Field-Independence And Typologies Of Delinquency

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content 72-17,481
LEVY, Victor, 1932-
FIELD-INDEPENDENCE AND
DELINQUENCY.
University of Southern
Education, psychology
TYPOLOGIES OF
California, Ph.D., 1972
University Microfilms, A X ER O X Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan
THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED.
FIELD-INDEPENDENCE AND TYPOLOGIES OF DELINQUENCY
by
Victor Levy
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Education)
January 1972
UNIVERSITY OF SO UTHERN CALIFORNIA
TH E GRADUATE SC H O O L
U N IV ER SITY PA RK
LOS A N G ELE S. C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, written by
Victor Levy
under the direction of /tis— Dissertation Com
mittee, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by The Gradu
ate School, in partial fulfillment of require
ments of the degree of
D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y
Dean
D a te ...l^ F ^ n ..W .l
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
PLEASE NOTE:
Some pages may have
indistinct print.
Filmed as received.
University Microfilms, A Xerox Education Company
| ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
l
The writer would like to express appreciation to
|
|the members of the Guidance Committee for their helpful
suggestions and guidance. A special thanks is accorded to
Dr. C. E. Meyers, committee chairman, without whose con-
j
!tinuing support and encouragement this study would not
have been possible.
The writer also wishes to thank Mr. Larry Smith,
;director of Riverside County Juvenile Hall, and the
:teaching staff of this facility for their assistance in
:conducting this study. The writer owes a special thanks
I to Mr. William Conlon, principal, and Mr. William Taylor,
I
|chief counselor of La Sierra High School, for their
! generous., support in facilitating the administration of
i
this study in their school.
!
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..............................
LIST OF TABLES ................................
|Chapter
I I. INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM .............
Purpose of the Study
Typologies of Delinquency
The Legalistic Approach
The Physiological Approach
The Sociological Approach
The Psychological Approach
Ideal-Theoretical Typologies of
t Delinquency
Summary of Ideal-Theoretical
I Typologies
Empirical Typologies of Delinquency
Recapitulation of the Ideal-Theo-
| retical and Empirical Approaches
Socialization, Powerlessness, and
Behavioral Adjustment
Socialization
Powerlessness
Behavioral Adjustment
Field-Independence and Typologies
of Delinquency
Cognitive Style - Field-Independence
i and Field-Dependence
Implications of Field-Independence
! for Socialization
Page
ii
vi
1
Chapter
iv
Page
Implications of Field-Independence
for Powerlessness
Implications of Field-Independence
for Behavioral Adjustment
Purpose of the Study (Recapitulated)
II. RESEARCH DESIGN.......................... 52
The Sample
Verification of Non-Delinquent Status
of Control Group
The Designation of Field-Independence
and Field-Dependence
Matching Delinquent Field-Independent,
Delinquent Field-Dependent, Non-
Delinquent Field-Independent,
and Non-Delinquent Field-
Dependent Samples
Age
Intelligence
Social Class
Ethnicity
The Scales
The Socialization Scale
The IE Scale
The Burks' Behavior Rating Scale
Thy Hypotheses
Delinquents versus Non-Delinquents
Field-Independent Delinquents versus
Field-Dependent Delinquents
Field-Independent Non-Delinquents
versus Field-Dependent Non-
Delinquents
Interaction Hypotheses
Administration
Delimitations of the Study
Definition of Terms
Statistical Treatment of Data
III. FINDINGS.................................. 84
Hypothesis 1
Findings
Hypothesis 2
Findings
Hypothesis 3
Findings
Hypothesis 4
Findings
V
Chapter Page
Hypothesis 5
Findings
Hypothesis 6
Findings
Hypothesis 7
Findings
Hypothesis 8
Findings
Hypothesis 9
Findings
Hypothesis 10
Findings
Hypothesis 11
Findings
Hypothesis 12
Findings
Intercorrelation of Independent
and Dependent Variables
! IV SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND DISCUSSION . . . 110 !
Summary
Conclusions
| Discussion
Recommendations
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................ 128
'APPENDIX A: SOCIALIZATION SCALE ............... 136
APPENDIX B: BURKS' BEHAVIOR RATING SCALE DEVISED
BY HAROLD H. BURKS, PH D............. 140
APPENDIX C: IE SCALE 143
APPENDIX D: EMBEDDED FIGURES TEST-V 147
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Psychological Typologies of Delinquency . . 33
2. Mean Age, IQ, and Social Class Composition
of Sub-Groups of Delinquent, Non-
Delinquent, Field-Independent, and
Field-Dependent Subjects . ............. 55
3. List of Matched Quartets of Delinquent
Field-Independent, Delinquent Field-
Dependent, Non-Delinquent Field-
Independent and Non-Delinquent
Field Dependent Subjects ............... 58
4. Comparison of Mean Socialization Scores
for Delinquents and Non-Delinquents . . . 87
5. Comparison of IE(Powerlessness) Scores
for Delinquents and Non-Delinquents . . . 88
6. Comparison of Socialization Scores for
Field-Independent and Field-
Dependent Delinquents ..... ......... 89
7. Comparison of IE(Powerlessness) Scores
for Field-Independent and Field-
Dependent Delinquents................... 91
8. Number of Neurotic Symptoms on the Burks’
Behavior Rating Scale for Field-
Independent Delinquents and Field-
Dependent Delinquents................... 92
vi
vii
Table Page
9. Number of Sociopathic Symptoms on the
Burks' Behavior Rating Scale for
Field-Independent Delinquents and
Field-Dependent Delinquents ............... 93
10. Comparison of Mean Socialization Scores
for Field-Independent Non-Delinquents
and Field-Dependent Non-Delinquents .... 95
11. Comparison of IE(Powerlessness) Scores
for Field-Independent Non Delinquents
and Field-Dependent Non-Delinquents .... 96
12. Number of Neurotic Symptoms on the Burks'
Behavior Rating Scale for Field-
Independent Non-Delinquents and ;
Field-Dependent Non-Delinquents 98 j
13. Number of Sociopathic Symptoms on the j
Burks' Behavior Rating Scale for ;
Field-Independent Non-Delinquents
and Field-Dependent Non-Delinquents .... 99
14. Comparison of Socialization Scores and
Interactiin Effects for Delinquent, j
Non-Delinquent, and Field-Independent,
Field-Dependent Groups ..... ........ 100
15. Comparison of IE(Powerlessness) Scores and
Interaction Effects for Field-
Independent, Field-Dependent and
Delinquent, Non-Delinquent Groups ......... 102
16. Pearson Product Moment Correlations Among
Age, IQ, Social Class, IE(Powerlessness),
and Socialization for all Delinquents . . 103
17. Pearson Product Moment Correlations Among
Age, IQ, Social Class, IE(Powerlessness),
and Socialization for all Non-
Delinquents ...................................104
18. Pearson Product Moment Correlations Among
Age, IQ, Social Class, IE(Powerlessness),
and Socialization for Delinquent Field-
Independents ....................... 105
viii
Table Page
19. Pearson Product Moment Correlations Among
Age, IQ, Social Class, IE(Powerlessness),
and Socialization for Delinquent Field-
Dependents...................................106
20. Pearson Product Moment Correlations Among
Age, IQ, Social Class, IE(Powerlessness),
and Socialization for Non-Delinquent
Field-Independents ........................ 107
21. Pearson Product Moment Correlations Among
Age, IQ, Social Class, IE(Powerlessness),
and Socialization for Non-Delinquent
Field-Dependents .......................... 108
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM
i
|
It has been estimated that despite a proliferation
of government and private resources to combat juvenile
'delinquency, criminal offenses by juveniles have increased
threefold during the past decade, and present conditions
portend an increase in the rate of delinquency as well
(Wirt and Briggs, 1965). The disappointing results of
many delinquency prevention and intervention programs has
accentuated the need for a more definitive and focused
understanding of the heterogeneous nature of the delin
quent population so that intervention models and treatment
I
priorities can be articulated.
Argyle (1961) has questioned the somewhat apoch-
ryphal notion that a mere increase in treatment facilities
will measurably ameliorate the delinquency problem without
|more specific treatment strategies based on the variegation
iwithin the general delinquent population. He poses this
i
dilemma in the following way.
i
l
i
i
I i
2
j It is now widely accepted that all delinquents are
! not best treated in the same way, i.e., that there is
i interaction between type of delinquent and type of
treatment in relation to the outcome. The problem is
to discover the most useful classification into types
and to find the best kind of treatment for each.
(Argyle, 1961, p. 22)
Quay (1965) and Ferdinand (1966) submit arguments similar
to that of Argyle in postulating the fact that a global
and unitary concept of delinquency is no longer adequate
i to encompass the full breadth and complexity of so-called
delinquent behavior. They suggest the need for systematic !
i
studies investigating consistent and pervasive differences j
; i
; !
between sub-groups of delinquents so that the many facets
I
i
of delinquent behavior can be characterized and understood.|
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to further explore
dimensions upon which meaningful differences can be speci
fied within delinquent groups by investigating the role of
i
the cognitive style, field-independence, field-dependence
in relation to the socialization, powerlessness and be
havioral adjustment (i.e., incidence of neurotic and
sociopathic symptoms), of delinquents. The field-inde
pendence, field-dependence dimension specifies the re
lationship between perception and the overall adjustment
of the individual. In characterizing the ability of an
individual to perceive an item independently of its con
text, field-independence depicts the general propensity of
keeping things separate in experience as opposed to the___
3
tendency for things to merge in experience as delineated
by the field-dependent mode of perception. As such,
| field-independence and field-dependence are a fruitful
source of individual differences, characterizing percep-
; tion in its adaptational aspects by measuring the amount
of information monitored by the perceiver as his needs, j
! feelings, and coping techniques interact with stimuli in j
jhis field. For purposes of this study, field-independence[
! i
is defined as a score of 8 or above on the Embedded [
i
Figures Test Form V. (See Appendix D) j
: I
• I
This study investigated the relationship of field-i
independence, field-dependence, and delinquency within the|
context of typologies of delinquency, a field of study
which has already specified many individual differences
within the spectrum of delinquent activity. Hopefully,
|
;this investigation would be a tentative step in outlining
a typology of delinquency accentuating the higher cogni
tive processes as fruitful sources of inquiry as to the
delinquency proneness and amenability to therapeutic inter
vention of delinquent boys.
Typologies of Delinquency
| Ferdinand defines a typology of delinquency as "A
icollection of types that catalogues the various ways in
which a given complex of characteristics can be arranged
|
|to explain the behavior of acting units or individuals"
I(Ferdinand, 1966, p. 4). As such, he distinguishes
4
typologies of delinquency from theories of delinquency,
iindicating that typologies are concerned with the uni-
|formities in nature and are closely attuned to the charac
teristics of the empirical world whereas theories are more
I concerned with the logical relationship between concepts
and the etiology of prevailing behavioral characteristics.
Gibbons and Garrity (1959) soecify several cri-
jteria which must be met for delinquent typologies to be
effective in characterizing the populations they purport
to represent. First, they indicate that a predominant
part of the offender population should be included. Sec-
i
ond, they specify that a typology should differentiate andj
distinguish between offender groups at any given point in j
I
the lives of a group of offenders. Third, they indicate
that the characteristics of criminal types must be clearly
1 delineated so that actual offenders may be characterized
!within the typology with reliability. Fourth, they stress
that an adequate typology must be parsimonious with the
number of types few in number but all inclusive.
Four distinct approaches, the legalistic, the
physiological, the sociological, and the psychological,
have been enumerated by Roebuck (1967), Ferdinand (1966),
|
and Quay (1965) as feasible means of characterizing delin-
I
quent populations in typological terms. These categories
| will be utilized in reviewing the literature concerning
jtypologies of delinquency.
5
The Legalistic Approach
! The legalistic approach defines delinquency from
| the standpoint of statutory and judicial definitions of
delinquents. The delinquent is defined in terms of his
I intent and act; thus, a runaway would, by definition, be
different from an auto thief, and a vandal would have
; unique characteristics distinct from both. In effect, thej
i i
| legalistic orientation assumes that a certain type of
crime is committed by a certain type of person. Roebuck
describes the rationale underlying the legalistic approachj
in the following way: !
j
Criminal law establishes substantive norms of j
behavior and includes standards more clear-cut, |
specific and detailed than the norms in any other j
category of social control. At no other junction
in the field of social control is there directed a
comparable rational effort to elaborate standards
conforming to the predominant needs, desires and
1 interests of the community. (Roebuck, 1967, p. 8)
' i
As yet, the legalistic approach is not as exten-
i
| sively used in classifying juvenile delinquents as it is
in categorizing adult criminals. However, several studies
have accentuated the uniqueness of certain forms of delin
quent acts as being representative of modal personality
ipatterns. Wattenberg and Balistrieri (1952) have studied
i the characteristics of boys charged with automobile theft
as opposed to delinquents charged with other offenses.
The automobile violators were more likely to have come
i
|from a better socioeconomic background. They were also
i
I
I judged to have significantly better peer relationships,___
- 6
being less withdrawn and having fewer interpersonal con
flicts .
I Schepses (1961), in a three-year study of boys
I involved in automobile theft, found that among those whose
|only offense was auto theft, the onset of delinquency
|
started at a later age than other delinquents. This auto
; !
ionly group was disproportionately represented by Cau
casians and fewer boys of low IQ.
| j
Clinard and Wade (1958) investigated the charac- I
i
teristies of boys who became involved in vandalism. They
i
!indicated that vandalism is essentially extemporaneous and
adventitious in character, being of lesser severity than j
j I
many other forms of delinquent behavior. Chein (1956) !
| |
describes a pattern of symptoms that prevail in the j
personality of the adolescent drug user who comes to the
'attention of the court. Among the pathological symptoms
l
|observed are feelings of futility and expectations of
;failure, problems of sexual identification, reflected in
difficulties assuming a masculine role, and an inability
:to enter prolonged, close or friendly relationships with
• adults or peers. A low tolerance for anxiety and frustra
tion was also evident with a concomitant need for supports
j
and narcotizers to serve as anxiety reducing agents.
I
Wattenberg and Balistrieri (1950) compared boys
engaging in delinquency as part of gangs with those who
were not gang participants. They found that gang members
7
|appeared to have come from less well organized homes which
j
iwere located in socioeconomically low neighborhoods. How
ever, while the non-gang boys came from better homes in
the socioeconomic and organizational sense, they were more
I likely to have been living in homes in which there were
disturbed family relationships. Randolph, Richardson and I
Johnson (1961) compared the personality characteristics of
!boys known to have always been either social or solitary
in their delinquencies. They found that the solitary
group was significantly brighter, more emotionally dis
turbed and more apt to come from better socioeconomic j
circumstances. j
j
Gibbons and Garrity (1959) have enumerated a j
typology of adult criminality based extensively on a j
legalistic approach. Although this typology is only of
peripheral relevance in classifying delinquents, it would
:be highly feasible to investigate the types of juvenile
offenders who later come to fit the career patterns speci
fied in this typology. Although not entirely consistent
with the criteria of parsimony expressed in their initial
definition of a typology, the following fourteen cate
gories have been designated by Gibbons and Garrity as
comprising a typology based on offense characteriztics:
1. The professional thief. 2. The professional
heavy criminal. 3. The quasi-professional property
offender. 4. The one-time loser. 5. The embezzler.
| 6. The check writer who drinks. 7. The upper-class
fringe violater. 8. The white collar criminal,
i 9. The auto-thief joyrider. 10. The one time loser.
8
personal offense. 11. The violent assaultist.
12. The non violent sex offender. 13. The violent
sex offender. 14. The heroin addict. (Gibbons and
Garrity, 1959, p. 55)
The Physiological Approach
The physiological approach seeks to relate the
varieties of delinquent behavior with the biological, con
stitutional, and/or genetic substratum of the individual.
'The general implication is that impulse control and the
|
capacity to act in accord with the dictates of society are!
not possible with certain physio-biological types.
Although the physiological approach has relatively
i
few adherents among criminologists today it represents one !
i
of the earliest efforts in specifying differences within j
an offender population. Lombroso, often called the father!
of modern criminology, attempted to apply Darwin’s bio
logical theories to criminal behavior. His general theory,
now considered quite primitive, suggested that criminals
are distinguished from non-criminals by manifestations of
multiple physical anomalies which are of degenerative or
atavistic origin. Lombroso believed that the criminal
behaved as he did because he was born with a biological
!constitution impelling him to commit criminal offenses.
I He distinguished among five types of criminals: "1. The
born criminal. 2. The epileptic criminal. 3. The crim
inal of irresistible passion. 4. The insane and the
jfeebleminded criminal, and 5. The occasional criminal"
9
(Mannheim, 1960, p. 190).
| Among modern criminologists, Tappan emphasizes the
limportance of physiological considerations in the follow-
i
i
|ing way:
|
j Neither the fact that crime is culturally defined
j nor the fact that it is biologically and socially j
; normal in an etiological sense should be taken to mean
| that specific forms of criminal conduct are unrelated
! to the physical condition or to the hereditary traits
j of the offender . . . in so far as criminal acts pro-
S ceed from peculiarities of personality, disposing the
individual toward particular lines of conduct, it is
reasonable to impute to biology both the foundations
out of which such personality variables develop and, j
. . . a role in the criminal behavior that ensues.
(Tappan, 1960, p. 708)
| Glueck and Glueck (1950) have applied Sheldon's j
psychobiological approach in correlating delinquency with j
i
■body type. They found that delinquents were essentially j
mesomorphic in constitution and temperamentally more
energetic, aggressive, and non-submissive,
i McCord and McCord (1956) have investigated the
i
I neurological concomitants of psychopathy and indicate that
jin comparison with normal people, psychopaths show more
frequent EEG abnormalities, manifest such signs of neuro
logical disorder as tics and tremors, are more responsive
to physical changes in their environment, and have a
i
greater history of early brain damage. Unfortunately,
|
J they did not compare psychopaths with other forms of
i criminal offenders and frequently use the term psychopath
|in a generic manner, subsuming therein much of the
|criminal population.
10
The Sociological Approach
The sociological approach toward delinquent typ-
|ologies stresses the contribution of social forces to
delinquent behavior. Its basic premise is that a certain
degree of social disorganization prevails when society
fails to provide equal access to all its members of the ;
|material advantages it espouses. As a consequence of thisj
jmalintegration, delinquent subcultures arise whibh influ
ence its members in meeting their needs by way of delin
quent behavior. A typological point of view stresses the !
; !
great degree of heterogeneity among these delinquent sub- j
cultures in terms of motivations, social groupings, and !
!
criminal careers. j
i
; Cohen and Short define delinquent subcultures as
the following:
A system of beliefs and values generated in a
process of communicative interaction among children
similarly circumscribed by virtue of their positions
in the social structure, and as constituting a solu
tion to problems of adjustment to which the estab
lished culture provided no satisfactory solutions.
(Cohen and Short, 1958, p. 20)
Cohen (1955) characterizes these delinquent sub
cultures as non-utilitarian, malicious and negativistic.
The non-utilitatian characteristics of delinquent sub
cultures are reflected in the fact that they do not repre
sent a means to an end. The malicious aspects of these
delinquent subcultures are reflected in their apparent
perverse enjoyment in viewing the discomfiture of the
jvictim of the delinquent act. The negativistic ethos which
pervades these subcultures is primarily engendered in oppo
sition to the middle class ethic which has proved so frus
trating to the delinquent. Cohen believes that the lower
class boy's socialization has not prepared him to function
I
and compete in the institutions which perpetuate middle j
|
class society with the consequence that feelings of self-
! i
derogation and status deprivation arise. Reaction forma-
I
tion by way of the delinquent subculture appears to be a ;
collective solution to this dilemma. |
Cohen and Short (1958) have enumerated five types j
of delinquent subcultures: the parent male subculture,
!
the conflict-oriented subculture, the drug addict sub
culture, the semi-professional thief subculture, and the j
middle class delinquent subculture. Each of these sub
cultures is characterized by differences in values, goals,
and social cohesiveness. All have in common the pursuit
of emotional and social needs unmet by the society at
large.
, According to Cohen and Short, the parent male sub
culture is the most common and well known of the delin
quent subcultures. It is characterized by short run
hedonism, group autonomy, and a negativistic orientation
toward middle class mores. It is called parent male be
cause it constitutes a common genre shared by other vari-
i
jant subcultures, namely, its working class status and
12
antithetical views of middle class society. More severe
i in its delinquent orientation is the conflict-oriented
subculture which is predominantly characterized by the
culture of large gangs, rather elaborately organized and
! stressing aggression, territoriality, toughness, and in-
, group loyalty. |
The drug addict subculture is quite different in |
orientation than the parent male or conflict-oriented j
subculture. It centers about the use of drugs as a life
style and the tendency to eschew the more violent forms |
of delinquent behavior personified by the other acting
out subcultures.
I
!
The semi-professional thief subculture is depicted
I
by Cohen and Short as predominantly constituting young
i
adults who are moving in the direction of more utili
tarian, pecuniary, and systematic crime. They have begun
to differentiate themselves from their more carefree peers
in the parent male subculture and are seriously embarking
on a life of crime with adult criminal role models avail-
i able to them as mentors.
The middle class delinquent subculture is por
trayed by Cohen and Short as a newly emergent subcultural
entity, although by no means a new phenomenon insofar as
sporadic delinquent activity is concerned. The emphasis
; here is on the courting of danger, sophisticated irre-
j sponsibility, efforts to overcome everyday ennui, and a
I
!somewhat "playboy” approach.
Ohlin and Cloward (1960) assert that delinquent
I subcultures tend to be differentiated into three major
I types; the criminal, the conflict, and the retreatest,
with each type representing a different resolution of the
stresses engendered by middle class society.
According to Ohlin and Cloward, the criminal sub
culture prevails in a community characterized by relative
integration, the presence of criminal role models, and
strong class affiliations between age level offenders.
Although in this subculture the legitimate means to suc-
; cess are thwarted, illegitimate means are available by wayj
of organized crime. The conflict subculture, according to!
Ohlin and Cloward, develops in areas characterized by dis
organization, mobility, and the relative absence of organ
ized crime. In this subculture, youths are blocked both
by the absences of conventional opportunity and by a
; deafcfch of criminal routes to success. Violence and tough
ness become means by which youths from this type of
neighborhood can achieve a modicum of success and status.
Ohlin and Cloward indicate that the retreatest subculture
is essentially a double failure resolution, being charac
terized by an inability to utilize either a criminal
career or a violent facade as a means of status approval.
| Instead, drugs are turned to as a resolution of this
| status dilemma.
14
| Yablonsky (1963) has provided an intensive in-
vestigation of delinquent subcultures based on anecdotal
and observational data. His interest is mainly focused on
|those subcultures designated as parent male and conflict-
|oriented by Cohen and Short (1958). Yablonsky asserts
;that three types of gangs prevail in delinquent subcul
tures: the delinquent gang, the violent gang, and the j
I
social gang.
Yablonsky indicates that the delinquent gang is
i
dominated by delinquent activities such as stealing or j
assault in which material profit is the primary goal. j
:This gang is generally a small and mobile unit which can
engage in illicit activities with maximum effectiveness |
and minimal risk. With few exceptions, delinquent gang
members are emotionally stable individuals whose delin
quency is predominantly a manifestation of their being
inculcated into well socialized deviant forms of behavior.
The violent gang, according to Yablonsky, is pri
marily formed for the emotional gratification of its mem
bers, with violence being the modus vivendi of this group.
Membership in this gang is often large and leadership is
characterized by a grandiose and megalomaniacal ethos
which enables individual members to enhance their own self
concept by identifying with the leader. Territorial dis
putes, fluid and changing membership, and frequent in-
|ternal power struggles are quite prevalent.
15
| The social gang is depicted by Yablonsky as being
essentially non-delinquent and law abiding. Its gang
activities are socially oriented, being composed of
dances, athletic events, and personal discussions. Mem
bers of the social gang are generally well adjusted indi
viduals who, in all likelihood, become respectable citi
zens. Leadership is based on popularity and constructive
ability.
Although the terminology differs between these
sociological typologies, a number of similarities prevail. |
i
Thus, the semi-professional thief subculture of Cohen and j
i
Short is in its characterization much akin to the criminal!
i
I
subculture of Ohlin and Cloward. Similarly, the conflict-;
oriented subculture of Cohen and Short is very similar to
the conflict subculture of Ohlin and Cloward, and in some
respects resembles the violent gang depicted by Yablonsky.
The retreatest subculture of Ohlin and Cloward is of the
same genre as the drug addict subculture of Cohen and
Short. Notwithstanding the considerable parsimony
achieved in generating these social typologies of delin
quency, considerable heterogeneity prevails within each
subgroup as to motivation, goal orientation, and mani
festation of delinquent behavior. It is to the psycho
logical realm that we must now turn for an understanding
|of these personal attributes of the delinquent.
The Psychological Approach
The psychological approach toward delinquent typ-
iologies considers delinquency from the point of view of
i
the motivational, emotional, and attitudinal configura
tions underlying deviant behavior. In this connection,
the delinquent act is frequently a symptom of a deeper
disturbance in the personality and represents an adapta
tion to a conflictual situation which cannot be dealt with
i
through the normal mechanisms of defense. Often the 1
delinquent act has some adaptive value, enabling the J
individual to reduce momentary stress through acting out j
his conflict. <
Ferdinand (1966) distinguishes between ideal- |
theoretical and empirical typologies in the psychological J
realm. According to Ferdinand the empirical typologies
entail an inductive process whereby the phenotypic pat-
|terns that a given population manifests are arrived at
;from the particular to the universal. The ideal-theoreti
cal typologies are, according to Ferdinand, meaningfully
integrated configurations that are derived more or less
explicitly from a theoretical structure. As with empirical
typologies, they describe the actual patterns that are pur
ported to appear in individuals, but in this case, Ferdi
nand specifies that "the definitions of types is estab-
!lished in terms of theoretical specifications and the
i
i
I trait complexes that constitute each type are meaningfully
j logically interrelated" (Ferdinand, 1966, p. 47).
i
Ideal-Theoretical Typologies of Delinquency
Alexander and Staub (1956) have enumerated a typ
ology which is based on two broad classes of criminality,
the Chronic Criminal whose source of deviancy is closely
interconnected with his psychic apparatus and the Acci
dental Criminal whose acts are primarily the consequence
of some unkind and fortuitous situation. In this typology
the predominant stress is placed upon the Chronic Criminal
|
who is responsible for virtually all the criminal activi- j
l
ties which comes to the attention of the authorities. j
i
According to Alexander and Staub, the Chronic j
Criminal can be one of the following specified types. The|
i
Organic or Toxic Criminal is one who is unable to control
himself because of debilitating physical or mental condi
tions. The Compulsive Symptomatic Criminal is one whose
| delinquency is an alien pattern in an otherwise normal
personality and whose deviant behavior tends to be spor
adic and often followed by remorse and guilt. The Neur
otic Acting Out Criminal is one whose criminality is the
consequence of powerful unconscious impulses and who may
pursue delinquent goals to bring about punishment for such
impulses. The Normal Criminal is one who has identified
with a criminal role model and who pursues criminal
J activities much as one would embark on a profession. The
i
Genuine Criminal is, according to Alexander and Staub, an
18
j individual who suffers from a warped superego and experi-
!ences little guilt or concern over the consequences of his
act. This criminal type is much akin to the psychopath,
frequently alluded to in the classical literature of
criminology.
Abrahamsen (1960), utilizing a psychoanalytic
frame of reference, has generated a typology somewhat
similar to Alexander and Staub's. He also recognizes an
adventitious type offender in addition to the Chronic ;
offender; however, he devotes the major part of his typ- I
: t
ology to categorizing sub-groups of Chronic delinquents. j
i
Among Abrahamsen's types of Chronic offenders are Neurotici
i
I
offenders, who carry out criminal acts in an obsessive andj
I
compulsory manner. The Neurotic Character Disorder and
the Genuine Psychopath are considered by Abrahamsen to be
Chronic offenders whose criminal behavior represents a
:substitution for neurotic symptom formation and whose
anti-social behavior forms a life style. The Psychotic
and Mentally Defective offenders represent the last of the
Chronic delinquents in this typology. The predominant
characteristic of these types are their impaired reality
testing which does not enable them to understand the real
import of their crimes. Abrahamsen suggests that these
types of offenders should not be held entirely responsible
for their criminal acts.
Sanford (1943), although primarily concerned with
!the adult criminal, has specified a psychoanalytic typ-
!
Iology of criminality which entails the interrelationship
i of the criminal with his institutional milieu and peer
i
l
group. He designates three types of prison inmates: The
1 Prosocial Criminal, the Anti-Social Criminal, and the
Asocial Criminal. According to Sanford, the Prosocial
Criminal has an infantile superego and an ego which is j
! i
unable to cope with the primary process demands of the id.j
i
!
His crimes tend to be petty and petulant and are generally
engaged in because of an inability to postpone gratifica- j
tion or to adopt more socialized avenues of need gratifi- '
cation. Although easily swayed by his peers, he tends to j
be a model prisoner who finds some dependency gratifica- j
tion within the confines of the institution and through j
association with the inmate culture.
The Anti-Social Criminal is, in Sanford's lexicon,
one who has basically a severe superego and a strong ego,
Ibut whose criminality reflects the need to repudiate
society at large. A complete identification with the
underworld prevails, with intense and unfailing loyalty
evident in his relationship with compatriots. Although
resistive and recalcitrant toward prison authorities, he
I tends to be cooperative and supportive with peers. His
strong superego receives continual reassurance from his
adherence to the code of the criminal peer group while
|there is strong insulation from the influence of the
20
|society at large.
1 According to Sanford, the Asocial Criminal has a
|weak superego with an ego that is strong and effective.
A narcissistic life style prevails in this individual,
with considerable exploitation of others being apparent in
I
his self-serving efforts to meet egocentric needs. His j
institutional adjustment is fraught with vicissitudes and
conflicts as he has little allegiance to his peers or to
the prison authorities but only to himself.
I
Weinberg (1952) has specified a typology of delin-j
quency which is based heavily on a theory of socialization,
i
accentuating environmental conditions as well as personal- 1
I
ity psychodynamics. Pour types are designated in this !
typology: The "true" Psychopath, The Acting-Out Neurotic,
The Self-Centered Overindulged Person, and the Cultural
;Deviant.
According to Weinberg, the Psychopath has little
remorse or guilt, cannot postpone gratification, and is
unable to sustain long term emotional relationships.
These untoward characteristics are attributed by Weinberg
to the absence of strong attachments during childhood and
a consequent dearth of internalized ideals to guide be
havior in the absence of direct personal control by
parental figures.
| Weinberg indicates that the Acting-Out Neurotic
j
jhas the capacity to form attachments and has a relatively
21
well developed conscience; however, develops hostile and
aggressive overtones as a defense against deep-seated
'feelings of guilt. He is, as it were, caught up in a
vicious cycle as his alienation from those upon whom there
is some emotional investment only serves to further in
crease his hostility and result in further alienation. j
His delinquency is essentially self defeating and maladap-
|
tive, with few, if any, material gains accruing from his j
i
delinquencies.
!
The Self-Centered Overindulged person is charac- j
terized by Weinberg as being not as emotionally shallow as
i
the Psychopath because of a somewhat closer relationship j
i
to one parental figure. Nonetheless, there is frequent I
j
exploitation and manipulation of others on this person's
part. Parental overindulgence is often a key factor in
|
jthis delinquent's background, as this individual comes to
j
dominate one of the parents by a combination of wiles and
tactics. Considerable emotional lability and wide swings
of mood often characterize this individual's adjustment in
an institution.
Weinberg indicates that the Cultural Deviant is
largely delinquent because of the internalization of a
deviant value system. To all intents and purposes, he
i
displays psychological patterns that are essentially
|normal, and he is quite responsive to environmental manipu-
Jlation techniques in an institutional setting.
22
Friedlander (1947) has applied a psychoanalytic
approach to the specification of subgroups of delinquents,
and has distinguished between two categories: The Charac
ter Disorder Delinquent and The Neurotic Delinquent.
According to Friedlander, the Character Disorder Delin-
!
quents have undergone an ego developmental sequence which j
i
does not permit them to invest feelings in others and j
iwhich involves inadequate modifications of infantile nar- |
cissistic operations. As a consequence, they fail to '
abandon belief in their own omnipotence and fail to develop
i
adequate superego functioning. I
Ausubel (1958) has addressed himself to this !
!
characterization of ego development somewhat differently j
by calling attention to the process of satellization in |
early childhood. By means of this mechanism, the child is
able to give up its feelings of infantile omnipotence and,
instead, sustain its self esteem through substitute grati
fications gleaned from its derived status in the family.
It is not unlikely that familial disturbance would sorely
impair this process of satellization and, consequently,
exacerbate much of the behavioral and emotional disturb
ance associated with such delinquency.
Friedlander (1947) indicates that the Neurotic
Delinquent, on the other hand, has received enough minimal
satisfactions and gratifications of instinctual needs in
|infancy and childhood to become meaningfully involved with
|others. The growth of the ego was limited and inhibited,
I
however, by maternal fiat that instinctual urges be re
pressed once minimal satisfaction has been experienced.
Through this process, a weakened ego structure evolved
which is incapable of resolving conflicts adequately, par
ticularly at the oedipal phase of development. According
ito Friedlander, the Neufcotic Delinquent has an overly
|
strict superego and has to all intents and purposes been
j
over-socialized. His delinquent acts are often of a self-
defeating and self-immolating type, reflecting his own
feelings of unworthiness. |
Reiss (1952) has articulated a typology of delin- !
quency incorporating principles of ego psychology with an j
; I
investigation of case histories to document his theoreti- :
cal framework. Somewhat unique in this study is the
designation of one segment of the delinquent population as
having good prognosis for recovery. According to Reiss,
one category of delinquency is the relatively integrated
delinquent who is depicted as an adolescent with relative
ly good ego controls who, in all probability, will become
a mature adult. The second sub-type is the delinquent
with markedly weak ego controls who is viewed as having
jlow self esteem and manifesting insecurity or as being
!
!rather aggressive and hostile. Group three is character-
!ized by Reiss as the delinquent with relatively defective
!superego controls and impoverished socialization.
24
Butler and Adams (1966) have enumerated a typology
|based upon the concept of interpersonal maturity which, in
i their point of reference, is a measure of proclivity for
i
! adult role enactment. Although this typology is based
! upon a study of delinquent girls, it vrould appear to have
i
a broad applicability to delinquent boys as well. Butler
and Adams distinguish between three levels of delinquency
I which they believe to be commonly found in institutional
ized delinquent girls: Ig's, 1^'s, and I4 's. The l2 's
are characterized as being unsocialized, dependent, and
demanding individuals who perceive others primarily as
sources of immediate gratification for their capricious
and labile dependency needs.
I3's see relevant others as figures of power to
whom they must conform or as objects to be manipulated in
the process of social interaction. I4 's are the most
mature of the delinquent group, being portrayed by Butler
and Adams as individuals who are likely to see others as
pluralistic role-playing entities and who have internal
ized value orientations which enable them to respond to
the goals and reinforcements of the institution. A treat
ment intervention model has been designated for these
three sub-types, with the I4 type, the most mature, being
considered amenable for formal psychotherapy. The I^ and
I3 types are considered more appropriately amenable to
counseling, activity group therapy, and other less formal
25
treatment modes.
| Implicitly this typology of interpersonal maturity
I has a cognitive developmental premise, as suggested by
i
iSullivan, Grant and Grant (1957) in their initial work
I outlining this conceptual approach toward a typology of
: delinquency. They describe the epigenesis of interperson-i
!
al maturity in the following way. j
The normal pattern of emotional social development
follows a trend toward increasing involvement with
people, objects and social institutions. These in
volvements give rise to new needs, demands and situa- j
tions. Inherent in many of these new situations are j
problems of perceptual discrimination between the selfj
and external environment. As these discriminations I
are made and assimilated, a cognitive restructuring
and expectancy takes place. (Sullivan, Grant and I
Grant, 1957, p. 375) j
Summary of Ideal-Theoretical Typologies
I
Virtually all the ideal-theoretical typologies
i addressed to a global characterization of the delinquent
population have designated a neurotic type delinquent, a
psychopathic type offender, and a cultural deviant. Alex
ander and Staub (1956) have provided several sub-cate
gories of each of these types as well as enumerating an
organic or toxic type. Abrahamsen (1960) adds the psy
chotic and mentally defective offender to this list, and
Weinberg (1952) posits the existence of a narcissistic
!type which he labels the self-centered overindulged per
son. Priedlander*s (1947) typology pays little heed to a
I cultural-deviant type delinquent, although one could
iconceivably subsume this delinquent under her character
i
i disorder type. Reiss (1952) and Butler and Adams (1966)
; have specified a less seriously delinquent type offender
in their typologies, suggesting that this type of delin-
’ quent is more amenable to more intensive and insight
generating therapeutic techniques, placing greater respon-j
sibility and onus on the delinquent for his rehabilita- j
; S
; tion. |
i
Empirical Typologies of Delinquency j
Empirical typologies are based upon studies of j
actual populations of delinquents. Categories are gener- :
i
ally arrived at through factor analysis or related statis-j
tical techniques. Hewitt and Jenkins (1946) conducted one!
i
of the earliest empirical investigations on the classifi-
; cation of delinquents. Prom a population of 500 children
referred to a child guidance clinic for emotional and
behavioral problems, three behavioral syndromes were
isolated following an intercorrelation of forty-five
descriptive ratings of case records: The Unsocialized
Aggressive Delinquent, The Socialized Delinquent, and The
Overinhibited Delinquent.
The Unsocialized Aggressive Delinquent is charac-
| terized by Hewitt and Jenkins in much the same fashion as
the psychopath alluded to by Alexander and Staub (1956)
and Weinberg (1952). This delinquent is portrayed as
being querulous, remorseless, negativistic, and___________
27
suspicious. He refuses to accept blame for his behavior
! and perceives himself as being put upon by others, al-
!though he is, in reality, the aggressor. He has few, if
any, friends and cannot relate well to others. Parental
! influences have been quite inconsistent and often marked
by family discord, divorce, frequent separations, and low
i socioeconomic status. Discipline is often quite violent
iand physical at times, commingled with unpredictable lax- j
;
ness and permissiveness. There is considerable affec-
!
tional deprivation from the maternal figure with sporadic |
hostility and overt rejection being manifest by the :
mother. In many respects the entire family can be con-
|
sidered as somewhat delinquent, manifesting frequent i
physical acting out, excessive use of alcohol or related
stimulants, unconventional social mores, and overt antag
onism toward social institutions in the community.
The Socialized Delinquent as described by Hewitt
and Jenkins is much akin to the constituent of the delin
quent subcultures so aptly investigated by Cohen and
Short (1958) and Ohlin and Cloward (1960). Although this
delinquent is much like the Unsocialized Aggressive Delin-
i quent in his defiance of authority, disavowal of guilt,
and projection of blame upon others, he is well able to
relate to others and is often an accepted and socialized
member of a gang. His allegiance is primarily to his peer
;group, and he accords a high degree of trust and fidelity
j 28
jto his contemporaries, enjoying a reciprocal degree of
igood will. This delinquent is often the product of a low
I socioeconomic home, marked by lack of parental supervis
ion, inadequacy of parental figures as role models, and a
1 concomitantly poor internalization of societal standards
by this family. Some degree of satisfaction of affection-
!al needs has taken place in the parent-child relationship,
i I
I I
!and the overt rejection characterizing the parent-child j
milieu of the Unsocialized Aggressive Delinquent is less j
often found here. |
: !
Hewitt and Jenkin's Overinhibited Delinquent is
i
quite similar to the Neurotic Delinquent investigated by
Friedlander (1947), Abrahamsen (1960), and Weinberg (1952),j
j
being essentially timid and seclusive and suffering from i
various nervous symptoms such as tics, sleep disturbances,
!and phobic fears. This individual is in deep conflict
between his instinctual drives on the one hand and strong
'repressive forces on the other, frequently vacillating
between an expression of one or the other. Parental
figures in this delinquent's life are described as being
cold, withholding and suppressive. Maternal overprotec-
i tion is frequently manifest in these families as a means
of compensation for deep-seated feelings of rejection on
the mother's part. Love-oriented disciplinary techniques
are often utilized by the mother, with denial of love
j being threatened unless a compulsive conformist approach
29
is adhered to by the child. Security within this family
(is attained only at great cost to the offspring, generally
jentailing an overly perfectionistic and conforming role in
the household.
1 Quay (1965) points out that Hewitt and Jenkin's
:sample was in no way representative of the urban child
i
i population from which the preponderance of delinquent j
i
ichildren come. Quay notes that of Hewitt and Jenkin's
sample, ninety-seven percent of the cases studied were
Caucasian, ninety-four percent had American born parents, j
and the average age was only eleven and one-half years.
Furthermore, no information was published with respect to !
i
the reliability of either the material in the case records;
I
or the ratings made from these records. Notwithstanding
i
these limitations, Quay feels that Hewitt and Jenkin's
classical study made an important contribution toward the
delineation of individual differences within the broad
spectrum of juvenile delinquency.
Jenkins and Glickman (194 7) followed up Hewitt and
Jenkin's initial study by extending it to cover a group of
'adjudicated delinquents. This study indicated that at
least two-thirds of a sample of male delinquents could be
classified as belonging to one or more of the three cate
gories: Unsocialized Aggressive, Socialized Delinquent,
and Overinhibited Delinquent. A somewhat surprising find-
jing was the high prevalence of the overinhibited syndrome
j in this all delinquent population, with almost one-fourth
'of the population being so designated.
Jenkins (1964) specified an intervention model for
treatment of sub-groups within his typology. He chose a
Freudian-oriented approach in the treatment of the Over
inhibited Delinquent, suggesting the use of catharsis, j
jinterpretation, and transference in assisting the Over
inhibited to express his ego-alien impulses in a more
socialized and gratifying manner. Individual therapy was
the suggested mode of treatment, preferably by a psychia
trist or psychologist. Collaborative work with family j
members was also suggested in order to bring about a more I
i
!
accepting and less threatening milieu for this individual.j
Jenkins (1964) designated for the Unsocialized
Aggressive Delinquent an approach almost antithetical to
that attempted with the Overinhibited. In this case, the
therapist should seek to strengthen the superego by set
ting firm and consistent limits in a rational and predic
able manner. Considerable coordination is required be-
: tween therapist and ancillary workers involved in the care
and management of this type of delinquent in the institu-
i tion.
According to Jenkins, some environmental manipula
tions!^ necessary in the treatment of the Socialized
|Delinquent, with efforts being concerted toward enabling
!this youth to emancipate himself from the family or gang-
31
i oriented environment which has induced him into a delin-
I
quent role. The presentation of alternative ego-ideals,
role models, and other mature figures with which to
identify is viewed as necessary to enlarge and amplify
this individual’s perception of himself and of his immedi
ate world.
Quay (1964) has applied factor analytic techniques;
i
to Hewitt and Jenkin's classificatory schema, utilizing in;
i
I
part their check list of traits and a psychiatric nosology!
with which to specify their findings. Pour factors emer- j
ged from a factor analytic investigation of 115 institu- i
tionalized delinquents: Unsocialized Psychopathic, !
Neurotic-Disturbed, Sub-Cultural Socialized, and Incompe- j
tent-immature. |
Peterson, Quay and Cameron (1965) have analyzed
delinquent's responses to questionnaires in efforts to
validate earlier findings of analysis of case history
data. In comparison of the responses of 116 institution
alized delinquents and 115 high school students to delin-
i quency proneness questionnaires, five factors were iso
lated: Psychopathic Delinquent, Neurotic-Acting Out
Delinquent, Dissension in Family, and Scholastic Mal-
!adjustment.
Peterson, Quay and Tiffany (1961) investigated
|responses to questionnaires of 406 subjects equally di-
|vided between institutionalized delinquents and high
32
school students. Most of the variance in responses of the
jsubjects could be understood as a function of three under
lying dimensions: The Psychopathic or basically Asocial,
!The Neurotic or Distrubed, and the dimension called
[Delinquent Background, involving the acceptance of delin-
I
quent mores without personality maladjustment.
!
Recapitulation of the Ideal-Theoretical and
| Empirical Approaches
In essence, there is considerable agreement
|between the ideal-theoretical approach and the empirical
approach in specifying the psychological aspects of de-
i
linquency in typological terms. Both approaches are in j
i I
concordance in delineating a psychopathic element, a neu- !
! !
rotic type, and a sub-cultural delinquent type without
| personality maladjustment. The empirical investigators
I have specified the added factor of immaturity and incompe-
|tence. Absent in the empirical investigations is the
designation of an adventitious type of delinquent desig
nated by Abrahamsen (1960) and Reiss (1952), perhaps be
cause the empirical studies have concerned themselves more
with incarcerated delinquents. Table 1 provides an over-
I view of psychological typologies of delinquency reviewed
!
!in this study.
TABLE 1
Psychological Typologies of Delinquency
Studies Categories
Dynamics
Alexander and
Staub (1956)
Organic or Toxic Criminal
Compulsive Symptomatic Criminal
Neurotic Acting Out
Normal Criminal
Genuine Criminal
Physiological
Primary Behavior Dis
order
Repressed Unconscious
Impulses
Criminal Role Model
Warped Superego
Abrahamsen (1960) Neurotic Offender
Neurotic Character Disorder
Genuine Psychopath
Psychotic Offender
Mentally Defective Offender
Excessive Guilt, Over
inhibited
Acting Out Life Style
Lacks Conscience
Development
Poor Reality Testing
Diminished Mental
Capacity
Sanford (1943) Prosocial Criminal
Anti-Social Criminal
Asocial Criminal
Emotional Immaturity
Repudiation of Society
Inadequate Socializa
tion to Primary Group
to
u)
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Studies Categories Dynamics
Weinberg (1952) "True" Psychopath
Acting Out Neurotic
Self-Centered Overindulged
Cultural Deviant
Inadequate Superego
Development
Ineffective Defenses re:
impulses
Global Immaturity
Identification with
Underworld
Friedlander (1947) Neurotic Delinquent
Character Disorder Delinquent
Weak Ego
Inability to Identify
with Primary Group
Reiss (1952) Integrated Delinquent
Delinquent with Weak Ego Controls
Delinquent with Defective Superego
Environmental
Emotional Immaturity
Poor Conscience
Butler and Adams
(1966)
12— Unsocialized Dependent
1~— Authoritarian Orientation
1^— Well Integrated Delinquent
Unorganized
Rigidity
Flexibility
Hewitt and Jenkins
(1946)
Unsocialized Aggressive Delinquent
Socialized Delinquent
Overinhibited Delinquent
Poor Conscience
Deviant Identity
Over Socialized
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Studies Categories Dynamics
Peterson, Quay and
Tiffany (1961)
Psychopathic
Neurotic
Delinquent Background
Poor Conscience
Over Socialized
Deviant Identity
Peterson, Quay and
Cameron (1965)
Psychopathic
Neurotic Acting Out
Dissension in Family
School Maladjustment
Lacks Superego
Overinhibited
Enrivonment
Misbehavior in School
u>
Ol
Socialization, Powerlessness, and
Behavioral Adjustment
i
Three concepts intrinsic to the scope and nature
jof delinquent activity have been intimated by these vari-
|ous typologies: Socialization, Powerlessness, and Behavi-
ioral Adjustment in the Institutional Setting, Further
investigation of these concepts in relation to individual
i
!differences within the delinquent population will facili-
i
tate a better understanding of the potentialities of the
typological approach for treatment and intervention
strategies.
Socialization
Socialization characterizes the extent to which
there is some degree of internalization of societal norms
and values by the individual (Newcomb, 1950). In this
! manner this concept embodies the very foundation of social
: living and permeates virtually every aspect of the indi
vidual’s interpersonal relationships. Typologies of
delinquency have generated several interpretations of
socialization. One approach depicted socialization in
genetic terms, outlining the faulty socialization of the
delinquent along his own developmental continuum. Thus,
the Incompetent-Immature Delinquents characterized by
Quay (1964), the dependent and demanding I2,s described by
Butler and Adams (1966), the Self-Centered Overindulged
j Delinquent portrayed by Weinberg (1952), and the
37
I Prosocial Criminal identified by Sanford (1943), all have
i
!
I in common the belated mastery of certain developmental
! tasks which have contributed to a weakened ego structure.
A somewhat different view of socialization is
emphasized by the psychoanalytic approach which stresses
the relationship of socialization to superego formation.
Friedlander (1947), Hewitt and Jenkins (1946), and Abra
hamsen (1960) have utilized the concept of socialization
to articulate the distinction between the Neurotic Delin
quent and the Psychopathic Delinquent in terms of the j
degree of internalisation of societal norms and the qual- |
ity of early parent-child relationships.
Another dimension of socialization is personified |
by the Sub-Cultural Delinquent, who, although perhaps wellj
socialized into a primary group, nonetheless deviates from
the mores of the surrounding social structure. Although
this individual is not infrequently without personality
: maladjustment, his deviant value system engenders much
subsequent conflict for him.
To some extent Gough (1960) has provided some
rapprochement between these disparate views of socializa
tion by operationally defining this concept as the degree
i to which an individual has participated in successful role
taking experiences in important areas of his life such as
I the family, school and peer group. Gough assumes that the
| degree of success in past role taking experiences is a
good predictor of success in future role playing activi
ties. A redefinition of socialization in role playing
jterms; thus, permits a broader and more comprehensive view
:of this variable in relation to the everyday realities of
| the individual's social world.
i
l
Powerlessness j
! i
Powerlessness is a concept which depicts the
relationship of the individual to the rewards and rein
forcements of his surrounding milieu (Rotter, 1966). i
!
Seeman (1959) further characterizes powerlessness as the j
I
; i
expectancy or probability held by an individual that he j
is by his own behavior unable to determine the outcomes
or reinforcements he seeks. It is not unlikely that an j
|
individual who sees no causal connection between his own
i needs and goals and the reinforcements of his surrounding
milieu would have little more than a tenuous commitment
to the social system which imposes such stress upon him.
The relationship of powerlessness to deviant
behavior was presupposed by Merton (1938) in his classical
investigation of the various adaptations which people make
: to our competitive goal oriented society. Merton de-
i scribes the disequilibration of societal goals with the
; means provided to attain them in the following way.
The social order we have described necessarily
| produces this 'strain toward dissolution.' The
! pressure of such an order is upon outdoing one's
competitors. The choice of means within the ambit
of institutional control will persist as long as the
39
sentiments supporting a competitive system are dis
tributed throughout the entire system of activities
and are not confined merely to the final result. When
there occurs a shift of emphasis from the satisfac
tions deriving from competition itself to almost ex
clusive concern with successful competition, the
resultant stress leads to the breakdown of the regu
lating structure. (Merton, 1938, p. 680)
! i
The incidence of subcultural delinquency has been j
closely relation to the "strain toward dissolution"
;alluded to by Merton and reflecting the feelings of help
lessness and powerlessness experienced by individuals who
lack the resources and wherewithal to realize the goals j
embodied in our middle class success pattern. Ohlin and
Cloward (1960) have provided the following dynamic view of;
|
the delinquent's internalization of the incongruent expec-j
i
tations of middle class society. ■
It is our view that the most significant step in
the withdrawal of sentiments supporting the legitimacy
of conventional norms is the attribution of the cause
of failure to the social order rather than to oneself.
. . . Whether the failure blames the social order or
himself is of central importance to the understanding
of deviant behavior. (Ohlin and Cloward, 1960,
p. Ill)
Behavioral Adjustment
The behavioral adjustment of delinquents in the
institution has been of major concern to typologists in
setting up treatment goals and planning for future place
ment or release to the community. Sanford (1943) relies
heavily upon the delinquent's institutional adjustment to
|differentiate the characteristics of his sub-groups. He
!postulates a continuity of behavioral characteristics.
40
viewing the institution and its inmate culture to some
extent as a parent surrogate and sibling group to which
!the individual reacts with his typical behavioral reper-
|toire. Butler and Adams (1966) rely exclusively upon the
jdelinquent's institutional adjustment to provide them with
'their tripartite classification of delinquent girls,
jpositing a maturity-immaturity continuum as reflected in
I i
!the delinquent girl’s perception of self and others.
Perhaps the most salient index of the behavioral !
]
adjustment of delinquents, both in and out of the insti-
|tution, is the incidence or lack thereof of symptoms j
associated with commonly known and investigated behavioral)
syndromes. The most frequently alluded to behavioral syn-|
drome in typological terms has been the constellation of
j I
neurotic versus psychopathic or sociopathic symptoms,
I
accentuated by Priedlander (1947), Weinberg (1952),
Alexander and Staub (1956), and Hewitt and Jenkins (1946).
The neurotic constellation of symptoms reflects a
mode of adaptation which essentially turns conflicts in-
'ward and seeks a resolution via the internal ideational
system of the individual. The sociopathic orientation, in
contrast, is reflected by the exteriorization of conflict-
!
|ual situations upon the environment, and the consequent
I
manifestation of aggressive and retaliatory behavior.
!Further investigation of the manifestation of these be-
j
havioral syndromes in the institution will facilitate a
better understanding of individual differences among
delinquents.
Field-Independence and Typologies of Delinquency
The typologies of delinquency reviewed in this
st^idy have attempted to delineate within delinquent popu
lations essential differences in the life styles of law
violaters. In so doing they have depicted varying capac
ities to enter into interpersonal relationships, differ
ences in impulse control and stress reduction, and
diverse affiliations to the social dictates of the sur
rounding social structure. These typologies have inti
mated a number of divergent developmental antecedents to
the prevailing personality structure of the delinquents
constituting each typology and have submitted appropriate
intervention techniques.
As an adjunct to these attempts to categorize
sub-types of delinquents along conventional nosological
lines, this study sought to consider another source of
individual differences— that of field-independence and
field-dependence in perceptual styles. As an important
index of the adaptive capacity of the ego to process and
discriminate information, the field-independence and
field-dependence processes have enriched the study of
human behavior by tapping deeper levels of ego function
ing. As such, they have already been applied to the
study of psychiatric clinic populations, mental hospital
42
patients and subjects with psychosomatic ailments. The
remainder of this chapter will review this cognitive
style.
j Cognitive Style - Field-Independence
| and Field-Dependence
J
Investigation of the field-independent, field-
idependent phenomenon had its inception when individual
i
i
differences were discovered in the way that people orient
themselves in space (Witkin and Asch, 1948). Such find-
iings generated an interest in the overall psychological
i
j life space and organization of the perceiver in efforts
; to further explore and understand this unique finding.
! Witkin, et al. (1954, 1963) delineated two modes of per-
| ceiving, as indicated by his series of postural and per-
i ceptual tests, each of which suggests different means of
I coping with the relationship of the self to the surround-
i ing field. The field-dependent individual finds it
i
difficult to overcome the influence of the surrounding
field or to separate an item from its context. Field-
;independent individuals, on the other hand, are able to
|vanquish the influence of the surrounding field and to
:discriminate an item from its context.
Witkin distinguishes between these two perceptual
I styles in the following way.
j
! In a field-dependent mode of perceiving, percep-
i tion is strongly dominated by the overall organiza-
j tion of the field, and parts of the field are
43
experienced as fused. In a field-independent mode of
perceiving, parts of the field are experienced as
discrete from the organized background. (Witkin,
| 1965, p. 318)
| These perceptual styles have been related by Wit-
! kin and his associates to a broad array of personal
| characteristics and psychological functions, embodying in
many respects a life style (Witkin, et al.. 1963). The
common denominator in these divergent perceptual styles
i
has been designated by Witkin as psychological differenti
ation, reflecting differences in complexity, variegation, |
! and hierarchization of the personality. Pield-independentj
individuals are, thus, considered to be more differentia- j
; j
ted psychologically than field-dependent individuals, j
although different levels of adjustment are possible at !
each level of differentiation.
Field-independent and field-dependent individuals
; have been found to differ in personality attributes in
rather consistent and systematic ways. According to Wit
kin, the following traits and characteristics would be
inherent in the field-independent approach.
Our analysis of the growth of experience of the
self and the world led us to postulate that progress
toward differentiation would be expressed in increas
ing articulation of experience. Included in this is
a more articulated way of experiencing the world;
j also included are a more clearly defined body concept,
! and a growing sense of separate identity, which to
gether reflect particularly the development of self
differentiation. (Witkin, et al.. 1963, p. 15)
i
Witkin further characterizes the field-independent
! individual in the following way.___________________________
44
The achievement of a segregated, structured self
provides internal frames of reference for viewing,
! interpreting, and dealing with the world from the
position of an autonomous agency, enjoying an exist-
| ence apart from the field rather than fused with it.
j (Witkin, et al.. 1963, p. 17)
The field-independent, field-dependent phenomenon
| has been increasingly applied to problems of pathology,
i and has been found to cut across some of the conventional
! nosological categories. Witkin (1965) suggests that this
I
pervasive characteristic of psychological differentiation j
indicates that it is tapping deeper levels of psychologi- I
i
I cal functioning, and going well beyond manifest behavior. S
Although personality malfunction may occur in both field-
independent and field-dependent individuals, the form and j
systematic manner in which this pathology is manifest will:
i
often differ. Witkin (1965) indicates that when person
ality disturbances occur among persons with a field-
dependent cognitive style, severe identity problems, deep-
seated dependency conflicts, and poorly developed controls
will be manifest. Among those found to be field-dependent
are alcoholics, exceedingly obese people, asthmatic chil
dren, and ulcer patients.
Witkin (1965) points out that field-dependent
individuals have typically been among the individuals
perenially eschewed by psychiatrists, psychotherapists,
and related practitioners in the psychotherapeutic field
as patients. Field-independent individuals, on the other
hand, have been generally more attuned to the requirements
45
of formal psychotherapeutic approaches, displaying greater
ipsychological mindedness and self-introspection.
|
Implications of Field-Independence
for Socialization
! Gough (1960) defines socialized behavior as
behavior based upon a proper viewing of the self as a
|"social object." Such objectification of the self pre-
I
I
I figures the evolvement of what has been called the "gener-
!alized other," or the capacity to empathize with another
individual and anticipate the impact of one’s actions upon
j
that individual (Mead, 1934). Such reciprocity is at the I
very foundation of our social lives, and develops from I
early infancy with the reciprocal mutualities experienced
; from parent-child, peer, and school oriented activities.
In somewhat oversimplified terms, the relevant behaviors
constituting the attainment of this reciprocity has been
characterized as role playing behavior. Sarbin has de
fined such a role in the following manner. "A patterned
sequence of learned actions performed by a person in an
interaction situation" (Sarbin, 1954, p. 225).
Sarbin (1952) views this capacity for self-ojecti-
fication and mature role enactment as a developmental
process subject to the vicissitudes of human ontogenesis
with all the stresses and strains inherent in the human
situation. Sarbin calls this theory of self-development
epistemogenesis, and emphasizes the fact that it entails
46
|the cognitive facets of human development, accounting for
|the increasing self non-self differentiation that must
I come about in the development of a mature identity.
■ According to Sarbin, the self is viewed as a cognitive
I structure which may be subject to overlearning or fixation
I
! at various phases in the developmental process,
i !
! Baker and Sarbin (1956) have applied the term |
I I
I "socially retarded" to such developmental arrests, indi- |
i I
eating that such conditions are reflected by a relatively
i
undifferentiated and primitive state of self development, j
Further manifestations of this condition run the gamut
from faulty perceptual-cognitive functions, such as an
inability to separate figure from ground or isolate an j
object from its surroundings, to the inability to form
complex social concepts requiring a degree of self ob-
i jectification, Essentially, Baker and Sarbin (1956) view
: the primitive undifferentiated state of self development,
as exemplified by the highly field-dependent individual,
as being manifest in the higher order cognitive realm as
well as in the perceptual area.
Gough (1948) has submitted that psychopathy can
I best be understood as a deficiency in role playing ability
I
| brought about by the psychopath's inability to view him
self as a social object. He depicts the psychopath's
I behavior in the following way:
r
i
47
| When confronted with disapproval the psychopath
! often expresses surprise and resentment. He cannot
understand the reasons for the observer's disapproba
tion. The psychopath cannot grant the justice of
| punishment of deprivation because this involves an
evaluation of his behavior from the standpoint of the
'generalized other’ or society. The psychopath will
violate others' wishes and desires because he does not
conceive of his own actions as inimical to their
wants. He forms no deep attachments because he does
not know how to identify himself with another or to
I share another's point of view. (Gough, 1948, p. 364)
! It is submitted by this study that the self ob- !
! !
jectification, which is considered to be a requisite for |
I
socialized behavior, will be more likely manifest in the
| field-independent and psychologically differentiated j
individual. In contrast to his field-dependent and less
i t
psychologically differentiated counterpart, the field- j
independent individual has a clearer sense of separate
identity, and the capacity to stand apart from the flux
of experience in making social and perceptual distinc-
; tions.
Implications of Field-Independence
for Powerlessness
Powerlessness is an expectancy construct which
characterizes the internal versus the external control of
| reinforcement (Rotter, 1954). Rotter describes powerless^
I ness as a trans-situational expectancy in the following
| way.
The role of reinforcement, reward, or gratifica
tion is universally recognized by students of human
| nature as a crucial one in the acquisition and per-
! formance of skills and knowledge. However, an event
regarded by some persons as a reward or reinforcement
48
I may be differently perceived and reacted to by others.
! One of the determinants of this reaction is the degree
i to which the individual perceives that the reward fol
lows from, or is contingent upon his own behavior or
attributes versus the degree to which he feels the re-
| ward is controlled by forces outside himself and may
occur independently of his own actions. . . . the
effect of a reinforcement . . . depends upon whether
the person perceives a causal relationship between his |
own behavior and the reward. (Rotter, 1966, p. 1) |
That a sense of powerlessness permeates many types j
! of delinquents can be revealed by their frequent tendency j
I ' !
to be oblivious to secondary reinforcements such as praiseJ
i
attention, and approval which are often viewed as rewards
• i
to be sought after by their non-delinquent or less delin- ;
quent counterparts. McDavid and Schroeder (1957) hypothe-j
j
sized that delinquent boys, having reflected by their j
|
behavior a failure of 'proper' response to environmental
events of praise and punishment, would not discriminate
between such positive (rewarding) and negative (punishing)
events as clearly and consistently as non-delinquents.
The findings supported this hypothesis, indicating that
delinquents more frequently interpreted positive events
as self-punitive.
Cairns (1961) attributes the failure of secondary
reinforcers, in the form of approval and affection, to
acquire reinforcement potential for many delinquent boys
'to the influence of dependency inhibition. He believes
that this inhibition of dependency has come about because
aggressively anti-social boys have received greater
parental punishment for dependency and, as a consequence,_
49
have inhibited dependent responses not only to their par-
!ents but to related authority figures as well. Such
|studies accentuating the imperviousness of delinquents to
i
rehabilitative efforts involving positive reinforcements
are quite congruent with the proposition that these delin-
i
quents are experiencing a sense of powerlessness.
Seeman (1963) has investigated the relationship of
| |
| powerlessness to the amenability for therapeutic interven-i
I
tion of adult criminals. He found that adult prisoners j
I
with an internal locus of evaluation, i.e., less power- |
l
lessness, were better apprised of the requisites for j
I
parole and were oriented toward the prison authority I
i
structure rather than to the criminal subculture within J
the prison.
Seeman and Evans (1962) found that tubercular
j
patients who had an internal locus of evaluation regarding
reinforcements, i.e., less powerlessness, manifested
greater knowledge about the course and progress of their
treatment and made greater efforts toward recovery.
It is submitted by this study that the field-
independent-,- and more psychologically differentiated
individual, will manifest less powerlessness than his
! field-dependent and less psychologically differentiated
i
counterpart. The greater sense of personal identity, more
j segregated and structured self, and greater ability to
1
j articulate between various configurations of his
50
jexperience would suggest a greater capacity for experienc-
j
ing an internal locus of evaluation regarding possible
contingencies of reinforcement.
Implications of Field-Independence
for Behavioral Adjustment
Witkin (1965) distinguishes between the behavioral!
i i
!controls of the field-independent and field-dependent j
| j
I individuals. He posits a more effective control of im- j
pulses on the part of the field-independents who are bet- i
ter able to regulate the interrelation between affect, j
]
i
on the one hand, and ideation and perception on the other !
hand. Witkin suggests that this ability to keep feelings |
’ i
iseparate from ideas is quite congruent with the field- |
; j
independent individual's ability to keep things separate i
in experience. Witkin further depicts the more effective
i
defenses of the field-independent individual in the
following way.
Studies have shown that persons who experience in
articulated fashion tend to use specialized defenses,
as isolation. In contrast persons with a global cog
nitive style tend to use such defenses as massive
repression and primitive denial. These latter de
fenses involve an indiscriminate, total blotting out
of memory for past experiences and of perception of
stimuli. Compared to such mechanisms as isolation
they represent relatively non-specific ways of func-
| tioning. (Witkin, 1965, p. 322)
' In view of the more effective controls exerted by
j the field-independent and more psychologically differenti-
i ated individuals, it was hypothesized that they will
51
manifest fewer neurotic and fewer sociopathic symptoms
I than their field-dependent counterparts.
I Purpose of the Study (Recapitulated)
j The purpose of this study was to consolidate typo-
I logical investigations of delinquent populations with the
| current explorations of individual differences in per-
i ceptual styles of deviant populations. In this connec
tion, the relationship between field-independence, social
ization, powerlessness, and the incidence of neurotic and
sociopathic symptoms was explored. It was hypothesized
I
that delinquent boys with a field-independent cognitive
style will manifest a higher degree of socialization, a
lower degree of powerlessness, and fewer neurotic and
sociopathic symptoms than their field-dependent counter-
I parts. It was further hypothesized that among non-delin-
; quent boys, the field-independents' will similarly mani
fest a higher degree of socialization, a lower degree of
powerlessness, and fewer neurotic and sociopathic symptoms
than their field-dependent counterparts.
CHAPTER II
RESEARCH DESIGN
!
The present chapter discusses the basic design of
this study, including the procedures employed for select
ing and matching subjects, a specification of variables
; i
! i
controlled, a table describing the matching procedures forj
each subject, a description of the instruments to be used,j
! i
an enumeration of the hypotheses, and a description of i
: i
statistical procedures. Chapter III will enumerate the
i findings in detail, and Chapter IV will present conclu-
sions, summary and recommendations of the study.
i
The Sample
I The initial sample consisted of 276 boys of whom
i150 were delinquents incarcerated in Riverside County
Juvenile Hall, and 126 non-delinquents who were attending
a nearby high school. All the boys in the initial sample
were given the Embedded Figures Test Form V, the IE Power-
;lessness Scale, the Socialization Scale, the Shipley
Institute of Living Intelligence Scale, and teacher
52
53
evaluations on the Burks' Behavior Rating Scale, The mean
jof the Embedded Figures Test was computed for the non-
idelinquent sample; all boys scoring above the mean in each
i
! sample were designated as field-independent, and those
below the mean as field-dependent. From this initial
;population of 276 boys, 148 boys were selected for the
|study, comprising the following four groups of thirty-
iseven subjects; delinquent field-independent, delinquent
field-dependent, non-delinquent field-independent, and
non-delinquent field-dependent. These four groups met the
| criteria for matching on the basis of age, IQ, ethnicity,
and socioeconomic status. j
The delinquent sample was obtained from Riverside j
County Juvenile Hall, a facility for detaining delinquents!
|prior to their disposition on a program of probationary
|
supervision at home, in a foster home, at camp, or in a
i
;related institutional setting. Delinquents tested in the
initial sample ranged in age from 13 to 18, with the
majority of the group being 14 and 15 year olds in the
ninth and tenth grades. Delinquents were chosen for the
* initial sample on the basis of their ability to read at
:least at a fourth grade level and function at least
j
|borderline intellectually so they could respond to the
i
questionnaires. All of the questionnaires were read out
|loud, except for the intelligence test, so that differ
ences in reading skill could be kept at a minimum. Four
54
|teachers from juvenile hall were asked to rate their stu-
!dents on the Burk's Behavior Rating Scale, denoting be-
|havior characteristics of the subjects during classroom
and playground activities.
The non-delinquent sample was taken from a nearby
i
local high school which is in the same school district as
i
'the Riverside County Juvenile Hall. This non-delinquent
!sample was somewhat younger in age than the delinquent
and comprised the entire ninth grade class, chosen because;
it was the oldest class of this school, which is in trans
ition from a Junior to a Senior High School. Despite the J
more circumscribed age ranges of the non-delinquent group,!
;the average age closely approximated that of the delin- !
quents, being predominantly made up of 14 and 15 year olds..
The social class orientation of the non-delinquent sample
was somewhat higher than that of the delinquent group,
ibeing predominantly lower middle and middle class. This
initial disparity in social class composition between the
two initial populations affected the social class composi
tion of the final sample, after matching, with fewer lower
class individuals being represented by the subjects in-
i
volved in this study. Table 2 contains the age, IQ, and
I social class composition for each of the sub-groups
i involved in this study.
TABLE 2
Mean Age, IQ, and Social Class Composition of Sub-Groups of Delinquent,
Non-Delinquent, Field-Independent, and Field-Dependent Subjects
Sub-Group Age
Standard
Deviation IQ
Standard
Deviation
Social Class
(Duncan)
Standard
Deviation
Delinquents 15.45 1 . 2 1 99.89 11.65 38.05 22.62
Non-
Delinquents 14.64 0.54 100.37 1 2 . 0 0 39.21 22.85
Delinquent
Field-Independent 15.75 1 . 2 1 99.70 12.39 38.81 23.55
Delinquent
Field-Dependent 15.13 1.15 100.08 1 1 . 0 2 37.30 21.97
Non-Delinquent
FieId-Independent 14.54 0.55 101.84 1 1 . 0 0 39.38 22.62
Non-Delinquent
Field-Dependent 14.84 0.50 98.81 11.57 39.05 23.39
tn
u i
56
Verification of Non-Delinquent Status of
Control Group
As it was conceivable that some of the so-called
i
!non-delinquent subjects had, in fact, a delinquent back
ground which would nullify their effectiveness for this
study, the names of the non-delinquents were sent to juve-
I
nile hall for verification. Three of the 126 subjects
were discovered to have prior delinquent records and were
excluded from the study and not considered for further
matching.
The Designation of Field-Independence
and Field-Dependence
The criterion for designating a subject as field-
independent was chosen as a score above the mean of the
Embedded Figures Test for the non-delinquent group which
was considered to be the control group of this study. The
non-delinquent group was chosen as the normative one be
cause it was concluded that this population most closely
approximated a representative population and one on which
Witkin based his initial findings on field-independence.
The use of the mean score as a cut off point in determin
ing field-independence is based on Witkin's (1959) use of
;this procedure to designate field-independence in his
samples. However, neither Witkin nor any other user of
I his procedure has supplied any logically arrived at or
I
|empirically determined cutting score.
I
57
Matching Delinquent Field-Independent, Delinquent Field-
Dependent, Non-Delinauent Field-Independent* and
Non-Delinquent Field-Dependent Samples
i Subjects in these four designated groups were
matched on the basis of age, socioeconomic status, intelli-
igence and ethnicity, forming "quartets." Control of these
i
four independent variables was deemed essential in order
i
to determine the impact of field-independence and delin
quency upon the dependent variables of socialization,
powerlessness and the incidence of neurotic and socio- !
pathic symptoms. Table 3 contains results of the matching!
to form the thirty-seven quartets. j
Age
The age of the subjects is recorded in Table 3.
S
Efforts were made to match age within one year, and this
criterion was adhered to whenever possible, exceeded some
times only because of the necessity of matching subjects
on the other three variables. Age is an important vari
able in delinquency research, frequently varying as to the
type of offense (Schepses, 1961) and having considerable
bearing on the generalizability of the findings (Hewitt
and Jenkins, 1946).
Intelligence
The Shipley Institute of Living Scale was utilized
to measure intelligence. The IQ's for the matched groups
on this scale are contained in column five of Table 3.
TABLE 3
List of Matched Quartets of Delinquent Field-Independent Delinquent Field-Dependent,
Non Delinquent Field-Independent and Non Delinquent
Field-Dependent Subjects
Quartet Classification Ethnicity Age in
Years
IQ
S. E. S . Parental
Occupation
1 Delinquent F.I. Anglo 17 125 84 Personnel Mgr.
la Delinquent F.D. Anglo 15 118 62 Real Estate
lb Non_Delinq.F.I. Anglo 15 118 87 Engineer
lc Non-Delinq.F.D. Anglo 14 116 6 6 Salesman
2 Delinquent F.I. Anglo 15 1 0 0 51 Contractor
2 a Delinquent F.D. Anglo 14 96 61 Secretary
2 b Non-Delinq.F.I. Anglo 14 1 0 0 49 Lineman-Tel.
2c Non-Delinq.F.D. Anglo 15 97 50 Tool & Die
3 Delinquent F.I. Anglo 14 103 15 Factory Work
3a Delinquent F.D. Anglo 14 105 19 Mechanic
3b Non-Delinq.F.I. Anglo 14 99 15 Truck Driver
3c Non-Delinq.F.D. Anglo 14 1 0 2 19 Not Specified
4 Delinquent F.I. Anglo 17 95 18 Armed Forces
4a Delinquent F.D. Anglo 17 93 24 Welder
4b Non-Delinq.F.I. Anglo 16 91 17 Steel Worker
4c Non-Delinq.F.D. Anglo 15 92 19 Housekeeper
5 Delinquent F.I. Anglo 14 109 41 Inspector
5a Delinquent F.D. Anglo 14 104 39 Saleslady
5b Non-Delinq.F.I. Anglo 14 1 1 0 39 Proprietor
5c Non-Delinq.F.D. Anglo 14 119 51 Contractor ^
■1 1 1 ■ 1... 00
TABLE 3 (Continued)
Quartet Classification Ethnicity Age in
Years
IQ S. E. S . Parental
Occupation
6 Delinquent F.I. Anglo 14 80 18 Armed Forces
6 a Delinquent F.D. Anglo 14 90 16 Body & Fender
6b Non-Delinq.F.I. Anglo 14 83 1 0 Laborer
6 c Non-Delinq.F.D. Anglo 15 81 19 Not Specified
7
Delinquent F.I. Anglo 16 1 0 0 58 Technician
7a Delinquent F.D. Anglo 16 104 59 Manager-Supply
7b Non-Delinq.F.I. Anglo 15 1 0 2 60 Contractor
7c Non-Delinq.F.D. Anglo 15 1 0 0 6 8 Store Owner
8 Delinquent F.I. Anglo 17 125 19 Welfare
8 a Delinquent F.D. Anglo 15 115 2 1 Machine Operator
8 b Non-Delinq.F.I. Anglo 15 1 2 0 1 0 Janitor
8 c Non-Delinq.F.D. Anglo 15 1 1 2 9 Carpet Cleaner
9 Delinquent F.I. Anglo 17 92 8 Laborer
9a Delinquent F.D. Anglo 17 97 19 Mechanic
9b Non-Delinq.F.I. Anglo 15 87 2 2 Baker
9c Nonr Delinq.F.D. Anglo 15 98 18 Armed Forces
1 0 Delinquent F.I. Anglo 15 117 61 Secretary
1 0 a Delinquent F.D. Anglo 14 108 65 Data Processing
1 0 b Nonr Delinq.F.I. Anglo 15 109 61 Secretary
1 0 c Non-Delinq.F.D. Anglo 15 1 1 0 62 Electronic Tech.
Ln
VO
TABLE 3 (Continued)
Quartet Classification Ethnicity Age in
Years
IQ
S.E.S. Parental
Occupation
1 1 Delinquent F.I. Anglo 14 90 17 Steel Worker
1 1 a Delinquent F.D. Anglo 15 92 15 Roofer
lib Non-Delinq.F.I. Anglo 14 94 19 Operator Equip.
1 1 c Non-Delinq.F.D. Anglo 15 96 18 Armed Forces
1 2 Delinquent F.I. Anglo 16 1 2 1 19 Carpenter
1 2 a Delinquent F.D. Anglo 14 118 19 Carpenter
1 2 b Non-Delinq.F.I. Anglo 15 124 19 Carpenter
1 2 c Non-Delinq.F.D. Anglo 15 1 1 0 16 Painter
13 Delinquent F.I. Anglo 15 109 61 Secretary
13a Delinquent F.D. Anglo 15 1 1 2 64 Foreman
13b Non-Delinq.F.I. Anglo 15 1 1 0 67 Social Worker
13c Non-Delinq.F.D. Anglo 15 1 1 2 6 6 Salesman
14 Delinquent F.I. Anglo 18 79 18 Armed Forces
14a Delinquent F.D. Anglo 16 83 15 Truck Driver
14b Non-Delinq.F.I. Anglo 14 81 19 Not Specified
14c Non-Delinq.F.D. Anglo 16 85 15 Truck Driver
15 Delinquent F.I. Anglo 16 1 0 2 19 Carpenter
15a Delinquent F.D. Anglo 15 97 18 Crane Operator
15b Non-Delinq.F.I. Anglo 14 99 18 Armed Forces
15c Non-Delinq.F.D. Anglo 15 1 0 0 15 Roofer
TABLE 3 (Continued)
Quartet Classification Ethnicity Age in
Years
IQ
S.E.S. Parental
Occupation
16 Delinquent F.I. Anglo 16 105 14 Farmer
16a Delinquent F.D. Anglo 16 105 18 Armed Forces
16b Non-Delinq.F.I. Anglo 15 1 0 0 18 Armed Forces
16c Non-Delinq.F.D. Anglo 15 99 19 Mechanic
17 Delinquent F.I. Anglo 16 8 8 34 Steamfitter
17a Delinquent F.D. Anglo 16 85 36 Rancher
17b Non-Delinq.F.I. Anglo 15 90 39 Skip Tracer
17c Non-Delinq.F.D. Anglo 14 8 8 53 Foreman
18 Delinquent F.I. Anglo 16 1 0 2 6 6 Asst. Manager
18a Delinquent F.D. Anglo 16 104 63 Technician
18b Non-Delinq.F.I. Anglo 15 107 6 6 Salesman Ins.
18c Non-Delinq.F.D. Anglo 15 98 6 6 Salesman
19 Delinquent F.I. Anglo 14 104 51 Contractor
19a Delinquent F.D. Anglo 14 104 43 Flight Control
19b Non-Delinq.F.I. Anglo 15 1 0 1 44 Electrician
19c Non-Delinq.F.D. Anglo 15 94 34 Plumber
2 0 Delinquent F.I. Anglo 17 105 72 Teacher
2 0 a Delinquent F.D. Anglo 13 1 1 0 6 6 Salesman
2 0 b Non-Delinq.F.I. Anglo 14 1 0 0 73 Designer
2 0 c Non-Delinq.F.D. Anglo 14 105 62 Realtor
TABLE 3 (Continued)
Quartet Classification Ethnicity Age in
IQ
S.E.S. Parental
Years Occupation
2 1 Delinquent P.I. Anglo 16 1 1 1 52 Orchestra
2 1 a Delinquent F.D. Anglo 14 115 47 Mgr. Store
2 1 b Non-Delinq.F.I. Anglo 15 1 2 0 53 Weightmaster
2 1 c Non-Delinq.F.D. Anglo 15 115 39 Retail Sales
2 2 Delinquent F.I. Anglo 16 99 19 Carpenter
2 2 a Delinquent F.D. Anglo 16 96 19 Carpenter
2 2 b Non-Delinq.F.I. Anglo 14 98 18 Armed Forces
2 2 c Non-Delinq.F.D. Anglo 15 1 0 0 19 Not Specified
23 Delinquent F.I. Anglo 17 93 19 Carpenter
23a Delinquent F.D. Anglo 17 85 14 Farmer
23b Non-Delinq.F.I. Anglo 14 104 2 1 Domestic
23c Non-Delinq.F.D. Anglo 15 85 16 Hostess
24 Delinquent F.I. Anglo 16 1 0 0 16 Waitress
24a Delinquent F.D. Anglo 15 104 16 Sheet Metal
24b Non-Delinq.F.I. Anglo 15 1 1 2 16 Factory Work
24c Non-Delinq.F.D. Anglo 15 97 15 Truck Driver
25 Delinquent F.I. Mex-Amer. 14 77 19 Mechanic
25a Delinquent F.D. Mex-Amer. 14 90 19 Welfare
25b Non-Delinq.F.I. Mex-Amer. 14 90 19 Mechanic
25c Non-Delinq.F.D. Mex-Amer. 16 96 19 Not Specified
01
ro
TABLE 3 (Continued)
Quartet Classification Ethnicity Age in
IQ
S.E.S. Parental
Years Occupation
26 Delinquent P.I. Anglo 14 107 84 Personnel Mgr.
26a Delinquent F.D. Anglo 14 109 87 Engineer
26b Non-Delinq.F.I. Anglo 14 1 0 2 72 Teacher
26c Non-Delinq.P.D. Anglo 15 1 0 1 87 Engineer
27 Delinquent F.I. Anglo 16 91 65 Programmer
27a Delinquent F.D. Anglo 17 98 53 Foreman
27b Non-Delinq.F.I. Anglo 15 90 62 Technician
27c Non-Delinq.F.D. Anglo 16 87 6 6 Salesman
28 Delinquent F.I. Anglo 18 89 60 Office Mgr.
28a Delinquent F.D. Anglo 17 92 50 Tool and Die
28b Non-Delinq.F.I. Anglo 15 91 50 Retail Sales
28c Non-Delinq.F.D. Anglo 14 98 6 6 Salesman Ins.
29 Delinquent F.I. Anglo 15 90 65 Technician
29a Delinquent F.D. Anglo 16 85 61 Secretary
29b Non-Delinq.F.I. Anglo 14 95 6 6 Salesman
29c Non-Delinq.F.D. Anglo 15 80 6 6 Salesman
30 Delinquent F.I. Anglo 15 115 32 Delivery Man
30a Delinquent F.D. Anglo 16 118 27 Mechanic
30b Non-Delinq.F.I. Anglo 14 114 23 Mechanic
30c Non-Delinq.F.D. Anglo 15 105 39 Retail Sales
o
u>
TABLE 3 (Continued)
Quartet Classification Ethnicity Age in
Years
IQ
S.E.S. Parental
Occupation
31 Delinquent F.I. Anglo 16 103 18 Armed Forces
31a Delinquent F.D. Anglo 14 1 0 0 19 Welfare
31b Non-Delinq.F.I. Anglo 14 115 18 Armed Forces
31c Non-Delinq.F.D. Anglo 13 107 13 Hospital Attend.
32 Delinquent F.I. Anglo 17 1 1 1 39 Policeman
32a Delinquent F.D. Anglo 15 108 34 Plumber
32b Non-Delinq.F.I. Anglo 15 104 38 Inspector
32c Non-Delinq.F.D. Anglo 15 1 0 0 34 Assembler
33 Delinquent F.I. Anglo 15 1 0 0 87 Engineer
33a Delinquent F.D. Anglo 14 1 1 2 93 Lawyer
33b Non-Delinq.F.I. Anglo 15 113 8 6 Engineer
33c Non-Delinq.F.D. Anglo 14 1 0 2 87 Engineer
34 Delinquent F.I. Anglo 16 8 8 44 Electrician
34a Delinquent F.D. Anglo 15 8 6 37 Foreman
34b Non-Delinq.F.I. Anglo 15 85 40 Narcotics Off.
34c Non-Delinq.F.D. Anglo 15 85 36 Guard
35 Delinquent F.I. Anglo 14 83 15 Truck Driver
35a Delinquent F.D. Anglo 14 76 15 Truck Driver
35b Non-Delinq.F.I. Anglo 14 1 0 0 44 Clerk
35c Non-Delinq.F.D. Anglo 14 79 13 Hospital Attend.
< r >
£»
TABLE 3 (Continued)
Quartet Classification Ethnicity Age in
Years
IQ
S. E. S. Parental
Occupation
36 Delinquent P.I. Anglo 17 83 29 Factory Worker
36a Delinquent F.D. Anglo 15 94 36 Mechanic
36b Non-Delinq.F.I. Anglo 14 1 0 0 40 Manager— Office
36c Non-Delinq.F.D. Anglo 15 90 40 Detective
37 Delinquent F.I. Anglo 17 98 29 Meatcutter
37a Delinquent F.D. Anglo 17 95 2 1 Parts Man
37b Non-De1inq.F.I. Anglo 14 1 1 0 39 Retail Sales
37c Non-Delinq.F.I. Anglo 15 94 44 Clerk
cr>
in
66
Intelligence test scores of the subjects were matched with
in 15 points or, its equivalent, one standard deviation.
[Quay (1965) has stressed the need for an understanding of
|
|the intellectual functioning of delinquents, noting some-
I
I what different delinquent patterns in dull normal, normal,
i
[and bright normal delinquents.
I Social Class
j The Duncan Socioeconomic Index was utilized to
categorize subjects as to social class affiliation.
|Efforts were made to match subjects within ten points on
the Duncan Scale, using parental occupation. The control
of the social class variable was considered important
because of the different life styles generally associated
!with the constituents of the various social classes.
I Cohen and Short (1958) have depicted rather divergent
|forms of delinquent activities between the lower class
[delinquent and his middle class counterpart.
Ethnicity
The ethnic composition of the matched subjects is
!contained in column three of Table 3. The control of
j ethnicity was deemed essential in view of the different
|value orientations imputed to different ethnic groups.
Except for one matched quartet of Mexican-American sub
jects, the ethnic constituency of the subjects in this
study was Anglo.
__ - 67
I The Scales
j
Embedded Figures Test Form V
| Field-Independence was determined by the Embedded
| Figures Test Form V, a sixteen item hidden figures test in
| booklet form which is essentially a group oriented version
of Witkin's individually administered embedded figures
test. The Embedded Figures Test Form V has simple figures
! on one side of the page and a complicated figure on the |
other side. The subject is required to sketch in the
i
simple figure within the complicated design which contains;
i
; I
! the simple figure in its embedded context. Because the !
: i
subject must turn over the page to see the simple figure, I
j
he is precluded from viewing both the simple figure and j
the complicated figure at the same time. This format thus!
I
duplicates Witkin's memory trace factor, an essential
; element in field-independence. To some extent the Embed-
: ded Figures Test Form V is slightly more difficult than
! Witkin's Embedded Figures Test because it lacks the
informational redundancy inherent in Witkin's instrument.
In addition, it is easier to score, as the total score is
the number of correct designs in ten minutes as contrasted
to Witkin's score based on total time for completion of
his designs.
Jackson, Messick and Meyrs (1964) have compared
j the Embedded Figures Test Form V with Witkin's Embedded
|Figures Test and report a correlation of .84 between these
68
! two instruments on 112 subjects. Kuder Richardson 21
I
i
: reliabilities for the Embedded Figures Test Form V were
| found to be .83. Jackson, Messick and Meyrs (1964) con-
1 sider this instrument to be an effective measure of
| field-independence on the basis of its high correlation
i
with Witkin's Embedded Figures.
Witkin (1950) constructed his individually admin-
- i
; i
I istered Embedded Figures Test as a means of facilitating j
i
the determination of field-independence, previously |
determined by the unwieldy Body Adjustment Test and Rod !
and Frame Test. The relatively high correlation between |
the Embedded Figures Test and the Rod and Frame Test of i
.64 and the Body Adjustment Test of .54 provided construct;
l
i
validation for the concept of field-independence. A high |
degree of reliability is reported by Witkin (1950) on
test-retests of this instruments, with a coefficient of
i
| .89 for test-retest of subjects after an interval of
three years. Notwithstanding its improvement over previ
ous instruments determining field-independence, Witkin's
Embedded Figure Test is too cumbersome for group testing.
Jackson, Messick and Meyrs (1964) suggest the use of the
Embedded Figures Test Form V as a suitable substitute for
I
; the initial Embedded Figures Instrument.
The Socialization Scale
Socialization was determined by Gough's Socializa
tion Scale, a questionnaire generated from Gough's (1960)
69
theory of socialization. This scale views socialized be-
!havior as a continuous dimension, providing for the place
ment of an individual on a continuum, reflecting the de
gree of social maturity which that individual has
;attained. Gough assumes that the degree to which an
individual can govern his thought and action in accordance
' i
with cultural norms will be a consequence of the quality j
of previous role taking experiences which have been en- j
I
acted. !
This scale consists of fifty-four questions re- i
; |
lating to home, school, and peer relationships to which I
the subject responds with a true or false response. Home
relationships were measured on the Socialization Scale by
questions such as "My home life was always happy," and
"My parents have generally let me make my own decisions."
School related areas were tapped by questions like "In
school I was sometimes sent to the principal for cutting
up." Peer attitudes were elicited by questions such as
"Before I do something I try to consider how my friends
will react to it," and "It is very important to me to have
enough friends and social life." Overall, most areas of
the subject's social experiences were investigated by this
scale.
Gough (1960) established the validity of this
| scale on the basis of forty-one research samples totaling
I 1,295 male delinquents and 9,001 male non-delinquents, and
j 70
j784 female delinquents, and 9,776 female non-delinquents.
The individuals tested with this scale covered a wide
|spectrum of occupations and social statuses, ranging from
nominated high school "best citizens" to reformatory in-
|mates. Generally, the rank ordering of this sample by the
Socialization Scale was quite congruent with the rankings
which would have prevailed if these individuals were
ranked for socialization on the basis of evidence inherent
j
in their known statuses and reputations and without bene- !
i
fit of the scale. Essentially, Gough was of the strong j
opinion that there was a very close correspondence between;
the psychometric ordering of the Socialization Scale and
the sociological status dimensions of the individuals
studied.
Gough (1964) reports that the reliability of the
Socialization scale based on a test-retest of one year was
.65 for 101 high school males and .69 for 125 high school
females. A one year test-retest of 200 male prison in
mates yielded a reliability coefficient of .80. In view
of the high validity and reliability of this instrument,
Gough believes that it is an appropriate scale for both
individual and group assessment. This study utilized a
slightly shortened version of this scale, employing fifty-
three rather than fifty-four items. One item was omitted
because it was domewhat ambiguous in its content and
inappropriate for use in the school setting.
' The IE Scale
i
! Powerlessness was measured by a slightly modified
!version of the Internal-External Control Scale (I-E Con-
'trol) designed by Rotter, Seeman and Leverant (1962).
This modification, developed by Graff (1967), is couched
in similar terms but utilizes a Likert Rating Scale rather
j than the forced choice technique of the initial scale.
;This format permits the subject to state the degree of
agreement or disagreement with each individual item,
rather than forcing an either/or choice. In responding to!
the IE(Powerlessness) instrument the subject states his
!opinion on a four point scale, ranging from (1 ) strongly !
|
agree, (2) agree, (3) disagree, to (4) strongly disagree. |
Items endorsed which are indicative of maximal "powerless-
ness" (external control) are assigned a score of 4; while
! responses at the opposite extreme, indicative of low
"powerlessness" (internal control) are given a score of 1 .
| The total score is the sum of the points earned on each of
the twenty-three items with a maximal score being 92.
Test items deal with the subject's belief about
the nature of the world and the degree to which he can
bring to bear some influence on his milieu. A strong
flavor of activism and ascendancy prevails in the ex-
|
tremely internal-control response, whereas a sense of
apathy and fatalism pervades the markedly external
response to the test queries. Individual items cover a
72
range of personal, social, and political dimensions,
attempting to elicit whether the subject feels that his
!personal behavior can influence the world in which he
i
!lives. Questions relating to the personal realm take the
!
!form of such a question as "For me, making a definite
i
decision is much better than trusting to fate." Attitudes
|toward interpersonal relationships are elicited from the j
i i
(following query "People are lonely because they don't try j
i
to be friendly." Socio-political attitudes are reflected j
|
in the degree of internality or externality associated
j
with the response to the following question "I think each !
of us can do a great deal to improve the world's opinion i
I
of the United States." |
Rotter (1966) reviewed seven reliability studies, I
all of them unpublished doctoral dissertations, and con
cludes that adequate reliabilities were obtained from
these test-retest studies and determinations of internal
consistency. Rotter reports that on a group of 100 ele
mentary psychology students, a Split Half Spearman Brown
and a Kuder-Richardson test both revealed a reliability
coefficient of .73. Similarly, on a group of 400 students*
a Kuder-Richardson reliability coefficient of .70 was
obtained. Rotter reports a Kuder-Richardson reliability
of .69, computed on 1,000 tenth, eleventh, and twelfth
graders as part of the Purdue Opinion Poll.
Rotter (1966) reports somewhat lower, but fairly
isubstantial, test-retest reliabilities in the remaining
|studies he reviewed. He indicates that a one month retest
I
,of sixty elementary psychology students revealed a reli-
!
ability of .72. Test-retest of twenty-eight reformatory
inmates yielded a reliability of .78. A two month test-
iretest of 117 elementary psychology students revealed a
I reliability coefficient of .55.
Rotter (1966) established discriminant validity
for the IE Scale by investigating its correlation with i
j |
|the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. He notes i
that a negative correlation between these two measures j
; I
generally prevailed, varying in degree from -.07 to -.35. i
When a positive correlation prevailed it was of almost j
negligible degree. On the basis of these data, Rotter
concluded that the subjects' responses to the IE Scale
|
■ were reflecting basic attitudinal configurations and were
I
relatively free of the desire to create a favorable im-
:pression.
Construct validity for the IE Scale is reflected
in the findings of Seeman and Evans (1962) and Seeman
|(1963) indicating greater initiative and motivation for
|
j rehabilitation on the part of inmates and patients who
were high on the internal control dimension.
j- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 74
| The Burks1 Behavior Rating Scale
I
! The incidence of neurotic and sociopathic symptoms
; in delinquents and non-delinquents was determined by the
!
! Burks* Behavior Rating Scale. This scale was designed to
i
^ identify patterns of pathological behavior manifest by
^ children in the school setting. Of the 116 items and
; I
twenty behavioral categories employed in the initial i
| i
: scale, thirty-two items, representing six categories, werej
utilized by this study because they were judged to be |
highly germane to the specification of the constellation j
: j
of neurotic and sociopathic behavior traits commonly j
! I
associated with delinquents. Three of the six scales, j
Excessive Self Blame, Excessive Anxiety, and Excessive j
Withdrawal, depicted a neurotic type adjustment. The j
l
remaining three scales, Poor Anger Control, Excessive
! Aggressiveness, and Poor Sense of Identity, describe a
| sociopathic orientation.
I
j Burks (1969) indicates that item reliability was
established by having ninety-five children from grades
one to six rated and re-rated within a period of ten days
I
by their teachers. The average correlation coefficient
: was .64, with a range between .60 and .80.
; According to Burks (1969), considerable face
I
! validity for this scale prevails in its established use
over a period of years in relating the outward manifesta
tion of behavioral problems with commonly identified
75
personality patterns in children. This scale was estab-
ilished after a pilot testing of two years in which twenty-
two school psychologists and several hundred teachers were
consulted with respect to the adequacy of the items in
portraying behavioral adjustment difficulties in the
school setting. Although this scale has been primarily
concerned with the behavior of pre-adolescents. Burks |
i
I has indicated that it is an effective measure for char
acterizing adolescent behavioral adjustment as well. 1
i
Items on the Burks' Behavior Rating Scale are ;
!
assigned a score by the raters from 1 to 5. On the basis j
of the construction of this scale, a "1 " classification |
("you have not noticed this behavior at all”) and a ”2 " j
classification ("you have noticed this behavior to a
slight degree") indicate that significant problems do not
exist. An endorsement of a "3" classification ("you have
j
noticed this behavior to a considerable degree"), and
iendorsement of a "4" classification ("you have noticed
this behavior to a large degree"), and an endorsement of a
"5" classification ("you have noticed this behavior to a
very large degree") were considered indications of the
prevalence of significant problems in the designated
areas. These individual scores were tallied for each of
I
1 the six scales for each individual and the significance
|of each was determined by comparing it with a series of
|norms provided by Burks, indicating the total score needed
76
for each of the six scales to reach a level of signifi
cance. Thus, for example, a total score of 11 or above
|was required on the six items of the scale "excessive self
blame" to be considered a significant behavior problem.
For each individual in the study, the possible
range of behavior problems was from zero to three for the
i
|neurotic constellation of symptoms and from zero to three i
for the sociopathic group. When an individual received a
score of zero, it indicated that not one of the individual
i
scales achieved a level of significance according to the j
norms specified by Burks. Conversely, a score of six j
indicated that each one of the individual scales had j
achieved a level of significance consonant with Burks' j
(1969) specifications. !
The following six scales have been utilized by
| this study to characterize the behavioral adjustment of
;the subjects studied.
Neurotic Behavior-
Excessive Self Blame- 'The demonstrated exag
gerated need to accept responsibility for real
or imagined wrongdoing.'
Excessive Anxiety- 'The outward expression of a
feeling or affect of a particular unpleasant or
painful nature.'
Excessive Withdrawal- 'The demonstrated unwill-
| ingness to respond emotionally to others.'
Sociopathic Behavior-
Poor Sense of Identity- 'The demonstrated
desire to be a non conformist.'
77
Poor Anger Control- 'The chronic inability to
control, repress or inhibit outbursts of rage.'
Excessive Aggressiveness- 'The expressed de
sire to inflict undue injury on others through
! words or actions.' (Burks, 1969)
Individual items relating to the category "Exces
sive Self Blame” are exemplified by the items "Shows over-
; remorse for wrong doing," and "Is upset if things do not
! i
; turn out perfect." Items depicting "Excessive Anxiety" |
i
are typified by "Appears Tense," and "Plushes Easily." j
Items characterizing "Excessive Withdrawal" are reflected |
in the statements "Is difficult to get to know" and |
j
"Withdraws quickly from group activities, prefers to work |
I
by self." j
i
Individual items depicting Sociopathic Behavior j
; are typified by the following items portraying "Poor Sense
I of Identity," "Acts as a nonconformist," and "Rejects
1 Classmates in Hostile Manner." "Poor Anger Control" is
characterized by the following types of items: "Becomes
angry if asked to do something," and "Flares up at class
mates if teased or pushed." The "Excessive Aggressive
ness" Scale is typified by statements such as "Wants to
! boss others," and "Hits or pushes others."
The individual items herein depicted were tallied
j to obtain a single score for each of the individual cate-
| gories and then summated into a final score to represent
! the number of neurotic and sociopathic symptoms.
78
The Hypotheses
Twelve hypotheses were formulated to delineate
the relationship between field-independence, socializa
tion, powerlessness, and the incidence of neurotic and
sociopathic symptoms in delinquents and non-delinquents.
I
Delinquents versus Non-Delinquents j
H (1): Non-Delinquents will have a higher mean
socialization score than delinquents.
|
H (2): Non-Delinquents will have a lower mean
powerlessness score than delinquents.
!
i
i
Field-Independent Delinquents versus
Field-Dependent Delinquents j
H (3): Field-Independent Delinquents will have ;
a higher mean socialization score than Field-
Dependent Delinquents.
H (4): Field-Independent Delinquents will have
a lower mean powerlessness score than Field-
Dependent Delinquents.
H (5): Field-Independent Delinquents will have
fewer Neurotic symptoms than Field-Dependent
Delinquents.
H (6 ): Field-Independent Delinquents will have
fewer Sociopathic symptoms than Field-Dependent
Delinquents.
79
Field-Independent Non-Delinquents versus
Field-Dependent Non-Delinquents
H (7): Field-Independent Non-Delinquents will
have a higher mean socialization score than Field-
Dependent Non-Delinquents.
H (8 ): Field-Independent Non-Delinquents will
have a lower mean powerlessness score than Field-
Dependent Non-Delinquents.
H (9): Field-Independent Non-Delinquents will
have fewer Neurotic symptoms than Field-Dependent
Non-Delinquents.
H (10): Field-Independent Non-Delinquents will
have fewer Sociopathic symptoms than Field-
Dependent Non-Delinquents.
Interaction Hypotheses
H (11): There will be no interaction on
socialization scores between Field-Independent,
Field-Dependent and Delinquent, Non-Delinquent
groups.
H (12): There will be no interaction on power
lessness scores between Field-Independent, Field-
Dependent and Delinquent, Non-Delinquent groups.
; Administration
Delinquent and Non-Delinquent subjects were given
similar instructions in being given the Embedded Figures
Test Form V, the Socialization Scale, the IE(Powerlessness)
80
Scale, and the Shiply Institute of Living Intelligence
!Scale. Four teachers from Juvenile Hall and from the
iHigh School were given the names of the subjects who had
!
participated in the study and were asked to rate these
subjects on the Burks'Behavior Rating Scale. The indi-
i
vidual questions on the Socialization Scale were read
I aloud, and subjects were asked to respond to the questions
!
i
iby marking a True or False on the answer sheet next to
each question. Similarly, statements from the IE(Power-
lessness) Scale were read aloud and subjects were re-
i
I quested to place an X mark in the appropriate box to
denote whether they Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, or
Strongly Disagree with the statement. Initial instruc-
!tions to both the Delinquent and Non-Delinquent groups
i
iindicated that they were taking part in a study dealing
I
|with the ways in which teenagers solve various complex
puzzles and how these approaches are related to their
i
personal and social interests. The point was made that
this study had no relationship to their present status in
ithe institutional or educational setting they were in.
j Delimitations of the Study
This study was limited to samples of Delinquents
and Non-Delinquents who were above an IQ of 75 and had a
I
reading level of at least the fourth grade. The ethnic
composition of the final samples, after matching, was
Anglo, except for a matched quartet of Mexican-American
81
subjects. Approximately fifty percent of the final sample
of matched subjects were middle class, with the remaining
j half being of lower class orientation. Almost all of the
| subjects were products of smaller suburban and semi-rural
!
| areas.
Definition of Terms
Delinquent. An underage individual who is guilty
; of a law violation as determined by the Riverside Juvenile
; Court. '
; Non-Delinquent. An underage individual who is not
guilty of a law violation as determined by the Riverside j
; j
Juvenile Court. j
I
: j
Field-Independent. The ability to perceive an ■
i
item independently of its context, reflecting the general-
i ized propensity of keeping things separate in experience.
i
j For purposes of this study, Field-independence is defined
i
i as a score of eight or above on the Embedded Figures Test
Form V.
Field-Dependent. The inability to perceive an
| item independently of its context, reflecting the general-
: ized propensity of fusing and merging things in experience.
| For purposes of this study, Field-Dependence is defined as
|
| a score below eight on the Embedded Figures Test Form V.
Cognitive Style. Characteristic and self-
i
| consistent ways of functioning in perceptual and
intellectual activities.
82
Sociopathic Symptom. A summated score on the
■ Burks' Behavior Rating Scale, characterizing the extent of
| aggressive and nonconforming tendencies manifest in the
■ individual's behavior.
Neurotic Symptom. A summated score on the Burks
Behavior Rating Scale, characterizing the degree of an
i
| individual's anxiety, withdrawal and self punitiveness as
! manifest in his behavior. j
i
i
i
Statistical Treatment of Data j
To determine the statistical significance between j
; i
the independent variables of delinquency and field- j
independence, and the dependent variables of socialization!
: and powerlessness, means, standard deviations, analysis ofj
variance and P ratios were utilized. A One Way Analysis
;of Variance BMD01V - Version of June 15, 1966, Health
Sciences Computing Facility UCLA was the program utilized
!to make calculations on this 2 x 2 design. A Two Way
Analysis of Variance BMDX64-General Linear Hypothesis-
Revised January 20, 1969, Health Sciences Computing
;Facility UCLA, was utilized to measure possible inter
action effects between the independent variables of delin
quency and field-independence.
I Statistical significance between the independent
variables of delinquency and field-independence, and the
|remaining dependent variables, the incidence of socio-
i
|pathic and neurotic symptoms, was determined by frequency
j 83
distributions and chi-squares. Pinal computations were
S made by the Contingency Table Analysis BMD02S, Version of
I June 15, 1966, Health Sciences Computing Facility UCLA.
!
To determine what impact, if any, the three inde-
i
I pendent variables of Age, IQ, and social class would have
upon the dependent variables of socialization and power-
! lessness if they were not held constant, Pearson Product
j
| Moment Correlations were computed between pairs of these
five variables. Pinal computations were made on the
Intercorrelation Matrix BMD03D-Correlation With Item
| Deletion-Revised January 27, 1968, Health Sciences Com
puting Facility UCLA.
CHAPTER III
I
FINDINGS
I
This chapter deals with the findings which apply
in testing the hypotheses stated in Chapter II. In
! addition, a specification will be made of the incidental
I
findings which have emerged from this study relating to
! the incidence of field-independence in the populations
■ studied.
The general purpose of this study was to deter-
l mine the effect of delinquent status and field-independ-
! ence upon the degree of socialization, powerlessness, and
i
| the incidence of neurotic and sociopathic symptoms in
delinquent and non-delinquent boys. A group of 150
i delinquents and 126 non-delinquents were divided into
; field-independent and field-dependent groups based on
their scores on the Embedded Figures Test Form V, a score
j above the mean being the criterion for field-independence.
j
I All subjects were given the Socialization Scale, IE(Power
lessness) Scale, Shipley Institute of Living Scale, and
84
F5_
evaluations by their teachers on the Burks' Behavior Rat-
j ing Scale. Four subgroups of thirty-seven subjects each
! were chosen from this initial population after being indi-
|
I vidually matched for age, IQ, social class, and ethnicity.
|
| These subgroups were designated on the basis of their con-
j
: stituents as Delinquent-Field-Independent, Delinquent-
j
I Field-Dependent, Non-Delinquent-Field-Independent, and
! Non-Delinquent-Field-Dependent.
With the exception of the interaction hypotheses,
which were null hypotheses, the hypotheses stated in
Chapter II were directional (one tailed), predicting a
' higher performance on the Socialization Scale, IE Scale, |
| and Burks' Behavior Rating Scale for non-delinquents and j
field-independents. No hypotheses were formulated re
garding field-independence versus field-dependence, ir-
respective of delinquent status, as this was beyond the
initial purview of this study and not of immediate con
cern to individual differences within delinquent popula
tions. Some post-hoc information is, however, available
i regarding these dimensions and will be reported in the
. incidental findings. The findings of this study are
I reported in relation to each of the hypotheses enumerated
| in Chapter II.
j
Hypothesis 1
This hypothesis stated that: "Non-Delinquents
will have a higher mean socialization score than
86
delinquents."
Findings
I
j Table 4 reveals a significant difference between
| the mean socialization scores for non-delinquent and
i
|delinquent groups, with the difference being in the pre-
I dieted direction.
Hypothesis 2
This hypothesis stated that: "Non-Delinquents
will have a lower mean powerlessness score than delin-
jquents."
Findings
Table 5 reveals no significant difference between
the mean powerlessness scores for non-delinquent and
;delinquent groups.
Hypothesis 3
This hypothesis stated that: "Field-Independent
Delinquents will have a higher mean socialization score
; than Field-Dependent Delinquents."
Findings
Table 6 reveals no significant different between
!
! the mean socialization scores of Field-Independent and
; Field-Dependent Delinquents.
TABLE 4
Comparison of Mean Socialization Scores
for Delinquents and Non-Delinquents
Analysis of Variance
Delinauent Non-Delinauent
Mean 23.4459 31.0000
Standard Deviation 5.4273 6.9990
Degrees of Sums of Mean
Source Freedom Sauares SqUB. JC 6S
Between
Groups 1 2111.3581 2111.3581
Within
Groups 146 5726.2773 39.2211
Total 147 7837.6354
F Ratio
56.3373
Level of Significance
.001
88
TABLE 5
Comparison of IE(Powerlessness) Scores
for Delinquents and Non-Delinquents
Analysis of Variance
Delinquent Non-Delinauent
Mean 53.5811 51.6216
Standard Deviation 5.2915 6.8720
Source
Degrees of
Freedom
Sums of
Sauares
Mean
Sauares
Between
Groups 1 142.0608 142.0608
Within
Groups 146 5491.3984 37.6123
Total 147 5633.4592
F Ratio
3.8323
Level of Significance
NS
89
TABLE 6
I Comparison of Socialization Scores for Field-Independent
and Field-Dependent Delinquents
"■ ■ ■ T- . .-.SlSShrmsfti-rTi'S7-f ' --------- -------- -- - ' —
Analysis of Variance
Field-Independent
Delinquents
Field-Dependent
Delinauents
Mean 24.3243 22.5676
Standard Deviation 5.5630 5.2150
Source
Degrees of
Freedom
Sums of
Sauares
Mean
Sauares
Between
Groups 1 57.0938 57.0938
Within
Groups 72 2093.1807 29.0719
Total 73 2150.2744
F Ratio
1.9639
Level of Significance
NS
I 90
j Hypothesis 4
! This hypothesis stated that: "Field-Independent
j Delinquents will have a lower mean powerlessness score
I
;than Field-Dependent Delinquents."
j
I Findings
Table 7 reveals a significant difference between
|the mean powerlessness scores of Field-Independent Delin-
j
;quents and Field-Dependent Delinquents with the difference
being in the predicted direction.
; Hypothesis 5
This hypothesis stated that: "Field-Independent
,Delinquents will have fewer Neurotic symptoms than Field-
Dependent Delinquents."
Findings
! Table 8 reveals no significant difference in the
j
!number of Neurotic symptoms between Field-Independent and
;Field-Dependent Delinquents.
Hypothesis 6
This hypothesis stated that: "Field-Independent
Delinquents will have fewer Sociopathic symptoms than
!Field-Dependent Delinquents."
I
Findings
Table 9 reveals no significant difference in the
number of Sociopathic symptoms between Field-Independent
91
TABLE 7
Comparison of IE(Powerlessness) Scores for Field-
Independent and Field-Dependent Delinquents
Analysis of Variance
Field-Independent
Delinauents
Field-Dependent
Delinauents
Mean 52.3243 54.8378
Standard Deviation 5.3705 5.0360
Source
Degrees of Sums of
Freedom Sauares
i i ■ ■
Mean
Sauares
Between
Groups 1 116.8790 116.8790
Within
Groups 72 1927.1282 26.7657
Total 73 2044.0071
F Ratio Level of Sianificance
4.3668 .05
i
i
92
TABLE 8
Number of Neurotic Symptoms on the Burks' Behavior
Rating Scale for Field-Independent Delinquents
and Field-Dependent Delinquents
Number of Symptoms 0 1 2 3 Total
Field-Independent ,
| Delinquent 21 6 4 6 37
Field-Dependent I
Delinquent 13 8 6 10 37 ;
Total 34 14 10 16 74
Chi Square df Level of Significance
3.5681 3 NS
93
TABLE 9
Number of Sociopathic Symptoms on the Burks' Behavior
Rating Scale for Field-Independent Delinquents
and Field-Dependent Delinquents
Number of Symptoms 0 1 2 3 Total
Field-Independent
Delinquent 2 1 9 4 3 37
Field-Dependent
Delinquent 17 9 4 7 37
Total 38 18 8 1 0 74
Chi Sauare
2 . 0 2 1 1
df
3
Level of Significance
NS
j 94
j Delinquents and Field-Dependent Delinquents.
i
i
Hypothesis 7
I
| This hypothesis stated that: "Field-Independent
j Non-Delinquents will have a higher mean socialization
i
I score than Field-Dependent Non-Delinquents."
i
Findings
Table 10 reveals a significant difference in mean
socialization scores between Field-Independent Non-Delin-
| quents and Field-Dependent Non-Delinquents with the j
| I
difference being in the predicted direction. j
Hypothesis 8 j
I
This hypothesis stated that: "Field-Independent j
i
Non-Delinquents will have a lower mean powerlessness score
j than Field-Dependent Non-Delinquents."
i
j
i Findings
Table 11 reveals no significant difference in mean
powerlessness scores between Field-Independent Non-Delin
quents and Field-Dependent Non-Delinquents.
Hypothesis 9
j This hypothesis stated that: "Field-Independent
| Non-Delinquents will have fewer Neurotic symptoms than
l
I Field-Dependent Non-Delinquents."
95
TABLE 10
Comparison of Mean Socialization Scores
for Field-Independent Non-Delinquents
and Field-Dependent Non-Delinquents
Analysis of Variance
Field-Independent
Non-Delinauent
Field-Dependent
N on-De1i nauent
Mean 32.9189 29.0811
Standard Deviation 6 .6390 6.9056
Source
Degrees of
Freedom
Sums of
Sauares
Mean
Sauares
Between
Groups 1 272.4897 272.4897
Within
Groups 72 3303.5051 45.8820
Total 73 3575.9949
F Ratio
5.9389
Level of Significance
.05
96
TABLE 11
Comparison of IE(Powerlessness) Scores
for Field-Independent Non-Delinquents
and Field-Dependent Non-Delinquents
Analysis of Variance
Field
Non-
-Independent
Delinauent
Field-Dependent
Non-Delinauent
Mean 52.3243 50.9189
Standard Deviation 7.6705 5.9925
Source
Degrees of
Freedom
Sums of
Sauares
Mean
Sauares
Between
Groups 1 36.5400 36.5400
Within
Groups 72 3410.8586 47.3730
Total 73 3447.3984
F Ratio
0.7713
Level of Sianificance
NS
~ 97
Findings
Table 12 reveals that there is no significant
difference between Field-Independent Non-Delinquents and
Field-Dependent Non-Delinquents in the number of neurotic
symptoms manifested.
Hypothesis 10
This hypothesis stated that: "Field-Independent
Non-Delinquents will have fewer Sociopathic symptoms than
Field-Dependent Non-Delinquents."
Findings
Table 13 reveals no significant difference between
Field-Independent Non-Delinquents and Field-Dependent Non-
Delinquents in the number of Sociopathic symptoms mani
fested.
Hypothesis 11
This hypothesis stated that: "There will be no
interaction on Socialization scores between Field-Inde
pendent, Field-Dependent and Delinquent, Non-Delinquent
groups."
Findings
Table 14 reveals that there is no significant
interaction between Field-Independent, Field-Dependent and
Delinquent, Non-Delinquent groups on Socialization.
98
TABLE 12
!
j Number of Neurotic Symptoms on the Burks’ Behavior Rating
| Scale for Field-Independent Non-Delinquents and
j Field-Dependent Non-Delinquents
Number of Symptoms 0 1 2 3 Total
Field-Independent
Non-Delinquents 29 4 3 1 37
Field-Dependent
Non-Delinquent 27 7 0 3 37
Total 56 1 1 3 4 74
Chi Square df Level of Sianificance
4.8896 3 NS
l
I
i
99
TABLE 13
Number of Sociopathic Symptoms on the Burks' Behavior
Rating Scale for Field-Independent Non-Delinquents
and Field-Dependent Non-Delinquents
Number of Symptoms 0 1 2 3 Total
Field-Independent
Non-Delinquent 25 6 4 2 37
| Field-Dependent
I Non-Delinquent 21 9 3 4 37
Total 46 15 7 6 74
Chi Sauare df Level of Sianificance
1.7573 3 NS
l
I
100
j TABLE 14
I
!Comparison of Socialization Scores and Interaction Effects
for Delinquent, Non-Delinquent, and Field-
Independent, Field-Dependent Groups
Analysis of Variance
Source
Sum of
Squares DF
Mean
Sauare F Ratio
Delinquent-
Non-Delinquent 2111.3581 1 2111.3581 56.3373
Field-Independent-
Field-Dependent 289.5203 1 289.5203 7.7253
Interaction 40.0608 1 40.0608 1.0689
Error 5396.7027 144 37.4777
F Ratio (Interaction) Level of Siqnificance
1.0689 NS
i
i
i
!
i
101
Hypothesis 12
j This hypothesis stated that: "There will be no
iinteraction on Powerlessness scores between Field-Inde-
i
i
pendent, Field-Dependent and Delinquent, Non-Delinquent
| groups."
j
Findings
| Table 15 reveals no significant interaction be-
i
; tween Field-Independent, Field-Dependent and Delinquent,
Non-Delinquent groups on Powerlessness.
Intercorrelation of Independent and Dependent Variables |
i
As a means of enlarging the scope of this study, !
i
, the three independent variables held constant by matching,!
Age, IQ, and Social Class, were correlated with two of the|
dependent variables, IE(Powerlessness) and Socialization.
! These two dependent variables were considered to be par
ticularly concordant with possible fluctuations in Age,
I
! IQ, and Social Class. Ethnicity, the other independent
variable controlled in this study, was omitted from these
intercorrelations because all but one matched group of the
sample were Anglo.
Tables 16 through 21 present the findings in
I
, matrix form of the intercorrelations of Age, IQ, Social
I
Class, IE(Powerlessness), and Socialization. Intercorre-
i lations were computed on these five variables for the
i
I following sub-groups: All Delinquents, All Non-Delinquents
102
i
i
!
I
i
! TABLE 15
Comparison of IE(Powerlessness) Scores and Interaction
Effects for Field-Independent, Field-Dependent
and Delinquent, Non-Delinquent Groups
Analysis of Variance
Source
Sum of
Sauares DF
Mean
Sauare F Ratio
Delinquent-
Non-Delinquent 142.0608 1 142.0608 3.8323
Field-Independent
Field-Dependent 11.3581 1 11.3581 0.3064
Interaction 142.0608 1 142.0608 3.8323
Error 5338.0000 144 37.0694
F Ratio (Interaction) Level of Sianificance
3.8323 NS
TABLE 16
Pearson Product Moment Correlations Among Age, IQ, Social Class,
IE(Powerlessness), and Socialization for all Delinquents
Age
IQ
Social Class IE Socialization
Age 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 -0.12400 -0.11819 -0.30858 0.84566
IQ -0.12400 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 0.32485 -0.06054 0.10672
Social
Class -0.11819 0.32485 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 -0.01068 0.14514
IE -0.30858 -0.06054 -0.01068 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 -0.33779
Soc. 0.14566 0.10672 0.14514 -0.33779 1 . 0 0 0 0 0
O
U>
TABLE 17
Pearson Product Moment Correlations Among Age, IQ, Social Class,
IE(Powerlessness), and Socialization for all Non-Delinquents
Age IQ Social Class IE Socialization
Age 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 0.05975 -0.01646 -0.09365 -0.20391
IQ 0.05975 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 0.16561 0.05648 -0.17451
Social
Class -0.01646 0.16561 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 0.18170 0.01662
IE -0.09365 0.05648 0.18170 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 -0.29791
Soc. -0.20391 -0.17451 0.01662 -0.29791 1 . 0 0 0 0 0
104
1
j
TABLE 18
Pearson Product Moment Correlations Among Age, IQ, Social Class,
and Socialization for Delinquent Field-Independents
IE(Powerlessness),
Age
IQ Social Class IE Socialization
Age 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 0.04317 -0.05327 -0.35036 0.23878
IQ 0.04317 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 0128935 -0.06227 0.14771
Social
Class -0.05327 0.28935 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 0.04206 0.13787
IE -0.35036 -0.06227 0.04206 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 -0.33106
Soc. 0.23878 0.14771 0.13787 -0.33106 1 . 0 0 0 0 0
I
i
j
I
TABLE 19
Pearson Product Moment Correlations Among Age, IQ, Social Class, IE(Powerlessness),
and Socialization for Delinquent Field-Dependents
Age
IQ
Social Class IE Socialization
Age 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 -0.32052 -0.21883 -0.16753 -0.03603
IQ -0.32052 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 0.36955 -0.07129 0.06681
Social
Class -0.21883 0.36955 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 -0.05329 0.14592
IE -0.16753 -0.07129 -0.05329 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 -0.29043
Soc. -0.03603 0.06681 0.14592 -0.29043 1 . 0 0 0 0 0
106
TABLE 20
Pearson Product Moment Correlations Among Age, IQ, Social Class, IE(Powerlessness),
and Socialization for Non-Delinquent Field-Independents
Age
IQ Social Class IE Socialization
Age 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 0.12797 0.18597 -0.16555 0.03468
IQ 0.12797 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 0.19858 -0.11792 0.31030
Social
Class 0.18597 0.19858 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 0.12190 0.12376
IE -0.16555 -0.11792 0.21290 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 -0.41075
Soc. 0.03468 0.31030 0.12376 -0.41075 1 . 0 0 0 0 0
107
TABLE 21
Pearson Product Moment Correlations Among Age, IQ, Social Class, IE(Powerlessness),
and Socialization for Non-Delinquent Field-Dependents
Age
IQ Social Class IE Socialization
Age 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 0.03846 -0.23162 0.06955 -0.32544
IQ 0.03846 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 0.21526 0.12396 -0.24340
Social
Class -0.23162 0.21526 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 0.26021 -0.08566
IE -0.06955 0.12396 0.26021 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 -0.26364
Soc. -0.32544 -0.24340 -0.08566 -0.26364 1 . 0 0 0 0 0
108
109
Field-Independent Delinquents, Field-Dependent Delin
quents, Field-Independent Non-Delinquents, and Field-
Dependent Non-Delinquents. All of the intercorrelations
!obtained between Age, IQ, Social Class, IE(Powerlessness)
!and Socialization were so exceedingly low as to be of
|negligible impact.
CHAPTER IV
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND DISCUSSION
Summary
Purpose
I
Juvenile Delinquency has long been recognized as
lone of the predominant problems facing our society. The
j
|need for timely therapeutic intervention is of utmost
s importance if the adolescent offender is to be assisted
!
!toward leading a productive and rewarding life. An under-
|standing of the heterogeneity and unique individual dif
ferences within the delinquent population is strategic in
I
|articulating treatment strategies and methods of interven-
!tion in coping with the problem of Juvenile Delinquency.
i
This study represents an attempt to further char-
|acterize individual differences within the delinquent
|population by consolidating the ego adaptive perceptual
|processes of field-independence and field-dependence with
the typological study of delinquent populations. In this
connection, field-independent and field-dependent delin-
|
quents and non-delinquents were compared with respect to
1^0
Ill
their socialization, powerlessness, and manifestation of
ineurotic and sociopathic symptoms.
It was hypothesized that field-independent delin
quents and field-independent non-delinquents would mani
fest a higher degree of socialization, experience less
powerlessness, and exhibit fewer neurotic and sociopathic
;symptoms than their field-dependent counterparts. |
i
iProcedure
A group of 150 delinquents and 126 non-delinquents
were given the Embedded Figures Test Form V, the Sociali-
! I
,zation Scale, the IE(Powerlessness) Scale, and the Shipley
Institute of Living Intelligence Scale. Four teachers j
I from Juvenile Hall and four teachers from a nearby high j
school were asked to rate each subject on six scales of
ithe Burks’ Behavior Rating Scale, three scales represent-
!ing neurotic type behavior and three scales reflecting a
sociopathic adjustment. On the basis of the Embedded
Figures Test Form V, the entire population of delinq'uents
and non-delinquents were divided into field-independent
'and field-dependent groups. The determination of field-
;independence was based on the criterion of a score of 8 or
jabove on the Embedded Figures Test, representing a score
jabove the mean. Approximately one-third of the delinquent
:group and one-half of the non-delinquent group were desig-
!
|nated as field-independent on the basis of this criterion.
From this initial population, four matched groups
112
of thirty-seven subjects were chosen to represent field-
!
iindependent delinquents, field-dependent delinquents,
;field-independent non-delinquents, and field-dependent
i
:non-delinquents. Each subject in these four groups was
|
individually matched on the basis of age, IQ, ethnicity,
| !
and social class. The average age of these groups was
|approximately 15, average IQ was 99, social class orienta-
tion was an admixture of middle class and lower class, and
the ethnic composition was entirely Anglo except for one
i
!
matched group of Mexican-American subj ects. j
i
Results
The following results were obtained:
1. Delinquents versus Non-Delinquents
Non-Delinquents had a significantly higher
mean socialization than Delinquents. There was no sig
nificant difference in mean powerlessness scores between
Non-Delinquents and Delinquents.
2. Field-Independent Delinquents versus Field-
Dependent Delinquents
There was no significant difference in mean
I socialization scores between Field-Independent and Field-
l
iDependent Delinquents. Field-Independent Delinquents had
a significantly lower mean powerlessness score than Field-
Dependent Delinquents. There were no significant differ-
!ences in the number of Neurotic and Sociopathic symptoms
between Field-Independent and Field-Dependent Delinquents.
112
3. Field-Independent Non-Delinquents versus
Field-Dependent Non-Delinquents
Field-Independent Non-Delinquents had a sig
nificantly higher mean socialization score than Field-
Dependent Non-Delinquents. There was no significant
i
difference in mean powerlessness scores between Field-
| Independent and Field-Dependent Non-Delinquents. There
were no significant differences in the number of Neurotic
and Sociopathic symptoms between Field-Independent and
i
Field-Dependent Non-Delinquents.
4. Interaction— Delinquency versus Field-Inde-
pendence
There was no significant interaction between
• j
Delinquent, Non-Delinquent and Field-Independence, Field- j
j
Dependence on the socialization and powerlessness dimen-
sions, indicating that each variable is relatively imperv
ious to the influence of the other.
Incidental Findings
In ascertaining the degree of field-independence
and field-dependence in the initial delinquent population
of 150 and non-delinquent population of 126, a markedly
I divergent pattern emerged. Only 28 percent, or roughly
| one out of three delinquents,were field-independent,
whereas approximately 48 percent, or roughly one out of
t
two non-delinquents, were field-independent. Although
| there are an absence of norms as to the extent of
field-independence in the population at large, the appar
ently marked field-dependent nature of the delinquent
;population would suggest certain similarities between it
and such other field-dependent groups as alcoholics, chil
dren, and asthmatic patients. In view of the dispropor
tionately large number of field-independent delinquents
;in the final sample, 50 percent as opposed to the initial
I 28 percent, the delinquent sample obtained from the match
ing may be somewhat atypical, being representative of a
better adjusted type delinquent. j
: j
Anecdotal observation of field-independent and j
field-dependent individuals, both delinquent and non- I
i
delinquent, revealed some striking dissimilarities in i
i
their behavior throughout testing. Groups consisting of
largely field-independent individuals tended to be more
task oriented and worked with a minimal of instruction.
Groups comprised of predominantly field-dependent subjects
were frequently more querulous and demanding in a hostile-
dependent manner and often experienced difficulties
assimilating instructions. Field-independent subjects
were considerably more concerned with the nature of the
study than their field-dependent counterparts, and they
!
often asked penetrating questions as to the purposes of
the various instruments.
| Among the Field-Dependent groups, both delinquent
|and non-delinquent, a number of the subjects could be
- 1 1 5
readily characterized as late maturing boys, being well
i below their chronological age in skeletal size. In con
trast, many of the Field-Independent subjects appeared to
|be advanced in physical size, although this disparity was
I not as great in the non-delinquent groups. Within the
i
non-delinquent population, a number of the Field-Inde
pendent subjects were those often designated as best citi-
:zens, most popular and best athletes.
Individual discussions with Field-Independent and i
j
Field-Dependent delinquents during testing elicited a
; somewhat different constellation of offenses on the part
of each group. Although a number of Field-Dependent sub- j
I jects admitted to engaging in drug ingestion and glue j
i
sniffing, not one of the Field-Independent subjects j
admitted to the use of drugs. One of the Field-Independ
ent subjects readily indicated that he was being detained
i for the sale of drugs but denied being a user.
Field-Independent delinquents tended to be in-
! volved in offenses which entailed some remuneration and
which were of the "favored” type delinquencies such as car
theft. Many of the Field-Dependent delinquents were being
incarcerated for runaways, malicious mischief, truancy,
I
glue sniffing, and other non-pecuniary offenses. The
i
| Field-Independent subjects were able to give very specific
| reasons for their delinquent acts, whereas the Field-
i Dependent subjects were quite vague and unsure as to the
116
chain of events leading to the commission of their delin-
i quent acts and their subsequent incarceration.
i
Conclusions
| The conclusions presented in this section will
| di
I based.
1. HO^. Regarding the socialization of delin-
i
quents and non-delinquents.
Non-delinquents have higher mean socialization
I scores than delinquents.
This hypothesis was confirmed.
This finding is not surprising in light of the
I
extensive findings of Gough (1960) confirming higher
socialization scores for non-delinquents.
2. HO^, Regarding the powerlessness of delin
quents and non-delinquents.
There are no differences in mean powerlessness
| scores between delinquents and non-delinquents.
This hypothesis was not confirmed.
This finding was rather unexpected in view of the
findings by Graff (1967) which revealed a significant
difference between delinquents and non-delinquents on the
i IE(Powerlessness) scale. As Graff's sample of delinquents
consisted of a lower socio-economic group, it was initial-
! ly conjectured that the social class difference between
I
j Graff's study and this one might account for the disparity
117
in the findings of these two studies. However, reference
to the intercorrelation matrix in Tables 16 and 17 reveal
|a negligible relationship between the IE(Powerlessness)
measure and social class, -.01068 for delinquents and
.18170 for non-delinquents. It would appear more likely
that the atypical nature of the overall delinquent popula
tion in this Study, being comprised of a disproportionate
j
number of field-independent subjects, would account for
the disparate findings between these studies on the
IE(Powerlessness) scale.
3. HOg. Regarding the socialization of Field-
Independent and Field-Dependent delinquents.
There are no differences in mean socialization
scores between field-independent and field-dependent
delinquents•
This hypothesis was not confirmed.
This is an important finding and would strongly
suggest that field-independent delinquents are as delin
quency oriented as their field-dependent counterparts.
The uniformly low socialization scores of both groups
being well within the delinquent spectrum, 24.32 for
field-independents and 22.56 for field-dependents, would
suggest that both groups have experienced considerable
turmoil and failure in attempting to cope with early
developmental tasks. Several of the field-independent
delinquents received mean socialization scores of 18 and
118
19, placing them below that of hard core prison inmates in
!their socialization.
! 4. HO^. Regarding the powerlessness of Field-
!
Independent and Field-Dependent Delinquents.
Field-independent delinquents have a lower mean
i
powerlessness score than field-dependent delinquents.
This hypothesis was confirmed.
The significantly lower mean powerlessness score
for the field-independent group of delinquents would sug-
: gest that they have greater sensitivity and awareness of j
i ]
i |
I their role in eliciting responses and reinforcements from ;
their milieu. One would expect, in light of Seeman and i
Evans' (1962) and Seeman's (1963) findings, that this j
greater internal locus of control on the part of the
field-independent delinquents would indicate a greater
amenability for rehabilitation.
5. h0 5 « Regarding the manifestation of neurotic
symptoms of Field-Independent and Field-
Delinquents.
There are no differences in the number of neurotic
symptoms manifested by field-independent and field-
; dependent delinquents.
i
This hypothesis was not confirmed.
i
The absence of differences on the incidence of
I
i neurotic symptoms would suggest that field-independent
I
delinquents are likely to be found in a number of
| 119
jdifferent categories of delinquent typologies.
6 . HOg« Regarding the manifestation of socio-
pathic symptoms of Field-Independent and
j
Field-Dependent Delinquents.
There are no differences in the number of socio-
pathic symptoms manifested by field-independent and field-
!dependent delinquents.
This hypothesis was not confirmed.
The absence of significant differences between
these two groups of delinquents is somewhat surprising in
! view of Witkin's (1965) findings that field-independent
individuals have greater control over their impulses than
their field-dependent counterparts. However, the low
socialization scores of the field-independent delinquents I
would confirm the findings here and perhaps indicate that
| the field-independents are by no means free of behavior
! problems in an institutional setting.
7. HO^. Regarding the socialization of Field-
Independent and Field-Dependent Non-Delin
quents •
Field-independent non-delinquents have a higher
mean socialization score than field-dependent non-delin-
i
1 quents.
t
| This hypothesis was confirmed.
It would appear that the relationship between
field-independence and socialization is a curvilinear one.
120
In deviant populations the relationship between these two
variables may be negligible. However, in a normal, non-
!delinquent population field-independence appears to be
i
I associated with a higher degree of socialization.
i 8 . HOg. Regarding the powerlessness of Field-
|
Independent and Field-Dependent Non-Delin-
j quents.
There are no differences in powerlessness between
field-independent and field-dependent non-delinquents.
This hypothesis was not confirmed.
This finding was somewhat surprising in view of
the significant differences obtained within the delinquent;
I
I
,group on this dimension. !
9. HOg. Regarding the manifestation of neurotic j
symptoms of Field-Independent and Field-
Dependent Non-Delinquents.
i
There are no differences in the number of neurotic
I symptoms manifested by field-independent and field-
dependent non-delinquents.
This hypothesis was not confirmed.
These findings were not unexpected in view of the
; absence of differences in neurotic symptomatology in the
i
: delinquent group.
j
10. HOio* Regarding the manifestation of socio-
| pathic symptoms of Field-Independent and
j Field-Dependent Non-Delinquents.
j ' 121
j There are no differences in the number of socio-
l
j pathic symptoms manifested by field-independent and
j field-dependent non-delinquents.
I
| This hypothesis was not confirmed.
i
j These findings are congruent with those of the
|
delinquent group which similarly revealed no differences
in the incidence of sociopathic symptoms.
11. HOn # Regarding the interaction of Field-
Independence and delinquent status on social
ization. I
i
There is no interaction between field-independence
and delinquency with respect to socialization.
i
This hypothesis was confirmed. j
The absence of any interaction effect here accent-|
uates the pervasive nature of field-independence.
12. H®i2* Regarding the interaction of Field-
independence and delinquent status on power-
l
lessness.
There is no interaction between field-independence
and delinquency with respect to powerlessness.
This hypothesis was confirmed.
The absence of an interaction effect on the power-
i
I lessness dimension further reiterates the deep seated in-
|
| fluence of the field-independence variable.
122
Discussion
i An important finding of this study was that field-
independent and field-dependent delinquents did not differ
i significantly on socialization or on neurotic and socio-
I
| pathic behavior ratings. In effect, the field-independent
: j
delinquents appeared to be as delinquently oriented as
their field-dependent counterparts. The exceedingly low
j
| socialization scores obtained by many field-independents,
being well within the delinquent spectrum, could only j
: attest to the fact that they had apparently experienced !
i |
many failures in role-taking experiences with respect to j
their developmental tasks. j
In view of the high delinquency orientation of the
; i
field-independent delinquents and their similarity on
behavior ratings with their field-dependent counterparts,
(
i it is unlikely that they would constitute a separate cate-
!
gory in most typologies of delinquency. It appears more
i likely, although the findings of this study are not suf
ficient to substantiate this, that field-independent
individuals would be found in a number of different cate
gories of typologies.
It should be noted that the findings of this
i study, denoting the high delinquent orientation of the
i
; field-independent delinquents, do not support the initial
! supposition that there is an inverse relationship between
I
| psychcpathy and field-independence. It appears just as
123
likely that the psychopathic delinquent can be field-
independent as well as field-dependent. Additional
jinvestigation of this relationship in less deviant popula
tions is needed, however, in light of the fact that a
I
somewhat curvilinear relationship appears to prevail be
tween socialization and field-independence. Perhaps a
i
i study investigating non-incarcerated delinquents would be
|helpful in clarifying the relationship between socializa
tion and field-independence.
A reassessment of the findings of Witkin, et al.
(1962) regarding the early parent-child relationships of
field-independent individuals may provide some post-hoc
explanation to the seemingly equivocal relationship be
tween field-independence and psychopathy. Although the
attitudes and child-rearing practices of the mothers of
i
ifield-independents and field-dependents were studied
I extensively, nothing has been said of the fathers' of
i
I field-independent individuals. McCord and McCord (1956)
have documented the fact that the fathers of individuals
designated as psychopathic are qxiite severe and brutal in
their disciplinary tactics, and this could induce easily
an otherwise field-independent individual into delinquent
j
jactivity.
j Notwithstanding the field-independent delinquents'
iapparent delinquency proneness, this study found that this
group had a greater proclivity for responding to
124
therapeutic intervention than the field-dependent delin
quent group. The lower powerlessness scores attained by
I the field-independent delinquent group would suggest that
i
| they have a better understanding of the interrelationship
between their behavior and the reinforcements of the sur-
!
rounding milieu. Furthermore, anecdotal observation of
I
I field-independent delinquents strongly indicated that they
|
jare more capable of autonomous self-direction.
The designation of the field-independent group of
delinquents as more amenable to therapeutic intervention,
does not indicate that they are necessarily better behaved
in an institutional setting. Many of the field-independ- j
I
ent delinquents evinced considerable hostility and resist-!
iveness to the testing situation as did many of the field-j
I
dependents. However, as in most therapeutic transactions,
isome initial resistance is necessary and should be brought
out in the open. In this endeavor, the field-independent
delinquents appeared more candid and spontaneous.
Although this study did not find the field-inde
pendent delinquents to be so uniquely different from their
field-dependent counterparts as to merit representation in
ia typological system, further study of field-independence
i
|and delinquency would appear most feasible. Despite the
I relatively high delinquency orientation of the field-
! independent delinquents, they appear more mature physic-
jally, are more aware of their role in influencing their
125
immediate environment, and appear more autonomous and
self reliant.
I
I
j Recommendations
| In this section recommendations based on the find
ings and conclusions of this study are discussed.
I 1. Further research is needed &s to the prevalence
|of field-independence in delinquent populations. This
study found only one out of three delinquents to be field-
i
independent whereas, approximately, one out of two non-
; delinquents were field-independent. Additional normative
I
information about the extent of field-independence in de- i
; j
linquent populations would provide some point of compari- j
! son between delinquent groups and other deviant populations.!
2. The suggestive evidence of this study that
,field-independent delinquents are more amenable to thera-
|
ipeutic intervention should be tested by following the
|course of the rehabilitative process for field-independent
and field-dependent delinquents. Recidivism rates and
successful completion statistics of designated programs
would be helpful indices of the relative resourcefulness
[
of each group for special intervention. In many respects
| the field-independent groups characterized in this study
i
Jare somewhat similar to the "mature" 1 ^ group depicted by
Butler and Adams (1966) in their typology and to that of
i
Reiss (1952) who designated the relatively integrated
delinquent as the most mature of his delinquent types.
126
Havel (1960) found that in classifying delinquents on
iparole in terms of a high-maturity versus a low-maturity
j index, the high-maturity group was the more successful one
| with an intensive insight engendering program of parole
| supervision. One is tempted to speculate as to how many
i
I
field-independent individuals comprised the more mature
I group.
| 3. Additional investigation of the offense pat
terns of field-independent versus field-dependent delin-
, quents would be highly informative. Anecdotal information
; obtained from the subjects of this study suggested that
' field-independent delinquents were involved in delinquent i
: activities of a more pragmatic and remunerative nature, as
opposed to the seemingly maladaptive delinquent activities
; of the field-dependent group. The greater apparent preva-
j
; lence of drug related offenses among the field-dependent
: group of delinquents would bear further investigation. It
I is quite plausible that drug offenses among the field-
i
I
: independent group would stem from different motives than
| that of the field-dependent group. For example, the
| field-dependents might choose drugs to allay unfulfilled
i
! dependency, whereas the field-independent group might be
| more interested in seeking new and stimulating experien-
j ces. These divergent motivational patterns would require
i
different treatment strategies for each type.
4. Overall, a different mode of rehabilitative
127
intervention could conceivably be posited for the field-
iindependent group. Intervention stressing early emanci-
jpation from the home with the utilization of group living
!situations and half-way houses would appear to be more
I
|feasible for the field-independent group. The field-
I
dependent group would appear to require additional home
land foster care assistance. Field-independent delinquents I
I would, furthermore, be capable of adjusting to institu
tional settings requiring autonomy and independence such j
as peer-oriented group living situations. The field-
|dependent group would appear to require a more paternalis
tic and structured institutional milieu. Research evalu- !
ating these two diverse rehabilitative approaches would
be highly feasible.
5. As this study dealt exclusively with delin-
!quent boys, it is perhaps all too obvious to indicate that
I further research is needed with respect to the typological
i
|characteristics of delinquent girls. Although girls are
generally more field-dependent than boys, an identifica-
|tion of the characteristics of field-independent and
|field-dependent delinquent girls could prove helpful in
exploring the dynamics of such modal female delinquent
I types as the runaway, drug user, and sexual deviant. It
l
!is not unlikely that different intervention techniques
would also prove more efficacious for the field-independ
ent delinquent girl.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
128
BIBLIOGRAPHY
j Abrahamsen, D. The Psychology of Crime. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1960.
|
j Alexander, F. and Staub, H. The Criminal, the Judge and
the Public. New York: Free Press, 1956.
! i
|
I Argyle, M. "A New Approach to the Classification of !
! Delinquents with Implications for Treatment," Mono- j
graph No. 2. Inquiries Concerning Kinds of Treatment}
for Kinds of Delinquents. Board of Corrections:
State of California, 1961.
; Ausubel, D. P. Theory and Problems of Child Development,
i New York: Grune and Stratton, 1958.
: Baker, B., and Sarbin, T. R. "Differential Mediation of
Social Perception as a Correlate of Social Adjust-
i ment." Sociometry. 1956, 19, p. 69.
I
I Burks, H. H. Manual for Burks' Behavior Rating Scales,
i El Monte, California: The Arden Press, 1969.
i
| Butler, E. W. and Adams, S. N. "Typologies of Delinquent
Girls: Some Alternative Approaches," Social Forces.
1966, 44, p. 466.
j Cairns, R. B. "The Influence of Dependency Inhibition on
the Effectiveness of Social Reinforcement," Journal
of Personality. 1961, 29, p. 466.
I Chein, I. "The Awareness of Self and the Structure of
| the Ego," Psychological Review. 1944, 51, p. 304.
i
I Chein, I. "Narcotics Use Among Juveniles," Social Work. 1,
1956, p. 50.
129
130
Cleckley, H. "Psychopathic States," in American Handbook
of Psychiatry, ed. Silvano Arieti. New York: Basic
Books, Inc., 1959, p. 568.
j Clinard, M. B. and Wade, A. L. "Toward the Delineation
of Vandalism as a Sub-Type in Juvenile Delinquency,"
Journal of Criminal Law. Criminology and Police
; Science. 48, 1958, p. 494.
| Cohen, A. K. Delinquent Bovs. Glencoe, 111.: The Free
Press, 1955.
; Cohen, A. K. and Short, J. F., Jr. "Research in Delin
quent Subcultures," Journal of Social Issues. 14,
1958, 20.
Dana, R. H. and Goocher, B. "Embedded Figures and Person
ality," Perceptual and Motor Skills. 1959, 9, p. 99. |
Duncan, 0. D. "A Socioeconomic Index for all Occupa- j
| tions," in A. Reiss, ed. Occupations and Social i
j Status. Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1961. j
Eskin, L. D. "A Study of Some Possible Connections j
Between Criminal Behavior and Perceptual Behavior." j
Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, New York Uni
versity, 1958. |
Ferdinand, T. N. Typologies of Delinquency. New York:
I Random House, 1966.
; Friedlander, K. The Psychoanalytical Approach to Juvenile
I Delinquency. London: K. Paul, Trubner, Trench and
i Co., 1947.
j
; Gibbons, D. C. and Garrity, D. L. "Some Suggestions for
the Development of Etiological and Treatment Theory
in Criminology," Social Forces. 38, 1959, p. 51.
’ Glueck, S. and Glueck, E. Physique and Delinquency.
New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950.
Graff, R. "Identification as Related to Perceived Parent-
; al Attitudes and Powerlessness in Delinquents and
Normals." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Clare-
j mont University, 1967.
Goodenough, D. R. and Eagle, C. J. "A Modification of the
Embedded Figures Test for Children," Journal of
Genetic Psychology. 1963, 103, p. 67.
131
Goodenough, D. R. and Karp, S. A. "Field Dependence and
Intellectual Functioning," Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology. 1961, 63, p. 265.
[Gordon, 0, Bayer, R., and Tekofsky, R. "Personality
! Variables and the Perception of Embedded Figures,"
Perceptual and Motor Skills. 1961, 12, p. 195.
i
! Gough, H. G. Manual for the California Psychological
| Inventory. Palo Alto, California: Consulting
Psychologists Press, 1957.
i Gough, H. G. "A Sociological Theory of Psychopathy,"
American Journal of Sociology. 1948, 53, p. 359.
t
| Gough, H. G. "Theory and Measurement of Socialization,"
Journal of Consulting Psychology. 1960, 1, p. 24.
j
, Havel, J. "Interaction Between Treatment Method and !
Offender Type," Monograph No. 1. The Treatment of j
I Delinquents in the Community: Variations in Treat- j
ment Approaches. Board of Corrections: State of
< California, 1960. j
Honigfeld, G. and Spigel, I. M. "Achievement Motivation j
and Field Independence," Journal of Consulting
Psychology. 1960, 24, p. 550.
Hewitt, L. E. and Jenkins, R. L. Fundamental Patterns of
| Maladjustment: The Dynamics of Their Origin.
| Springfield: State of Illinois, 1946.
I Iscoe, I. and Carden, J. A. "Field Dependency, Manifest
| Anxiety, and Sociometric Status in Children,"
Journal of Consulting Psychology. 1961, 25, p. 184.
; Jackson, D. N. "Intellectual Ability and Mode of Per
ception," Journal of Consulting Psychology. 1957,
21, p. 458.
Jackson, D. N. "A Short Form of Witkin's Embedded
Figures Test," Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology. 1956, 53, p. 254.
i
! Jackson, D. N., Messick, S., and Myers, C. T. "Evaluation
[ of Group and Individual Forms of Embedded Figure
Measures of Field-independence," Educational and
Psychological Measurements. 1964, 24, p. 177.
Jenkins, R. L. "Diagnosis, Dynamics and Treatment in
Child Psychiatry," Psychiatric Research Reports. 18,
American Psychiatric Association, 1964, p. 91.
132
Jenkins, R. L. and Glickman, S. "Patterns of Personality
Organization Among Delinquents," Nervous Child, 1947,
6 , p. 329.
Jones, D., Livson, N., and Sarbin, T. "Perceptual Com
pletion Behavior in Juvenile Delinquents," Percep
tual and Motor Skills. 1955, 5, p. 141.
Karp, S. A., Poster, D., and Goodman, A. "Differentiation
in Alcoholic Women," Journal of Personality, 1963,
31, p. 386.
League, B. J. and Jackson, D. N. "Activity and Passivity
as Correlates of Field-independence," Perceptual and
Motor Skills. 1961, 12, p. 291.
Lefcourt, H. M. "Internal Versus External Control of i
Reinforcement: A Review," Psychological Bulletin.
1966, 65, p. 206. |
i
Lefebar, J. "The Delinquent's Self Concept." Unpub- j
lished Doctor's dissertation, University of ■
Southern California,,1965. j
Lewis, H. B. "Over-Differentiation and Under-Individua- j
tion of the Self," Psychoanalysis and Psychoanalytic |
Review. 1958, 45, p. 3.
Linton, H. B. "Dependence on External Influence: Corre
lates in Perception, Attitudes and Judgment,"
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1955,
51, p. 502.
Mannheim, H. Pioneers in Criminology. Chicago: Quad
rangle Books, Inc., 1960.
Marlowe, D. "Some Psychological Correlates of Field-
independence," Journal of Consulting Psychology.
1958, 22, p. 334.
Mead, G. Mind. Self and Society. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1934.
Merton, R. K. Social Structure and Anomie," American
Sociological Review. 1938, 3, p. 672.
Merton, R. K. Social Theory and Social Structure.
Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1957.
Newcomb, T. Social Psychology. New York: Dryden Press,
1950.
133
Ohlin, L. E. and Cloward, R. A. Delinquency and Oppor
tunity. Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1960.
j
; Pemberton, C. L. "The Closure Factors Related to Other
Cognitive Processes," Psychometrika. 1952, 17,
j p. 267.
I *
Peterson, D. R., Quay, H. C., and Cameron, G. R. "Per
sonality and Background Factors in Juvenile Delin
quency as Inferred From Questionnaire Responses,"
Journal of Consulting Psychology. 1958, 23, p. 182.
; Peterson, D. R., Quay, H. C., and Tiffany, T. L. "Per
sonality Factors Related to Juvenile Delinquency,"
| Child Development. 1961, 32, p. 355.
Postman, L. "Perception, Motivation and Behavior,"
Journal of Personality. 1953, 22, p. 17.
Quay, H. C. "Dimensions of Personality in Delinquent
Boys as Inferred from the Factor Analysis of Case
History Data," Child Development. 1964, 35, p. 479. i
: |
Quay, H. C. Juvenile Delinquency: Research and Theory, j
Princeton, New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., i
1965. j
i Randolph, M. H., Richardson, H., and Johnson, R. C. "A
Comparison of Social and Solitary Male Delinquents,"
; Journal of Consulting Psychology. 1961, 2, p. 293.
j
| Reiss, A. J. "Social Correlates of Psychological Types
of Delinquency," American Sociological Review. 1952,
| 17, p. 710.
Robins, L. Deviant Children Grown Up. Baltimore, Md.:
Williams and Wilkins Co., 1966.
; Rotter, J. B. "Generalized Expectancies for Internal
Versus External Control of Reinforcement," Psycho
logical Monographs. 1966, 80, p. 1.
Rotter, J. B., Seeman, M., and Liverant, S. "Internal
Versus External Control of Reinforcement: A Major
| Variable in Behavior Theory," in N. F. Washburne,
ed., Decisions. Values and Groups, vol. 2. London:
Pergman Press, 1962, p. 473.
[
| Roebuck, J. B. Criminal Typology. Springfield, 111.:
Charles C. Thomas, 1967.
134
Rudin, S. A. and Stagner, R. "Figure-Ground Phenomena in
the Perception of Physical and Social Stimuli,"
Journal of Psychology, 1958, 45, p. 213.
| Sanford, R. N. "A Psychoanalytic Study of Three Criminal
I Types,” Journal of Criminal Psychopathology. 1943,
5, p. 57.
| Sarbin, T. R. "A Preface to a Psychological Analysis of
the Self," Psychological Review. 1952, 59, p. 11.
: I
: Sarbin, T. R. "Role Theory," in G. Lindzey, ed., Hand
book of Social Psychology. Cambridge, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley, 1954, p. 223.
Sarbin, T. R., Allen, V. L., and Rutherford, E. "Social i
Reinforcement, Socialization and Chronic Delinquen- I
cy," British Journal of Social and Clinical Psy
chology. 1965, 4, p. 179.
Scheerer, N. "Cognitive Theory," in G. Lindzey, ed., j
Handbook of Social Psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: j
Addison-Wesley, 1954, p. 91. j
Schepses, E. "Boys Who Steal Cars," Federal Probation. !
1961, 25, p. 56. |
i
Seeman, M. "Alienation and Social Learning in a Reform
atory," American Journal of Sociology. 1963, 69,
p. 270.
Seeman, M. and Evans, J. W. "Alienation and Learning in
A Hospital Setting," American Sociological Review.
1962, 27, p. 772.
Sullivan, C., Grant, M. Q., and Grant, J. D. "The
Development of Interpersonal Maturity: Applications
to Delinquency," Psychiatry. 1957, 20, p. 373.
Tappan, P. W. Crime. Justice and Correction. New York:
McGraw Hill, 1960,
Wattenberg, W. W. and Balistrieri, J. J. "Automobile
Theft: A 'Favored Group' Delinquency," American
Journal of Sociology. 1952, 57, p. 569.
Wattenberg, W. W. and Balistrieri, J. J. "Gang Member
ship and Juvenile Misconduct," American Sociological
Review. 1950, 15, p. 744.
135
Wirt, R. D. and Briggs, P. P. ’ ’ The Meaning of Delin
quency,” in H. Quay, ed,, Juvenile Delinquency:
Research and Theory. Princeton, New Jersey: D,
| Van Nostrand Press, 1965.
!Witkin, H. A. "Individual Differences in Ease of Percep-
! tion of Embedded Figures," Journal of Personality,
I 1950, 19, p. 1.
j
j Witkin, H. A. "The Nature and Importance of Individual
Differences in Perception," Journal of Personality,
1949, 18, p. 145.
j Witkin, H. A. "Psychological Differentiation and Forms of
! Pathology," Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1965, 70,
! p. 317.
Witkin, H. A. and Asch, S. E. "Studies in Space Orienta
tion 1. Perception of the Upright with Displaced
Visual Fields," Journal of Experimental Psychology,
1948, 38, p. 455. j
Witkin, H. A., Dyk, R. B., Faterson, H. F., Goodenough,
D. R., and Karp, S. A. Psychological Differentia* -
tion: Studies of Development. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962.
Witkin, H. A., Lewis, H., Hertzman, M., Machover, K.,
Meissner, P., and Wapner, S. Personality Through
j Perception. New York: Harper, 1954.
; Yablonsky, L. The Violent Gang. New York: The Mac
millan Company, 1963.
APPENDIX A
SOCIALIZATION SCALE
136
Socialization Scale
______________ Age_
Answer True (T) or False (F) for each
statement*
I often feel that I made a wrong choice in my
occupation.
When I was going to school I played hooky
quite often.
I think Lincoln was greater than Washington.
I would do almost anything on a dare.
With things going as they are, it's pretty
hard to keep up hope of amounting to some
thing .
I think I am stricter about right and wrong
than most people.
I am somewhat afraid of the dark.
I hardly ever get excited or thrilled.
My parents have often disapproved of my
friends.
My home life was always happy.
I often act on the spur of the moment without
stopping to think.
My parents have generally let me make my own
decisions.
I would rather go without something than ask
for a favor.
I have had more than my share of things to
worry about.
When I meet a stranger I often think he is
better than I am.
_________ 137____________________________
138
Name
16. Before I do something I try to consider how
my friends will react to it.
17. I have never been in trouble with the law.
18. In school I was sometimes sent to the
principal for cutting up.
19. I keep out of trouble at all costs.
20. Most of the time I feel happy.
21. I often feel as though I have done something
wrong or wicked.
I
22. It is hard for me to act natural when I am j
with new people. j
23. I have often gone against my parents’ wishes.j
24. I often think about how I look and what j
impression I am making upon others. j
25. I have never done any heavy drinking. i
j
26. I find it easy to "drop" or "break with" a
friends.
27. I get nervous when I have to ask someone for
a job.
28. Sometimes I used to feel that I would like
to leave home.
29. I never worry about my looks.
30. I go out of my way to meet trouble rather
than try to escape it.
31. My home life was always pleasant.
32. I seem to do things that I regret more often
than other people do.
33. My table manners are not quite as good at
home as when I am out in company.
34. It is pretty easy for people to win arguments
with me.
139
Name
35. I know who is responsible for most of my
troubles.
36. I get pretty discouraged with the law when a
smart lawyer gets a criminal free.
37. I have used alcohol excessively.
38. Even when I have gotten into trouble I was
usually trying to do the right thing.
39. It is very important to me to have enough
friends and social life.
40. I sometimes wanted to run away from home.
41. Life usually hands me a raw deal.
42. People often talk about me behind my back.
43. I would never play cards (poker) with a
stranger.
44. I don't think I'm quite as happy as others
seem to be.
45. I used to steal sometimes when I was a
youngster.
46. My home as a child was less peaceful and
quiet than those of most other people.
47. Even the idea of giving a talk in public
makes me afraid.
48. As a youngster in school I used to give the
teachers lots of trouble.
49. If the pay was right I would like to travel
with a circus or carnival.
50. I never cared much for school.
51. The members of my family were always very
close to each other.
52. My parents never really understood me.
53. A person is better off if he trusts no one.
APPENDIX B
BURKS' BEHAVIOR RATING SCALE DEVISED
BY HAROLD H. BURKS, PH D.
140
Burks’ Behavior Rating Scale Devised
By Harold H. Burks, Ph D.
| Name __________________________ Age______ Grade ____________
| School ______________________________ Date _______________________
j Rated By __________________________________________________________________
Please rate each and every item by putting the number
| or the most appropriate descriptive statement in the box
| opposite each item. The 5 descriptive statements are
; given below.
Number 1. You have not noticed this behavior at
; all.
I Number 2. You have noticed the behavior to a
| slight degree.
Number 3. You have noticed the behavior to a
' considerable degree.
Number 4. You have noticed the behavior to a
large degree.
Number 5. You have noticed the behavior to a
very large degree.
1. Acts as a non conformist.
i
2. Shows many fears.
3. Becomes angry quickly.
j 4. Questions indicate a worry
about the future.
5. Laughs when others are in
trouble.
6 . Is difficult to get to know.
7. Appears tense.
j
| 8 . Upset if makes a mistake.
9. Becomes angry if asked to
do something.
10. Hits or pushes others.
141
142
11. Shows little feeling when others
are upset.
i
12. Wears unusual clothing styles.
jl3. Withdraws quickly from group
! activities: prefers to work
j by self.
jl4. Wants to boss others.
;15. Shows overremorse for wrongdoing.
|
16. Is quickly frustrated and loses
j emotional control.
17. Worries too much.
18. Associates with loners.
i
119. Is upset if things do not
turn out perfect.
20. Flushes easily.
21. Explodes under stress.
22. Is shy.
23. Rejects classmates in
hostile manner.
' 24. Appears nervous.
i
i
125. Flares up at classmates if
teased or pushed.
26. Blames himself if things go wrong.
! 27. Is sarcastic.
;28. ' ’ Style’ ' of behaving deliberately
| different from most.
I 29. Does not show feelings.
|
!30. Teases others.
i
31. Appears disinterested in class
work of others.
32. Plays tricks on other children.
APPENDIX C
IE SCALE
143
IE Scale
NAME AGE
On this page you will see a number of statements about which people have
some opinion. We would like to know how you feel about these things. Next to each
statement are four boxes in which you can indicate your opinion about the state
ment. By placing an X in the proper box, please indicate your opinion about each
of the statements. Please keep in mind that there are no "right" or "wrong"
answers— your true opinion is what we would like.
Statement Your Opinion
Please put an X in the box which best
expresses your opinion of the item.
Strongly
Agree Agree Agree
Strongly
Disagree
1. I think each of us can do a great deal to
improve the world’s opinion of the United States.
2. For me, making a definite decision is much
better than trusting to fate.
3. A person's future is largely a matter of
what fate has in store for him.
4. It is just wishful thinking to believe that
people like me can really influence what happens
in society at large.
5. More and more, I feel helpless in the face
of what is happening in the world today.
6. Sometimes I feel that I don’t have enough
control over the direction my life is taking.
7. People are lonely because they don't try
to be friendly.
8. Chance and luck are not very important in
my life.
9. There is very little that persons like
!myself can do to improve the world's opinion
of the United States.
10. People like me can change the course of
world events if we make ourselves heard.
11. Becoming a success is a matter of hard
work; luck has little or nothing to do with it.
12. There's not much use in trying to please
people; if they like you, they like you.
i
!13. The world is run by the few in power, and
1 there is not much the little guy can do about it
14. There is really no such thing as luck.
Strongly
Agree
Your Opinion
Dis-
Agree Agree
Strongly
Disagree
15. Even if the odds are against you, it's
possible to come out on top by keeping at it.
16. I have usually found that what is going
to happen will happen, no matter what I do.
17. Most people don't realize how much their
lives are the result of accidental happenings.
18. The average citizen can have an influence
Ion government decisions.
19. What happens to me is my own doing.
20. Many times I feel that I have little
influence over the things that happen to me.
21. Getting a good job depends mainly on
being in the right place at the right time.
22. When I make plans, I am fairly sure that
I can make them work.
23. Many times we might just as well decide
what to do by flipping a coin.
Strongly
Agree
Your Opinion
Dis-
Agree Agree
Strongly
Disagree
APPENDIX D
EMBEDDED FIGURES TEST-V
147
EMBEDDED FIGURES TEST-V
Each problem in this test is made up of two de
signs, a complicated figure on the first page and a simple
figure on the next. In each problem the simple design is
contained in the complicated design. You are to find
(where the simple design is contained in the larger design
|and sketch it in over the lines of the figure.
I
Here is an example of a complicated figure, a
simple figure, and the complicated figure shown again
with the simple figure sketched in.
Complicated
Figure
Simple
Figure
Simple Figure
Sketched in
The smaller figure is always present in the larger
figure and always in the upright position. Be sure the
figure you find is exactly the same as the simple figure,
both in size and proportions. Work carefully and as
systematically as you can. If you feel that you cannot
solve one of the figures, you may skip it and come back to
it later if you have time, but you will waste time if you
keep skipping from figure to figure. Do not worry about
erasing completely if you have one or two incorrect lines,
but be sure that you have all the correct ones clearly
indicated.
148
149
2.
4.
I 6.
7.
I
I
I 8.
T5T
9.
10,
11,
12 ,

Asset Metadata

Creator Levy, Victor (author)

Core Title Field-Independence And Typologies Of Delinquency

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, educational psychology,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Advisor Meyers, Charles Edward (committee chair), Milner, John G. (committee member), Ofman, William V. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-473916

Unique identifier UC11362150

Identifier 7217481.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-473916 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7217481.pdf

Dmrecord 473916

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Levy, Victor

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA