Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Delinquency And Rationalization: A Study Of The Delinquent Act
(USC Thesis Other)
Delinquency And Rationalization: A Study Of The Delinquent Act
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
DELINQUENCY AND RATIONALIZATION:
A STUDY OF THE DELINQUENT ACT
by
Robert Eugene Knoll
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
(Sociology)
August 1965
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CAUFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, written by
.................. Robert Eugene K n o ll................................
under the direction of h.i*&...Dissertation Com
mittee, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by the Graduate
School, in partial fulfillm ent of requirements
for the degree of
D O C T O R O F P H IL O S O P H Y
........
Date........ August ^ .19£5.............................
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
PLEASE NOTE:
Pages throughout tend to
"curl". Filmed in the best
possible way.
University Microfilms, Inc.
FOREWORD
There is little doubt that juvenile delinquency
has become a major social problem in American society.
Though there has been serious question as to the adequacy
of relying on official statistics, most authorities
agree that there has been an increase in delinquency
during World War II and in the years following the war.1
Moreover, this increase apparently has been in excess of
2
the growth of the juvenile population.
In addition to official statistics it is difficult
to establish the total amount of delinquency taking place
in a given period of time, thovigh most experts in the
field recognize that the unreported and "unofficial
cases" undoubtedly have had their deleterious effects on
society and on the lives of the offenders themselves, and
hence may be seen as some measure of this social problem
as well.
However, it is likely that it is not just the
numerical increase in delinquency which has given rise to
1Bloch, Herbert A. and Frank T. Flynn, Delinquency
(New Yorks Random House, 1956), pp. 27-33.
2
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Children*s Bureau, Juvenile Court Statistics 1960
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1961),
pp. 1-22.
ii
increasing concern for such behavior.
In part it may reflect a growing understanding of
the significance and seriousness of delinquent behavior,
just as there has developed a more sophisticated awareness
of other social problems in American life, such as mental
illness or alcoholism.
We seem to indulge in a less fatalistic social
philosophy in mid-twentieth century America then was the
case in earlier times. Social definitions of social
problems become influenced by the conviction that not
only is something seriously wrong, but that something
can be done about problems with proper understanding.
Finally, a more enlightened public understanding
of the social problem of juvenile delinquency may
partly reflect a recognition that social problems are
related in important ways, such as the case of delinquency
and so called school "drop-outs." Thus we have
appreciation of not only individual motivation and
responsibility, but also public concern for delinquency
as a possible symptom of larger problems in society.
Accordingly, it is not uncommon to observe public inquiry
extending beyond the delinquent himself, extending to
possible related environmental circumstances of a
rapidly changing industrial society.
Of course concern for law violation is not new
and reference to it can be traced far back into history.
Accompanying such concern have been several theories, a
number of which have been questionable and inconclusive.
Older beliefs about the criminal were easily
transferred to the youthful offender who was considered
to be a young criminal presenting a threat to society.
With the coming of social science we note early
criminological theories accepted for a time and then
gradually being displaced by later theories. However,
vestiges of older forms of explanation persist in several
modern theories, though there has been something of a
change in focus as far as the content of explanation is
concerned.
At present we can refer to important examples of
constructive research which have been useful and informa
tive in dealing with the problem of juvenile delinquency,
but there have been difficulties in our attempt to
understand the phenomenon of the delinquent act from an
etiological point of view.
There have been the problems of adequately
measuring the extent of delinquency and problems surround-
ing the legal aspects of delinquency. A more general and
pervasive problem concerns the nature of delinquency
theories and the difficulties in testing such theories,
iv
for many of them do not easily lend themselves to study
design.
The task facing the investigator of delinquency
has been somewhat more formidable than in many another
area of sociological investigation, due to a limited
degree of synthesis of existing theories germane to the
phenomenon of delinquency.
One important objective of the present
investigation is to synthesize some of these theories.
This procedure offers useful guidance in formulating
study design.
Attention will be directed to several theories
of delinquency derived from various disciplines which
have been present over the years. In reviewing these
theories critically the attempt will be made to support
the rationale of selecting the sociological approach.
A large share of modern sociological theories
pertaining to juvenile delinquency describe the
importance of values in influencing delinquent behavior.
The major purpose of the present study will be to
inquire into the importance of particular value systems
which appear to have significance for delinquent behavior
relative to the rationalization process of defenses for
such behavior; depending upon the extent of delinquency
involvement, this rationalization process may be of
greater importance than values themselves. This
consideration will be investigated, as will be several
other related variables of lesser importance.
The present research may be seen as not only
useful in the sense of contributing to a better theoreti
cal understanding of the phenomenon of delinquency, but
also in providing certain implications which may be
useful in suggesting future research, as well as
suggesting tentative proposals for effective means, of
dealing with the youthful offender.
The stimulus for the present study stems from
various sources. The most important have been the
3
significant work of the late Edward H. Sutherland,
4
Donald R. cressey's investigation of trust violation,
Albert Cohen's now classic text, Delinquent Boys,5 and
the recent contribution of Gresham M. Sykes and David
Matza.^
3Cf. Edwin H. Sutherland and Donald R. Cressey,
Principles cf Criminology, 5th edition (New York:
Lippencott, 1960), pp. 74-81.
^Donald R. cressey, Other People's Money (Glencoe,
Illinois: The Free Press, 1953).
5Albert K. Cohen, Delinquent Boys (Glencoe,
Illinois: The Free Press, 1963).
^Gresham M. Sykes and David Matza, "Juvenile
Delinquency and Sub-terranean Values," American Socio
logical Review, XXVI (October, 1961), 712-719; Gresham M.
Sykes and David Matza, "Techniques of Neutralization: A
Theory of Delinquency," American Sociological Review, XX
(December, 1957), 664-67T5T
vi
Research data for the present study were
obtained from a questionnaire schedule adminsitered to
male 16-18 year old youth in three different settings;
the senior camp program of the Los Angeles County
Probation Department, California Youth Authority
institutional facilities in Norwalk and Chino, and a
high school located in a local middle-class Southern
California community. An auxiliary facility of the Los
Angeles County Probation Department, Juvenile Hall
division in Downey was also utilized for pre-testing
purposes.
This research would not have been possible but
for the generous cooperation and assistance of
correctional and educational administrators and staff.
Surely I owe a special debt of gratitude here. Equally
important has been the guidance of my graduate committee,
and I would like to acknowledge my appreciation.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD ................................... ii
LIST OF TABLES................................... X
LIST OF FIGURES................................. xii
Chapter
I. THE PROBLEM............................. 1
Statement of the problem
Definitions
Propositions
Significance of the Study
Organization of the Study
II. THEORIES OF DELINQUENCY: A REVIEW OF
THE LITERATURE......................... 13
III. SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF SOCIOLOGICAL
THEORIES OF DELINQUENCY ............... 42
IV. RATIONALIZATION OF DELINQUENT
BEHAVIOR............................... 70
V. METHODOLOGY............................. 89
Introduction
Selection of Samples
Research Hypotheses
Research Instrument: The Questionnaire
Measurement of Variables
Statistical Evaluation
Administration of Questionnaire
VI. THE RESULTS............................. 148
Introduction
Hypotheses and Findings
Summary and Discussion of Findings
Analysis of Response to Rationalization
Items
viii
VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Page
156
Summary of the Investigation
Findings and Conclusions
Implications for Dealing with the
Youthful Offender
Suggestions for Future Research
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................... 220
APPENDIX-QUESTIONNAIRE ........................... 233
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Source and Number of Cases in Correctional
and Non-Correctional Settings ............. 95
2. Differences Between Groups for Delinquency
Involvement............................... 151
3. Differences Between Groups for Conformity
Values..................................... 153
4. Differences Between Groups for Success
Values..................................... 154
5. Differences Between Groups for Delinquency
Values...................................... 156
6. Differences Between Groups for Rationaliza
tion of Delinquent Behavior ............... 158
7. Differences Between Groups for Acceptance
of Responsibility for Difficulty.......... 159
8. Differences Between Groups for Delinquent
Associations............................... 161
9. Association of Delinquency Involvement
and Support of Conformity Values........... 163
10. Association of Delinquency Involvement
and Support of Success Values ............. 165
11. Association of Delinquency Involvement
and Support of Delinquency Values ......... 167
12. Association of Delinquency Involvement
and Rationalization of Delinquent
Behavior................................... 169
13. Association of Delinquency Involvement
and Acceptance of Responsibility for
Difficulty................................. 171
x
Table Page
14. Association of Rationalization of
Delinquent Behavior and Acceptance
of Responsibility for Difficulty ........ 173
15. Association of Delinquency Values and
Delinquent Associations ................. 175
16. Association of Rationalization of
Delinquent Behavior and Delinquent
Associations .................... 177
17. Rank Position of Rationalization Items
and Items Calculated to Check Consistency
of Response, Based on Percentage of Group
Support of Respective Items ........... 184
18. Correlation of Rank Position of Rationali
zation Items, Based on Percentage of
Group Support of Respective Items .... 190
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Research Hypotheses in a Comparison of
Groups for Significant Variables
Relative to Juvenile Delinquency........... 102
2. Research Hypotheses in a Measure of
Association Within Groups for
Significant Variables Relative to
Juvenile Delinquency....................... 106
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM
Statement of the Problem
Over the years theories relative to juvenile
delinquency have been numerous and varied, having been
derived from several disciplines. Sociologists have
gained valuable knowledge and understanding from the
contributions of several disciplines, and have evaluated
strengths and weaknesses of the various theoretical
developments, utilizing this evaluation as a guide in
formulating modern sociological theories of delinquency.
Unquestionably, extensive review of the
literature and synthesis of various theoretical
contributions provide heuristic value of no small
consequence. In fact, the hypotheses and research of the
present study rest upon this procedure. Hence, one
important aspect of the problem of the present investiga
tion is seen as that of relating theory to research
design.
Though there is a need today for research in the
general area of delinquency, the problem must be seen
first in the broader scope of reconciling certain
theoretical difficulties, rather than assuming that
the truth is to be found in moving directly to an
empirical "study of the facts."*
Sociological theories appear to take into
consideration several of the thought provoking
behaviorial characteristics of the complex phenomenon
of delinquency which often seem to have defied explanation
in the context of other theoretical approaches.
Modern sociological theories of delinquency have
provided several important considerations to be taken
into account. One consideration which has received
widespread attention is the importance of certain
value systems for delinquent behavior. A number of
theories which specifically concern delinquency and
values describe differential value systems of delinquents
and non-delinquents, lower-class and middle-class
delinquents, or lower-class and middle-class life in
general as it may influence delinquent behavior.
In reviewing these theories we will be
particularly interested in the functional significance
of values. In this respect, a consideration of paramount
^Claire Selltiz et al., Research Methods in
Social Relations (New Yorkt Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1962), Chapter 14.
importance can be seen in certain arguments suggesting
that the relative effectiveness of values may be
overshadowed by definitions in the form of apologies for
behavior, by rationalizations intended to excuse the
delinquent act. If such rationalizations are in fact
operative, there may be serious questions that the
delinquent is solely abiding by a "delinquent code," and
thus serious questions that he supports and engenders a
unique set of values foreign *-o the dominant society
and which supposedly destine him to a career of
delinquency. It is for this reason that the major
purpose of the present study is to evaluate the importance
of values relative to the rationalization process.
Discussion of conformity values, success values
and delinquency values may be found in several important
references in the literature. These specific value
systems will be considered relative to the rationalization
process.
A corollary question relevant to a consideration
of the rationalization process is the extent of the
delinquent's acceptance of responsibility for getting
into difficulty with the law and in relations with
others. Perhaps there is some relationship between
reliance upon rationalization of delinquent behavior and
reluctance to accept responsibility for difficulty.
4
Finally, two additional considerations to be
found in the literature which appear to be important
for delinquency concern a general status-deprivation
model and learning theory of cultural transmission via
differential association.
Theoretical Framework
In the present study it is recognized that
support for certain values in society operates as a
containment of delinquent behavior, while support for
certain other values tends to engender delinquent
behavior. However, in addition to values themselves,
the relative reliance upon rationalization of delinquent
behavior will be considered as paramount for the
delinquent act. So important, in fact, that for
extensive delinquency involvement it is rationalization
that remains as significantly associated with delinquency
rather than values.
Accordingly, it will be contended that for less
extensive delinquency involvement conformity values
and success values are inversely associated with
delinquency, and rationalizations and delinquency values
are directly associated with delinquency.
In the case of extensive delinquency involvement
especially the situation may be defined in terms of
rationalization and a relative denial of responsibility
for difficulty. The validity of certain values may
not be denied, but they may be ineffective in this
circumstance.
It will be contended further that delinquency
values and rationalizations of delinquent behavior may
be learned through differential association with people
who have engaged in violation of laws or conduct norms,
and that this process would more often characterize the
more extensively involved delinquent.
Finally, it will be suggested that extensive
reliance on rationalization of delinquent behavior may
theoretically stem from status-deprivation. Status-
deprivation need not be limited to lower-class youth,
though it is generally thought to be the case.
In the present study tests will be made to
determine possible significant differences between
"officially delinquent" youth who have become seriously
involved in delinquency and thus have come under
jurisdiction of the juvenile court and "officially non
delinquent" youth who have not come under such
jurisdiction, though they characterize some delinquency
involvement.
These tests will inquire into possible differences
in respect to the extent of delinquency, rationalization
of delinquent behavior, acceptance of responsibility for
difficulty, and support of conformity values, success
values, and delinquency values. There will‘also be a
test of differential associations.
Considering the probability of a continuous
range for these variables for an "officially delinquent"
or "officially non-delinquent" group, certain within
group associations of these variables will also be
tested.
Though status-deprivation is considered on a
theoretical basis, no attempt will be made to test it
directly.
Definitions
Delinquency is behavior committed by youth in
violation of the Welfare and Institutions Code which
can result in juvenile court jurisdiction if recognized
and official action taken.
The term "official delinquent" is used in this
study to denote youth who have come under the
jurisdiction of the juvenile court; the term "official
non-delinquent" is used to denote youth who have not
come under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court,
though some delinquency may have been committed.
Conformity values are values which represent
adherence to laws and conduct norms which are commonly
recognized by the dominant society to be important and
essential for the maintenance of society.
Success values are values which represent norms
of behavior commonly recognized by the dominant society
to be important and essential for success in life.
Delinquency values are values which represent
norms of behavior which deviate from norms specified by
the Welfare and Institutions Code, and which are
commonly recognized by the dominant society to be
deleterious to the maintenance of society.
Rationalization of delinquent behavior is the
operation of an ego-defense mechanism in supporting
reasons to justify delinquent behavior which would
otherwise be unacceptable to the individual.
Acceptance of responsibility for difficulty is
the willingness to place the blame on one's self for
such difficulty, rather than attributing the blame to
sources exterior to one's self.
Delinquent associations are forms of association
with people who have engaged in violation of laws or
conduct norms.
4
8
Propositions
1. As a group, "official delinquents" character
ize significantly more extensive delinquency involvement
than "official non-delinquents."
2. As a group, "official delinquents" support
conformity values to about the same extent as "official
non-delinquents."
3. As a group, "official delinquents" support
success values significantly less than "official non
delinquents ."
4. As a group, "official delinquents" support
delinquency values to about the same extent as "official
non-delinquents."
5. As a group, "official delinquents" character
ize significantly more rationalization of delinquent
behavior than “official non-delinquents."
6. As a group, "official delinquents" character
ize significantly less acceptance of responsibility for
difficulty than "official non-delinquents."
7. As a group, "official delinquents" have had
significantly more delinquent associations than
"official non-delinquents."
8. Within a low delinquency group (i.e.,
"official non-delinquents") there is a significant
inverse association between delinquency and support
of conformity values? within a high delinquency group
(i.e., "official delinquents") there is no significant
association between these variables.
9. Within a low delinquency group there is a
significant inverse association between delinquency and
support of success values; within a high delinquency
group there is no significant association between these
variables.
10. Within a low delinquency group there is a
significant association between delinquency and
support of delinquency values; within a high delinquency
group there is no significant association between these
variables.
11. Within both low and high delinquency groups
there is a significant association between delinquency
and rationalization of delinquent behavior.
12. Within both low and high delinquency groups
there is a significant association between delinquency
and acceptance of responsibility for difficulty.
13. Within both low and high delinquency groups
there is a significant inverse association between
rationalization of delinquent behavior and acceptance of
responsibility for difficulty.
10
14. Within both low and high delinquency groups
there is a significant association between delinquency
values and delinquent associations.
15. Within both low and high delinquency groups
there is a significant association between rationalization
of delinquent behavior and delinquent associations.
Significance of the Study
There is a need for further research based on
general theory which reconciles the several thought
provoking questions characterizing juvenile delinquency.
As will be mentioned in a review of the literature,
several current theories appear to be more applicable
to a better understanding of these questions than has
previously been the case in a number of earlier
theoretical considerations; basic research of these
current theories is desirable.
Though the primary significance of the present
investigation concerns questions in the area of the
basic research, there is also a significance in terms
of certain implications for dealing with the youthful
offender.
11
Organization of the Study
The present chapter sets forth the problem under
study, viz., that of evaluating the importance of
values and defenses for behavior in accounting for
delinquency.
Initially described is the beneficial effect
which contributions of several disciplines provide in
formulating modern delinquency theory, insofar as
theories found to be less useful may encourage exploration
of other theoretical possibilities. Thus the problem
is seen in the broader scope of evaluating theory, both
sociological and non-sociological, and relating such
evaluation to research questions. Several important
considerations may be derived from the literature which
have special relevance for a “delinquent ideology."
The theoretical framework stimulating the present
research is mentioned at this point.
In respect to these considerations, definitions
and propositions are also presented in this chapter,
though the actual research hypotheses will be presented
in the chapter on methodology. The present chapter
concludes with a brief statement on the significance of
the study.
12
The following chapter will he an extensive
review of major types of delinquency theory, critically
evaluating weaknesses in some of the conventional
theories, including certain sociological theories.
This review is considered to be essential to the present
investigation. Chapter III will deal with important
questions about juvenile delinquency which modern theory
must take into account.
Chapter IV will cover discussion of the defense
mechanism of rationalization and its importance for
delinquency, this being a major area of inquiry for the
present study.
Methodology and results will be covered in
Chapters V and VI respectively, in which case the
actual research hypotheses and collection of data
procedures will be described in detail.
Th'3 final chapter will summarize the over-all
investigation, the findings, suggested tentative
proposals for future research, and possible procedure
for dealing with the youthful offender.
CHAPTER II
THEORIES OF DELINQUENCY: A REVIEW OF
THE LITERATURE
Over the years one theme which traditionally
has run through a vast majority of studies concerning
crime and delinquency is that criminals or delinquents
constitute some kind of typology based on constitutional,
morphological or personality characteristics.
Biological Theories
From the early studies of Lombroso^ which
emphasized constitutional factors to the more recent
2 3
morphological studies of Hooton, Sheldon, and the
4
Gluecks we may observe the attempt to classify the
■^Cesare Lombroso, Crime, Its Causes and Remedies,
trans. H.P. Horton (Boston's Little,Brown, 1912).
2
Ernest A. Hooton, Crime and the Man (Cambridger
Harvard University Press, 1939).
3
William H. Sheldon, et al., The Varieties of
Human Physique (New Yorks Harper, 1940); William H.
Sheldon, Varieties of Delinquent Youth (New Yorks
Harper, 1949),
4
Sheldon Glueck and Eleanor Glueck, Physique and
Delinquency (New Yorks Harper and Brothers, 1956).
13
14
the offender by biological type of one form or another.
5
However, ever since Goring's statistical
studies of physical measurements failed to differentiate
adequately criminals from non-criminals there has been
a serious challenge to explanations based on physical
characteristics.
Numerous studies have been made to identify
physical defects of delinquents, or if the results have
been questionable, the attempt has been made occasionally
to compare physical types with certain diseases in order
g
to explain delinquency.
The basic principle of these biologistic
explanations is that the origin of crime and delinquency
has something to do with the biological or physical
characteristics of the offender, characteristics
generally believed to be inherited, or at least it is
strongly implied that this is the case.
Certainly this was a break with the earlier
Classical School of criminology which attributed a more
rationalistic, hedonistic explanation for law violation.
5
Charles Goring, The English Convict; A
Statistical Study (Londons His Majesty's Stationery
Office, 1913).
6
W. A. Willemse, Constitutional Types in
Delinquency (Londons Kegan, Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1932),
p. 175.
15
However, there have been serious weaknesses in
the basic premises of the biological approach. For one
thing, it has never been clear as to what exactly is
inherited. Foxe has made the point rather well in his
summary of suggested factors which range all the way
from some kind of taint or determinant natural pre-
7
disposition to alleged unstable nervous system.
A more telling criticism may be seen in the now
classic evaluation by the late Edwin H. Sutherland:
It is obviously impossible for criminality
to be inherited as such, for crime is defined by
acts of legislature and these vary independently
of the biological inheritage of the violator of
the law.8
Ashley-Montagu has also been very critical of any
attempt to explain behavior defined by society as
illegal or unacceptable in terms of biological factors
which vary independently from social influence. He
sees no point in the circular reasoning that biological
inferiority causes crime and therefore such inferiority
must be present by virtue of the fact the individual is
7
Arthur Foxe, "Heredity and Crime," Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology. XXXVI (May-June, 1945),
11-16.
0
Edwin H. Sutherland and Donald R. Cressey,
Principles of Criminology (Chicago: Lippencott, 1960),
p. 103.
9
judged "criminal."
16
Personality Theories
Personality theories also refer to some
identification of a criminal or delinquent typology,
though in most cases there is a shift in focus from
biological to uniquely psychological characteristics.
Generally, psychiatrists, psychoanalysts and psychologists
describe the offender as possessing some character or
personality disorder resulting from deleterious inter
personal relations after one is born; this is sometimes
referred to as the psychogenic school.
In a few theories, however, there appears to be
an overlap with the biologistic explanation. Thompson,
for example, contends that criminal and delinquent
behavior basically result from certain hereditary
factors, and that environment and interpersonal
relations play a role merely in inhibiting or augmenting
the manifestation of psychopathic personality.^®
9
M. F. Ashley-Montagu, "The Biologist Looks at
Crime," Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science. CCXVII (September. 1941). 46.
George N. Thompson, The Psychopathic Delinquent
and criminal (Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas,
1953), pp. 10-20.
17
Largely influenced by Freud, such leading
exponents of the psychogenic school as Aichhorn,^
12 13
Friedlander, and Redl see delinquent behavior as
resulting from faulty ego and super-ego development in
the formative years, a failure to cope with reality or
to control impulsivity.
One of the difficulties of the personality trait
approach is that at present there is no conclusive
evidence there is a criminal or delinquent personality
type or that there are any traits or qualities which
are the unique property of the offender.
Schuessler and Cressey analyzed 113 studies
which had used some 30 different tests to access the
personalities of delinquents and criminals. These tests
measured such traits as emotional maturity and stability,
but the results were equivocal. There was no conclusive
evidence that the law violator could be significantly
differentiated from the general population norms as far
■^August Aichhorn, Wayward Youth (New Yorks
Viking Press, 1935).
12
Kate Friedlander, The Psycho-Analytic Approach
to Delinquency (New Yorks International Universities
Press, 1947).
13
Fritz Redl and David Wineman, Children Who
Hate (Glencoe, Illinoiss The Free Press, 1951).
18
14
as personality traits were concerned.
Interestingly enough, some investigators have
interpreted a failure of personality tests to
differentiate delinquents from non-delinquents as merely
a failure in testing devices, and that the results
should be rejected because they are not consistent with
clinical impression. Zakolski, for example, came to
this conclusion when his use of a series of personality
tests failed to differentiate delinquents from non-
15
delinquents. Boynton and Walsworth, in studying
personality characteristics of delinquent girls used
eight rather sophisticated and well-known personality
tests and, failing to differentiate between his sample
and the general population on seven of the eight tests,
concluded that there was an “amazing lack of difference
16
. . . between two such logically different groups.-
14
Karl F. Schuessler and Donald R. Cressey,
“Personality Characteristics of Criminals," American
Journal of Sociology, LV (March, 1950), 476-484.
15
F. C. Zakolski, "Studies in Delinquency?
Personality Structure of Delinquent Boys," Journal of
Genetic Psychology. LXXIV (May, 1949), 109-117.
^P.L. Boynton and B. M. Walsworth, "Emotionality
Test Scores of Delinquent and Non-Delinquent Girls,"
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XXXVIII
(May, 1943), 87-92.
19
They felt that little faith could be placed in their
test instruments, as they did not provide empirical
evidence of sufficient validity. A second interpretation
conceded that delinquent behavior may not necessarily be
17
associated with personality aberrations.
While a question of test validity is always a
legitimate one, there is the suggestion of possible bias
in favor of a delinquent typology.
Lowry's critical evaluation has been stated with
some conviction, in the following:
Despite extensive research and many ingenious
efforts to delimit them, there are no such entities
as "delinquent" or "criminal" personalities. To be
sure, there are delinquents and criminals and,
naturally, each has a personality, normal or ab
normal, but all attempts to establish a distinctive
delinquent or criminal type have eventually come to
naught.18
Although in recent years the personality trait
approach has been by far the most prominent psychological
theory of delinquent and criminal behavior, it is by no
means the only theory.
A persistently maintained interpretation of
delinquent and criminal behavior may be seen in the view
17Ibid.
18Lawson G. Lowry, "Delinquent and Criminal
Personalities," Personality and the Behavior Disorders,
Vol. II, ed. J. McV. Hunt (New York: The Ronald Press,
1944), p. 794.
20
that such behavior results from a form of neurosis.
19
In the early work of Alexander and Staub,
20 21 22
Alexander and Healy, Aichhorn, and Menninger, the
offender's deviant behavior is explained in terms of
unconscious needs to be punished, displaced aggression,
or various compulsions based on unconscious needs.
The views of these prominent psychiatrists have
been modified somewhat over the years, as research and
critical commentary have raised serious question as to
any necessary relationship of crime or delinquency to the
psychodynamics of neuroses. Unconscious conflicts may
be expressed in symptom formation or "acted out" in
manifest deviant behavior. However, it has never been
entirely clear why a given individual will manifest the
unconscious conflict in the form of law violation rather
than suppressing the phyehic energy, which leads to
anxiety and symptom formation.
Also, the proposition that the neurotic
delinquent or criminal is seeking self-punishment is
19
P. Alexander and H. Staub, The Criminal, The
Judge and The Public (New York: Macmillan, 1931).
20
P. Alexander and W. Healy, Roots of Crime
(New York: Knopf, 1935).
21
Aichhorn, op. cit.
22
K. A. Menninger, Man Against Himself (New
York; Harcourt Brace, 1938).
21
vitiated somewhat by the fact that most offenders
spend considerable energy and effort in avoiding the
law and social sanction.
Moreover, the major share of offenders may not
actually be neurotic. As early as 1937, Bromberg and
Thompson found that in a random sample of 7,100 persons
who were convicted over a three-year period in the Court
of General Sessions, New York City, 82.3 per cent were
reported to be normal and only 6.7 per cent were
23
neurotic.
Sociologists and psychiatrists are perhaps in
greatest disagreement over the nature of "compulsive
crimes" as a form of neurotic behavior. Cressey, for
example, has argued that if compulsive behavior is
motivated "from within," as the psychiatrist describes
an irresistable impulse, then such "non-motivated"
behavior could not result in the actor being held
24
criminally responsible. However, this does not deny
the deleterious effect of such behavior. As for the
case of the youthful offender, it is not purely a
23
Walter Bromberg and Charles B. Thompson, "The
Relation of Psychosis, Mental Defect and Personality
Types to Crime," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology,
XXVIII (May, 1937), 1-22.
24
Donald R. Cressey, "The Differential Association
Theory and Compulsive Crimes," Journal of Criminal Law
and Criminology. XLIV (July-August, 1954), 29-41.
22
legal question, and evaluation of a necessary relation
ship between neurosis and delinquency is even less
clear.
Discussion
For the most part biological theories are not
considered as adequate explanation for law violation by
authorities in the field today. The research has been
conducted for a good many years, and the attempt to
identify a delinquent or criminal typology on this
basis has not been successful.
However, there is considerably less consensus
in the case of personality theories. Personality
factors may play a role in law violation, but it is
not really clear what this role is. Admittedly,
because there is a special significance in the develop
mental aspects of personality, it is very difficult to
evaluate. Apparently empirical verification of the
relationship between deviant behavior and personality
malformation has been a formidable task, and the results
25
have been discouraging.
25
Michael Hakeem, "A Critique of the Psychiatric
Approach to Crime and Correction," Law and Contemporary
Problems. XXXIII(Autumn, 1958), 650-682.
23
Nonetheless, there are some Very prominent
investigators who are presently optimistic that criminals
and delinquents can be identified on the basis of certain
psychological problems.
Rather than simply rejecting personality theories,
a number of sociologists have taken the position that a
considerable amount of crime and most delinquency can be
explained on the basis of sociological factors. For
example, sociologist Walter C. Reckless' "containment
theory" is applicable to the major share of crime and
delinquency, and not intended to account for the minimal
cases of organic impairments such as brain damage, forms
26
of compulsive behavior, or organized crime.
In recent years especially sociological analysis
has received increasing recognition, and a considerable
amount of sociological theory has been offered as an
alternative to the biological or personality approach.
Sociological Theories
The principle difference between sociological
theories and biological or personality theories is that
the etiologic factors cover a broad scope of persons and
26
Walter C. Reckless, "A New Theory of Delinquency
and Crime," Federal Probation, XXV (December, 1961),
42.
24
environmental entities affecting behavior. The focal
point of analysis goes far beyond the individual's
characteristics, and sees him as significantly affected
by the environment of which he is an integral part. This
approach asserts the relevance of beliefs, behavior,
experiences of others, neighborhoods, communities,
social strata, and even total societies.
27
Ever since Enrico Fern m the late nineteenth
century called attention to environmental factors
relating to law violation sociologists have been
evaluating situational problems in society which may be
formulated in systematic statements about delinquency.
A basic model which has been relied upon by
sociologists describes a kind of equilibrium theory of
society, in which theoretically society in a static
state tends toward social organization. There would be
appropriate goals and available means of achieving them.
There would be consistency in values and norms, and
social structure and personality would be closely
identified. Status positions and role expectations
would be clearly visible and fulfilled without undue
difficulty. Thus deviant behavior would be dysfunctional
for both the individual and the social structure— there
27
Enrico Ferri, Criminal Sociology (New Yorks
Appleton and Co., 1896).
25
would appear to be no reason for deviant behavior.
Society of course is not static, and its
dynamic quality is manifest in social change, innovation,
cultural diffusion, various forms of role discrepancy,
and lack of integration. Norms and values may be
inconsistent. Cultural goals may be accepted but
institutional means may not be readily available to all
status positions, and illegitimate means may be
innovated to achieve these goals.
In modern sociological investigation of
delinquent behavior a recent emphasis has been focused
on a particular aspect of the above model, viz., the
importance of values as they may constitute important
influence for the behavior of the individual.
There is general agreement among sociologists
that values have definite relevance for normative
consensus in social structure, and if certain values in
the essential area of conformity to law and conduct
norms are adequately internalized and supported, this
may operate as a form of inner containment of deviant
behavior. Inner containment in this sense does not
refer to control of impulse, as in the typical psychiatric
description, but rather to support of values received
via the socialization process. Such an evaluation is
consistent with accepted sociological and psychological
26
28
explanations of normal behavior.
Reckless points out that inner containment
coupled with important external controls of the social
system are vitally important for preventing deviant
behavior, and the failure thereof, especially lack of
inner containment, may account for two-thirds to three-
forths of officially reported cases, as well as the
29
unreported cases of crime and delinquency.
There is also general agreement that delinquent
behavior is learned in interaction with other people,
as many another form of behavior is learned, and that
an important part of this process does indeed concern
the internalization of certain values which provide
definitions revelant to violation of laws and conduct
norms.
This aspect of delinquency is often referred to
as the "cultural transmission theory.” The juvenile
delinquent has internalized the wrong values supposedly
due to his unique cultural experience. He supports the
wrong definitions of acceptable behavior, wrong because
28
Cf. Theodore M. Newcomb, Social Psychology
(New Yorks Holt-Dryden, 1950), p. 273; James C. Coleman,
Abnormal Psychology and .Modern Life (New York: Scott,
Foresman, 1950), p. 85.
29
Reckless, op. cit., pp. 42-43.
they conflict with standards considered important and
30
essential for the larger society. Shaw and McKay's
31
early study of delinquency areas, Tannenbaum's
32
discussion of community influence, and Sutherland's
theory of "differential association" all describe a
general cultural transmission theory.
From this general theoretical framework of
values learned within a social system, there have been
several sociological propositions concerning the
importance of values for delinquency.
In most cases sociological theories describe
a set of intervening values which not only structure
the perception and behavior of delinquents, but also
reflect socio-cultural conditions.
■These socio-cultural conditions have been
evaluated and conceptualized in propositions ranging
from the broader level of generalization pertaining to
the total society to that of significant sub-cultural
variables such as social class, community, and peer
30
Clifford R. Shaw and Henry D. McKay, Social
Factors in Juvenile Delinquency, Vol. II of the National
Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement, Report
on the Causes of Crime (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1931).
31
Frank Tannenbaum, Crime and Conformity (Boston
Ginn and Co., 1938).
32
Sutherland, op. cit.
28
group. Generally, discussion of the total society
has inevitably led to* sub-cultural analysis, by virtue
of the heterogeneous character of society and the
differential delinquency patterns of groups within the
society.
For purposes of discussion we may briefly
review these various sociological theories, beginning
with those of broader generalization concerning the
total society to those concerned more with sub-cultural
considerations. It may be observed that the focal
point throughout rests on discussion of values and
their relevance for delinquency.
Delinquent Society
Basically the argument is that there are many
common values which are projected throughout society
which account for delinquency. More often than not,
reference is made to emphasis on success which exercises
such a strong influence that it tends to overshadow
moral standards and renders them relatively ineffective,
and thus value conflicts diminish social control. Such
theories posit that certain anti-social values frequently
receive open or tacit approval in the adult world which
surrounds the juvenile. For example, white-collar
crime, anti-trust violations, dishonest repair service,
and gambling are some of the illustrations offered to
29
describe resultant anti-social behavior which may be
erroneously defined as successful enterprise.
Rhodes has long contended that official crime and
delinquency and non-criminal exploitation will tend to
reflect criminogenic elements in the general culture, and
that a considerable number of offenses can be attributed
33
basically to the culture's inherent qualities. This
point of view has also been emphaiszed in discussion by
34 . 3 5 ...
Bell and by Porterfield. A rather extreme criticism
can be seen in the evaluation by Taft:
Given a culture, complex, materialistic, admiring
the successful in a competitive struggle but permit-
ing many to fall short of success, relative
failures will collect in its slums and there develop
patterns of behavior hostile to the interests of the
general community, but in harmony with the community* s
basic ideals . . . create thus a great gulf between
precept and practice.
A closer analysis of this general cultural
approach to values and law violations reveals variations
on the theme of a "delinquent society."
As mentioned in the foregoing, one view has been
that due to emphasis on success there is tacit approval
33
H. T. Rhodes, The Criminals We Deserve
(London: Methnen and Co., 1937).
34
Danxel Bell, "Crime as an American Way of Life,"
Antioch Review, XIII (Summer, 1953), 131-154.
35
A. L. Porterfield, Mid-Century Crime in Our
Culture (Fort Worth, Texas: Texas University Press, 1954).
36
Donald R. Taft, Criminology, A Cultural Inter
pretation (New York: MacMillan, 1950), pp. 239-240.
30
of criminal or delinquent values, that supposedly dis
honesty is to be expected under circumstances of
handicap or failure and the perceived opportunity to
"succeed" through illicit means.
A second view has been that certain values
especially important for success, such as materialism,
independence and aggressiveness, status striving,
resistance to authority and control, are not in them
selves criminal or delinquent, but if they are strongly
supported there is a tendency for individuals to be
37
predisposed to violate laws and conduct norms.
A third variation of the general cultural
approach has been that due to differential success the
needs of certain individuals or groups tend to alienate
them from contact with legitimate norms and that
accordingly they are more apt to support criminal values.
Finally, an additional variation of this
approach is not infrequently seen in discussion of
double-standards and contradiction between "official
values" and "unofficial values," both of which it is
37 .
Milton Barron, The Juvenile in Delinquent
Society (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1954^, pp. 203-208.
38
Harry Shulman, "Cultural Aspects of Criminal
Responsibility," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology*
XLIII (November-December, 1953), 323-327.
31
39
contended are learned throughout society.
One thing all variations of a theory of a
delinquent society seem to have in common is the strong
implication that society is responsible for individual
delinquency to a far greater extent than the individual
freely determines for himself.
In a general sense it seems reasonable that
certain values may provide definitions relative to
violations of law or conduct norms. How evenly
distributed such values may be in society and to what
extent the diffusion of such values may represent ethos
of modern life is not clearly stated in these general
cultural theories.
Obviously we do not live in a delinquent society
in which delinquency is the standard rather than the
exception.
39
Robert S. Lynd, "Assumptions in American Life,"
Knowledge for What? (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1939), pp. 60-62; Jessie Bernard, American
Community Behavior (New York: Dryden Press, 1949),
pp. 470-473; Robert K. Merton, "Social Structure and
Anomie," Social Theory and Social Structure (Glencoe,
Illinois? The Free Press, 1949), pp. 147-148; Mildred
Dorr and Robert J. Havighurst, "Methods of Studying
Values," Adolescent Character and Personality, ed. R. J.
Havighurst and Hilda Taba (New Yorks John Wiley and
Sons, 1949), pp. 289-290.
32
There is, however, some evidence of illegal
behavior in society which does not necessarily result in
strong moral indigation, behavior sometimes referred to
as "folk crime," as for example in the case of white-
40
collar crime or traffic-law violations.
Usually the delinquent society theories have
been considered by most investigators to be largely of
heuristic value. The broad generalization of these
theories does not lend itself to empirical verification.
Neither are differential delinquency rates throughout
the society specified nor accounted for. However, the
impact of the general social structure of society is a
factor of importance and warrants consideration.
Sociologists have more traditionally considered
such broad cultural explanations as they may be im
plemented within the theoretical model of a dynamic
society in varying degrees of organization, as mentioned
earlier. Hence, we have several theories of social
disorganization which purport to explain delinquency in
modern society.
Social Disorganization
Social disorganization theories of delinquency
describe problems in the social structure which result in
40
Cf. Lawrence H. Ross, "Traffic Law Violations
A Folk Crime," Social Problems, VIII (Winter, 1960-1961),
231-241.
33
loss of social control; this has been interpreted as a
breakdown in traditional moral standards.
In delinquency studies the cause of this
problem is often traced to two broad social processes,
viz., the loss or relative absence of function for
traditional groups in the larger society, and severe
value conflicts of modern life, both of these processes
resulting from "status deprivation.” It is pointed out
that moral standards and social control are more easily
sustained when group life has a function for individual
self-fulfillment.
This observation of structural problems in
society, plus a number of sociological studies which
illustrate that on the basis of official statistics
lower-class youth are disproportionately involved in
41
delinquency, have understandably led to delinquency
theories which concern sub-cultural analysis of social-
class and status deprivation, as well as specific
evaluation of values relative to status position in
society.
41
W. Lloyd Warner and Paul S. Lunt, The Social
Life of a Modern Community (New Havens Yale University
Press, 1941), p. 376; August B. Hollingshead, "Selected
Characteristics of Classes in a Middle Western Community,"
American Sociological Review, XII (June, 1947),
393-395.
34
Porterfield's early investigation of delinquency,
for example, makes several explicit references to
lower socioeconomic status and status deprivation.^
43
However, it is more likely that it was Whyte's
participant observation studies in the early 1940's
which gave the greatest impetus to sub-cultural analysis
of status position and delinquent behavior.
Status Deprivation _
Some lower-class youth may experience upward
social mobility through such avenues as educational
achievement. A number will accept environmental
adversities and thus will accept their status as their
accustomed pattern of life. These boys do not become
involved in much delinquency and tend to isolate them
selves from law-violating acquaintances. They are
usually referred to in the literature as the "good"
44
boys in the high-delinquency areas.
42
August L. Porterfield, Youth in Trouble (Port
Worth, Texas: The Leo Potishman Foundation, 1946),
pp. 46, 53-68, 100.
43
Cf. William P. Whyte, Street Corner Society
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1943).
44
Walter c. Reckless, et al, "Self-Concept as an
Insulator Against Delinquency," American Sociological
Review.XXI (December, 1956), 744-746; Prank R. Scarpitti,
et al. . , "The 'Good' Boy in a High Delinquency Area Four
Years Later," American Sociological Review, XXV (August,
1960), 555-558.
35
It is the youth who can not make either of these
adjustments who suffers from feelings of status depriva
tion. According to Cohen, the lower-class boy who
wants to achieve many of the same general cultural goals
as middle-class youth, but whose environment has not
trained him in techniques of discipline, hardwork and
delayed gratification, lashes out against middle-class
standards. He rejects conventional authority figures,
and engages in non-utilitarian, malicious and negativistic
45
behavior in his attempt to resolve his dilemma. His
behavior tends to characterize a kind of reaction
formation to middle-class success values, of which
Cohen specifies as the virtue of ambition, individual
responsibility, acquisition of skills and positive
achievement, delayed gratification and planning,
cultivation of personality, control of aggressive be
havior, wholesome and constructive recreation, and
46
respect for property.
According to this description, the lower-class
delinquent literally turns these middle-class values
upside down. For example, if middle-class.values stress
45
Albert K. Cohen, Delinquent Boys: The Culture
of the Gang. (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1955),
pp. 25-31.
46Ibid., pp. 88-91.
36
the importance of education and moderate behavior, then
his rejection of these values is seen in rebellion
against school and willingness to engage in aggressive
or even violent behavior. Thus a kind of countervailing
delinquent sub-culture develops, whereby conventional
values are denied and a set of values which represent
the inversion of conventional values is supported.
Moreover, if Cohen is to be consistent, the
inference is that these values which are antithetical
to the dominant middle-class must be considered "good"
by the delinquent. Thus, in lieu of status achievement
via legitimate middle-class standards, these standards
are denied and new ones are established and constitute
a delinquent sub-culture. This theory of transvaluation
has stimulated much interest in general sociology, as
47
well as interest in the implications for delinquency.
48
Taking the lead from Cohen, Cloward and Ohlin
have also discussed the "means-end disjunction" in their
theory of "opportunity structure." These investigators
have described different kinds of sub-cultures. In some
47
Cf. Merton, op. cit., pp. 140-156.
48 .
Richard A. Cloward and Lloyd E. Ohlin,
Delinquency and Opportunity (Glencoe, Illinois: The
Free Press, 1960).
37
lower-class areas there is integration of delinquency
and legitimate values and norms, a delinquent sub
culture, and here it is possible for the status
deprived youth to learn patterns of delinquency by
reference to delinquent models of behavior, much in the
manner Sutherland described this general process in
his early theory of differential association. In
contrast a "conflict" sub-culture may lack delinquency
or criminal patterns as well as lacking legitimate
conventional opportunities, and with both avenues closed,
rebellion may take the form of violent gang fighting.
These delinquents do not acquire the delinquency skills
to go on to "successful" adult crime, as in the case
of youth from the delinquent sub-culture.
The "conflict" sub-culture is disorganized, and
as such does not develop integration of carriers of
delinquent and conventional values. Moreover, social
control is usually weak in such areas. Finally, Cloward
and Ohlin describe the double failure of a "retreatist"
sub-culture, whereby individuals fail to achieve success
goals, which they have not renounced, either due to
internalized prohibitions (conformity values) or because
of socially structured barriers. The attempted re
solution of this dilemma is seen in the use of
49
narcotics.
Contrasting these theories has been the recent
50
work of Miller. Rather than viewing delinquency as
a reaction to cultural patterns of the middle-class
world, he sees delinquency as the by-product of certain
values or "focal concerns" of lower-class culture in
general. Thus, delinquency is conformity to lower-
class culture which places value on such personal
qualities and experiences as "trouble," "toughness,"
"smartness," "excitement," "fate," and "autonomy."
None of these are intrinsically delinquent but their
support is conducive to delinquent behavior. Lower-
class culture is seen by Miller as a very old and
distinctive tradition with integrity of its own— not
the inverse function of middle-class culture.
In addition to these lower-class "focal concerns,"
Miller has worked closely with Kvaraceus in identifying
certain middle-class "focal concerns," such as
ambition and planning, descriptions which are very
49
Cloward and Ohlin, op. cit., pp. 161-186.
50
Walter B. Miller, "Lower-Class Culture as a
Generating Milieu of Gang Delinquency," Journal of
Social Issues, XIV (1958), 5-19; Walter B. Miller,
"Implications of Urban Lower-Class Culture for Social
Work," Social Service Review, XXXIII (September, 1959),
219-236.
39
51
similar to class components discussed by Cohen.
Interestingly enough, Miller's emphasis on the
relative isolation of lower-class and middle-class value
systems does not appear to be consistent with his
discussion of what it is about lower-class life which
accounts for delinquency. In fact, a closer analysis of
his discussion of lower-class "focal concerns" reveals
a sizable reference to status-deprivation. He points
out that there are certain problems of adjustment for
lower-class youth, and that lower-class "focal concerns"
become intensified to prove masculine status identifica
tion in the face of a typically lower-class female-
centered household, as well as resulting from frustration
due to discrepancy between middle-class aspirations for
status achievement and personal shortcomings or
52
structured pressures inhibiting these aspirations.
Certainly consideration of status-deprivation
and the "means-ends discrepancy" is to be seen in
several theories in one form or another.
5^William C. Kvaraceus, Walter B. Miller, et al.,
Delincruent Behavior; Culture and the Individual
(Washington, D.C.: National Education Association,
Juvenile Delinquency project, 1201 Sixteenth Street,
N.W., 1959), p. 77.
52 .,,
Miller, op. cit., pp. 13-14; Kvaraceus and
Miller, op. cit.. p. 72.
40
Another interesting example can be seen in the
53
recent work of Bloch and Niederhoffer. initially
they contend that delinquency is a form of adjustment
characteristic of adolescence rather than a class-
linked response to status-frustration. However, when
they inquire into the distribution of delinquency in
the social structure they concede that in spite of
class similarities the problem of delinquency appears to
be more serious in the lower-class where delinquent
acts "receive strong sanctioned support and approval.
In the final analysis they imply a kind of delinquent
sub-culture, and they tend to shift from the problem
of adolescence to the discontent arising from dis
crepancy between aspirations and opportunity for
55
upward social mobility.
Discussion
The foregoing sociological theories have
occupied an area of central interest for modern
investigators of delinquency. As may be noted, there
53
Herbert Bloch and Arthur Niederhoffer, The
Gang; A Study in Adolescent Behavior (New Yorks
Philosophical Library, 1958).
54
Ibid., p. 15.
55Ibid., p. 109.
41
are some differences of opinion indicated. However,
a synthesis of these theoretical developments does
appear to provide a general framework of understanding.
Because of difficulties within the social
structure, status-deprivation may be significantly
relevant for certain values which in turn are important
for delinquency.
However, there are specific aspects of these
several theoretical presentations which are not
satisfactorily developed. Indeed, there are some
important points requiring further evaluation and
clarification. They are as followss (1) What is
delinquency? (2) What are the important aspects of
values for delinquency? (3) Are there differential
class value systems which have relevance for delinquency?
CHAPTER III
SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF SOCIOLOGICAL
THEORIES OF DELINQUENCY
Delinquency
The problem of defining delinquency seems to
stem from two major sources. In part, some variation
in evaluation of delinquency reflects some difference
of opinion in evaluation of adult crime. In the case
of adults it has been necessary to define what is a
criminal act and what constitutes a criminal status.
Consistent with our legal system, criminal lawyers
insist that crime does not exist until proven in court
and the defendent found guilty.^"
However, insofar as criminologists are primarily
interested in studying human behavior which incidentally
is in violation of the law, they see crime defined in
statutes before it is apparent in any given person.
Thus, criminologists have defined crime as an act or
Walter C. Reckless, The Crime Problem (New
Yorkt Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1961), p. 26.
42
43
2
omission prohibited by criminal law. Taking this
position that crime is an act which is punishable has
led to investigation of behavior which may result in
court action. An added consideration has included
behavior which is socially injurious, both in the
case of punishable legal offenses and in violation of
conduct norms, the latter of which are of course not
3
crimes in the technical sense. Such evaluation often
refers to the discrepancy between the number of offenses,
apprehensions, and the variable ratio of charges before
the court.^
The criminologist naturally has neither the
right nor the responsibility to judge who is criminal,
and it is the conviction in a criminal court under a
5
statute which creates a criminal status. However, m
2
William L. Marshall and William L. Clark,
"The Legal Definition of Crime and Criminals," The
Sociology of Crime and Delinquency, ed. Marvin E.
Wolfgang, Leonard Savitz, and Norman Johnston (New York:
John Wiley and Sons, 1962), p. 14.
3
Cf. Thorsten Sellin, Culture Conflict and Crime
(New York: Social Service Research Council, 1938),
pp. 63-70.
4
Thorsten Sellin, "The Basis of a Crime Index,"
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, XX (September,
1931), 346.
5
Paul W. Tappan, Crime, Justice and Causation
(New York: McGraw Hill, I960), Chapter 1.
44
the attempt to understand behavior of people who get
into trouble with the law, various kinds of behavior
have been considered? behavior which results in court
action, behavior which can result in court action, and
certain violations of conduct norms, in which case the
behavior is considered to be socially injurious.
Unfortunately, it is not always clear as to what specific
behavior is "criminal" if the party in question has not
been found guilty; neither is there complete agreement
g
as to what specific behavior is socially injurious.
It is for these reasons that the social
scientist has not always been certain as to an adequate
set of criteria in evaluating and defining crime, and it
appears that this problem has been carried over in
evaluation of delinquency as well.
However, probably a more salient problem in
delinquency identification stems from the constructive
philosophy of the juvenile court. Rightfully so, the
juvenile court does not conduct a criminal investigation
or criminal proceeding of determining the "guilt" or
"innocence" of the offender as such, but rather intervenes
on behalf of youth to assist in their adjustment and
g
Paul W. Tappan, "Who is the Criminal,"
American Sociological Review. XII (February, 1947),
96-102.
7
possible rehabilitation.
45
Therefore the laws in most states are written
rather broadly to include acts considered a crime if
committed by an adult, and such acts which are considered
uniquely serious for juveniles, such as truancy, running
away, immorality, and incorrigibility. The law is
written in such a way as to provide considerable
latitude in defining behavior which warrants inter-
g
vention by the juvenile court. Note the following
provision of the California Welfare and Institutions
Coder
Any person under the age of 21 years who
persistently or habitually refuses to obey the
responsible and proper orders or directions of his
parents, guardian, custodian or school authorities,
or who is beyond the control of such person, or any
person who is habitually truant from school within
the meaning of any law of this State, or who from
any cause is in danger of leading an idle, dis
solute, lewd or immoral life (italics mine) is
within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court which
may adjudge such person to be a ward of the court.®
For this reason a "delinquent" then is any child
engaging in behavior prohibited by law in terms of
7
Walter A. Friedlander, Introduction to Social
Welfare (Englewood Cliffs, New Jerseys Prentice-Hall,
1961), pp. 422-423.
g
Earl Raab and Jaeger Selznick, Major Social
Problems (New Yorks Harper and Row, 1964), p. 36.
9
Welfare and Institutions Code. Annotated of
the State of California (San FranciscosBancroft-Whitney
Co., 1962), Chapter 2, Article 5, Sec. 601, p. 196.
46
specific offenses or engaging in behavior indicative of
serious difficulty, whether or not he comes to the
attention of the legal authorities.^ Therefore it is
not surprising that there has been serious question of
relying upon official statistics.^
Moreover, the several important studies of
"hidden delinquency" have stimulated an increasing
interest in "self-reported behavior" rather than official
12
statistics. This kind of evaluation has been very
useful for inquiry into delinquency involvement of both
lower-class and middle-class youth.
Richard I. Perlman, "Antisocial Behavior of
the Mancr in the United States," Federal Probation,
XXVIII (December, 1964), 23-30.
11Cf. Sophia M. Robison, Can Delinquency Be
Measured? (Mew Yorks Columbia University Press, 1936);
Clement S. Mihanovitch, "Who is the Juvenile Delinquent?"
Social Science, XX (1947), 45-50; Jeremiah Shallov,
"Youth and Crime," Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, CXCIV (November, 1937),
79-86.
12
Cf. Austin L. Porterfield, "Delinquency and
Its Outcome in Court and College," American Journal
of Sociology, XLIX (November, 1943), 199-208; Austin
L. Porterfield, Youth in Trouble, op. cit.; F. J.
Murphy, M. Shirley, and H. L. Witmer, "The Incidence of
Hidden Delinquency," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
XVI (October, 1946), 685-696; James F. ShorfariS F. -
Ivan Nye, "Reported Behavior as a Criterion of Deviant
Behavior?" Social Problems. V (Winter, 1957-1958),
207-213; James F. Short and F. Ivan Nye, "Extent of Un
recorded Juvenile Delinquency," Journal of Criminal Law,
Criminology and Police Science, XLIX (November-December,
1958), 296-302.
47
Accordingly, for theoretical purposes a useful
and practical definition of delinquent behavior is as
follows:
Delinquency is behavior committed by youth in
violation of the Welfare and Institutions Code
which can result in juvenile court jurisdiction if
recognized and official action taken.
Social Values
There has been an increasing optimism that the
values approach to juvenile delinquency is a useful
one, though several questions remain regarding the
functional significance of values for this phenomenon.
It seems apparent enough that values lie
behind the mores and public opinion in society, thus
defining the sacred and profane of behavior and that
this is no less true for delinquent behavior.
However, modern sociological theories of
delinquency which attribute this behavior to the
functional significance of values may be interpreted in
the light of not one but several theoretical consider
ations. These may be outlined in both socio-
psychological and structural terms.
First of all, some sociologists have con
ceptualized social values as commonly recognized
48
13
ideals, in contrast to the pioneer work of Thomas
14
and Znaniecki who posited that social values con
stituted meaningful group objects which were not
necessarily positive or idealistic. More recently,
DiVesta has made a distinction between positive and
negative values, contending that a positive value is
"a circumstance of living which the individual cherishes,"
and a negative value is "a circumstance of living which
15
the individual shuns."
A second theoretical consideration especially
germane to modern delinquency theories of social values
is that values have functional significance not only
in terms of external conflict, whereby different groups
or classes are antithetical in behavior by virtue of
support for differential value systems, but also in
terms of internal conflict within individual personality.
13
Richard C. Fuller and Richard R. Meyers,
"Some Aspects of a Theory of Social Problems," American
Sociological Review, VI (February, 1941), 24-32;
Richard C. Fuller and Richard R. Meyers, "The Natural
History of a Social Problem," American Sociological
Review, VI (June, 1941), 320-329.
14
W. I. Thomas and Florian Znaniecki, The
Polish Peasant in Europe and America (Chicago? University
of Chicago Press, 1918).
15
Francis DiVesta, Process Concepts and values
in the Social and Personal Adjustment of Adolescents
(Ithaca? Cornell University Press, 1941), p. 4.
Understandably, there has been some difference of
opinion on the part of various disciplines as to the
nature of internal cultural conflict.
The psychiatric interpretation regards such
conflict as a struggle between subconscious drives
which are indirectly externally controlled by cultural
norms which have created inhibiting mechanisms within
personality. These drives, demanding expression,
either manifest themselves in some socially acceptable
disguise, as deviant behavior when the inhibiting
mechanism fails to function, or in the form of guilt-
ridden neurotic behavior when it functions all too
well
In contrast, the sociological interpretation of
internal cultural conflict describes simultaneous
internalization of alternative and conflicting values
for given situations due to multiple-group identification,
16
William A. White, Crimes and Criminals
(New Yorks Farrar and Rinehart, 1933); William Healy,
Mental Conflict and Misconduct (Bostons Little, Brown,
1917); Franz Alexander and William Healy, Roots of
Crime (New Yorks Alfred A. Knopf, 1935); Louis Wirth,
"Cultural Conflict and Delinquency," Social Forces,
IX (June, 1931), 484-492; Reed Bain, "Our Schzoid
Culture," Sociology and Social Research, XIX (January-
February, 1935), 266-276.
50
17
a clash between differential values in personality.
A third theoretical consideration recognizes
a compartmentalized aspect of values for youth especially.
For example, Wirth has commented on the observation that
youth who are dishonest in one context may be honest in
18
another. Why is this? Surely the internal cultural
conflict theory does not by itself explain this phenomenon.
Attempts to answer this question have led to
inquiry into role structure and the internalization
process itself. Healy and Bronner, for example, have
suggested that limited internalization may result in a
situation whereby the delinquent may be able to express
conscious belief that delinquency represents wrong
conduct, but evidently his feeling about wrongness has
19
not been sufficiently strong to function as a preventive.
However, several sociologists have felt that it
is not the degree of internalization per se which is the
17
Thorsten Sellm, Culture Conflict and Crime,
op. cit., pp. 27-30, 59-61, 68-69; Ernest W. Burgess
and Clifford R. Shaw, The Jack-Roller (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1930), pp. 184-197; Edward
Sapir, "Culture: Genuine and Spurious," American
Journal of Sociology, XXIX (January, 1924), 401-429.
18
Wirth, op. cit., p. 492.
19
William Healy and Augusta F. Bronner, New Light
on Delinquency and Its Treatment (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1936), p. 11.
crucial point, but internalization relative to social
structure. Sorokin, for example, has pointed out that
conformity to values requires a good deal more than the
internalization of values into one's conscience. Values
must be articulated with social relationships within
the social structure in such a way that individuals
find it socially useful and psychologically satisfying
20
to conform to them. Thus essentially the real
importance of internalization is the motivation possible
due to effective institutionalization, whereby the
structuralization of values in the social system as
well as internalization of value systems within
21
personality are operative.
Therefore, as we broaden our analysis from the
focal interest in the internalization process to include
the structural relevance of the social system we find
that the significance of values does fit, at least in
part, the status-deprivation consideration of modern
delinquency theory. That is, the functional significance
of values is contingent upon their articulation with the
social structure, and motivation to conform is relative
20
Pitirim A. Sorokin, Society, Culture and
Personality (New Yorks Harper and Bros., 1947), pp.
329-330.
21
Cf. Talcott Parsons and Edward A. Shils,
Toward a General Theory of Action (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1951), p. 150.
52
to access within this structure. Hence# anti-social
behavior such as law violation may very well not be
merely a case of limited internalization of conventional
values# but limited motivation due to structural
22
factors as well.
Hence, considering the relevance to modern
delinquency theory, values appear to be important in
the following aspects:
Whether values be positive or negative in
respect to social norms# the functional significance
of such values is not merely contingent upon the
degree of internalization within personality
structure, but also contingent upon avenues of
achievement within the structure of the social
system.
Social Class and Value Systems
A central premise of the status-deprivation
theory of delinquency is the contention that there may
not be differential class assimilation of values
associated with cultural goals, though there may be
differences in the values relevant to norms or processes
in achieving goals (i.e., differences in success values).
Admittedly, evidence pertaining to this premise
is inconclusive. In Hyman's re-analysis of various
22
Cf. Robert K. Merton and Elinor Barber,
"Sociological Ambivalence," Sociological Theory, Values,
and Socio-cultural Change, ed. Edward A. Tiryakian
(Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1963), p. 98.
53
public opinion polls he found some evidence that lower-
class groups have lower levels of aspiration in regard
to success goals, as well as less positive orientation
23
toward established means of achievement of success.
However, lower levels of aspiration can mean discourage
ment due to frustration rather than a bona fide rejection
of the validity of goals of success. Moreover, lack
of success can result in less opportunity to actually
experience the validity of patterns of behavior
conducive to success, and therefore less likelihood of
support of success values.
An additional commentary may be seen in several
recent articles on reference group theory which
thoughtfully raise the question as to the percentage
of individuals whose values actually reflect class
24
affiliation. Merton seems to have offered defense on
both counts, however. He does not claim that it is the
relative percentage of different social classes who
adopt middle-class values pertaining to success goals,
but rather that in terms of absolute numbers there will
be a substantial number of lower-class people who will
23Herbert H. Hyman, "The Value Systems in
Different Classes," Class, Status, and Power, A Reader
in Social StratificaFion, ed. R. Bendix and S. Lipset
(Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1953), pp. 426-442.
24Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure,
op. cit., pp. 329-331.
54
25
adopt these goals as important.
Probably one of the reasons an evaluation of
success goals has not resulted in a clear picture of
any possible association of these goals with class
position is the fact there seemingly has been far too
much emphasis on economic factors as criteria of
success.
Cohen, for example, has criticized Merton's
seeming emphasis on economic goals. Consistent with
his own "reaction formation" interpretation of
delinquency, Cohen sees no special reason why delinquents
do not show more respect for the goods they acquire
through illicit means, why a sizable amount of theft
seems to be non-utilitarian. However, this criticism
seems somewhat vitiated by the fact that Merton's
structural interpretation is intended ostensibly to
account for the source of stress and frustration due
to the 'means-ends discrepancy rather than as an
27
explanation of the resultant deviant behavior.
Actually, most modern theorists do not claim
there is a linear correlation between delinquency and
25Ibid., p. 174.
26 . .
Cohen, op. cit., p. 36.
27
Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure,
op. cit.
55
poverty. Yet there appears to be an implicit allusion
that "opportunity“ and success must somehow be defined
on an economic basis, and that a feeling of deprivation
refers to economic factors. Several prominent
investigators, such as Merton, Cohen, Cloward and Ohlin,
and even Miller in some points of his discussion,
envisage awareness on the part of some lower-class
youth of discrepancy between individual worth and
social rewards. However, social rewards need not be
based on a rational calculation of future economic
28
opportunities.
Probably economic factors are important in this
regard, but how important they are for goals of success
is not really clear. For one thing, it must be
remembered that we are no longer talking about values
of lower-class life in general, but rather values of
youth. The fact that delinquency frequently begins at
a very early age raises the question as to what extent
opportunity of this kind actually has any reality for
children in early adolescence.
There has been some research inquiring into
the calculation of future opportunity for success goals
28
Cf. James F. Short, Jr., “Street Corner Groups
and Patterns of Delinquencys A Progress Report,"
American Catholic Sociological Review, XXIV (Spring,
1963), 22.
56
which are not defined in purely economic terms. Elliott's
very interesting study of high school students indicated
that delinquents and non-delinquents evaluated school
position, education and occupational positions similarly
as important goals of success. Also, there were
differences between delinquents and non-delinquents in
perceived opportunity to realize these goals when class
was held constant. That is, middle-class as well as
lower-class delinquents perceived less opportunity to
29
realize these areas of success. Apparently class
position was not as important in terms of values
pertaining to goals of success. Seemingly what is
important is the possible frustration due to a lower
opportunity for achievement of success, and such success
need not be based on specific economic aspects.
This shift in focus to within class analysis is
useful, for it raises some interesting speculation
regarding the phenomenon of middle-class delinquency, a
phenomenon which does not easily lend itself to status-
deprivation theories as they are usually presented.
Elliott suggests that some middle-class delinquents
may be responding to many of the same kinds of adjustment
29
Delbert S. Elliott, "Delinquency and Perceived
Opportunity," Sociological Inquiry, XXXII (Spring,
1962), 216-227.
57
problems as lower-class delinquents. That is, some
youth may come from middle-class families in terms of
occupational position but lower-class in terms of
certain cultural variables which are not conducive to
30
achxevement. Just as in.the case of lower-class
position, some middle-class youth may support middle-
class success goals, but not support success values;
that is, values for types of behavior which are the
means to success goals. In such cases failure and
frustration can result for the middle-class youth in
the same manner as for the lower-class youth. However,
it would be more likely that there would be support for
such success values for youth of middle-class background.
Cohen has also suggested this kind of inter
pretation in esqplaining the existence, though lower
31
xncxdence, of middle-class delinquency. Bohlke
appears to be of much the same opinion in his suggestion
that a number of middle-class families are the "nouveau
bourgoise" whose income may be middle-class but whose
success values and patterns of behavior have yet to
become middle-class.
30Ibid., p. 227.
31
Cohen, Delxnquent Bovs, op. cit., pp. 158-159.
58
Although the foregoing interpretation does
suggest similarity in success goals for some members of
both social classes, and does recognize that success
values do result from successful life experiences, much
of the discussion of status-deprivation implies a
distinctive differential value system for lower-class
and middle-class life as far as delinquency and conformity
are concerned. This latter assumption is one which may
be left open to some question. Surely, if there be
some similarity in goals for both social classes, is it
not possible that there is also some similarity in
support of conformity values and delinquency values as
well? Perhaps because of the old notion of the "bad
apple theory" of crime it is easier to accept the
possibility that middle-class youth have some familarity
with delinquency values then it is to accept the
possibility that the more frequently delinquent lower-
class youth may also adopt conformity values.
Since the development of the mass media common
values and symbols are more likely effectively
communicated throughout the larger society. It seems
possible that conformity values may be more easily
recognized and supported by a wider range of youthful
32
participants within society than in previous times.
32
Ralph W. England, Jr., "A Theory of Middle-
Class Delinquency," Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology
and Police Science, L (April, 1960), 565.
59
There may also be more common recognition of
delinquency values at different class levels.
This consideration is not a return to a general
cultural interpretation, as for example in the
"delinquent society" theory mentioned previously. This
is merely to suggest that certain middle-class values
may not be foreign to lower-class youth, and conversely.
There may be some overlap. The general cultural
interpretations were intended to explain delinquency
on the basis of the values themselves, rather than the
effectiveness of values.
The youthful offender, whether he comes from
lower-class or middle-class background, may have
actually internalized many similar values. At least
there is question that value systems for the two social
classes are mutually exclusive, though there may be
appreciably less achievement and success values
characterizing lower-class life.
However, notwithstanding "hidden delinquency,"
there is a disproportionate amount of delinquency
committed by lower-class youth and the delinquency in-
33
volvement apparently is more extensive. Attempts to
reconcile this fact with the contention of some similarity
in values may not be as difficult as first appears,at least
33
Murphy, op. cit.
not on a theoretical basis.
Recall our discussion of the significance of
values being partially contingent upon the social
structure of society. It seems possible that lower-
class youth may adopt middle-class values in respect to
goals and conformity but behave in a manner inconsistent
with these values because of status-deprivation which
is not conducive to the development of success values.
There may be in fact more failure and frustration on
the part of lower-class youth and thus more delinquency.
However, as previously mentioned, a certain amount of
frustration may also be felt by certain middle-class
youth. Greeley has suggested that middle-class
delinquency may be a response to failure in the
competitive system of education. While the lower-
class youth may have problems of status achievement,
the middle-class youth may have problems of status
maintenance, a problem in meeting the standards their
34
parents have achieved.
Therefore, though this general interpretation
seems consistent with the status-deprivation theory, it
may not be in the manner usually considered. Just as
34
Andrew Greeley, "An Upper Middle-Class Deviant
Gang," American Catholic Sociological Review, XXIV
(Spring, 1963), 33-41.
61
status-deprivation may represent minimum successful life
esqperience and minimum success values, it may also be
important for delinquent behavior, but not necessarily
for transvaluation.
In the first place, it must be explained why the
lower-class delinquent often engages in conformity to
conventional middle-class standPCds and seemingly
35
supports the values he allegedly repudiates. It may
be questioned whether the delinquent characterizes a
unique set of delinquency values and is oblivious to
conformity values. Also, middle-class delinquents
usually engage in conventional behavior, though they
Og
occasionally engage in "casual" delinquency involvement.
This does not seem to indicate evidence that the middle-
class delinquent has repudiated middle-class standards
either. Neither does the fact that middle-class youth
at times "borrow" some of the lower-class "focal
concerns," such as rock-and-roll or other forms of
"kicks" or adventuresome behavior.
Of some interest, it appears that an additional
consideration of value systems and lower- and middle-
class delinquency has been a return to a psychological
35
David Matza, Delinquency and Drift (New York:
John Wiley and Sons, 1964), p. 27.
36
Don C. Gibbons, Changing The Lawbreaker (Engle
wood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1965), pp. 241-243.
62
explanation, an explanation Which suggests some kind
of personality problem on the part of the offender.
Though Cohen recognizes that middle-class delinquency
may represent the problem of status maintenance, he
appears to have some doubts about his theory of trans
valuation when he considers middle-class youth.
He suggests that middle-class youth have some
thing of a problem in masculine identification, due to
the fact that the father is out of the home more, he
is not involved in as many masculine roles as the case
of lower-class families, and the family is more often
37
isolated from significant adults in the outside world.
This is a perplexing contrast to Kravaceus and Miller's
view that lower-class youth have a problem of masculine
identification, due to the fact that lower-class families
38
characterize a female centered household. Is it not
possible that concern for identification and maturity
represent one of several values which are not necessarily
unique to any particular position in the stratification
system?
Curiously, psychological explanations which
account for middle-class law violation have often
37
Cohen, op cit., pp. 164-165.
38
Kravaceus and Miller, op cit., p. 72.
63
suggested a distinctively differential class value
system as a reference point. Kravaceus and Miller,
for example, claim that middle-class delinquency
probably represents pathological disturbance, since
such behavior is seemingly inconsistent with values of
39
the middle-class reference group. As Lane aptly
points out, this represents a changing of theoretical
horses in the middle of the stratification system, so
to speak, shifting from social structure to personality
disturbance as the causative factor as one moves up the
40
social ladder. This seems to be somewhat analogous
to the argument that a middle-class shoplifter would
be more apt to be classified as kleptomaniac rather than
a thief, because it is more often assumed that the
41
middle-class offender does not need what he steals.
Certainly this discussion is not intended to
deny the fact that some middle-class youth may be in
need of psychiatric help. Indeed this may be true for
a number of adolescents, regardless of their class
40
Ralph Lane, Jr., "Delinquency Gerenative
Milieux: A Theoretical Problem," American Catholic
Sociological Review. XXIV (Spring, 1963), 42-53.
41
Donald R. Cressey, "The Differential Association
Theory and Compulsive Crimes," op. cit., pp. 36-38.
position. However, the fact the behavior may be
"non-utilitarian" does not provide evidence of a
differential value system, nor does it necessarily
confirm a psychological anomaly. It would appear
that psychological evaluations must be on an individual
basis rather than relying on class values as a
reference point. Obviously psychologists are quite
aware of this fact, and it is likely the sociologist
has been somewhat guilty of certain psychological
assumptions.
The status-deprivation theory appears to be
more applicable if one is willing to abandon the
concept of a rigidly differential class value system
as far as conformity and delinquency values are
concerned.
It may be true that both lower- and middle-class
youth recognize and adopt many of the same success
goals, as several investigators suggest. It would
appear likely that lower-class youth would characterize
less support for norms of behavior conducive to success,
and thus adopt fewer success values due to fewer
opportunites for success. Finally, it may be suggested
that there is some overlap between classes as far as
delinquency values and conformity values are concerned.
65
It may also be suggested that this general
appraisal applies in comparing delinquents with non
delinquents. Several early studies of possible value
differentials between delinquents and non-delinquents,
irrespective of class, have revealed either insignificant
42
or contradictory evidence. Recently, Short's study
of delinquency in Chicago revealed that on the basis of
semantic differential data lower-class gang and non
gang boys as well as middle-class boys do not differ
significantly in their recognition of the moral validity
of certain middle-class values. However, the lower-
class delinquents engaged in behavior more often
inconsistent with middle-class values.^
There may be more clear cut evidence of
differential class values in terms of child rearing
practices, discipline, et cetera. In point of fact,
42
James M. Rinehart and Fowler V. Harper,
"Social and Ethical Judgements of Two Groups of Boys—
Delinquent and Non-Delinquent," Journal of Criminal Law
and Criminology. XXI (November-December, 1930), 364-378;
George E. Hill, "The Ethical Knowledge of Delinquents
and Non-Delinquent Boys," Journal of Social Psychology,
VI (February, 1935), 107-114; Edward Bartlett and Dale B.
Harris, "Personality Factors in Delinquency," School
and Society. XLIII (May, 1936), 653-656.
43
Short, op. cit., p. 18.
66
44
several studies seem to bear this out.
There are several important phenomena which
strongly suggest at least some class overlap in
conventional and delinquency values.
As mentioned previously, one important phenomenon
is the amount of conformity evidenced by delinquents
and the interesting fact that youthful behavior is
often legitimate in one situation and not in another.
A second important phenomenon is the fact that
there is evidence that many recidivist delinquents
exhibit guilt as well as attachment to legitimate
45
values.
A third important phenomenon is that of
maturational remission. Some years ago Sutherland
observed that a small percentage of juvenile delinquents
became adult criminals.^®
44
Cf. Urie Bronfenbrenner, "Socialization and
Social Class Through Time and Space," Readings in Social
Psychology, ed. Eleanor E. Maccoby, Theodore M.
Newcomb, and Eugene L. Hartley (New Yorkr Rinehart and
Winston, 1958)/ pp. 400-425.
45
Delbert S. Elliott, "Delinquency, Opportunity
and Patterns of Orientation" (unpublished Ph.D. dissert
ation, Dept, of Sociology, University of Washington,
1961), chapters 5-6; Gresham M. Sykes and David Matza,
"Techniques of Neutralizations A Theory of Delinquency,"
American Sociological Review, XX (December, 1957),
664-670; Sophia Robison, Juvenile Delinquencys Its
Nature and Control (New Yorks Holt, Rinehart, Winston,
1960), p. 138.
46
Sutherland, op. cit.. p. 97.
More recent studies tend to confirm this
47
earlier observation. The greater share apparently
outgrow their delinquency and come to terms with adult
responsibilities of employment, marriage, and military
48
servxce.
Such notable reversals of behavior patterns seems
to strongly suggest a degree of internalization, at
least in part, of both legitimate and illegitimate value
systems.
Matza's recent theory and discussion of
"delinquency and drift" offers possibly the most useful
appraisal of this stiuation to date. He sees the
delinquent as neither totally committed to delinquent
nor conventional behavior, that he may play intermittently
49
both delxnquent and conventxonal roles. If there is
a system of delinquency values, it is integrated with
50
the conventxonal order.
Indeed, it does appear that the delinquent youth
recognizes the legitimacy of the dominant social order
47
Cf. Walter C. Reckless, The Crime Problem (New
Yorks Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1961), pp. 364-365.
48
Jessxe Bernard, Social Problems at Midcentury
(New Yorks The Dryden Press, 1957), p. 421.
49
David Matza, Delinquency and Drift (New Yorks
John Wiley and Sons, 1964), pp. 26,28.
50
David Matza, "Subterranean Traditions of Youth,"
The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, CCCXXVII (November, 1961), 102-118,
68
51
and its moral "rightness," and it is a reasonable
speculation that this may be true for the lower-class
delinquent as well as the middle-class delinquent.
It may be suggested that more extensive
delinquency involvement has serious repercussions for
future behavior. Extensive involvement naturally results
in more conflict with middle-class control agencies
which can not tolerate the serious violations, such as
in the case of reaction of schools and correctional
personnel. This can result in progressive alienation
from middle-class life for the extensively involved
offender.
Realization of success via legitimate means will
reinforce legitimate behavior, both for lower- and
middle-class youth. It is such success with legitimate
means which appears to be the key to maturational
remission. Understandably, such successful learning
esqperiences would more likely characterize middle-class
youth, though by no means would such experience be
unique to the middle-class.
In passing, as far as social class and value
systems are important in accounting for delinquency,
the following statement seems appropriates
51
Sykes and Matza, op. cit.
69
Rather than conceptualizing a distinctively
differential class value system, there may be some
overlap between classes in this regard, and
delinquent behavior, whether engaged xn by lower-
or middle-class youth, may reflect status-deprivation
in terns of achievement or maintenance respectively.
The more extensive delinquency involvement meets
with relatively more conflict with controlling
agencies of the dominant social order,and alienation
from middle-class life rather than successful
learning experiences conducive to success values
more likely characterizes the career pattern of
the serious juvenile offender.
What remains at this point in our discussion is
some explanation of how one can internalize certain
values, behave inconsistently with these values, and
still maintain some degree of self-integrity, how one
can avoid the stress on personality structure in the
face of behavior which is at least occasionally
inconsistent with values.
In the chapter to follow this- question will be
considered. It will be suggested that the answer to
this contrast between behavior and values lies in the
use of certain ego-defense mechanisms in an attempt to
justify behavior.
CHAPTER IV
RATIONALIZATION OF DELINQUENT BEHAVIOR
It is of course clearly understood that the
function of ego-defense mechanisms in protecting
self-integrity is quite normal and necessary in common
life situations. The interesting fact is that when
such mechanisms have been found to be operative in
conjunction with delinquent behavior, and this has
frequently been the case, it raises serious question
as to the view that the delinquent has adopted a
unique set of delinquency values. If the delinquent
really approves of his behavior, then why make
apologies or excuses for such behavior? Why manifest
shame or guilt? As Matza has stressed, this phenomenon
characterizes an accommodating rather than a counter
vailing sub-culture; the delinquent tends to evaluate
his behavior in conventional terms.^
Investigators of juvenile delinquency have
known for some time that the delinquent frequently
■^David Matza, Delinquency and Drift (New Yorks
John Wiley and Sons, 1964), pp. 41-42.
70
71
offers defense for his behavior, more often in the
form of rationalization. However, there has been
some difference of opinion in interpreting the actual
motivation for such defense.
The usual psychiatric interpretation has been
that although the function of the defense mechanism is
generally normal, in the case of delinquency it
represents a "delinquent ego" which has come about
through negative life experiences. This ego attempts
to achieve guilt-free and anxiety-free satisfaction in
"delinquent impulsivity" in the use of defenses against
2
the demands of super-ego and the dominant social order.
Interestingly enough, the operation of such defense
seems to demonstrate the moral validity of super-ego
demands. Perhaps the delinquent does not support the
"wrong" values after all. It is just that his behavior
is considered wrong by his own judgment. This latter
sociological interpretation is of course in contrast
with the above mentioned psychiatric interpretation.
Another psychiatric interpretation seems to
emphasize super-ego demands and suggests that the
delinquent has a constricted or limited ego, and that
2
Frxtz Redl and David Wineman, Children Who
Hate (Chicagor The Free Press, 1951), pp. 142-144.
72
he has never been able to give up the infantile fantasy
of omnipotence. Due to strong infantile dependency
needs he defends himself against what appears to be a
hostile world by the defense of rationalization; he
"acts out" his frustration and thus limits the legitimate
socialization process evermore, and a vicious cycle
3
of further ego-constriction continues.
Sometimes defense for delinquent behavior has
been evaluated in terms of regression to infantile
stages of development rather than the emphasis on lack
o f ego-development.^
For the most part, psychiatric interpretations
of delinquency describe the uses of defense mechanisms
as an ex post facto apology for behavior which has
already taken place and that the motivation can be
traced to unconscious conflicts and tendencies. The
psychiatric literature contains a number of well-known
5
references on this point.
3Ednita P. Bernaken, "Underlying Ego-mechanisms
in Delinquency," Psychoanalytic Quarterly, XXVIII
(March, 1958), 383-396.
4Cf. Alice H. Collins and James R. Mackay, "Case
work Treatment of Delinquents Who Use the Primary Defense
of Denial," Social Work, IV (January, 1959), 34-43.
^Cf. Atuhur P. Noyes, Text-Book of Modern Psychia
try (Philadelphia^ :W. B. Saunders, 1940), p. 49; William A.
White, Insanity and The Criminal Law (New Yorkr MacMillan,
1923), p. 9; Benjamin Karpman, "An Attempt at a Re-
evaluation of Some Concepts of Law and Psychiatry,"
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, XXXVII (September-
October, 1947), 206-217.
73
The sociologist has questioned the view that
the motivation for the delinquent's use of defense
mechanisms for his behavior can be traced exclusively
to personality anomalies, just as he has questioned
the hypothesis of the inevitable causal relation between
personality and delinquency in general.
Moreover, in contrast to the psychiatric
interpretation of ex post facto defense for behavior,
the sociological theory of motivation has been that
defense preceeds the behavior, that action is influenced
by linguistic constructs which have been learned in
social interaction. As Cressey has pointed out, the
delinquent acts because he has learned to rationalize
his behavior and that rationalization is the basis for
g
his motive. Rationalizations and verbalizations may
become systematized so that their use provides a sense
7
of conforming, of excusing the behavior as acceptable.
This evaluation is not immune to some criticism,
but it does at least offer some explanation for the
puzzling question of values which are seemingly in
consistent with behavior.
g
Donald Cressey, "The Differential Association
Theory and Compulsive Crimes," Journal of Criminal Law
and Criminology, XLIV (July-August, 1954), 33.
7
Cf. A. R. Lindesmith and A. A. Strouss, Social
Psychology (New York: Dryden Press, 1949), pp. 307-310.
74
It may be noted that the alternative “delinquent
values" or "delinquent ego" hypotheses would seem to
account for far more delinquency than is actually the
case. The motivation of the "delinquent ego" or
"delinquent values" (i.e., with the exclusion of
conventional values) would appear to "drive" the
youthful offender to violation continually as a
desirable, not regretful, way of life. It would be
hard to imagine that he could conform to any set of
expectations of the larger society throughout his
career. How could he ever manage to "outgrow" his
delinquency patterns and meet responsibilities in later
life?
Several sociologists have commented on the
possibility of adopting legitimate values, yet
"justifying" deviant behavior with certain defenses
calculated to excuse such behavior, the operation of
such defenses having a tendency to neutralize the moral
requirements of legitimate values.
Sutherland implied a kind of neutralization
process in his early discussion of learned rationalizations
and "definitions favorable to the violation of the law,"
O
though he did not spell this out. Wallerstein and Wyle,
— . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . I . . . . I j
g
Edwin H. Sutherland and Donald R. Cressey,
Principles of Criminology (Chicagor Lippencott, 1960),
p. 103.
75
in administering a questionnaire of 49 offenses of the
penal code of the State of New York to 1,698 non
criminal citizens, found that not only had most of the
respondents committed one or more of the offenses, but
subsequent interviews revealed numerous rationalizations
for behavior which was generally unacceptable to those
9
who had committed the act. Taft has felt that there
may be certain common rationalizations within culture
which seem to reconcile conflicting values.^ Barron
has advised that though behavior and values may be
logically inconsistent to the researcher, this difficulty
may be rationalized by the delinquent.^ Also, Robison
has suggested that the delinquent* s seeming justifications
for delinquency may have the effect of neutralizing
12
normal inhibitions. Even Cohen has had some doubt
that the delinquent really gives up middle-class norms
9
James S. Wallerstein and Clement J. Wyle,
"Our Law-Abiding Law-Breakers," Probation, XXV
(April, 1947), 107-112.
■^Donald R. Taft, Criminology, A Cultural
interpretation (New Yorks MacMillan, 1950), pp. 239-
240.
^Milton L. Barron, "Juvenile Delinquency and
American Values," American Sociological Review, XVI
(April, 1951), 208-214.
12
Sophia M. Robison, Can Delinquency Be Measured?
(New Yorks Columbia University Press, 1936).
76
13
of conformity, in spite of "reaction" to these norms.
Cloward and Ohlin have also made reference to the
significance of the process of rationalization in
enabling the delinquent to circumvent his own internal
inhibitions, though these investigators appear to have
14
a psychiatric explanation of motivation in mind.
However, it was probably Cressey*s study of trust
violation which recently has given impetus to
investigation of this question. He found that a
necessary ingredient to trust violation was
rationalization in the form of situational verbalizations
which allowed the violator to think of himself as
basically honest and trustworthy while still engaging in
the act of trust violation. Moreover, this type of
crime was selected by trusted persons on the basis of
rationalizations available to them— the "situation was
defined" as acceptable behavior.^
13
Albert K. Cohen, Delinquent Boys; The Culture
of the Gang (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1955),
14 .
Richard A. Cloward and Lloyd E. Ohlin,
Delinquency and Opportunity (Glencoe, Illinois: The
Free Press, 1960).
15
Donald R. Cressey, Other People*s Money
(Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1953), pp. 30, 137,
142, 147.
77
In recent years Sykes and Matza have carried
the burden of theoretical discussion and research in
this area. Taking the lead from Cressey, Sykes began
a decade ago to seriously consider situations in which
the individual is unresponsive to the internalized
values within personality, situations in which the
offender can "have his cake and eat it," as it were,
16
by "neutralizing" the impact of primary group sanctions.
Important research and discussion by Sykes and
Matza have provided notable contribution to an under
standing of this phenomenon. Their position is clearly
stated in the followings
It is our argument that much of delinquency is
based on what is essentially an unrecognized
extension of defense of crimes, in the form of
justifications for deviance that is seen as valid
by the delinquent but not by the legal system or
society at large. These justifications are commonly
described as rationalizations. There is reason to
believe that they precede (italics mine) deviant
behavior and make deviant behavior possible.
Disapproval flowing from internalized norms and
conforming others in the social environment is
neutralized, turned back, deflected. We call these
justifications of deviant behavior techniques of
neutralization.17
16
Gresham Sykes, Crime and Society (New Yorks
Random House, 1956), pp. 89-92.
17
Gresham M. Sykes and David Matza, "Techniques
of Neutralizations A Theory of Delinquency," American
Sociological Review. XX (December, 1957), 664.
78
One may note that their interpretation of
motivation is consistent with the sociological view
that rationalization precedes the behavior in question.
The techniques of neutralization considered by
Sykes and Matza are "denial of responsibility," “denial
of injury," "denial of the victim," "condemnation of
the condemners," and "appeal to higher loyalties." In
the case of "denial of responsibility" the offender
learns to see himself as more acted upon than acting, and
thus is prepared for deviance without necessarily
challenging the validity of the norms themselves.
Hence, delinquent acts are seen by the offender as due
to forces seemingly outside the individual and beyond
his control, such as indifferent parents, bad companions,
poor neighborhoods, et cetera. The technique of
"denial of injury" is a form of rationalization which
defines certain offenses as not really causing any harm,
and thus in this circumstance are acceptable forms of
behavior, in this case the norm is not challenged, but
the behavior is seen in terms of being merely "mischief"
or "pranks." "Denial of the victim" is an even more
sophisticated technique. Here, even if one accepts the
responsibility for delinquency, and is willing to accept
the fact that the behavior is injurious in normal
circumstances, moral indignation is neutralized by an
insistence that the injury is "really" a form of
rightful retaliation or punishment, as it were. In
a curious way the victim is transformed into a wrong
doer. Offenses against "unfair" teachers, "crooked"
store owners or cases where the victim is physically
absent and can not prevent property damage are all
examples of denying the victim and subtly transferring
the blame without denying the norms. In the case of
"condemnation of the condemners" it is claimed that
certain people who condemn deviant behavior, such as
police officers or teachers, are "really" hypocrites,
deviants in disguise, or impelled by personal spite.
Therefore the offender loses sight of the wrongfulness
of his own behavior by changing the focus to those who
would judge him. His behavior is falsely seen as no
different from anyone else. In the last case, the
"appeal to higher loyalties," the demands of the
larger society are sacrificed for the demands of smaller
personal relations. The delinquent does not necessarily
repudiate societal standards, but rather he resolves
his dilemma of dual loyalties by supporting his
18
friends, even if it means violation of the law.
Matza utilized interview and questionnaire
schedules in studying 100 boys assigned to a training
1 f t
Ibid., pp. 664-670.
80
school in New Jersey and did find significant evidence
of such rationalizations for delinquent behavior, as
19
well as support for conventional behavior.
One very interesting question which is relevant
to rationalization for delinquent behavior concerns
the nature of internalized values in such case.
Earlier Cressey had suggested in his study of trust
violation that over a long period the values themselves
may have become modified, making rationalizations
easier to carry over from several different kinds of
20
offenses other than trust violation.
Reckless and Shoham, in a recent article
considering the neutralization process and containment,
seem to consider the possibility that this process is
one of erosion of basic conventional values previously
21
internalized by youth. While Matza has not exactly
taken this position one particular finding of his
19
David Matza, Delinquency and Drift, op. cit.,
pp. 48-50; David Matza, "The Moral Code of Delinquents:
A Study of Patterns of Neutralization" (unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Sociology, Princeton
University, 1959), pp. 59-97.
20
Cressey, Other People's Money, op. cit., p. 149.
21
Walter C. Reckless and Shlomo Shoham, "Norm
Containment Theory," Social Problems: Persistent
Challenges, ed. Edward C. McDonagh and Jon E. Simpson
(New York: Rinehart and Winston, 1965), pp. 428-436.
81
research is of some interest here. He reports that
for some forms of rationalization there seems to be
some tendency for more serious delinquents to utilize
rationalization more extensively than less seriously
22
involved delinquents. Basic values may be modified
somewhat, but whether or not they suffer erosion is
not clear. Certainly it would appear that such values
are less effective when there is extensive reliance
on rationalization.
What are the implications of more extensive
delinquency involvement being characterized by a
seemingly greater reliance upon rationalization for
such behavior? Apparently the apologetic function of
such rationalization belies the picture of the delinquent
approving his behavior, and tends to challenge the view
that he is "conforming" to a unique set of delinquency
values.
Is it not possible that certain values can be
placed upon readily available rationalizations in
society, and that reliance upon these defenses would
more often characterize the youth experiencing status-
deprivation? Is it not possible that feelings of such
22
Matza, "The Moral Code of Delinquents,"
op. cit., p. 152.
82
deprivation are actually reinforced with more
progressive alienation due to society's reaction to
extensive delinquency involvement, and that the youthful
offender's reaction to this would be a greater reliance
on convenient rationalizations?
There are several convenient rationalizations
to be found in society. Sometimes they are actually
conventional modes of thought. An excellent illustration
is the rather widespread belief in luck, a mode of
thought which attributes behavior to forces exterior
23
to the individual. A familiar phrase is that "much
of life is a matter of luck." If such an attitude is
heavily relied upon it is conceivable that one could
easily "deny responsibility for behavior."
Social psychologists have long observed that
rationalization is functional in assisting the
individual in severing the link between his self
conception of being a "responsible person" and actual
24
behavior which may represent a failure to achieve.
23Ibid.. pp. 80-81, 102-103.
24
Cf. Kurt Lewin, et al., "Levels of Aspiration,"
Personality and the Behavior Disorders, op. cit., p. 375;
Fritz Heider, "Social Perception and Phenomenal
Causality," Person Perception and Interpersonal Behavior,
ed. Renato Taguiri and Luigi Petrullo (Stanfords
Stanford University Press, 1958), pp. 14-15.
83
Perhaps our illustration is appropriate. Merton
has pointed out that there seems to be a rather wide
spread belief that success is associated with luck, and
that belief in luck serves the psychological function
of enabling the individual to preserve his self-esteem
25
in the face of failure.
If this general process is functional for
conventional modes of thought, then it seems reasonable
that this is also true for certain unconventional
rationalizations. In point of fact, Matza has very
capably analyzed several other conventional modes of
thought which provide convenient rationalizations for
behavior which actually may be defined as delinquent
26
by the dominant society.
In that status-deprivation really reflects a
failure to achieve, apology for unconventional behavior
would appear to be theoretically compatible with the
status-deprivation theory. Thus it may be suggested
that status-deprivation is important for rationalization
rather than transvaluation.
25
Robert K. Merton, "Social Structure, and
Anomie," Social Theory and Social Structure (Glencoe,
Illinois; The Free Press, 1949), pp. 148-149.
26
Matza, Delinauencv and Drift, op. cit.,
pp. 69-141.
84
It may also be observed that the previously
mentioned phenomena of guilt feelings, evidence of
conformity behavior, and maturational remission, which
the delinquent not infrequently characterizes as well
as his deviant behavior, all may be theoretically
reconciled with the rationalization explanation of
behavior.
Feeling guilty about delinquent activity as
well as giving evidence of conformity seem to indicate
the adoption of some conventional values. If
rationalizations have been utilized, apparently there
is a lack of lasting effectiveness of certain modes of
apology in particular situations. Also, it must be
understood that there is a certain principle of economy
27
which is fundamental to such adjustive reactions. If
the situation is less serious or occurs less frequently
the individual may be more willing to "take the blame"
and reserve his defensive energy for more serious and
extensive situations. In fact, this may be the reason
Matza found some evidence of a greater reliance upon
rationalization for the extensively involved delinquent.
Maturational remission, when it does occur,
would seem to indicate a break in the vicious cycle of
27
James C. Coleman, Abnormal Psychology and
Modern Life (Mew York: Scott, Foresman, 1950), p . 78.
85
status-deprivation, rationalization, delinquency,
community reaction, progressive alienation, more
frustration, more rationalization, more delinquency,
et cetera.
In later discussion we will consider in some
detail the theoretical implications of a study of
rationalizations for delinquent behavior and the
difficulties of dealing with the youthful offender.
However, in the course of our present discussion
it may be said in passing that any attenuation in the
above mentioned cycle would be important in containing
delinquency.
In the case of the middle-class offender who
becomes involved in the less serious, occasional
violation the official community reaction is likely to
make a marked impression, in that being identified as
deviant is a sharp contrast to the image of middle-class
conformity, but also in contrast to most of his compeers
who are rarely identified as officially delinquent.
The middle-class offender seldom thinks of himself as
really a "delinquent," and the deviant-defining
process may actually deprive him of working out some
rationalization for delinquency. This may motivate
him to avoid further experiences of this kind, as well
86
28
as inhibiting further reliance upon rationalization.
This would seem especially true if success through
legitimate means had also been realized to a reasonable
extent in his life career, and more likely this is
the case for middle-class youth. In cases where
achievement has been limited— the status-maintenance
problem^— progressive alienation, apology, and further
delinquency may characterize the middle-class offender.
The lower-class offender, if he has had
extensive delinquency involvement, may find the deviant-
defining process a bit more familiar, due to the
likelihood of more acquaintances who have similarily
experienced official identification. He may feel
alienated and guilty, but failure in other areas of
life prompts him to cling more tenaciously to his
apologies for transgression. In cases of less serious
delinquency involvement, there may be fewer delinquent
associations, and the "good boy in the high delinquency
area" may react to official identification in a similar
manner to that of the middle-class offender. Here too
the degree of success in other life experiences would
be important.
28
Don C. Gibbons, Changing The Lawbreaker
(Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1965),
p. 242.
87
Accordingly, it would seem to follow that
maturational remission for the offender would require
some life experience of success through legitimate
means. In such positive cases where this does occur,
rationalizations for behavior would seem to be less
necessary. The young adult may learn to rely less on
rationalization for violation. Hopefully, he may be
able to put his delinquency patterns behind him. This,
of course, is an intricate and difficult process for
the offender who lacks important success values based
on skills for achievement, has experienced considerable
alienation from the larger community, and has a history
of minimal successful life experiences. Unfortunately
this situation too often prevails. To be sure, some
youthful offenders do become adult criminals.
To summarize, the following statement of the
functional significance of rationalization for
delinquent behavior seems appropriate:
Delinquent behavior mav be based on a reliance
upon convenient forms of rationalization offered to
justify or apologize for such behavior which would
otherwise be unacceptable to the individual. The
motivation results from such defenses systematically
defined prior to the act rather them ex post facto
justification. This need not represent a conflict
in a "delinquent ego," "infantile autism." or
"infantile regression." Furthermore, to say that
reliance upon such defenses for delinquent behavior
stems from status-frustration and relatively un
successful life experiences is not to imply that
either frustration or the operation of the defense
88
mechanism represents neurotic reactions, even
though the resultant delinquent behavior is
seen as deviant by the dominant society. Finally,
the apologetic function of defenses for
delinquent behavior actually seems to testify
to the adoption of conventional values.
CHAPTER V
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
It has been stated that the central purpose of
this research is to test empirically the effectiveness
of values for delinquent behavior. The several
propositions described in Chapter I are conceptualized
in reference to less extensive and more extensive
delinquency involvement. The present chapter will
begin with a description of the samples selected from
two correctional settings and one non-correctional
setting, and the rationale of these selections in terms
of ■officially delinquent” and “officially non-delinquent”
representation? the former is intended to exemplify
more extensive delinquency involvement than the latter.
This section will be followed with a
description of specific research hypotheses, questionnaire
schedule, and methods of evaluating findings.
Selection of Samples
The two correctional settings selected were
the senior camp program of the Los Angeles Probation
89
90
Department and institutional facilities of the
California Youth Authority. It was felt that this
would provide a good representation of "officially
delinquent" cases, in that these youth had actually
been removed from the community on the basis of
official data of violation of the Welfare and Institutions
Code. In terms of official data, youth assigned to
California Youth Authority facilities have had a
history of extensive delinquency involvement, and have
previously been assigned to local county probation
facilities or have come from counties lacking such
local facilities.*
It has been this investigator's experience that
cases accepted by the California Youth Authority which
characterize less extensive delinquency involvement are
generally reassigned to the supervision of a parole
agent in the local community rather than maintained
in a correctional facility.
It was felt that in terms of violations of the
Welfare and Institutions Code, self-reporting of such
violations by "official delinquents" would reveal
slightly more delinquency involvement for the Youth
^California Laws Relating to Youthful Offenders
(Sacramento, State of California, Documents Section,
September, 1963), pp. 79-80.
91
Authority cases than for the Los Angeles County
Probation cases, though not significantly more in
volvement, even though official data may differentiate
these groups. As later discussion will point out,
there are certain advantages in relying on self-
reporting. In terms of delinquency involvement and
"ideology" of "official delinquents," it was felt
that these two groups would be very much the same.
The use of two rather than one correctional group
provides a second comparison with the less extensively
involved delinquents of a non-correctional setting
(i.e., an "officially non-delinquent" group).
The non-correctional setting, a local high
school, actually reveals practically no official data
on delinquency involvement and virtually no cases
2
coming under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.
It was felt that nonetheless some violation did
characterize these youth and self-reporting of violation
was again relied upon to evaluate such involvement.
2
Interview with Mr. Robert Ohler, Director
of Counselling Services, Clairmont High School, October,
1963. This gentleman is also employed as a Los
Angeles County Probation Officer during the summer
months and is quite familiar with the local community
as far as official cases are concerned.
92
In both correctional and non-correctional
settings no attempt was made to rigorously select
random cases. There were several reasons for this.
For one thing, the present study was conceived to be
largely exploratory rather than in terms of definitive
predictions. Also, there is a certain economy of
practical factors which naturally enters into a study
of this kind. For example, in the case of the
correctional settings, though administrative officials
were indeed cooperative and helpful, there were
certain restrictions inherent in the nature of the
correctional program itself which made certain procedures
prohibitive. It must be understood that the program
can not be disrupted for purposes of research. This
investigator was very grateful for the opportunity to
contact correctional cases and the time set aside from
the regular correctional school program for purposes of
administering the questionnaire. To obtain such
permission required a good deal of preliminary ground
work and follow-through in demonstrating the purpose
of the present study to department officials, camp
directors, correctional school administrators, and
finally the classroom teacher himself to obtain the
best possible situation for collecting data.
93
The question of anonymity of response was also
an important consideration agreed upon in advance,
and naturally this in itself placed certain restrictions
on selection of cases. For the most part, these
practical factors also applied to the high school cases.
It may he said that samples selected for the
present study were purposive samples, judged to be
characteristic of extensive or casual delinquency
involvement. As such, it was assumed that errors of
judgment in such selection would tend to counterbalance
3
each other.
Also, it may be said in passing that one
argument for conceiving this type of study as
exploratory rather than predictive of a universe is
that there is some question that the character and
nature of the universe of delinquents is known.4 This
would appear to be especially true in the light of
"hidden delinquency" which has taken place.
The samples comprised 16-18 year old youth who
were available within the school program for the
3
Calire Selltiz, et.al., Research Methods in
Social Relations (New Yorks Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
ivb’ i r , P.-52U.—
4
David Matza,"The Moral Code of Delinquents: A
Study of Patterns of Neutralization" (unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Sociology, Princeton
University, 1959) , p. 66.
94
correctional and non-correctional settings. The
actual number of cases are listed in Table 1. The
selection procedures will be mentioned later in this
chapter. The data were obtained from the correctional
facilities in July and August, 1964, and from the local
high school in October, 1964.
The Youth Authority Facilities
Two Youth Authority facilities were utilized in
this study. A small sample was available in a special
unit of the Southern Reception Center in Norwalk,
California. A much larger sample was obtained at the
Youth Training School, located at Chino, California, a
small community about sixty miles east of Los Angeles.
In all, 183 cases were obtained.
The County Probation Department
Senior Camp Program
The senior camp program was utilized because of
the comparable age range. There are seven senior
camps, of which one is a special program for the
physically handicapped, and this camp was eliminated as
inappropriate. Camps Gonzales and Miller are located
in the Malibu mountains, thirty-six and fifty-four miles
respectively from Los Angeles. Camp Scudder is
located in the northern county area of Bouquet Canyon,
95
TABLE 1
SOURCE AND NUMBER OP CASES
AND NON-CORRECTIONAL
IN CORRECTIONAL
SETTINGS
Setting Number of Cases
California Youth Authority
Southern Reception Center 28
Youth Training School 155
183
Los Angeles County Probation Department
Camp Conzales 63
Camp Miller 51
Camp Scudder 63
Camp Mendenhall 65
Camp Holton 63
Camp Rocky 52
357
Community High School
Total
134
674
96
forty-one miles from Los Angeles. Farther north in
the vicinity of Lake Hughes is Camp Mendenhall, about
sixty-two miles from Los Angeles. Camp Holton is also
in the north, located in Little Tujunga Canyon about
twenty-seven miles from Los Angeles. Camp Rocky is
in the eastern section of the county, located in
Sycamore Canyon about thirty-two miles from Los Angeles.
Initially it was planned to obtain about
seventy cases per camp, but in that some camps were not
operating at full capacity this was not possible.
«
In all, 357 cases were obtained. The number of cases
obtained from each camp is indicated in Table 1.
In addition there was a small preliminary
sample taken from an auxiliary juvenile hall facility
at Downey, California. The purpose of this sample was
to determine the most effective means of administering
the questionnaire, time involved, reaction to test
items, and general familiarity with the correctional
school program. These questionnaires were not included
in the total sample for statistical evaluation.
A Community High School
The non-correctional setting selected was a
high school located in a local Southern California
community. This community of 19,000 clearly exemplifies
97
middle-class life in terms of occupation, income,
education, and character of the neighborhood. Relative
to Los Angeles County as a whole, it tends to be
upper-middle class predominantly, it has the highest
education level per capita of any city in the state,
and a median income of $8,188, compared to $7,000 for
Los Angeles County. Percentage increase in households
has been nearly eight times that of comparable size
communities in the state, and the median income of new
households is $14,500, considerably above the median
for the county.
Stratification study of this community reveals
a great emphasis on success and achievement. There is
a strong emphasis on education and a large percentage
of students go on to college. The occupational profile
of the community is predominantly made up of college
professors, professionals, administrators and scientists.^
Because of the character of this community, it
was felt that it would be a good setting for identifying
5
Gerhard N. Rostvold, "Changing Socioeconomic
Characteristics of the Population of Clairmont,
California" (unpublished demographic study, Department
of Economics, Pomona College, 1963); U. S. Census of
Population, 1960. Final Report PC (1)-6A, 6B (U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.).
98
the "casual offender" of middle-class background, in
sharp contrast to the "official delinquent" in the
correctional settings.
An earlier consideration of testing for social
class characteristics rather than selecting a middle-
class community was abandoned due to a review of the
disappointing results of Matza's attempt to test for
class characteristics in his New Jersey study. It
appeared that on the basis of his findings, information
about father's income and education was very
undependable.^
It was recognized that some "official delinquents"
probably did come from middle-class background, but
that a comparison of students from a middle-class
community high school with "official delinquents" in
a correctional setting would provide a general picture
of contrast which would be suitable for purposes of the
present study. Actually, the general purpose was to
select cases of more extensive and less extensive
delinquency involvement in samples which generally
represented differential class background.
6Matza, "The Moral Code of Delinquents,"
op. cit.. p. 98.
99
Sixty-five per cent of the senior class of
this community's only high school was available for
this study. A total of 134 cases was obtained.
Parents were contacted in every case by letter,
describing the nature of the study.
Research Hypotheses
Based on the propositions listed in Chapter I,
the following research hypotheses are presented:
A Comparison Between Groups
1. Delinquency
a. In a comparison of the three groups
under investigation, there will be a
significant difference in delinquency
involvement.
b. There will be no significant difference
between the two correctional groups in
delinquency involvement.
c. The school group will have significantly
less delinquency involvement than
either of the two correctional groups.
2. Conformity Values
In a comparison of the three groups under
investigation, there will be no
significant difference in support of
conformity values.
3. Success values
a. In a comparison of the three groups under
investigation, there will be a significant
difference in support of success values.
100
b. There will be no significant difference
between the two correctional groups in
support of success values.
c. The school group will have significantly
more support of success values than
either of the two correctional groups.
4. Delinquency Values
In a comparison of the three groups
under investigation, there will be no
significant difference in support of
delinquency values.
5. Rationalization of Delinquent Behavior
a. In a comparison of the three groups under
investigation, there will be a significant
difference in rationalization of
delinquent behavior.
b*. There will be no significant difference
between the two correctional groups in
rationalization of delinquent behavior.
c. The school group will have significantly
less rationalization of delinquent
behavior than either of the two
correctional groups.
6. Acceptance of Responsibility for Difficulty
a. In a comparison of the three groups
under investigation, there will be a
significant difference in acceptance of
responsibility for difficulty.
b. There will be no significant difference
between the two correctional groups in
acceptance of responsibility for
difficulty.
c. The school group will have significantly
more acceptance of responsibility for
difficulty than either of the two
correctional groups.
7. Delinquent Associations
a. In a comparison of the three groups
under investigation, there will be a
significant difference in delinquent
associations.
b. There will be no significant difference
between the two correctional groups in
delinquent associations.
c. The school group will have significantly
less delinquent associations than either
of the two correctional groups.
The above hypotheses are schematically represented
in Figure 1.
A Measure of Association Within Groups
1. Delinquency and Conformity Values
a. Within the school group there will be
a significant inverse association
between delinquency involvement and
support of conformity values.
b. Within each of the two correctional
groups there will be no significant
association between delinquency involve
ment and support of conformity values.
2. Delinquency and Success Values
a. Within the school group there will be a
significant inverse association between
delinquency involvement and support of
success values.
b. Within each of the two correctional
groups there will be no significant
association between delinquency
involvement and support of success
values.
102
FIGURE 1
RESEARCH HYPOTHESES IN A COMPARISON OF GROUPS
FOR SIGNIFICANT VARIABLES RELATIVE TO
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
Variables School Prob. Dept. Youth Auth.
Delinquency Significantly
lower than
Prob. Dept,
and Youth
Auth.
Significantly Significant-
higher than ly higher
School; same than school;
as Youth same as Prob.
Auth. Dept.
Conformity
Values
Same as Prob.
Dept. and
Youth Auth.
Same as School Same as
and Youth School and
Auth. Prob. Dept.
Success
Values
Significantly
hiqher them
Prob. Dept,
and Youth
Auth.
Significantly Significantly
lower than lower than
School;same School;same
as Youth as Prob.
Auth. Dept.
Delinquency
Values
Same as Prob.
Dept, and
Youth Auth.
Same as School Same as
and Youth School and
Auth. Prob. Dept.
Rationalization Siqnificantly
lower than
Prob. Dept,
and Youth
Auth.
Significantly Significantly
higher than hiqher than
School;same School;same
as Youth as Prob.
Auth. Dept.
103
FIGURE 1 (Continued)
Variables School Prob. Dept. Youth Auth.
Acceptance Significantly Significantly Significant-
of Responsi higher than lower than ly lower
bility
Prob. Dept. School; same than School;
and Youth as Youth same as
Auth. Auth. Prob. Dept.
Delinquent Significantly Significantly Significantly
Associations lower them hiqher than hiqher than
Prob. Dept. School;same Schoolysame
and Youth Youth as Prob.
Auth. Auth. Dept.
Delinquency and Delinquency Values
a. Within the school group there will be
a significant association between
delinquency involvement and support of
delinquency values.
b. Within each of the two correctional
groups there will be no significant
association between delinquency
involvement and support of delinquency
values.
Delinquency and Rationalization
Within each of the three groups under
investigation there will be a significant
association between delinquency involve
ment and rationalization of delinquent
behavior.
Delinquency and Acceptance of Responsibility
Within each of the three groups under
investigation there will be a
significant inverse association between
delinquency involvement and acceptance
of responsibility for difficulty.
Rationalization and Acceptance of
Responsibility
Within each of the three groups under
investigation there will be a
significant inverse association between
rationalization of delinquent behavior
and acceptance of responsibility for
difficulty.
Delinquency Values and Delinquent
Associations
Within each of the three groups under
investigation there will be a significant
association between delinquency values
and delinquent associations.
105
8. Rationalizations and Delinquent Associations
Within each of the three groups under
investigation there will be a
significant association between
rationalization of delinquent behavior
and delinquent associations.
The above hypotheses are schematically represented
in Figure 2.
Summary and Discussion of Hypotheses
Our hypotheses have been derived from
propositions which relate variates, or the relative
7
value of variables.
In group comparisons, both of the correctional
groups would characterize more delinquency involvement,
more rationalization of delinquent behavior, less
acceptance of responsibility for difficulty, and more
delinquent associations than the school group. Support
of conformity values and delinquency values would be
the same for the three groups under investigation,
though these variables would have significance for
delinquency contingent upon the individual's membership
in a less extensive or more extensive delinquency group.
Within group analysis is necessary to evaluate this
contingency factor. The school group would support„
7
Cf. Hans L. Zetterberg, On Theory and
Verification in Sociology (Totowa, New Jersey: The
Bedminister Press, 1963), pp. 12, 43.
106
FIGURE 2
RESEARCH HYPOTHESES IN A MEASURE OF ASSOCIATION
WITHIN GROUPS FOR SIGNIFICANT VARIABLES
RELATIVE TO JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
Variables School Prob. Dept. Youth Auth.
Delincruencv
and Conform
ity Values
Significant No Significant No Significant
association association association
(inverse)
Delinauencv
and Success
Values
Significant No Significant No Significant
association association association
(inverse)
Delinauencv
and Delinquency
Values
Significant No Significant No Significant
association association association
Delinauencv
and Rational
ization
Significant Significant
association association
Significant
association
Delinauencv
and Acceptance
of Re
sponsibility
Significant Significant
association association
(inverse) (inverse)
Significant
association
(inverse)
Rationalization,
Acceptance of
Responsibility
Significant Significant
association association
(inverse) (inverse)
Significant
association
(inverse)
Delinauencv
Values and
Delinquent
Associations
Significant Significant
association association
Significant
association
Rationalizations Significant Significant Significant
and Delinquent association association association
Associations
107
success values significantly more than either of the
two correctional groups, indicating a greater support
of useful skills for achievement. Delinquent associations
would be supported significantly more by the two
correctional groups than by the school group. These
delinquent associations theoretically would provide
definitions favorable for delinquent behavior, in terms
of opportunity to learn certain rationalizations or
delinquency values, but it remains to be seen if it be
rationalizations rather than delinquency values which
are significant for extensive delinquency involvement.
Again, within group analysis is necessary to answer
this question.
In measures of association within groups, for
the less delinquent school group confomity values,
success values, delinquency values, rationalization of
delinquent behavior, and acceptance of responsibility
for difficulty are hypothesized as significantly
associated with the range of delinquency involvement in
this group.
However, for the more extensively delinquent
correctional groups only rationalization of delinquent
behavior and acceptance of responsibility for difficulty
remain as significantly associated with the range of
delinquency involvement of these groups. Moreover,
108
it is hypothesized that rationalization and acceptance
of responsibility are inversely associated.
Delinquent associations are not only significantly
associated with rationalization of delinquent behavior,
but with delinquency values as well, though it is
hypothesized that it is rationalization that is
important for extensive delinquency involvement and not
delinquency values.
One may contend that although the aforementioned
sets of values are important for youthful offenders
who have committed relatively less delinquency, for
the "official delinquents" with a history of extensive
involvement the effect of such values is insignificant,
and one may reasonably infer that definitions in the
form of self-justification tend to be more important
than the effect of the values in question.
Finally, as a passing statement on hypotheses,
it must be said that very likely the nature of the
relation of these values and rationalizations and the
delinquent behavior is stochastic (i.e., if"X", probably
"Y") rather than deterministic (i.e., if "X", always
"Y"). It may be said that study of stochastic relations
does provide understanding of general tendencies of
behavior, even when such relations are not relatively
strong.
109
Research Instrument; The Questionnaire
The questionnaire was selected because of its
several advantages for this type of research. The
major considerations were the cost involved for the
rather large total sample selected, the fact that the
questionnaire could be administered to large groups of
subjects at one time, the opportunity to standardize
the content and order of questions and thus achieve
uniformity in collection of data, and the degree of
anonymity possible with the use of the questionnaire.
Of these several considerations probably
anonymity was most important. The rather sensitive
nature of this investigation required that effort be
made to minimize inhibition and elicit freedom of
response as much as possible. Furthermore, in all of
the several settings investigated there was a desire on
the part of administrators that anonymity be insured.
Some of the questions were designed to tap rather
serious violations of the law, and it is likely that
personal interviews would have been rather difficult to
rely upon.
Aside from these general considerations, there
were two major purposes for the use of the questionnaire
as a research instrument. One was, of course, to
formulate questions which would provide data necessary
110
to test the hypotheses. The second purpose, also
important, was to formulate questions in an interesting
and meaningful way for the respondent, so as to elicit
motivation to provide the required information. Most
investigators consider these related objectives as
paramount.®
The questions themselves were derived from
references in the literature, as well as suggestions
from personal experiences in working with delinquent
youth. The different sets of test items may be
reviewed at this time.
Questions Designed to Ascertain the
Amount of Delinauencv Involvement
Due to extended discussion of the shortcomings
9
of official statistics, and concern for anonymity and
interest in "hidden delinquency" in the present study,
it was decided to rely on self-reported offenses as an
index of delinquency involvement.
g
Leon Festinger and Daniel Katz, Research
Methods in the Behavioral Sciences (New Yorks The Dryden
Press, 1943), p. 340; A. L. Bowley, Elements of Statistics
(London: P. S. King and Co., 1920), pp. 18-25.
®See Chapter III regarding my review of the
question,"What is delinquency?" The advantages of
relying on self-reported data rather than official data
outweigh the disadvantages for this type of study. This
appears to be true for "official delinquents," and
obviously is the only technique available for evaluating
the casual offender who has little or no official record.
Naturally, there must be consistency in technique for
correctional and non-correctional settings.
Ill
The recent studies by Short and Nye,"*"0 and by
Matza,^ have been noteworthy in the use of the self-
reporting technique, but items pertaining to serious
violation of the law were omitted for the most part.
Though it may raise certain difficulties in methodology
to inquire into the more serious offenses, it was felt
that in the present study it would be necessary to
consider the more serious offenses as well as less
serious offenses. It was felt that with proper
procedures to insure anonymity and promote motivation
to cooperate it would be possible to obtain a meaningful
evaluation of a broad range of offenses.
The actual selection of forms of delinquent
behavior to be used in the questionnaire for purposes
of respondent’s self- reporting was obtained over a
period of years. Initially reviewing the work of
12 13
Porterfield and Short and Nye, an analysis was then
made of the case records of the total male juvenile
10James P. Short and F. Ivan Nye, "Socioeconomic
Status and Delinquent Behavior," American Journal of
Sociology. LXIII (January, 1958), 381-389.
^Matza, "The Moral Code of Delinquents," op. cit.
12
Porterfield, Youth in Trouble, op. cit.
13
Short and Nye, "Reported Behavior as a
Criterion of Deviant Behavior," op. cit.
112
population assigned to the Southern Reception Center,
California Youth Authority, obtaining a broad and
inclusive list of offenses for which juveniles had in
fact been brought to the attention of the juvenile
court and dealt with officially. Later, in a pilot
study of "hidden delinquency" it was revealed that this
list of offenses appeared to cover the range of
delinquent behavior rather throughly, and that court
jurisdiction could result if recognition and official
action were taken.
In the present study thirteen categories of
offenses which are in violation of the Welfare and
Institutions Code, and for which official action can
be taken, were included in the questionnaire, totaling
14
77 different offenses.
The respondents were asked to check one of the
following alternative responses for each of the 77
offenses listed: (a) never , (b) one or two times____
(c) three or four times , (d) more than four times_.__
The thirteen categories of offenses were:
1. Acts of public annoyance.
2. Violation of traffic laws.
3. Malicious mischief.
See list of specific offenses in appendix.
They are found in Part I of the questionnaire.
113
4. Encroachment.
5. Personal affronts and injuries
6. Vagabondage.
7. Sex offenses.
8. Liquor violations.
9. Drug violations.
10. Theft.
11. Dishonesty other than theft.
12. Firearms violations.
13. Incorrigibility.
Questions Designed to Ascertain Support
of Conformity Values
Two different sets of test items were used to
evaluate support of conformity values. The first set
was provided by psychologist Leonard V. Gordon who has
developed and factor analyzed his Survey of Interpersonal
Values. As he reports in the literature, Gordon was
concerned that youth tested in a juvenile detention
home actually indicated more support for conformity
values than a comparable group of non-delinquents. His
suspicion of "giving the right answers" was diminished
someWhat by the fact that adults assigned to correctional
institutions did not indicate this degree of conformity.
Gordon wondered if the "official delinquents" actually
114
wanted to conform but did not make the grade for some
15
reason.
Through correspondence with Dr. Gordon it was
possible to obtain this testing instrument. The
instrument is designed to test five other sets of values
besides conformity values. Thus these six sets of
values are simultaneously evaluated, and the investigator
may subsequently extract numerical data for the set of
values in which he is interested. There are 90 test
16
items in all, arranged in groups of three. For each
group the respondent must check one item which is most
important to him, one item which is least important
to him, and leave one item blank.
This test has been standardized and apparently
is quite reliable in evaluating conformity values.
However, it tends to emphasize conduct norms relevant
to the law rather than explicit violations of the law.
For this reason a second set of questions was developed.
This second set of items was in contrast to Gordon*s
instrument somewhat, in that it included both conduct
15
Leonard V. Gordon, "Conformity Among Non-
Conformists, " Psychological Reports. VIII (1961), 383.
16
See list of specific items in appendix. They
are found in Part III of the questionnaire.
17
norms and specific reference to law violations.
There were 12 test items, and the respondents
were asked to check one of the following alternative
responses for each of the items: (a) strongly
disagree , (b) disagree ____, (c) agree_____,
(d) strongly agree .
The test items were as follows:
1. It is better to do what society thinks is
right.
2. You feel better about yourself when you tie"?
done what is right.
3. When you have a choice, you would rather d:
what society thinks is right.
4. When you have a choice, you would rather
not break the law.
5. It*s not all right to do just as you pleas*.
6. Some laws should be broken, (reverse weight.'
7. You often wonder if there is any good reasoi
for laws in society, (reverse weight)
8. You don't care too much about what society
thinks is the right thing to do. (reverse
weight)
9. Obeying the law is important for all
members of society.
10. You feel better about yourself when you
don't break the law.
17
See appendix. These items pertaining to
conformity values are mixed in with delinquency values
and success values. They are found in Part IV of the
questionnaire.
116
11. People should do the right thing, even if
it is not a law.
12. Obeying the law really helps people in the
long run.
Questions Designed to Ascertain Support
of Success Values
The content of these test items is taken from
Cohen's extensive review of the literature on social
class and socialization. As indicated previously,
Cohen feels that lower-class youth react to status-
frustration by rejecting success values, values
pertaining to useful forms of behavior conducive to
18
the achievement of success goals. Although he
suggests that this rejection results in inversion or
reversal of these values, for purposes of this
questionnaire we are concerned in the relative rejection
of such values. It may be suggested that rejection
does not necessarily mean reversal of such values. The
nine values Cohen mentions in his review are ambition,
individual responsibility, cultivation of skills of
achievement, delayed gratification, conscious planning,
manners and personality, control of physical aggression,
19
wholesome recreation, and respect for property.
From the content of the above, 17 test items
18
Cohen, Delinquent Bovs, op. cit., pp. 88-92.
117
were devised and the respondents were asked to check
one of the following alternative responses for each
of the items: (a) strongly disagree , (b) disagree ,
(c) agree , (d) strongly agree .
The test items were as follows:
1. Ambition is a virtue.
2. It's best to think things out ahead of time
before you do them.
3. Developing useful skills is important.
4. Manners, courtesy and respectability are
important.
5. Learning to achieve in society is important.
6. One should plan for the future.
7. It is important to show respect for someone's
private property.
8. It is important to plan your time well to
get what you want in life.
9. People should enjoy themselves in ways which
are not harmful to society.
10. People should emphasize responsibility.
11. Entertainment should be those activities
society thinks important.
12. It's good to have a personality most people
in society will respect.
13. Knowing how to take care of property in a
proper way is important.
14. One should learn to control physical
aggression and violence.
15. It is important to be ambitious.
16. It's better to not get what you want right now
if in the long run you'll get even more.
118
17. It is important to be a responsible person.
Questions Designed to Ascertain Support
of Delinquency Values
The content of these questions is taken from
20
Sykes and Matza's review of the literature on
delinquency values. They contend that one area of
delinquency values pertains to the delinquents search
for excitement, and that such behavior as may provide
emotionally satisfying experiences is valued. A
second area apparently considered important in the
literature on delinquency values is the delinquent's
supposed disdain for work and monetary achievement— hence
the non-utilitarian character of much delinquency is
understood in these terms. A third area stresses the
emphasis on hostility and aggression, sometimes
identified with a search for masculinity maintenance.
Some of these values are similar to Miller's lower-class
"focal concerns," previously mentioned.
From the content of the above, nine test items
were devised and again the respondents were asked to
check one of the following alternative responses for
each of the itemss (a) strongly disagree , (b) dis
agree , (c) agree , (d) strongly agree .
The test items were as followss
20 ~ ' — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Gresham M. Sykes and David Matza, "Juvenile
Delinquency and Sub-terranean Values," American
Sociological Review. XXVI (October, 1961), 712-719.
119
1. Doing things that are exciting and give one
a thrill is very important.
2. Proving to people you are tough is very
important.
3. It is more important to outsmart people
than to get something worth a lot of money.
4. Fighting is very important to develop your
reputation.
5. Getting ahead on the job isn't very important.
6. If you have to work, it is better to avoid
hard work in favor of an easy job.
7. Getting money isn't too important.
8. The adventure of getting "kicks- out of life
is very important.
9. Aggressive behavior toward others is
important to prove you are somebody.
Questions Designed to Ascertain Support of
Rationalization of Delinquent Behavior
The content of these questions is taken for the
21
most part from suggestions in Sykes' text, published
22
in 1956, and an aritcle by Sykes and Matza, published
a year later.
As indicated earlier, they conceptualized five
modes of rationalization,, viz., "denial of responsibility,"
"denial of injury," "denial of the victim," "con
demnation of the condemners," and "appeal to higher
21
Sykes, Crime and Society, op. cit.
22
Sykes and Matza, "Techniques of Neutralization,"
op. cit.
loyalties."
An additional source of suggested questions was
24
the Jesness Inventory, an instrument developed for
research purposes in the California Youth Authority.
From the suggestions of these two sources 49
test items were devised in the form of rationalization
of delinquent behavior. However, four additional
questions were added principally to evaluate consistency
of response, and the content was also designed to
inquire into other points of interest. Two of these
items were identical to two of the 49 test items used
to calculate the total rationalization score. That is,
two rationalization items were repeated to check
general consistency of group response. Two additional
questions were quite similar in form to one another,
and similar to one of the rationalization items. These
two questions mildly suggested definitions which could
be the basis for some form of rationalization, and
thus were not conspiciously in contrast with the total
group of rationalization items.
23
See discussion of these forms of rationalization
in Chapter IV.
24
Carl F. Jesness, The Jesness Inventory,
Development and Validation, Research Report No. 29,
(Sacramento: California Youth Authority, 1962,
mimeographed).
•These two similar test items were:
It is easy to break laws you don't know exist
because there are so many laws.
Everybody breaks laws sometime because there are
so many laws they don't know about.
In the above case consistency in group response
was to be noted for the two test items, as well as
appreciation of the relative percentage who felt law
violation was basically due to accident or ignorance
of the law. Also, it was planned to compare response
to these items with a similar item which was obviously
a marked form of rationalization of delinquent behavior.
This latter rationalization item was:
Most people break laws frequently because there
are so many laws they don't know about.
In the above case, inserting the word
“frequently" provides an important contrast to the
similar test items previously mentioned. It was intended
to observe possible contrast in response between this
item and the two similar items, as this was felt to
be some indication that the respondents were in fact
reading the questions with some care and were able to
distinguish important points of content.
The two rationalization items which were
repeated to test consistency of response were:
If a kid's parents don't care about him or
what he does, he shouldn't be blamed for
122
breaking a law once in a while.
People who have a lot of things are dishonest
or they wouldn*t have them.
These items pertain to “denial of responsibility"
and "condemnation of the condemners" respectively.
Consistency in response to these two items repeated in
the series of rationalization items was noted.
Therefore, of the four additional questions
designed to check consistency, two are similar in form
and are excluded from calculation of the total
rationalization score, and two are rationalization
items repeated in the series but counted only once in
calculation of the total score.
In addition, a fifth question was included
merely to evaluate awareness of law violation taking
place by people who know they are breaking the law.
Though more of a factual statement, this item also
could suggest the basis for some form of rationalization,
and therefore was not conspicious by its presence in
the series of rationalization items. This fifth test
item was:
#
Most people break the law once in a while even
when they know there is a law.
The 49 rationalization items included forms of
t
behavior likely to be familiar to both lower-class and
middle-class youth. It was intended to describe forms
123
of behavior which may be defined in rationalizations
which have significance for violation of laws and
conduct norms. Many of these items were taken from
memory of personal experience in working with delinquent
youth.
Again respondents were asked to check one of
the following alternative responses: (a) strongly
disagree , (b) disagree , • (c) agree , (d) strongly
agree .
In the following list the rationalization
items include the form of rationalization suggested,
though this latter explanation was of course omitted
25
from the questionnaire.
1. Most people break laws frequently because
there are so many laws they don't know
about. (Denial of responsibility)
2. Because lots of people break a law once in
a while it's all right to break a law once
in a while. (Condemnation of condemners)
3. Kids who have trouble at home shouldn't
be blamed for breaking laws once in a while.
(Denial of responsibility)
4. Soaping up somebody's car window is all right
if you don't do it very often. (Denial of
injury)
25
See list of specific items in the appendix.
They are found in Part II of the questionnaire.
Including the five additional items, a total of 54 test
items are included in this section, numbered from 001
to 054.
124
5. Most kids break laws because of friends
who get them into trouble. (Denial of
responsibility)
6. Letting the air out of someone*s tires is
O.K. if it is just a joke. (Denial of
injury)
7. Going to the beach when you should be in
school is all right if you don*t do it too
often. (Denial of injury)
8. Going to. a party in which you are not
invited is O.K. if you don't cause any
trouble. (Denial of injury)
9. Kids from bad neighborhoods shouldn't be
blamed for breaking laws once in a while.
(Denial of responsibility)
10. It's nobody else's business if two groups of
kids want to settle an argument by fighting.
(Denial of injury)
11. Even though you're under age, it's all right
to drink beer or wine if you drink at home.
(Denial of injury)
12. Kids who have trouble at home shouldn't
be blamed for breaking laws frequently.
(Denial of responsibility)
13. People who go on vacation and leave nobody
to protect their property deserve to have
their property damaged or stolen. (Denial
of the victim)
14. You couldn't blame a kid for breaking into
the school if the principal had suspended
him from school. (Condemnation of the
condemners)
15. Teachers give good grades to students they
like and bad grades to students they don't
like. (Condemnation of the condemners)
16. Most adults were just as bad as "juvenile
delinquents" when they were kids. (Con
demnation of the condemners)
125
17. If a kid's parents don't care about him or
what he does, he shouldn't be blamed for
breaking the law once in a while. (Denial
of responsibility)
18. Some kids break laws because of friends who
get them into trouble. (Denial of
responsibility)
19. Breaking windows shouldn't be too serious
if nobody's living in the home. (Denial
of the victim)
20. Kids from bad neighborhoods shouldn't be
blamed for breaking laws often. (Denial of
responsibility)
21. Stealing from a stranger is not as serious
as stealing from somebody you know. (Denial
of the victim)
22. Starting trouble for someone is all right
if you are getting even. (Denial of the
victim)
23. Always help a friend out of a jam even if it
means breaking a law. (Appeal to higher
loyalities)
24. If teachers were any good kids wouldn't
get kicked out of school for bad behavior.
(Condemnation of the condemners)
25. Breaking a store window would be all right
if the owner were insured and it didn't
cost him anything to get it replaced.
(Denial of injury)
26. It's all right for a kid to get beer or
wine if he gets an adult to buy it for him.
(Denial of injury)
27. If you take things from a "crooked" store
owner he deserves it. (Denial of the
victim)
28. Teachers kick you out of class because they
don't know how to teach. (Condemnation of
the condemners)
126
29. Even if you don't approve of your buddy
stealing something, you never "squeal" on
him. (Appeal to higher loyalties)
30. Taking somebody*s car without permission is
not too serious as long as you don't
damage the car and the owner gets it back
all right. (Denial of injury)
31. People who make a fuss about kids climbing
over their wall deserve to have their
flower beds torn up a bit. (Denial of the
victim)
32. Police who pick up kids for breaking the
law just do it for spite because they don*t
like certain kids. (Condemnation of the
condemners)
33. If a bunch of your friends break the law
you should go along with it if they are
really your friends. (Appeal to higher
loyalties)
34. It's only right to throw dirt clods into a
neighbor's swimming pool if he is selfish
and won't let anyone swim in his pool.
(Denial of the victim)
35. Breaking into somebody's house is not as
big a crime if nobody's home. (Denial of
the victim)
36. If a teacher is unfair you would expect
kids to cause trouble in class. (Denial
of the victim)
37. Beating up another kid is all right if he
is a "jerk;" (Denial of the victim)
38. If everybody knew how dishonest adults were
they wouldn't make such a fuss about kids
breaking the law. (Condemnation of the
condemners)
39. Taking a few apples from a grocery store
won't do any harm. (Denial of injury)
127
40. The police don't think breaking street
lights is as serious if the street is
deserted. (Denial of the victim)
41. If your buddies expect you to do something,
you should do it, even if it may be illegal
or wrong. (Appeal to higher loyalties)
42. People who make a big fuss about "juvenile
delinquents*' are just plain stupid.
(Condemnation of the condemners)
43. Cheating on a test is all right if the
teacher is out of the room. (Denial of the
victim)
44. People who have a lot of things are dishonest
or they wouldn't have them. (Condemnation
of the condemners)
45. People who complain about kids breaking the
law probably break the law a lot themselves.
(Condemnation of the condemners)
46. It's not as serious to take somebody's
property if you don't know who it belongs
to. (Denial of the victim)
47. Most parents "take it out" on their
children just to get even. (Condemnation of
the condemners)
48* People who are always talking about being
"good" are probably "phonies." (Con
demnation of the condemners)
49. Shop-lifitng for fun is O.K. if its a
big store and they can afford it. (Denial
of injury)
Questions Designed to Ascertain Acceptance
of Responsibility for Difficulty
The content of these questions is taken from
questionnaire items used by Clark in his study of
inmates confined to a maximum security prison in
128
26
Ohio. In this study Clark concluded that there is a
relationship between accepting blame or responsibility
for one's behavior and the alienation experienced by
resorting to deviant behavior because of failure to
achieve legitimate goals. In fact, he contended that
the offender may feel that the real cause of both
failure and criminal behavior is due to circumstances
external to the individual.
Though this study dealt with the institutionalized
adult offender and official statistics, it did suggest
that some of the questions would lend themselves to
an evaluation of acceptance of responsibility for
difficulty on the part of the juvenile offender.
Through correspondence with Dr. Clark it was possible
to obtain a list of test items used in his study.
Two sets of questions were adapted from Clark*s
questionnaire. The first was mildly projective, in
that the respondent was asked to assign responsibility
to a variety of fictitious situations concerning a
person called “Joe," or to assign responsibility to
forces external to "Joe." The second set involved
responsibility assignment to self or outside forces for
several commonly experienced situations of difficulty
26
John P. Clark, "Acceptance of Blame and
Alienation Among Prisoners," American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry. XXXIII (April7~igS3j , " 357-361.--
129
and failure. In both sets the situations describe
difficulty in reference to law or relations with other
people. There are seven situations described in each
set.
In set one the respondents were asked to check
one of the following alternative responsesr (a) Joe,
himself , (b) outside things .
The situations were as follows:
1. In growing up as a boy, Joe’s family life
was likely not much different from yours.
Joe and his parents didn't seem to get
along too well at times. Who would you say
was most likely to blame for this?
2. Joe had been going with his girl for several
months. In fact, they even planned to get
married some day. However, something
happened and they broke up. Who would you
say was most likely to blame for this?
3. Like most people, Joe had some buddies whom
he ran around with. He was pretty close to
them. Once in a while, though, they got
into arguments which ended in hard feelings
for a while. Who would you say was most
likely to blame for this?
4. Like most of us, Joe never has been completely
satisfied with the amount of money he has had
to spend on things he wants. There are
lots of things he would like to do if he had
the money, but he does not have it. Who
would you say was most likely to blame for
this?
5. Joe was a guy who had grown up with a back
ground about like yours. One thing led to
another and he found himself in trouble with
the law. In fact, he was later . sent to
forestry camp. Who would you say was most
likely to blame for this?
130
6. When Joe was on probation for a while he
was picked up again and returned to juvenile
hall. Who would you say was most likely to
blame for this?
7. As a matter of fact, you could say that the
blame for Joe's trouble belongs mostly to:
In set two the respondents were asked to check
one of the following alternative responses: (a) myself
, (b) outside things____.
The situations were as follows:
1. When you were growing up, there probably
were times when you and your family didn't
see eye-to-eye on things you wanted to do.
Who would you say was most likely to blame
for this?
2. During your lifetime there probably have
been times when you just couldn't get along
well with certain other people. In fact,
you probably disliked these people very
much at times. Who would you say was most
likely to blame for this?
3. We have all wanted things at times that we
didn't get. Think of some of the times
when you wanted something and for some
reason couldn't get it. Who would you say
was most likely to blame for this?
4. When you have been working on some kind of
job, there probably have been at least a
few times when you and the boss didn't see
eye-to-eye. At times like this, who would
you say was most likely to blame for this?
5. All of us have been in arguments with other
guys. In fact, sometimes we get pretty mad
when we get into one of these arguments. In
these cases, who would you say was most
likely to blame for getting mixed up in the
argument?
131
6. Sometimes we have run-ins with the law. In
your case, if you have had trouble with the
law, who would you say was most likely to
blame for this?
7. In fact, in looking back over the trouble
you have had, it looks like it could be
blamed mostly on:
Questions Designed to Ascertain
Delinquent Associations. .
The content of these questions is taken from
items used by Short in his study of differential
27
associations. Short*s questions were calculated to
measure frequency, duration, priority, and intensity of
associations, in keeping with the differential
association theory. For purposes of the present study,
Short's questions were modified somewhat to emphasize
associations with delinquent behavior of people
encountered, rather than the people themselves. Also,
the questions were reworded to include both violations
of laws and conduct norms, in order to be consistent
with our general evaluation of learned definitions which
28
are relevant to delinquency.
27
James F. Short, Jr., "Differential Association
with Delinquent Friends and Delinquent Behavior,"
Pacific Sociological Review. I (Spring, 1958), 20-25.
28
Cf. Donald R. Cressey, "The Development of a
Theory: Differential Association," The Sociology of
Crime and Delinquency, ed. Marvin E. Wolfgang, Leonard
Savitz and Norman Johnston (New York: John Wiley, 1962),
pp. 83-84.
132
There were nine test items devised to measure
delinquent associations. The respondents were asked
to check one of several alternative responses. The
wording of these response categories varies somewhat,
depending upon the question, though in general they are
29
designed to describe the degree of association.
The test items were as followsj
1. Think of the people (kids or adults) you
have been associated with most often. Have
any of them done things that are very
wrong or illegal?
2. Think of the people (kids or adults) you
have known for the longest time. Have any
of them done things that are very wrong or
illegal?
3. Think of the first people (kids or adults)
you can remember. Did any of them do things
that were very wrong or illegal?
4. Have any of these people (kids or adults)
who have done things that are wrong or
illegal been important and successful people?
5. Were there many young people (teenage or
younger) doing things that were very wrong
or illegal in the community in which you
grew up?
6. Have any of your friends done things that
are very wrong or illegal?
7. Are any of your present friends doing things
that are very wrong or illegal?
8. Do you know any adults who are doing things
that are very wrong or illegal?
29
See list of specific items in Appendix. They
are found in Part V of the questionnaire.
133
9. How well have you known people (kids or
adults) who have done things very wrong
or illegal?
Measurement of Variables
Naturally the procedure for determining
particular score values depended somewhat on the
variable in question. At the outset it must be stated
that due to conviction that the variables in the present
study constituted ordinal data, the measurement
procedures and subsequent statistical evaluation were
selected in reference to this fact.
Delinquency Involvement
A fundamental question raised in attempt to
measure delinquency involvement is whether delinquency
tends to be homogeneous in character. Unfortunately,
the literature and research on this question have not
provided any conclusive answer.
Though it is easily recognized that different
offenses are not, of course, the same in character, the
separation of delinquency into separate units is not
30
easily accomplished. Neither is there any guarantee
that two individuals committing what is identified as
30
Don C. Gibbons, "Prospects and Problems of
Delinquency Topology," Sociological Inquiry, XXXII
(Spring, 1962), 236.
134
the same delinquent act actually are committing the same
act in the same way, nor that this represents the same
involvement for this act. Some attempt to meet this
problem has been seen in certain theoretical developments
suggesting sub-cultural typologies of offenses, but
these discussions often end up in identifying types of
delinquents as well as offenses, and the picture is
far from clear. Moreover, “non-sub-cultural offenses"
to be observed in a sub-cultural typology are not easy
to explain.
In a recent study of delinquent gangs in Chicago,
Short, Tennyson, and Howard failed to support the
hypothesis of conflict, criminal, and retreatist
sub-cultural typologies of delinquency that Cloward and
Ohlin had envisaged, though some clique behavior for
31
delinquency specialization of theft was suggested.
A correlation matrix of 37 forms of delinquent behavior
suggested that delinquency involvement is to some
extent a global phenomenon, and that the dimensions
might constitute a continuum of greater or lesser
32
involvement regardless of specific offenses committed.
31
James P. Short, Ray A. Tennyson, and Kenneth I.
Howard, "Behavior Dimensions of Gang Delinquency,"
American Sociological Review, XXVIII (June, 1963),
411-428.
32Ibid., p. 417.
135
However, factor analysis of this matrix did not indicate
that seven of the "most delinquent behaviors" were
33
equally delinquent.
A common argument for heterogenity of delinquent
acts has been seen in reference to "delinquency
specialists." The fact that Short and hie associates
did not find significant evidence for such specialization
would tend to weaken the argument somewhat. Such
specialization may be the case for adult crime, but
much less true for delinquency. Cohen, for one, has
often emphasized the versatility which characterizes
delinquency.3^
Matza has argued that a substantial portion of
what is ordinarily considered to be delinquent behavior
really constitutes a relatively homogeneous
phenomenon, and that although every delinquent has not
committed all possible offenses, there are degrees of
delinquency that various juveniles have or have not
attained. It is at least theoretically possible to
35
consider much of delinquency as being of a piece.
33Ibid., p. 421.
34 ,
Cohen, Delinquent Boys, op. cit., pp. 25-29.
35
Matza, "The Moral Code of Delinquents,"
op. cit., pp. 31-37.
136
Though one may agree that varieties of
delinquent acts do not constitute equal units in terms
of the character of the offense, the seriousness of
the offense, or the manner in which the offense is
committed, it is suggested that given a broad spectrum
of possible delinquent behaviors, a measure of the
amount of acts committed might provide a reasonable
indication of delinquency involvement. This basically
was the rationale for delinquency measurement in the
present study.
It may be noted that a broad spectrum of
possible delinquent acts must naturally include more
serious as well as less serious offenses. As indicated
previously, the delinquency items selected for this
study do provide a rather inclusive range of delinquent
acts.
For each individual case a total score was
obtained on the basis of the subject's response to the
77 delinquent acts included in the questionnaire. The
extent of his response for the respective acts was also
taken into account in calculating this total score. In
the latter respect, a weighted score was given for each
of the response categories.
The total scores were then arranged in a
frequency distribution for each of the three samples of
137
the study. Under the circumstances, it was felt that
these delinquency scores constituted ordinal data.
As such, these data were to be evaluated with non-
parametric techniques.
Conformity Values, Success Values
and Delinquency Values
The first test of conformity values, Gordon's
instrument, presented no special problem in measurement*
procedure. The test items have been factor analyzed,
and a key was provided which scored the "correct"
answers indicative of conformity. A total score was
obtained for each respondent in this relatively easy
manner. These scores were then arranged in a frequency
distribution for each of the three samples of the
study. Though the data obtained here may lend
themselves to parametric techniques, non-parametric
techinques were to be used due principally to the lack
of random selection of the samples, as well as other
considerations of the ordinal nature of the data of
other variables in the study.
For the second test of conformity values, and
for success values and delinquency values, another
measurement device was necessary.
After a review of the literature on scaling
138
36
devices, it was decided that the Likert scale
suggested a procedure which would he useful and
practical for the present study.
Accordingly, the degree to which respondents
favored or opposed certain statements was to be
measured by the use of the four fixed alternative
response categories for each statement. Usually this
type of device is designed to determine the total
score for each respondent by measuring the total number
of favorable responses times the intensity of the
response, and subtracting the total number of un
favorable responses times the intensity of response.
In such case, naturally some of the total scores
derived from this mathematical procedure would be
positive in value and some negative in value. Therefore,
in order to avoid the linear transformation necessary
in arranging these derived scores in a frequency
distribution, it was decided to give a positive weighted
value for the four response categories. Hence, total
scores for each respondent would equal the sum of
scores derived in this way for each statement. Insofar
as the data to be obtained in this manner were
36
Rensis Likert, "A Technique for the Measurement
of Attitudes," Archives of Psychology, CXL (June,
1932), 5-52.
139
considered to be ordinal, this kind of mathematical
transformation does not change the order of the scores,
and thus is admisable because it does not involve any
37
loss of information.
There is sometimes a question that scores
obtained in the foregoing manner represent a measure
of the same process. That is, with this procedure it
is possible for equal scores to be obtained by
individuals who accept different items. However, it
may also be pointed out that the same inclusive
attitudes associated with values may be determined by
different patterns of antecedent conditions. From
responses to an apparently heterogeneous collection of
items there may emerge some significant reflection of
a tendency to support certain values to a certain degree,
and thus two individuals agreeing with different
statements may in fact be comparable in strength and
38
tendency to act in a given way.
The measurement of success values and
delinquency values followed the same rationale and
procedure as the above. Non-parametric techniques were
planned for dealing with these data.
37
Sidney Siegel, Non-Parametric Statistics for
the Behavioral Sciences (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956),
p. 25.
38
Cf. Festinger and Katz, op. cit., p. 260.
Rationalization of Delinquent Behavior
Although it has heen suggested that rationaliza
tions are operative in reference to certain values, and
also that a certain value may be placed on commonly
recognized rationalizations of delinquent behavior,
per se rationalizations are not exactly the same as
values. Nonetheless, it was felt that measurement of
support of rationalizations could be obtained by
utilizing the same procedure as in the case of measure
ment of support of values, for in either case the
ostensible measurement objective is an evaluation of
some kind of ideology in terms of definitions favorable
or unfavorable to violations. Again, data were
considered to be ordinal.
Acceptance of Responsibility for Difficulty
In this case measurement of the extent of
acceptance of responsibility for difficulty was
obtained by assigning positive weights to the two fixed
alternative response categories, again obviating linear
transformation of total scores to be arranged in
frequency distributions. The same procedure was used
for the mildly projective test requiring a choice of
response between "Joe" and "outside things," and the
test requiring a choice between "myself" and "outside
things." Data were considered to be ordinal.
141
Delinquent Associations
Measurement of the extent of delinquent
associations was obtained by assigning reverse weights
to the alternative response categories. These data
were also arranged in frequency distributions and were
considered to be ordinal.
Statistical Evaluation
The major purpose of statistical analysis of
the data was to be a test of the various research
hypotheses of the study. However, in the case of the
rationalization items a secondary purpose was a
comparison of the relative rank position of the
rationalization items based on the percentage of
support for the items by the three groups under
investigation in this study.
In testing the research hypotheses two non-
parametric statistical devices were used. The Median
Test was considered most appropriate for comparing
the central tendency of the distribution of variables
for the three samples. This test assumes ordinal
data and lends itself to such evaluation for more than
two samples which need not be of equal size (i.e.,
extension of the Median Test for k-independent samples).
The calcualtion of this statistic involved the use of
142
39
Chi-Square. For within group measures of association
the Coefficient of Contingency was selected as appropriate
for these data. This statistic also relies upon Chi-
Square. In the latter respect, the frequency
distributions of the respective variables were
trichotomized into categories suggesting "low," "medium,"
and "high" positions in the distribution. It was felt
that by virtue of the fact that the respective variables
did not actually constitute a scale in the true sense,
the continuous distribution of these data should be
broken up into three parts, realizing that this
procedure did not deny the fact that there would be
40
a distribution of cases within each sub-category.
In the case of comparing the relative rank
position of percentages of group support for the
rationalization items, additional statistical devices
were used. Because rationalization of delinquent
behavior was considered to be of central importance
to this study, this additional analysis was conducted.
However, in that this is not crucial to the acceptance
or rejection of the research hypotheses, these measures
will be mentioned at a later time. The statistical
39siegel, op. cit., pp. 111-116, 179-184.
40Ibid., p. 25.
evaluation of research hypotheses will now be
discussed.
143
A Comparison Between Groups
In these group comparisons it was hypothesized
that i
(a) 'There will be no significant difference
between the three groups under investigation
in support of conformity values and
delinquency values, but there will be a
significant difference between the three
groups for delinquency involvement,
rationalization of delinquent behavior,
acceptance of responsibility for difficulty,
success values, and delinquent associations.
(b) There will be significantly less delinquency
involvement, rationalization of delinquent
behavior and delinquent associations, and
more support of success values and
acceptance of responsibility for difficulty
for the school group than for either of
the correctional groups; and for these
variables there will be no significant
difference between the two correctional
groups.
When no significant difference is hypothesized
for the three groups, the extension of the Median Test
for k-independent samples is used and the level of
significance is evaluated in terms of a two-tailed
region of rejection. If, contrary to hypothesis,
significant difference is found between the three groups
for any variable, three additional tests are made to
locate that difference; i.e., a combinatorial problem
of three groups taken two at a time (C^). In such
case, the Median Test is used for each set of two
144
samples, and because a directional difference was not
originally hypothesized, the level of significance
again is evaluated in terms of a two-tailed region of
rejection.
When significant difference is hypothesized
for the three groups, the extension of the Median
Test for h-independent samples is used and the level
of significance is evaluated in terms of a two-tailed
region or rejection. If, consistent with hypothesis,
significant difference is found between the three
groups for any variable, again three additional tests
are made to locate that difference. For the additional
hypotheses which indicated the direction of the
difference between two groups, as in the case of
comparing the school groups with either of the
correctional groups, the level of significance is
evaluated in terms of a one-tailed region of rejection.
Additional hypotheses of no significant difference
between two groups, as in the case of the two
correctional groups, are non-directional hypotheses and
require the two-tailed test.
A Measure of Association Within Groups
In these measures of association within groups
it was hypothesized that:
145
(a) For the less delinquent school groups there
will be a significant association between
delinquency and delinquency values and
delinquency and rationalization of delinquent
behavior, and a significant inverse
association between delinquency and
conformity values, delinquency and success
values, and delinquency and acceptance
of responsibility for difficulty.
(b) For the more delinquent correctional groups
there will be a significant association
between delinquency and rationalization
of delinquent behavior, and a significant
inverse association between delinquency
and acceptance of responsibility for
difficulty, but no significant association
between delinquency and conformity values,
delinquency and success values and
delinquency and delinquency values.
(c) For each of the three groups under
investigation there will be a significant
inverse association between rationalization
of delinquent behavior and acceptance of
responsibility for difficulty.
(d) For e^ch of the three groups under
investigation there will be a significant
association between delinquency values and
delinquent associations and between
rationalization of delinquent behavior and
delinquent associations.
When Chi-Square values fail to be significant,
the calculation of the Coefficient of Contingency is
obviated, in that this coefficient is only significantly
41
different from zero when Chi-Square is significant.
41
Siegel, oia. cit., p. 199; J. P. Guilford,
Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education
(New Yorks McGraw-Hill, 1956), p. 316.
146
Administration of Questionnaire
In the pre-testing session at Los Padrinos
Juvenile Hall several important things were learned
which were to be useful in administering the
questionnaire to the correctional groups.
First of all, it was learned that about one
hour and thirty minutes would be sufficient maximum
time for completion of the questionnaire by these
respondents.
The questionnaire was administered in two
classrooms of the school program in this correctional
setting. A preliminary meeting with the school principal
and teachers was set up to explain the study, go over
the questionnaire, and discuss the best way to administer
the questionnaire, so as to get the best possible
response. It was decided that each teacher would give
introductory remarks to the class, emphasize the
importance of the study and the question of anonymity,
and that I would be assisting the classroom teachers
whenever possible. Basically this same procedure was
followed in all correctional settings.
An added procedure, however, was to set aside
two preliminary sessions at each correctional setting.
The first session was to discuss the questionnaire and
procedure with correctional administrators who in turn
147
would relay this information to school personnel. This
was done about a week before the scheduled date for
the testing period. The second session was a discussion
period with the school personnel themselves, and it
took place the date the test had been scheduled.
In the public school setting my assistance was
needed much less. One session was set aside to discuss
the study. The students were tested together in a
large auditorium and the relative sophistication of
these students required little assistance. However,
anonymity and the importance of the study were
stressed prior to the test period. This group
finished the questionnaire in about an hour on the
average. Upon completion of the questionnaire, students
were given a letter for their parents which indicated
the importance of the study and the fact that participation
was anonymous.
CHAPTER VI
THE RESULTS
Introduction
Naturally, the central interest in reporting
the results of this investigation concerns the evidence
supporting the general hypothesis of the paramount
importance of rationalization of delinquent behavior.
Relative to this, the several related hypotheses are
of interest in not only supporting the importance of
rationalization, but also in more fully illustrating
a picture of some kind of delinquent ideology.
In addition, because several of the selected
variables for investigation were derived from prominent
delinquency theories which have been currently the
subject of a good deal of discussion, it is of no small
interest to report on empirical findings which may
have relevance for these theories.
Statistical tests of significance^ are reported
rough check of quartiles of the various
frequency distributions indicated that for the most part
distributions were normal, though some were moderately
skewed in a negative direction, such as in the case of
delinquency involvement and rationalization for the
school group. This observation appeared to support the
efficacy of the use of the Median Test. Cf. Guilford,
op- cit., p. 81.
149
at or beyond the .05 level for the purpose of
demonstrating interesting tendencies in the data, thus
clarifying the strengths or weaknesses of the hypotheses
of the present study.
In the final analysis the empirical findings
ostensibly provide a better theoretical understanding
of the phenomenon of delinquent behavior.
Finally, these findings not only suggest future
research problems, but also provide certain implications
for procedure which may be useful in dealing with
youthful offenders. These latter considerations will
be discussed in the conclusion of the next chapter.
Hypotheses and Findings
Delinquency Involvement
These hypotheses are concerned with the relative
amount of delinquency involvement for the three groups
under investigation. It is necessary to determine this
before additional tests of possible differences
between groups take on meaning. It is hypothesized
that there will be a significant difference in
delinquency involvement for the three groups, the school
group will characterize significantly less delinquency
involvement than either of the two correctional groups,
and there will be no significant difference between the
150
two correctional groups.
Inspection of Table 2 reveals that these
hypotheses are all supported at the .01 level of
significance. Although the Youth Authority group
characterized slightly more delinquency involvement
than the Probation Department group, there is far from
any statistical significance here, and thus statistically
these two groups are essentially the same. It might
be expected that the Youth Authority group would have
been involved in somewhat more delinquency than the
Probation Department group, though it is not surprising
to note no statistical difference between these two
groups on the basis of self-reporting of offenses.
The school group clearly characterizes
significantly less delinquency involvement than either
of the two correctional groups, as was expected.
Conformity Values
These hypotheses are concerned with the relative
support of conformity values in respect to laws and
conduct norms. Two different tests of conformity are
used in this respect. It is hypothesized that there
will be no significant difference between the three
groups under investigation for either of the tests of
conformity.
151
TABLE 2
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GROUPS FOR
DELINQUENCY INVOLVEMENT
Median
School (N=134) 58.35 58.35 58.35
Probation Depart
ment (N=357) 177.16 177.16 177.16
Youth Authority
(N=183) 181.61 181.61 181.61
Chi-Square Values 126.88a .26 128.12b
*b
a. P .01, two-tail test
b. P .01, one-tail test
* Significant difference in that previous Chi-Square
value is significant.
152
Inspection of Table 3 reveals that no significant
difference was found between the three groups for either
of the two tests of conformity values, as was expected.
Chi-Square values fall far short of significance.
Interestingly enough, the school group was slightly
lower than either of the two correctional groups for
the first test, similar to Gordon's early finding in
the use of this test in similar circumstances, though
there was no statistical significance in this difference.
Success Values
These hypotheses concern the relative support
of success values for the three groups under investigation.
It is hypothesized that the school group will have
significantly more support of success values than
either of the two correctional groups, and that there
will be no significant difference between the two
correctional groups.
Inspection of Table 4 reveals that these
hypotheses are supported. There is a significant
difference between the three groups. The school group
is significantly higher than the Probation Department
group at the .01 level and higher than the Youth
Authority group at the .05 level. There is no
significant difference between the two correctional
groups.
153
TABLE 3
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GROUPS FOR
CONFORMITY VALUES
Set One Set Two
M e d i a n ______Median
School (N=134) 12.97 33.81
Probation Department
(N=357) 13.91 32.71
Youth Authority
(N=183) 13.83 33.45
Chi-Square Values 2.93 4.72
154
TABLE 4
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GROUPS FOR
SUCCESS VALUES
Median
School (N=134) 52.09 52.09 52.09
Probation Department
(N=357) 49.99 49.99 49.99
Youth Authority
(N=183) 50.36 50.36 50.36
Chi-Square Values 8.47b .21 7.08a 4.39°
a. P .01, one-tail test
b. P .05, two-tail test
c. P .05, one-tail test
155
Delinquency Values
This hypothesis concerns the relative support
of delinquency values for the three groups under
investigation. It is hypothesized that there will be
no significant difference between the three groups.
However, inspection of Table 5 reveals that this
hypothesis is not supported, in that a significant
difference was found between the three groups at the
.01 level. Therefore, it was necessary to make
additional tests to locate the difference. The results
of these additional tests revealed a mixed picture.
The school group is significantly lower than the
probation Department group at the .01 level, but not
significantly lower than the Youth Authority group.
Also, the Probation Department group was slightly
higher than the Youth Authority group at the .05 level.
Rationalization of Delinquent
Behavior
These major hypotheses concern the relative
support of rationalization of delinquent behavior. It
is hypothesized that the school group will support
significantly less rationalization of delinquent
behavior than either of the two correctional groups,
and that there will be no significant difference between
the two correctional groups.
156
TABLE 5
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GROUPS FOR
DELINQUENCY VALUES
Median
School (N=134)
Probation Department
(N=357)
Youth Authority
(N=183)
20.85
22.83
22.29
22.83
22.29
20.85
22.83
20.85
22.29
Chi-Square Values
a. P .01, two-tailed
b. P .05, two-tailed
20.73a
[ test
I test
6.02b 21.643 2.69
157
Inspection of Table 6 reveals that these
hypotheses are all supported at the .01 level of
significance. There was a slight difference between
the two correctional groups, but far from any
significant difference. Clearly the school group
supported significantly less rationalization of
delinquent behavior than either of the correctional
groups.
Acceptance of Responsibility
for Difficulty
These hypotheses concern the relative acceptance
of responsibility for difficulty for the three groups
under investigation. Two different tests of acceptance
of responsibility are used here. It is hypothesized
that there will be a significant difference in
acceptance of responsibility for difficulty for the
three groups. The school group will characterize
significantly higher acceptance of responsibility than
either of the two correctional groups, and there will
be no significant difference between the two correctional
groups.
Table 7 reveals that contrary to expectation,
there was no significant difference between the three
groups for either of the two tests of acceptance of
responsibility for difficulty.
TABLE 6
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GROUPS FOR
RATIONALIZATION OF DELINQUENT
BEHAVIOR
Median
School (N=134)
Probation Department
(N=357)
Youth Authority
(N=183)
92.70
106.53
104.41
106.53
104.41
92.70
106.53
92.70
104.41
Chi-Square Values
a. P .01, two-tail
b. P .01, one-tail
50,06a
test
test
1.00 50.61b 25.51b
159
TABLE 7
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GROUPS FOR ACCEPTANCE
OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR DIFFICULTY
Set One Set Two
Median Median
School (N=134) 11.50 10.74
Probation Department
(N=357) 11.14 10.68
Youth Authority
(N=183) 11.11 11.04
Chi-Square Values 2.27 2.24
160
Delinquent Associations
This final set of hypotheses for group
comparisons is concerned with delinquent associations
with people who have violated laws or conduct norms.
It is hypothesized that the school group will have had
significantly less delinquent associations than either
of the two correctional groups, and that there will be
no significant difference between the two correctional
groups.
Table 8 reveals that all hypotheses are
supported at the .01 level of significance. There
was no significant difference between the two
correctional groups, and the school group was significantly
lower than either of the correctional groups.
Delinquency and Conformity Values
These hypotheses concern the relative support
of conformity values for cases characterizing relative
degrees of delinquency involvement. It was hypothesized
that within the school group there will be a significant
inverse association between delinquency involvement
and support of conformity values, but no significant
association for these variables in each of the two
correctional groups. This measure of association is
made for both tests of conformity.
161
TABLE 8
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GROUPS FOR
DELINQUENT ASSOCIATIONS
Median
School (N=134) 27.93 27.93 27.93
Probation Department
(N=357) 35.40 35.40 35.40
Youth Authority
(N=183) 34.93 34.93 34.93
Chi-Square Values 76.14* .67 75.43k
59.04^
a. P .01, two-tail test
b. P .01, one-tail test
162
Inspection of Table 9 reveals that all of these
hypotheses are supported. For the first test of
conformity values there is a significant association
between delinquency involvement and support of conformity
values at the .05 level for the school group, with a
Coefficient of Contingency of .28, but no significant
association for these variables for either of the
correctional groups. For the second test, significance
of association for these variables was found at the
.01 level for the school group, with a Coefficient of
Contingency of .40, while no significance of association
was found for either of the correctional groups.
Though the findings pertaining to group
comparisons revealed no significant difference between
groups, thus questioning the view that "official
delinquents" fail to adopt conformity values, the
present measures of association indicate that conformity
values may be important for the youth of relatively
less extensive delinquency involvement, though
ineffective for youth of more extensive involvement.
Delinquency and Success Values
These hypotheses concern the relative support
of success values for cases characterizing relative
degrees of delinquency involvement. It is hypothesized
that within the school groups there will be a significant
163
TABLE 9
ASSOCIATION OF DELINQUENCY INVOLVEMENT
AND SUPPORT OF CONFORMITY VALUES
Chi-Square
Values
Coefficient of
Contingency
Set One
School (N=134) x2= 11.01b
CO
CN
•
l i
u
Probation Department
(N=357) x2= 5.65
Youth Authority
(N=183) x2= 9.45
Set Two
School (N-134) x2= 23.98a C= .40
Probation Department
(N=357) x2= 6.84
Youth Authority
(N=183) x2= 3.92
a. P .01
b. P .05
164
inverse association between these variables, but no
significant association between these variables for
either of the correctional groups.
Table 10 indicates that these hypotheses are
supported. For the school group there is a significant
inverse association between delinquency involvement and
support of success values at,the .05 level, with a
Coefficient of Contingency of .34. There is no
significant association between these variables for
either of the correctional groups.
As was the case for conformity values, success
values appear to be important for less extensive
delinquency involvement but not for more extensive
involvement. Group comparisons revealed a significantly
' higher support of success values by the school group.
The present finding indicates that support for values
pertaining to useful shills for success seems to be
significant for youth with a history of relatively
less extensive involvement in delinquency.
Delinquency and Delinquency Values
These hypotheses concern the relative support of
delinquency values for cases characterizing relative
degrees of delinquency involvement. It is hypothesized
that within the school group there is a significant
165
TABLE 10
ASSOCIATION OF DELINQUENCY
AND SUPPORT OF SUCCESS
INVOLVEMENT
VALUES
Chi-Square
Values
Coefficient of
Contingency
School (N=134)
Probation Department
(N=357)
Youth Authority
(N=183)
X2= 12.38a
X2= 3.42
X2= 4.59
C= .34
a. P .05
166
association between delinquency involvement and support
of delinquency values, but no significant association
for these variables for either of the correctional
groups.
Inspection of Table 11 reveals that these
hypotheses are supported, within the school group
there is a significant association between delinquency
involvement and support of delinquency values at the
.01 level, with a Coefficient of Contingency of .34.
There is no significant association for these
variables for either of the correctional groups. In
spite of the mixed findings in group comparisons, the
present findings indicate a picture similar to that
of conformity values and success values. Delinquency
values appear to be important for the less extensively
involved delinquents, though not for the extensively
involved delinquents, the "official delinquents."
Delinquency and Rationalization
of Delxnquency
These crucial hypotheses concern the relative
support of rationalization of delinquency for cases
characterizing relative degrees of delinquency in
volvement. Because it is felt that rationalization
is of paramount importance, more important than the
167
TABLE 11
ASSOCIATION OF DELINQUENCY INVOLVEMENT
AND SUPPORT OF DELINQUENCY VALUES
Chi-Square
Values
Coefficient of
Contingency
School (N=134) X2 = 17.89a C = .34
Probation Department
(N-357) X2 = 5.96
Youth Authority
(N=183) X2 = 4.86
a. P .01
aforementioned sets of values, it is hypothesized that
the significance of rationalization will not drop out
for the extensive delinquency characterized by the two
correctional groups. Therefore, it is hypothesized
that there will be a significant association between
delinquency involvement and rationalization for all
three groups.
Inspection of Table 12 does reveal that for the
three groups under investigation there is a
significant association between delinquency involvement
and rationalization of delinquent behavior at the .01
level, confirming all hypotheses. The Coefficients
of Contingency are .31, .30, and .27 for the school
group. Probation Department group, and Youth Authority
group respectively.
Delinquency and Acceptance of Responsibility
for Difficulty
These hypotheses concern the relative
acceptance of responsibility for difficulty for cases
characterizing relative degrees of delinquency
involvement. Similar to rationalizations, it is
hypothesized that there will be an inverse association
between delinquency involvement and acceptance of
responsibility for difficulty within all three groups.
These measures of association are made for both tests
169
TABLE 12
ASSOCIATION OP DELINQUENCY INVOLVEMENT
AND RATIONALIZATION OP
DELINQUENT BEHAVIOR
Chi-Square
Values
Coefficient of
Contingency
School (N=134) X2 = 14.29a C = .31
Probation Department
(N-357) X2 = 36.02a C = .30
Youth Authority
(N=183) X2 = 13.78a C = .27
a. P .01
170
of acceptance of responsibility.
Table 13 indicates that not all of these
hypotheses are supported. A significant association of
these variables was found for the Probation Department
group at the .05 level for the two tests, with the
relatively low Coefficients of Contingency of .17 and
.19 respectively. For the second test of acceptance of
responsibility a significant association of these
variables was found for the Youth Authority group at
the .05 level, with a Coefficient of Contingency of
.23. For the first test, no significant association
was found for the Youth Authority group. Neither was
there any significant association for these variables
for the school group for either of the tests of
acceptance of responsibility for difficulty. Apparently,
the relationship is stronger for the more extensive
correctional groups, as indicated in three of the four
tests. However those cases where measures of association
are significant the corresponding Coefficients of
Contingency are very low. Contrary to expectation,
though the findings are similar for some of the tests
to the findings pertaining to rationalization, they
do not appear to indicate as strong a relationship.
171
TABLE 13
ASSOCIATION OF DELINQUENCY INVOLVEMENT
AND ACCEPTANCE OF RESPONSIBILITY
FOR DIFFICULTY
Chi-Square
Values
Coefficient of
Contingency
Set One
School (N=134) X2 - 4.18
Probation Department
(N=357) X2 = 10.02a C = .17
Youth Authority
(N=183) X2 = 3.98
Set Two
School (N=134) X2 = 1.20
Probation Department
(N=357) X2 = 13.253 C = .19
Youth Authority
(N=183) X2 = 9.99a C = .23
a. P .05
172
Rationalization of Delinquent Behavior
and Acceptance of Responsibility
for Difficulty
These hypotheses inquire into the possible
association of rationalization of delinquent behavior
and acceptance of responsibility for difficulty for
cases within the three groups under investigation.
Because of some suggested possibility of similarity in
definitions, it is hypothesized that there will be a
significant inverse association between rationalization
of delinquent behavior and acceptance of responsibility
for difficulty for the three groups under investigation.
Again, this measure is made for both tests of acceptance
of responsibility.
Inspection of Table 14 reveals that all but
one of these hypotheses are supported. For the school
group there is a significant inverse association between
these variables at the .01 level, with Coefficients of
Contingency of .35 and .36 respectively. Significant
associations between these variables were also found
for the Probation Department group for both tests at
the .01 level, with Coefficients of Contingency of .23
and .22 respectively. For the Youth Authority group
a significant association was found for the second test
at the .01 level, with a Coefficient of Contingency of
.41. No significant association was found for the first
test within the Youth Authority group.
173
TABLE 14
ASSOCIATION OF RATIONALIZATION OF DELINQUENT
BEHAVIOR AND ACCEPTANCE OF RESPONSIBILITY
FOR DIFFICULTY ’
Chi-Square
Values
Coefficient of
Contingency
Set One
School (N=134) X2 = 18.65a C = .35
Probation Department
(N=357) X2 = 18.99a C = .23
Youth Authority
(N=183) X2 = 8.99
Set Two
School (N=134) X2 = 20.08a C = .36
Probation Department
(N=357) X2 = 18.02a C = .22
Youth Authority
(N=183) X2 = 36.73a C = .41
a. P .01
174
Delinquency Values and Delinquent
Associations
These hypotheses concern the relative support
of delinquency values for cases characterizing
relative degrees of delinquent associations. Because
of the suggested possibility that delinquency values
may be learned through delinquent associations, it is
hypothesized that there will be significant association
between these variables for the three groups under
investigation.
Inspection of Table 15 reveals that this
hypothesis is supported for the school group and Youth
Authority group at the .05 level,.with Coefficients of
Contingency of .26 and .24 respectively. No significant
association was found for the Probation Department
group. Thus, there is some indication of association
here, but it is not consistent, as evidenced by the
lack of association for the Probation Department
group.
Rationalization of Delinquent Behavior
and Delinquent Associations
These last crucial hypotheses concern the
relative support of rationalization for cases
characterizing relative degrees of delinquent associations.
Again, it is hypothesized that there will be a
175
TABLE 15
ASSOCIATION OF DELINQUENCY VALUES
AND DELINQUENT ASSOCIATIONS
Chi-Square Coefficient of
Values Contingency
School (N=134) X2 = 9.77a C = .26
Probation Department
o
(N=357) yr = 4.36
Youth Authority
0 a
-
(N=183) X - 11.01 C = .24
a. P .05
176
significant association between these variables within
the three groups under investigation.
Table 16 reveals that these hypotheses are all
supported. For the school group, Probation Department
group, and the Youth Authority group there is in fact
a significant association between these variables at
the .01 level. Coefficients of Contingency are .45,
.30, and .30 respectively.
Summary and Discussion of Findings
In a comparison between groups, of twenty-one
tests of hypotheses made, two general hypotheses were
not supported, this result requiring three additional
tests. Thus, a total of twenty-four statistical
tests was made.
Consistent with hypotheses, the statistical
findings reveal that the school group characterized
significantly less delinquency involvement, rationaliza
tion of delinquent behavior, and delinquent associations,
and significantly more success values than either of
the two correctional groups, and that there was no
significant difference between the two correctional
groups in respect to these variables. Also consistent
with hypothesis, there was no significant difference
between the three groups for either of the two tests
177
TABLE 16
ASSOCIATION OF RATIONALIZATION OF
DELINQUENT BEHAVIOR AND
DELINQUENT ASSOCIATIONS
Chi-Square Coefficient of
Values Contingency
School (N=134) X2 = 34.83a C = .45
Probation Department
(N=357) X2 = 34.06a C = .30
Youth Authority
(N=183) X2 = 18.11a C = .30
a. P .01
178
of conformity values.
On the basis of these findings one could not
reasonably conclude that it was rejection of conformity
values which accounted for the more extensive
delinquency involvement of the two correctional groups.
The greater support of rationalization and the lower
support of success values for the two correctional
groups might suggest that these two variables were
both significant for extensive delinquency involvement.
However, the fact that subsequent measures of
association between each of these variables and
delinquency revealed that rationalization rather than
success values remained as significantly associated
with delinquency for the correctional groups suggests
that rationalization of delinquent behavior is far
more important. Moreover, though success values may
be important for achievement, and lack of achievement
may mean frustration, theoretically the delinquent act
itself would be more reasonably accounted for by
rationalization calculated to justify the behavior as
acceptable.
Contrary to hypothesis, apparently there is not
the same amount of support of delinquency values for
the three groups, though the findings are somewhat
inconsistent. The school group is clearly lower than
179
the Probation Department group but not the Youth
Authority group. This suggests some overlap between
groups for support of delinquency values, but of
course not sufficiently to provide a picture of no
difference.
The greater amount of delinquent associations
characterizing the correctional groups suggests the
likelihood of greater opportunity to learn definitions
favorable to violation of the law and conduct norms.
Whether such definitions are chiefly in the form of
delinquency values or rationalization of delinquent
behavior can not be demonstrated in these findings.
One would expect, however, that favorable definitions
for the law would not likely be derived from delinquent
associations.
The second general hypothesis which was not
supported in group comparisons concerns the acceptance
of responsibility for difficulty with the law and in
relations with other people. Contrary to hypotheses,
for both tests of acceptance of responsibility there
was no significant difference between the three groups
under investigation. Definitions pertaining to
acceptance of responsibility for difficulty may not
be as important for delinquency as previously thought.
In measures of association of variables within
groups, of thirty tests of hypotheses, five hypotheses
were not supported.
Consistent with hypotheses, delinquency and
conformity values, delinquency and success values,
and delinquency and delinquency values are all
significantly associated for the less delinquent school
group, but not for the more delinquent correctional
groups. Also consistent with hypotheses, delinquency
involvement seems to be significantly associated with
rationalization of delinquent behavior for all three
groups. Hence, unlike the values mentioned above,
rationalization does not drop out for the more extensive
delinquency involvement, and remains as the most
important factor for such delinquency.
Delinquency involvement is not significantly
associated with acceptance of responsibility for difficu]ty
for the school group, but is for the Probation
Department group in both tests and for the Youth
Authority group for the second test only. Where
significance is found, the corresponding Coefficients
of Contingency are relatively low.
It is thus suggested that acceptance of
responsibility for difficulty may provide definitions
of some importance for extensive violations of laws or
181
conduct norms, but the picture is not as clear as in
the case of rationalization of delinquent behavior.
•Measures of inverse assocation between rationalization
of delinquency and acceptance of responsibility for
difficulty did reveal significant finds for both of
the tests for the school group and Probation Department
group, but only the second test for the Youth Authority
group. Thus, it is suggested that there may be some
similarity in definitions for these two variables.
However, as mentioned above, the findings on acceptance
of responsibility for difficulty do not reveal a clear
picture of the importance of this variable for
delinquency.
Consistent with hypotheses, there is a
significant association between rationalization of
delinquent behavior and delinquent associations within
all three groups. The hypothesis of significant
association between delinquency values and delinquent
associations is supported for the school group and the
Youth Authority group, but not for the Probation
Department group.
Although it may be suggested that both
rationalization of delinquent behavior and delinquency
values may be learned through delinquent associations,
the fact that rationalization is significant for
182
extensive delinquency involvement and delinquency
values are not seems to indicate that the major
importance of delinquent associations may be in the
*
learning of rationalizations rather than delinquency
values. That is, if important definitions favorable
to violation of laws or conduct norms are learned in
this manner, definitions pertaining to defenses for
behavior rather than a unique set of delinquency
values are probably more important for extensive
violation.
Coefficient of Contingency
Some further comment on the Coefficient of
Contingency findings seems appropriate at this point.
Because this statistic is a function of Chi-Square
the amount of association is significantly different
from zero when Chi-Square is significant. However, it
can not attain unity, in that the upper limit of this
coefficient is also a function of the number of
categories. Thus, with out three-by-three tables the
2
maximum value that could be attained is .82. Therefore,
our contingency values which ranged from .26 to .41
should be evaluated in this framework of a maximum
2
Siegel, op. cit., p. 201; Guilford, op. cit.,
p. 316.
183
possible upper limit of .82 rather than unity. Thus,
our findings for measures of association are moderate
for the most part.
Analysis of Response to Rationalization Items
Insofar as the rationalization items were of
paramount importance in this study, additional analysis
of data is presented at this point to obtain some
additional understanding of these test items for the
three groups under investigation.
The rank position of relative percentages of
the three groups supporting respective rationalization
items is indicated in Table 17. In this table are
included the four items calculated to check consistency
of response and the additional item regarding awareness
of law violation. Thus, a total of 54 items are ranked.
The numbering sequence of 001 to 054 is indicated in
the questionnaire in the appendix. In this table
percentages are based on whether there was agreement
with the test items, and no distinction was made between
"agree" and "strongly agree." The plan here was merely
to evaluate rank order of the series of items rather
than the intensity of response for the respective
groups.
184
TABLE 17
RANK POSITION OF RATIONALIZATION ITEMS AND
ITEMS CALCULATED TO CHECK CONSISTENCY OF
RESPONSE, BASES ON PERCENTAGE OF GROUP
SUPPORT OF RESPECTIVE ITEMS
School
(1) (2) (3)
probation
Department
(1) (2) (3)
Youth
Authority
(1) (2) (3)
004 94
*
004 85
*
004 85
*
002 67
*
033 74 V 033 75 V
041 66 III 015 70 II 015 73 II
022 63 I 002 70
*
002 69
*
033 62 V 001 68
*
020 67 IV
001 60
*
020 67 IV 001 64
*
015 60 II 012 67 II 041 61 III
020 51 IV 041 64 III 012 57 II
008 42 I 022 58 I 050 55 IV
012 35 II 050 57 IV 022 53 I
003 34 I 008 57 I 008 49 I
007 33 II 014 56 II 053 49 IV
053 32 III 053 53 IV 014 48 II
011 29 II 003 51 ■ I 031 47 III
019 28 IV 027 51 V 003 44 I
050 28 IV Oil 49 II 043 43 III
009 28 II 031 48 III 027 40 V
043 27 IV 043 47 IV Oil 39 II
010 26
*
030 43 II 042 36 III
027 24 V 010 40
*
030 35 II
014 22 II 006 38 I 010 33
*
030 20 II 023 37 III 036 33 IV
006 19 I 021 35 I 006 31 I
031 19 III 013 35 I 013 31 I
021 18 I 036 35 IV 021 31 I
Q05 17 IV 042 35 III 025 29 III
044 17 II 047 35 IV 047 29 IV
042 16 III 044 34 II 044 28 II
052 16 IV 019 34 IV 023 27 III
035 14 III 025 32 III 023 27 III
047 13 IV 034 29 II 019 25 IV
039 12 III 009 29 II 052 25 IV
185
TABLE 17 (Continued)
School . . .
(1) (2) (3)'
Probation
Department .
(1) (2) (3)
Youth
Authority
(1) (2) (3)
023 12 III 016 28 I 034 23 II
013 11 I 052 28 IV 009 22 II
017 10 III 035 27 III 017 22 III
026 10 III 028 27 IV 005 21 IV
048 10 III 005 27 IV 026 21 III
016 9 I 026 25 III 051 21 III
028 8 IV 024 25 I 016 20 I
051 8 III 048 24 III 028 19 IV
034 7 II 051 24 III 035 19 III
032 7 IV 039 21 III 048 19 III
025 7 III 037 21 V 049 19 IV
024 7 I 017 21 III 038 18
*
046 6 V 007 20 II 040 17 III
040 5 III 038 20
*
046 17 V
036 5 IV 054 20 II 039 16 III
054 4 II 040 19 III 037 16 V
037 4 V 029 19 II 007 16 II
045 4 II 046 18 V 054 15 II
029 3 II 049 17 IV 045 14 III
018 3 IV 045 16 III 032 10 IV
038 3
*
032 16 IV 029 10 II
049 1 IV 018 16 IV 018 8 IV
(1)
Test Items
(2) Percentage Supporting Items
(3) Modes of Rationalizations I) Denial of
Responsibility, II) Denial of Injury, III) Denial of
the victim, IV) Condemnation of the Condemners,
V) Appeal to Higher Loyalties.
* Non-Rationalization Items
186
Test items one and two, the two similar items
which describe law violation as relatively common due
to ignorance of numerous laws, are mildly suggestive
of a basis for rationalization for violation. These
items were:
001 It is easy to break laws you don't know
exist because there are so many laws.
002 Everybody breaks laws sometime because
there are so many laws they don't know
about.
The relative consistency in percentage support
by the three groups can be seen in Table 17. The school
group supported items one and two 60 per cent and
67 per cent respectively. The Probation Department
group supported the items 68 per cent and 70 per cent
respectively. The Youth Authority group supported the
items 64 per cent and 69 per cent respectively. These
findings do indicate some reasonable degree of
consistency in group response to similar items.
The two above items are somewhat similar to
item three, which is one of the rationalization items:
003 Most people break laws frequently because
there are so many laws they don't know
about.
This item provides an important contrast with
the two previous items, insofar as it is suggested
that frequent violation supposedly results from
187
ignorance of the law. As indicated in Table 17, this
item was supported by 34 per cent of the school group,
51 per cent of the Probation Department group and 44
per cent of the Youth Authority group. Understandably,
the relatively lower percentage for the school group
is due to the fact that in general the school group
responded to rationalization items segnificantly less
than was the case for either of the correctional groups.
The group response to question four, the
statement on violation of known laws, is especially
interesting. This item was:
004 Most people break the law once in a while
even when they know there is a law.
As Table 17 indicates, this item was supported
by 94 per cent of the school group, 85 per cent of the
Probation Department group, and 85 per cent of the
Youth Authority group. All three groups indicated the
highest support for this item, and it was ranked first
over all other items in this section. Apparently both
correctional and non-correctional respondents recognize
that occasional violations are not uncommon, even when
the offender is aware of the existence of the law.
This was especially true for the school group. Though
the school group gives less support for the
rationalization items in general, overwhelmingly these
188
students indicate awareness of violations by people
who know they are breaking the law. It is interesting
that the students seem to be somewhat more aware of the
deliberate violation of laws.
The response to this question also suggests a
willingness to cooperate and support a test item with
which the respondents agree.
The two rationalization items which were
repeated to note consistency of response were items
ten and thirty-eight, which were identical to items
twenty-one and forty-nine respectively. These items
were:
010 If a kid's parents don't care about him or
what he does, he shouldn't be blamed for
breaking a law once in a while.
038 People who have a lot of things are dis
honest or they wouldn't have them.
Table 17 indicates that the school group
supported items ten and twenty-one 26 per cent and 18
per cent respectively, and items thirty-eight and forty-
nine 3 per cent and 1 per cent respectively. For the
Probation Department group items ten and twenty-one
were supported 20 per cent and 24 per cent respectively,
and items thirty-eight and forty-nine 20 per cent and
17 per cent respectively. For the Youth Authority
group items ten and twenty-one were supported 33 per
cent and 31 per cent respectively, and items thirty-eight
189
and forty-nine 18 per cent and 19 per cent respectively.
There appears to be a reasonable degree of consistency
in group response to these items repeated in the
series.
It is interesting that a negligible percentage
of the school group felt that people have things
because they are dishonest, in contrast to the marked
difference in response for the correctional groups.
Seemingly consistent with earlier findings which
indicated a higher support of success values by the
school group, overwhelmingly this group seems to deny
the rationalization that material success results
from dishonesty.
In Table 18 are reported Rho Coefficients of
Correlation of ranked position of rationalization
items, measuring over-all agreement between groups.
As such, these coefficients of course do not indicate
the correlation between test items themselves, but
rather the amount of correlation in rank position of
items based on percentage of group support of the
respective items.^
These coefficients are derived from data
presented in Table 17, which indicated a general rank
3
Cf. Siegel, op. cit., pp. 202-213.
190
TABLE 18
CORRELATION OF RANK POSITION OF
RATIONALIZATION ITEMS, BASED
ON PERCENTAGE OF GROUP
SUPPORT OF RESPECTIVE
ITEMS
School Probation Department
Probation Department .86______________
Youth Authority .82 .97
Average Intercorrelation of Ranks for All Three
Groups: .88
191
order of the respective percentages of group support
for the respective items. For Tahle 18 it was
necessary to re-calculate rank position by taking into
account tied percentages. Also, the five non
rationalization items were excluded in calculation of
these coefficients.
Insofar as these percentages ignore consideration
of degrees of support for test items, the over-all
support of rationalization items found in earlier
calculation of rationalization scores for individuals
is not as strongly represented. Nonetheless, even
under these circumstances a visual inspection of Table
17 reveals lower percentages of support for these items
for the school group than for either of the correctional
groups.
As indicated in Table 18, there is a considerable
amount of correlation between groups in the ranked
series. In terms of relative percentage of group
support for rationalization items, the sequence of items
based on ranking these percentages indicates that the
correlation between the two correctional groups is
higher than the correlation between the school group
and either of the correctional groups.
The over-all Coefficient of Agreement for the
three groups taken together, sometimes called the
192
4
Average Inter-correlation of Ranks, is .88, indicating
a considerable amount of agreement.
These findings seem to testify to a rather high
degree of reliability for the rationalization items,
insofar as the relative percentage of the three groups
which supported respective items and the resultant
sequence of rank position of these items indicate
rather high correlations.
In this procedure, one might expect a higher
correlation between the two correctional groups than
between the school group and either of the correctional
groups, in that in previous calculation of total group
rationalization scores which took intensity of response
into account the two correctional groups were much the
same and the school group was significantly lower than
either of the correctional groups.
As a matter of fact, findings in Table 17
also illustrate a meaningful differentiation in per
centage of support for the rationalization items for the
three groups, even though the "agree" and "strongly
agree" categories have been collapsed to obtain
percentages of the respective groups supporting the
rationalization items. A lower percentage of the school
4
John H. Mueller and Karl F. Schuessler,
Statistical Reasoning in Sociology (Bostonr Houghton
Mifflin, 1961), pp. 275-276.
193
group supports the respective items than is the case
for either of the correctional groups. The average
percentage support for the 49 rationalization items is
20.1, 36.4 and 33.8 for the school group, Probation
Department group, and Youth Authority group respectively,
again indicating a lower percentage of support for the
school group, and about the same for the two correctional
groups.
Therefore, though we see reliability in the
sequence of ranked position of test items based on
relative percentages of group support for these items,
it is also apparent that the test items differentiate
the school group from the two correctional groups, the
latter of which characterize more rationalization for
delinquent behavior.
It may also be observed in Table 17 that there
is no particular sequence of ranked position of the
respective modes of rationalization, as seen in column
three for all three groups. This is basically the same
finding that Matza obtained in his study of training
5
school boys in New Jersey. Apparently no one form of
rationalization is predominant and any variety may be
utilized, depending upon the situation.
5
Matza, "The Moral Code of Delinquents,"
op. cit.. p. 93.
194
As a final observation of Tables 17 and 18,
the marked similarity of sequence of rank position of
percentages of the three groups supporting these items
strongly suggests that there may very well be a
continuum of values placed on various rationalization
for delinquent behavior.
It may be recognized by the persistent offender
and the "casual" offender that certain forms of
rationalization of delinquent behavior are more
acceptable than others, though the readiness to rely
on these defenses, as well as the intensity of reliance,
are more characteristic of the persistent offender.
Of course, the rationalization items used in
this study do not represent an exhaustive list of
possible forms. Nevertheless, considering the test
items which were used, the relative support for these
items does suggest a range of lesser to greater degree
of importance, and findings indicate a considerable
amount of consistency in this range for the three
groups under investigation. Accordingly, it is not
unreasonable to suggest that some kind of continuum of
support for these systems of thought may exist in the
larger society. That is, there may be some "good rules
for breaking the rules," some "rules which are acceptable
but not as good for breaking the rules," and some
195
"rules for breaking the rules which are acceptable only
under very special circumstances."
For example, in our findings apparently a "good
rule" is to "never squeal on your buddy, even if you
don't approve of his stealing something." This was
item thirty-three in our series, and it was ranked
higher than any of the other rationalization items by
both correctional groups, being supported by 74 per
cent of the Probation Department group and 75 per cent
of the Youth Authority group. It was also high for
the school groups, ranking it third with 62 per cent
of this group supporting the item.
In contrast, seemingly a very poor rationalization
is seen in test item eighteen, which states, "You
couldn't blame a kid for breaking into the school if the
principal had suspended him from school." This item
was ranked lowest of the 49 rationalization items by
the two correctional groups, being supported by 16
per cent of the Probation Department group and 8 per
cent of the Youth Authority group, it was ranked 46th
by the school group, being supported by only 3 per cent
of this group.
Hence, one may note that some items seem to be
more acceptable than others, and a given item may be more
acceptable, depending upon the history of delinquency
involvement.
/
CHAPTER VII
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Summary of the Investigation
The purposes of this investigation were both
broad in the perspective of justifying the efficacy of
the sociological approach to delinquency study, and
specific in terms of evaluation of the relative effect
iveness of values relative to the rationalization process
for the phenomenon of the delinquent act, a consideration
receiving widespread interest in recent years especially.
Accordingly, considerable review of existing theory
pertaining to delinquency was considered useful in
formulating the study design. Several current theories
which are prominent in the field today but which lack
empirical research were given special attention in over
all evaluation and in terms of providing useful questions
for the basic research of the present study.
In the course of this review it appeared reason
able that the internalization of certain values was
important in terms of delinquent behavior, insofar as
they may provide definitions favorable or unfavorable to
196
197
violation. Moreover, the cultural transmission of values
learned in a dynamic changing society was recognized as
an important learning process in this respect.
However, it was further recognized that any
importance values may have is also affected by the
nature of the social structure as well. It is for this
reason that the theory of status-deprivation was con
sidered to be of particular significance.
Also on the basis of this review, it was
seriously questioned whether the juvenile offender
characterizes a unique set of values which destine him
to delinquent behavior, in that there was some evidence
that the delinquent often expresses some guilt for his
violation, conformity behavior, and the perplexing
phenomenon of maturational remission.
Further speculation which was to lead to
hypothesis formation was that delinquency values,
success values, and conformity values may indeed play
a role for delinquency. However, it was felt that if
the delinquent did characterize any kind of "delinquent
ideology" as such, this might very well be in the over
reliance on defenses for behavior, a system of thought
in the nature of rationalization of delinquent acts
which provide motivating impetus to participate in these
kinds of activities. It was suggestive that such
198
defenses for behavior would not only seem to testify to
the existence of important societal standards having been
internalized, but that the rationalization process itself
may override the relative effectiveness of values,
especially for cases of more persistent and extensive
delinquency involvement. It also appeared reasonable
that such rationalizations, like values, may be learned
through differential association.
As for status-deprivation, it appears to be
easier to conceptualize this phenomenon than to
operationalize and establish empirical verification.
Nevertheless, the implication for failure and frustration
may offer a theoretical basis for excessive reliance on
defenses for behavior. At any rate, it was felt that
status-deprivation was important in this regard, rather
than in providing a unique set of values for adolescents
which destine him for violation of the law. Values and
rationalizations for delinquent behavior could be tested
empirically, and inquiry could be made into the question
of definitions relative to violation which may character
ize the juvenile offender.
Because it was felt that there was serious
question as to the view of exclusively differential
value systems for delinquents and non-delinquents, it
was hypothesized that offenders who had been involved in
more extensive delinquency, the so-called "official
delinquents," would support conformity values and
delinquency values to relatively the same extent as
offenders of less serious involvement, but that there
would be significantly greater support for rationalization
of delinquent behavior by the more serious offender.
Several well-known references in the literature
describe the importance of success values relative to
the youthful offender who has experienced status-
deprivation. It was hypothesized that offenders of more
extensive delinquency involvement would support success
values significantly less than offenders with a history
of less extensive involvement. In this regard, values
relative to useful skills for achievement were naturally
considered important.
Due to the fact that it was suggestive that
rationalization of delinquent behavior may have something
in common with definitions pertaining to reluctance to
accept responsibility, it was further hypothesized that
less extensively involved offenders would characterize
significantly more acceptance of such responsibility
than the more extensively involved delinquents.
It was also hypothesized that less extensively
involved delinquents would have had significantly less
associations with people engaging in violation of law or
200
conduct norms than would be the case for the serious
offender.
By virtue of certain theoretical considerations
of the importance of these variables relative to the
amount of delinquency involvement, several hypotheses
were formulated regarding within group analysis for less
extensive and more extensive delinquency involvement
groups.
In this regard, it was hypothesized that a low
delinquency group would characterize a significant
association between delinquency and delinquency values,
delinquency and rationalization of delinquent behavior,
and an inverse association between delinquency and
conformity values, delinquency and success values, and
delinquency and acceptance of responsibility for
difficulty. It was further hypothesized that a high
delinquency group would characterize a significant
association between delinquency and rationalization of
delinquent behavior, and an inverse association between
delinquency and acceptance of responsibility for
difficulty, but that there would be no significant
association between delinquency and the aforementioned
values for a high delinquency group.
Finally, it was hypothesized that there would be
a significant association between delinquency values and
201
delinquency associations, and rationalization of
delinquent behavior and delinquent associations.
One sample of 134 cases was taken from the high
school of a relatively small middle-class community which
was known to have virtually no cases of officially
delinquent youth, though it was felt that there would
be some degree of delinquency involvement, and there was
evidence of considerable support for traditional middle-
class values in this community.
Two additional samples were taken from two
correctional settings which provided ample cases of
officially delinquent youth who had had considerable
involvement in delinquency, viz., the senior camp
program of the Los Angeles County Probation Department,
and two facilities of the California Youth Authority.
From these two types of correctional settings,
respectively 357 and 183 cases were obtained. The
frequent reference in the literature as to the prevalence
of lower-class background of official delinquents
suggested that this would also be the case for these
correctional samples. No direct testing of this fact
was possible for either the correctional groups or
school group, due largeLy to the emphasis on anonymity
in this study. Two correctional samples were selected
in order to make possible two rather than one comparison
with the public school group.
In all, a questionnaire was administered to 674
participants in this study. Self-reported behavior was
relied upon as the technique of determining delinquency
involvement, due to the several problems often found in
relying upon official data. For the several other
variables studied, a modification of the Likert-type
scaling device was utilized. Non-parametric statistical
techniques were employed to test the research hypotheses.
Additional statistical analysis of response to the
rationalization items was subsequently conducted, though
this had no direct bearing on the research hypotheses.
Findings and Conclusions
On the basis of our investigation, though
"official delinquents" had been involved in more exten
sive delinquency, they did not consistently characterize
a unique set of values which differentiated them from
"official non-delinquents." The public high school
group was differentiated from both of the correctional
groups in supporting success values to a significantly
greater extent, there were mixed and inconclusive find
ings in regard to delinquency values for the school
group and the correctional groups, and there was no
significant difference between the three groups on the
203
basis of two different tests of conformity values, one
concerning conduct norms predominantly and one concerning
laws and conduct norms which have particular relevance for
violation of the law.
These findings suggest some over-lap in values
between the serious and less serious youthful offenders.
If it can be assumed that the "official delinquents" in
our study predominantly came from lower-class backgrounds
in contrast to the students selected from a largely
middle-class community, then it is also suggestive that
some over-lap in values between classes may be present.
Though this would appear to be a reasonable appraisal,
admittedly additional research which permits less
anonymity would be useful in future investigation, if
this be possible.
Certainly both correctional groups characterized
significantly more support of rationalization of
delinquent behavior than was the case for the school
group. This finding, in the light of findings regarding
the tests on the several sets of values, seems to
emphasize the greater importance of rationalization in
accounting especially for extensive delinquency.
This would appear to be especially true due to
the lack of difference between the groups in terms of
conformity values. Apparently conformity values per se
204
are not as important as sometimes considered. Neverthe
less, the greater support of rationalization of delinquent
behavior seems to testify to the support of such values.
The fact that the school group did actually
characterize more support of success values may well
indicate that these definitions are conducive to achieve
ment and the likelihood of less status-deprivation.
Moreover, status-deprivation could conceivably stimulate
a greater reliance on defenses for behavior. Therefore,
the lower support of success values and greater support
of rationalization of delinquent behavior theoretically
could be consistent in this sense.
On the other hand, as far as the findings at this
point are concerned, the relative rejection of success
values by the correctional groups may suggest a situation
something like what Cohen had in mind when he described
a "reaction formation" to such values. If this be the
case, conceivably a sort of countervailing set of values
would characterize the extensively delinquent correct
ional groups, and this would seemingly be of comparable
importance to the greater reliance on rationalization of
delinquent behavior.
However, the fact that within group analysis
revealed that for both of the correctional groups
delinquency was significantly associated with
205
rationalization of delinquent behavior but not signifi
cantly associated with conformity values, delinquency
values, or success values, seems to support the former
interpretation that lower support of success values for
the serious offender is important in reference to status-
deprivation rather than providing a kind of counter
vailing set of values conducive to delinquency. For the
range of extensive delinquent behavior of the correct
ional groups, rationalization remains as significant for
delinquency, while the several sets of values do not.
These sets of values do appear to be signifi
cantly associated with the less extensive delinquency
involvement of the school group.
Insofar as this appears to be the case, the
phenomenon of the "casual offender" may be understood
as well. One may conceptualize a description of initial
involvement in delinquency, behavior of which is
affected in important ways by definitions reflecting
values of conformity and delinquency as forms of positive
or negative valence for behavior. Success values may
also be important here in terms of achievement and
minimum status-frustration. However, even in this phase
of initial involvement in delinquency defenses for
behavior take place.
With more extensive delinquency involvement
206
values of conformity and delinquency are seemingly less
significant than certain rationalization definitions
which seem to justify behavior.
Contrary to expectation, there was no significant
difference between the three groups under investigation
as far as acceptance of responsibility for difficulty was
concerned. Also, findings for within group analysis
revealed a somewhat inconsistent picture. There was a
significant inverse association between rationalization
of delinquency and acceptance of responsibility for
difficulty for all three groups for one test, and for
the school group and the Probation Department group for
the second test. This did suggest some similarity in
definitions. There was a significant association between
delinquency and acceptance of responsibility for both
correctional groups on one test, but only the Probation
Department group revealed a significant association
between these variables for the second test.
Our public school group had had significantly
less associations with people engaging in violation of
laws or conduct norms. Conceivably definitions con
ducive to law violation could be learned through such
associations. The fact that within group analysis
revealed a significant association between rationaliza
tion of delinquent behavior and delinquent associations
207
for all three groups suggests that this may be the source
of acquaintance with certain forms of rationalization.
However, there was also a significant association
between delinquency values and delinquent associations
for the school group and the Youth Authority group.
Nonetheless, in that it was rationalizations rather than
delinquency values which remained as significantly
associated with delinquency involvement for the
correctional groups strongly suggests that if definitions
conducive to law violation are learned via delinquent
associations, likely it is some system of thought in
terms of defenses for delinquent behavior which is more
important.
Implications for Dealing with the
Youthful offender
Though the findings of this investigation are
concerned primarily with basic research of delinquency
theory, certain implications are suggested for dealing
with the youthful offender.
Unquestionably, anyone who has worked with
juvenile delinquents and has studied this problem is only
too aware that there are a great many socio-cultural
conditions in modern society which are regrettable and
provide numerous sources of handicap and frustration,
circumstances which make it extremely difficult at times
208
to succeed in a manner which is in keeping with acceptable
societal standards. Of course, early failure does not
provide a strong basis for achievement in the future.
Inadequate home conditions, sub-standard housing,
parental neglect and indifference, reading problems, dis
organized neighborhoods, and many other conditions are
not conducive to learning to achieve and being able to
achieve. Society does not always help individuals to be
what it asks them to be. At times there are actually
conditions which inhibit the manner of achievement
considered acceptable. Such unfortunate circumstances
as these have been known for some time, and certain
attempts to rectify these conditions in the community
have been increasingly apparent, and for sound reasons.
However, it seems reasonable that understanding
should not be a substitute for responsibility. This is
a basic kind of misunderstanding which can easily take
place in dealing with the youthful offender.
In spite of understanding of some of the circum
stances of the juvenile's life, and indeed this is
important, we cannot ignore the question of responsi
bility for behavior. In effect one may reasonably say
to the youthful offender, "We can understand some of the
reasons why you have become involved in delinquency, and
we wish to help you, but we can't let you continue your
delinquency."
209
The philosophy of modern corrections which
emphasizes understanding of the circumstances of the
individual offender, and attempts to help this person
rather than deal with him as a criminal is basically a
sound philosophy, and it is to the credit of American
society that we have progressed to this point of develop
ment.
However, rules and values have little or no
meaning or effect if individuals are not considered to
be capable of complying with them, at least to a reasonable
extent. Just as the eighteenth century Classical School
of criminology was incorrect in assuming that individuals
possessed complete free will to engage in unlawful con
duct or not, a modern view that individuals lack a
reasonable ability to comply with acceptable standards
is probably untenable.
It may be suggested that it would be a mistake
to assume that the youthful offender possesses a unique
set of values which encourage him to negative conduct.
Likely it is an ambiguous set of values which is not
always useful for success in life, but nevertheless do
not constitute a "criminal code" as such. Moreover, it
would seem useful to recognize that the youthful
offender does possess some positive values, and that he
does possess some capacity and willingness to conform to
210
societal expectations.
Accordingly, if rationalizations for delinquent
behavior appear to be operative, the containment effect
of important values might be mare effective in the future
if the offender could be helped to understand the
functions of these defenses for behavior. Accompanying
this procedure, however, would be a need to assist the
individual as much as possible in obtaining the kinds
of useful skills necessary for achievement.
That is to say, effort would be directed toward
minimizing the probability of failure and subsequent
frustration, with the hope that the occasional rather
than the persistent failure could be accepted as a
reality of life which most people experience at one time
or another. Ostensibly an important learning process
could conceivably take place whereby positive values may
receive reinforcement. Furthermore, though failure
situations are often related to deleterious circumstances,
these circumstances in and of themselves do not justify
delinquent behavior.
Possibly the "casual" offender does not feel as
great a need to offer defenses for his behavior, due to
the fact that he has had a good deal more meaningful
experiences which give evidence to the importance of the
relationship between conformity and achievement. He
211
does not feel a progressive alientation resulting from
societal reaction to his transgressions, and would be
more prone to accept his deviant behavior as simply wrong
and unacceptable. The behavior was wrong, but there is
much that is right in many other areas of his life, and
he can go on and learn from this mistake. The offender
who becomes involved extensively in delinquency does not
often have this kind of reserve of successful life
experiences to fall back on, and it may be contended
that he is more apt to rely upon convenient rationaliza
tions found within society to "justify" his deviant
behavior.
To attenuate a feeling of guilt and responsi
bility for delinquent behavior by rationalizing the
behavior may seem to define a situation of avoiding
failure to abide by societal standards.
In reality, the legal code actually does insist
upon capacity to conform as a condition of responsi
bility for the behavior, and the reliance upon
rationalization is the offender's way of exculpating
himself, of seemingly seeing himself as not deserving
punishment. His behavior is not really that serious, he
contends in effect, because there are circumstances
which can "explain" the behavior in question.
One of the interesting facets of modern juvenile
212
court proceedings is that the court and correctional
personnel find themselves in the somewhat awkward position
of lending weight to the efficacy of these various
defenses for delinquent behavior while concomitantly
taking action for the offenses committed. In order—to
help the juvenile offender a recognition of his under
lying problems and difficulties provides a guide for
disposition. The behavior in question is wrong, but
extenuating circumstances tend to make it "less wrong."
The delinquent in effect is told that juvenile authorities
are taking action in order to assist him and some
ambiguity may result in accompanying explanations resting
on the principle of offense.^-
Long before a petition is filed in court, school
personnel, clergymen, police officers, social workers,
and probation officers have usually been cognizant of the
importance of extenuating circumstances surrounding the
juvenile offender. From the beginning, in the initial
phases of delinquency involvement, these factors are
taken into account in dealing with the offender.
Personnel working with the juvenile delinquent are
interested in these circumstances, as rightfully they
should be. They too find themselves in something of a
^Matza, David, Delinquency and Drift (New York:
John Wiley and Sons, 1964), pp. 133-135.
213
dilemma. To give credence to extenuating circumstances
tends to suggest acceptance of the behavior in the eyes
of the adolescent who has not yet developed a sophistica
tion sufficient to appreciate the benefit of such
understanding. This is not always the case, of course,
and some personnel demonstrate remarkable success in
working with the youthful offender.
More often than not, however, such successful
cases are usually youths who have experienced achieve
ment in many another area of life and are willing to
accept the fact that in spite of circumstances their
behavior is not acceptable. The more sophisticated
offender actually comes to realize that the behavior in
question is not only not acceptable but it is not useful,
that it is harmful to himself and society and that is an
important reason why it is not acceptable.
Understandably, this does require a level of
sophistication not always found for the adolescent years
of life. Probably, it is less frequently the case for
adolescents from lower-class backgrounds.
However, a lack of sophistication should not be
confused with a void, as it were, in terms of values
which define acceptable behavior. The delinquent may
very well be aware that his behavior is considered wrong,
though he has never fully analyzed the reason for it
214
being wrong. Indeed, many adults are not always certain
why certain laws exist, but they do know that there are
likely good reasons for such laws or they would not
exist. The adolescent can easily enough learn that
certain forms of behavior are not acceptable, and he may
believe they are not acceptable. Not acceptable because
someone becomes concerned when he engages in these forms
of behavior, but perhaps that is not quite enough.
Discussion of extenuating circumstances may remind him
of certain reasons why the behavior is understandable,
may suggest in a curious way that the behavior is
seemingly "more acceptable," but does not spell out the
fact that there are important reasons why the behavior
is not acceptable. But for certain circumstances, the
behavior would be more serious, he observes, but should
the behavior be prohibited if the circumstances are
present?
This kind of discussion can easily lend itself
to a very unfortunate kind of misunderstanding, it would
appear, for such definitions which provide some defense
for behavior may be agreeably consistent with certain
perceptions the adolescent has had of people breaking
the law under particular circumstances.
In passing, it must naturally be emphasized that
working with the youthful offender in helping him to
215
understand why neither his behavior nor rationalizations
for such behavior are acceptable should not mean a return
2
to a punitive philosophy. Understanding and assistance
in building skills for successful life experiences
should quite properly remain as important goals for
correctional procedure. Where handicaps exist in the
social system, consideration of methods to alleviate
such conditions remain as important. However, it may be
suggested that such understanding should not ignore the
importance of responsibility for behavior, nor should it
assume incapacity to comply with societal standards, at
least to a reasonable extent.
Suggestions for Future Research
Several important areas of future research are
suggested by the present investigation. A brief
discussion of tentative research proposals which may be
useful for modern delinquency theory seems appropriate
at this time.
Status Deprivation
A desirable objective in future research would
2
Cf. Lloyd W. McCorkle and Richard Korn, "Re
socialization Within Walls," Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, CCXCIII (May,
1954),88-89.
216
be to devise some technique of empirically studying
status-deprivation, due to its implications for frustra
tion, values and defenses for behavior. In the present
investigation status-deprivation was considered to be an
important theoretical contribution, though no attempt
was made to directly test it.
As mentioned earlier, admittedly it would be no
easy task to test for status-deprivation, due to the
rather subjective nature of perceptions of deprivation.
Possibly both a symbolic-interactionist and structural-
functionalist approach should be utilized. In the
latter respect, investigation of social-class position
must overcome certain methodological difficulties. The
first obstacle is the frequently encountered need for
anonymity of response in this kind of study. Another
problem here is the delinquent's disappointing lack of
knowledge of important social-class characteristics,
such as education and occupation of parents.
Status-deprivation is very likely not unique to
lower-class life, and there is probably some similarity
in this problem which cuts across class lines. Certainly
a feeling of deprivation does constitute a form of
subjective appraisal and may not be consistent with
class position as usually thought to be the case.
Status-deprivation may be conceptualized in
217
terms of perceived opportunity to achieve rather than
actual failure situations, such as demonstrated in
3
Elliott's study of high school students.
At any rate, if some useful criteria of status-
deprivation could be established, it would be important
to evaluate rationalizations for failure to achieve and
compare these findings with rationalizations for
delinquent behavior to see if there were any corresp
onding relationships. If some similarities in systems
of thought could be found in such definitions, this
would provide confirmation of the relative importance
of status-deprivation for delinquent behavior. It may
identify the importance of deprivation as laying the
groundwork for the learning process of defenses for
behavior, possibly a factor of preliminary importance to
delinquent associations.
Success Skills
Another desirable objective of research would
be to consider a study of actual skills which are
important for success in American society. Such factors
as academic and vocational skills would be of importance
3Delbert S. Elliott, "Delinquency, Opportunity
and Patterns of Orientation” (unpublished Ph.D. disserta
tion, Department of Sociology, University of Washington,
1961) .
218
here, insofar as they have relevance for the probability
of achievement.
The task of performing this kind of study would
not be formidable, though a careful evaluation of
criteria of skills would be necessary. In all proba
bility several useful standardized tests from the field
of education would be available.
In point of fact, this kind of study may very
well constitute an important area of research for educa
tional sociology in addition to the relevance for
modern delinquency theory.
Correctional Personnel
Without question correctional personnel are
closer to the problem of delinquency than anyone else in
the community. Because of this fact it would be very
profitable to develop understanding based upon the
extensive experience of correctional personnel.
It may be suggested that interview schedules
which deal with questions of status-deprivation,
delinquency and rationalization of delinquent behavior
could be quite useful in contributing to this kind of
understanding. Indeed, there is a considerable amount
of first-hand information which correctional personnal
are in apposition to contribute to academic criminology.
Par too often this source of information has been
219
overlooked by the academic research specialist, though
there have been notable examples to the contrary.4
An important consideration for this type of
research would concern the necessity for fully under
standing the position and responsibilities of the
professional correctional employee. School social
workers, probation officers and juvenile police officers
may be contacted for such a study, though it should be
recognized that responsibilities and training vary some
what depending upon the discipline or agency in question.
4Cf. Arthur P. Miles, "The Reality of the
Probation Officer's Dilemma," Federal Probation, XXIV
(March, 1965), 18-28.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Ashley-Montagu, M. P. "The Biologist Looks at
Crime, M Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, CCXVII
(September, 1941), 46.
Aichhorn, August. Wayward Youth. New York: Viking
Press, 1935.
Alexander, F. and w. Healy. Roots of Crime. New
York: Knopf, 1935.
Alexander, F. and H. Staub. The Criminal, The Judge
and the Public. New York: MacMillan, 1931.
Bain, Reed. "Our Schizoid Culture," Sociology and
Social Research, XIX (January-February, 1935),
266-276.
Barron, Milton L. "Juvenile Delinquency and American
Values," American Sociological Review, XVI
(April, 1951J7 209-214.
Barron, Milton. The Juvenile in Delinquent Society.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1954.
Bartlett, Edward and Dale B. Harris. "Personality
Factors in Delinquency," School and Society,
XLIII (May, 1936), 653-656.
Bell, Daniel. "Crime as an American Way of Life,"
Antioch Review, XIII (Summer, 1953), 131-154.
Bernaken, Ednita P. "Underlying Ego-Mechanisms in
Delinquency," Psychoanalytic Quarterly, XXVII
(March, 1958),383-396.
Bernard, Jessie. American Community Behavior.
New York: Dryden Press, 1949.
________. Social Problems at Mid-Century. New
York: Dryden Press, 1957.
221
222
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Bloch, Herbert and Arthur Niederhoffer. The Gang:
A Study in Adolescent Behavior. New York:
Philosophical Library, 1958.
Bowley, A. L. Elements of Statistics. London:
P. S. King and Company, 1920.
Boynton, P. L. and B. M. Walsworth. "Emotionality
Test Scores of Delinquent and Non-Delinquent
Girls," Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, XXXVIII (May, 1943), 87-92.
Bromberg, Walter and Charles B. Thompson. "The
Relation of Psychosis, Mental Defect and
Personality Types to crime," Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology, XXVIII (May,
1937), 1-22.
Bronfenbrenner, Urie. "Socialization and Social
Class Through Time and Space," Readings in
Social Psychology, ed. Eleanor E. Maccoby,
Theodore M. Newcomb, and Eugene L. Hartley.
New York: Rinehart and Winston, 1958, pp. 400-
445.
Burgess, Ernest W. and Clifford R. Shaw. The Jack-
Roller. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1930.
California Laws Relating to Youthful Offenders.
Sacramento: State of California, Documents
Section, California Youth Authority,
September, 1963, pp. 79-80.
Clark, John P. "Acceptance of Blame and
Alienation Among Prisoners," American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry, XXXIII (April, -1963), 357-
Cloward, Richard A. and Lloyd E. Ohlin. Delinquency
and Opportunity. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free
Press, I960.
Cohen, Albert K. Delinquent Boys: The Culture of
the Gang. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press,
1955.
23. Coleman, James C. Abnormal Psychology and Modern
Life. New York! Scott, Foresman,1950.
223
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
Collins, Alice H. and James R. Mackay. "Casework
Treatment of Delinquents Who Use the Primary
Defense of Denial," Social Work, IV (January,
1959), 34-43.
Cressey, Donald R. Other People's Money. Glencoe,
Illinois: The Free Press, 1953.
________. "The Differential Association Theory and
Compulsive Crimes," Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology, XLIV (July-August, 1054), 20-41.
_____ . "The Development of a Theory:
Differential Association," The Sociology of
Crime and Delinquency, ed. Marvin E. Wolfgang,
Leonard Savitz and Norman Johnston. New York:
John Wiley, 1962, pp. 83-84.
DiVesta, Francis. Process Concepts and Values in
the Social and Personal Adjustment of
Adolescents. Ithaca: Cornell University Press,
T54T-----
Dorr, Mildred and Robert J. Havighurst. "Methods
of Studying Values," Adolescent Character and
Personality, ed. R. J. Havighurst and Hilda
Taba. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1949,
pp. 289-290.
Elliott, Delbert S. "Delinquency, Opportunity and
Patterns of Orientation" (unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Sociology,
University of Washington, 1961).
_______ . "Delinquency and Perceived Opportunity,"
Sociological Inquiry, XXXII (Spring, 1962),
216-227.
England, Ralph W., Jr. "A Theory of Middle-Class
Delinquency," Journal of Criminal Law,
Criminology and Police Science, L (April, 1960),
5^57
Ferri, Enrico. Criminal Sociology. New York:
Appleton and Company, 1896.
Festinger, Leon and Daniel Katz. Research Methods
in the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Dryden
Press, 1943.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
224
Foxe, Arthur. "Heredity and Crime," Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology, XXXVI (Mav-June,
1945), 11-16.
Friedlander, Kate. The Psycho-Analytic Approach to
Delinquency. New York: International
Universities Press, 1947.
Friedlander, Walter A. Introduction to Social
Welfare. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-
Hall, 1961.
Fuller, Richard C. and Richard R. Meyers. "Some
Aspects of a Theory of Social Problems,"
American Sociological Review, VI (February,
1941), 24-32.
"The Natural History of a Social
Problem," American Sociological Review, VI
(June, 1941), 320-329.
Gibbons, Don C. "Prospects and Problems of
Delinquent Typology," Sociological Inquiry,
XXXII (Spring, 1962), 235-244.
Changing The Lawbreaker. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1965.
Gordon, Leonard V. "Conformity Among Non
conformists," Psychological Reports, VIII
(1961), 383.
Glueck, Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck. Physique and
Delinquency. New York: Harper and Brothers.,
1956.
Goring, Charles. The English Convict: A
Statistical Study. London: His Majesty's
Stationery Office, 1913.
Greeley, Andrew. "An Upper Middle-Class Deviant
Gang," American Catholic Sociological Review,
XXIV (Spring, 1963), 33-41.
Guilford, J. p. Fundamental Statistics in
Psychology and Education. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1956.
225
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
Hakeem, Michael. "A Critique of the Psychiatric
Approach to Crime and Correction," Law and
Contemporary Problems, XXXIII (Autumn, 1958),
650-682.
Healy, William. Mental Conflict and Misconduct.
Boston: Little, Brown, 1917.
Healy, William and Augusta F. Bronner. New Light
on Delinquency and Its Treatment. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1936.
Heider, Fritz. "Social Perception and Phenomenal
Causality," Person Perception and Interpersonal
Behavior, ed. Renato Taguiri and Luigi Petrullo.
Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1958,
pp. 14-15.
Hill, George E. "The Ethical Knowledge of
Delinquents and Non-Delinquent Boys," Journal
of Social Psychology, VI (February, 19351 ,
107-114.
Hollingshead, August B. "Selected Characteristics
of Classes in a Middle Western Community,"
American Sociological Review, XII (June, 1947),
393-395.
Hooton, Ernest A. Crime and the Man. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1939.~
Hyman, Herbert H. "The Value Systems in Different
Classes," Class, Status and Power, A Reader in
Social Stratification, ed. R. Bendix and
S. Lipset. Glencoe7 Illinois: The Free Press,
1953, pp. 426-442.
Interview with Mr. Robert Ohler, Director of
Counselling Services, Clairmont High School,
October, 1964.
Jesness, Carl F. The Jesness Inventory.
Development and Validation^ Research Report
No. 29. Sacramento: California Youth
Authority, 1962. Mimeographed.
Karpman, Benjamin. "An Attempt at a Re-evaluation
of Some Concepts of Law and Psychiatry,"
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology,
XXXVII (September-October, 1947), 266-217.
226
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
Kvaraceus, William, et al. Delinquent Behavior:
Culture and the Individual. Washington, D.C.:
National Education Association, Juvenile
Delinquency Project, 1201 Sixteenth St., N.W.,
1959.
Lane, Ralph, Jr. "Delinquency Generative Milieux:
A Theoretical Problem," American Catholic
Sociological Review, XXIV (Spring, 1963),
42-53.
Lewin, Kurt, et al. "Levels of Aspiration,"
Personality and the Behavior Disorders,
Vol. I, ed. J. McV. Hunt. New York: The
Ronald Press, 1944, p. 375.
Likert, Rensis. "A Technique for the Measurement
of Attitudes," Archives of Psychology, CXL
(June, 1932), 5-52.
Lindesmith, A. R. and A. A. Strouss, Social
Psychology. New York: Dryden Press, 1949.
Lombroso, Cesare. Crime, Its Causes and Remedies,
trans. H. P. Horton. Boston: Little, Brown,
1912.
Lowry, Lawson G. "Delinquent and Criminal
Personalities," Personality and the Behavior
Disorders, Vol. II, ed. J. McV. Hunt.
New York: The Ronald Press, 1944, p. 794.
Lynd, Robert S. "Assumptions in American Life,"
Knowledge for What? Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1939, pp. 60-62.
Marshall, William L. and William L. Clark. "The
Legal Definition of crime and Criminals,"
The Sociology Crime and Delinquency, ed.
Marvin E. Wolfgang, Leonard Savitzand Norman
Johnston. New York: John Wiley and Sons,
1962, p. 14.
Matza, David. "The Moral Code of Delinquents: A
Study of Patterns of Neutralization"
(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Sociology, Princeton University, 1959).
227
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73 .
74.
75.
76.
77 .
78.
79.
Matza, David. "Subterranean Traditions of Youth,"
Annals of the American Academy of Political
and Social Sciences, CCCXXVII (November, 1961),
102-118.
______ . Delinquency and Drift. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, 1964.
McCorkle, Lloyd W. and Richard Korn. "Resocializa
tion Within Walls," Annals of the American
Academy of Political"and Social Science,
CCXCIII (May, 1954), 68-00.
Merton, Robert K. Social Theory and Social
Structure. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press,
1§W.
Merton, Robert K. and Elinor Barber. "Sociological
Ambivalence," Sociological Theory, Values,
and Sociocultural Change, ed. Edward A.
Tiryakian. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press,
1963, p. 98.
Miles, Arthur P. "The Reality of the Probation
Officer's Dilemma," Federal Probation,
XXIV (March, 1965), 18-28.
Miller, Walter B. "Lower-class Culture as a
Generating Milieu of Gang Delinquency,"
Journal of Social Issues, XIV (1958), 5-19.
________. "Implications of Urban Lower-Class
Culture for Social Work," Social Service
Review, XXXIII (September, 1959), 219-236.
Menninger, K. A. Man Against Himself. New York:
Harcourt Brace, 1938.
Mueller, John H. and Karl F. Schuessler.
Statistical Reasoning in Sociology. Boston:
Houghton-Mifflin, 1961.
Murphy, F. J., M. Shirley and H. L. Witmer. "The
Incidence of Hidden Delinquency," American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, XVI (October, 1946),
686-696.
Newcomb, Theodore M. Social Psychology. New York:
Holt, Dryden, 1950.
228
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
Noyes, Arthur P. Text-Book of Modern Psychiatry.
Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 194d.
Parsons, Talcott and Edward A. Shils. Toward a
General Theory of Action. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1§51.
Perlman, Richard I. "Antisocial Behavior of the
Minor in the United States," Federal Probation,
XXVIII, 23-30.
Porterfield, Austin L. "Delinquency and Its Outcome
in Court and College," American Journal of
Sociology, XLIX (November, 1943), 199-208.
________. Youth in Trouble. Fort Worth, Texas:
The Leo Potishman Foundation, 1946.
________. Mid-Century Crime in Our Culture. Fort
Worth, Texas: Texas University Press, 1954.
Raab, Earl and Jaeger Selznick. Major Social
Problems. New York: Harper and Row, 1964.
Reckless, Walter C., et al. "Self-Concept as an
Insulator Against Delinquency," American
Sociological Review, XXI (December, 1956),
744-746.
Reckless, Walter C. The Crime Problem. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1961.
________. "A New Theory of Delinquency and Crime,"
Federal Probation, XXV (December, 1961) , 42.
Reckless, Walter C. and Shlomo Shoham. "Norm
Containment Theory," Social Problems:
Persistent Challenges, ed. Edward C. McDonagh
and Jon E. Simpson. New York: Rinehart and
Winston, 1965, pp. 428-436.
Redl, Fritz and David Wineman. Children Who Hate.
Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1951.
Rhodes, H. T. The Criminals We Deserve. London:
Methnen and Company, 1937.
229
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
Rinehart, James M. and Fowler V. Harper, "Social
and Ethical Judgments of Two Groups of Boys—
Delinquent and Non-Delinquent," Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology, XXI (November-
Dee ember , 1930), 364-378.
Robison, Sophia M. Can Delinquency Be Measured?
New York: Columbia University Press, 19367
________. Juvenile Delinquency: Its Nature and
Control"! New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston,
1966.
Ross, Lawrence. "Traffic Law Violation: A Folk
Crime," Social Problems, VIII (Winter, 1960-
1961), 231-241.
Rostvold, Gerhard N. "Changing Socio-economic
Characteristics of the Population of clairmont,
California," (unpublished demographic study,
Department of Economics, Pomona College, 1963).
Sapir, Edward. "Culture: Genuine and Spurious,"
American Journal of Sociology, XXIX (January,
1^24), 401-429.
Scarpitti, Frank R., et al. "The 'Good' Boy in a
High Delinquency Area Four Years Later,"
American Sociological Review, XXV (August,
1960), 555-558.
Schuessler, Karl F. and Donald R. Cressey.
"Personality Characteristics of Criminals,"
American Journal of Socioloqv, LV (March. 1950* .
476-484.--------------------“ *
Sellin, Thorsten. culture Conflict and Crime.
New York: Social Service Research Council,
1938.
Selltiz, Claire, et al. Research Methods in Social
Relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1962.
Shaw, Clifford R. and Henry D. McKay. Social Factors
in Juvenile Delinquency, Vol. II of the National
Commission on Law observance and Enforcement,
Report on the Causes of Crime. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1931.
230
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
Shallov, Jeremiah. "Youth and Crime," Annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, CXCIV (November, 1937), 79-86.
Sheldon, William H., et al. The Varieties of Human
Physique♦ New York: Harper, 1940.
Sheldon, William H. Varieties of Delinquent Youth.
New York: Harper, 1949.
Short, James F. and F. Ivan Nye. "Reported
Behavior as a Criterion of Deviant Behavior?"
Social Problems, V (Winter, 1957-58), 207-213.
________ . "Extent of Unrecorded Juvenile
Delinquency," Journal of Criminal Law,
Criminology, and Police Science, XLIX (November-
December, 1958), 296-302.
. "Socioeconomic Status and Delinquent
Behavior," American Journal of Sociology,
LXIII (January, 1958), 381-389.
Short, James F., Jr. "Differential Association
with Delinquent Friends and Delinquent
Behavior," Pacific Sociological Review, I
(Spring, 1958), 20-25.
Short, James F., Ray A. Tennyson, and Kenneth I.
Howard. "Behavior Dimensions of Gang
Delinquency," American Socioloqical Review,
XXVIII (June, 1963), 411-428.
Short, James F. "Street Corner Groups and
Patterns of Delinquency: A Progress Report,"
American Catholic Sociological Review, XX
(December, 1957), 664.
Shulman, Harry. "Cultural Aspects of Criminal
Responsib ility," Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology. XLIlY (November-December, 1953),
Siegel, Sidney. Non-Parametric Statistics for the
Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1956.
Sorokin, Pitirim A. Society, Culture and
Personality. New York: Harper and Brothers,
1947.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
231
Sutherland, Edwin H. and Donald R. Cressey.
Principles of Criminology. Chicago:
Lippencott, 1960.
Sykes, Gresham M. and David Matza. "Techniques of
Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency,"
American Sociological Review, XX (December,
1957), 664-676.
Taft, Donald R. Criminology, A Cultural Interpre
tation. New York: MacMillan, 1950.
Tannenbaum, Prank. Crime and Conformity. Boston:
Ginn and Company, 1938.
Tappan, Paul W. "Who is the Criminal?" American
Sociological Review, XII (February, 1947).
Tappan, Paul W. Crime, Justice and Causation.
New York: McGraw-Hill, I960.
Thomas, W. I. and Florian Znaniecki. The Polish
Peasant in Europe and America. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press,1918.
Thompson, George N. The Psychopathic Delinquent
and Criminal. Springfield, Illinois: Charles
C. Thomas, 1953.
U.S. Census of Population, 1960. Final Report
PC(1)-6a , 6B. U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
Wallerstein, James S. and Clement J. Wyle. "Our
Law-Abiding Law-Breakers," Probation, XXV
(April, 1947), 107-112.
Warner, W. Lloyd and Paul S. Lunt. The Social
Life of a Modern Community. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1941.
Welfare and Institutions Code, Annotated of the
State of California. San Francisco: Bancroft-
Whitney Company, 1962, Chapter 2, Art. 5,
Sec. 601.
White, William A. Crimes and Criminals. New York:
Farrar and Rinehart, 1933.
232
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
White, William A. Insanity and the Criminal Law.
New York: MacMillan, 1923.
Whyte, William F. Street Corner Society. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1943.
Willemse, W. A. Constitutional Types in Delinquency.
London: Kegan, Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1932.
Wirth, Louis. "Cultural Conflict and Delinquency,"
Social Forces, IX (June, 1931), 484-492.
Zakolski, F. C. "Studies in Delinquency:
Personality Structure of Delinquent Boys,"
Journal of Genetic Psycholoqy, LXXIV (Mav,
1949), 109-117.-----------
Zetterberg, Hans L. On Theory and Verification in
Sociology. Totowa, New Jersey: The Bed-
minister Press, 1963.
APPENDIX
QUESTIONNAIRE
I. Please check any of the following behaviors in which
you may have taken part. There is only one way you
can answer each question: a. never; b. one or two
times; c. three or four times; d. more than four
times. For example, on question number one, if you
had "disturbed the peace" three times, you would
check c. three or four times X for this behavior.
It is important that you try to answer each question ,
as quickly and honestly as you can. You will have to
rely on your memory. Remember, no one will know your
answers but you.
1. Disturbing the peace.
a. never___b. one or two times c. three or
four times__ d. more than four times___ .
2. Throwing at cars or buildings.
a. never___b. one or two times c. three or
four__times__ d. more than four times___ .
3. Setting off fireworks illegally.
a. never__ b. one or two times c. three or
four__times__ d. more than four times___ .
4. Shooting BB gun at public or private property.
a. never___b. one or two times c. three or
four times__ d. more than four times___ .
5. Reckless driving.
a. never___b. one or two times c. three or
four times__ d. more than four times___ .
6. Drunken driving.
a. never___b. one or two times c. three or
four times__ d. more than four times.
7. Driving under influence of drugs.
a. never___b. one or two times c. three or
four times__ d. more than four times___. .
8. Leaving scene of accident without reporting it.
a. never__ b. one or two times c. three or
four times__ d. more than four times
234
235
9. Driving without a license.
a. never b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times .
10. Numerous violations of vehicle code.
a. never b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times___.
11. Breaking windows.
a. never b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times___.
12. Breaking street lights.
a. never b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times___.
.13. Setting fire to public or private property.
a. never b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times___.
14. Destruction of public or private property.
a. never b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times___.
15. Gang activity harmful to others.
a. never b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times___.
16. Tampering with property, cars, etc.
a. never b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times___.
17. Trespassing.
a. never b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times___.
18. Illegal entry.
a. never b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times___.
19. Attacking with fists.
a. never b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times___.
20. Attacking with deadly weapons.
a. never b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times
236
21. Assault upon child (not sexual).
a.___never__b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times___.
22. Threat with deadly weapon.
a.___never__b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times___.
23. Exhibiting deadly weapon.
a. never__b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times
24. Ordinary fighting.
a. never__b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times___.
25. Frightening children, bullying.
a. never_ b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times___.
26. Swearing at people.
a. never__b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times___.
27. Assault upon female (not sexual).
a. never__b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times___.
28. Runaway or wandering away.
a. never__b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times___.
29. Absent without leave.
a. never__b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times
30. Reported missing.
a. never____b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times___ .
31. Hitchhiking on freeway.
a. never____b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times
32. Truant from school.
a. never b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times
237
33. Accused of any crime.
a. never b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times___.
34. Sexual intercourse with minors.
a. never b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times___.
35. Sexual intercourse with adult.
a. never b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times
36. Attempted sexual intercourse or sexual intercourse
by fear or force.
a. never b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times .
37. Indecent exposure.
a. never b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times___.
38. Sexual molestation of child.
a. never b. one or two times____ c. three or
four times d. more than four times___.
39. Sexual involvement with people of the same sex.
a. never b. one or two times____ c. three or
four times d. more than four times
40. Drinking as a minor.
a. never b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times.
41. Drunkenness.
a. never b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times.
42. Buying alcoholic beverages as a minor.
a. never b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times.
43. Theft of alcoholic beverages.
a. never b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times.
44. Selling or giving alcoholic beverages to a minor.
a. never b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times
238
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
Possession of marijuana, pills, or narcotics without
medical authority.
a. never____ b. one or two times_ c. three or four
times d. more than four times__
Using marijuana, pills, or narcotics without medical
authority.
a. never b. one or two times_ c. three or four
times d. more than four times_.
Selling or giving away marijuana, pills, or
narcotics.
a. never b. one or two times___ c. three or four
times d. more than four times_.
Taking car, truck, bicycle, etc. under pretense
of buying.
a. never b. one or two times___ c. three or four
times d. more than four times
Taking parents' or friend's car without permission.
a. never b. one or two times___ c. three or four
times d. more than four times___.
Taking car with intention of returning it (joy
riding).
a. never b. one or two times c. three or four
times d. more than four times___.
Taking car with intention of not returning it.
a. never b. one or two times c. three or four
times d. more than four times
Driving a stolen car.
a. never b. one or two times c. three or four
times d. more than four times___.
Riding in a stolen car.
a. never b. one or two times c. three or four
times d. more than four times___.
Taking stolen car over state line.
a. never b. one or two times c. three or four
times d. more than four times___.
Petty theft: striping cars.
a. never b. one or two times c. three or four
times d. more than four times
239
56. Petty theft (any variety).
a. never__b. one or two times___ c. three or
four times d. more than four times___.
57. Attempted theft.
a. never__b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times___.
58. Shop-lifting.
a. never_ b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times___.
59. Robbery by fear or force.
a. never_ b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times
60. Armed robbery.
a. never_ b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times .
61. Purse snatching.
a. never__b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times___.
62. Selling stolen or borrowed goods.
a. never__b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times___.
63. Receiving stolen goods or property.
a. never__b. one or two times____ c. three or
four times d. more than four times
64. Attempted robbery or burglary (breaking in to
steal) .
a. never__b. one or two times____ c. three or four
times d. more than four times .
65. Forging your grades on your school report card.
a. never b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times___.
66. Forging checks.
a.___never__b. one or two times____ c. three or
four times d. more than four times___.
67. Using stolen credit cards.
a. never_ b. one or two times c. three or
four times d. more than four times
240
68. Telling lies about people in order to get them
into serious trouble.
a. never___ b. one or two times___ c. three or
four times d. more than four times
69. Passing forged items such as checks or I.D. cards.
a. never___ b. one or two times__ c. three or
four times d. more than four times___.
70. Attempting to cash checks without enough money
in the bank.
a. never___ b. one or two times__ c. three or
four times d. more than four times___.
71. Falsifying records while working in a position
of trust.
a. never _ _b. one or two times___ c. three or
four times d. more than four times___.
72. Turning in false alarms to fire department or
police department.
a. never___ b. one or two times__ c. three or
four times d. more than four-times___ .
73. Carrying guns or rifles without a license.
a. never___ b. one or two times__ c. three or
four times d. more than four times___.
74. Firing guns or rifles without a license.
a. never___ b. one or two times__ c. three or
four times d. more than four times___.
75. Firing guns or rifles in an unauthorized area.
a. never___ b. one or two times__ c. three or
four times d. more than four times___.
76. Incorrigibility, insolence and/or refusal to
obey police or other correctional authorities.
a. never___ b. one or two times__ c. three or
four times d. more than four times___.
77. Incorrigibility or insolence toward parents,
teachers or others.
a. never___ b. one or two times__ c. three or
four times d. more than four times
241
II. Please answer how much you agree or disagree with
the following statements. There are no right or
wrong answers. We just want to know what you think.
There is only one way you can answer each question:
a. strongly disagree; b. disagree; c. agree; or
d. strongly agree. For example, for question number
one, if you strongly agree with this statement you
would check d. strongly agree X . Work as quickly
and honestly as you can.
001. it is easy to break laws you don't know exist
because there are so many laws.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
002. Everybody breaks laws sometime because there
are so many laws they don't know about.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
003. Most people break laws frequently because
there are so many laws they don't know about,
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
004. Most people break the law once in a while
even when they know there is a law.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
005. Because lots of people break a law once in a
while it's all right to break a law once in a
while.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
006. Kids who have trouble at home shouldn't be
blamed for breaking laws once in a while.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
007. Soaping up somebody's car window is all right
if you don't do it very often.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
008. Most kids break laws because of friends who
get them into trouble.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
242
009. Letting the air out of someone's tires is O.K.
if it is just a joke.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
010. If a kid's parents don't care about him or
what he does he shouldn't be blamed for
breaking a law once in a while.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
011. Going to the beach when you should be in
school is all right if you don't do it too
often.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree
012. Going to a party in which you are not invited
is O.K. if you don't cause any trouble.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree
c. agree. d. strongly agree___
013. Kids from bad neighborhoods shouldn't be
blamed for breaking laws once in a while,
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
014. It's nobody else's business if two groups of
kids want to settle an argument by fighting,
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
015. Even though you're under age it's all right to
drink beer or wine if you drink it at home.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
016. Kids who have trouble at home shouldn't be
blamed for breaking laws frequently.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree
c. agree d. strongly agree___
017. People who go on vacation and leave nobody to
protect their property deserve to have their
property damaged or stolen.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
243
018.
019.
020.
021.
022.
023.
024.
025.
026.
You couldn't blame a kid for breaking into the
school if the principal had suspended him from
school.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree
Teachers give good grades to students they
like and bad grades to students they don't
like.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree
c. agree d. strongly agree___
Most adults were just as bad as "juvenile
delinquents" when they were kids.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
If a kid's parents don't care about him or
what he does he shouldn't be blamed for
breaking a law once in a while.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree
Some kids break laws because of friends who
get them into trouble.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree
Breaking windows shouldn't be too serious if
nobody's living in the home.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
Kids from bad neighborhoods shouldn't be
blamed for breaking laws often.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
Stealing from a stranger is not as serious as
stealing from somebody you know,
a. strongly disagree b. disagree
c. agree d. strongly agree___
Starting trouble for someone is all right if
you are getting even.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree
c. agree d. strongly agree___
244
027.
028.
029.
030.
031.
032.
033.
034.
035.
Always help a friend out of a jam even if it
means breaking a law.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
If teachers were any good kids wouldn't get
kicked out of school for bad behavior.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
Breaking a store window would be all right if
the owner were insured and it didn't cost him
anything to get it replaced,
a. strongly disagree » b. disagree
c. agree d. strongly agree___
It's all right for a kid to get beer or wine
if he gets an adult to buy it for him.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree
c. agree d. strongly agree___
If you take things from a "crooked" store
owner he deserves it.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
Teachers kick you out of class because they
don't know how to teach.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
Even if you don't approve of your buddy
stealing something, you never "squeal" on him.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree
c. agree d. strongly agree___
Taking somebody's car without permission is
not too serious as long as you don't damage
the car and the owner gets it back all right.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
People who make a fuss about kids climbing
over their wall deserve to have their flower
bed torn up a bit.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
245
036.
037.
038.
039.
040.
041.
042.
043.
044.
Police who pick up kids for breaking the law
just do it for spite because they don't like
certain kids.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree
c. agree d. strongly agree___
If a bunch of your friends break the law you
should go along with it if they are really
your friends.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
People who have a lot of things are dishonest
or they wouldn't have them.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree
It's only right to throw dirt clods into a
neighbor's swimming pool if he is selfish and
won't let anyone swim in his pool.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree
c. agree d. strongly agree___
Breaking into somebody's house is not as big
a crime if nobody's home.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
If a teacher is unfair you would expect kids
to cause trouble in class.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
Beating up another kid is all right if he is
a "jerk".
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree
If everybody knew how dishonest adults were
they wouldn't make such a fuss about kids
breaking the law.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
Taking a few apples from a grocery store won't
do any harm.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
246
045.
046.
047.
048.
049.
050.
051.
052.
053.
054.
The police don't think breaking street lights
is as serious if the street is deserted.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
If your buddies expect you to do something/
you should do it, even if it may be illegal or
wrong.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
People who make a big fuss about "juvenile
delinquents" are just plain stupid,
a. strongly disagree b. disagree
c. agree d. strongly agree
Cheating on a test is all right if the teacher
is out of the room.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
People who have a lot of things are dishonest
or they wouldn't have them.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
People who complain about kids breaking the
law probably break the law a lot themselves.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree
It's not as serious to take somebody's property
if you don't know who it belongs to.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree
c. agree d. strongly agree___
Most parents "take it out" on their children
just to get even.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
People who are always talking about being
"good" are probably "phonies".
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
Shop-lifting for fun is O.K. if it’s a big
store and they can afford it.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree
c. agree d. strongly agree
247
III. In the following are statements in sets of three.
For every set please mark (X) one statement that you
think is most important to you, one statement that is
least important to you, and leave one statement
unmarked.
For example: M L
To have a hot meal at noon............X.
To get a good night's sleep............
To get plenty of fresh air........ X....
Of the three statements of this set you thought
"getting plenty of fresh air" was most important to
you, so you put an "X" under "M"; and you thought
"having a hot meal at noon" was least important to
you, so you put an "X" under "L"; the other state
ment about "getting a good night's sleep" you left
blank. So you see, there are only two answers you
give for each set of three statements.
Now answer each set of statements in the same way.
M L
To be free to do as I choose.........................
To have others agree with me.........................
To make friends with the unfortunate................
To be in a position of not having to
follow orders......... ................................
To follow rules and regulations closely.............
To have people notice what I do .................
To hold an important job or office...................
To treat everyone with extreme kindness..............
To do what is accepted and proper....................
To have people think of me as being
important. ...........................................
To have complete personal freedom....................
To know that people are on my side...................
To follow social standards of conduct................
To have people interested in my well being..........
To take the lead in making group decisions..........
To be able to do pretty much as I please............
To be in charge of some important project...........
To work for the good of other people.................
248
M L
To associate with people who are well known........
To attend strictly to the business at hand.........
To have a great deal of influence...................
To be known by name to a great many people.........
To do things for other people.......................
To work on my own without direction.................
To follow a strict code of conduct..................
To be in a position of authority....................
To have people around who will encourage me........
To be friends with the friendless...................
To have people do good turns for me.................
To be known by people who are important............
To be the one who is in charge......................
To conform strictly to the rules....................
To have others show me that they like me...........
To be able to live my life exactly as I wish.......
To do my duty.......................................
To have others show me that they treat me with
understanding.......................................
To be the leader of the group I'm in................
To have people admire what I do.....................
To be independent in my work........................
To have people act considerately toward me.........
To have other people work under my direction.......
To spend my time doing things for others...........
To be able to lead my own life ................
To contribute a great deal to charity..............
To have people make favorable remarks about me.....
To be a person of influence.........................
To be treated with kindness.........................
To always maintain the highest moral standings.....
To be praised by other people.......................
To be relatively unbound by social convention......
To work for the good of society.......... ..........
To have the affection of other people..............
To do things in the approved manner.................
To go around doing favors for other people.........
249
M L
To be allowed to do whatever I want to do..........
To be regarded as the leader........................
To do what is socially correct......................
To have others approve of what I do.................
To make decisions for the group.....................
To share my belongings with other people...........
To be free to come and go as I want to.............
To help the poor and needy..........................
To show respect to my superiors.....................
To be given compliments by other people............
To be in a very responsible position................
To do what is considered conventional...............
To be in charge of a group of people................
To make all of my own decisions.....................
To receive encouragement from others................
To be looked up to by other people..................
To be quick in accepting others as friends.........
To direct others in their work......................
To be generous toward other people..................
To be my own boss...................................
To have understanding friends.......................
To be selected for a leadership position...........
To be treated as a person of some importance.......
To have things pretty much my own way...............
To have other people interested in me...............
To have proper and correct social manners..........
To be sympathetic with those who are in trouble....
To be very popular with other people................
To be free from having to obey rules.......... .
To be in a position to tell others what to do......
To always do what is morally right..................
To go out of my way to help others...... ...........
To have people willing to offer me a helping
hand.................................................
250
M L
To have people admire me.............................
To always do the approved thing......................
To he able to leave things lying around if
I wish. .........................................
IV. Please answer how much you agree or disagree with the
following statements. There are no right or wrong
answers. There is only one way you can answer each
question: a. strongly disagree; b. disagree;
c. agree; d. strongly agree. For example, for ques
tion number one, if you strongly agree with this
statement you would check d. strongly agree X . Work
as quickly and as honestly as you can.
1. Doing things that are exciting and give one a thrill
is very important.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
2. Ambition is a virtue.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree
c. agree d. strongly agree
3. It is better to do things society thinks is right,
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
4. You feel better about yourself when you have done
what is right or lawful.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
5. It's best to think things out ahead of time before
you do them.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree
c. agree d. strongly agree
6. Proving to people you are tough is very important,
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
7. When you have a choice, you would much rather do
what society thinks is right.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
251
8. It is more important to outsmart people than to get
something worth a lot of money.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree
c. agree d. strongly agree
9. Developing useful skills is important,
a. strongly disagree b. disagree
c. agree d. strongly agree
10. Manners, courtesy and respectability are important,
a. strongly disagree b. disagree
c. agree d. strongly agree___
11. Learning to achieve in society is important,
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
12. Fighting is very important to develop your
reputation.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
13. Getting ahead on the job isn't very important,
a. strongly disagree b. disagree
c. agree d. strongly agree
14. One should plan for the future.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
15. Getting money isn't too important.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
16. If you have to work, it is better to avoid hard
work in favor of an easy job.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree
c. agree d. strongly agree
17. When you have a choice, you would much rather not
break the law.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree
c. agree d. strongly agree___
18. It's not all right to do just as you please,
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
1
252
19. It is important to show respect for someone's
private property.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree
c. agree d. strongly agree___
20. The adventure of getting "kicks" out of life is
very important.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
21. Some laws should be broken.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
22. It is important to plan your time well to get what
you want in life.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
23. People should enjoy themselves in ways which are
not harmful to society.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
24. People should emphasize responsibility.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
25. Entertainment should be those activities society
thinks is worthwhile.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
26. Aggressive behavior toward others is important to
prove you are somebody.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
27. You often wonder if there is any good reason for
laws in society.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
28. It is good to have a personality most people in
society will respect.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
253
29. Knowing how to take care of property in a proper way
is important.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree
30. Getting money isn't too important.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
31. One should learn to control physical aggression and
violence.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
32. It is important to be ambitious.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
33. You don't care too much about what society thinks
is the right thing to do.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
34. Obeying the law is important for all members of
society.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
35. You feel better about yourself when you don't break
the law.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
36. It's better to not get what you want right now if in
the long run you'll get even more.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
37. People should do the right thing, even if it is not
a law.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree
c. agree d. strongly agree
38. It is important to be a responsible person,
a. strongly disagree b. disagree____
c. agree d. strongly agree___
39. Obeying the law really helps people in the long run.
a. strongly disagree b. disagree___
c. agree d. strongly agree___
254
V. This section is about people you have known. Please
put an "X" after the answer which best applies to
people you have known for each question. There is
only one answer for each question. Rely on your
memory.
1. Think of the people (kids or adults) you have
been associated with most often. Have any of
them done things that are very wrong or illegal?
a. Most of these people have b. Several of
them have c. Very few of them have__
d. None of them have___
2. Think of the people (kids or adults) you have
known for the longest time. Have any of them
done things that are very wrong or illegal?
a. Most of these people have b. Several of
them have c. Very few of them have__
d. None of them have___
3. Think back to the first people (Kids or adults)
you can remember. Did any of them do things that
were wrong or illegal?
a. Most of them did b. Several of them did___
c. Very few of them did d. None of them did___
4. Have any of these people (kids or adults) who
have done things that are wrong or illegal been
important and successful people?
a. Most of them have b. Several of them
have c. Very few of them have d. None of
them have___
5. Were there many young people (teenage or younger)
doing things that were very wrong or illegal in
the community in which you grew up?
a. A great many b. Quite a few c. Very
few d. None___
6. Have any of your friends done things that are
very wrong or illegal?
a. Most of them have b. Several of them have__
c. Very few of them have d. None of them
have___
7. Are any of your present friends doing things that
are very wrong or illegal?
a. Most of them are b. Several of them are
c. Very few of them are d. None of them are___
255
8. Do you know any adults who are doing things that
are very wrong or illegal?
a. You know of many b. You know of several___
c. You know of a few d. You don't know of
any
9. How well have you known people (kids or adults)
who have done things very wrong or illegal?
a. Very well b. Fairly well c. Not very
well d. Only know their names e. Don't even
know their names___
VI. Below are some statements about a guv named Joe. He
has had some problems in his life like most of us
have. In fact, you might think of his life as being
about the same as yours— about the same family life,
school life, jobs, and problems. Please read each
item and put an "X" in front of the answer that you
think is most likely to be true in Joe's case. Be
sure you answer every item.
1. In growing up as a boy, Joe's family life was
likely not much different from yours. Joe and
his parents didn't seem to get along too well at
times. Who would you say was most likely to
blame for this?
Joe, himself Outside things
2. Joe had been going with his girl for several
months. In fact, they even planned to get
married some day. However, something happened
and they broke up. Who would you say was most
likely to blame for this?
Joe, himself Outside things
3. Like most people, Joe had some buddies whom he
ran around with. He was pretty close to them.
Once in a while, though, they got into arguments
which ended in hard feelings for a while. Who
would you say was most likely to blame for this?
Joe, himself Outside things
2.56
4. Like most of us, Joe never has been completely
satisfied with the amount of money he has had to
spend on things he wants. There are lots of
things he would like to do if he had the money,
but he does not have it. Who would you say was
most likely to blame for this?
Joe, himself Outside things
5. Joe was a guy who has grown up with a background
about like yours. One thing led to another and
he found himself in trouble with the law. In
fact, he was later sent to forestry camp. Who
would you say was most likely to blame for this?
Joe, himself Outside things
6. When Joe was on probation for a while he was
picked up again and returned to Juvenile Hall.
Who would you say was most likely to blame for
this?
Joe, himself Outside things
7. As a matter of fact, you could say that the blame
for Joe's troubles belongs mostly to:
Joe, himself Outside things
VII. This last section is about your own life. Below are
some problems that we have all had at one time or
other. Please put an "X" before the answer that
best answers the question. Remember, there are no
right or wrong answers here either.
1. When you were growing up, there probably were
times when you and your family didn't see eye-to-
eye on things you wanted to do. Who would you
say was most likely to blame for this?
Myself Outside things
2. During your lifetime there probably have been
times when you just couldn't get along well with
certain other people. In face, you probably dis
liked these people very much at times. Who would
you say was most likely to blame for this?
Myself Outside things
257
3. We have all wanted things at times that we
didn't get. Think of some of the times when you
wanted something and for some reason couldn't
get it. Who would you say was most likely to
blame for this?
Myself Outside things
4. When you have been working on some kind of job,
there probably have been at least a few times
when you and the boss didn't see eye-to-eye.
At times like this, who would you say was most
likely to blame for this?
Myself Outside things
5. All of us have been in arguments with other
guys. In fact, sometimes we get pretty mad
when we get into one of these arguments. In
these cases, who would you say was most likely
to blame for getting mixed up in the argument?
Myself Outside things
6. Sometimes we have run-ins with the law. In
your case, if you have had trouble with the
law, who would you say was most likely to
blame for this?
Myself Outside things
7. In fact, in looking back over the troubles I
have had, it looks like they could be blamed
mostly on:
Myself Outside things
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The Influence Of The Control Of Personal Set Upon Prediction By Factored Tests Of Temperament And Interest
PDF
The Selfish Self: A Social Psychological Study Of Social Character
PDF
A Study Of The Attitudes Of Mothers Of Mentally Retarded Children As Influenced By Socioeconomic Status
PDF
The Development And Validation Of A Proverbs Test For The Selection Of Supervisors
PDF
The Construction And Empirical Test Of A Theory Based On Selected Variables In Small-Group Interaction
PDF
The Effect Of Differential Treatment On Attitudes, Personality Traits, And Behavior Of Adult Parolees
PDF
Alienation And Integration In The Political Attitudes Of Suburban Adolescents
PDF
California'S Assertion Of States: Rights: A History Of Jurisdictional Controversies With The Federal Government
PDF
Perception Of The Power Structure By Social Class In A California Community
PDF
The meaning of judicium and its relation to illumination in the philosophical dialogues of augustine
PDF
A Psychosociological Study Of Fertile And Infertile Marriages
PDF
Group Factors And Individual Internalization Of A Value
PDF
Values And Social Change: A Study Of The Thought Of Karl Mannheim
PDF
Delinquency and rationalization: A study of the delinquent act
PDF
Selected Social Psychological Factors Related To Viewers Of Television Programs
PDF
Alienation, Structural Strain, And Political Deviancy: A Test Of Merton'Shypothesis
PDF
A Comparison Of Two Methods Of Adapting Self-Instructional Materials To Individual Differences Among Learners
PDF
Histological And Cytological Studies On The Larva Of The Marine Bryozoan,Bugula Neritina
PDF
The Carbohydrate Moiety Of The Tamm And Horsfall Urinary Glycoprotein Andits Significance In Cystic Fibrosis Of The Pancreas
PDF
Role Expectations Of American Undergraduate College Women In A Western Coeducational Institution
Asset Metadata
Creator
Knoll, Robert Eugene
(author)
Core Title
Delinquency And Rationalization: A Study Of The Delinquent Act
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Sociology
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
OAI-PMH Harvest,Sociology, general
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Advisor
Locke, Harvey J. (
committee chair
), [illegible] (
committee member
), Ruch, Floyd L. (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-182279
Unique identifier
UC11359688
Identifier
6600571.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-182279 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
6600571.pdf
Dmrecord
182279
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Knoll, Robert Eugene
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