171	31.2 ± 19.9	34.9 ± 16.4

^aMultiple-response question
Values represent mean ± SD. Significant difference: a between groups (P < 0.05, Students’ t test), b from the first, d from the third, e from the fourth groups, respectively (P < 0.05, one-way ANOVA with Tucky’s HSD as a post hoc test)

ISSN: 1347-4715