University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Normative values of selected law enforcement officers and adult male offenders

(USC Thesis Other)

Normative values of selected law enforcement officers and adult male offenders

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content T h is d isse r ta tio n has been 61-3824 m icr o film ed e x a ctly a s r e c e iv e d ROLLINS, Glenn R ichard, 1930— NORMATIVE VALUES OF SELECTED LAW ENFORCEM ENT O FFICERS AND ADULT M ALE O FFEN D ER S. U n iv e r sity of Southern C aliforn ia P h .D ., 1961 S o cio lo g y , g en era l University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan NORMATIVE VALUES OF SELECTED LA W ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND ADULT M ALE OFFENDERS by Glenn Richard R o llin s A D is s e r ta tio n P resented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In P a r t i a l F u lfillm e n t of the Requirements fo r the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Sociology) June 19bl UNIVERSITY O F SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES 7. CALIFORNIA This dissertation, written by Glenn RichardRon.i.DS................. under the direction of h.i s ..Dissertation Com mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by the Dean of the Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of D O C T O R OF P H IL O S O P H Y Dean Date Ju n e , 1961........................... ........ DISSERTATION COMMITTEE TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF T A B L E S .......................................................................................... iv C hapter I. THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED . . . 1 The Problem D e f in itio n s of Terms Used O rg a n iza tio n of the Remainder of the Study I I . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE................................................. 10 Conceptual W ritings E m pirical S tu d ies Summary Statem ent I I I . METHODOLOGY.................................................................................. 76 The Samples The Q u estio n n aire S t a t i s t i c a l Techniques IV. FINDINGS OF THE STUDY.......................................................... 94 Responses t o the Q u estio n n aire Items Influence of C o n d itio n in g Sequences Responses to C a te g o rie s of Behavior Influence of Q u estio n n aire V a ria b le s Summary of F indings V. CONCLUSIONS OF THE S T U D Y .......................................................173 S u b s ta n tia tio n of Hypotheses Minor Problem of I n v e s tig a tio n C onditioning Sequences and Intersam ple D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n Types of Normative Values Comparison w ith Other Em pirical S tu d ies L im ita tio n s and Weaknesses i i Chapter Page Needs fo r F u rth e r Em pirical Research BIBLIOGRAPHY.....................................................................................................197 APPENDIXES..........................................................................................................202 i i i 97 100 102 103 10b 108 112 114 115 116 119 LIST OF TABLES Q uestionnaire Items toward Which Inmates Were S i g n i f i c a n t l y More Lenient Than P olice O f f i c e r s ........................................................................... . . D iffe re n c e s between Samples on Q uestionnaire Items toward Which Inmates Were S ig n if ic a n tly More Lenient Than P olice O f f ic e r s ........................ Q u estio n n aire Items toward Which Inmates Were S ig n i f i c a n t l y More Severe Than P o lice O ffic e rs D iffe re n c e s between Samples on Q uestionnaire Items toward Which Inmates Were S ig n if ic a n tly More Severe Than Police O f f ic e r s ............................. Q uestionnaire Items toward Which Inmates and P o lic e O f f ic e r s Were I n s i g n i f i c a n t l y D iffe re n t in the D ire c tio n of T h eir Judgments ................... D iffe re n c es between Samples on Q uestionnaire Items toward Which Inmates Were I n s i g n i f i c a n tly D if fe re n t from P olice O ff ic e r s in the D ire c tio n of T h eir Judgments ...................................... Changes in the Responses of Inmates and P olice O f f ic e r s w ith the A ddition of C onditioning Sequences t o Q u estio n n aire I t e m s ............................. C onditioning Sequences toward Which Samples Were I n s i g n i f i c a n t l y L e n i e n t ...................................... C onditioning Sequences toward Which Samples Were Severe ............................................................................ C o nditioning Sequences toward Which Inmates Were S i g n if ic a n tly L e n i e n t ........................................... C onditioning Sequences toward Which P o lice O f f ic e r s Were S ig n if ic a n tly L e n i e n t ................... iv 123 129 131 133 135 136 138 143 146 150 151 153 156 D iffe re n c e s between Inmates and P o lice O ffic e r s in the Comparison of Q u estio n n aire Items w ith Matched Items C ontaining C o nditioning Se quences ......................................................................... . . . D iffe re n c es between Inmates and P o lice O ffic e rs in T h eir Responses toward Q u estio n n aire Items Which Deal w ith "One Person Beating Another" . D iffe re n c e s between Inmates and Police O ff ic e r s in T h eir Responses toward Q u estio n n aire Items Which Deal w ith "One Person Informing on Another" ...................................................................................... D iffe re n ce s between Inmates and P olice O f f ic e r s in T h eir Responses toward Q uestionnaire Items Which Deal w ith "Theft" ................................................ D iffe re n c e s between Inmates and P olice O f f ic e r s in T h eir Responses toward Q uestionnaire Items Which Deal w ith "Proscribed Sexual Behavior" . D iffe re n c e s between Inmates and P olice O f f ic e r s in T h eir Responses toward Q u estio n n aire Items Which Deal w ith "Family D esertio n " ........................ D iffe re n c e s between Inmates and P olice O f f ic e r s in T h eir Responses toward Q u estio n n aire Items Which Deal w ith "Lying" ................................................ Comparable Q u estio n n aire Items in Which O bjects of Behavior P a tte r n s Vary in S o cia l S i g n i f i cance .......................................................................................... A sso c ia tio n of Comparable Q u estio n n aire Items in Which O b je c ts of Behavior P a tte r n s Vary in S o c ia l S i g n i f i c a n c e ......................................................... Changes in the Responses of Inmates and Police O f f ic e r s with D iffe re n t O b je c ts of Behavior P a tte r n s in Comparable Q uestionnaire Items . . Comparable Q u estio n n aire Items in Which O b jects of S an ctio n D if fe r in S ta tu s ...................................... A sso c ia tio n of Comparable Q u estio n n aire Items in Which O b jec ts of Sanction D iffe r in S ta tu s . . Changes in the Responses of Inmates and P olice O f f ic e r s w ith S ta tu s V a ria tio n of the O b jects of S anction in Comparable Q u estio n n aire Items v 2b. Comparable Q uestionnaire Items in Which O b je c ts of S anction D if fe r in Sex ........................................... 26. A sso c ia tio n of Comparable Q u estio n n aire Items in Which O b jec ts of S an ctio n D if fe r in Sex . . 27. Changes in the Responses of Inm ates and P olice O f f ic e r s w ith Sex V a r ia tio n of the O b jec ts of Sanction in Conparable Q u estio n n aire Items . . 28. Ages of Inmates Who Had Completed Twelve Grades of School and the Number of P o lice O f f ic e r s with I d e n tic a l A g e s .......................................................... 29. D iffe re n c e s between Subsamples in T h e ir Judg ments of Q u estio n n aire I t e m s ....................................... lb 7 159 166 206 208 vi CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED Many w r i t e r s d ea lin g w ith such s o c io lo g ic a l a re a s of i n t e r e s t as "S o cial D iso rg a n iz a tio n ," "S ocial Problem s," "Juvenile D elinquency," and "Criminology" take the p o s itio n t h a t c rim in a l and d e lin q u e n t behavior are ty p if ie d by con f l i c t s in v a lu e s. These w r i t e r s imply t h a t c rim in a ls and d e lin q u e n ts may be d is tin g u is h e d from the noncrim inal popu la t i o n in term s of the s o c ia l v alu es to which they adhere, or, in term s of the norms and means th ey im p l ic i tly accept as proper f o r o b ta in in g c e r t a i n g o a ls . On the other hand, th e re are w r i t e r s who deny the adequacy of the concept of v a l u e - c o n f lic t in d is tin g u is h in g between c rim in a ls and non c r im in a ls . The lack of s u f f i c i e n t e m p iric a l ev idence, the f a i l u r e t o e s t a b l i s h the s o c io lo g ic a l relevance of a x io lo g i- c a l c o n c e p ts, and the in c o n s is te n t le v e l of a b s tr a c tio n pro vided f o r the concept of v a l u e - c o n f lic t by those who d is c u s s c r im i n a li ty in term s of "values" have d e te rre d se ttle m e n t of the c o n tro v e rs y . The se ttle m en t of the co n tro v e rsy has a ls o been d e te rre d by the adherence of some w r i te r s to the notion t h a t s o c ia l v alu es are so p h ilo s o p h ic a l in co n ten t t h a t they are not amenable to s c i e n t i f i c a n a ly s is . 1 2 The e x e m p lific a tio n of the c o n tro v e rsy concerning the use of the term "value"and the concept of "value-con- f l i c t " in d is tin g u is h in g c rim in a ls from noncrim inals i s pro vided as a p o rtio n of the second c h a p te r of t h i s study. The Problem S tatem ent of the problem . — This study was undertaken to determ ine whether a s e le c te d sample of inmates in c a r c e ra te d in a penal i n s t i t u t i o n d if f e r e d from a s e le c te d sam ple of p o lic e o f f i c e r s in t h e i r e v a lu a tio n s of in te rp e rs o n a l b e h a v io ra l s i t u a t i o n s d e p ic te d in a q u e s tio n n a ire . The problem was designed to show whether th e se two samples d i f fered in the i n t e n s i t y w ith which they judged the a p p lic a tio n of d e p ic te d b e h a v io ra l means to o b ta in c e r t a i n s e le c te d goals or values* and a ls o to provide e m p iric a l evidence concerning the v a lu e - c o n f lic t e x p la n a tio n of c r im i n a li ty . In stead of deducing a t t i t u d i n a l d if f e r e n c e s from the f a c t t h a t the behavior of c r im in a ls and noncrim inals d i f f e r s in c e r t a i n r e s p e c ts — and lending the deduction with a s e l f - imposed im p lic a tio n of a c o n f l i c t in v alu es— t h i s study proposed to measure the i n t e n s i t y of the e v a lu a tio n s ex pressed by a sample of c rim in a ls and a sample of noncrim i n a ls in order to determ ine whether s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e re n c e s e x is te d between them. Minor problem of i n v e s t i g a t i o n .— In a d d itio n to the problem of in v e s tig a tin g the p o ssib le d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n be tween inm ates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s in term s of the ev a lu a tio n s of the q u e s tio n n a ire items o ffe re d by these two sam- p le s of re s p o n d e n ts ( the problem of analyzing the e f f e c t or in flu en ce of some of the d i f f e r e n t v a r ia b le s co n tain ed in the q u e s tio n n a ire upon t h e i r e v a lu a tio n s was a ls o formu la t e d . T his was done in order t o a s s e s s the influence of some of the s o c ia l f a c t o r s d ep icted in the q u estio n n aire item s upon the obtained measurements of in ter-sam p le d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n ; t h i s minor problem was form ulated t o a s se ss whether the measurements of in ter-sam p le d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n r e f le c te d judgm ental d if f e r e n c e s concerning f a c t o r s other than "the d ep icte d b e h a v io ral means of a t t a i n i n g c e r t a i n g o als or v a l u e s . " Statem ent of h y p o th e se s.—Two p r in c ip a l hypotheses were form ulated and in v e s tig a te d in t h i s study: (1) t h a t in mates would d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from p o lic e o f f i c e r s in t h e i r e v a lu a tio n s of the d ep icte d in te rp e rs o n a l b eh a v io ral s i t u a t i o n s included in the q u e s tio n n a ire , and (2) th a t in mates would be s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t than p o lic e of f i c e r s in t h e i r e v a lu a tio n of th ese d ep icte d s i t u a t i o n s . A t h i r d h y p o th e sis was form ulated to the e f f e c t th a t inmates would become more le n ie n t than p o lic e o f f i c e r s in t h e i r e v a lu a tio n s of the d e p ic te d item s in the q u e stio n n a ire a f t e r m itig a tin g circum stances (c o n d itio n in g sequences) were phrased and appended to th e se item s. This h y p o th e sis im- p lie d th a t inmates would tend to a l t e r t h e i r e v a lu a tio n s of the d ep icte d b eh a v io ral s i t u a t i o n s in the d ir e c tio n of len ien cy to a g r e a te r e x te n t than would p o lic e o f f i c e r s a f t e r c o n d itio n in g sequences designed t o m itig a te the behav io r d e p ic te d had been added. The c o n d itio n in g sequences provided s p e c i f i c i t y to the d e p ic te d b eh a v io ra l item s; they encompassed g o als toward which the ty p e s of behavior de p ic te d in the q u e s tio n n a ire served as means of a tta in m e n t. A f u r t h e r im p lic a tio n of t h i s t h i r d h y p o th esis was, th e n , th a t the s p e c i f i c i t y given the item s with the a d d itio n of c o n d itio n in g sequences which e x p lic a te d the "means-ends" r e la tio n s h i p of the ty p e s of behavior d ep icte d would in c re a se the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between the two samples; th e two samples would d i f f e r to a g r e a te r e x te n t in t h e i r evalua ti o n s of the item s c o n ta in in g an e x p lic a tio n of the "means- ends" r e l a t i o n s h i p of the behavior d ep icte d th a n in t h e i r e v a lu a tio n s of item s d e p ic tin g i d e n t i c a l ty p e s of behavior w ithout such e x p lic a tio n . The co n cep tu al foundation of these th re e hypotheses and the relevance of th e se hypotheses to the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of c rim in a ls and noncrim inals i s e la b o ra te d more f u l l y in the second c h a p te r of t h i s study. Importance of the stu d y . — T h is study assumes i t s importance w ith the attem pt to shed some li g h t upon the problem of d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g a s e le c te d sample of a d ju d ic a te d o ffe n d e rs from a s e le c te d sample of noncrim inals in term s of t h e i r normative values* The study b e a rs upon the ty p i- f i c a t i o n and d i s t i n c t i o n of c r im in a ls and c rim in a l behavior w ith in the v a l u e - c o n f lic t frame of r e fe re n c e — a problem con cern in g which th e re i s co n tro v e rsy among academ icians. As such, t h i s study atte m p ts to supply in fo rm atio n of an em p i r i c a l so rt t o a problem area c u r r e n tly in need of i t . T h is study i s a ls o im portant in th a t an attem pt has been made to denote the r e la tio n s h i p between the le v e l of a b s tr a c ti o n upon which the term "value" i s co n c e p tu a liz e d and i t s u t i l i t y in e s ta b li s h in g measurements of intersam ple d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of resp o n se. F i n a l l y , t h i s study i s im portant in th a t the f in d ings which have been e l i c i t e d may be of p r a c t i c a l s i g n i f i cance to p erso n s working in the f i e l d s of crime p re v e n tio n and c o n t r o l. D e f in itio n s of Terms Used Normative v a lu e s .—The d e f i n i t i o n and th e s o c io lo g i c a l relev an ce of the term "normative v alues" may be c l a r i f ie d w ith a p re lim in a ry d i s t i n c t i o n between norms and v a l u es. Norms t y p i c a l l y r e f e r t o th e modal ways in which in d iv id u a ls behave or to the s o c i e t a l p r e s c r i p t i o n s determ in ing how in d iv id u a ls should behave in c e r t a i n s o c ia l con t e x t s . Norms re p r e s e n t c o n c e p tu a liz a tio n s of the range of p r o p r ie ty which encompasses human b ehavior; they m a n ife stly involve the attachm ent of p o s itiv e and negative sa n c tio n s in the form of rewards and punishm ents to human b eh av io r. Val ues, in the g e n e ra l sense, r e f e r to o b je c ts of i n t e r e s t — o b j e c t i f i c a t i o n s toward which judgm ents, a t t i t u d e s , and e v a lu a tio n s are d ir e c te d . Values may be in d iv id u a l or com monly shared o b je c ts of i n t e r e s t ; the co n n o tatio n of d e s i r a b i l i t y i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y a tta c h e d to them, though they may be co n c ep tu a liz ed as negative as w ell as p o s itiv e and, th e r e f o r e , v alu es may a ls o bear the co n n o ta tio n of u n d e s ir a b i l i t y . Values may r e f e r to t y p i f i c a t i o n s of human behav io r or to d e f i n i t i v e r e p r e s e n ta tio n s of human behavior so long as they are a ls o o b j e c t i f i c a t i o n s toward which judg ments or a t t i t u d e s are ex p ressed . T h is notio n i s more f u l l y s u b s ta n tia te d and exem plified in the second c h a p te r d ea lin g w ith a review of the l i t e r a t u r e . The problem of t h i s study was not involved w ith the assessm ent of the modes in which s u b je c ts a c tu a l ly behaved, nor was i t involved w ith the assessm ent of what s u b je c ts d e sire d as id io s y n c r a tic o b je c ts of i n t e r e s t . The problem of t h i s study was, r a t h e r , involved w ith the assessm ent of the e v a lu a tio n s or judgments of s u b je c ts toward d ep icte d t y p i f i c a t i o n s of human b eh av io r. The e v a lu a tio n s made by the s u b je c ts denoted a range of negative sa n c tio n s and were co n n o tatlv e of d i f f e r e n t le v e ls of judgm ental i n t e n s i t y . The term "normative values" was th e re fo re chosen t o re p r e sent the s u b je c t-m a tte r of t h i s study. The term was used to 7 mean "the o b j e c t i f i c a t i o n s of ty p e s of human behavior toward which judgments denoting sa n ctio n s were a p p lie d ." The term "normative values" has not been equated w ith behavior as so d efin e d ; i t has been equated w ith o b j e c t i f i c a t i o n s of ty p e s of human behavior toward which normative judgments have been a tta c h e d . O b je c ts of s a n c tio n . — Each item p rese n ted in the q u e s tio n n a ire d e p ic te d a person who was involved in a spe c i f i c type of in te r p e r s o n a l b eh a v io r. The persons so de p ic te d in the q u e s tio n n a ire item s were termed " o b je c ts of s a n c t i o n ." Q u estio n n aire v a r i a b l e s . — In a d d itio n t o the c a te g o rie s of b eh a v io r, the ty p es of in te rp e rs o n a l b eh av io r, and the c o n d itio n in g sequences, th e re were th re e ty p e s of v a r i a b le s d e p ic te d among the item s in the q u e s tio n n a ire : (1) the s o c ia l s ig n ific a n c e of the o b je c ts of behavior p a t t e r n s , (2) the s t a t u s - p o s i t i o n s of the o b je c ts of sa n c tio n , and (3) the sex of th e o b je c ts of sa n c tio n . These were termed "q u e stio n n a ire v a r i a b l e s ." The o b je c ts of behavior p a t t e r n s were those p erso n s or i n s t i t u t i o n s w ith whom or w ith which the o b je c ts of sa n c tio n were in d ep icte d i n t e r a c t i o n . C o n d itio n in g sequences.—The b e h a v io ra l s i t u a t i o n s d ep icte d in the f i r s t h a lf of the q u e s tio n n a ire were r e peated w ith appended m itig a tin g circ u m sta n ces or reaso n s among th e items composing the second h a lf of the q u estio n n a ire . These appended q u a l i f i c a t i o n s to the items in the second h a lf of the q u e stio n n a ire were termed "co n d itio n in g sequences." In a d d itio n to d e p ic tin g m itig a tin g circum stan c e s , the co n d itio n in g sequences had the e f f e c t of e s t a b l i s h ing a "means-ends" r e l a t i o n s h i p w ith in the d ep icted behav i o r a l s i t u a t i o n s to which they were appended. O rd in al s c a l e .— The value-judgm ent scale was con s tru c te d to give fiv e a l t e r n a t i v e s (norm atively q u a lifie d ) to the respondents to the q u e s tio n n a ire . The fiv e a l te r n a t i v e s re p re se n te d s e q u e n tia l le v e ls of i n t e n s i t y of judg ment, th u s e s ta b li s h in g the o rd in a l q u a l ity of the sc a le . No assum ption concerning the num erical weight of the i n t e r v a ls or the num erical d ista n c e between the in t e r v a l s of the scale was made. O rg a n iza tio n of the Remainder of the Study The remainder of t h i s study i s composed of fo u r c h a p te r s , a b ib lio g ra p h y , and an appendix. C hapter I I is devoted to a review of the l i t e r a t u r e concerning: the r e l a t i o n of the study of v alu es to the study of in te rp e rs o n a l beh av io r, the v a lu e - c o n f lic t ex p lan a tio n of c r im i n a li ty , the co n tro v e rsy concerning t h i s e x p la n a tio n , and e m p iric a l in v e s tig a tio n s of the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between c rim in a ls and n o n crim in als, d e lin q u e n ts and nondelinquents, in term s of value dim ensions. The t h i r d c h a p te r d is c u s s e s : the con 9 s tr u c t io n and u t i l i t y of the q u e s tio n n a ir e , the te ch n iq u e s of o b tain in g the two samples of resp o n d en ts, the c h a ra c te r i s t i c s of th e se two samples, and the s t a t i s t i c a l te ch n iq u e s employed t o a s s e s s t h e i r resp o n ses t o the q u e s tio n n a ire . The f o u rth c h a p te r p r e s e n ts the f in d in g s of t h i s in v e s tig a t i o n . The f i f t h ch a p te r p r e s e n ts : a d is c u s s io n of the con c lu s io n s which may be drawn from the f in d in g s of t h i s study, the r e l a t i o n of the f in d in g s to th e hypotheses upon which t h i s study was p re d ic a te d , the l i m i t a t i o n s of th e p re se n t study, and needs fo r f u r th e r re se a rc h concerning the problem w ith which t h i s study was engrossed. The appendix p ro v id es e la b o r a tio n of c e r t a i n m ethodological problems and ta s k s and a ls o in c lu d es a copy of the q u e s tio n n a ire which was sub m itted to the resp o n d en ts who took p a r t in t h i s study. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The purpose of t h i s c h a p te r concerns a review of se le c te d w r itin g s in an e f f o r t to a u th e n tic a te the impor tance of the problem which was in v e s tig a te d in t h i s study and to e s t a b l i s h the relev an ce of the hypotheses upon which t h i s study was p re d ic a te d . A review of the w ritin g s of those who co n c e p tu a liz e the d i s t i n c t i o n of crim e, c rim in a ls , delinquency, and d e lin q u e n ts in term s of c o n f l i c t s of norms and v a lu e s i s p re s e n te d . A review of the w ritin g s of those who, f o r v a rio u s re a s o n s, fin d f a u l t w ith t h i s approach to the co n cep tu al d i s t i n c t i o n of crime and c r im in a ls , d e lin quency and d e lin q u e n ts i s a ls o p re s e n te d . An e f f o r t is thereby made to a u th e n tic a te the e x iste n c e of an academic c o n tro v e rsy concerning the c o n c e p tu a liz a tio n and d i s t i n c t i o n of c r i m i n a l i t y and t o p o in t to some of the bases of t h i s c o n tro v e rsy . By exem plifying the bases of t h i s co n tro v e rsy , an attem pt i s made to e s t a b l i s h the relevance of the hy p o th eses which guided the p re se n t study. The a d d i tio n a l purpose of t h i s c h a p te r i s th a t of e s ta b li s h in g the le g itim acy of the d e f i n i t i v e concept th a t v alu es may be t y p i f i c a t i o n s of human behavior as long as 10 11 they are a lso o b j e c t i f i c a t i o n s toward which a t t i t u d e s or judgments are ex p ressed . S elected w ritin g s are reviewed in order t o lend fo u n d atio n and a u th o r ity t o t h i s s ta te d d e f i- n itio n of the term " v a lu e s." The l a s t se c tio n of t h i s c h a p te r in c lu d es a review of s e le c te d e m p iric a l in v e s tig a tio n s , c a r r ie d out by o th e rs , which bear a r e l a t i o n to t h i s study in a s s e s s in g the d i f fe re n c e s between c rim in a ls and noncrim inals and the d i f f e r ences between d e lin q u e n ts and nondelinquents in term s of v ario u s dimensions of v a lu e s. C onceptual W ritings The v a l u e - c o n f lic t approach to c r i m i n a l i t y .— One of the f i r s t s o c io lo g is t s to u t i l i z e the v a l u e - c o n f lic t ap proach to the t y p i f i c a t i o n of c r i m i n a l i t y was Richard C. F u lle r . In an a r t i c l e e n t i t l e d , "The Problem of Teaching S o c ia l Problem s," F u lle r o u tlin e d th re e le v e ls of s o c ia l problems in term s of the type of v a lu e - c o n f lic t involved. The f i r s t le v e l of s o c ia l problems included those c a t a s tro p h ic c o n d itio n s which a l l in d iv id u a ls define n e g a tiv e ly ; value-judgm ents do not bring about th e se c o n d itio n s and th e re i s s c a rc e ly any c o n f l i c t reg ard in g what should be done to c o r r e c t the c o n d itio n s . Such phenomena as flo o d s , holo c a u s ts , ea rth q u ak es, and fam ines would be examples of the c o n d itio n s encompassed. The second le v e l of s o c ia l prob lems r e f e r r e d t o those c o n d itio n s which were g e n e ra lly 12 evaluated as u n d e s ira b le , but where value-judgm ents helped to c re a te the c o n d itio n s in a d d itio n to f r u s t r a t i n g t h e i r s o lu tio n s . The t h i r d le v e l of s o c ia l problems o u tlin e d by F u lle r c o n s is te d of those c o n d itio n s concerning which th e re was co n sid erab le but no g en e ral agreement as to t h e i r un d e s i r a b i l i t y ; since th ese c o n d itio n s grow out of a c o n f l i c t in v alu es, th e re i s no consensus concerning t h e i r s o lu tio n .^ F u lle r subsumed c e r t a i n ty p es of crime under the second and t h i r d le v e ls of s o c ia l problems which he o u tlin e d . His im p l i c a t i o n was th a t c e r t a i n p a t te r n s of behavior are d e sig nated as " c rim in a lity " and re p re s e n t a s o c ia l problem be cause they are deemed u n d e sira b le by a m ajo rity of the pub l i c . The e v a lu a tio n of u n d e s i r a b i l i t y connotes a c o n f l i c t of values between the segment of so c ie ty which a p p lie s the e v a lu a tio n and the segment of so c ie ty whose behavior has brought the attachm ent of the e v a lu a tio n to i t s e l f . C e rta in ideas r e l a t i n g t o the e x p lan atio n of crim i n a l i t y in term s of c o n f l i c t s in v alu es which are only im p l i c i t in F u l l e r 's o u tlin e of the th re e le v e ls of s o c ia l problems, are made e x p l i c i t in one of h is l a t e r a r t i c l e s . In commenting upon the j u r i d i c a l conception of crim e. F u lle r says: A p e r s o n 's conduct may d ev iate from some s o c ia l norm . . . but i t i s not c rim in a l conduct in the le g a l ^■Richard C. F u l l e r , "The Problem of Teaching S o cia l Problem s," The American Jo u rn a l of S ociology. XLIV (Novem b er, 1938J, 419-426. 13 aspect u n le ss i t i s a ls o a d e v ia tio n from the c rim in a l code e s ta b lis h e d and enforced by the s t a t e . T his j u r i d i c a l conception of crime has i t s logic in expediency, r a t h e r than in s o c io lo g ic a l re a lis m . I t co n v e n ien tly d e lim its misconduct which i s the domain of p o lic e , p ro se c u to r and judge from misconduct which must be re g u la te d e x c lu s iv e ly by the p re s s u re s of public opin io n . S o c io lo g ic a lly speaking, however, a c rim in a l s t a tu te i s simply the form al embodiment of someone's moral v alu es (u su a lly the group dominant in p o l i t i c a l a u th o rity ) in an o f f i c i a l e d i c t , re in fo rc e d w ith an of f i c i a l penal s a n c tio n . Moreover, the mere f a c t th a t a given a c t i s made punishable by law does not s e t t l e the q u estio n of the im m orality of the p ro h ib ite d conduct; i t does not preclude people from passing moral judgments on the r ig h tf u ln e s s or w rongfulness of the b eh av io r. The dominant group whose v alu es are expressed in the law is only one of many groups which are in te g ra te d in the moral and p o l i t i c a l f a b r ic of the community. When the moral v a lu e s of one or more of th ese o th e r groups are not in accord w ith the moral v alu es of the dominant group we are li k e l y to have a p e r s i s t e n t problem of law enforcem ent. Thus viewed, the problem of the c rim in a l law in a c tio n reduces t o the problem of c o n f lic tin g moral v alu e s held by d if f e r e n t groups and c l a s s e s in the community.2 F u lle r ta k e s the p o s itio n t h a t c r im i n a li ty re p re se n ts a c o n f l i c t of moral v a lu e s. C rim inals are ty p if ie d as holding v alu es which c o n f l i c t with those held by the domi nant segment of s o c ie ty . By noting th a t c r im i n a li ty re p re se n ts behavior on the p a rt of one segment of so c ie ty which c o n f l i c t s w ith the d e f i n i t i o n of p ro p rie ty provided in le g a l s t a t u t e s by the dominant segment of s o c ie ty . F u lle r postu l a t e s a c o n f l i c t in the v alu es held by the two segments of s o c ie ty . He, in e f f e c t , deduces a t t i t u d i n a l and judgm ental d if fe re n c e s between the two segments from the f a c t th a t the R i c h a r d C. F u l l e r , "Morals and the C rim inal Law," The jo u rn al^ o f^ C rim in al Law and C rim inology. XXXII (March- 14 two segments of so c ie ty d i f f e r in s e le c te d a s p e c ts of t h e i r beh av io r. The deduction has the p o s s i b i l i t y of v e r a c ity , but F u lle r lends i t no s u b s t a n tia tio n w ith re fe re n c e t o em p i r i c a l d a ta . Horton and L e slie ty p if y the v a l u e - c o n f lic t approach to the e x p la n a tio n of c r im i n a li ty as fo llo w s: T h is approach analyzes the problem in term s of the c o n f l i c t i n g v alu es of our s o c ie ty . Values d i f f e r both on the q u e stio n s of what a c ts are crim es and what should be done about them. In m o r a lis tic and i n s t i t u t i o n a l crim e, th e v a l u e - c o n f lic t i s obvious. These are wide spread crim es because the value-judgm ents of c e r t a i n groups have been w r i tte n in to law, fo rb id d in g a c ts which the value-judgm ents of many o th er groups f u l l y t o l e r ate .3 T his t y p i f i c a t i o n of the v a lu e - c o n f lic t approach i s sim ila r to F u l l e r 's e x p la n a tio n of c r im i n a li ty . The values in c o rp o rated in to law r e f l e c t the value-judgm ents of c e r t a i n groups, while the behavior on the p a r t of c e r t a i n o th e r groups which is c o n tra ry to law r e f l e c t s c o n f lic tin g value- judgments. C o n f lic ts reg ard in g v alu es are deduced from be h a v io ra l d if f e r e n c e s and a t t i t u d i n a l and judgm ental d i f f e r ences ( c o n f l i c t s ) are p o s tu la te d . In a preceding p o rtio n of t h e i r work, Horton and L eslie d efin e v alu es as a s o c i e t y 's "e stim a te s of worth; i t s p re fe re n c e s ; i t s l ik e s and d is l i k e s . " 4 Values would then lo g i c a l l y be assessed by analy- 3Paul B. Horton and Gerald R. L e s lie , The Sociology of S o c ia l Problems (New York: A p p leto n -C en tu ry -C ro fts, 1966), p. l'-d. 4 Ib id . . p. 30. lb s i s of a t t i t u d e s and judgments; a c o n f l i c t in v alu es would lo g ic a l ly be a ssessed by a n a ly s is of the d if f e r e n c e s in the dimensions of a t t i t u d e s and judgm ents. Yet, Horton and Les l i e p o s tu la te v a l u e - c o n f lic t in term s of o v ert b e h a v io ral d iffe re n ce s; c r im in a lity i s p o s ite d as a r e f l e c t i o n of value- conf l i c t — judgm ental d if f e re n c e s are founded on the pro cess of d eduction. Horton and L eslie ty p if y the "personal d e v ia tio n " approach to the crime problem, in d i s t i n c t i o n to the value- c o n f l i c t approach as fo llo w s: T h is approach views a s o c ia l problem as an outgrowth of c e r t a i n in d iv id u a ls who, f o r one reason or an o th er, f a i l to absorb and i n t e r n a l i z e the co n v e n tio n a l a t t i tu d e s , h a b i t s , g o a ls, and v a lu e s. The c rim in a l is viewed as a d ev ian t person who has f a i l e d to form the normal value-judgm ents, am b itio n s, and h a b i ts , but in stead has developed s o c ia lly disapproved ones. As s ta te d , the p e rso n a l d e v ia tio n approach to the c h a r a c te r i z a t io n of c r im i n a li ty is lo g i c a l l y r e l a t e d to the v a lu e - c o n f lic t approach; i t i s not d i s t i n c t from i t as Hor ton and L e slie s t a t e . The p e rso n a l d e v ia tio n approach to c r im i n a li ty , as Horton and L eslie have t y p i f i e d i t to be, pro v id es f o r the e m p iric a l assessm ent of judgm ental d i f f e r ences between c rim in a ls and non crim in als. T h is assessm ent must be made i f the v a l u e - c o n f lic t approach to c r im i n a li ty i s to be based upon the p ro cess of e m p iric a l in v e s tig a tio n , r a th e r than upon the pro cess of deduction alo n e. Horton and 5 Ib id . . p. 119. 16 L eslie d e fin e d "values" in term s of a t t i t u d e s and judgments; an e m p iric a l assessm ent of the v alu es which are h eld by in d iv id u a ls or an e m p iric a l assessm ent of th e c o n f l i c t between the v a lu e s h eld by d i f f e r e n t groups of in d iv id u a ls would, th en , depend upon an assessm ent of a t t i t u d e s and judgments. The p ro cess of d ed u ctio n , which im p lies c o n f l i c t s of values from observed o v ert (non-verbal) ty p e s of behavior, r e s t s upon self-im posed value-judgm ents of the o b serv er. Cuber and Harper se t f o r t h t h e i r approach t o the d e f i n i t i o n of s o c ia l problems as fo llo w s: I t was F u l l e r 's view . . . and we agree f u l l y . . . t h a t s o c ia l problems a r is e in a s o c ie ty because ends. o b je c tiv e s , or v alu es f o s te r e d by v a rio u s persons and groups run a t c ro s s - p u r p o s e s .6 They do not deny th a t th e causes of problem condi ti o n s such as crime are m u ltid im en sio n al, but Cuber and Har per emphasize th a t c e r t a i n c o n d itio n s become problems c o in c id e n t w ith the emergence of value c la s h e s concerning them. This emphasis i s apparent in t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n of crim e, which s t a t e s , "Crime i s any a c tio n o f f i c i a l l y co n sid ered to be c o n tra ry to the im portant v alu es h eld by a s o c i e t y ." 7 T h eir d e f i n i t i o n of crime i s s im ila r to the one o ffe re d by Mannheim, which s t a t e s , "crime i s a n t i - s o c i a l behavior . . . a n t i - s o c i a l behavior i s d ir e c te d a g a in s t c e r t a i n fundam ental 6John F. Cuber and Robert A. H arper, Problems of American S o ciety : Values in C o n flic t (New YorkVtfenry h o lt and Company, 1948), p. v i i . 7 I b id . . p. 156. 17 v alu es. In order to f u r th e r ty p if y the v a l u e - c o n f lic t ap proach t o th e e x p la n a tio n of c r i m i n a l i t y , se v e ra l q u o ta tio n s are now p re s e n te d . They are d isc u sse d , in g e n e ra l, a t the end of t h e i r p r e s e n ta tio n as a group. R eckless c o n c e p tu a liz e s c rim in a l behavior as f o l lows: Behavior of human beings in i t s e l f i s not c rim in a l or n o n -crim in a l. I t must be d efin e d as c rim in a l or n o n -crim in a l. The mores did t h i s in a n t iq u ity , and p u b lic opinion i s doing t h i s now; but in back of the mores and in back of p u b lic opinion i s always the value- scheme which as sig n s r e l a t i v e importance or se rio u s n e ss to behavior; in o th er words, which g iv es d e f i n i t e mean ing to behavior of human b e in g s.* While not s p e c i f i c a l l y advocating the v a lu e - c o n f lic t approach to the e x p la n a tio n of crim e, Bernard d is c u s s e s the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the approach as fo llo w s: In a d d itio n to the s o c ia l- d is o r g a n iz a tio n and so- c ia l- p a th o lo g y c o n c e p tu a liz a tio n s of s o c ia l problem s, th e re arose in the second q u a rte r of the 20th Century th e s o -c a lle d v a l u e - c o n f lic t approach, which r e je c te d both the e a r l i e r textbook fo rm u la tio n s and la i d i t s em p h a s is on the e v a lu a tio n s of s o c ia l c o n d itio n s made by v a rio u s groups, r a t h e r th a n on the c o n d itio n s them s e lv e s . According to t h i s p o in t of view, c o n d itio n s which are not them selves caused by value judgm ents, such as p h y s ic a l a ilm e n ts and c a ta s tr o p h i e s , are not co n sid ered s o c ia l problem s. Such o th e r c o n d itio n s as crime and c l a s s - lin k e d i l l n e s s are s o c ia l problems because c e r t a i n mores and v alu es c o n f l i c t w ith o th e r mores and v alu es and th u s p revent consensus w ith re s p e c t t o t r e a t ®Hermann W . Mannheim, C rim inal J u s t i c e and S o c ia l R e co n stru c tio n (New York: Oxford U n iv e rs ity P re s s , 1946}, p . 7 . ^Walter C. R eckless, The Crime Problem (New York: A p p leto n -C en tu ry -C ro fts, 1950), p. 16. 18 ment. I t i s t h i s lack of consensus, not th e c o n d itio n s , which c o n s t i t u t e s the s o c ia l problem. E l l i o t t advances beyond the t y p i f i c a t i o n of c rim in a l behavior to the t y p i f i c a t i o n of c rim in a ls them selves. She s t a t e s : C rim inals are th u s most s a fe ly d escrib ed as those who have broken laws. But since a l l or most of us have broken laws, some f u r t h e r c h a r a c te r i z a t io n fo r the group punished i s necessary . The major f a c t o r d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g the persons co n sid ered c rim in a l seems t o be t h e i r r e j e c t i o n of s o c ia l v a lu e s . . . . I t i s in t h e i r prim ary r e j e c t i o n of the e t h i c a l v alu es demanded by th a t a r t i c u l a t e s e c tio n of s o c ie ty which makes the laws t h a t the main d iffe re n c e between the c rim in a l and the noncrim inal l i e s . 11 F ic h te r analyzes s o c ia l problems and t y p i f i e s crim in a ls in d i s t i n c t i o n to noncrim inals in the follow ing s t a t e ments: S o c ia l problems may in some in s ta n c e s develop from s o c ia l v a lu e s . These problem s a r is e p rim a rily in two in s ta n c e s : f i r s t , when th e re i s a d iscrepancy between the expressed v alu es of the c u ltu r e and the a c tu a l be h a v io r of the people; and second, when th e values of the v a rio u s subgroupings in the s o c ie ty are in con f l i c t . 12 C rim inal groups and a s s o c ia tio n s are only p a r t i a l l y d e v ia n t. . . . They e x i s t and operate according t o a l l th e s o c io lo g ic a l g e n e r a liz a tio n s we have made about non d e v ia n t groupings. . . . They are s o c io lo g ic a lly d i f f e r e n t from non-deviant groupings, however, because some of 10J e s s i e Bernard, S o c ia l Problems a t M idcenturv (New York: The Dryden P re ss, 1957), p. 136. ^ M ab el A. E l l i o t t , Crime in Modern S ociety (New York: Harper & B ro th e rs, 1952), pp. 81-82. 12Joseph H. F ic h te r , Socioloov (Chicago: U n iv e rs ity of Chicago P re s s , 1957), p. 302. 19 t h e i r v alu es and a c tio n s d i f f e r from those approved and accepted in the la r g e r s o c ie ty . The v a lu e - c o n f lic t e x p la n a tio n of c r im i n a li ty and the s o c ia l problem of crime have been given se v e ral conno t a t i o n s in the q u o ta tio n s which have been p re se n te d . Reck le s s s tre s s e d the o v e r - a ll c u l t u r a l value scheme which de f i n e s the d iffe re n c e between c r im i n a li ty and non-crim inal i t y . Bernard a tta c h e d importance to the e v a lu a tio n s of so c i a l c o n d itio n s made by v a rio u s and c o n f lic tin g s o c ia l groups; the v a lu e - c o n f lic t e x p la n a tio n of crime was ty p if ie d in term s of a lack of consensus between sub-groups in so c i e ty . E l l i o t t advanced the n o tio n th a t c rim in a l behavior, per s e . was an i n s u f f i c i e n t f a c t from which t o derive the d i s t i n c t i o n between c rim in a ls and non crim in als. She main ta in e d t h a t the prim ary d i s t i n c t i o n between c rim in a ls and noncrim inals and the t y p i f i c a t i o n of c rim in a ls were based on the r e j e c t i o n on the p a r t of c rim in a ls of the s o c ia l and e t h i c a l values in co rp o rate d in to law by th e a r t i c u l a t e sec t i o n of s o c ie ty . The v a lu e - c o n f lic t between c rim in a ls and the a r t i c u l a t e se c tio n of so c ie ty was p re d ic a te d by E l l i o t t upon a t t i t u d i n a l and judgm ental dim ensions; she made ex p l i c i t the inadequacy of c h a ra c te riz in g th e d i s t i n c t i o n be tween c rim in a ls and noncrim inals in so le ly b e h a v io ra l term s. F ic h te r emphasized the cleavage between th e expressed v alu es of the c u ltu re and the d isc o rd a n t a c tu a l behavior of people 13Ib id . . p. 391. 20 as w ell as the discrepancy of value o r ie n ta tio n s of v ario u s sub-groups in s o c ie ty in the e tio lo g y of s o c ia l problems. C rim inals were d is tin g u is h e d from nondeviant groups in term s of the d if f e r e n c e s of some of t h e i r v alu es and a c tio n s . There i s g en e ral agreement among the w r i t e r s employ ing the v a lu e - c o n f lic t approach to the e x p la n a tio n of crim i n a l i t y t h a t the law r e p r e s e n ts the embodiment of values which are expressed by the dominant or a r t i c u l a t e s e c tio n of so c ie ty ; the v alu es in c o rp o rate d in to laws r e p re s e n t d e f i n i t i o n s of human behavior in term s of p r o p r ie ty and are de riv e d from a ttitu d e s * judgments* and e v a lu a tio n s expressed by the a r t i c u l a t e or dominant s e c tio n of s o c ie ty . The law encompasses one se t of v alu es while c r im i n a li ty encompasses a d if f e r i n g and c o n f l i c t i n g se t of v alu es. There i s no ex p l i c i t agreement among th e w rite rs* however* in the concep t u a l i z a t i o n of the bases from which the v alu es encompassed in c r im i n a li ty are d e riv e d . Some w r i t e r s p o s it value-con- f l i c t from the f a c t th a t the behavior or c rim in a ls i s con t r a r y to the d e f i n i t i o n s of p r o p rie ty expressed by law. T h is n o tio n r e s t s upon the c o n c e p tu a liz a tio n of values in term s of two d i f f e r e n t le v e ls of a b s tr a c ti o n . Those v alu es composing the law are d eriv e d from id e a tio n a l phenomena such as expressions* a ttitu d e s * d e f in itio n s * and judgm ents. Those v alu es expressed .in c r im i n a li ty are derived from o v ert b e h a v io ral phenomena. In order to a s s e s s any c o n f l i c t be tween c rim in a l and noncrim inal segments of s o c ie ty in term s 21 of v a lu e s, the c o n c e p tu a liz a tio n s of the bases from which v alu es are d eriv e d must be p re d ic a te d upon i d e n t i c a l le v e ls of a b s tr a c ti o n . E ith e r o v ert b e h a v io ra l phenomena i s e s ta b lis h e d as a b a s is of a n a ly s is or id e a tio n a l phenomena i s e s ta b lis h e d as a b a s is of a n a ly s is in d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g c rim i n a ls from noncrim inals in term s of c o n f l i c t i n g v a lu e s. The c o n c e p tu a liz a tio n of th e bases from which values are derived upon d i f f e r i n g le v e ls of a b s tr a c tio n not only v i t i a t e s the d e f i n i t i o n of v alu e, i t o b v ia te s the p o s s i b i l i t y of enqpiri- c a l assessm ent of the c o n f l i c t of v alu es held by given seg ments of s o c ie ty . The c o n c e p tu a liz a tio n of norms.— Some of the w r i te r s who have u t i l i z e d the v a l u e - c o n f lic t approach in t h e i r d i s cu ssio n s of c r im i n a li ty have a ls o included in t h e i r d is c o u rse s a t y p i f i c a t i o n of s o c ia l norms. For example, C lin a rd d is c u s s e s the d iffe re n c e between s o c ia l v alu es and s o c ia l norms in r e l a t i o n to c r im i n a li ty as fo llo w s: The c e n t r a l goals or o b je c tiv e s of a c u ltu re or sub c u ltu r e are r e f e r r e d to as s o c ia l v a lu e s . They are not only shared, but are regarded as m a tte rs of c o l le c tiv e w elfare to which i s o ften a tta c h e d a high degree of em otional b e l ie f t h a t they are im p o rtan t. The d i s t i n c t i o n between s o c ia l norms and s o c ia l v alu es can be i l l u s t r a t e d by the c rim in a l law. Although c rim in a l laws are simply innumerable norms re g u la tin g v a rio u s ty p e s of behavior and are enforced by the c o e rc io n of th e s t a t e , c e r t a i n v alu es or b asic g o a ls are involved in some of them. Murder, m anslaughter, . . . t h e f t , . . . are v i o l a t i o n s of le g a l norms, but the basic v alu es involved include th e p r o te c tio n of human l i f e , the p r o te c tio n of 22 sexual and fam ily l i f e , and the p r o te c tio n of p ro p er t y . Some d e v ia tio n s from norms in a so c ie ty are not only approved but encouraged. Likew ise, disapproved devia t i o n s may encounter v a rio u s degrees of sa n c tio n , varying a l l the way from a c e r t a i n amount of to le ra n c e to mild and even strong d i s a p p r o v a l . ^ Most c rim in a l behavior r e p r e s e n ts a c o n f l i c t of the norms of p a r t i c u l a r groups or in d iv id u a ls a g a in s t those norms which the law r e p r e s e n t s . ^ C lin a rd d is tin g u is h e s c rim in a ls from noncrim inals in term s of a c o n f l i c t in the norms re p re se n te d in c rim in a l be havior and those re p re se n te d in law. Norms are co n cep tu al ized as r e g u la tiv e fo rm u la tio n s which define the dimensions of p r o p rie ty a tta c h e d to human behavior in terms of an a s c r i p t i o n of s o c ia l s a n c tio n s . Values are co n c ep tu a liz ed as more a b s tr a c t g o als or o b je c tiv e s of human behavior which are i m p l ic i tly connected w ith norms. As C lin a rd has p o s ite d the d i s t i n c t i o n between norms and v a lu e s, the former r e f e r t o the range of means, while the l a t t e r embody the ends of human b eh a v io r. C l i n a r d 's d is c u s s io n p o s i t s an e x p l i c i t d i s t i n c t i o n between c rim in a ls and noncrim inals in term s of a c o n f l i c t in norms and an im p lic it d i s t i n c t i o n between them in term s of a c o n f l i c t in the v alu es connoted by th e se norms. While C lin a rd d e riv e s the co n n o tatio n of value from ■^■^arshall B. C lin a rd , Sociology of Deviant Behavior (New York: R in eh art & Company, 1957J, p. 8. 15 Ib id . . p. 12 16 Ib id . . p. 15. 23 the fo rm u la tio n of norms* F ic h te r d e riv e s th e co n n o tatio n of norms from the e x p re ssio n of values* as fo llo w s: Wide conformity* s o c ia l values* and s o c ia l p re ssu re are o b je c tiv e indexes by which we can determ ine mores* folkways* and usages among the behavior p a t t e r n s . Ul tim ately * however* the s o c ia l value a ttac h ed t o a set of behavior p a t t e r n s e x e r t s strong p re ssu re on people so th a t th e y conform t o the v alu e. T h is means t h a t s o c ia l v a lu e s a c t as norms or sta n d ard s of behavior p a t t e r n s . When the s o c ie ty in g e n e ra l approves or d isapproves a c e r t a i n course of conduct* i t i s in e f f e c t saying th a t the behavior in q u estio n i s r i g h t or wrong, c o r r e c t or in c o r r e c t. The s o c ia l sanctions* th a t i s , the rew ards and pen a l t i e s th e s o c ie ty v i s i t s on the person because of h is behavior* are in tim a te ly bound up w ith th e ways in which th e people ev a lu a te th a t b eh av io r. The hero and the p u b lic servant are honored and rewarded; the c rim in a l and the r a c k e te e r are d esp ised and punished. In both cases* however* the s tre n g th of the sa n c tio n i s u s u a lly commensurate w ith the value a tta c h e d to the behavior. For example* the p e n a l t i e s a tta c h e d to the v ario u s ty p es of c rim in a l behavior are graded from li g h t t o severe on th e b a s is of the way in which people grade the behavior i t s e l f . 17 Both C lin ard and F ic h te r note the i n t r i n s i c r e c i p ro c ity between norms and values in co nnection w ith p a t te r n s of human beh av io r. C lin a rd im p lies an id e a tio n a l c o n f l i c t between c rim in a ls and noncrim inals as a d e r iv a tio n of t h e i r employment of d if f e r i n g means of behavior; value c o n f l i c t i s i m p l ic i tly d eriv ed from normative c o n f l i c t . F ic h te r , on the o th e r hand, lends v alu es the q u a lity of e x te r n a l c o n s tr a in t and d e riv e s normative c o n f l i c t from a c o n f l i c t of values; the t y p i f i c a t i o n of b e h a v io ra l c o n f l i c t i s derived from an id e a tio n a l c o n f l i c t . While C lin a rd and F ic h te r re v e rse the • ^ F ic h te r , op. c i t . . p. 297. 24 e t i o l o g i c a l co n n e ctio n between norms and v a lu e s , each i s c o n s is te n t in c o n c e p tu a liz in g th e d i s t i n c t i o n between crim i n a l s and no n crim in als in term s of the same e t i o l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between norms and v a lu e s . That i s , the two s e ts of v a lu e s d is t in g u is h i n g c r im in a ls and n o n crim in als are each given normative d e r i v a t i o n by C lin a r d . F ic h te r c o n c e p tu a l iz e s both the e t i o l o g i c a l b ases of c r i m i n a l i t y and th e e t i o lo g i c a l bases of n o n c rim in a lity in term s of v alu es as id ea t i o n a l phenomena. Merton, in h i s a n a ly s is of d e v ia n t or a b e rra n t be h a v io r, c o n c e p tu a liz e s a d i s t i n c t i o n between norms and v a l ues, as fo llo w s: To say, moreover, t h a t c u l t u r a l g o a ls and i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d norms o p erate j o i n t l y t o shape p r e v a ilin g p r a c t i c e s i s not to say t h a t th ey bear a c o n s ta n t r e l a t i o n to one a n o th e r. The c u l t u r a l em phasis p laced upon c e r t a i n g o a ls v a r ie s in d ependently of the degree of em p h a s is upon i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d means. There may develop a very heavy, a t tim es a v i r t u a l l y e x c lu s iv e , s t r e s s upon the value of p a r t i c u l a r g o a ls, in v o lv in g compara t i v e l y l i t t l e concern w ith the i n s t i t u t i o n a l l y p re sc rib e d means of s t r i v i n g toward th e se g o a ls. I t is, indeed, my c e n t r a l h y p o th e sis t h a t a b e rra n t b eh av io r may be re g ard ed s o c io lo g ic a ll y as a symptom of d i s s o c i a t i o n between c u l t u r a l l y p re s c rib e d a s p i r a t i o n s and s o c i a l l y s tr u c tu re d avenues f o r r e a l i z i n g th e s e as p i r a t i o n s . The c u ltu re may be such as to lead in d iv id u a ls to c e n te r t h e i r em otional c o n v ic tio n s upon th e complex of c u l t u r a l l y acclaim ed ends, w ith f a r l e s s em otional ^ R o b e r t K. M erton, S o cia l Theory and S o c ia l S tru c t ure (Glencoe, I l l i n o i s : The Free £ r e s s , 19V7)", pT . 1337 19 I b id . . p. 134. 25 support f o r p re sc rib e d methods of reaching out f o r th e se ends* With such d i f f e r e n t i a l emphasis upon g o als and i n s t i t u t i o n a l procedures* the l a t t e r may be so v i t i a t e d by the s t r e s s on g o a ls as to have the behavior of many in d iv id u a ls lim ite d only by c o n s id e r a tio n of te c h n ic a l expediency. In t h i s context* the sole s ig n i f ic a n t ques ti o n becomes: Which of the a v a ila b le procedures i s most e f f i c i e n t in n e ttin g the c u l t u r a l l y approved value? The t e c h n ic a ll y most e f f e c t iv e procedure* whether c u l t u r a l l y le g itim a te or not* becomes t y p i c a l l y p re f e r re d to i n s t i t u t i o n a l l y p re s c rib e d conduct. As t h i s p ro cess of a t te n u a tio n c o n tin u e s , the so c ie ty becomes u n sta b le and th e re develops what Durkheim c a lle d "anomie" (or normle ssne s s ) . ^ M erton's a n a ly s is of norms and v alu es encompasses two d i s t i n c t le v e ls of c o n f l i c t . The c o n f l i c t may be ty p i fie d as an in tr a p e rs o n a l phenomenon where the in d iv id u a l is to rn between a l t e r n a t i v e normative ch o ices in s tr iv in g f o r c u l t u r a l l y acclaimed ends or v alu es. The c o n f l i c t may be t y p i f i e d a ls o as an in te rg ro u p phenomenon where the norms chosen by c e r t a i n in d iv id u a ls in the p u r s u it of c u l t u r a l l y acclaimed v alu es d i f f e r from th e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d proce dures (norms) u t i l i z e d by o th e r in d iv id u a ls in the p u r s u it of th e se same c u l t u r a l l y acclaim ed v a lu e s. In a subsequent s e c tio n of h is book* Merton d is c u s s e s in n o v atio n as one of the forms of d ev ian t behavior; t h i s r e f e r s t o the p ro cess of r e j e c t i n g i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d p r a c t i c e s (norms) but r e t a i n ing c u l t u r a l l y acclaim ed g o a l s . ^ Merton th e o r iz e s th a t t h i s process t y p i f i e s much of the type of d ev ian t behavior desig n ated c r im i n a li ty or delinquency in c o n t r a d i s t i n c t i o n t o le g a l beh av io r. The im p lic it d i s t i n c t i o n between c rim i- ^Q lbid. , p . 135. ^ I b i d . * p . 176. 26 n a ls and noncrim inals su g g ests t h a t the former are those in d iv id u a ls who, fo r re aso n s of socio-economic p o s it io n or p e r s o n a lity c o n f ig u r a tio n , have been more su b jected to the s t r a i n s a r i s i n g from th e discrep an cy between c u l t u r a l g o als (values) and e f f e c t iv e ( i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d ) access to t h e i r 22 r e a l i z a t i o n . c e p tu a liz e s the c o n f l i c t of v alu es and the c o n f l i c t of norms as both an i n t r a p e r s o n a l i t y problem and an in te rg ro u p prob lem. He says: In the U nited S t a t e s as a whole, competing d e f i n i t i o n s of p ro p er conduct in th e same s i t u a t i o n are such t h a t th e re i s r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e agreement on the r i g h t ness or wrongness of p re m a rita l sex r e l a t i o n s , indus t r i a l s t r i k e s , . . . Even American norms u su a lly thought of as dominant have had to compete w ith a l t e r n a t i v e norms, r e s u l t i n g in e s ta b lis h e d or p a tte rn e d modes of ev a sio n as f a r as th e former are concerned. When we observe s p e c i f i c a l l y the values of American c h ild re n we fin d not only th a t they c o n f l i c t fre q u e n tly w ith those of te a c h e rs and l e g i s l a t o r s , th u s leading them to delinquency, but t h a t the c h i l d 's own m u ltip le group i d e n t i f i c a t i o n (w ith h i s fam ily , r e l i g i o u s denom in a tio n , n a t i o n a l i t y , s o c ia l c l a s s , e t c . ) i n t e r n a l i z e s w ith in him a l t e r n a t i v e , c o n f lic tin g v alu es f o r given s i t u a t i o n s . If the c h ild i s p u lle d in one d ir e c tio n by one value and in an o th er d i r e c t i o n by a c o n tra s tin g v alu e, presumably, one would have an e x p la n a tio n as to why c h i ld r e n who are d ish o n e st in one s i t u a t i o n are hon e s t in a n o t h e r .23 th a t e m p iric a l s tu d ie s in g e n e ra l have re v e a le d e i t h e r in s i g n i f i c a n t or c o n tra d ic to ry evidence of value d i f f e r e n t i a l s Barron, in h i s book on ju v e n ile delinquency, con- Without c i t i n g the s tu d ie s s p e c i f i c a l l y , Barron says 22JJaAd.» pp. 179-80. ^ M i l t on L. B arron, The Ju v e n ile c i e t v (New York: A lfre d A. Knopf:, 19^4), \ . 27 between compared groups of d e lin q u e n ts and nondelinquents. Barron* however, ho ld s t h a t t h i s f a c t does not n e c e s s a rily mean th a t the v a lu e - c o n f lic t approach to delinquency and crime i s f r u i t l e s s . He p o s i t s a d i s t i n c t i o n between norms and v alu es in an e f f o r t t o show the g r e a te r u t i l i t y of the v a l u e - c o n f lic t approach in d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g d e lin q u e n ts from nondelinquents* as fo llo w s: T h is need not be in te r p r e te d as conclusive evidence t h a t th e v alu es approach t o delinquency i s f r u i t l e s s . For if a d i s t i n c t i o n i s made between v alu es which are s o c ia l p ro c e sse s or norms on the one hand, and those which are s o c ia l o b je c tiv e s or g o als on the o th e r hand, a clu e i s a v a ila b le to account f o r the i n s i g n i f i c a n t and c o n tra d ic to r y r e s u l t s in s tu d ie s of value d i f f e r e n t i a l s between d e lin q u e n ts and n o n d elinquents. I t i s q u ite p o s s ib le t h a t f a i l u r e to make the d i s t i n c t i o n has be clouded the lik e lih o o d t h a t the value g o als of d e l in quents and nondelinquents are e s s e n t i a l l y th e same* whereas t h e i r value-norm s or p ro c e sse s d i f f e r . ^4 Barron sums up h i s statem ent in the follow ing way: Goals or o b je c tiv e s and norms or p ro c e sse s are a n a l y t i c a l l y se p a ra b le . People a s p ire f o r goals* while norms are the r e g u la tiv e s o c ia ll y a p p ro p ria te means of reaching out fo r g o a ls. Norms t h a t so c ie ty e s t a b l i s h e s are not n e c e s s a r ily e f f ic ie n t* so t h a t many procedures which from the stan d p o in t of p a r t i c u l a r in d iv id u a ls would be most e f f i c i e n t in securing d e s ire d g o als— lik e the e x e rc is e of force or frau d — are r u le d out of the area of approved conduct. But a t the same time American c u ltu re i s g o a l-c e n te re d . The emphasis on success, power, s t a t u s , wealth* and p r e s tig e te n d s to b rin g on com paratively l i t t l e concern w ith the approved or p re sc rib e d norms f o r s t r i v i n g toward th e se g o als. The s t r e s s becomes so in te n s e th a t* a t the extrem e, behav io r te n d s to escape from normative r e g u la tio n . In short* many c h ild re n in American S ociety c e n te r t h e i r em otional c o n v ic tio n s h e a v ily upon o b je c tiv e s , w ith f a r le s s em otional support fo r th e p re s c rib e d p ro c e sse s of 24 Ib id . . p. 219. 28 reach in g out f o r them. Given such a d i f f e r e n t i a l em p h a s is upon g o als on the one hand and norms on the o th e r, th e l a t t e r become so weakened as to lead to the behavior of c h ild re n being lim ite d s o le ly by c o n sid e ra t i o n s of e f f ic ie n c y . The r e s u l t i s d elin q u e n c y .25 The co n c ep tu a l d i s t i n c t i o n between norms and v alu es o ffe re d by Barron i s s im ila r t o th a t p o s ite d by Merton, and, indeed, Barron c i t e s h is dependence on Merton in con cep tu al iz in g the d i s t i n c t i o n . Barron q u a l i f i e s norms as opposed to values in term s of g r e a te r s p e c i f i c i t y and i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c attach m en t. He ho ld s t h a t d ev ia n t (d elin q u e n t) and nonde v ia n t groups are more l i k e l y to be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d in term s of t h e i r em otional support fo r norms than in term s of t h e i r a s p i r a t i o n s f o r v alu es (which are q u a lif ie d more g e n e ra lly as c u l t u r a l l y emphasized g o a ls and o b je c ti v e s ) . In h i s d is c u s s io n of s o c ia l d is o rg a n iz a tio n , Wirth a ls o im p lie s a g r e a te r s p e c i f i c i t y of v alu es as norms than as c u l t u r a l l y d efin ed o b je c tiv e s . He s t a t e s , in t h i s con n ec tio n : "The more d e n o ta tiv e and p re c is e the d e f i n i t i o n of our v alu es becomes, th e more l i k e l y i t i s t h a t fewer in d i v id u a ls w i l l share them."26 W irth ho ld s th a t th e concept of s o c ia l d iso rg a n iz a t i o n has a normative b a s is ; th e re i s a co e x isten ce w ith in s o c ie ty of two or more p a r t i a l l y independent systems of 25 I b i d . 26Louis W irth, " Id e o lo g ic a l A spects of S o cia l Dis o r g a n iz a tio n , M Amorican— S o c.io lo al£ alR ev iew , V lAugust, 1940), 479. 29 norms each w ith i t s own group of ad h e re n ts. The c o n f l i c t between th ese systems of norms i s c o n c e p tu a lly more m anifest when they are defined w ith d e n o ta tiv e s p e c i f i c i t y r a th e r than when they are considered as m irro rin g the eth o s of so c i e t y . 27 T urner, along w ith Merton, Barron, and W irth, is a lso a proponent of the view t h a t a x io lo g ic a l concepts are of g r e a te r u t i l i t y in d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g between d ev ian t and nondeviant groups when th e se concepts denote the s p e c i f i c i t i e s r a t h e r th an the p h ilo so p h ic g e n e r a l i t i e s of human be h a v io r. In T u rn e r's view, norms are ty p e s of v alu es which denote p r e s c r i p t i o n s and p r o h ib itio n s a tta c h e d to human be h av io r; th ey are embodiments of u n d ersta n d in g s which define the a p p l ic a tio n of o th e r v alu es in human b eh a v io ral con t e x t s . V a lu e s--a s such, on the o th er hand— are more g en eral c o n c e p tu a liz a tio n s and ab so lu te symbols embodying the ends or g o a ls of human behavior and b e l i e f . 2® In speaking of the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between sub-groups (deviant and nondeviant) in so c ie ty in term s of v a l u e - c o n f lic t . Turner p o in ts out t h a t , while th e re are c e r t a i n v alu es held by sub-groups in so c ie ty which are not recognized as le g itim a te by o th e rs , the g r e a te r p a r t of the cleavage c o n s i s t s of c o n f lic tin g 27 I b i d . . pp. 473-74. 2®Ralph H. T u rn er, "V alu e-C o n flict in S o cial Dis o rg a n iz a tio n ," Sociology and S o cial R esearch. XXXVIII (May- June, 1954), 301-02. 30 in t e r p r e t a t i o n s of th e a p p lic a tio n of c e r t a i n value s . 29 There may be agreement or consensus re g ard in g the symbolic le v e l of a p a r t i c u l a r v alu e , but disagreem ent and lack of consensus reg ard in g the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the value to s it u a tio n s ; d e v ia n t and nondeviant groups are more r e a d i ly d i f f e r e n t i a t e d in term s of t h e i r a p p lic a tio n s of v alu es ( t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n s and adherence of norms) to s i t u a t i o n s , r a th e r th a n in term s of t h e i r d e s ir e s to a t t a i n c e r t a i n v alu es of g e n e ra l and symbolic q u a l i f i c a t i o n . The a b ju r a tio n of value s .--Among the d is c u s s io n s of c rim in a l behavior, s o c ia l d is o r g a n iz a tio n , and s o c ia l prob lems, in which th e v a lu e - c o n f lic t approach i s v a rio u sly c r i t i c i z e d , th e re i s sometimes an im p lic it doubt expressed concerning the u t i l i t y of the concept of v alu e. When doubt i s c a s t upon the m eaningfulness of the concept of value or i t s am en ab ility t o s c i e n t i f i c in v e s tig a tio n , th en any d is cu ssio n r e l a t i n g t o the c o n f l i c t between v alu es i s lik ew ise deemed sp u rio u s. The a b ju r a tio n of v alu es from s o c io lo g ic a l p u r s u its has had a long h is to r y ; Kolb comments upon i t as fo llo w s: D espite the weaknesses in the way in which s o c ia l p s y c h o lo g is ts conceive v a lu e s, the concept rem ains fo r them a c e n t r a l idea c r u c i a l to the u n d erstanding of human a c tio n . For another group of s o c io lo g is t s , the p o s i t i v i s t s — o r, as they sometimes p r e f e r to c a l l them s e lv e s , the n a tu ra l-s c ie n c e s o c io lo g is t s — the concept 29l b i d . . p. 307 31 has l i t t l e or no s ig n ific a n c e . Indeed, they view i t e i t h e r as a name f o r c e r t a i n e s ta b lis h e d r e l a t i o n s among d i r e c t l y observable phenomena t h a t adds nothing to the e x p lan a tio n of such phenomena, or as an o th er of the imaginary e n t i t i e s t h a t have been c re a te d by i n t e r p r e t a tiv e s o c io lo g is t s out of t h e i r abysmal confusion and ignorance of s c i e n t i f i c method.30 One of the most complete sta tem en ts of the p o s it iv - i s t i c approach a b ju rin g v alu es from s o c io lo g ic a l in q u iry is found in one of A d le r 's a r t i c l e s . Adler d is c u s s e s the v a r i ous and c o n f l i c t i n g d e f i n i t i o n s of v alu es which have perme ated s o c io lo g ic a l l i t e r a t u r e and f in d s f a u l t w ith each. The a b s tr a c t of h is p o s itio n i s as fo llo w s: Values may be seen as a b s o lu te s , as in h e re n t in ob j e c t s , as p re se n t w ith in man, and as id e n t i c a l w ith h i s b eh a v io r. A bsolutes are in a c c e s s ib le to sc ie n c e . Val ues in o b je c ts cannot be d isc o v ered a p a rt from human behavior r e l a t i n g to the o b je c ts . I n te r n a l s t a t e s can not be observed a p a rt from a c tio n . Thus, what people do i s a l l t h a t can be known about t h e i r v a lu e s . The meaning of an a c tio n can be grasped w ithout reco u rse to any o th er kind of value concept i f meaning i s understood as the p r o b a b ili ty of o th e r e v e n ts p reced in g , accompany ing, or follow ing i t . 31 A dler adheres t o the extreme b e h a v io r is tic p o s itio n and, in so doing, d en ies the u t i l i t y of in tr o s p e c tio n , c a s t s a s p e rs io n s on a t t i t u d e assessm ent, and li m i t s the meaning of "meaning" t o r e l a t i o n s h i p s among ty p e s of behavior which are s t a t i s t i c a l l y p r e d ic ta b le . He sees no u t i l i t y of ex p la n a tio n in the concept of v a lu e , and e x p re sse s p le asu re a t 3^William L. Kolb, "The Changing Prominence of Values in Modern S o c io lo g ic a l Theory," Modern S o c io lo g ic a l Theorv. ed . Howard Becker and Alvin Boskofl (New York: the Dryden P re s s , 1957), p. 100. 3J-Franz A dler, "The Value Concept in S o c io lo g y ," The American J o u rn a l of S o cio lo g y . LXII (November, 1956), 2727 32 the thought of t h i s concept being excluded from t h e o r e t i c a l O Q and e m p iric a l p u r s u i t s . Another b a s is of argument employed by those who would d ism iss the a n a ly s is of v alu es from s o c io lo g ic a l pur s u i t s in v o lv es the im p lic a tio n t h a t the study of v alu es i s somehow in e x tric a b ly founded upon the value-judgm ents of the i n v e s tig a to r s c a rry in g out the study of v a lu e s. Eubank uses t h i s argum entative b a s is when he says: Let us* a t the r i s k of seeming dogmatism* dism iss in a few words t h i s f i r s t and most g riev o u s e r r o r which s t i l l haunts the w ritin g s of p s e u d o -s o c io lo g is ts . . . . Sociology i t s e l f . • . p a sse s no moral judgment and s e ts up no e t h i c a l stan d ard s f o r human conduct. I t n e ith e r approves nor condemns s p e c if ic p o l i c i e s or programs of a c tio n as such* but simply d e s c r ib e s , an a ly z e s, and de c l a r e s r e l a t i o n s h i p s of cause and e f f e c t* and leaves the q u estio n of what ought t o be* t o be s e t t l e d in spe c i f i c in s ta n c e s by those who are d ea lin g w ith the moral i s t i c and e v a lu a tiv e a sp ec t of p a r t i c u l a r s o c ia l prob lems. Eubank i s a g a in s t the s o c io lo g is t passing "moral judgments" in the p u r s u it of h is s c i e n t i f i c endeavors, but he a ls o c o n fu se s, in the t e x t of h i s a r t i c l e , the d iffe re n c e between th e s o c io lo g is t a s s e s s in g the e v a lu a tiv e phenomena of o th e rs and the s o c io lo g is t imputing h i s own e v a lu a tio n s in the course of h is work. R e je c tio n of v a l u e - c o n f lic t approach. The la te emi nent c rim in o lo g is t and s o c io lo g is t , E. H. S utherland, p o site d 32JbJW .. pp. 277-79. 33e . e . Eubank, "E rro rs of S ociology," S o c ia l F o rc e s . XVI (December, 1937), 180-81. 33 the n o tio n t h a t the d i s t i n c t i o n between c rim in a ls and non c r im in a ls cannot be c o n c ep tu a liz e d in term s of a c o n f l i c t in v a lu e s. H is id e a , in t h i s re g a rd , i s in c o rp o rate d in the n in th p o in t of h is g en e tic e x p la n a tio n of the e tio lo g y of c rim in a l b e h a v io r. S u th e r la n d 's statem ent i s as fo llo w s: While c rim in a l behavior i s an ex p re ssio n of g e n e ra l needs and v a lu e s , i t i s not e x p la in e d by those g e n e ra l needs and v alu es since n o n -crim in al behavior i s an ex p re s s io n of the same needs and v a lu e s. T hieves gener a l l y s t e a l in o rd er t o secure money, but likew ise honest la b o r e rs work in order t o secure money. The attem p ts by many s c h o la rs to e x p la in c rim in a l behavior by g en e ra l d r iv e s and v a lu e s, such as the h ap p in ess p r i n c i p l e , s t r i v i n g f o r s o c ia l s t a t u s , the money motive, or f r u s t r a t i o n , have been and must continue t o be f u t i l e since they e x p la in law ful behavior as com pletely as they ex p l a i n c rim in a l b eh a v io r. They are s im ila r to r e s p i r a t i o n , which i s n ecessary f o r any behavior but which does not d i f f e r e n t i a t e c rim in a l from n o n -crim in al b e h a v i o r . 34 S u th e r la n d 's r e j e c t i o n of the v a l u e - c o n f lic t ap proach stems from h i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of v alu es w ith only very g e n e ra l ends or g o a ls of human b eh a v io r. He has been c r i t i c i z e d by Barron, on t h i s account, who holds th a t values are m irrored in the normative and p ro c e s su a l a s p e c ts of human behavior as w e ll as the ends toward which the behavior i s d i r e c t e d . ^ In the e l u c id a tio n of h i s th e o ry of d i f f e r e n t i a l a s s o c ia tio n , S u th erlan d in c lu d e s in h is g en etic ex p la n a tio n of c rim in a l behavior the fo llo w in g statem ent: "A person becomes d e lin q u e n t because of an excess of d e f i n i - ^ a Edwin H. S u th e rla n d , P r in c ip le s of Criminology (Chicago: J . B. L ip p in c o tt Company, 1947), pp. 7-6, 3^Barron, op. c i t .. p. 218. 34 tio n s fav o rab le to v i o l a t i o n of law over d e f i n i t i o n s un- fav o rab le t o v i o la tio n of l a w . " ^ The q u a lity of value appears to be m anifest in S u th e r la n d 's use of the term " d e f i n i t i o n s ." D e fin itio n s fav o rab le t o law v i o l a t i o n are c o n tra s te d w ith d e f i n i t i o n s unfavorable to law v i o l a t i o n and c r im i n a li ty and noncrimi- n a l i t y are d is tin g u is h e d in term s of th e se d i f f e r e n t s e ts of d e f i n i t i o n s . J u s t what i s s p e c i f i c a l l y defined in th e se d e f i n i t i o n s i s not made c l e a r , but S utherland says, "The s p e c if ic d ir e c tio n of m otives and d riv e s i s learned from d e f i n i t i o n s of the le g a l codes as 'f a v o r a b le ' or 'unfavor a b l e . "3? Legal codes encompass v alu es and norms as v alu es, and so any cleavage of d e f i n i t i o n reg ard in g t h e i r w o rth in ess would lo g i c a l l y imply a cleavage in value o r ie n ta tio n s ; S utherland does not e x p l ic a te — indeed, he does not accept— the very f a c t he has im plied in h is d is c u s s io n of the e t i o lo g ic a l b a s is of c r im i n a li ty . As has alre a d y been in d ic a te d , t h i s i s in larg e measure due to the dircum stance th a t Suth e rla n d r e s e rv e s such a g e n e ra l co n n o ta tio n f o r the concept of v a lu e . Some of the in c o n siste n c y in S u th e rla n d 's th e o ry a ls o r e s t s upon h is d i r e c t deducement of d if f e r i n g d e f i n i tio n s from d i f f e r e n t i a l a s s o c ia tio n s ; an abundance of d e f in i- tio n s unfavorable t o adherence w ith the le g a l code i s de duced from an abundance of c o n ta c ts w ith persons holding S u th erlan d , o p. c i t . . p . b. 3? I b i d . 3b such d e f in itio n s * The m a tte r of d i f f e r e n t i a l i n t e r n a l i z a tio n of the c o n te n t of the d e f i n i t i o n s as concerns c rim in a ls and noncrim inals i s unprovided f o r in S u th e r la n d 's th e o ry . G laser has attem pted t o b o ls t e r the th e o ry of d i f f e r e n t i a l a s s o c ia tio n by s u b s t itu ti n g the term , " d if f e r e n - t i a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . 1 Such a s u b s t i t u t i o n of con cep tu al iz a tio n s would perm it the assessm ent of th e degree t o which d e f i n i t i o n s of the p ro v is io n s of the le g a l code were i n t e r n a lize d w ith in in d iv id u a ls ; i t would perm it the assessm ent of a t t i t u d i n a l in te n s it y and provide a more c o n s is te n t base from which to c o n c e p tu a liz e the p o ssib le d iffe re n c e between c rim in a ls and noncrim inals in term s of c o n f l i c t i n g v a lu e s . C r iti c is m a g a in st S u th erlan d f o r not ta k in g in to ac count the p o ssib le d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of c rim in a l and noncrim in a l groups in term s of v alu es— because of h is q u a l i f i c a t i o n of v alu es as s o le ly the g e n e ra liz e d ends of human behavior and because of h is f a i l u r e to provide f o r the d i f f e r e n t i a l degree of i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n of d e f i n i t i o n s reg ard in g the pro v is io n s set f o r th in the le g a l code— has been le v e le d by Cloward, as fo llo w s: Of c o u rse , i t i s p e r f e c t l y tru e th a t " s tr iv in g fo r s t a t u s , " "the money m otive," and s im ila r modes of so ci a l l y approved g o a l-o rie n te d behavior do not as such ac count f o r both d e v ia n t and co n fo rm ist b eh av io r. But i f g o a l-o rie n te d behavior occurs under c o n d itio n s of ^ D a n i e l G la se r, "C rim in a lity T h eo ries and Behavi o ra l Images," The American J o u rn a l of S o cio lo g y . LXI (March, 19b6), 438-41. 36 s o c ia ll y s tr u c tu re d o b s ta c le s to f u l f i l l m e n t by l e g i t i mate means* the r e s u l t i n g p r e s s u re s might th e n lead to dev ian ce. In o th e r words* S utherland appears t o assume t h a t the d i s t r i b u t i o n of access to su c c e ss-g o a ls by le g itim a te means i s uniform r a t h e r th an v a r ia b le , i r re s p e c tiv e of lo c a tio n in the s o c ia l s t r u c t u r e . 39 G eneral c r i t i c i s m of the v a lu e - c o n f lic t approach.— In a d d itio n to the s p e c ific p o in ts of c r i t i c i s m a g a in s t the v a lu e - c o n f lic t approach which have been reviewed* th e re are o th er more g e n e ra l p o in ts of c r i t i c i s m which have been lev e le d a g a in s t i t . U sually such g en e ra l p o in ts of c r i t i c i s m are d ir e c te d not only toward the v a lu e - c o n f lic t approach* but toward many of the other approaches seeking to e x p la in c rim in a l behavior as w e ll. C ressey has noted th a t most* i f indeed not a l l , of the t e x t s on crim inology include two d is t i n c t s e c tio n s . The f i r s t s e c tio n of the te x t in c lu d e s the t h e o r e t i c a l framework or approach by which c r im i n a li ty is explained* while the second s e c tio n i s devoted to s p e c ific to p ic s or case s tu d ie s which remain c o n c ep tu a lly discon nected w ith the p re v io u s ly se t f o r th t h e o r e t i c a l framework of e x p la n a tio n .40 Whether the v a lu e - c o n f lic t approach or some o th er i s used to e x p la in c rim in a l behavior* i t i s too o ften s ta te d in i s o l a t i o n from e m p iric a l support and i s not ^ R ic h a r d A. Cloward, " I lle g itim a te Means* Anomie, and Deviant B ehavior," American S o c io lo g ic a l Review. XXIV (A p ril. 1959), 171. 40Donald R. Cressey* "Hypotheses in the Sociology of Punishm ent," Sociology and S o cia l R esearch. XXXIX (Ju ly - August, 19b5) *. 3*94-400. 37 connected w ith the data i t i s form ulated t o e x p la in or r e l a t e . Another g e n e ra l c r i t i c i s m le v e le d a t the value-con- f l i c t approach toward c rim in a l behavior and the broader area of i n t e r e s t e n t i t l e d " s o c ia l d is o rg a n iz a tio n " i s t h a t the in v e s tig a to r s u t i l i z i n g the approach in c o rp o rate t h e i r own values in to t h e i r d is c u s s io n s . T his c r i t i c i s m i s not the same as the one o ffe re d by Eubank which s ta te d t h a t th e in v e s tig a t io n of v alu es was in e x tr i c a b l y based on the value- judgments of th e in v e s t i g a t o r . R ather, i t simply n o tes the f a c t t h a t such is a l l t o o fte n the c a se . M artindale has c r i t i c i z e d th e method which s u b s ta n tiv e ly p ro v id es v alu es c h a r a c te r iz in g p a t t e r n s of behavior and th e n goes on to the deducement of normative c o n f l i c t between v a rio u s sub-groups w ith in s o c i e t y .4 * T h is method avoids the necessary em piri c a l assessm ent of the v alu e s toward which th e sub-groups them selves are o rie n te d . Queen has a ls o c r i t i c i z e d the em ployment of moral judgments on the p a r t of s o c io lo g ic a l in v e s tig a t o r s in place of the d i r e c t e m p iric a l assessm ent of the moral judgments of o th e rs in e s ta b li s h in g a c o n f l i c t in the v alu es of v a rio u s sub-groups in s o c i e t y .4^ When c rim i n a ls are c o n tra s te d w ith n o n crim in als, the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 4 *Don M a rtin d a le , "S o cia l D iso rg a n iz a tio n : The Con f l i c t of Normative and E m pirical A pproaches," in , Becker and B oskoff, op. c i t .. pp. 340-67. 42 n S tu a r t A. Queen, "S o cial D is o rg a n iz a tio n , Soci ology and S o c ia l R esearch . XLII (January-F ebruary, 1953), T 5 T -7 F T 38 of th e value o r i e n t a t i o n of nonerim inaIs are o fte n substan t i v e l y provided and not e m p iric a lly determ ined. S p e c ific c r i t i c i s m of the v a l u e - c o n f lic t approach.— Note has been ta k en of the f a c t t h a t the v a lu e - c o n f lic t ap proach to the e x p la n a tio n of c r im i n a li ty has re c e iv e d gen e r a l c r i t i c i s m fo r i t s lack of s u f f i c i e n t e m p iric a l founda t i o n . Several w r i t e r s have p o in ted to the s p e c if ic problem a re a s of e m p iric a l assessm ent needed in order to provide a c re d ib le b a s is f o r the b e h a v io ra l d if f e r e n c e s and the a t t i - tu d in a l d if f e r e n c e s which the v a l u e - c o n f lic t approach seeks to encompass and e x p la in . In p o in tin g to the s p e c if ic a re a s of needed re s e a rc h , th e s e w r i t e r s do not r e j e c t the value- conf l i c t approach, b u t, r a t h e r , they show the p ro b le m a tic al a re a s w ith which the approach must be concerned if i t i s to be r e lie v e d of some of the r e le v a n t c r i t i c i s m which i s cu r r e n t l y d ir e c te d a g a in s t i t . Barron has c i t e d s e v e ra l needed req u irem en ts f o r an adequate v a lu e -th e o ry approach t o delinquency and c rim in a l b eh av io r. He s t r e s s e s the notio n t h a t s o c ia l v alu es should be r e f in e d c o n c e p tu a lly in a t l e a s t th r e e dim ensions. F i r s t , a d i s t i n c t i o n should be made between " o f f i c i a l " v a l ues, which are g e n e ra l and tr a n s m itte d by the o v e r - a ll c u l t u r a l m ilie u , and " p riv a te " or u n o f f i c i a l v a lu es, which are i m p l ic i tly conveyed to in d iv id u a ls in t h e i r in tim ate group a s s o c ia tio n s ; the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between d ev ian t and non 39 dev ian t groups in term s of each of th e se ty p e s of values should be e m p iric a lly e s ta b li s h e d . Second, a typology of negative as w ell as p o s itiv e v alu es should be co n c ep tu a liz ed and the r e l a t i o n s between th e se v alu es and delinquency ex p lo re d . T h ird , a d i s t i n c t i o n should be made between values as " s o c ia l p ro cesses" or "norms" and v alu es as " s o c ia l ob je c ti v e s " or "goals" in order to determ ine which s o rt of values are more s i g n i f i c a n t l y involved in d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g d e lin q u e n ts from nondelinquents and c rim in a ls from noncrim i n a l s . 43 Another need of re se a rc h c i t e d by Barron i s fo r hypotheses to be form ulated and t e s t e d to ex p la in the r e l a ti o n of in c o n s is te n t v alu es h eld by d e lin q u e n ts to the in c o n siste n cy in the d e l in q u e n t 's own b e h a v io r.44 C ressey c a l l s f o r hypotheses concerning the v a r ia tio n s in s o c i e t a l r e a c tio n s to crime and hypotheses concern ing in te rg ro u p v a r i a t i o n in the d e f i n i t i o n of crime t o be p re d ic a te d upon p re c is e measurement. He says, "system atic o rg a n iz a tio n and in te g r a tio n of in form ation on s o c ie ta l r e a c tio n s to lawbreaking i s a p r e r e q u is i te to the development of a t h e o r e t i c a l e x p la n a tio n of v a r i a t i o n s in t h a t phenome non."45 4^M ilton L. Barron, "Ju v en ile Delinquency and Amer ican V alu e s." American S o c io lo o ic a l Review. XVI (A p ril. 1951), 212. 44 I b i d . . p. 213. 45C ressey, op. c i t . . p. 400. 40 F u lle r ex p resse s the idea th a t th e re i s a g reat v a r ie ty of behavior which, although c rim in a l in the le g a l sense, i s not a c tu a l ly o ffe n siv e to the moral conscience of a c o n sid era b le number of p e rs o n s .4^ * He proposes th a t an e f f o r t be made to explore the im p lic a tio n s of the r e la tio n s h i p between moral and le g a l p a t t e r n s of behavior; the " c u ltu r a l conduct norms," t o which v a rio u s sub-groups w ith in so c ie ty adhere, should be d i s t in g u is h e d .47 W irth c i t e s a s im ila r need of e m p iric a l re s e a rc h in order to lend credence to th e v a lu e - c o n f lic t approach. He says t h a t before d eterm in atio n can be made as t o why and in what ways in d iv id u a ls d e v ia te from th e norms— most of which those who adhere to them tak e f o r g r a n te d -- d is c o \e r y must be made of what the norms are t o which people are expected to conform, and d iscovery must be made of the e x te n t to which norms have the same meaning and are shared by the v a rio u s p a r t i c i p a n t s in th e s o c ie ty in q u e s tio n .4® S e l l i n s t a t e s th a t one of the concerns of criminology i s the r o le of the c o n f l i c t of conduct norms in the e tio lo g y of norm v i o l a t i o n s . The im plem entation of t h i s concern ne c e s s i t a t e s e m p iric a l assessm ent of (1) the ex isten c e of a norm c o n f l i c t (w ith in p e r s o n a lity , w ith in a c u l t u r a l group, 4^ F u lle r,"M o ra ls and the C rim in al Law," p. 625. 47I b i d . . p. 630. 4®Wirth, op. c i t . . p. 478. 41 or between norms of two g roups), and (2) the v io la tio n of a norm involved in t h i s c o n f l i c t before the r e la tio n s h i p be tween the v io la tio n and the presence of th e c o n f l i c t can be d eterm in ed .49 C ontroversy over the v a l u e - c o n f lic t approach.—The w ritin g s which have been reviewed exem plify the co n tro v e rsy concerning the leg itim acy of the v a l u e - c o n f lic t approach to the e x p la n a tio n of c r im i n a li ty . They a lso e x h ib it the spe c i f i c co n tro v e rsy concerning whether c rim in a ls a r e , indeed, d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from noncrim inals in term s of v a lu a tio n a l and normative dim ensions. In some of the w ritin g s , the value- conf l i c t approach has been deemed im p o rtan t, while in o th e rs i t has been r e j e c t e d as u n s c i e n t i f i c , or c r i t i c i z e d f o r some of i t s v a rio u s in ad eq u acies. In some of the w r itin g s , the p o s itio n was taken th a t c rim in a ls d i f f e r from noncrim inals in term s of t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n s of the p r o p r ie ty a tta c h e d to c e r t a i n b eh a v io ra l c o n te x ts , in term s of t h e i r adherence to norm atively q u a lif ie d ty p e s of b eh av io r, in term s of t h e i r a p p lic a tio n of norm atively s tr u c tu re d p ro c e sse s f o r the a t tainm ent of c e r t a i n c u l t u r a l l y emphasized goals; in s h o rt, the p o s it io n was taken t h a t a c o n f l i c t of v alu es was the b a s is of the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of c rim in a ls from no n crim in als. In o th er w r itin g s , the n o tio n t h a t a c o n f l i c t of v alu es i s 4% h o rs te n S e l l i n , “C u ltu re C o n f lic t and Crim e," The American Jo u rn a l of Sociology. XLIV (J u ly , 1938), 98. 42 one of th e bases of d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between th e se two groups was e i t h e r denied c a t e g o r i c a l l y or doubted because of a lack of s u f f i c i e n t e m p iric a l support. T h is study, in attem p tin g to u t i l i z e the v a l u e - c o n f lic t approach as a p a r t i a l explana to r y t o o l in the c o n c e p tu a liz a tio n and t y p i f i c a t i o n of crim i n a l i t y g ain s importance in th a t i t s success or f a i l u r e in d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g between a s e le c te d sample of c rim in a ls and a s e le c te d sample of noncrim inals w i l l a id the se ttle m en t of the co n tro v e rsy concerning the u t i l i t y of the approach. The importance of t h i s study i s f u r t h e r a u th e n tic a te d since i t encompasses the problem of attem pting t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e the two samples mentioned in term s of t h e i r judgments of o b j e c t i f i e d b e h a v io ra l s i t u a t i o n s or normative v a lu e s. The c o n tro v e rsy concerning whether c rim in a ls and noncrim inals are d i f f e r e n t i a t e d in term s of a c o n f l i c t of v alu es has the p o s s i b i l i t y of an inroad toward se ttle m e n t w ith the em piri c a l r e s u l t s of t h i s study. In most of the w ritin g s which d is c u s s e d , or in which use was made o f, the v a l u e - c o n f lic t approach to the d i s t i n c t i o n of c rim in a ls from n o n crim in als, one side of the c o n f l i c t embodied the v alu es or norms in co rp o rate d in to law by v ir tu e of ex p re ssio n or d e f i n i t i o n of the range of pro p r i e t y q u a lify in g human behavior by th e dominant or a r t i c u la te s e c tio n of s o c ie ty . An id e a tio n a l le v e l of a b s tr a c ti o n was employed to co n c e p tu a liz e the bases from which th e v a l ues in c o rp o rate d in to law were d e riv e d . Y et, in d isc u ssin g 43 the o th e r side of the c o n f l i c t which involved the v alu es somehow ty p ify in g c rim in a ls and c r i m i n a l i t y , the le v e l of a b s tr a c ti o n employed to c o n c e p tu a liz e the bases from which th e se v alu es were derived was o fte n s h if te d . In many of the w r i tin g s , a b e h a v io ral le v e l of a b s tr a c ti o n served to c o n c ep tu a liz e the bases from which th e v alu es ty p ify in g c rim in a ls were d e riv e d . When a s h i f t in the le v e ls of ab s t r a c t i o n , upon which the sources of the v alu es ty p ify in g c rim in a l attachm ent and those ty p if y in g noncrim inal a tta c h ment are co n c e p tu a liz e d , occurs, the notion of v a lu e - c o n f lic t r e s t s upon th e p ro cess of d eduction. That i s to say, the notio n the c rim in a ls behave in some ways c o n tra d ic to r y to the d e f i n i t i o n s of p r o p r ie ty expressed by one s e c tio n of so c ie ty i s one th in g . But to say t h a t t h i s r e p r e s e n ts "v al ues in c o n f l i c t " between c r im in a ls and the o th er given sec tio n of so c ie ty i s q u ite an o th er. If the p ro cess of deduc t i o n i s to be supplanted by t h a t of e m p iric a l in q u iry , a c o n c e p tu a liz a tio n of each su b -g ro u p 's v alu es in term s of the bases from which they are d eriv e d , must be founded upon id e n t i c a l le v e ls of a b s t r a c t i o n . H ither v alu es are derived from id e a tio n a l phenomena, or they are d eriv e d from behav io r a l phenomena. The e s s e n t i a l p o in t i s t h a t they be de riv e d c o n c e p tu a lly from i d e n t i c a l phenomena f o r each of the groups which are d is tin g u is h e d in term s of a c o n f l i c t of v a lu e s. T h is i s , indeed, a t h e o r e t i c a l p r e r e q u is i te fo r e m p iric a l in q u iry . 44 In a d d itio n to the d is c u s s io n of v a lu e - c o n f I ic t as an in te r-g ro u p phenomenon, some w r i t e r s a ls o used the con cep t of v a lu e - c o n f lic t t o r e f e r to the in tr a p e rs o n a l phenom enon of having to choose between competing le g itim a te and i l l e g i t i m a t e means in p u r s u it of c u l t u r a l l y defined g o a ls. C rim in als were then t y p i f i e d e s s e n t i a l l y as a group of in d iv id u a ls who were them selves su b jected t o a c o n f l i c t over competing norms and who accepted the i l l e g i t i m a t e ones in the course of t h e i r b eh av io r. But i t cannot be g a in sa id t h a t those who (as d i s t i n c t from c rim in a ls ) choose l e g i t i mate norms in the p u r s u it of c u l t u r a l l y defin ed g o als are a ls o su b je cte d to the c o n f l i c t of having to choose between le g itim a te and i l l e g i t i m a t e means. To ty p if y c rim in a ls as a group of in d iv id u a ls who are su b jected to a c o n f l i c t of v a l ues seems c r e d i b le , but noncrim inals lo g i c a l l y are a ls o sub je c te d to t h i s c o n f l i c t . R ather th an an ab so lu te d iffe re n c e between c rim in a ls and n o n crim in als, the approach which con c e p tu a liz e s the c o n f l i c t of v alu es as an in tr a p e rs o n a l phenomenon, s e ts f o r t h the im p lic a tio n t h a t the d iffe re n c e between noncrim inals and c rim in a ls i s based upon the r e l a t i v e e x te n t to which each of th e se groups has been su b jected to competing modes of acce ss to c u l t u r a l l y d efin ed g o a ls. The e l u c id a tio n of t h i s usage of the concept of value-con- f i i c t i s dependent upon an e la b o r a tio n of the p sy c h o lo g ical p ro cess of i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n . Such an e la b o r a tio n in r e l a t i o n t o the concept of v a l u e - c o n f lic t as an in tr a p e rs o n a l phenom- enon has not y et been adequately developed. Another im portant idea which has been d iscu ssed in some of the w r itin g s which have been reviewed has t o do w ith the no tio n th a t d if f e r e n c e s between c rim in a ls and non c rim in a ls in term s of v alu es are dependent upon the le v e l of a b s tr a c ti o n encompassing v alu es as o b je c tiv e s of a t t i t u d e s . The n o tio n i s th a t as v alu es are co n c ep tu a liz ed upon more g e n e ra l le v e ls of a b s tr a c ti o n , d if f e r e n c e s between groups in term s of t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward th e se v alu es w ill d ec re ase . C onversely, as values are provided w ith s p e c i f i c i t y , a t t i - tu d in a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between groups in re g ard to th e se v alu es w i l l in c re a s e . Values as norms d e fin in g p r o p rie ty are more s p e c if ic in q u a lity th an v alu es as c u l t u r a l l y de fin e d g o als or ends. Some propose the view t h a t c rim in a ls and noncrim inals are more sharply d i f f e r e n t i a t e d in t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward the form er than in t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward the l a t t e r . Relevance of the hypotheses t e s t e d .—The th r e e hy p o th eses which were form ulated and in v e s tig a te d in t h i s study w ere; 1. That a s e le c te d sample of inmates would d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from a se le c te d sample of p o lic e o f f i c e r s in t h e i r e v a lu a tio n s of the d ep icted or o b je c ti f ie d in te rp e rs o n a l b eh a v io ral s i t u a t i o n s p re se n te d to them in a q u e s tio n n a ire . 46 2. That inm ates would be s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t th an p o lic e o f f i c e r s in t h e i r e v a lu a tio n of th e se q u e s tio n n a ire item s. 3. That inm ates would become more le n ie n t than p o lic e o f f i c e r s in t h e i r e v a lu a tio n s of the de p ic te d s i t u a t i o n s a f t e r m itig a tin g circum stances (co n d itio n in g sequences) were phrased and ap pended to th e se item s. The o b j e c t i f i e d in te rp e rs o n a l s i t u a t i o n s d e p ic te d in the q u e stio n n a ire were co n c ep tu alized and defined as "norma t i v e v a lu e s ." The le g itim acy of t h i s d e f i n i t i o n i s d i s cussed in the follow ing s e c tio n of t h i s c h a p te r. The r e l e vance of the hypotheses which guided t h i s study i s founded upon t h e i r u t i l i t y in meeting and c o u n te ra c tin g some of the inadequacies of the v a l u e - c o n f lic t approach which have been d iscu ssed in the review of the w r itin g s p re se n te d . The f i r s t two hypotheses se t f o r t h the problem of determ ining e m p iric a lly w hether a group of c rim in a ls and a group of non c rim in a ls were d i f f e r e n t i a t e d in term s of a c o n f l i c t of v a l ues. The bases from which the v alu es in c o n f l i c t were de riv e d were co n c ep tu a liz ed upon id e n t i c a l le v e ls of a b s tra c tio n ; they were id e a tio n a l b ases, denoting s e q u e n tia l le v e ls of a t t i t u d i n a l or judgm ental i n t e n s i t y . T h is made e m p iric a l assessm ent of v a l u e - c o n f lic t between two groups p o s s ib le ; i t obviated r e lia n c e upon the i n t e l l e c t u a l p ro cess of deduction in the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of r e s u l t s or fin d in g s — a r e lia n c e fo r 47 which many of those u t i l i z i n g the v a lu e - c o n f lic t approach have been fre q u e n tly c r i t i c i z e d . The t h i r d h y p o th e sis was form ulated to t e s t the no ti o n t h a t c rim in a ls and noncrim inals are more li k e l y to be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y in term s of v alu es as th e se values are c o n c e p tu a liz e d and q u a l if i e d w ith g r e a te r degrees of s p e c i f i c i t y . 1 he c o n d itio n in g sequences had the e f f e c t of pro v id in g s p e c i f i c i t y to the normative v alu es; they e f fe c te d a s p e c ific "means-ends" r e l a t i o n s h i p f o r the behavi o ra l s i t u a t i o n s d ep icte d in the q u e s tio n n a ire . T h erefo re , the t h i r d h y p o th e sis was subm itted to e m p iric a l assessm ent in order c r e d ib ly to e v a lu a te the n o tio n , c u r r e n tly in the l i t e r a t u r e , t h a t c rim in a ls are more l ik e ly to be d if f e r e n t i a t e d from noncrim inals in t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward v alu es as b e h a v io ra l means than toward values q u a l if i e d more g e n e ra lly as o b je c tiv e s , g o als, or ends of behavior or b e l i e f . The hypotheses under in v e s tig a tio n in t h i s study were re le v a n t to the a n a ly s is of v a l u e - c o n f lic t as an i n t e r group phenomenon; no e f f o r t was made to a s s e s s value-con- f l i c t as an in t r a p e r s o n a l i t y problem ty p ify in g c r im in a ls . In u t i l i z i n g the v a l u e - c o n f lic t approach w ith the purpose of d is tin g u is h in g two groups from one a n o th er, th e re i s the q u estio n (and perhaps i t i s a moot one) whether the term s " c o n f lic t" and " d iffe re n c e " are e q u a lly c o n n o ta tiv e . If two groups which are never i n t e r a c t i v e are d i f f e r e n t i a t e d in term s of v alu es and t h i s d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n i s co n c ep tu alized 48 as a " c o n f lic t of v a lu e s ," the c o n c e p tu a liz a tio n would seem to connote more em otional tone th an i s perhaps the ca se . The concept of " c o n flic t" connotes in te r a c ti v e p ro cesses of co m p etitio n and stru g g le which are not connoted by the term " d if f e r e n c e ." To lend credence to the view th a t a c o n f l i c t of v alu es d is tin g u is h in g two groups does, indeed, re p re s e n t the co n n o tativ e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of c o n f l i c t , p o lic e o f f i c e r s were chosen as the group w ith which to compare c rim in a ls . In most of the w ritin g s reviewed, the value c o n f l i c t explan a tio n of c r im i n a li ty was involved w ith the n o ta tio n of the values expressed in laws. P olice o f f i c e r s are o fte n person- i t i e d as "the law," and t h e i r r e l a t i o n to c rim in a ls i s on an bO in te r a c ti v e b a s is . They were th e re fo re deemed a re le v a n t group w ith which t o compare c rim in a ls in the assessm ent of v a lu e - c o n f lic t as an in terg ro u p phenomenon. B asis of the d e f i n i t i o n of values u sed .— Perhaps the most g e n e ra l co n n o ta tio n t h a t has been given the term "val ues" i s th a t they are the ends or g o als of human s tr iv in g , or d e s ir e . Perry has given v alu es such g en era l q u a l if i c a - b l tio n in reg ard in g them as " o b je c ts of i n t e r e s t . " W ithin the f i e l d of sociology, however, v alu es have t r a d i t i o n a l l y been considered in r e l a t i o n to the p sy c h o lo g ica l mechanisms ^ S u t h e r l a n d , op. c i t .. pp. 231-58, e la b o r a te s upon the in te r a c ti v e p ro cess between c rim in a ls and th e p o lic e . •^ftalph Barton P erry, Realms of Value (Cambridge, M assachusetts: Harvard U n iv e rs ity P re ss, 19^4), pp. 2-3. 49 which are involved in human behavior and in r e l a t i o n to the s t r u c t u r a l and fu n c tio n a l a t t r i b u t e s of group behavior. Values are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y ensconced w ith in the d isc u s sion of m o tiv atio n , i n t e r a c t i o n , and human behavior when they are d efin e d by s o c io lo g is t s . Some p h ilo so p h e rs have a ls o d efin ed v alu es in term s of b e h a v io ra l q u a l i t i e s . The w r itin g s which are reviewed and the id eas which are c i te d in t h i s s e c tio n come from academ icians whose f i e l d s of en deavor vary. They are p resen ted and d iscu ssed w ith the pur pose of e x h ib itin g the fo u n d atio n upon which the d e f i n i t i o n of normative v alu es u t i l i z e d in t h i s study was based. The concept of v alu es in so c io lo g y .— Kolb has taken account of the h i s t o r i c a l s i m i l a r i t i e s in the c o n c e p tu a liz a t i o n of v alu es w ith in s o c io lo g ic a l t r e a t i s e s as fo llo w s: F o rtu n a te ly , in c o n sid e rin g the re c e n t h i s t o r y of the value concept in American s o c io lo g ic a l th e o ry , a sh arp ly d efin ed s e le c tiv e standard i s a v a ila b le . Almost a l l w ritin g on v alu es t h a t i s of concern to s o c io lo g is ts has to do w ith the nature and fu n c tio n of normative r u l e s and c e n t r a l normative b e l i e f s in the a n a ly s is of s o c ia l o rd e r, s o c ia l i n te g r a tio n , and s o c ia l change. R e a lis t and n o m in a lis t, v o l u n t a r i s t and p o s i t i v i s t , h i s t o r i c a l t h e o r i s t and f u n c tio n a l t h e o r i s t , a l l have to d e a l w ith norms and v a lu e s, e i t h e r as means of explana tio n or as th in g s t o be explained away. T h is anchoring of the value concept in the realm of the normative has served as a cohesive fo rc e holding to g e th e r an a rra y of c o n f lic tin g d e f i n i t i o n s and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the na tu r e and fu n c tio n s of values.-*2 Kolb a lso n o tes the t r a d i t i o n a l c o n c e p tu a liz a tio n of &2Kolb, op. c i t .. p. 93. bO v alu es in term s of o b j e c t i v i t y — as c o u n te rp a rts to subjec tiv e o r ie n ta tio n s or a t t i t u d e s . The d is c u s s io n of v alu es in term s of “o b je c ti v ity " and "norm ativeness" has been the t r a d i t i o n a l approach in American sociology. Kolb s t a t e s , however, t h a t che emphasis is c u r r e n tly upon the d is c u s s io n of v alu es in term s of t h e i r normative q u a l i f i c a t i o n s r a th e r than upon t h e i r o b je ctiv e a t t r i b u t e s . * ^ There is no in h e r en t c o n tr a d ic tio n between the two approaches t o the d isc u s sion of values; they are c o r r e la tiv e approaches. The c l a s s i c statem ent concerning the o b je c tiv e qual i t y of v alu es in r e l a t i o n t o the su b je c tiv e q u a lity of a t t i tu d e s has been given to the d is c ip li n e of sociology by Thomas and Z naniecki. T h eir d is c u s s io n i s as follow s: By a s o c ia l value we understand any datum having an e m p iric a l co n ten t a c c e s s ib le to the members of some so c i a l group and a meaning with reg ard to which i t i s or may be an o b je c t of a c t i v i t y . Thus, a f o o d s tu f f , an in stru m en t, a co in , a piece of p o e try , a u n iv e r s i ty , a myth, a s c i e n t i f i c th e o ry , are s o c ia l v alu es. . . .The meaning of th ese v alu es becomes e x p l i c i t when we take them in connection w ith human a c tio n s . The meaning of the fo o d s tu ff i s i t s re fe ren c e to i t s ev e n tu al consump t i o n . . . . The s o c ia l value i s th u s opposed t o the n a tu ra l th in g , which has a co n ten t b u t, as a p a r t of nature has no meaning fo r human a c t i v i t y , i s t r e a t e d as " v a lu e le s s " ; when the n a tu ra l th in g assumes a meaning, i t becomes thereby a s o c ia l value. And n a tu r a lly a so c i a l value may have many meanings, f o r i t may r e f e r to many d i f f e r e n t kinds of a c t i v i t y . By a t t i t u d e we understand a p ro cess of in d iv id u a l consciousness which determ ines r e a l or p o ssib le a c t i v i t y of the in d iv id u a l in the s o c ia l w orld. Thus, hunger t h a t compels the consumption of the fo o d s tu ff; the work man's d e c is io n to use the to o l . . . a l l th e se are a t t i tu d e s. The a t t i t u d e i s th u s the in d iv id u a l c o u n te rp a rt ^ ^ I b id •, p p • 94-9b. b l of the s o c ia l value; a c t i v i t y , in whatever form, i s the bond between them. By i t s reference t o a c t i v i t y and thereby to in d iv id u al consciousness the value i s d is tin g u ish ed from the n a tu ra l th in g . By i t s referen ce t o a c t i v i t y and thereby to the so c ia l world, the a t t i t u d e i s d istin g u ish e d from the p sy ch ical s t a t e . . . . A psychological process i s an a t t i t u d e t r e a t e d as an ob j e c t in i t s e l f . . . and taken f i r s t of a l l in connec t i o n with other s t a t e s of the same in d iv id u a l. An a t tit u d e is a psychological process tr e a t e d as p rim a rily manifested in i t s reference to the so c ia l world and taken f i r s t of a l l in connection with some so c ial val ue. . . . The psychological process remains always fundamentally a s ta te of somebody; the a t t i t u d e remains always fundamentally an a t t i t u d e toward something. 54 Thomas and Znaniecki p o s it the notion th a t values are d istin g u ish e d from mere n a tu ra l th in g s by v irtu e of their eventual reference to human a c t i v i t y ; the inherent connec ti o n with human a c t i v i t y is what supplies meaning to n a tu ra l th in g s and thus m anifests the connotation of value. Implic i t in t h e i r d isc u ssio n i s the idea th a t the substance of value i s p re d ic a te d upon modes of human a c t i v i t y or behav io r, while the assessment of the connection between human a c t i v i t y and n a tu ra l th in g s i s dependent upon the a n a ly s is of a t t i t u d e s . Values are conceptualized as the o b j e c t i f i c a tio n s of a t t i t u d e s ; they are the o b je c ts toward which a t t i tudes are d ir e c te d . Thomas and Znaniecki have given the d e f i n i t i o n of values two mutually dependent spheres of con c e p tu a liz a tio n . F i r s t , the d e f i n i t i o n of values connotes substance; the element of meaning which evolves through the William I. Thomas and F lo ria n Znaniecki, The Polish Peasant in Europe and America, Vol. I (Boston: The Gorham Press', 1918), pp. 211^3. 52 connection of th in g s with human a c t i v i t y . Second* the def in it i o n of values becomes o perational; i t sets fo rth a t t i tudes as the subjective phenomena which must be assessed in order to au th en ticate the dimensions of values held by any given so c ial group. Another of the t r a d i t i o n a l approaches, as has been noted, to the t y p i f i c a t i o n and d e f in it io n of values w ithin the f i e l d of sociology has placed emphasis upon obligatory and normative q u a l if i c a t io n s . This approach is u t i l i z e d by Williams in h is book on American society. Williams discus ses the normative asp ects of values as follows: The core of any c u ltu re c o n s is ts of those values and id eal p a tte rn s widely regarded as o b lig ato ry . The term " c u ltu r a l norm" r e f e r s to a sp e cific p re s c rip tio n of the course th a t actio n should ( is supposed to) follow in a given s itu a tio n . C u ltu ra l norms th erefo re include both c u l t u r a l goals and the approved means for reaching those g o a l s . ^ Williams emphasizes the normative or obligatory nature of values. He s tr e s s e s values, thus q u a lifie d , as fundamental components of cu ltu re and so c ial stru c tu re , ^e also implies an o p eratio n al d e f in it io n of values (embodied in norms) in terms of the assessment of v e rb a liz a tio n s . For he holds th a t in em pirical research, one of the ways in which c u l t u r a l norms are discovered i s by in v e stig a tin g the testimony of others. Williams s ta te s : ^ R o b in M. Williams. American Society (New York; Alfred A. Knopf, 1951), pp. 2"4-'2b. b3 In em pirical research c u l tu r a l norms are discovered in two ways. Norms are in ferred from testimony; th a t i s , people e ith e r e x p l i c i t l y state the norm, or from t h e i r d e s c rip tio n of the approved and disapproved con duct fo r c e rta in s itu a tio n s one can c l e a r ly in fe r an im p lic it norm. Cr, aside from testimony, c u l tu r a l norms may be discovered by observing spontaneous behav ior in r e a l - l i f e s itu a tio n s , in p a r t i c u l a r , the meting out of s o c ia lly supported rewards and p e n a ltie s (s o c ia l s a n c tio n s ).^6 F arth er on in h is book, Williams o ffe rs another d e f i n i t i o n of the term "norm." He p o in ts out th a t the in s ti t u t i o n a l i z e d norms of so cial conduct never f u l l y define concrete action and th erefo re a norm i s defined as "a s t a t e ment (not n e c e ssarily e x p l i c i t ) of the course th a t action should follow, not a d e s c rip tio n of the action th a t a c tu a lly occurs."'57 This l a t t e r d e f in it io n of the term "norm" is c o n siste n t with one of the ways in which Williams p o s its th a t norms may be em pirically discovered— namely, through testimony concerning the p ro p rie ty of conduct. But, i t is somewhat in c o n siste n t with the other mode he p o s its fo r the em pirical discovery of norms— namely, the observation of spontaneous behavior. He does, however, m itigate some of the apparent inconsistency by stressin g the importance of noting the p e n a ltie s and rewards (so c ia l sanctions) attached to the observed behavior fo r the em pirical discovery of norms. The process is s t i l l , in p a r t, in f e r e n t i a l . One of the c r i t e r i a by which values and norms can be applied in the em pirical d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of groups is, b6 Ibid. , p. 2b ^7 Ibid. . p. 347. 54 according to Williams, the in te n s ity with which they are sought or maintained.-1 ® C linard also expresses a sim ilar point in noting th a t the re a c tio n s of persons and groups toward d eviations from so cial norms can vary in the d ire c tio n of approval, to le ra n c e , or d i s a p p r o v a l . - ^ holds th a t society in general is probably more concerned, however, with punishing disapproved d eviations than in rewarding those i t a p p r o v e s .^ This notion po in ts to the so cio lo g ical relevance of assessing group d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n in terms of not only p o sitiv e values but negative ones as w ell. F ich te r e lu c id a te s the importance of the normative aspect of values and implies both negative and p o sitiv e q u a l if i c a t io n s fo r the term in the following statement: The system of rewards and punishments employed by a society has i t s ultim ate basis in the value system. If there were no values in a society, and if these values were not known to d i f f e r in degree of importance, the society would lose i t s strongest instrument of so cial c o n tro l. Although the system of values is the r e s u l t of the accumulated wisdom of human experience, these val ues have a d ir e c t e f f e c t on contemporary human experi ence. They determine what i s required of people and what is forbidden, what is praised and rewarded, and what is censured and punished.0 -^ In ad d itio n to the normative and objective q u a l i f i c a tio n s t r a d i t i o n a l l y a t tr i b u te d to values in so cio lo g ical w ritin g s, there has also been the t r a d i t i o n of conceptual izing the meaning and substance of the term "value" w ithin ^®Ibid. . p. 383. ^ C l i n a r d , op. c i t .. p. 11. ® ^Ibid. ^ F ich ter, 0D. c i t .. pp. 297-98. an o v erall behavioral f i e l d of referen ce. One of the e a r l i e s t and most important s o c io lo g ists to give impetus to t h i s t r a d i t i o n was Charles H. Cooley. Cooley theorized th a t a system of values i s a system of p r a c t i c a l ideas or motives to behavior and th a t the process of valuation which gives r i s e to these ideas involves so c ial and mental forms of com p e t i t i o n , se le c tio n , and organization.*^ Cooley set fo rth the th ree e s s e n ti a ls in the concept of value in the follow ing statement: The e s s e n ti a l th in g s in the conception of value are th re e : an organism, a s itu a tio n , and an object. The organism i s necessary to give meaning to the idea; there must be worth to something. . . . The s it u a ti o n is the immediate occasion for ac tio n , in view of which the organism in te g ra te s the various values working w ithin i t , and meets the s itu a tio n by an act of se lec tio n , which is a step in i t s own growth, leading on to new values and new s itu a tio n s . Valuation i s only another name fo r a te n ta t iv e organic process. Hayes, another of the important pioneers in American sociology, also gave impetus to the con cep tu alizatio n of values w ithin a so c ial and behavioral f i e l d of reference. Hayes defined values as the elements in human experience upon which judgments are passed. He held th a t commodities have no independent or i n t r i n s i c q u a lity of value, but, r a th e r , a l l value gains i t s meaning in r e l a t i o n to human a ctio n , experience, and life.* ’4 Hayes pointed out th a t both &^Charles H. Cooley, Social Process (New York: Charles S c rib n e r's Sons, 1918), p. 283. b3Ib id . . pp. 284-85. 64Edward C. Hayes, "Social Values," The American Journal of Sociology. XVIII (January, 1913), 470. 56 behavioral means and the goals toward which these means are d ire c ted may be q u a lifie d as social values; goals are only r e l a t i v e l y ultim ate fo r they, too, may serve as means in the attainment of other goals more a b s tra c tly defined.^"5 The concept of value in philosophy.—The w ritin g s reviewed in t h i s section are presented with the purpose of showing th a t the concep tu aliz atio n of values and the d e f i n itio n of the substantive q u ality of values in terms of be havioral r e f e r e n ts are not e s o te ric to the d isc ip lin e of sociology. The study of values is a specialized f i e l d of in t e r e s t w ithin philosophy and is designated as "axiology." No im plication is made th a t the d e f i n i t i o n and conceptuali zation of values w ithin a behavioral context are indicative of a preponderant approach w ithin the f i e l d of axiology. However, the view which places the substance of value in the behavioral f i e l d gains more au th o rity and legitim acy if i t can be shown th a t such a view has been manifested w ithin ax io lo g ic al w ritin g s; the sociological approach to the con c e p tu a liz a tio n of values thereby gains legitim acy with exo t e r i c usage. Ayres, as a philosopher, speaks of value in terms of a m utuality of human experiences, as follows: What organized behavior in fa c t rev eals is a very general m utuality of human experiences, or values. This p rin c ip le might be c a lle d the concert of values, or ex- 05 Ib id . . pp. 471-77. b7 perience. Though i t is true in a sense th a t any one of us can only have one experience at a time, i t is not true th a t h ealth , knowledge, te c h n ic a l s k i l l , . . . and the like are mutually exclusive and in h ib ito ry . The exact opposite is tr u e . If t h i s were not so, organized behavior would be impossible, and we would s t i l l be ape s . 0(3 Ayres th e o riz e s th a t a l l values a ris e in and have reference to the p a tte rn of organized human behavior. He says, in the continuation of h is d isc u ssio n , th a t what is meant by value is the bearing of any a c t, experience, or things experienced, upon other a c ts, experiences, or condi- 67 tio n s in the continuum of so cial l i f e . Dewey, in h is discussion of the f i e l d of value, s ta te s th a t the f i e l d to which v a lu e -fa c ts belong is behav io r a l. He s tre s s e s th a t values are re le v a n t, by d e f in itio n , to l i f e processes, e s p e c ia lly those of " s e le c tio n -re je c - tio n . ' Dewey deplores the consequences of th e o rie s which separate means and ends without connecting these two terms by the value with which each is imbued. Such a t h e o r e t i c a l and absolute d i s t i n c t i o n is , in Dewey's view, untenable. For, such tends to render ends as u ltim ate, sentim ental, and empty— devoid of d ire c tiv e connotation. Such absolute d is t i n c t i o n likewise tends to provide means with only the qual- 66C. E. Ayres, "The Value Economy," Value; A Cooper ative In q u iry , ed. Ray Lepley (New York: Columbia U niversity t>ress, 1949), pp. 4b-46. 67I b id . . p. 46. k^John Dewey, "The F ield of Value," in Lepley, op. c i t .. pp. 6 4 - 6b. b8 ity of te c h n ic a l expediency. Dewey s ta te s th a t in terms of logic and in terms of so c ia l consequences, both means and ends are r e l a t e d in the behavioral f i e l d ; the q u a lific a tio n of value is attached to e a c h . Garnett does not deny the u t i l i t y of the behavioral frame of reference in the con cep tu alizatio n of values, but he p o s its the n ecessity of supplementing i t with reference to subjective processes and a t t i t u d e s . He c r i t i c i z e s the use of behavioral r e f e r e n ts when they are used to define the q u a lity of value without f u rth e r reference to subjective human processes. Garnett p o in ts out th a t behavioral tr a n s a c tio n s which are normally expressive of c e rta in a t t i t u d e s can be simulated by a good acto r who does not a c tu a lly ex perience the subjective s t a t e s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y in ferred from the behavior portrayed. Therefore, while values may embody behavioral tra n s a c tio n s as substance, t h e i r assess ment r e s t s upon in v e s tig a tio n of subjective processes if they are to be defined upon a more s c i e n t i f i c basis than in fe re n c e . Everett th e o riz e s th a t estim a tes of value give or ganization to the m u lt ip lic ity of ends embodied in in t e r e s t s , and p r in c ip l e s of human conduct. Estim ates of value o9I b i d . . pp. 69-71. ^ A . Campbell G arnett, " I n tr in s ic Good; I t s D efini tio n and R e fe re n t," in Lepley, op. c i t .. pp. 78-83. 69 determine the subordination of one end to another; values e x is t in re c ip ro c ity and are ends in the r e la tiv e sense. Thus, what may be an end at one moment may be a norm or means at the next, depending upon the qualifying estim ates 7 1 of v a lu e . Defining "values" as o b je c ti f ic a ti o n s of types of human behavior.—The w ritin g s which have been reviewed and discussed have a l l contained an e x p lic a tio n of values in connection with human behavior and in te ra c tio n . The t r a d i tio n a l view manifested w ithin American sociology is th a t values gain the q u ality of meaning and gain t h e i r d e fin itiv e substance w ithin the process of human behavior. Values have t h e i r substantive r e f e r e n ts w ithin the behavioral f i e l d . This view is not e s o te ric to the d is c ip lin e of sociology, for i t has likewise been expressed by c e r t a in philosophers in t h e ir a x io lo g ic al w ritin g s. Another t r a d i t i o n a l approach to the d e f in it io n of values w ithin sociology and r e f le c te d w ithin philosophy r e s t s upon the d e riv a tio n or determ ination of values by the assessment of subjective processes connotative of a t t i t u d e s and judgments. The two approaches set fo rth two so rts of d e f in itio n s fo r the term "values." The f i r s t approach, with i t s emphasis upon the behavioral f i e l d and the obligatory ^ W a l t e r Goodnow E verett, Moral Values (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1926), pp. 6-7. 60 and in te ra c tiv e components w ithin t h i s f i e l d , defines the substance of value— i t p o in ts to the relev an t r e f e r e n ts sub sumed in the term "values." The second approach, with i t s emphasis upon subjective processes, defines values in terms of t h e i r d e riv a tio n a l s o u rc e s --it sets fo rth the operational d e f in it io n of the term "values." The d e f in it io n of normative values as o b je c ti f ic a tio n s of types of human behavior toward which a t t i t u d e s or judgments are expressed was formulated to denote the subject matter of t h i s study. The use of t h i s d e f in itio n r e s t s upon the assumption th a t the t r a d i t i o n a l d e f in itio n s of value em ployed in the f i e l d of sociology are mutually dependent ra th e r than c o n tra d icto ry . The d e f in it io n connotes the r e l evant substance of value in the socio lo g ic al sense and i t provides the term "values" an operational u t i l i t y . The ad je c tiv e "normative" is attached to the term "values" be cause the t y p i f i c a t i o n s of human behavior which were de p icted in the questionnaire which was presented to the re spondents who took p a rt in t h i s study were judged in terms of t h e i r p ro p rie ty . Norms denote the range of p ro p riety a t tached to types of behavior; they connote the a p p lica tio n of p o sitiv e or negative social sanctions and judgments of rig h t and wrong in connection with human behavior. The choices of response presented to the subjects who took p art in t h i s study included judgmental a l te r n a ti v e s denoting sequential le v e ls of so c ial sanctions d if fe rin g in sev erity ; they de- 61 noted what might be termed "normative judgments." The val ues toward which these judgments were expressed receiv e, thereby, a normative q u a lific a tio n . The " ty p ific a tio n s of human behavior" depicted in the questionnaire were also o b je c ti f ic a ti o n s , since they were the th in g s toward which judgments were d irec te d . They served as the objects, and as the counterpart to the subject ive process of judgment. The d e f in it io n of normative values as formulated in t h i s study is deemed legitim ate since i t is grounded in t r a d i t i o n a l so cio lo g ical usage. The d e f in it io n is not e s o te ric to the f i e l d of sociology because i t s foun dation r e s t s also upon co n cep tu aliz atio n s which have been manifested in the d is c ip lin e of philosophy. The d e f in it io n of normative values used to denote the subject matter of t h i s study is so c io lo g ic a lly relev an t in co n ten t. The def in it io n receiv es added legitim acy in th a t i t is operational and amenable to em pirical assessment. There are, perhaps, two p rin c ip a l a d d itio n a l ap proaches to the study of values which might have been l e g i t imate a l t e r n a t i v e s to the approach taken in t h i s study. F i r s t of a l l , both the substantive and operational q u a l i f i c a tio n s of the d e f in it io n of values might have been given behavioral r e f e r e n ts . This would have n ec e ss ita te d the d ire c t observation of overt behavior in the assessment of the values of any given group of su b jects. If, however, the discussion of values which Bougie has presented is noted, the methodological d i f f i c u l t i e s involved in the assessment of values by an a ly sis of overt behavior is ap p aren t. Bougie'' discusses values in terms of " p o ly te lis m ." By use of t h i s term, he po in ts to the fa c t th a t w ithin the o v erall behavioral f i e l d a m u lt ip lic ity of values as ends 7 2 can be co e x isten t in the same means of a c t i v i t y . There fo re, i t would appear probable th a t the assessment of values from the a n a ly sis and observation of overt behavior would depend to a great extent upon the inferences made by the ob server. If, indeed, a complexity of values may adhere with in a single behavioral means, the observer would have to in fe r which one of many possible values was manifested at a given moment. The operational v a l id ity of a d e f in itio n of values which is founded upon a behavioral context to the ex clusion of the an aly sis of the subjective processes of in div id u a ls i s , th e re fo re , spurious. The second p rin c ip a l a l te r n a ti v e would have been to maintain the c a p a b ility of assessing values through an a ly sis of subjective processes, but to have defined the content or substance of value on a more a b s tra c t l e v e l- - f r e e from a behavioral context. This approach would have been exempli fied by having respondents judge such th in g s as "honesty," " f a l s i t y , " " s te a lin g ," or whatever, as values in them- 7 ^ f C harles Bougie, The Evolution of Values, tr a n s . Helen S talker S e l l a r s (New York: He nr y Ho i t a nd C onipa ny, 1926), pp. 84-8b. b3 selves— free from any depicted so cial or behavioral context. Notation of Sorokin's discussion of values shows the inade quacy of such an approach. Sorokin has shown th a t meanings, norms, and values gain t h e i r q u a l if i c a t io n s as such from t h e i r superimposition upon the biophysical p ro p e rtie s of persons, a c tio n s, and events. Values are so c io lo g ic a lly rele v an t only when they are d e f i n i t i v e l y connected with hu man events and behavioral co n tex ts. Cne of the important p o in ts Sorokin e l i c i t s is th a t a single value or norm may be expressed by a d iv e rs ity of v e h icle s. The term "vehicles" 7 includes overt a c tio n s. Therefore, in noting Sorokin's idea, to formulate values fre e from a behavioral context and to present them as o b jects toward which judgments were to be expressed, would m itigate the so c io lo g ic al relevance of the term "values." If values are relev an t only in connection with human events and behavioral co n tex ts, and if a single value may be manifested by a d iv e rs ity of vehicles, i t be comes necessary to depict the specific vehicle which then also becomes and object of judgment. If values were ab s tra c te d from behavioral contexts and presented fo r judg ment, such judgments would be u n r e a l i s t i c indices of sub je c tiv e processes; values do not e x is t in a vacuum and judg ments concerning them as vacuous e n t i t i e s would be i r r e l e vant d ata. The f a u l t s inherent in the two approaches c ite d 71 P. A. Sorokin, Society. C u ltu re, and P erso n ality (New York: Harper and B rothers, 1947J, pp. 4 l- 4 l7. 64 were noted and avoided in the d e fin itio n of normative values formulated to encompass the subject-m atter of t h i s study. E m pirical S tu d ies The overwhelming abundance of the em pirical studies done in the l a s t t h i r t y years with the purpose of d iffe re n t i a t i n g crim in als from noncriminals and delinquents from nondelinquents has been based upon the in v e stig a tio n of eco lo g ic al background f a c t o r s , fa c to rs of in te llig e n c e and m entality, and dimensions of p e rso n a lity stru c tu re . While such studies may bear a ta n g e n tia l re la tio n s h ip to the prob lem of d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g these groups in terms of a c o n f lic t of values, they are not s p e c ific a lly relevant to th a t prob lem. There have also been many studies ca rrie d out in the l a s t t h i r t y years which have been devoted to the in v e stig a tio n of the a t t i t u d e s of crim in als and delinquents toward various phenomena of soc io lo g ical i n t e r e s t . Few of these studies have presented a co n cep tu alizatio n of the phenomena toward which a t t i t u d e s were expressed in terms of values. Where such co n cep tu alizatio n is p resen t, im p lic itly or ex p l i c i t l y , few of the stu d ies have included the problem of in v e stig a tin g the a t t i t u d e s of a c o n tro l group along with the a t t i t u d e s of crim in als or delinquents. There has been an extreme paucity of em pirical studies in the la s t t h i r t y years which have included both the t h e o r e t i c a l problem of conceptualizing the phenomena ob toward which a t t i t u d e s were expressed in terms of vaiues and the methodological problem of in v e stig a tin g the a t t i t u d e s of a c o n tro l group. The studies which are d ir e c tly relev an t to the v a lu e -c o n flic t approach to c rim in a lity and delinquency are those which have undertaken the ta sk of d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g a sample of crim in als or delinquents from a sample of non crim in als or nondelinquents (a co n tro l group) in terms of t h e i r expressed ev alu atio n s toward value laden phenomena. The few such studies which have appeared in the sociological and psychological s c ie n ti f i c jo u rn a ls during the la s t t h i r t y years are reviewed in the following section. A ttitu d e s toward the r e la tiv e seriousness of crim i nal a c t s .— Simpson c a rrie d out a study with the purpose of determining whether a sample of p riso n e rs d iffe re d from a sample of teach ers in t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward the r e la tiv e seriousness of crim inal a c ts. He composed a l i s t of fo rty - five crim inal a c ts and presented the l i s t to the two samples of respondents with in s tru c tio n s th a t they were to arrange the items in a sequence from the one they considered "most serious" to the one they considered "le a st se rio u s ." A sam ple of 200 male p riso n e rs of superior in te llig e n c e in the I l l i n o i s S tate P e n ite n tia ry at J o l i e t was compared with a sample of 270 high school teach e rs from J o l i e t , I l l i n o i s , and Gary, Indiana. Simpson does not state whether a l l of the teach ers used as subjects in h is study were males; he only d is tin g u is h e s them as " p ra c tic a lly a l l college gradu a t e s . " ^ 4 The responses (the sequences in which the items were ranked) of the two samples were s t a t i s t i c a l l y compared by use of the Spearman technique fo r the c o r r e la tio n of rank orders. Simpson found a marked agreement between teachers and p riso n ers in the a t t i t u d e s toward the r e la tiv e serious ness of crim inal a c ts . He obtained a Spearman c o r r e la tio n 7b of .9b between the r a tin g s of teachers and p riso n e rs. The conclusions Simpson draws from h is findings are stated as fo llo w s: These fin d in g s suggest . . . th a t p e n ite n tia ry in mates probably appreciate the r e la tiv e seriousness of crim inal a c ts as w ell as teach ers do. Some advocate th a t p riso n ers should be taught the old mores, t r a d i tio n s , and customs which past preference has proved to be serviceable guides to conduct. The close agreement demonstrated to e x i s t between p riso n ers and teach ers in t h i s study leads one to believe th a t mere possession of the knowledge necessary to evaluate the r e la tiv e s e r i ousness of as o c ia l a c ts provides no guarantee th a t the in d iv id u al w ill obey the law. Knowing does not neces s a rily prompt d o i n g . 7 6 Other findings which Simpson e l i c i t e d in h is study were th a t the inmates who had been committed to the peniten t i a r y for the crimes of robbery, burglary, and larceny tended to rate these same crimes as r e l a t i v e l y more serious 74Ray Mars Simpson, "A ttitudes of Teachers and P riso n ers toward Seriousness of Criminal A cts," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. XXV Uv'.ay-June, 1934) , 77. ^ Ib id . . p. 78 76 Ib id . . pp. 78-79. 67 than did te ach ers. Sex offenders tended to rate crimes de noting sexual offenses le s s serious than did te a c h e r s .77 As a p a r t i a l explanation of these fin d in g s, Simpson expresses the thought th a t robbers and b u rg lars were probably imbuing themselves with esteem in ra tin g such crimes as they com mitted themselves with "more seriousness" than teach ers ra te d such crimes. Sexual offenders, in ra tin g crimes de noting sexual offenses as " le ss serious" than te ach e rs rate d them, were probably r a tio n a liz in g t h e i r own past behavior, according to Simpson.7a Simpson did not assess the degree of seriousness with which h is subjects responded to each of the crim inal a c ts presented in the l i s t he compiled. While the two sam ples of respondents ranked the a c ts in e s s e n t i a l l y sim ilar fashion, there was no in d ic atio n as to whether the two sam ple s d iffe re d in t h e i r judgment of the seriousness of each individual crim inal a c t. There was also lacking in Simp son's study information regarding sampling procedures and information regarding the number of biographical f a c t o r s on which the two samples of respondents were matched. E th ical knowledge of delinquents and nondelinquents. — In h is study of the e t h i c a l knowledge of delinquent and nondelinquent boys. H ill composed seventy items depicting so cial s itu a tio n s (including some delinquent acts) and pre- 77 Ib id . , p. 80 7®Jtbid., pp. 80-81. 68 sented them in the form of a questionnaire to two samples of respondents. The respondents chose from five a lte rn a tiv e responses which varied seq u en tia lly in in te n s ity in order to judge "how wrong" each questionnaire item was. One sample was made up of t>17 offenders at the I l l i n o i s State Reforma tory at Pontiac; t h e i r ages ranged from sixteen to twenty- six years; most were committed for a c q u is itiv e offenses; they were above average in te llig en c e as measured by the Army Alpha t e s t ; on the average, they had completed seven years of school before commitment to the reformatory. The other sample (with which offenders were compared) was composed of: (1) 41b ju n io r and senior high school boys from suburban neighborhoods and economically favored backgrounds, (2) 604 high school boys from a small mining c i t y in southern I l l i nois, and (3) 148 graduate and undergraduate students, evening school students, and men’s Bible Class members.^ H ill ranked the seventy items according to the aver age degree of "wrongness" a t tr i b u te d t o each by the samples. The ranking of the items did not vary s ig n ific a n tly from one sample of respondents to a n o t h e r . ^ H ill also d i f f e r e n tia te d the samples in terms of "how Wrong" they judged each in d ividual questionnaire item to be. He p resen ts a ^G eorge £, H ill, "The E th ic al Knowledge of Delin quent and Nondelinquent Bovs." The Journal of Social Psy chology . VI (February, 193b), 107-169. SOIbid. . p. 111. 09 discussion of h is fin d in g s as follows: It is probably unsafe to draw general conclusions from these r a th e r confusing r e s u l t s . It would appear, however, th a t delinquents were more l i b e r a l than the c o n tro l groups in resp ect to liquor law v io la tio n s and toward v io la tio n s of the moral code on sex i r r e g u l a r i t i e s . The most conservative group on the r e lig io u s items was the group of mining town high school boys; the delinquent boys were next most conservative r e lig i o u s ly. . . . High school boys and a d u lts regarded four forms of burglary and larceny as much more serious than did the delinquent boys. On the other hand, a d u lts were le s s severe than offenders toward two common crimes; (1) holding up and robbing a person, and (2) acting as look-out man in a burglary or robbery. . . . So f a r as t h i s t e s t w i l l rev ea l, the offenders seem to be p a r t i c u l a r l y anxious to be loyal to t h e i r frie n d s; "squealing" i s second only to kidnapping in i t s heinous ness. When one sums up the comparisons he i s confused by c o n f lic tin g evidences. F i r s t , there seems to be a high degree of general agreement between the e t h ic a l know ledge, as here measured, of offenders and non-offenders. Second, there are s ig n ific a n t a c ts which offenders re gard more l i g h t l y than do non-offenders. T h ird , there are equally s ig n ific a n t a c ts regarded much more l i b e r a lly by non-offenders, p a r t i c u l a r l y a d u lts, than by de linquent boys. F ourth, there are r e l a t i v e l y few items of e t h i c a l knowledge in t h i s inventory which w ill d is tin g u ish in e v ita b ly between delinquents and non-delin quents. F i f t h . an adult standard of conduct or social code would seem to be a more l i b e r a l standard than th a t set by young men.°^ H ill se ts f o rth no specific hypothesis in h is study as the fo cal point of in v e stig a tio n ; he, th e re fo re , did not make any conclusion concerning the significance of the num ber of items toward which offenders were more le n ien t than the c o n tro l groups as compared with the number of items toward which the c o n tro l groups were more len ien t than the of f e nde r s . k^Ibid. . pp. 113-14. 70 Reinhardt and Harper studied the e t h i c a l judgments of delinquents and nondelinquents toward a s e rie s of de picted so cial and e t h ic a l problems presented in questionnaire form. The nondelinquents were obtained from the public schools of Grand Forks, North Dakota; the delinquents were obtained on an unselected b asis as they came before the ju venile court in th a t same c i t y . There is no information given concerning the biographical fa c to rs of the ju v e n ile s who took part in the study; the samples were not matched. There were f o rty respondents in the delinquent sample; the numoer of respondents in the nondelinquent sample was not spec if i e d . y^ No information concerning the specific content of each item in t h e i r questionnaire is offered by Reinhardt and Harper beyond saying th a t they d ea lt with social and e t h ic a l problems and th a t some of the items concerned "the treatm ent of c rim in als ." Reinhardt and Harper found th at nondelinquents were much more len ien t toward crim in als than were delinquents. Reinhardt and Harper o ffer the following conclusion to t h e i r study; It i s not contended th a t t h i s study does more than indicate th a t there e x i s t s d i s t i n c t d iffe re n ce s in the so c ia l and e t h i c a l judgments of the two groups. Whether o 2 James to. Reinhardt and Fowler Vincent Harper, "Social and E th ic al Judgments of Two Groups of Boys: Delin quents and Non-Delinquents," Journal of the American I n s t i tu te of Criminal Law and Criminology, XXI tNovember. 1650), 3 5 4 -6 7 “ .” 71 th e s e d if f e r e n c e s do or are capable of throwing any li g h t on the problem of delinquency rem ains to be demon-' s t r a t e d . I t seems c l e a r , however, t h a t d e lin q u e n ts be have d i f f e r e n t l y in t h e i r resp o n ses to s tim u li involving th e s e ty p e s of problems. Where such d if fe re n c e s are c o n s is te n tly found t o e x i s t between two groups of human b ein g s, i t i s not u n lik e ly th a t s u f f i c i e n t study may r e v e a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s between th e se d if fe r e n c e s and the o th e r d if f e re n c e s in behavior which p re se n t a p a r t i c u l a r problem to be solved. R einhardt and Harper p re se n t t h e i r fin d in g s in term s of p erce n tag e s; no s t a t i s t i c a l measures of s ig n ific a n c e were computed. The in v e s tig a to r s s ta te d t h e i r purpose as an a t tempt t o o b je c tif y the a t t i t u d e of the d elin q u en t boy toward h is environm ent, by comparing h is em otional re a c tio n s to a s e r ie s of s o c ia l and e t h i c a l problems t o the r e a c tio n s of the nondelinquent to the same s i t u a t i o n s . They framed no hypotheses and subm itted none to t e s t in the s ta te d purpose of t h e i r study. A ttitu d e s toward the prevalence of s t e a l i n g . — Ba11 c a rrie d out an e m p iric a l in v e s tig a tio n w ith the purpose of determ ining whether d e lin q u e n ts d i f f e r from nondelinquents in t h e i r conception of how p re v a le n t s te a lin g is in contem porary American s o c ie ty . He e la b o r a te s upon the importance of the problem he undertook to in v e s tig a te , as follow s: Another though r e la te d asp ect of t h i s problem con c e rn s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of what have been termed " a n ti s o c ia l a t t i t u d e s . " L ite ra tu re p e r ta in in g to c r im i n a li ty i s r e p le te w ith re fe re n c e s to the a n t i s o c i a l a t t i t u d e s of apprehended o ffe n d e rs. Indeed, th e se n e fa rio u s fa c t o r s are fre q u e n tly regarded as being of c a rd in a l impor 83Ib id . . p. 378. 72 tance in the development of crim inal behavior. Yet, the f a c t remains t h a t , fo r the most p a r t, the concept of a n t i s o c i a l a t t i t u d e s has not been supported by em pirical demonstration. So t h a t , p re c ise ly what are and what are not a n t i s o c i a l a t t i t u d e s has not been adequately estab lis h e d .^ 4 Ihe study made by Ball is of more cu rrent vintage than the others which have been reviewed; i t is founded upon more so p h istic a te d s t a t i s t i c a l techniques of data reduction. Ball compared the responses of two samples toward a se rie s of items presented in questionnaire form which had to do with a t t i t u d e s toward the prevalence of s te a lin g . The sam ple of delinquents was composed of 108 boys who were incar cerated a t a southern state reform atory. The sample of non delinquents was composed of 99 public school boys. The sub j e c t s were matched according to age (14 through 17 years of age) and to a le s s e r extent according to in te llig e n c e and socio-economic sta tu s; the s u b je c ts ' r e lig i o n was not s t a t e d . 8^ Ball e s ta b lis h e d the "unidimensionality" of ten of the items presented in the questionnaire which he submitted to the subjects by means of the Guttman "scalogram" tech nique; the content area of these ten items was designated as " a ttitu d e toward the prevalence of s te a lin g ." The fin d in g s 84John G. B all, "Delinquent and Non-delinquent A ttitu d e s toward the Prevalence of S te a lin g ," The Journal of Criminal Law, Griminoloqy, and Police Science, XLVIII*” TSeptember'-u'c t 'o L r , I W T.& G ' .------------------------------ ^ I b i d . . pp. 261-63. 73 which Bail e l i c i t e d indicated a pronounced differe n ce in a t t i t u d e s toward stealin g between the delinquent sample and the sample of nondelinquent boys. The delinquents were found to possess a s ig n ific a n tly "more p o sitiv e " a t titu d e Q fL toward the prevalence of ste a lin g than the nondelinquents. Ball summarizes the importance of h is findings in the following statement: The em pirical id e n tif ic a tio n of an a t t i t u d i n a l v a ri able which, there is reason to suppose, may c o n s titu te an important part of the config u ratio n of delinquent a t t i t u d e s i s regarded as offering a c o n trib u tio n to the d e lin e a tio n of a n t i - s o c i a l a t t i t u d e s . 87 Ball lim ited h is study to the assessment of a t t i tudes toward only one value-laden type of human behavior-- th a t of " s te a lin g ." While h is fin d in g s do not lend them selves to any general conclusions regarding the d i f f e r e n t i a tio n of delinquents and nondelinquents in terms of various a t t i t u d e s and values, they do show, with s t a t i s t i c a l sophis t i c a t i o n , th a t these two groups are probably s ig n ific a n tly d if f e r e n tia te d in t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward one important sphere of normative values. Summary statement Three c r i t e r i a were required of em pirical studies before they were selected for review in t h i s chapter. The c r i t e r i a were: 86 Ib id . . pp. 268-74. 87 Ib id .. p. 274. 74 1. That the stu d ies had been c a rrie d out w ithin the l a s t t h i r t y years. 2. That a crim inal or delinquent sample was com pared with a c o n tro l group of noncriminals or nondelinquents. 3. That the stu d ies d e a lt with the expression of a t t i t u d e s or judgments toward depicted types of human behavior. Reference was made to The Psychological A b s tr a c ts , The So c io lo g ic a l a b s t r a c t s , Current Sociology, the indexes of The American Journal of Sociology and the American Sociological Review. and to the b ib lio g ra p h ic a l p o rtio n s of many crim i nology and ju v en ile delinquency t e x t s in order to obtain a se le c tio n of stu d ies which met the c r i t e r i a set f o rth above. The four stu d ies which have been reviewed were the only ones found in the s c i e n t i f i c p e rio d ic a ls of the d is c ip li n e s of psychology, so cial psychology, and sociology which met the e s ta b lish e d c r i t e r i a fo r inclusion and review. The c r i t e r i a which have been enumerated were estab lished so th a t a l l of the em pirical stu d ies reviewed in t h i s chapter would be of r e l a t i v e l y cu rren t vintage, d ir e c tly relev an t to the v a lu e -c o n flic t approach to c r im in a lity and delinquency, and r e la te d to the present study as concerns the phenomena under in v e s tig a tio n . The r e la tio n s h ip be tween the fin d in g s of the studies which have been reviewed and the fin d in g s of t h i s study i s elab o rated in the con- eluding chapter. One of the most frequent c r i t i c i s m s leveled a t the v a lu e - c o n f lic t explanation of c r im in a lity has been t h a t i t i s inadequately grounded in em p iric ally s u b sta n tia te d f a c t . This i s a tenable and cogent c r i t i c i s m , since so few em piri c a l stu d ie s of d ir e c t relevance to such explanation of crim i n a l i t y were found in the review of the l i t e r a t u r e . c h a p t e r h i M ETHO D O LO GY The p resen t ch ap ter c o n ta in s a d isc u ssio n of the methodological procedures involved in t h i s study. The d i s cussion i s subsumed under th re e se c tio n s : (1) a d isc u ssio n of the two samples of respondents, t h e i r b io g ra p h ic a l char a c t e r i s t i c s and the sampling procedure used to o b tain them; (2) a d isc u ssio n of the s tru c tu re of the q u estio n n aire which was submitted to the su b je c ts who took p a rt in t h i s study; and (3) a b r ie f d isc u ssio n of the s t a t i s t i c a l techniques employed in the a n a ly s is of the samples' responses to the q u e s tio n n a ire . The Samples Two samples of respondents were used in t h i s study. One sample was composed of inmates who were c u r r e n tly serv ing maximum sentences of one year or le s s in a penal i n s t i tu tio n under the sup erv isio n of the Los Angeles County Sher i f f 's Department. All of the inmates had been convicted of misdemeanor o ffe n se s. The other sample served as a c o n tro l group and was composed of p o lice o f f i c e r s who were drawn from seven d if f e r e n t municipal p o lic e departm ents lo c ate d in 76 two counties of the state of C a lifo rn ia . 77 Biographical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .—The two samples of respondents were matched in terms of five b io -s o c ia l fac to rs : (1) sex, (2) range of ages, (3) range of educational attainm ent, (4) ethnic s ta tu s , and (b) r e lig io u s a f f i l i a t i o n or preference. The respondents in each sample were a l l male, between twenty-one and six ty -fiv e years of age, and P ro te sta n t by a f f i l i a t i o n or preference. The respondents in each sample had completed not le s s than eig h t nor more than twelve grades of school. The median age of the inmates who were sampled was 2o.2 years; the median grade they had com pleted in school was 10.7. The median age of the police of f i c e r s who were sampled was 33.3 years; they had completed a median of 11.9 grades of school. While the age range and the range of educational attainm ent of the two samples were id e n tic a l, the median ages and the median le v els of educa t i o n a l attainm ent of the two samples d iffe re d s ig n ific a n tly as c a lc u la te d by the median t e s t . The e ffe c t of these d i f ferences in age and educational attainm ent upon the extent of inter-sample d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n in response to the question naire is analyzed and discussed in the appendix. There was no attempt made to match the respondents included in the sample of inmates with the respondents in cluded in the sample of police o f fic e r s on a specific or '■ * • • in d iv id u al basis; no given subject among the sample of in 78 mates was matched with a specific co unterpart among the sam ple of police o f f ic e r s . The samples were, ra th e r, matched on a group b a s is , with regard to the b io - s o c ia l c r i t e r i a which have been enumerated. Procedure of sampling inm ates.--Two matched quota samples of one hundred su b jects each were obtained as par t i c i p a n t s in t h i s study, both the inmates and the police o f fic e r s who took p a rt in t h i s study, did so v o lu n ta rily . The d i s t r i b u t i o n of the q u estio n n aires to the inmates was handled through the education Center at the penal i n s t i t u tio n in which the inmates were c u rre n tly serving time for misdemeanor offenses. The td u catio n Center was sta ffed by personnel who were not o f f i c i a l l y connected with the admin i s t r a t i o n of the penal i n s t i t u t i o n in which i t was located. The p r in c ip a l who was in charge of the Lducation Center was asked to d is t r ib u t e q uestionnaires to those inmates who were c h a ra cterized by a l l five of the b io -s o c ia l f a c t o r s which were required for in clu sio n in the sample. Inmates who were not c h a ra c te rize d by a l l five of the b io -s o c ia l f a c to rs which have been previously enumerated were not asked to take p art in t h i s study by f i l l i n g out q u estio n n aires. There was no way made av ailab le of determining the exact number of inmates re sid e n t at the penal i n s t i t u t i o n who were c h a ra cterized by the five required b io - s o c ia l f a c t o r s . The penal i n s t i t u t i o n from which the inmate sample was drawn 79 experiences a r e l a t i v e l y flu c tu a tin g population in terms of the number of inmates in carcerated from week to week. The f i l i n g system used by the i n s t i t u t i o n does not include in formation regarding a l l of the b io - s o c ia l f a c t o r s estab lished as re q u is ite fo r inclusion in the inmate sample. For these reasons, i t was impossible fo r a systematic random sampling procedure to be c a rrie d out in gaining the inmates used as respondents in t h i s study. Through discussion with the ad m in istrativ e o f f ic e r s of the penal i n s t i t u t i o n , i t was learned th a t inmates who were c h a ra cte rize d by a l l five b io -s o c ia l f a c t o r s esta b lish e d as c r i t e r i a fo r inclusion in the sample represented a small minority of the inmates who were in carcerated at the i n s t i t u t i o n . The sample of inmates which was used in t h i s study was not selected with the pur pose of obtaining a group of respondents who were rep rese n t ative of the t o t a l inmate population of the penal i n s t i t u tio n so f a r as b io -s o c ia l f a c t o r s are concerned. Inmates were contacted a t various lo catio n s w ithin the penal i n s t i t u t i o n fo r a period of two months. They were contacted at the reception c e n te r, education c e n te r, work shops, and liv in g q u a rte rs. The lo catio n s where the inmates were contacted do not represent segregated areas in the sense th a t inmates contacted in one lo c atio n could be ex pected to d i f f e r (fo r instance, concerning the type of crimes they had committed) from those who were contacted at another. Regardless of the lo catio n in which they were 80 contacted, the inmates were a l l serving maximum sentences of up to one year for misdemeanor offenses. A fter determining whether the inmates who were con ta c te d were c h a ra c te riz e d by a l l five of the b io -s o c ia l fac to r s required fo r t h e i r se le c tio n in the sample, those who were so ch a ra cte riz ed were then asked to f i l l out the ques tio n n a ir e s . The respondents were obtained on a s t r i c t l y volunteer b asis; no compulsion was used in gaining t h e i r cooperation in answering the q u estio n n aire s. Those inmates who took p a rt in t h i s study were assured th a t t h e i r r e sponses were c o n f id e n tia l. They were assured th a t none of the ad m in istrativ e personnel connected with the penal in s t i t u t i o n would have access to the q u estionnaires which they (the inmates) f i l l e d out and returned. The q uestionnaires were f i l l e d out anonymously. A fter a period of two months, 10b completed ques tio n n a ir e s were obtained and the d i s t r i b u t i o n of question n aires among the inmates at the penal i n s t i t u t i o n was then term inated. Among the 10b q u estionnaires which were re turned, there was one which was f i l l e d out by a subject who indicated th a t h is r a c i a l background (ethnic sta tu s) was h/.exican-American. This questionnaire was omitted from the sample. Two q u estio n n aires were incompletely f i l l e d out— one or more pages were l e f t blank. These were also omitted from the sample. In order to f a c i l i t a t e s t a t i s t i c a l compu t a t i o n by having a sample of exactly one hundred su b je c ts, 81 two of the remaining 102 q uestionnaires were discarded by random se lec tio n . Procedure of sampling police o f f i c e r s .—The c h ie fs of police in charge of eig h t d if fe re n t municipal police de partments located in two counties of the sta te of C a lifo rn ia were contacted in order to gain a u th o riz a tio n fo r the d is t r i b u t i o n of q u estio n n aires to t h e i r personnel. Such au th o r iz a tio n was granted by seven of these c h ie fs of p o lice. Each one was given the assurance th a t the name of the c i ty in which h is department was located would remain anonymous. The police departments which were sampled were selected so as to provide a geographical spread of the Los Angeles met ro p o lita n area. Depending upon the size of the police department, from fo rty to eighty q uestionnaires were l e f t at each of the seven departments. In s tru c tio n s were given th a t the ques tio n n a ire s were to be f i l l e d out only by male personnel and only by those police o f f ic e r s who were w illin g to cooperate v o lu n ta rily . In s tru c tio n s were given th a t the question naires were to be returned by respondents a t a specific lo c a tio n w ithin each department ra th e r than to anyone person a lly — thus assuring the respondents of t h e i r anonymity. A t o t a l of 233 questionnaires were f i l l e d out and returned by the police o f f ic e r s of the seven departments which were sampled. There were 127 of these which were 82 omitted from the sample because the respondents who f i l l e d them out were not ch a ra cte rized by a l l five of the bio-so c i a l f a c t o r s which were e s ta b lish e d as c r i t e r i a fo r inclu sion in the sample. That is to say, there were 127 ques tio n n a ir e s returned which had been completed by police o f f i cers who were C a th o lic , Jewish, non-white, or who had com p leted an excess of twelve grades of school. There were six q u estio n n aires which were omitted from the sample because of incomplete responses to the questions dealing with biograph ic a l data or because one or more pages contained in the questionnaire were l e f t blank. Q uestionnaires f i l l e d out by a sample of one hundred police o f f ic e r s were thus obtained. The police o f f ic e r s who took part in t h i s study represent a volunteer sample of respondents. The Questionnaire The questionnaire was composed of f i f t y items which were designed to depict selected types of in te rp e rso n a l be havior. The items were designed to f i t the d e f in it io n of normative values which was discussed and au th en ticated in the f i r s t two chapters of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n . They were de signed so th a t value-judgments connoting sanctions might be expressed with relevance by the subjects who answered the q u estio n n aire . The questionnaire was designed as an in s tru ment to assess the manner and in te n s ity with which persons judged the behavior of o th ers. The questionnaire items were 83 not framed with the purpose of gaining information concern ing the overt behavior of the su b jects who responded to them. Elaboration of item s.—The questionnaire contained f i f t y items which depicted behavioral s itu a tio n s toward which the subjects were asked to respond with a choice of one out of five possible value-judgm ents. The f i r s t twenty- five items which were presented in the questionnaire de picted in d iv id u als (o b jects of sanction) behaving toward others in various modes of conduct. The items were uncon ditioned— they included no reasons, excuses, or m itigating circumstances fo r the mode of conduct in which the depicted objects of sanction were involved. A specif ic re la tio n s h ip between behavioral means and ends or goals was not depicted in these items. The second group of twenty-five items (numbered 26 through bO) r e s ta te d the same types of in te rp erso n al conduct which were depicted in the f i r s t group of tw enty-five items. Their order was a lte re d and conditioning sequences, in the form of explanations or m itigating circumstances for the mode of conduct depicted, were appended to them. The con d itioning sequences had the e f f e c t of depicting a specific means-ends r e la tio n s h ip to the types of behavior portrayed in the la s t tw enty-five items included in the questionnaire. Conditioning sequences explained "why" the objects of 84 sanction behaved as they were so depicted; they es ta b lish e d the depicted "ends" of the depicted "behavior" (means) of the o b jects of sanction. These sequences were appended to the questionnaire items in order to a s sess the e f f e c t of the degree of s p e c i f i c i t y attached to normative values upon the extent of inter-sam ple d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n in judging normative values. The in c lu sio n of these depicted conditioning se quences made i t possible to t e s t the hypothesis th a t the two samples of respondents would d i f f e r to a g re a te r extent in t h e i r judgments of types of behavior when these types of behavior were sp ecified as behavioral means than when such s p e c if ic a tio n was not e x p l i c i t l y depicted. O rdinal stru ctu re of the s c a l e .— An ordinal scale containing five a l te r n a ti v e choices of response was con stru cted and appended to each item presented in the ques tio n n a ir e . The scale was designed so as to represent five d if f e r e n t value-judgments (connotative of so cial sanctions) which varied seq u e n tia lly in i n te n s it y . The scale included five a l t e r n a t i v e s with which the respondents were to judge the p ro p rie ty of the types of behavior depicted in the items included in the q u estio n n aire . The a lte r n a tiv e choices of response represented in the ordinal scale of value-judgments d iffe re d se q u en tia lly and connoted a range of a t t i t u d i n a l in te n s ity from "leniency" to " s e v e rity ." The five sp ecific a lte r n a tiv e choices of value- 85 judgments included in the scale by which the respondents judged each item presented in the questionnaire were: (1) not wrong and should not be punished in any way; (2) wrong, but should not be punished in any way; (3) wrong, but should receive p r a c t ic a lly no punishment at a l l ; (4) wrong, and should be punished moderately in some way; and (5) wrong, and should be punished severely in some way. No assumption was made concerning the distance be tween the in te rv a ls of the scale; the scale was not assumed to represent equal in te rv a ls ; no average numerical values were c a lc u la te d to represent the average in te n s ity of judg ment with which e i t h e r sample responded to a given question naire item. The only assumption underlying the s t a t i s t i c a l an a ly sis of responses was th a t the scale which was designed represented five d if f e r e n t and sequential le v els of judg mental in te n s ity . The same five a lte rn a tiv e choices of response were appended to each item in the q u estio n n aire. The order in which the a lte r n a tiv e choices of response were presented was varied from item to item so as to reduce the p o s s i b i l i t y of respondents checking a given a lte rn a tiv e choice simply be cause of i t s r e la tiv e p o sitio n to the other a l te r n a ti v e s which were presented. The ordinal scale which was constructed was assumed to indicate sim ilar le v e ls of judgmental in te n s ity (from item to item) only in regard to those questionnaire items in which the depicted types of behavior were conceptually sim ila r. For example, a response of "wrong and should be punished moderately in some way" as a value-judgment of a "boy having sexual r e l a t i o n s with the g i r l s whom he dates" was considered to be le ss "severe" than a response of "wrong and should be punished severely in some way" as a value- judgment of a " g i r l having sexual r e la tio n s with the boys whom she d a te s." The behavioral s itu a tio n s depicted in these two items are sim ila r, and, thus, the value-judgment scale was considered to be equally applicable to the two items in so far as in te n s ity of judgment was measured. The im plications oi t h i s assumption obviated the use of a "paired comparisons" t e s t in comparing the responses of sub j e c t s to matched items (matched in terms of the e s s e n ti a l s im ila rity of the behavior depicted) in the questionnaire. The assumption was also made th a t the scale was not equally connotative when applied to items which depicted conceptu a l ly d if fe re n t types of human behavior. That is to say, a response of "wrong and should be punished severely in some way" as a value-judgment of a "boy throwing a rock through the window of a man's house" could not and was not consid ered to be a more "severe" response than a response of "wrong" and should be punished moderately in some way" as a value-judgment of, fo r instance, a "boy beating up h is fa- * th e r ." The scale was considered applicable to the compari son of responses toward items depicting behavioral s itu a 87 tio n s which were conceptually sim ilar; i t was not assumed to connote s u f fic ie n t g e n e ra lity so as to permit comparison of responses toward items which were conceptually d is s im ila r— and such was not attempted. A copy of the questionnaire which was presented to the subjects who took p art in t h i s study is included in the appendix. S t a t i s t i c a l Techniques 1he value-judgment scale which was constructed to measure the in te n s ity of the responses with which subjects judged the items in the questionnaire contained five a l t e r native choices. No assumption concerning the "numerical" weight of each a l te r n a ti v e , nor the "numerical" distan ces between the in te rv a ls , of the scale was made. The only as sumption was th a t the a lte r n a tiv e choices contained in the scale represented an ordinal sequence of five value-judg ments; the a lte r n a tiv e choices could be ranked to represent a sequential order of judgments which d iffe re d in in te n s ity , because the weights and distance of the scale in te rv a ls were not given numerical magnitude, and because, th e re fo re , no average scores were c a lcu la te d to represent a sample's normative judgment of any given questionnaire item, a l l of the s t a t i s t i c a l techniques employed in the an a ly sis of the data were nonparam etric. These s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s and tech niques focussed upon the d i s t r i b u t i o n and order of scale f re que nc ie s . 88 bse and assumptions of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov t e s t .— The Kolmogorov-Smirnov t e s t fo r d iffe re n c e s between two in dependent samples was used to t e s t the hypotheses: 1. That inmates and police o f f ic e r s would be sig n i f i c a n t l y d if f e r e n t in t h e i r judgments of the depicted types of in te rp e rso n al behavior (norma tiv e values) presented in the questionnaire. 2. That inmates would be s ig n ific a n tly more " le n i ent" than police o f f ic e r s in t h e i r judgments of these questionnaire items. The d i s t r i b u t i o n s of scale frequencies of the two samples of respondents were compared fo r each of the f i f t y question naire items by use of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov t e s t in order to t e s t these two hypotheses. As one of the more powerful nonparametric t e s t s , the Kolmogorov-Smirnov t e s t fo r d iffe re n c e s between two inde pendent samples is not predicated upon inferences concerning the normal d i s t r i b u t i o n or equal variance of the general populations from which the response scores of the two sam ples were drawn. The only assumptions in the use of t h i s s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t are: 1. That the respondents in each sample represent a random s e le c tio n from the populations concerning which findings are to be generalized. 2. That the respondents in one sample are drawn independently from the respondents in the other 89 sample and th a t there is no dependence of one sample's responses upon the other sample's r e sponses. 3. That an "ordinal" level of measurement has been a t t a i n e d . 4. That there is an underlying co n tin u ity in the d is t r i b u t i o n of scale in te rv a ls which are in corporated in to the ordinal s c a le .^ The two samples of respondents were tr e a te d as if they had been drawn randomly from two specified populations (speci fied in terms of c e r t a in b io -s o c ia l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ) ; the remaining assumptions of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov t e s t were met without q u a l if i c a t io n in t h i s study. Use and assumptions of the sign t e s t .— The sign t e s t was used to determine the extent and d ir e c tio n of the judg mental changes occurring w ithin each sample of respondents when conditioning sequences were appended to the question naire items. This s t a t i s t i c a l technique was used to t e s t the hypothesis th a t inmates would change t h e i r judgments in the d ir e c tio n of leniency to a g re a te r extent than police o f f ic e r s when these conditioning sequences were appended to the types of in te rp e rso n al behavior depicted in the question naire items. The sign t e s t was, th e re fo re , used fo r two ■^Sidney Siegel, Nonparametric S t a t i s t i c s fo r the Be havioral Sciences (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, T 9V0’)"," pp. 2 -3 , and pp. 127-36. 90 purposes. F i r s t , i t was used to determine the extent and d ir e c tio n of changes in response for each sample regarding tw enty-five p a irs of matched questionnaire items. Second, the sign t e s t was used to compare the number of instances in which the z-sc ores (not standardized scores) indicated a g re a te r change toward leniency among inmates than among po lic e o f f i c e r s with the number of instances (the number of paired questionnaire items) in which the z-sc ores indicated a g re a te r change toward leniency (or a le sse r change toward severity) among police o f f ic e r s than among inmates. The formula used for the sign t e s t in the l a t t e r case is the normal approximation to the binomial d i s t r i b u t i o n where N exceeds 2b and a p ro b a b ility of bO per cent is te s te d . The sign t e s t was also used to determine the extent of judgmental changes w ithin each sample in connection with selected questionnaire items which were matched insofar as the types of behavior depicted, but which were d i f f e r e n t i a ted in terms of three s o rts of questionnaire v a ria b le s. F in a lly , the sign t e s t was employed to assess the s i g n i f i cance of the discrepancy between the number of questionnaire items toward which inmates were more le n ien t than were po lic e o f f ic e r s (as measured by the Kolmogorov-dmirnov t e s t) with the number of items toward which police o f fic e r s were more le n ien t than were inmates. The significance of the fJCbid., pp. 71-74. 91 discrepancy between the number of items which d if f e r e n tia te d the samples to a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n ific a n t degree and the number of items which f a ile d to do so was assessed by r e f e r ence to the technique of binomial expansion. I he use of the sign t e s t is not dependent upon as sumptions concerning the form of the d is t r ib u t io n of d i f f e r ences nor does the t e s t assume th a t a l l subjects are drawn from the same population. The only assumption underlying t h i s t e s t is th a t the v ariable under co nsideration is im p l i c i t l y continuous and th a t the samples whose responses are analyzed are re la te d ; t h i s t e s t is applicable to experi- ments in which each subject serves as h is own co n tro l. Use and assumptions of the chi-square t e s t .--The chi-square t e s t was used to augment the findings concerning the e f f e c t of conditioning sequences upon the judgments ex pressed by the two samples of respondents. I h i s s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t was used in order to determine whether inmates and police o f f ic e r s d iffe re d s ig n ific a n tly in the way they com pared each p air of tw enty-five matched questionnaire items. The samples were compared in regard to; (1) the percentage of subjects who became le n ien t with the ad d itio n of condi tioning sequences to the questionnaire items; (2) the per centage of subjects who expressed id e n tic a l judgments of matched items containing and not containing conditioning 3Ibid., p. oB. 92 sequences; and (3) the percentage of subjects who become severe with the a d d itio n of conditioning sequences to the items. The chi-square t e s t was used to show how many of the conditioning sequences among the tw enty-five presented in fluenced one sample in a s ig n ific a n tly d if f e r e n t manner than the o th e r .4 The same general assumptions which have been d is cussed in connection with the use of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov t e s t apply to the use of the chi-square t e s t . One exception i s th a t the chi-square t e s t is applicable to the a n a ly sis of data which c o n s ist of frequencies in d isc re te ca teg o rie s; i t s use is not lim ited to data which are capable of being placed on an ordinal scale .^ The assumptions underlying the use of the chi-square t e s t were met as were the specific requirements regarding the size of expected c e l l frequencies. Use and assumptions of the contingency c o e f f i c i e n t . —Contingency c o e f f ic ie n ts were ca lcu la te d from the re la te d responses of the subjects composing each sample in regard to t h i r t y - f o u r p a irs of matched questionnaire items. They were ca lc u la te d in order to supplement the findings concerning the influence of three s o rts of questionnaire v a ria b le s upon . ^ h e source fo r the computational procedures and re quirements of the chi-square t e s t was: J . P. Guilford* Fundamental S t a t i s t i c s in Psychology and Education (New York:" McGraw-Hill Bo'ok Company, 1956}, pp. z28-39. ^ Siegel, op. c i t .. p. 104. 93 the judgments which were expressed by inmates and police o f f ic e r s toward the questionnaire items. The assumptions underlying the use of the contin gency c o e f f ic ie n t add nothing to the assumptions which have already been discussed in connection with the other s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s employed in t h i s study. The contingency coef f i c i e n t is used to measure the extent of a s so c ia tio n between two se ts of a t t r i b u t e s ; i t is applicable to the an a ly sis of data which are arranged in d is c re te c a te g o rie s or in nominal order. I t is also applicable to the a n a ly s is of data which are arranged in an ordinal r e la tio n s h ip . The specific r e quirement of the "size of c e l l frequencies" was met by co l lapsing the b x 6 contingency ta b le s into 2 x 2 ta b le s be fore the c a lc u la tio n of the contingency c o e f f ic ie n ts was ac c omp 1 i she d . ^ The following chapter p rese n ts the findings which were obtained by use of the methodological procedures and s t a t i s t i c a l techniques which have ju s t been discussed. ^ h e sources fo r the computation and a p p lic a tio n of the contingency c o e ff ic ie n t were: G uilford, op. c i t .. pp. 239-40, and pp. 31b-16; and Siegel, op. c i t .. pp. 196-200. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS OF THE STUDY The fin d in g s of t h i s study are enumerated and d i s cussed under fo u r p r in c ip a l to p ic s of i n t e r e s t . These top- ic s encompass the problems w ith which t h i s study was con cerned: (1) the d if f e r e n c e s between inm ates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s in t h e i r judgments of d ep ic te d ty p e s of in te rp e rs o n a l beh av io r, (2) the in flu en ce of d ep icte d c o n d itio n in g se quences upon the judgments of inmates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s toward th ese same ty p e s of in te rp e rs o n a l b eh a v io r, (3) the comparison of the judgments of inmates and p o lice o f f i c e r s toward d e p ic te d c a te g o r ie s of in te rp e rs o n a l beh av io r, and (4) the in flu en c e of q u e stio n n a ire v a r ia b le s upon the judg ments expressed by inm ates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s toward s e le c te d q u e stio n n a ire item s. Responses to Q uestionnaire Items Two of the hypotheses upon which t h i s study was p re d ic a te d were: (1) t h a t inm ates would d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from p o lic e o f f i c e r s in t h e i r judgments of s e le c te d ty p e s of in te r p e rs o n a l behavior d ep icte d in a q u e s tio n n a ire , and (2) th a t inm ates would be s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t than p o lic e 94 95 o f f i c e r s toward a s i g n i f i c a n t number of the q u e s tio n n a ire item s. T h is s e c tio n in c lu d e s the f in d in g s th a t have a bear ing upon th e se two hyp o th eses. The le v e l of s ig n i f i c a n c e .— D iffe re n c e s between in mates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s were co n sid ered to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t when the magnitude of the d iffe re n c e be tween the samples a t t a i n e d or surpassed the value of "D" which was s i g n i f i c a n t a t the .05 le v e l of s ig n ific a n c e . To a t t a i n the .05 le v e l of s ig n if ic a n c e , "D" had to eq u a l or su rp ass the value of .192 when a l l s u b je c ts answered any given q u e s tio n n a ire item . When the number of inm ates p lu s the number of p o lic e o f f i c e r s who answered a given q u estio n n a ire item was 198 or 199, the value of "D" had to be eq u a l to or g r e a t e r th a n .193 in o rd er to reach the .05 le v e l of s ig n if ic a n c e .^ In order to co n sid e r the " d ire c tio n " of the d iffe re n c e in judgments expressed by inmates and p o lic e of f i c e r s as s i g n i f i c a n t , the le v e l of s ig n ific a n c e was a ls o e s ta b li s h e d a t .05. The c h i-sq u a re approxim ations had to a t t a i n or su rp ass a magnitude of 5.99 in order to reach the .05 le v e l of s ig n ific a n c e . In summation, both d if f e r e n c e s and d i r e c t i o n a l d i f fe re n c e s between inm ates and p o lice o f f i c e r s were co n sid ered s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t when the num erical value of th ese ^The sm a lle st t o t a l sample number (th e number of inm ates p lu s th e number of p o lic e o f f i c e r s ) answering any given q u e s tio n n a ire item was 198. 96 d if f e r e n c e s a t ta i n e d or surpassed the magnitude which was s i g n i f ic a n t a t the .06 le v e l of s ig n ific a n c e . A s i g n i f ic a n t d i r e c t i o n a l d iffe re n c e between inmates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s in d ic a te d t h a t one sample was s i g n i f i c a n t l y "more le n ie n t" or "more severe" toward a given q u e stio n n a ire item th an the o th er sample. S ig n if ic a n t d if f e r e n c e s between sam ples.— Inmates were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t than p o lic e o f f i c e r s in t h e i r judgments of t h i r t y out of f i f t y item s p resen ted in the q u e s tio n n a ire . These t h i r t y item s are p rese n te d in rank order in Table 1; the item s are ta b le d in descending order from g r e a t e s t t o l e a s t magnitude of s i g n i f i c a n t d i r e c t i o n a l d if f e r e n c e s . Inmates were not only s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n i e n t th a n p o lic e o f f i c e r s toward th ese d ep icte d ty p e s of in te r p e r s o n a l b eh av io r, they were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d if f e r e n t from p o lic e o f f i c e r s in t h e i r judgments toward a l l but the l a s t two item s appearing in Table 1. Table 2 p re s e n ts the numer i c a l v alu es of d if fe re n c e s between inm ates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s toward a l l item s l i s t e d in Table 1. The items are pre sented in the same sequence in both t a b l e s . Inmates were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more severe than p o lice o f f i c e r s in t h e i r judgments of fo u r out of f i f t y item s pre sented in the q u e s tio n n a ire . S ta te d in an o th er way, t h i s a ls o means t h a t p o lic e o f f i c e r s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more len ie n t th an inm ates toward only fo u r item s p rese n ted in the 97 TABLE 1 QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS TOW ARD WHICH INMATES W ERE SIGNIFICANTLY M ORE LENIENT THAN POLICE OFFICERS ?*em Item as Phrased in Q uestionnaire No. 47 A man ta k e s $100 from the o f fic e where he i s employed in order to pay some of h is over-due b i l l s ; and th e n , a month l a t e r , he p u ts the money back in the o ffic e where i t was in the f i r s t p la c e . 30 A man "snatches" the purse of a r ic h woman who happens to be walking by, because he i s out of work and he needs money to care f o r h is sick c h ild re n . 3 A 16 year old boy has sexual r e l a t i o n s w ith the g i r l s whom he d a te s . 46 A 13 year old boy throws a rock through the window of a man's house because t h i s man i s mean and i s always swearing a t the c h ild r e n in the neighborhood. 29 A 16 year old boy has sexual r e l a t i o n s with the g i r l s whom he d a te s because they "want i t , " and ask him f o r i t . 24 A 16 year old g i r l has sexual r e l a t i o n s w ith the boys whom she d a te s . 48 A 16 year old g i r l has sexual r e l a t i o n s w ith the boys whom she d a te s because they "want i t and ask f o r i t . " 13 A woman ch arg es men money f o r l e t t i n g them have sexual r e l a t i o n s w ith h e r. 5 A man "sn atch es" the purse of a woman who happens to be w alking-by. 26 A man h i t s . a. person w ith h i s c a r but does not stop a t the scene of the ac c id e n t because he i s ru sh in g h is wife t o the h o s p i t a l . 2 A woman " l i f t s " the w a lle t of the man who happens to be s i t t i n g next t o h er a t a b a r. 36 A man has sexual r e l a t i o n s w ith a p r o s t i t u t e because h i s wife has l e f t him and he i s lo n e ly . 98 TABLE 1— C ontinued Item No. Item a s Phrased in Q u estio n n aire 28 A woman " l i f t s " the w a lle t of th e w ealthy man who hap* pens t o be s i t t i n g next to h er a t a b a r, because her husband has l e f t h er and she needs money f o r d o cto r b i l l s . 44 An 18 y ear old g i r l s e l l s nude photographs of h e r s e lf t o the p u b lis h e r of a "man's magazine" in order to e a rn money f o r h er c o lle g e e d u c a tio n . 31 A woman ch arg es men money f o r l e t t i n g them have sexual r e l a t i o n s w ith h e r , because h er husband l e f t h er and she has no means of su p p o rt. 49 A h ig h -sch o o l g i r l ta k e s some c l o th e s from a d e p a rt ment sto re w ithout paying f o r them, because she i s poor and cannot a ffo rd to buy the kind of c lo th e s which the popular g i r l s wear a t school. 22 A man ta k e s $100 from the o ffic e where he i s employed. 34 A man le av es h i s wife and c h ild r e n and makes no e f f o r t t o support them because h is wife makes h is l i f e a t home com pletely m iserable by the way she a c t s . 40 A man s t e a l s $100 from a home f o r orphans because he i s out of work and h is c h ild r e n are sic k . 20 An 18 year old g i r l s e l l s nude photographs of h e r s e lf t o the p u b lis h e r of a "man's m agazine." 42 A m in is te r of a church has sexual r e l a t i o n s w ith a p r o s t i t u t e because h is wife has l e f t him and he is lo n e ly . 6 A man has sexual r e l a t i o n s w ith a p r o s t i t u t e . 10 A 17 year old boy t r i e s t o rape a 16 year old g i r l who l i v e s in h is neighborhood. 15 A h ig h -sch o o l g i r l c o n tin u a lly c h e a ts on the exams which she i s given in h er c l a s s e s . 9 A man le av es h i s wife and c h ild r e n and makes no e f f o r t t o support them. 99 TABLE 1—C ontinued Item as Phrased in Q uestionnaire 41 A h ig h -sc h o o l g i r l c o n tin u a lly c h e a ts on the exams given in her c la sse s* because h er mother makes h er do so much work around th e home t h a t she has no time t o study h er school-work. 27 A 17 year old boy b eats-u p h i s f a th e r because he saw h i s f a t h e r b e a tin g h is mother. 39 A 17 year old boy t r i e s to rape a 16 year old g i r l who l i v e s in h i s neighborhood* because she has been " te a s ing" him fo r q u ite awhile and saying he was "chicken t o t r y i t . " 1 A 17 year old boy b eats-u p h i s f a t h e r . 45 A boy spreads l i e s about a g i r l who l i v e s in h is neighborhood* because t h i s g i r l t e l l s l i e s about him. 100 TABLE 2 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SAMPLES ON QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS TOW ARD WHICH INMATES W ERE SIGNIFICANTLY M ORE LENIENT THAN POLICE OFFICERS Item D ifferen ce Chi-Square Approximation 47 .b20 b4.08 30 .420 3b. 28 3 .410 33.62 46 .390 30.42 29 .370 27.38 24 .370 27.38 48 .370 27.38 13 .3b4 24.91 b .347 23.94 26 .340 23.12 2 .330 21.78 36 .31b 19.72 28 .310 19.22 44 .300 18.00 31 .290 16.82 49 .280 lb . 68 22 . 2b 0 12.bO 34 .240 11.b2 40 .240 11.b2 20 .240 11.52 42 .236 11.07 6 .230 10.58 10 .228 10.33 lb .220 9.68 9 .214 9.07 41 .210 8.82 27 .200 8.00 39 .200 8.00 1 .180 6.48 4b .180 6.48 q u e s tio n n a ir e . The fo u r item s toward which inmates were s i g n i f i c a n tly more severe th an p o lic e o f f i c e r s re p re s e n t only one type or categ o ry of in te rp e rs o n a l b eh av io r. Out of a l l the s e le c te d ty p e s of in te r p e r s o n a l behavior which were dep icted in the q u e s tio n n a ir e , only those item s p o rtra y in g "one p er son informing on another" were judged with s i g n i f i c a n t l y more s e v e r ity by inm ates th an by p o lic e o f f i c e r s . In a d d itio n to being s i g n i f i c a n t l y more severe on th ese four item s, inmates were a ls o s i g n i f i c a n t l y d if f e r e n t from p o lic e o f f i c e r s in t h e i r judgments toward "one person informing on another p erso n ." Table 3 p re s e n ts th ese four item s as they were d ep icte d in the q u e s tio n n a ire . Table 4 g iv es the num erical v alu es of the d if f e r e n c e s between the two samples reg ard in g the item s l i s t e d in Table 3. The d i f ference v alu es in Table 4 are preceded by minus signs; t h i s in d ic a te s t h a t p o lic e o f f i c e r s were more le n ie n t than in mates toward the item s l i s t e d . I n s ig n if ic a n t d if f e r e n c e s between sam ples.—The items d e p ic te d in the q u e stio n n a ire th a t were considered to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y i n s i g n i f i c a n t in d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g between the samples had " d iffe re n c e scores" below the magnitude of .192, and c h i-sq u a re approxim ation scores below the magni tude of 5 .9 9 . Numerical v alu es of the d iffe re n c e between inmates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s th a t were below these magnitudes 102 TABLE 3 QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS TOW ARD WHICH IMAATES W ERE SIGNIFICANTLY M ORE SEVERE THAN POLICE OFFICERS Item as Phrased in Q u estio n n aire 8 A h ig h -sch o o l boy t e l l s h is te a c h e r about one of the g i r l s who has been c h e a tin g on th e exams given in c l a s s . 43 A man observes a h ig h -sch o o l g i r l s h o p - lif tin g jew e l r y in a sto re and he t e l l s the sto re d e te c tiv e about i t , in order to g et a reward f o r doing so. 17 A man observes a h ig h -sc h o o l g i r l s h o p - lif tin g jew e l r y in a sto re and he t e l l s the sto re d e te c tiv e about i t . 33 A h ig h -sch o o l boy t e l l s h is te a c h e r about one of the g i r l s who has been c h e a tin g on the exams given in c l a s s , because he f e e l s t h a t h er ch e a tin g i s u n f a ir t o the o th e r stu d e n ts in the c l a s s . 103 TABLE 4 DIFFERENCES BElWEEN SAMPLES ON QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS TOW ARD WHICH INMATES W ERE SIGNIFICANTLY M ORE SEVERE THAN POLICE OFFICERS J-tem D ifference Chi-Square Approximation 8 - .416 3 4 .4 0 43 - . 4 0 0 3 2 .0 0 17 - . 3 9 0 3 0 .4 2 33 - . 3 6 0 2 5 .9 2 104 f a i l e d to a t t a i n the .05 le v e l of s ig n if ic a n c e . There were s ix te e n item s d ep icte d in the q u estio n naire toward which the judgments of inm ates and p o lic e of f i c e r s were i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . These items are p re sented in Table 5 in descending o rd er— from g r e a t e s t to le a s t magnitude of i n s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e . The c h i-sq u a re approxim ation scores r e l a t e d to the six te e n item s which did not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e the samples were below the c r i t i c a l value of 5 .9 9 . Thus, in mates were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t toward th e se items th an were p o lic e o f f i c e r s ; i . e . , p o lic e o f f i c e r s were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y more severe toward th ese item s than were in mates. Among the s ix te e n items which did not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e the samples, th e re were only fo u r which were judged more l e n ie n t ly by p o lic e o f f i c e r s th an by inm ates. Police o f f i c e r s were more le n ie n t than inm ates toward item s 32, 7, 25, and 11. Each of th e se fo u r item s d ep ic te d ty p es of in te r p e r s o n a l behavior occurring in f a m i l i a l s i t u a t i o n s . Items 32 and 7 were matched; item 32 was a re sta te m e n t of item 7 w ith the a d d itio n of a c o n d itio n in g sequence. The items which were matched w ith item s 25 and 11 (item 50 and item 37 r e s p e c tiv e ly ) and which co n tain ed c o n d itio n in g se quences were judged w ith more leniency by inmates than by p o lic e o f f i c e r s . None of th e se item s, however, d i f f e r e n t i ated the two samples s i g n i f i c a n t l y . 105 Item No. TABLE 5 QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS TOW ARD WHICH INMATES AND POLICE OFFICERS W ERE INSIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT IN THE DIRECTION OF THEIR JUDGMENTS Item as Phrased In Q u estio n n aire 35 A boy l i e s about h is s i s t e r because she t e l l s l i e s about him. 18 The m in is te r of a church has sexual r e l a t i o n s w ith a p r o s t i t u t e . 19 A h ig h -sch o o l g i r l ta k e s some c lo th e s from a d e p a rt ment sto re w ithout paying f o r them. 4 A man h i t s a person w ith h is c a r and does not even stop a t the scene of the a c c id e n t. 37 A woman c a l l s her 10 year old son a d i r t y name be cause he has been nagging a t h er a l l day long. 50 A woman ru n s -o ff and leav es h er husband and c h ild r e n fo r over six months, because h er husband makes h er l i f e a t home com pletely m iserable by the way he a c ts . lb A boy t e l l s l i e s about h is s i s t e r . 32 A man b e a ts h is 12 year old son u n t i l he i s b ru is e d , because the boy d e l i b e r a t e l y set a f i r e in the gar age . 7 A man b e a ts h is 12 year old son u n t i l he i s b ru is e d . 14 A mean s t e a l s *100 from a home f o r orphans. 21 A 13 year old boy throws a rock through th e window of a man's house. 23 A boy spreads l i e s about a g i r l who l iv e s in h is neighborhood. 38 The man in charge of a group of bo y -sco u ts b e a ts one of th e boys u n t i l he i s b ru ise d because the boy d e l i b e r a t e l y se t a f i r e in the m e e tin g -h a ll. 106 TABLE b—Continued Item No. Item as Phrased in Q uestionnaire 25 A woman ru n s -o ff and le av es h er husband and c h ild re n f o r over six months and g iv e s no e x p la n a tio n fo r le a v in g . 11 A woman c a l l s h er 10 year old son a d i r t y name. 12 The man in charge of a group of boy-scouts b e a ts one of the boys u n t i l he i s b ru ise d . 107 Table 6 p r e s e n ts the num erical v alu es of the d i f f e r ences and d i r e c t i o n a l d if f e r e n c e s between inmates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s f o r a l l of the item s included in the q u e stio n n aire which f a i l e d to d i f f e r e n t i a t e the samples s i g n i f i c a n t l y . Summary sta te m e n t. — Out of f i f t y item s p rese n te d in the q u e s tio n n a ire , th e re were e ig h t toward which inmates were more severe than p o lic e o f f i c e r s . Inmates were sig n i f i c a n t l y more severe than p o lic e o f f i c e r s toward fo u r of th ese e ig h t item s. Inmates were more le n ie n t than p o lic e o f f i c e r s toward fo rty -tw o out of f i f t y item s p rese n te d in the q u e s tio n n a ire . They were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t than p o lic e o f f i c e r s toward t h i r t y of th e se fo rty -tw o item s. Among the item s toward which inm ates were more severe th a n p o lic e o f f i c e r s , th e re were four which d i f f e r e n t i a t e d th e samples s i g n i f i c a n t l y . Among the item s toward which inm ates were more le n ie n t th an p o lic e o f f i c e r s , th e re were tw e n ty -e ig h t which d i f f e r e n t i a t e d the samples s i g n i f i c a n tly . There was a t o t a l of th ir ty - tw o out of f i f t y ques tio n n a ir e item s which s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d inmates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s . The two samples were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t in the d ir e c tio n of t h e i r judgments toward t h i r t y - four out of f i f t y item s p re se n te d in the q u e s tio n n a ire . The s t a t i s t i c a l e v a lu a tio n of the number of items e s ta b lis h in g s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s between the samples as compared w ith the number of item s f a i l i n g to d i f f e r e n t i a t e 108 TABLE 6 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SAMPLES ON QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS TOW ARD WHICH INMATES W ERE INSIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM POLICE OFFICERS IN THE DIRBCT ION OF THEIR JUDGMENTS Item D ifferen ce Chi-Square Approximation 3b .150 4.b0 18 . lbO 4.b0 19 .140 3.92 4 .130 3.38 37 .130 3.38 50 .090 1.62 16 .080 1.28 32 -.078 1.21 7 -.07b 1.12 14 .070 .98 21 .070 .98 23 .070 .98 38 .060 .72 2b -.031 .19 11 -.016 .05 12 .010 .02 109 the samples s i g n i f i c a n t l y i s p rese n ted in the "summary of fin d in g s" a t the c o n c lu sio n of t h i s c h a p te r. Influence of C o nditioning Sequences The t h i r d h y p o th e sis guiding t h i s study s ta te d th a t inmates would become more le n ie n t than p o lic e o f f i c e r s in t h e i r judgments toward s e le c te d ty p e s of in te r p e rs o n a l be hav io r when co n d itio n in g sequences were appended t o th ese d ep icted b e h a v io ra l s i t u a t i o n s . T his h y p o th e sis was p re d i c a te d upon the number of s u b je c ts in each sample whose judg ments of a given q u e s tio n n a ire item d i f f e r e d from t h e i r judgments of a matched item c o n ta in in g a c o n d itio n in g se quence. An a n a ly s is of the number of s u b je c ts in each sam ple who d id not ex p ress i d e n t i c a l judgments toward a given q u e s tio n n a ire item and i t s matched c o u n te rp a rt c o n ta in in g a c o n d itio n in g sequence was re q u ire d by the h y p o th e sis. The fin d in g s p re se n te d in t h i s s e c tio n are connected w ith the problem posed by the t h i r d h y p o th e sis of the study. S ig n if ic a n t changes in judgm ent. —The e x te n t and d i r e c t i o n of judgm ental changes e f f e c te d by co n d itio n in g sequences were computed by means of th e sign t e s t . For each sample, the number of s u b je c ts changing toward len ien cy was compared w ith the number of s u b je c ts changing toward sever i t y on a given item c o n ta in in g a c o n d itio n in g sequence. A change toward len ien cy was in d ic a te d when a s u b j e c t 's judg ment of an item c o n ta in in g a c o n d itio n in g sequence was lower 110 on the o rd in a l scale th a t h is judgment of the matched item which co n tain ed no such sequence. A change toward s e v e r ity was in d ic a te d when the re v e rse was t r u e . Tie sc o re s, in d ic a tin g i d e n t i c a l judgments of a su b je c t toward matched item s were om itted from the a n a ly s is as a requirem ent of the sign t e s t . In o rd er t o determ ine whether the number of s u b je c ts who changed t h e i r judgments in the d i r e c t i o n of leniency exceeded the number of s u b je c ts in th e same sample who changed in the d i r e c t i o n of s e v e r ity as a m a tte r of chance, the one per c e n t le v e l of s t a t i s t i c a l s ig n ific a n c e was chosen in s te a d of the fiv e p er ce n t le v e l which was used in co nnection w ith the Kolmogorov-Smirnov t e s t f o r d if fe re n c e s between two independent samples. T h is was done in order to provide a more s tr in g e n t b a s is f o r the d e te rm in a tio n of s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s w ith in a sin g le sample and t o com pensate f o r the f a c t t h a t the sign t e s t omits in c lu s io n of t i e sco res in i t s a p p lic a tio n . S ig n if ic a n t changes toward le n ie n c y .—There were twenty out of tw e n ty -fiv e c o n d itio n in g sequences toward which the number of inm ates changing t h e i r judgments in the d i r e c t i o n of len ien cy s i g n i f i c a n t l y exceeded the number of inmates who changed t h e i r judgments in the d i r e c t i o n of s e v e r ity . Inmates were s i g n i f i c a n t l y le n ie n t toward twenty c o n d itio n in g sequences p re se n te d in the q u e s tio n n a ire . I l l Out of a t o t a l of tw en ty -fiv e c o n d itio n in g se quence s, th e re were seventeen toward which the number of p o lic e o f f i c e r s changing t h e i r judgments in the d i r e c t i o n of len ien cy s i g n i f i c a n t l y exceeded the number of p o lic e of f i c e r s who changed t h e i r judgments in the d ir e c tio n of se v e r ity ; p o lic e o f f i c e r s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y le n ie n t toward seventeen out of tw e n ty -fiv e c o n d itio n in g sequences p re sented in the q u e s tio n n a ire . I n s ig n if ic a n t changes in judgm ent.—There were two c o n d itio n in g sequences toward which inmates were i n s i g n i f i c a n tly le n ie n t and two toward which th e y were i n s i g n i f i c a n t ly s e v e re . Police o f f i c e r s were i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y le n ie n t toward six c o n d itio n in g sequences. They were i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y severe toward one c o n d itio n in g sequence. S ig n if ic a n t changes toward s e v e r i t y .—There was only one c o n d itio n in g sequence toward which inmates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y severe. Both samples were sig n i f i c a n t l y severe toward the c o n d itio n in g sequence d e p ic te d in item 43. Table 7 p r e s e n ts the num erical v alu es and s i g n i f i cance le v e ls a s s o c ia te d w ith th e se num erical v alu es which in d ic a te the e x te n t to which the number of su b je c ts in each * sample changing in one d ir e c tio n on the o rd in a l scale ex ceeded the number of s u b je c ts changing t h e i r judgments in 112 TABLE 7 CHANGES IN THE RESPONSES OF INMATES AND POLICE OFFICERS WITH THE ADDITION OF CONDITIONING SEQUENCES TO QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS Inmate s P o lice O f f ic e r s Number Changing w ith Cond. Sequences Number Changing w ith Cond. Sequence s Item w ithout Cond. Sequences Matched Item with Cond. Sequences toward Leniency toward S everity 2 -Score Value Based o n Sign T est Probability That Z-Score as Large as Obtained Value D ue to Chance toward Leniency toward S ev erity Z - S c ore Value Based o n Sign T est Probability th a t Z-Sc ore as Large as Obtained Value D ue to Chance 1 27 87 3 8.7b <.00003 90 0 9 .39 <.00003 2 28 43 7 4.94 <.00003 30 8 3.41 .0003 3 29 26 14 1.74 .0409 34 11 3.28 <.0007 4 26 80 2 8.b0 <.00003 b2 2 6.68 <.00003 5 30 b6 2 6.96 <.00003 34 2 b . 17 <.00003 6 36 2b 13 1.79 .0367 19 23 -0 .4 6 .3228 7 32 67 2 7.71 <.00003 64 4 7.16 <.00003 8 33 39 14 3.30 .000b lb 4 2.29 .0101 9 34 48 4 b . 96 <.00003 32 b 4.28 <.00003 10 39 72 1 8.20 <.00003 b8 2 7.11 <.00003 11 37 38 16 2.86 .0021 24 17 0.94 .1736 12 38 b4 4 6.43 <.00003 46 4 b.65 <.00003 13 31 17 2b -1 .0 8 .1401 16 10 0.98 .163b 14 40 64 b 6.99 <.00003 38 0 9.2b C. 00003 lb 41 47 6 b.49 <.00003 4b 6 b .3 2 <.00003 16 3b b l b 6 .02 <.00003 3b 4 4.81 <.00003 17 43 11 4b -2 .9 4 .0016 1 27 -4 .7 2 <.00003 18 42 31 9 3.32 .000b 22 9 2.16 \0 1 b 4 19 49 36 2 b.44 <.00003 22 2 3.88 <.00007 20 44 23 b 3.21 .0007 18 11 1.12 .1314 21 46 46 1 6.41 <.00003 13 11 0.20 .4207 22 47 73 1 8.26 <.00003 43 1 6.19 <.00003 23 4b bb 4 6 . b l <.00003 3b 2 b.26 <.00003 24 48 13 17 -O.bb .2912 17 11 0.94 .1736 2b bO 46 7 b. 22 <. 00003 26 8 2.91 .0018 113 the opposite d i r e c t i o n . The z-sc ores in d ic a te the magnitude of the d if fe re n c e between the number of su b je c ts changing toward leniency and the number changing toward s e v e r ity w ith the a d d itio n of c o n d itio n in g sequences to q u e stio n n a ire item s. The z -sc o re s preceded by minus signs in d ic a te th a t the number of s u b je c ts in each sample who changed t h e i r judgments toward s e v e r ity exceeded the number of s u b je c ts who changed t h e i r judgments toward len ien cy . Table 8 p r e s e n ts the d ep icte d co n d itio n in g sequences toward which the number of inmates and p o lic e o f f ic e r s changing t h e i r judgments toward len ien cy was not s i g n i f i c a n tly g r e a te r than the number changing toward s e v e r ity . Table 9 p r e s e n ts the d ep icted co n d itio n in g se quences toward which the number of s u b je c ts in each sample changing t h e i r judgments toward s e v e r ity exceeded the number changing toward le n ie n c y . Tables 10 and 11 p re se n t the d ep icted co n d itio n in g sequences toward which the two samples of respondents changed t h e i r judgments s i g n i f i c a n t l y in the d i r e c t i o n of le n ien c y . Comparative d if f e r e n c e s between sam ples.— In order to determ ine whether the e f f e c t of c o n d itio n in g sequences upon the judgments expressed by inm ates was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the e f f e c t of th e se sequences upon the judg ments expressed by p o lic e o ffic e rs * the ty p e s of changes in 114 TABLE 8 CONDXI' IONING SEQUENCES TOW ARD WHICH SAMPLES W ERE INSIGNIFICANTLY LENIENT Item No. Item as Phrased in Q u estio n n aire Item No. C o n d itio n in g Sequence Appended to Matched Item Inmates 3 A 16 year old boy has sexual r e l a t i o n s with the g i r l s whom he d a te s . 29 Because they "want i t " and ask him f o r i t . 6 A man has sexual r e l a t i o n s w ith a p r o s t i t u t e . 36 Because h is wife has l e f t him and he i s lo n e ly . P o lic e O f f ic e r s 11 A woman c a l l s h er te n year old son a d i r t y name. 37 Because he has been nag ging a t her a l l day long. 13 A woman ch arg es men money f o r l e t t i n g them have sexual r e l a t i o n s w ith h e r. 31 Because her husband l e f t h er and she has no means of support. 18 The m in is te r of a church has sexual r e la t i o n s w ith a p ro s t i t u t e . 42 Because h i s wife has l e f t him and he i s lo n e ly . 20 An 18 year old g i r l s e l l s nude photographs of h e r s e lf t o the pub l i s h e r of a "man's magazine." 44 In order t o ea rn money f o r h er c o lleg e educa ti o n . 21 A 13 year old boy throws a rock through the window of a man's h o u se. 46 Because t h i s man i s a l ways swearing a t the c h ild r e n in the neigh borhood. 24 A 16 year old g i r l has sexual r e l a t i o n s w ith the boys whom she d a te s . 48 Because they "want i t and ask f o r i t . " 115 TABLE 9 CONDITIONING SEQUENCES TOW ARD WHICH SAMPLES W ERE SEVERE n a n a a c a a n a a n a n a n s B s s a s M a c f l a n c i Item Item as P hrased in Item C onditioning Sequence No. Q u estio n n aire No. Appended to Matched Item Inmate s 13 A woman ch arg es men money f o r l e t t i n g them have sexual r e l a t i o n s w ith h e r. 31 Because h er husband l e f t her and she has no means of support. 17 A man observes a high- school g i r l shop l i f t ing jew elry in a sto re and he t e l l s the sto re d e te c tiv e about i t . 43 In o rd er to get a reward fo r doing so. 24 A 16 year old g i r l has sexual r e l a t i o n s w ith the boys whom she date s. 48 Because they "want i t and ask f o r i t . " P o lice Off ic e r s 6 A man has sexual r e l a t i o n s w ith a p r o s t i t u t e 36 • Because h is wife has l e f t him and he i s lo n e ly . 17 A man observes a high- school g i r l shop l i f t ing je w e lry in a sto re and he t e l l s the sto re d e te c tiv e about i t . 43 In order t o get a reward f o r doing so. 116 TABLE 10 CONDITIONING SEQUENCES TOW ARD WHICH INMATES W ERE SIGNIFICANTLY LENIENT Item Item as Phrased in No* Q uestionnaire 1 A 17 year old boy b e a ts up h is fath e r* 2 A woman " l i f t s " the w a lle t of the man who happens t o be s i t t i n g next t o h er a t a b a r. 4 A man h i t s a person w ith h is c a r but does not stop a t the scene of the a c c id e n t. b A man "snatches" the purse of a woman who happens t o be walking by 7 A man b e a ts h is 12 year old son u n t i l he i s b ru ise d . 8 A high school boy t e l l s h i s te a c h e r about one of the g i r l s who has been ch e a tin g on the exams given in c l a s s . 9 A man le av es h i s wife and c h ild re n and makes no e f f o r t to support them. Item C o n d itio n in g Sequence No. Appended t o Matched Item 27 Because he saw h is f a t h e r b eatin g h is mother. 28 A woman " l i f t s " the wal l e t of the w ealthy man who happens t o be s i t tin g next to h e r a t a bar--B ecause h er husband has l e f t h er and she needs money f o r d octor b i l l s . 26 Because he i s rushing h is wife t o the ho sp i t a l . 30 A man "snatches" the purse of a r ic h woman who happens t o be walk ing by— Because he i s out of work and he needs money t o care f o r h is sick c h ild r e n . 32 Because the boy d e lib e r a t e l y set a f i r e in the g a ra g e . 33 Because he f e e l s th a t h er c h e atin g i s u n f a ir t o the o th er stu d e n ts in the c l a s s . 34 Because h i s wife makes h i s l i f e a t home com p l e t e l y m iserable by the way she a c ts . 117 TABLE 10— C ontinued Item Item as Phrased in No. Q u estio n n aire 10 A 17 year old boy t r i e s t o rape a 16 year old g i r l who l i v e s in h is neighborhood. 11 A woman c a l l s her 10 year old son a d i r t y name. 12 The man in charge of a group of boy scouts b e a ts one of the boys u n t i l he i s b ru ise d . 14 A man s t e a l s £100 from a home f o r orphans. 16 A high school g i r l con t i n u a l l y c h e a ts on the exams given in her c l a s s e s . 16 A boy t e l l s l i e s about h is s i s t e r . 18 A m in is te r of a church has sexual r e l a t i o n s w ith a p r o s t i t u t e . 19 A high school g i r l ta k e s some c lo th e s from a departm ent sto re w ithout paying f o r them. 20 An 17 year old g i r l s e l l s nude photographs of h e r s e l f to the pub l i s h e r of a "man's" magazine. Item C onditioning Sequence No. Appended t o Matched Item 39 Because she has been " te a s in g " him f o r q u ite awhile and saying he was "chicken" to t r y i t . 37 Because he has been nag ging a t her a l l day lo n g . 38 Because the boy d e l ib e r a t e l y se t a f i r e in the meeting h a l l . 40 Because he i s out of work and h i s c h ild r e n are sic k . 41 Because h er mother makes her do so much work around home t h a t she has no time to study her school work. 36 Because she t e l l s l i e s about him. 42 Because h i s wife has l e f t him and he i s lo n e ly . 49 Because she i s poor and cannot a ff o rd t o buy the kind of c lo th e s which the popular g i r l s wear a t school. 44 In order to e a rn money f o r h er c o lle g e educa t i o n . 118 TABLE 1 0 -- C ontinued Item Item as Phrased in Item C o nditioning Sequence No. Q u estio n n aire No. Appended t o Matched Item 21 A 13 year old boy throws a rock through the window of a man's h o u se. 22 A man ta k e s ilQO from the o f fic e where he i s employed. 23 A boy spreads l i e s about a g i r l who liv e s in h is neighborhood. 2b A woman r u n s -o ff and le av es h er husband and c h ild re n f o r over six months and g iv e s no ex p la n a tio n fo r le a v in g . 46 Because t h i s man i s mean and i s always swearing a t the c h ild re n in the neighborhood. 47 In order to pay some of h i s over-due b i l l s ; and th en a month l a t e r , he p u ts the money back in the o ffic e where i t was in the f i r s t p la c e . 4b Because the g i r l t e l l s l i e s about him. bO Because her husband makes her l i f e a t home com pletely m iserable by the way he a c ts . 119 TABLE 11 CONDITIONING SEQUENCES TOW ARD WHICH POLICE OFFICERS W ERE SIGNIFICANTLY LENIENT Item Item as Phrased in Item C o n d itio n in g Sequence No. Q u estio n n aire 1 A 17 year old boy b e a ts up h is f a t h e r . 2 A woman " l i f t s " the w a lle t of the man who happens t o be s i t t i n g next to h er a t a b a r. 3 A 16 year old boy has sexual r e l a t i o n s w ith the g i r l s whom he d a te s . 4 A man h i t s a person w ith h is car but does not stop a t the scene of the a c c id e n t. 5 A man "snatches" the purse of a woman who happens t o be walking by. 7 A man b e a ts h i s 12 year old son u n t i l he i s b ru ise d . 8 A high school boy t e l l s h is te a c h e r about one of the g i r l s who has been c h e atin g on the exams given in c l a s s . No. Appended t o Matched Item 27 Because he saw h is f a t h e r b ea tin g h is mother. 28 A woman " l i f t s " the wal l e t of the w ealthy man who happens t o be s i t tin g next t o h er a t a bar— Because h er husband has l e f t h er and she needs money f o r d octor b i l l s . 29 Because th e y want i t and ask him f o r i t . 26 Because he i s ru sh in g h is w ife to the h o sp i t a l . 30 A man "snatches" the purse of a r i c h woman who happens to be walk ing by— Because he i s out of work and he needs money to care f o r h is sick c h ild r e n . 32 Because th e boy d e l ib e r a t e l y se t a f i r e in the g a ra g e . 33 Because he f e e l s th a t h er ch e a tin g i s u n f a ir to the o th e r stu d e n ts in the c l a s s . 120 TABLE 11— C ontinued Item Item as Phrased in Item C o nditioning Sequence No. Q u estio n n aire No. Appended t o Matched Item 9 A man le av es h i s wife and c h ild re n and makes no e f f o r t to support them. 10 A 17 year old boy t r i e s to rape a 16 year old g i r l who l iv e s in h is neighborhood. 12 The man in charge of a group of boy scouts b e a ts one of the boys u n t i l he i s b ru ise d . 14 A man s t e a l s $100 from a home f o r orphans. lb A high school g i r l con t i n u a l l y c h e a ts on the exams given in her c l a s s e s . 10 A boy t e l l s l i e s about h i s s i s t e r . 19 A high school g i r l ta k e s some c lo th e s from a departm ent sto re w ithout paying f o r them. 22 A man ta k e s $100 from the o f fic e where he is employed. 23 A boy spreads l i e s about a g i r l who l iv e s in h i s neighborhood. 34 Because h i s wife makes h is l i f e a t home com p l e t e l y m iserable by the way she a c ts . 39 Because she has been " te a sin g " him f o r q u ite awhile and saying he was "chicken" to t r y i t . 38 Because the boy d e lib - a t e ly set f i r e in the meeting h a l l . 40 Because he i s out of work and h is c h ild re n are sic k . 41 Because h er mother makes her do so much work around home t h a t she has no time t o study her school work. 3b Because she t e l l s l i e s about him. 49 Because she i s poor and cannot a ffo rd t o buy the kind of c lo th e s which the popular g i r l s wear a t school. 47 In order t o pay some of h i s over-due b i l l s ; and then a month l a t e r , he p u ts the money back in the o ffic e where i t was in the f i r s t p la c e . 4b Because the g i r l t e l l s l i e s about him. TABLE 11—Continued 121 Item Item as Phrased in Item C o nditioning Sequence No. Q u estio n n aire No. Appended to Matched Item 25 A woman ru n s -o ff and le av es h er husband and c h ild r e n f o r over six months and g iv es no ex p la n a tio n f o r le a v in g . 50 Because her husband makes her l i f e a t home com pletely m iserable by the way he a c ts . 122 judgment were conpared by the c h i-sq u a re t e s t . On each of the tw en ty -fiv e p a i r s of matched ques tio n n a ir e item s, inmates were compared w ith p o lic e o f f i c e r s in reg ard to : (1) the percentage of s u b je c ts changing t h e i r judgments toward le n ien cy on the item co n ta in in g c o n d itio n ing sequences, (2) the percentage of s u b je c ts ex p ressin g i d e n t i c a l judgments of matched item s, and (3) the percentage of s u b je c ts chaning t h e i r judgments toward s e v e r ity on the item c o n ta in in g c o n d itio n in g sequences. Table 12 p r e s e n ts the num erical v alu es of the d if f e re n c e s between inm ates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s in comparing the tw en ty -fiv e p a i r s of matched q u e s tio n n a ire item s. The d if f e r e n c e s between inmates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s in comparing the matched q u e s tio n n a ire item s were regarded as s i g n i f i c a n t when the num erical v alu es of th e se d i f f e r ences a tta in e d or surpassed a magnitude of 5 .9 9 . T h is i s the value of c h i-sq u a re (with two degrees of freedom) which is s i g n i f ic a n t at the .05 le v e l of s ig n ific a n c e . In te n out of tw e n ty -fiv e in s ta n c e s , inm ates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t in t h e i r com parisons of item s con ta in in g no c o n d itio n in g sequences w ith matched item s con ta in in g c o n d itio n in g sequences. The in d ic a tio n was t h a t in mates became s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t th an p o lic e o f f i c e r s in e ig h t out of th e se te n in s ta n c e s in which the two samples d if f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y in comparing the matched q u estio n naire item s. Inmates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s d if f e r e d s i g n i f i - 123 TABLE 12 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INMATES AND POLICE OFFICERS IN THE COMPARISON OF QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS WITH MATCHED ITEMS CONTAINING CONDITIONING SEQUENCES Inmate s P olice O ffic e rs | Item without 1 Cond. Seq. Matched Item with Cond. Seq. Percentage Changing toward Leniency with Cond. Seq. Percentage not Changing on Items Percentage Changing toward Severity with Cond. Seq. Percentage Changing toward Leniency with Cond. Seq. Percentage not Changing on Items Percentage Changing toward Severity with Cond. Seq. D ifferences between Samples Based o n Chi- Square Test 1 27 87 10 3 90 10 0 1.36 2 28 43 bO 7 30 62 8 3.06 3 29 26 60 14 34 bb 11 1.64 4 26 80 18 2 b2 46 2 16.92 5 30 b6 42 2 34 64 2 9.06 6 36 2b 62 13 19 b6 23 3.74 7 32 68 30 2 6b 31 4 0.20 8 33 39 47 14 lb 81 4 2b. 34 9 34 48 48 4 33 62 b 3.96 10 39 72 27 1 b9 39 2 2.94 11 37 38 46 16 24 b9 17 4.80 12 38 b4 42 4 46 bO 4 1.34 13 31 17 b8 2b 16 74 10 8.40 14 40 64 31 b 38 62 0 19.00 lb 41 47 47 6 4b 49 6 0.08 16 3b b l 44 b 3b 61 4 b .06 17 43 11 44 4b 1 72 27 17.06 18 42 31 60 9 22 69 9 1.70 19 49 3t> 62 2 22 76 2 4.80 20 44 23 72 b 18 71 11 1.96 21 46 46 b3 1 13 76 11 27.88 22 47 73 26 1 43 b6 1 18.48 23 4b bb 41 4 3b 63 2 8.40 24 48 13 70 17 17 72 11 1.84 2b bO S S B 46 47 7 26 66 8 8.82 124 c a n tly in the com parisons of item 13 w ith 31, and item 17 w ith 43. The in d ic a tio n was t h a t p o lic e o f f i c e r s became s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t th a n inm ates, or s i g n i f i c a n t l y le s s severe th an inm ates w ith the a d d itio n of the c o n d itio n ing sequence c o n tain e d in item 43. However, since the p e r centage of inm ates changing t h e i r judgments toward len ien cy on item 43 exceeded the p ercentage of p o lic e o f f i c e r s chang ing toward len ien cy on t h i s item , and since Table 7 shows t h a t inm ates a c tu a l ly changed toward s e v e r ity to a l e s s e r e x te n t on t h i s item th an did p o lic e o f f i c e r s , the d iffe re n c e in the d i r e c t i o n a l change between the two samples (reg ard in g items 17 and 43) cannot be accepted as s i g n i f i c a n t . In r e gard to the comparison of item s 13 and 31, inm ates were more severe toward item 31, which co n tain e d the c o n d itio n in g se quence; p o lic e o f f i c e r s were more severe toward item 13. Thus, the s i g n i f i c a n t d if fe re n c e between the samples in com parin g th e se two matched item s in d ic a te s t h a t p o lic e o f f i c e r s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t than inm ates, i . e . , p o lic e o f f i c e r s became s i g n i f i c a n t l y le s s severe th a n in mates in t h e i r judgments of the behavior d e p ic te d in item 13 when a c o n d itio n in g sequence was added. Inmates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y in t h e i r com parisons of te n out of tw e n ty -fiv e p a i r s of matched q u e s tio n n a ire item s. The number of such in s ta n c e s was, in i t s e l f , s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t when compared w ith the number of in s ta n c e s in which the com parisons of the 125 matched item s showed no s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n s between the two samples. T his fin d in g i s e la b o ra te d more f u l l y in the summary statem ent a t the end of t h i s c h a p te r. Summary sta te m e n t. —There were twenty out of tw enty- fiv e in s ta n c e s in which co n d itio n in g sequences brought about s i g n i f i c a n t changes toward len ien cy among inm ates. There were seventeen in s ta n c e s in which c o n d itio n in g sequences brought s i g n i f i c a n t judgm ental changes in the d i r e c t i o n of len ien cy from p o lic e o f f i c e r s . The number of in s ta n c e s in which c o n d itio n in g sequences brought s i g n i f i c a n t judgm ental changes toward len ien cy among inmates as compared w ith the number of in s ta n c e s in which the c o n d itio n in g sequences in fluenced the inmates otherw ise was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t. The number of in s ta n c e s in which c o n d itio n in g se quences in flu en ced p o lic e o f f i c e r s toward a s i g n i f ic a n t judgm ental change in the d i r e c t i o n of len ien cy was a ls o s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t as compared w ith the number of in s ta n c e s in which p o lic e o f f i c e r s were otherw ise in flu en ced by the c o n d itio n in g sequences. These s p e c if ic f a c t s are more f u l l y d isc u sse d in th e summary statem ent a t the con c lu s io n of t h i s c h a p te r. The z -sc o re s (p resen ted in Table 7) in d ic a te the size of the d iffe re n c e between the number of s u b je c ts in each sample who changed toward leniency and the number of s u b je c ts who changed toward s e v e r ity due to the e f f e c t of 126 c o n d itio n in g sequences. In twenty out of tw en ty -fiv e in sta n c e s, c o n d itio n in g sequences e i t h e r brought about a r e l a t i v e l y g r e a t e r change toward leniency among inmates than among p o lic e o f f i c e r s or a r e l a t i v e l y sm aller change toward s e v e r ity among inmates th a n among p o lic e o f f i c e r s . T h is was in d ic a te d by comparing the magnitude of the z -sc o re s f o r each sample on each of the tw e n ty -fiv e p a i r s of matched item s. For example, the z-score of inm ates' judgments of item s 4 and 26 e q u a ls 8.50; the z-score of p o lic e o f f i c e r 's jusgm ents of th e se same two item s e q u a ls 6 .6 8 . The magni tude of the form er z-score exceeds t h a t of the l a t t e r , in d ic a tin g th a t the e x te n t of le n ie n t changes brought about by the c o n d itio n in g sequence co n tain ed in item 26 was r e l a t i v e ly g r e a t e r among inmates th an among p o lic e o f f i c e r s . As has been s ta te d , in comparing the z-sc ores based on the re sp o n se s of inmates w ith those based on the r e sponses of p o lic e o f f i c e r s , i t was dem onstrated t h a t th e re were tw enty out of tw e n ty -fiv e in s ta n c e s where the d i f f e r ence in the magnitude of the z -sc o re s in d ic a te d th a t in mates became r e l a t i v e l y more le n ie n t th a n p o lic e o f f i c e r s w ith the a d d itio n of c o n d itio n in g sequences to the q u estio n n a ire item s. When the d iscrepancy between the twenty in sta n c e s in which inmates became r e l a t i v e l y more le n ie n t th an p o lic e o f f i c e r s and the fiv e in s ta n c e s in which p o lic e of f i c e r s became r e l a t i v e l y more le n ie n t th an inmates was t e s te d a g a in s t the p r o b a b i l i t y of eq u al occurrence (p=q=50 127 per c e n t) the p r o b a b i l i t y of the observed d iffe re n c e (or d iscrep an cy ) obtained a magnitude of .002. There were two chances in one thousand t h a t the observed d iscrepancy might have occurred by chance alo n e. T his in d ic a te d t h a t the con d iti o n in g sequences appended to the q u e s tio n n a ire item s had the e f f e c t of in c u rrin g s i g n i f i c a n t l y more judgm ental changes in th e d i r e c t i o n of len ien cy from inmates th a n from p o lic e o f f i c e r s . Responses to C a te g o rie s of Behavior There were s e v e ra l c a te g o r ie s of item s d e p ic tin g sim ila r ty p e s of in te rp e rs o n a l behavior p re se n te d in the q u e s tio n n a ire : (1) s ix item s d e p ic te d "one person beating a n o th e r," (2) fo u r item s d e p ic te d "one person inform ing on a n o t h e r ,” (3) te n item s d ep icte d " t h e f t , " (4) twelve items d e p ic te d "p ro scrib ed sexual b e h a v io r," (5) fo u r item s de p ic te d "fam ily d e s e r tio n ," (6) fo u r item s d ep icte d "one p e r son lying about a n o th e r," and (7) te n item s d e p ic te d m iscel laneous ty p e s of beh av io r. The fin d in g s concerning the judgm ental d if f e r e n c e s between inm ates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s toward th e s e c a te g o r ie s of behavior are p rese n ted and d iscu ssed in t h i s s e c tio n . One person b e a tin g a n o th e r. — Six q u e s tio n n a ire item s d e p ic te d one person b e a tin g an o th e r. The two samples were d i f f e r e n t i a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y by only one of th e se item s. Inmates were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t th a n p o lic e o f f i c e r s 128 in t h e i r judgment of two of the item s. Table 13 p re s e n ts the num erical v alu es of the d if f e r e n c e s between the two sam p le s . Inmates were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t and s i g n i f i c a n tly more le n ie n t th an p o lic e o f f i c e r s in t h e i r judgment of "a 17 year old boy b eating-up h i s f a t h e r — because h is f a th e r was b eatin g h is m other." Item 1 d ep icted the same type of in te rp e rs o n a l behavior w ith the om ission of the con d itio n in g sequence. The two samples were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by t h i s item , but inm ates were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t th a n p o lic e o f f i c e r s in t h e i r judgment of i t . Item 7 d e p ic te d "a man beatin g h is s o n ;" item 12 d ep icted "a scoutm aster b ea tin g a boy-sc o u t." The resp e c tiv e c o n d itio n in g sequences appended to th e se items did not in c rease the d iffe re n c e between the samples to a s i g n i f ic a n t le v e l. P o lice o f f i c e r s were s l i g h t l y more le n ie n t than in mates in t h e i r judgment of a man beatin g h is son, while inmates were s l i g h t l y more le n ie n t than p o lic e o f f i c e r s in t h e i r judgment of a scoutm aster b ea tin g a boy scout. One person inform ing on a n o th e r.—The four items p re se n ted in the q u e s tio n n a ire which d ep icted one person informing on another were the only ones toward which inmates expressed judgments which were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more severe th a n those of p o lic e o f f i c e r s . The num erical d if fe re n c e - values r e l a t e d to th e se q u e stio n n a ire item s are p rese n ted in ro oo o 010 0.02 .99 3 8 .060 0.72 c IT ro -j o < jj r o o -j 00 ro -o o 00 o O' 00 o O ’ ro -o ro o o 00 o o o ro No. of Item w ithout C o n d itio n in g Sequences D iffe re n ces between Samples (Based on Kol mogorov- Smirnov T est) Chi-Square Approxima tio n s P r o b a b ilit ie s That Chi- Square Approximations Due to Chance No. of Matched Item w ith C onditioning Sequences D iffe ren ces between Samples Chi-Square Approximations P r o b a b ilit ie s That Chi- Square Approximations Due to Chance u 2 *n m m ore s o Xtnrn M 2 O50O r K » . K g O i ? ^ M 50 O ' , H m tv 5 : oo coo > M * V H O O W2 0 2 Z H ci > o m m > 50 ^ z m o o * T 1 H i - j t l X H h S S g = 05 50 < /) ro o TA BLE 13 130 Table 14. Item 8 d ep icte d "a boy t e l l i n g h is te a c h e r about a g i r l who cheated in sc h o o l," and item 17 d ep icte d "a man t e l l i n g a sto re d e te c tiv e about a g i r l shop*lifting jew el r y ." Inmates remained s i g n i f i c a n t l y more severe than p o lic e o f f i c e r s a f t e r c o n d itio n in g sequences were appended to th e se item s. T h e f t.— Inmates were both s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t and s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t than p o lic e o f f i c e r s in t h e i r judgments of e ig h t out of te n q u e s tio n n a ire item s d e p ic tin g t h e f t . The two items d e p ic tin g t h e f t toward which the samples did not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y in t h e i r judgments d e a lt w ith: "a man s te a lin g one hundred d o l l a r s from a home fo r orphans" (item 14), and "a h ig h -sch o o l g i r l ta k in g c lo th e s from a department sto re w ithout paying fo r them" (item 19). With the a d d itio n of co n d itio n in g sequences to th ese two item s (contained in item s 40 and 49 r e s p e c t i v e l y ) , inmates were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from p o lic e o f f i c e rs . The c o n d itio n in g sequences appended to the items d e p ic tin g t h e f t e f f e c te d a g r e a te r d iffe re n c e between the samples in a l l but one in s ta n c e . The judgments of the two samples d i f f e r e d more in connection w ith "a woman l i f t i n g the w a lle t of the man who happens to be s i t t i n g next to her a t a bar" than they did when the "o b je c t of sanction" de p ic te d in t h i s item (item 2) was given the excuse t h a t "the ► — — J 00 1 1 . • tn * > o I — O O ' C J (a) o 4 s - • * 4 ^ to O • • o o o c No. of Item w ithout C on d ition in g Sequences D ifferences between Samples Chi-Square Approximations P r o b a b ilit ie s That Chi- Square Approximations Due to Chance No. of Matched Item with C onditioning Sequences D ifferences between Samples Chi-Square Approximations P r o b a b ilit ie s That Chi- Square Approximations Due to Chance 2 T ] T 1 H rn X ? ) rn m S S tn £20(0 X m m tn tr S S o S S o S i S 2 rn m rn S > (fl2 m r 2 H M S S Q 2 m m * tj = 3J O O 131 132 man s i t t i n g next t o her was w ealthy and (b esid e s) her hus band had l e f t h er and she needed money f o r d octor b i l l s . " The num erical v alu es of the d if f e r e n c e s between the samples in t h e i r judgments of t h e f t are p resen ted in Table 15. P ro sc rib e d sexual b e h a v io r.— Inmates were more le n ie n t th an p o lic e o f f i c e r s in t h e i r judgments of every q u e s tio n n a ire item d e p ic tin g sexual beh av io r. A ll of th e se item s, w ith the ex c ep tio n of item 18, s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d the two samples. Item 18 d ep icted "a m in is te r of a church having sexual r e l a t i o n s w ith a p r o s t i t u t e . " In mates were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t th a n p o lic e o f f i c e r s in t h e i r judgment of t h i s item. In item 42, the m inis t e r was given the excuse t h a t "h is wife had l e f t him and he was lo n e ly ." Inmates were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t than p o lic e o f f i c e r s toward item 42, which contained a c o n d itio n ing sequence . The rem aining item s d e p ic te d : 3, "a 16 year old boy having sexual r e l a t i o n s w ith the g i r l s whom he d a te s ;" 6, "a man having sexual r e l a t i o n s w ith a p r o s t i t u t e ; " 10, a 17 year old boy attem p tin g to rape a 16 year old g i r l liv in g in h is neighborhood;" 13, "a woman charging men money fo r l e t t i n g men have sexual r e l a t i o n s w ith h e r;" and 24, "a 16 year old g i r l having sexual r e l a t i o n s w ith the boys whom she d a t e s ." Inmates were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t than p o lic e No. of Item w ithout C o n d itio n in g Sequences D ifferen ces between Samples Chi-Square Approximations P r o b a b i l i t i e s That Chi- Square Approximations Due to Chance No. of Matched Item w ith C onditioning Seque nces D ifferen ces Sample s between Chi-Square Approximat ions P r o b a b ilit ie s th a t Chi- Square Approximations Due to Chance o T d m m £ 6 30 S) S 0JJJJ S tim h O H S b is j> H I_ i r o z s i i □ Dm m z xco& fn H H i M •v H O O - z v , > o m m rn O T J m *n m O s: m w 50 to > C D U 1 133 134 o f f ic e r s in t h e i r judgments of each of th ese item s. They remained s i g n i f ic a n t ly more le n ie n t than p o lic e o f f ic e r s with the a d d itio n of co n d itio n in g sequences to these item s. Table 16 p re s e n ts the num erical values of the d iffe re n c e be tween the samples. Family d e s e r tio n . —There were fo u r items p resen ted in the q u estio n n aire which depicted fam ily d e s e rtio n . Two of th ese items d i f f e r e n t i a t e d the samples s ig n i f ic a n t ly ; two items f a i l e d to d i f f e r e n t i a t e inmates from p o lice o f f i c e r s a t a s ig n if ic a n t le v e l. Inmates were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n i ent than p o lic e o f f ic e r s in t h e i r judgment of "a man who leaves h is wife and c h ild re n and makes no e f f o r t to support them." They were a lso s i g n i f ic a n t ly more le n ie n t than po lic e o f f ic e r s in t h e i r judgment of t h i s item with the addi tio n of a co n d itio n in g sequence to i t . P olice o f f i c e r s were s l i g h t l y more le n ie n t th an in mates in t h e i r judgment of a "woman who ru n s -o ff and leaves her husband and c h ild re n fo r over six months w ith no ex p la n a tio n ." With the a d d itio n of a c o n d itio n in g sequence to t h i s item, inmates were s l i g h t l y more le n ie n t than p o lice o f f ic e r s . The two samples were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by the items d e p ic tin g "a man d e s e rtin g h is fa m ily ," but were not s ig n i f ic a n t ly d i f f e r e n t in t h e i r judgments of "a woman d e sertin g her fa m ily ." Table 17 p re s e n ts the num erical ro I— b - r - 00 C O o O' C O • • • • • • C O C O ro ro cr C P N' C O r — ■ o o 00 o o t— * — C O o o C O • • • • • C O C J o C O cr O ' C O o f — C O 00 ro • • • • • • o ro o o o o o o o K- r— * o r - r— C O C O Co ro C O ro I - 1 N O O' o • • • • * • C O ro ro ro C O co C O N O o r — < o O' o o cr o ro » — r - b - > ro •0 r - o 00 N O - j • • • • • ♦ C O o 00 o C O 00 ro o ro 00 • • • • • « o o o o o o o I — ’ o ro o o M h - > r - t— No. of Item w ithout C o n d itio n in g Sequences D iffe re n ces between Samples Chi-Square Approximations P r o b a b ilit ie s That Chi- Square Approximations Due to Chance No. of Matched Item with C onditioning Sequences D iffe ren ces between Samples Chi-Square Approximations P r o b a b ilit ie s That Chi- Square Approximations Due to Chance t i g a *m m H > G O r m a 13b No. of Item w ithout C on d ition in g Sequences D ifferen ces between Samples Chi-Square Approximations P r o b a b ilit ie s That Chi- Square Approximations Due to Chance No. of Matched Item with C onditioning Sequences D ifferen ces between Samples Chi-Square Approximations P r o b a b ilit ie s That Chi- Square Approximations Due to Chance • i S c H > P m 136 137 v alu es a s s o c ia te d w ith sample d if fe re n c e s toward th e se item s. Lvino.—There were four item s p re se n ted in the q u e s tio n n a ire which d ep icte d "one person t e l l i n g l i e s about a n o th e r." Inmates were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t than p o lic e o f f i c e r s in t h e i r judgment of only one of th e se item s. T his item d ep icte d "a boy spreading l i e s about a g i r l liv in g in h is neighborhood— because she to ld l i e s about him." The item which was matched w ith t h i s one (item 23) and which co n tain e d no c o n d itio n in g sequence did not d i f f e r e n t i a t e the samples a t a s i g n i f ic a n t le v e l. Item 16 de p ic te d "a boy t e l l i n g l i e s about h is s i s t e r " and item 3b co n tain ed the co n d itio n in g sequence t h a t the "boy to l d l i e s about h is s i s t e r — because she to ld l i e s about him." Inmates were s l i g h t l y more le n ie n t than p o lic e o f f i c e r s toward th ese item s. The item s did n o t, however, d i f f e r e n t i a t e the two samples s i g n i f i c a n t l y . The num erical v alu es of the d if f e re n c e s between inmates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s in t h e i r judgments of lying are p re se n ted in Table 18. M iscellaneous ty p es of in te rp e rs o n a l b e h a v io r. — In a d d itio n to the s ix c a te g o r ie s of in te rp e rs o n a l behavior which have been d isc u sse d , the q u e stio n n a ire contained te n items d e p ic tin g d i f f e r e n t ty p e s of behavior. These te n item s were composed of f iv e p a i r s of matched q u estio n s; 080 1.28 .70 3 5 .150 4.50 No. of Item w ithout C on d ition in g Sequences D ifferen ces between Samples Chi-Square Approx imation s P r o b a b ilit ie s That Chi Square Approximations Due to Chance No. of Matched Item w ith C onditioning Sequences D ifferen ces between Samples Chi-Square Approximations P r o b a b i l i t i e s That Chi- Square Approximations Due to Chance » ■ * D m m fri/iz in H £ r- m t— oo 138 each p a i r having an item w ithout a c o n d itio n in g sequence and a matched item co n ta in in g a c o n d itio n in g sequence. The fiv e p a i r s of matched item s were as fo llo w s: item s 4 and 26, "a man h i t s a person w ith h i s car and does not stop a t the scene of the a c c id e n t" — "because he i s ru sh in g h is wife to the h o s p i t a l ; " items 11 and 37, "a woman c a l l s her 10 year old son a d i r t y name"— "because he has been nagging a t her a l l day long;" item s 15 and 41, "a h ig h -sch o o l g i r l c o n tin u a lly c h e a ts on the exams which she i s given in her c la s s e s " — "because h er mother makes h er do so much work around home th a t she has no time to study her school-w ork;" item s 20 and 44, "an 18 year old g i r l s e l l s nude photographs of h e r s e lf t o the p u b lis h e r of a man's magazine"— " in order to earn money fo r her c o lle g e ed u c atio n ;" and item s 21 and 46, "a 13 year old boy throws a rock through the window of a man's house"— "because t h i s man i s mean and i s always swearing a t the c h ild r e n in the neighborhood." Inmates were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t th a n p o lic e o f f i c e r s in t h e i r judgment of item s 26, 15 and 41, 20 and 44, and 46. Inmates were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t th an p o lic e o f f i c e r s in t h e i r judgment of "a man h i t t i n g a person w ith h i s c a r and f a i l i n g t o stop a t the scene of the a c c id e n t." Inmates were, however, s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n i e n t th an p o lic e o f f i c e r s in t h e i r judgment of t h i s item a f t e r a c o n d itio n in g sequence was appended to i t . Police o f f i c e r s were s l i g h t l y more le n ie n t th a n inm ates in t h e i r 140 judgment of a "woman c a l l i n g her son a d i r t y name;" w ith the a d d itio n of a c o n d itio n in g sequence to t h i s item , inm ates were s l i g h t l y more le n ie n t th an p o lic e o ffic e rs * The sam p le s were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by the item de p ic tin g a "boy throwing a rock through a man's window." With the co n d itio n in g sequence t h a t , "the man was mean and was always swearing a t the c h ild re n in the neighborhood," inmates were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t than p o lic e o f f i c e r s . The num erical v alu es of the d if fe re n c e s between in mates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s in re g ard to th e se item s were p rese n ted p re v io u s ly in T ables 2 and 6. Summary sta te m e n t.— Based on the average magnitude of the d if f e r e n c e s between samples (d isre g a rd in g the d ir e c ti o n or sign of the d i f f e r e n c e s ) , the ca teg o ry of in te r p e r sonal behavior which d i f f e r e n t i a t e d inmates from p o lic e of f i c e r s to the g r e a te s t e x te n t was "inform ing on another p er son." The average magnitude of the d if f e r e n c e s between in mates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s in t h e i r judgments of the fo u r items d e p ic tin g one person inform ing on another was .392. The average d if fe re n c e between th e samples in t h e i r judg ments of sexual behavior was .294; the average d iffe re n c e between the samples in t h e i r judgments of t h e f t was .291; the average d if fe re n c e between the samples in t h e i r judg ments of fam ily d e s e r tio n was .144; the average d if fe re n c e between the samples in t h e i r judgments of lying was .120; 141 and the average d iffe re n c e between the samples in t h e i r judgments of one person b e a tin g an o th er was .117. The d iffe re n c e between inm ates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s in t h e i r judgments of any given q u e s tio n n a ire item had to a t t a i n a magnitude of .193 (computed by the Kolmogorov* Smirnov t e s t ) in o rd er to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t a t O the .Ob le v e l of chance. The average d iffe re n c e between the samples in t h e i r judgments of th r e e c a te g o r ie s of i n t e r p e rso n a l behavior exceeded the magnitude of .193; th e re were th re e c a te g o r ie s of in te r p e r s o n a l behavior concerning which the average d iffe re n c e between the samples d id not a t t a i n a s i g n i f i c a n t magnitude. Influence of Q u estio n n aire V a ria b le s There were t h i r t y * f o u r item s p re se n te d in the ques tio n n a ir e which were matched by p a i r s in order t o determine the in flu en c e of q u e s tio n n a ire v a r ia b le s upon the judgments expressed by inmates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s . The two item s in each p a i r d e p ic te d s im ila r ty p e s of in te r p e r s o n a l behavior; they d if f e r e d in only one a s p e c t. The two item s composing a matched p a i r d if f e r e d in one of th r e e ways: (1) the o b je c ts of the behavior p a t t e r n s d if f e r e d in s o c ia l s ig n ific a n c e , or (2) the s t a t u s - p o s i t i o n s of the o b je c ts of sa n c tio n d i f - 2When th e re were no om issions from e i t h e r sample in answering any given q u e s tio n n a ire item , th e d if fe re n c e be tween th e samples had t o a t t a i n a magnitude of .192 in order to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t a t the .05 le v e l of s i g n i f i cance . 142 fe r e d , or (3) the sex of the o b je c ts of san ctio n d if f e r e d . Five p a i r s of item s were analyzed in order t o de term ine the in flu en ce of the s o c ia l s ig n ific a n c e of o b je c ts of behavior p a t te r n s upon the judgments of the two samples. Four p a i r s of item s were analyzed in order to determine the in flu en ce of the s t a t u s - p o s i t i o n of o b je c ts of san ctio n ; e ig h t p a i r s of item s were analyzed in order to determ ine the in flu en ce of the sex of o b je c ts of sa n ctio n upon the judg ments expressed by inmates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s . T his s e c tio n p r e s e n ts the fin d in g s which were con cerned w ith the in flu en ce of th r e e q u e stio n n a ire v a r ia b le s upon inm ates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s in t h e i r judgments of se le c te d ty p e s of in te r p e r s o n a l b eh av io r. S o c ia l sig n ific a n c e of o b je c ts of behavior p a t t e r n s .— Table 19 p r e s e n ts fiv e p a i r s of matched item s as they were phrased in the q u e s tio n n a ire . The two item s com posing each p a i r d i f f e r only in reg ard to the s o c ia l s ig n if icance of o b je c ts of behavior p a t te r n s d e p ic te d . The o b ject of the behavior p a tte r n in item 7 i s a "son," in item 12 i t i s a "boy sc o u t." The o b je c ts of the behavior p a t t e r n s in the rem aining p a i r s of item s are as fo llo w s: item s 16 and 23— a " s i s t e r " and a "neighborhood g i r l ; " item s 14 and 22— an "orphans' home" and an " o f f i c e ; " item s 32 and 38— a "son" and a "boy sc o u t;" and item s 35 and 45— a " s i s t e r " and a neighborhood g i r l . " Items 32 and 38 c o n ta in comparable and 143 TABLE 19 COMPARABLE QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS IN WHICH OBJECTS OF BEHAVIOR PATTERNS VARY IN SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE Item Q uestionnaire No. Item 7 A man b e a ts h is twelve year old son u n t i l he i s b ru ise d . 16 A boy t e l l s l i e s about h is s i s t e r . 14 A man s t e a l s $100 from a home f o r orphans. 32 A man b e a ts h is twelve year old son u n t i l he i s bruised* because the boy d e l i b e r a t e l y set a f i r e in the gar age . 35 A boy l i e s about h is s i s t e r because she t e l l s l i e s about him. Item Comparable No. Q uestionnaire Item 12 The man in charge of a group of boy-scouts b e a ts one of the boys u n t i l he i s b ru is e d . 23 A boy spreads l i e s about a g i r l who l i v e s in h is ne ighborhood. 22 A man ta k e s $100 from the o ffic e where he i s em ployed. 38 The man in charge of a group of b o y -sco u ts b e a ts one of the boys u n t i l he i s bruised* because the boy d e l i b e r a t e l y se t a f i r e in the meeting h a l l . 45 A boy spreads l i e s about a g i r l who l i v e s in h i s neighborhood* because t h i s g i r l t e l l s l i e s about him. 144 re s p e c tiv e c o n d itio n in g sequences f o r items 7 and 12. Items 35 and 45 c o n ta in comparable and re s p e c tiv e c o n d itio n in g sequences f o r item s 16 and 23. T h erefo re, in matching item 32 w ith item 38, and in matching item 35 w ith item 45, the only d iffe re n c e between item s s t i l l concerns the s o c ia l sig n ific a n c e of the o b je c ts of behavior p a t te r n s . The judgments expressed by inmates were a s so c ia te d beyond the .01 le v e l of s ig n ific a n c e in th re e out of fiv e in s ta n c e s . Judgments of inmates of item 14 were i n s i g n i f i c a n tly a s s o c ia te d w ith t h e i r judgments of item 22. T h eir judgments of item 32 were i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y a s s o c ia te d with t h e i r judgments of item 38. In the judgment of inm ates, "a man s te a lin g 100 d o l l a r s from a home f o r orphans" i s not s i g n i f i c a n t l y s im ila r to "a man s te a lin g 100 d o l l a r s from the o ffic e where he i s employed." "A man b eatin g h is son u n t i l he i s b ru ise d because he d e l i b e r a t e l y se t a f i r e in the garage" i s not s i g n i f i c a n t l y a s s o c ia te d w ith "a man in charge of a group of boy scouts b ea tin g one of the boys un t i l he i s b ru ised because he d e l i b e r a t e l y set a f i r e in the meeting h a l l , " in the judgments of the inm ates. The judgments expressed by p o lic e o f f i c e r s toward item s 7, 16, 14, 32, and 35 were a l l a s s o c ia te d w ith t h e i r judgments of the re s p e c tiv e matched item s a t or beyond the •01 le v e l of s ig n ific a n c e . The num erical v alu es of the contingency c o e f f i c i e n t s between the item s in each of the f iv e p a i r s of items are 145 p rese n ted in Table 20. To supplement the in form ation provided by the meas u re s of contingency, each of the fiv e p a i r s of matched items were compared by th e sign t e s t . Concerning each of the fiv e p a i r s of matched item s, the number of s u b je c ts who were more severe toward one item were compared w ith the num ber of s u b je c ts in the same sample who were more severe on the o th er item . Concerning the fiv e p a i r s of matched item s, inmates were: (1) s i g n i f i c a n t l y more severe in t h e i r judgment of the "man b eatin g the boy-scout" (item 12) than in t h e i r judg ment of the "man b e a tin g h is son" (item 7); (2) e q u a lly severe toward the "boy t e l l i n g l i e s about h is s i s t e r " (item lb) and the "boy t e l l i n g l i e s about a g i r l in h is neighbor hood" (item 23); (3) s l i g h t l y more severe in t h e i r judgment of the "boy t e l l i n g l i e s about h i s s i s t e r " (item 35) than in t h e i r judgment of the "boy t e l l i n g l i e s about a g i r l in h is neighborhood" (item 45) with the a d d itio n of comparable con d itio n in g sequences to th e se b e h a v io ra l s it u a ti o n s ; (4) sig n i f i c a n t l y more severe toward the "man s te a lin g one hundred d o l l a r s from a home f o r orphans" (item 14) than toward the "man ta k in g one hundred d o l l a r s from the o ffic e where he i s employed" (item 22); and (5) s i g n i f i c a n t l y more severe to ward the "man b ea tin g the boy-scout" (item 38) than toward the "man b ea tin g h is son" (item 32) w ith the a d d itio n of comparable c o n d itio n in g sequences t o th ese b e h a v io ra l 146 TABLE 20 ASSOCIATION OF CO M PA R ABLE QUESTIONNAIRE ITEM S IN W H IC H OBJECTS OF BEHAVIOR PATTERNS V A R Y IN SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE < D (0 0) Li (0 a t w o >.-»-* c •H < /> •H 0) <0 a t +> O C 1 0 < — < C M •H C J3 C <0 Q ) *H a» ’H o iq o 3 cn o •H 0 * 0 to -H c r C - H XJ C * H O IQ +J U » C /5 * H 1 + 4 <0 • H 4 - t - P S a> <u ■P < + 4 XJ V - P M - l •H c a> O IQ C a > a > O 3 +> JZ o o H JS O O 3 H o O Q o a n o O O Inmate s 7 and 12 19.55 .40 .001 16 and 23 20.09 .41 .001 14 and 22 4.11 .20 .05 32 and 38* 3.02 .17 .10 35 and 45* 36.01 .51 .001 P o lice Of f ic e r s 7 and 12 17.12 .38 .001 16 and 23 6.86 .25 .01 14 and 22 32.28 .49 .001 32 and 38 8.60 .28 .01 35 and 45 20.66 .41 .001 * Items 32 and 38 c o n ta in comparable co n d itio n in g sequences and are matched w ith item s 7 and 12 r e s p e c tiv e ly . Items 35 and 45 c o n ta in comparable c o n d itio n in g sequences and are matched w ith item s 16 and 23 r e s p e c tiv e ly . 147 s i t u a t i o n s . P o lic e o f f ic e r s were: (1) s i g n i f i c a n t l y more severe toward the "man b eatin g the boy-sc o u t" (item 12) th an to ward the "man b ea tin g h is son" (item 7); (2) s l i g h t l y more severe toward the "boy t e l l i n g l i e s about a g i r l in h is neighborhood"(item 23) than toward the "boy t e l l i n g l i e s about h is s i s t e r " (item 16); (3) s l i g h t l y more severe to ward the "boy t e l l i n g l i e s about a g i r l in h is neighborhood" (item 45) than toward the "boy t e l l i n g l i e s about h is s i s t e r " (item 35) with the a d d itio n of comparable co n d itio n in g sequences to th ese b e h a v io ral s i t u a ti o n s ; (4) s i g n i f i c a n t l y more severe toward the "man s te a lin g one hundred d o l l a r s from a home f o r orphans" (item 14) than toward the "man ta k ing one hundred d o lla r s from the o ffic e where he i s eifr» ployed" (item 22); and (5) s i g n i f i c a n t l y more severe toward the "man b eatin g the boy-scout" (item 38) than toward the "man beatin g h is son" (item 32) w ith the a d d itio n of com parable co n d itio n in g sequences to th ese b eh a v io ral s it u a tio n s . Based on the judgments expressed by p o lic e o f f i c e r s , each of the f iv e p a i r s of matched item s were c o r r e la te d a t or beyond the .01 le v e l of s ig n ific a n c e . Three out of fiv e p a i r s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e la te d in the judgments of in mates. Inmates did not a s so c ia te item 14 w ith item 22, nor item 32 w ith item 38 s i g n i f i c a n t l y ; p o lic e o f f i c e r s did as so c ia te them s i g n i f i c a n t l y . The two samples were in agree- ment, however, in judging item 14 w ith more s e v e r ity th an item 22t and in judging item 38 w ith more s e v e rity th a n item 32. The z -sc o re s concerning the fiv e p a i r s of matched items had the same d i r e c t i o n a l in d ic a tio n f o r both samples w ith the ex cep tio n of one in s ta n c e . In comparing item 3b w ith item 4b, inmates were i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y more severe in t h e i r judgment of item 3b, while p o lic e o f f i c e r s were in s i g n i f i c a n t l y more severe in t h e i r judgment of item 4b. Thus, in four out of fiv e com parisons, inmates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s were more severe toward the same item s. In fo u r out of fiv e of the matched p a i r s of item s, the d iffe re n c e in s o c ia l sig n ific a n c e of the o b je c ts of be h av io r p a t t e r n s a ls o connoted a d iffe re n c e between d ep icted f a m i l i a l and n o n -fa m ilia l r e l a t i o n s . Both samples were more severe toward the item s d e p ic te d in term s of n o n -fa m ilia l r e l a t i o n s — w ith the ex c ep tio n th a t inm ates a tta c h e d more s e v e r ity to item 3b than 4b, as has been noted. In compar ing the z -sc o re s of in m ates' judgments w ith the re s p e c tiv e z -sc o re s of p o lic e o f f i c e r s ' judgm ents, one c o n s is te n t fa c t o r was e v id e n t. The magnitude of the z -sc o re s based upon p o lic e o f f i c e r s ' judgments, in each of the fo u r in s ta n c e s , was g r e a te r th a n the magnitude of the z -sc o re s based upon the judgments expressed by inm ates. T h is in d ic a te s t h a t the e x te n t to which p o lic e o f f i c e r s were more severe toward the n o n -fa m ilia l s i t u a t i o n th an toward th e f a m i l i a l one exceeded 149 in each in s ta n c e , the e x te n t to which inmates were more severe toward the n o n -fa m ilia l s i t u a ti o n . The num erical v alues a s so c ia te d w ith the in flu en ce of the o b je c ts of behavior p a t te r n s are p resen ted in Table 2 1 . S ta tu s p o s itio n of o b je c ts of s a n c tio n .—Table 22 p re s e n ts four p a i r s of matched item s as they were phrased in the q u e s tio n n a ire . The two items composing each p a i r are e s s e n t i a l l y s im ila r w ith r e s p e c t to the type of in te rp e rs o n a l behavior d e p ic te d . The two items in each p a ir d i f f e r with r e s p e c t to the s ta tu s p o s itio n of the o b je c ts of sanc t i o n involved. The o b je ct of san ctio n in item 1 i s a “17 year old boy;" the o b je ct of san ctio n in matched item 7 i s a “man"— by comparison, the “boy" may be termed a subordinate and the "man" may be termed a su p e ro rd in a te . The o b ject of san ctio n in item 8 i s a “high school boy;" the o b je ct of san ctio n in item 17 i s a "man“--b y comparison, in term s of an age d i f f e r e n t i a l , the "high school boy" may be termed a subordinate and the "man" may be termed a su p e ro rd in a te . The o b je ct of sa n ctio n in item 6 i s a "man;" the o b ject of san ctio n in matched item 18 i s a “m in is te r of a church"— by comparison, the m in is te r occupies a hig h er s ta tu s p o s itio n than the "man." Item 36 i s matched w ith item 42; th e se items c o n ta in comparable co n d itio n in g sequences appended to the b e h a v io ra l s i t u a t i o n s d ep icted in item s 6 and 18 A co to to t — cr a> to cj to a t o O' o to r* o o o o G l > o o o to CD o O ' C O o 4 S . • • * • • to to 4* o o C P to C D f* o o o o C O * o o * — H - o < 0 * -h H * O ® tl 0 > C O O ' 4 S . cr co to N O to CO 0D C P 00 O ' o O' O' < o to to to CO to o o C P C J o • • • • t — C O -J o O ' 0 0 C P o • A • • ■ c . o o C P C O o o o O' o o C O o o C O Inmate s Nos. of Question- naire Items (A) Number of Subjects More Severe on (A) Items Nos. of Matched Items (8) Number of Subjects More Severe on (Bj Items Z- Sc ores Based on Sign Test P r o b a b ilit ie s That Z-Sc ore as Large as Obtained Value Due to Chance r* m to C P o 151 TABLE 22 CO M PARABLE QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS IN W H IC H OBJECTS O F SANCTION DIFFER IN STATUS Item Q u estio n n aire Item Comparable No. Item No. Q u estio n n aire Item 1 A 17 year old boy b e a ts 7 up h is f a t h e r . 8 A h ig h -sch o o l boy 17 t e l l s h i s te a c h e r about one of the g i r l s who has been ch e a tin g on the exams given in c l a s s . 6 A man has sexual re la - 18 t i o n s w ith a p r o s t i t u t e . 36 A man has sexual r e l a - 42 tio n s w ith a p r o s t i t u t e — because h is wife has l e f t him and he i s lo n e ly . A man b e a ts h is twelve year old son u n t i l he i s b ru ise d . A man observes a high- school g i r l shop l i f t i n g jew e lry in a sto re and he t e l l s the sto re d e te c tiv e about i t . The m in is te r of a church has sexual r e l a t i o n s with a p r o s t i t u t e . The m in is te r of a church has sexual r e l a t i o n s w ith a p r o s t i t u t e — because h is wife has l e f t him and he i s lo n e ly . r e s p e c tiv e ly . In the judgments of inm ates, item 6 was a s s o c ia te d w ith item 18, and item 36 was a s s o c ia te d w ith item 42 a t the le v e ls of s ig n ific a n c e of .01 and .001 r e s p e c tiv e ly . The a s s o c ia tio n between item s 8 and 17 d id not a t t a i n the .01 le v e l of s ig n ific a n c e . In the judgments of inm ates, items 1 and 7 were a ls o i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y a s s o c ia te d . In the judgments of p o lic e o f f i c e r s , item 6 was as so c ia te d w ith item 18, and item 36 was a s s o c ia te d w ith item 42 a t the .001 le v e l of s ig n ific a n c e . Items 1 and 7 were i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y a s s o c ia te d . In comparing item 8 w ith item 17, p o lic e o f f i c e r s ' judgments were skewed to such an e x te n t th a t the measurement of contingency could not be ap p lied to t h e i r sc o re s. However, over th r e e - f o u r t h s of the p o lic e o f f i c e r s responded t o item s 8 and 17 w ith i d e n t i c a l judg ments, in d ic a tin g t h a t the sample, as a whole, regarded th ese item s as e s s e n t i a l l y s im ila r. In th re e out of fo u r in s ta n c e s , inm ates were more severe in t h e i r judgments of o b je c ts of sa n c tio n w ith r e l a t i v e l y h ig h er s t a t u s th an they were in t h e i r judgments of o b je c ts of sa n c tio n w ith r e l a t i v e l y lower s t a t u s . They were more sev ere, but not s i g n i f i c a n t l y more severe, in t h e i r judgment of "the man b ea tin g h is son" th a n th ey were in t h e i r judgment of "a 17 year old boy b e a tin g h i s f a t h e r . " Inmates were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more severe toward the m in is te r "having sexual r e l a t i o n s w ith a p r o s t i t u t e " th an toward the 153 TABLE 23 ASSOCIATION OF CO M PARABLE QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS IN W H IC H OBJBCTS O F SANCTION DIFFER IN STATUS - * - > >0 s i 0 > H a 0) (A V) 0) (A >*-*-> *H > ,+ * 0> 0) o C + J o c •H C 41 u --4 C M C 01 J 3 C <0 0) 'H H ® -H o to O 3 g > u •H 3 > O C c r C *H _Q C - H m (0 +> « CO •H <0 *H 1+4 jC Q .« A S B « 41 O 3 + J i +» 4-« • 9 ■*£*♦« U •H x : C 01 o o o c q* H o o o U Q H o o o Inmate s 1 and 7 0.52 .07 .50 8 and 17 4.56 .21 .05 6 and 18 8.65 .28 .01 36 and 42^ 12.42 .33 .001 P o lic e Off ic e r s 1 and 7 0.04 .02 .90 8 and 17## 6 and 18 26.37 .46 .001 36 and 42 38.85 .53 .001 ♦Item s 36 and 42 c o n ta in comparable c o n d itio n in g sequences and are matched w ith item s 6 and 18 r e s p e c tiv e ly . ♦♦C orrelated resp o n ses of p o lic e o f f i c e r s t o item s 8 and 17 were skewed to such an e x te n t t h a t the requirem ents of minimum c e l l fre q u e n c ie s f o r the com putation of con tin g e n cy c o r r e l a t i o n could not be met. 154 man who was d ep icte d s im ila r ly . With the a d d itio n of com p arab le c o n d itio n in g sequences, inmates remained s i g n i f i c a n tly more severe in t h e i r judgment of the m in is te r. In one in stan ce inmates were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more severe in t h e i r judgment of a subordinate o b je ct of sanc tio n : they judged the "boy t e l l i n g h is te a c h e r about a g i r l ch eatin g in school" with s i g n i f i c a n t l y more s e v e r ity than they judged the "man t e l l i n g a sto re d e te c tiv e about a g i r l who was s h o p - lif tin g je w e lry ." P olice o f f i c e r s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more severe in t h e i r judgments of su b o rd in ates in two in s ta n c e s ; in two in sta n c e s they were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more severe in t h e i r judg ments of su p ero rd in ate s. They were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more se vere toward the "17 year old boy b eatin g h i s f a th e r" than toward the "man beatin g h is son;" they were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more severe toward the "boy t e l l i n g h is te a c h e r about a g i r l ch eatin g in school" than toward the "man t e l l i n g a sto re d e te c tiv e about a g i r l who was s h o p - lif tin g je w e lry ." Po lic e o f f i c e r s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more severe in t h e i r judg ment of a "m in iste r of a church having sexual r e l a t i o n s with a p r o s t i t u t e , " (with and w ithout c o n d itio n in g sequences) th an in t h e i r judgment of a "man having sexual r e l a t i o n s w ith a p r o s t i t u t e . " Both inmates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more severe in t h e i r judgments of the su perordinate o b je ct of sa n ctio n (the m in is te r) th an in t h e i r judgments of the 155 subordinate o b je c t of sa n ctio n (the man) d ep icte d as having sexual r e l a t i o n s w ith a p r o s t i t u t e . The 2- sc o res in d ic a te d th a t the e x te n t t o which p o lic e o f f i c e r s were more severe on the su p ero rd in ate exceeded the e x te n t t o which inmates were more severe on the su p ero rd in ate in both in s ta n c e s involv ing the comparison of a m in is te r and a man having sexual r e l a t i o n s w ith a p r o s t i t u t e . In comparing item s 1 and 7, inm ates were i n s i g n i f i c a n tly more severe in t h e i r judgment of the su p ero rd in ate o b ject of sa n ctio n d ep icte d in item 7; p o lic e o f f i c e r s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more severe toward the subordinate o b je ct of san ctio n d ep icte d in item 1. Both samples were s i g n i f i c a n tly more severe toward the subordinate o b je c t of sa n ctio n d ep icted in item 8 th an toward the su p ero rd in ate o b je c t of san ctio n d e p ic te d in item 17. No c o n s is te n t in d ic a tio n was y ie ld e d th a t one sample was in flu en ced d i f f e r e n t l y from the o th er sample by the s ta tu s p o s it io n of the o b je c ts of s a n c tio n . The num erical values re g ard in g th e se f in d in g s are p re se n te d in Table 24. Sex of o b je c ts of s a n c tio n . —Table 25 p r e s e n ts fiv e p a i r s of matched item s as they were phrased in the q u estio n n a ire . The two item s composing each p a i r are e s s e n t i a l l y sim ila r w ith re s p e c t to the type of in te r p e rs o n a l behavior d ep icted ; the only d i s t i n c t i o n between them i s t h a t the sex of the o b je c ts of sa n c tio n d i f f e r s . In a d d itio n t o th e se ♦Z-scores preceded b y minus (-) signs indicate th a t subordinate objects o f sanction were judged with more severity than superordinate objects o f sa n ctio n . C O C O O' O' 00 ► - o a 00 ro C O A ro C O C O O ’ Sj C O A A t— ► — •c A » — » — ro C O -si -si o C O -0 ( — H * o M D 3 o 0 * < + a > H - < / > A O’ h- o O ’ O' H - ■ C O C O O ’ t — C D • A t— C O C O •i ( 0 1 I 1 O' O' A f O O’ O ' C O . • • • e • • 9 k — O ' ro A N ? A C D o -si ' C 00 K D O’ C o O D * o * • 4 • • • • • o o o o o o o » — ■ o o o o o o o A o o o o o o o o o 00 o o o C O C O C O C O C O -J Nos. of Q uestion naire Items (A) D epicting Subordi nate O b jects of Sanction Number of S ubjects Items Nos. of Matched Items (B) D epicting Superordinate Number of S ubjects More Severe on (B) Items Z-Sc ores Based on Sign Test P r o b a b i l i t i e s That Z-Score as Large as Obtained Value Due t o Chance m i n o’ O' 157 TABLE 25 C O M PA R A BLE QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS IN W H IC H OBJECTS OF SANCTION DIFFER IN SEX Item No. Que s tio n n a ire Item Item No. Comparable Q uestionnaire Item 2 A woman " l i f t s " the w a lle t of the man who happens t o be s i t t i n g next to her a t a b a r. 5 A man "snatches" the purse of a woman who hap pens to be walking by. 24 A 16 year old g i r l has sexual r e l a t i o n s with the boys whom she date s. 3 A 16 year old boy has sexual r e l a t i o n s w ith the g i r l s whom he d a te s . 13 A woman charges men money f o r l e t t i n g them have sexual r e l a t i o n s w ith h e r. 6 A man has sexual r e l a tio n s w ith a p r o s t i t u t e . 13 A woman charges men money f o r l e t t i n g them have sexual r e l a t i o n s w ith h e r. 18 The m in is te r of a church has sexual r e l a t i o n s w ith a p r o s t i t u t e . 25 A woman runs off and le av es h er husband and c h ild re n f o r over six months and g iv e s no e x p la n a tio n f o r leav ing. 9 A man le av es h i s wife and c h ild r e n and makes no e f f o r t t o support them. 158 fiv e p a i r s of item s, th e re were th re e p a i r s of items which included c o n d itio n in g sequences and were d i f f e r e n t i a t e d only in re g a rd to the sex of the o b je c ts of s a n c tio n . The th re e p a i r s of item s a re: (1) item s 28 and 30, which c o n ta in com- p arab le c o n d itio n in g sequences f o r item s 2 and 5; (2) items 48 and 29, which c o n ta in comparable co n d itio n in g sequences fo r item s 24 and 3; and (3) item s 50 and 34, which c o n ta in comparable c o n d itio n in g sequences f o r items 25 and 9. The fin d in g s concerning the in flu en c e of the sex of o b je c ts of sa n c tio n upon the judgments of the two samples were based on an a n a ly s is of e ig h t p a i r s of matched q u e stio n n a ire item s. Based on the judgments expressed by inm ates, the two items w ith in each of the e ig h t p a i r s of item s were a s s o c ia te d a t or beyond the .01 le v e l of s ig n ific a n c e . Based on the judgments expressed by p o lic e o f f i c e r s , the two item s w ith in six of the e ig h t p a i r s were a s s o c ia te d a t or beyond the .01 le v e l of s ig n ific a n c e . P o lice o f f i c e r s d id not s i g n i f i c a n t l y a s s o c ia te a "woman charging men money f o r l e t t i n g them have sexual r e l a t i o n s w ith her" w ith "a man having sexual r e l a t i o n s w ith a p r o s t i t u t e . " They did not s i g n i f i c a n t l y a s s o c ia te a "woman charging men money f o r l e t tin g them have sexual r e l a t i o n s w ith her" with "the m in iste r of a church having sexual r e l a t i o n s w ith a p r o s t i t u t e . " The num erical v alu es of the contingency c o e f f i c i e n t s concerning the e ig h t p a i r s of matched item s are p re se n te d in Table 26. Inmates were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more severe in t h e i r »-■ t— r o C J 1 9 4 — ►- r o !9 G O 0 0 0 0 a to ro o I p C O C O 0 0 ■ f t- to ro ft) 0* 01 0 i 0 i 0) 04 0) 0) at 04 04 04 04 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 a a a a a a a a a Q . a a a a * — O ' ro C O C O O ' C O N O t— O ro co C O C P G O s o * * 0 0 s o f t r o O ' ro r— ■ r— ■ r o r— ro ro C O r- O ' r o o r — ■ C O r— * a C P O N O o o C O O ' f t ♦ • f t • • • • • f t • • f t f t N O N O 0 0 O ' N O N O 0 0 o C O C O a * — N O 0 0 ro V -J o t— r o o N O C O O ' o r — • ► * o a > 3 3 O 0 1 ► + i t + ► + i ( D H * 0 > O < D H • • * • • • U t • f t • « f t f t f t f t f O H ' O ' • 0 N C O C O * > C o 4 * 4 * C P C O ro O ' O ' ro r o ro 0 0 « o 0 0 o 0 0 • * e * « » * f t • f t f t f t f t f t o 4 — 1 o o o o o o o o o O o o C P o o o o o o o o 4 — o o o o 4 — r — • 4 — h -> h - r- * — r — ■ r — • r— Comparable Que st ionna ire Items Chi-Square Contingency Coef f ic ie n ts P r o b a b ilit ie s That Contingency C o e ffic ie n ts Due to Chance •n 0 3, m C ! WO JD m n c CP so 160 TABLE 26— Continued ai ■ 3 a > < o Q > V ) >*+ j s s >• < u a s V) y a) cn m •H C p P *H C -H C f-t •H p m a> J3 C < 0 0) >H — « C -P o •H O O C 1 0 o 3 o» u M -H O* C -H J3 O *H <0 < 0 + » w to •H4. <0 p .C Q . « « E S « a > 1 P < - M -Q P 4-t O •H c a) O (0 <u MU o o O 3 -P x: o o u a n O o o U.HO+' 2b and 9 11.61 .32 .001 50 and 34* 9.08 .29 .01 *Item s follow ed by a s t e r i s k in d ic a te q u e stio n s con ta in in g comparable c o n d itio n in g sequences which are matched w ith the two item s l i s t e d immediately above. 161 judgments of male o b je c ts of sa n ctio n in two out of e ig h t in sta n c e s in which male and female o b je c ts of san ctio n were compared: they were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more severe in t h e i r judgment of a "man snatching a woman's purse" than in t h e i r judgment of a "woman l i f t i n g a man's w a ll e t; " they were sig n i f i c a n t l y more severe in t h e i r judgment of a "m in iste r hav ing sexual r e l a t i o n s with a p r o s t i t u t e " th an in t h e i r judg ment of a "woman charging men money f o r sexual r e l a t i o n s . " Inmates were e q u a lly severe in t h e i r judgment of item s 2b and 9. They were more severe in t h e i r judgments of female o b je c ts of sa n ctio n in fiv e out of e ig h t in s ta n c e s . In two of th e se fiv e in s ta n c e s , the e x te n t to which inmates were more severe in t h e i r judgments of female o b je c ts of san ctio n th an in t h e i r judgments of male o b je c ts of san ctio n was s t a t i s t i c a l l y i n s i g n i f i c a n t (p exceeded .0 1 ). Inmates were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more severe toward female o b je c ts of san ctio n in th re e in s ta n c e s . P o lice o f f i c e r s were more severe in t h e i r judgments of male o b je c ts of sa n ctio n in fo u r out of e ig h t in sta n c e s; the e x te n t to which they were more severe toward males was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t in th re e in s ta n c e s . They were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more severe in t h e i r judgment of fem ales in fo u r out of e ig h t in s ta n c e s . In comparing female and ovale o b je c ts of sa n ctio n , d ep icte d in e ig h t p a i r s of matched item s, th e re were fo u r in s ta n c e s in which the samples d if f e r e d as to which o b ject 162 of sa n c tio n was judged w ith more s e v e r ity . With comparable c o n d itio n in g sequences appended to the item s d e p ic tin g a "woman l i f t i n g a man's w a l l e t ," and a "man snatching a woman's p u rs e ," inmates were i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y more severe in t h e i r judgment of the "woman" and p o lic e o f f i c e r s were in s i g n i f i c a n t l y more severe in t h e i r judgment of the "man." Inmates were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more severe toward the " m in iste r" d ep icted in item 18 than toward the "woman" d e p ic te d in item 13; p o lic e o f f i c e r s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more severe toward the "woman" than toward the " m in is te r." Inmates did not d is t in g u is h the o b je c ts of san ctio n d e p ic te d in items 2b and 9; p o lic e o f f i c e r s judged the male o b je ct of sa n ctio n d ep icted in item 9 w ith s i g n i f i c a n t l y more s e v e r ity th a n the female o b je c t of sa n ctio n d ep icte d in item 2b. With the ad d i t i o n of comparable c o n d itio n in g sequences t o item s 2b and 9— p rese n ted in item s bO and 3 4 - - inmates were i n s i g n i f i c a n tly more severe toward the "woman" d ep icte d in item bO; p o lic e o f f i c e r s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more severe in t h e i r judgment of the "man" d e p ic te d in item 34. In th re e com p a ris o n s of matched item s, p o lic e o f f i c e r s a tta c h e d more s e v e rity toward male o b je c ts of s a n c tio n , whereas inm ates atta c h e d more s e v e r ity to female o b je c ts of sa n ctio n in the same com parisons. In one comparison of matched item s, p o lic e o f f i c e r s atta c h e d more s e v e r ity toward the female ob ject of s a n c tio n , whereas inmates a tta c h e d more s e v e r ity to the male o b je c t of sa n c tio n . 163 There were fo u r com parisons of matched item s con ce rn in g which inm ates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s agreed as to which o b je ct of sa n c tio n was judged w ith more s e v e r ity . Both sam p le s judged the male o b je c t of sa n c tio n d e p ic te d in item 5 w ith s i g n i f i c a n t l y more s e v e r ity th a n the female d ep icte d in item 2. The e x te n t t o which inmates so judged t h i s male was g r e a t e r th a n the e x te n t to which p o lic e o f f i c e r s so judged him in comparison w ith the female d ep icte d in item 2, Both samples judged the female o b je c ts of sa n ctio n d ep icte d in item s 24, 48, and 13 w ith s i g n i f i c a n t l y more s e v e rity than the male o b je c ts of sa n c tio n d ep icte d in items 3, 29, and 6, r e s p e c tiv e ly . In two out of th ese th re e com parisons, the e x te n t to which inm ates judged fem ales w ith more sever i t y th a n males exceeded the e x te n t to which p o lic e o f f i c e r s judged fem ales w ith more s e v e r ity th a n males. In those in s ta n c e s where inmates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s d if f e r e d concerning which o b je c t of sa n c tio n was judged w ith more s e v e r ity , th e re were th re e in s ta n c e s in which fem ales were judged w ith more s e v e r ity by inmates and one in stan ce in which inm ates judged the male w ith more s e v e r ity . In those in s ta n c e s where inm ates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s agreed concerning which o b je c t of sa n ctio n was judged w ith more s e v e r ity , th e re were th re e in s ta n c e s in which more s e v e rity was a tta c h e d t o fem ales and one in stan ce in which more se v e r ity was a tta c h e d to the male. In those in s ta n c e s where the samples agreed in a tta c h in g more s e v e rity to fem ales, 164 th e re were two in sta n c e s in which the e x te n t of inm ates' judgments in t h i s d ir e c tio n exceeded the e x te n t of p o lic e o f f i c e r s ' judgments in t h i s d ir e c tio n ; in one in s ta n c e , the e x te n t to which p o lic e o f f i c e r s a tta c h e d more s e v e rity to the female exceeded the e x te n t to which inmates a ttac h ed more s e v e r ity t o the fem ale. In the sin g le in stan ce where the samples agreed in a tta c h in g more s e v e r ity to the male o b je ct of sa n c tio n , the e x te n t t o which inmates did so ex ceeded the e x te n t to which p o lic e o f f i c e r s did so. There were, th u s , fiv e out of e ig h t in sta n c e s in which e i t h e r inmates were more severe in t h e i r judgments of fem ales and p o lic e o f f i c e r s were not, or the e x te n t to which inm ates were more severe toward fem ales exceeded the e x te n t to which p o lic e o f f i c e r s were more severe toward f e males. These fin d in g s in d ic a te d th a t in comparing male and female o b je c ts of sa n c tio n , inmates were r e l a t i v e l y more le n ie n t toward males th an were p o lic e o f f i c e r s . They were, th u s, r e l a t i v e l y more severe toward fem ales th a n were p o lic e o f f i c e r s . There were, however, th re e fin d in g s which m iti gate the c o n s iste n c y of t h i s r e l a t i v e d iffe re n c e between the two samples. Inmates judged the "m in ister" with more s e v e r ity th an they judged the " p r o s t i t u t e . " The rev erse was tru e of p o lic e o f f i c e r s . The e x te n t to which inmates judged the male o b ject of sa n ctio n d ep icted in item 5 w ith more s e v e r ity th an the female d ep icted in item 2 exceeded the e x te n t to which t h i s male o b je ct of sa n ctio n was so judged 165 by p o lic e o f f i c e r s . Inmates judged the p r o s t i t u t e w ith more s e v e r ity th a n the man, but the e x te n t to which they so judged h er was le s s th a n the e x te n t t o which p o lic e o f f i c e rs so judged h e r. These fin d in g s in d ic a te d t h a t , in com paring female and male o b je c ts of s a n c tio n , inmates were r e l a t i v e l y more le n ie n t toward fem ales than were p o lic e of- f ic e r s . The fin d in g s , th e r e f o r e , show no c o n siste n c y of one sample being in flu en ced more than the o th er by the sex of the o b je c ts of sa n ctio n d ep ic te d in the q u e s tio n n a ire item s. In th re e in s ta n c e s , the in d ic a tio n was t h a t inmates were r e l a t i v e l y more le n ie n t toward fem ales than were p o lic e of f i c e r s . In fiv e in s ta n c e s , the in d ic a tio n was t h a t p o lic e o f f i c e r s were r e l a t i v e l y more le n ie n t toward fem ales th an were inm ates. The num erical v alu es concerning the e x ten t of judg mental changes e ffe c te d by the sex of the o b je c ts of sanc ti o n are p rese n ted in Table 27. Summary of F indings S e lv in has dem onstrated, by c a lc u l a ti o n of the b i nomial expansion, the number of s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s r e quired in p ro p o rtio n to the number of in s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r ences in order to s u b s ta n tia te hypotheses which p o s it d i f fe re n c e s between two samples of resp o n d en ts. He uses an example where two samples are d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by twenty given 166 TABLE 27 CHANGES IN THE RESPONSES OF INMATES AND POLICE OFFICERS WITH SEX VARIATION OF THE OBJECTS OF SANCTION IN COMPARABLE QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS i w o 0 ) jC c - t s a g r; a > o C 0) •H 40 H - t- > < 40 O e a ? c a > *o o ■P X 1 H M O + ■ » 0 ) d > ~o 1 U a> o 4 0 c a > .C C 4 0 M l •o < 0 * H o < a a > a > W ) (0 3 to •H — I 3 (/> < / ) < u a > + j o to JC (0 C O < 0 < A •H H X ) + J a) v > a > o Q a > o o '+ 4 H a » o < + * M H * • h o a > O O 'H c a > o o w (0 H (/I O 3 , s S •H 4 0 M 2 a > a > c •H | (0 Q M E +J (0 M • — 1 M cn jQ N a > ai ( A 0 ) • H + * (0 (J q > w ro O -H (0 < 0 < v o E 0) C ■ 9 2 J 3 V 9 3 C E o • ! - > O E o O it M H A 3 < l » C 4 - > -Q -H 3 H ) c 1 c H X < 0 A X a, m - 3 > u 2 • * - > O M O + » 2 - n o M O Inmate s 2 7 b 22 -2 .6 0 * .0047 28 21 30 14 1.01 .16 24 32 3 9 3.44 .0003 48 4b 29 2 6.12 .00003 13 b7 6 7 3.62 .00016 13 18 18 38 -2 .b 4 .00bb 2b 21 9 21 0.00 .50 bO 2b 34 16 1.2b . 10b6 P o lice O ffic e r s 2 7 b 20 -2 .3 1 .01 28 6 30 9 -0 .b 2 .30 24 29 3 10 2.88 .002 48 43 29 4 b.b4 .00003 13 74 6 b 7.66 .00003 13 36 18 17 2.47 .0068 2b 7 9 36 -4 .2 7 .00003 bO 9 34 26 -2 .7 0 .003b *Z-Scores preceded by minus (-) sig n s in d ic a te t h a t male o b je c ts of sa n c tio n were judged w ith more s e v e rity th an female o b je c ts of san c tio n . 167 survey or q u e stio n n a ire item s and shows t h a t , out of a p o ssib le twenty o cc u rren c es, a t l e a s t one s ig n i f ic a n t d i f ference determ ined a t the 5 p er cent le v e l has a p r o b a b ili ty of occurrence of 0 .6 4 . S im ila rly , S elv in shows t h a t the p r o b a b ili ty of a t l e a s t two s i g n i f ic a n t d if fe r e n c e s i s 0.26, t h a t the p r o b a b ili ty of a t le a s t th re e i s 0 .07, and t h a t the p r o b a b ility of a t l e a s t four s i g n i f ic a n t d if fe re n c e s out of a p o ssib le tw enty i s 0 .0 1 . S elvin o f f e r s the follow ing co n clu sio n : In o th e r words, i f one examines twenty d if f e re n c e s and f in d s fo u r or more " s i g n if i c a n t " a t the 5 per cen t le v e l, th en the set of d if f e r e n c e s i s s i g n i f ic a n t a t the 1 per cen t le v e l, since t h i s combined r e s u l t would have happened only one time in a hundred i f the tru e d i f f e r ences were z e ro .4 S elv in dem onstrates t h a t hypotheses concerning the s i g n i f ic a n t d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of two samples are supported when approxim ately o n e - f i f t h of the item s used to d i f f e r e n t i a t e the samples e x h ib it in te r-sa m p le d if f e re n c e s which are s ig n i f ic a n t a t the b per cen t le v e l. By r e f e r r i n g to Sel- v i n 's d is c u s s io n , c e r t a i n o v e r - a ll fin d in g s of t h i s study are deemed s i g n i f i c a n t and are so obvious as to be devoid of the n e c e s s ity of the c a l c u l a t i o n of the binom ial expansion. Inmates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by th ir ty - tw o of the f i f t y item s p rese n ted in ^Hanan C. S e lv in , "A C ritiq u e of T ests of S i g n i f i cance in Survey R esearch ," American S o c io lo g ic a l Review. XXII (October, 19b7), b2b-25^ 4 Ib id . . p. b26. 168 the q u e s tio n n a ire . The number of item s which s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d the samples when compared w ith the number of items which f a i l e d to do so i s obviously s ig n i f ic a n t f a r be- yond the b per cen t le v e l. Inmates were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t than p o lic e o f f i c e r s in t h e i r judgments of t h i r t y items p rese n ted in the q u e s tio n n a ire ; p o lice o f f i c e r s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n i ent th a n inmates in t h e i r judgments of only four item s. The number of in s ta n c e s in which inmates were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t than p o lic e o f f i c e r s i s obviously s ig n i f ic a n t in i t s e l f when compared w ith the number of remaining in sta n c e s in which such was not the ca se . Inmates were e f f e c te d w ith twenty out of a p o ssib le tw en ty -fiv e s ig n i f ic a n t judgm ental changes in the d ir e c tio n of len ien cy w ith the a d d itio n of co n d itio n in g sequences to the q u e s tio n n a ire item s; c o n d itio n in g sequences e ffe c te d seventeen s ig n i f ic a n t judgm ental changes in the d ir e c tio n of leniency from p o lic e o f f i c e r s . The number of in s ta n c e s in which c o n d itio n in g sequences e f fe c te d s i g n i f ic a n t judgm ental changes in the d ir e c tio n of leniency from the respondents in each sample was obviously s i g n i f ic a n t in i t s e l f . There were, however, e ig h t out of tw en ty -fiv e in s ta n c e s in which i t was determ ined by use of the c h i-sq u a re t e s t t h a t the ex te n t t o which c o n d itio n in g sequences e ffe c te d changes toward len ien cy among inmates s i g n i f i c a n t l y exceeded the e x te n t to which they e f f e c t e d changes toward len ien cy among p o lic e 169 o f f i c e r s . There was only one in stan c e in which c o n d itio n in g sequences e f f e c te d a s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r change in the d i r e c t i o n of le n ien c y from p o lic e o f f i c e r s th an from in m ates. These fin d in g s obviously in d ic a te t h a t c o n d itio n in g sequences had the e f f e c t of in c u rrin g a s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a te r number of judgm ental changes in th e d i r e c t i o n of len ien cy from inm ates th a n from p o lic e o f f i c e r s . In a d d itio n to the s ig n ific a n c e of the number of s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s e s ta b li s h e d between the two samples of re sp o n d e n ts, c e r t a i n o v e r a ll d if f e r e n c e s between the two samples gain s t a t i s t i c a l s ig n ific a n c e when t e s te d a g a in s t a bQ per ce n t p r o b a b i l i t y of occu rren ce. Inmates were more le n ie n t th an p o lic e o f f i c e r s in t h e i r judgments of fo rty -tw o out of f i f t y q u e s tio n n a ire item s. The number of item s to ward which the former were more le n ie n t th a n the l a t t e r is s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a te r th a n the number of item s toward which the form er were not more le n ie n t th a n the l a t t e r . F orty-tw o p o s itiv e f in d in g s out of a p o s s ib le f i f t y might have been obtained as a m atter of chance in few er th a n th re e out of one hundred thousand t r i a l s . Inmates were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t th a n p o lic e o f f i c e r s in t h e i r judgments of t h i r t y out of f i f t y q u e s tio n n aire item s; p o lic e o f f i c e r s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t than inm ates in t h e i r judgments of fo u r out of f i f t y ques tio n n a ir e item s. When t e s t e d a g a in s t a bQ p er c e n t proba b i l i t y of o cc u rren ce, the number of tim es inmates were 170 s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t than p o lic e o f f i c e r s as compared w ith the number of tim es p o lic e o f f i c e r s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t than inm ates i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . The d i s p a r i t y between t h i r t y p o s itiv e fin d in g s and fo u r negative fin d in g s has a s t a t i s t i c a l p r o b a b ili ty of occurring by chance alone in fewer th an th re e out of one hundred thousand t r i a l s . In twenty out of tw e n ty -fiv e in s ta n c e s , comparison of the z -sc o re s c a lc u la te d by the sign t e s t in d ic a te d th a t c o n d itio n in g sequences e f f e c te d inmates to a r e l a t i v e l y g r e a te r e x te n t than p o lic e o f f i c e r s w ith judgm ental changes in the d i r e c t i o n of le n ie n c y . When te s te d a g a in st a bO per cent p r o b a b ili ty of occurrence, the discrepancy between th e se twenty p o s itiv e fin d in g s and the fiv e negative fin d ings had a p r o b a b ili ty of occurring by chance twice in one thousand t r i a l s . This f u r t h e r s u b s t a n tia te s the f a c t th a t c o n d itio n in g sequences e f f e c te d the inmates to a s i g n i f i c a n tly g r e a te r e x te n t than they e f f e c te d the p o lic e o f f i c e r s with judgm ental changes toward len ien c y . In e ig h te e n in s ta n c e s , the magnitude of the d i f f e r ences between the two samples concerning t h e i r responses toward item s which co n tain ed c o n d itio n in g sequences ex ceeded the magnitude of t h e i r d if f e r e n c e s concerning the matched item s which did not d e p ic t such sequences. Among the tw en ty -fiv e items which co n tain ed no co n d itio n in g se quences, th e re were t h i r t e e n which d i f f e r e n t i a t e d the sam- 171 p ie s a t a s i g n i f ic a n t le v e l. Among the tw en ty -fiv e matched items which included co n d itio n in g sequences, th ere were n in eteen which s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d the sample of inmates from the sample of p o lic e o f f i c e r s . Among o ther th in g s , co n d itio n in g sequences provided s p e c i f i c i t y and a means-ends r e la tio n s h i p f o r the t y p i f i c a t i o n s of human be havior d ep icte d in the item s of the q u e s tio n n a ire . These sequences had the e f f e c t of in c re a sin g the measurements of in ter-sam p le d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n . There were a lso more s i g n i f i cant d if f e r e n c e s between the samples in reg ard to the items which contained co n d itio n in g sequences th an in regard to the q u estio n n a ire items which included no such appended sequence s. The th re e q u e stio n n a ire v a r ia b le s which were ana lyzed had e s s e n t i a l l y s im ila r in flu e n c e s upon the judgments expressed by each sample. The samples did not d i f f e r sig n i f i c a n t l y in the e x te n t to which they a s so c ia te d items which were d i f f e r e n t i a t e d in term s of th re e s o r ts of ques tio n n a ir e v a r ia b le s . The e x te n t to which inmates a s s o c ia te d items which d if f e r e d only in reg ard to the s o c ia l s i g n i f i cance of the o b je c ts of behavior p a t te r n s did not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the e x te n t to which p o lic e o f f i c e r s as so c ia te d th ese item s. The two samples a s s o c ia te d items which d if f e r e d in reg ard to the s ta t u s - p o s i t i o n of the ob j e c t s of sa n ctio n to the same e x te n t. Items which d if f e r e d in reg ard to the sex of the o b je c ts of sa n c tio n were asso 172 c ia te d to approxim ately the same e x te n t by the two samples of resp o n d e n ts. Q u estio n n aire v a r ia b le s ex e rte d an in f l u ence upon the judgments of the items expressed by each sam p le . There was no c o n s is te n t in d ic a tio n , however, t h a t the influence upon inmates was d i f f e r e n t (to any s i g n i f ic a n t degree) from the in flu en ce upon p o lic e o f f i c e r s . The con c lu sio n was made, th e r e f o r e , th a t the th re e q u e s tio n n a ire v a r ia b le s were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y involved in e s ta b li s h in g d if fe re n c e s between inmates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s in t h e i r expressed judgments of the items included in the quest ion- na i r e . The c o n c lu sio n s which were drawn from the fin d in g s of t h i s study are d isc u sse d as a p a r t of the follow ing and f i n a l c h a p te r. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS OF THE STUDY T h is f i n a l ch a p ter in c lu d es a d is c u s s io n of the con c lu s io n s which were drawn from the fin d in g s of the p re se n t study. The co n c lu sio n s are e la b o ra te d in term s of the r e l a tio n s h ip between the hypotheses upon which t h i s study was p re d ic a te d and the fin d in g s which were o b tain ed . The con c lu s io n s are u ltim a te ly focussed toward d is tin g u is h in g c r im in a ls from noncrim inals in terms of a c o n f l i c t in norma tiv e v a lu e s. T his ch a p ter a lso in clu d es a d is c u s s io n of: (1) the r e la tio n s h i p between the f in d in g s obtained in the p re se n t study and c e r t a i n fin d in g s obtained in o th er sim i l a r s tu d ie s , (2) the lim ita tio n s and weaknesses of the p re se n t study, and (3) the needs f o r f u r th e r e m p iric a l r e search. S u b s ta n tia tio n of Hypotheses Three hypotheses were form ulated a t the o u tse t of t h i s study. They were: 1. That the two samples of respondents would d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y in t h e i r judgments of the d ep icte d b e h a v io ra l s i t u a t i o n s p re se n ted in the q u estio n - 173 174 n a i r e . 2. That inmates would be s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t th a n p o lic e o f f i c e r s in t h e i r judgments of th e se d ep icte d b e h a v io ra l s i t u a t i o n s . 3. That inmates would become s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t than p o lic e o f f i c e r s w ith the a d d itio n of c o n d itio n in g sequences to the q u e stio n n a ire item s. The fin d in g s in d ic a te d th a t each of th e se th re e hypotheses was supported. The f i r s t h y p o th esis was supported because a s ig n i f ic a n t number of the q u estio n n a ire items s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n tia te d the two samples of respondents; th ir ty - tw o out of f i f t y items s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d inmates from po lice o f f i c e r s . The second h y p o th e sis was supported because the num ber of items toward which inmates were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t th an p o lic e o f f i c e r s was, in i t s e l f , s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n i f ic a n t when compared w ith the number of items which e x h ib ite d o th er judgm ental d if fe re n c e s between the two sam p le s ; inmates were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t th an p o lic e o f f i c e r s in t h e i r judgments of t h i r t y out of f i f t y qu estio n naire item s. Inmates were simply more le n ie n t (w ithout r e gard to whether the e x te n t was s ig n i f ic a n t ) th an p o lic e of f i c e r s in t h e i r judgments of fo rty -tw o item s; p o lic e o f f i c e rs were more le n ie n t than inmates in t h e i r judgments of 17b only e ig h t item s. Such a num erical d i s p a r i t y has a proba b i l i t y of occurring by chance in th re e out of one hundred thousand in s ta n c e s . P olice o f f i c e r s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t th a n inmates in t h e i r judgments of only four item s. When th e se four in s ta n c e s were compared w ith the t h i r t y in stan ces in which inmates were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t than p o lic e o f f i c e r s , the num erical d i s p a r i t y ( te s te d a g a in s t a p r o b a b ili ty of 50 p e r cen t occurrence) had a prob a b i l i t y of occurring by chance in th re e out of te n thousand t r i a l s . A ll of th e se f in d in g s in d ic a te th a t the second h y p o th e sis was e m p iric a lly supported. In e ig h t in s ta n c e s out of tw en ty -fiv e when the changes in judgment expressed by inm ates were compared w ith the judgm ental changes expressed by p o lic e o f f i c e r s , i t was determ ined t h a t c o n d itio n in g sequences brought s i g n i f i c a n tly more changes in the d i r e c t i o n of len ien cy among in mates th an among p o lic e o f f i c e r s . In only one in s ta n c e , the in d ic a tio n was t h a t a c o n d itio n in g sequence brought s i g n i f i c a n tly more judgm ental changes in the d i r e c t i o n of leniency among p o lic e o f f i c e r s th an among inm ates. There were twen ty out of tw e n ty -fiv e in s ta n c e s in which i t was in d ic a te d th a t the e x te n t of le n ie n t changes among inmates exceeded the e x te n t of le n ie n t changes among p o lic e o f f i c e r s w ith the a d d itio n of c o n d itio n in g sequences to the q u e stio n n a ire item s. The num erical d i s p a r i t y between twenty p o s itiv e fin d in g s and fiv e negative ones has a p r o b a b i l i t y of occur 176 rin g by chance in two out of one thousand t r i a l s . These fin d in g s in d ic a te d t h a t the t h i r d h y p o th e sis was e m p iric a lly s u b s t a n tia te d . The hypotheses which were fo rm u lated a t the o u ts e t of t h i s study were focussed toward the view t h a t th e inm ates who were sampled and the p o lic e o f f i c e r s who were sampled would be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d in term s of a c o n f l i c t of normative v a lu e s. The th re e hypotheses upon which t h i s study was p re d ic a te d were e m p iric a lly s u b s t a n tia te d . T h erefo re , the co n c lu sio n was t h a t th e sample of inm ates was d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from th e sample of p o lic e o f f i c e r s in term s of a c o n f l i c t of normative v a lu e s . The evidence of t h i s study in d ic a t e s t h a t c r im in a ls are more t o l e r a n t of b e h a v io ra l im p ro p riety th a n are p o lic e o f f i c e r s ; t h e i r judgments re g a rd in g i l l e g a l be h a v io r, c e r t a i n ty p e s of immoral b e h a v io r, and c e r t a i n ty p e s of behavior which are s o c i a l l y disapproved r e f l e c t s i g n i f i c a n tly more le n ie n c y th a n the judgm ents ex p ressed by p o lic e o f f i c e r s . When c o n d itio n in g sequences were appended t o the q u e s tio n n a ire item s, th e inm ates, in e f f e c t , ac ce p ted m iti g a tin g circ u m sta n c es and excuses f o r v a rio u s ty p e s of i l le g a l, immoral, or s o c i a l l y disapproved b eh av io r to a sig n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r e x te n t th a n d id the p o lic e o f f i c e r s . The c o n c lu sio n may be drawn, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t the judgm ents of inm ates toward v a rio u s ty p e s of g e n e r a lly d e v ia n t behavior are not only more le n ie n t or t o l e r a n t th a n th o se of p o lic e o f f i c e r s , th e y are l e s s a b so lu te and l e s s s ta b le as w e ll. 177 The d e f i n i t i o n s of p r o p rie ty held by inmates connote sig n i f i c a n t l y more leniency th an those h eld by p o lic e o f f i c e r s . T h is co n c lu sio n i s given added importance w ith the evidence which in d ic a te d t h a t the d e f i n i t i o n s of p r o p r ie ty h eld by inmates— even though co n n o tativ e of s i g n i f i c a n t l y more len iency or to le ra n c e — were a ls o le s s r i g i d l y held by th ese inmates th an th ey were held by p o lic e o f f i c e r s . Many s tu d ie s have been c a r r ie d out over the l a s t t h i r t y y ea rs which have d i f f e r e n t i a t e d c rim in a ls from non c rim in a ls in term s of such phenomena as e c o lo g ic a l back ground f a c t o r s , p e r s o n a lity f a c t o r s , f a c t o r s of i n t e l l i gence, and even v ario u s b io lo g ic a l f a c t o r s . T h is study in d ic a te s yet another dimension— and perhaps a more g e n e ra lly re le v a n t one--by which c rim in a ls and noncrim inals are prob ably d i f f e r e n t i a t e d . T h is study has dem onstrated th a t c r im in a ls may w ell be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from non c r im in a ls in term s of a c o n f l i c t of normative v a lu e s. T his study has th u s in d ic a te d a more g e n e ra lly s i g n i f ic a n t area of d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between c rim in a ls and noncrim inals than the one which i s p re d ic a te d upon the o b se rv a tio n t h a t crim in a ls are those persons who have been convicted of i l l e g a l a c ts while noncrim inals are those persons who have not been convicted of p e r p e tr a tin g i l l e g a l a c ts . Note was ta k e n , in the second c h a p te r, of the f a c t t h a t many w r i t e r s who d isc u sse d the d i s t i n c t i o n of c rim i n a ls from noncrim inals in term s of a c o n f l i c t of v alu es 178 a c tu a l ly based t h e i r d isc u ssio n s on the i n t e l l e c t u a l pro cess of in fe re n c e . They based t h e i r arguments on the assump ti o n th a t because c rim in a ls had committed c e r t a i n b eh a v io ral a c ts which were c o n tra ry to the d e f i n i t i o n s of "p ro p rie ty " expressed in to law by the dominant or a r t i c u l a t e se c tio n of s o c ie ty , a c o n f l i c t in v alu es th e re fo r e t y p i f i e d the d is t i n c t i o n of c rim in a ls from t h i s dominant se c tio n of s o c ie ty . Such an argument involves the p ro cess of in fe re n c e , since the v alu es ty p ify in g c r im i n a li ty are in fe r re d from the na tu re of the behavior i t s e l f , while the v alu es ty p ify in g the dominant s e c tio n of so c ie ty are derived from id e a tio n a l sources ( d e f i n i t i o n s of p r o p r ie ty ) . The bases from which the v a lu e s ty p ify in g the two groups (c rim in a ls and noncrim in a ls ) were d eriv ed were co n c ep tu a liz ed upon d if f e r e n t le v e ls of a b s t r a c t i o n , th u s in h ib i tin g the e m p iric a l a s s e s s ment of v a l u e - c o n f l i c t . T his study, in undertaking the em p i r i c a l assessm ent of the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between inmates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s in term s of a c o n f l i c t of normative v alu es, avoided the dependence upon in fe re n c e . The d e te r m ination of a c o n f l i c t of normative v alu es was based upon the assessm ent of " id e a tio n a l phenomena"— the responses or judgments which were expressed by inmates and by p o lic e o f f i c e r s were the data which were subm itted to s t a t i s t i c a l a n a ly s is . An o p e ra tio n a l d e f i n i t i o n of normative v alu es was e s ta b lis h e d and used in t h i s study. The su b stan tiv e q u a lity of the d e f i n i t i o n was s o c io lo g ic a lly r e le v a n t. 179 T h e re fo re , by v ir tu e of the m ethodological adequacy and the t h e o r e t i c a l adequacy of the d e f i n i t i o n , and because inm ates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d in term s of normative v alu es (as th ey were so d e fin e d ), t h i s study has given le g itim a te and e m p iric a l support t o the side of an academic c o n tro v e rsy which h o ld s t h a t the value-con- f l i c t approach to the e x p la n a tio n of c r i m i n a l i t y i s c re d ib le . Minor Problem of I n v e s tig a tio n As s ta te d in the f i r s t c h a p te r , the problem of analy zin g the in flu en c e of s e le c te d q u e s tio n n a ire v a r ia b le s upon the judgm ental d if f e r e n c e s between the two samples of resp o n d e n ts was included in t h i s study as a minor problem of in v e s t i g a t i o n . T h is problem was concerned w ith the a n a l y s is of the in flu e n c e of "the s o c ia l s ig n ific a n c e of the o b je c ts of b ehavior p a t t e r n s , " "the s t a t u s p o s it io n s of the o b je c ts of s a n c tio n ," and "the sex of the o b je c ts of sanc tio n " upon the measurements of intersam p le d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n . The f in d in g s in d ic a te d t h a t th e s e q u e s tio n n a ire v a r ia b le s in flu e n c e d the judgments of each sample of resp o n d e n ts to ward th e b e h a v io ra l s i t u a t i o n s d e p ic te d in the q u e s tio n n a ire . The f in d in g s a ls o in d ic a te d , however, t h a t each sam p le of re sp o n d e n ts was in flu e n c e d by th e se q u e s tio n n a ire v a r ia b le s s i m i l a r l y . T h e re fo re , the c o n c lu sio n i s t h a t the measurements of in tersam p le d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n were based upon 180 judgm ental d if f e r e n c e s between inmates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s reg ard in g normative v a lu e s. Inmates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s were not c o n s is te n tly d i f f e r e n t i a t e d in t h e i r judgments of the th r e e q u e s tio n n a ire v a r ia b le s which were ensconced w ith in the item s p resen ted in the q u e s tio n n a ire . C o nditioning Sequences and I n te r sample D if f e r e n tia t io n One of the im p lic a tio n s of the t h i r d h y p o th e sis was t h a t the s p e c i f i c i t y (in e s ta b li s h in g a d e f i n i t e means-ends r e l a t i o n s h i p to the d ep icte d behavior) affo rd ed the ques tio n n a ir e item s by the a d d itio n of c o n d itio n in g sequences would expand the d if f e re n c e s between the judgments expressed by the two samples of resp o n d en ts. T h is im p lic a tio n i s r e la te d to the idea which has been extended by v a rio u s acad em icians to the e f f e c t th a t c rim in a ls and noncrim inals are probably d i f f e r e n t i a t e d to a g r e a te r e x te n t in t h e i r judg ments of v alu es as b eh a v io ral means th an in t h e i r judgments of v alu es as g o als or ends of beh av io r. The fin d in g s of t h i s study in d ic a te d th a t the two samples of respondents d i f f e r e d to a g r e a te r e x te n t in t h e i r judgments of the ques tio n n a ir e item s which included c o n d itio n in g sequences than in t h e i r judgments of the item s to which no such sequences were appended. There were t h i r t e e n unconditioned item s which s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d the samples. There were nin eteen item s co n ta in in g c o n d itio n in g sequences which sig n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d inmates from p o lic e o f f i c e r s . In 181 e ig h tee n out of tw en ty -fiv e in sta n c e s the num erical magni tude of the d iffe re n c e between the samples reg ard in g the unconditioned item s were in c rease d w ith the a d d itio n of con d itio n in g sequences to th e se item s. Based on th e se fin d ings, the co n clu sio n i s made t h a t the inmates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s d i f f e r e d to a g r e a te r e x te n t in t h e i r judgments of values which were s p e c ifie d as b e h a v io ra l means th a n in t h e i r judgments of the normative values which lacked such s p e c if ic a tio n . The idea t h a t c rim in a ls d i f f e r from noncrim in a ls to a g r e a te r e x te n t in t h e i r judgments of v alu es as b eh a v io ral means than in t h e i r judgments of values as goals or ends of behavior was e m p iric a lly supported by the fin d ings of t h i s study. Types of Normative Values A ll of the item s p rese n ted in the q u e stio n n a ire met the m ethodological and t h e o r e t i c a l (s u b s ta n tiv e ) r e q u ir e ments of the d e f i n i t i o n of normative v alu es. The ty p e s of behavior d ep icte d in the items v aried ; th e re were eleven g en e ra l c a te g o r ie s of behavior d ep icted among the items which were included in the q u e s tio n n a ire . The elev en c a te g o rie s of behavior and the number of items in each were as f ollow s: 1. Six items d e p ic te d one person beating an o th er. 2. Four items d ep icte d one person informing on an o th er. 3. Ten items d e p ic te d t h e f t or robbery. 4. Twelve item s d ep icte d promiscuous or s o c ia ll y p ro sc rib e d sexual r e l a t i o n s . b. Four item s d e p ic te d fam ily d e s e rtio n . b. Four items d e p ic te d ly in g . 7. Two items d ep icte d h it- a n d - r u n d riv in g . 8. Two items d ep ic te d p r o f a n ity . 9. Two items d e p ic te d ch e a tin g in school. 10. Two items d e p ic te d s e llin g nude photographs. 11. Two item s d e p icte d "throwing a rock through a window," which may be d esig n ated as m alicio u s m ischief or d e s tru c tio n of p ro p e rty . P o lice o f f i c e r s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t than inmates in t h e i r judgments of a l l four items d e p ic tin g one person inform ing on an o th e r. These were the only item s p rese n ted in the q u e s tio n n a ire toward which p o lic e o f f i c e r s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t than inm ates. P o lice o f f i c e rs were i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t than inmates in t h e i r judgments of only four a d d itio n a l item s. They were in s ig n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t th an inm ates in t h e i r judgments of two out of six items d e p ic tin g one person b eatin g an o th e r, one out of fo u r items d e p ic tin g fam ily d e s e r tio n , and one out of two item s d e p ic tin g p r o f a n ity . On the o th e r hand, th e re were fo u r out of six item s d e p ic tin g one person b e a t ing an o th er toward which inm ates were more le n ie n t; they were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t th an p o lic e o f f i c e r s in 183 t h e i r judgments of two of these item s. There were th re e out of fo u r item s d e p ic tin g fam ily d e s e r tio n toward which inmates were more le n ie n t; they were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t than p o lic e o f f i c e r s in t h e i r judgments of two of th e se item s. F in a ll y , th e re was one out of two item s de p ic tin g p r o fa n ity toward which inmates were more le n ie n t . T his item d e p ic tin g p r o fa n ity (item 37) d i f f e r e n t i a t e d the two samples t o a h ig h er degree th an did the item d e p ic tin g p r o fa n ity (item 11) toward which p o lic e o f f i c e r s were more le n ie n t than inm ates; th u s , the co n clu sio n i s t h a t inmates were more le n ie n t than p o lic e o f f i c e r s in t h e i r judgments of p r o fa n ity in general.^- The o th er seven c a te g o r ie s of normative v alu es included no items toward which p o lic e of f i c e r s expressed more leniency than inm ates. To the ex te n t th a t the items included in each c a te gory of normative v alu es lend conceptual g e n e r a lity and d e f i n i t i o n to the v a rio u s c a te g o rie s them selves, the f in d ings of t h i s study have in d ic a te d fou n d atio n f o r the follow ing c o n c lu sio n s. Inmates were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t th a n p o lic e o f f i c e r s in t h e i r judgments of nine out of eleven c a te g o r ie s of normative v a lu e s. These c a te g o r ie s included: one person b e a tin g an o th er, t h e f t or robbery, promiscuous or s o c ia lly p ro sc rib e d sexual behavior, fam ily d e s e r tio n , ly in g , h it- a n d - r u n d riv in g , ch eatin g in school, ■*See Table 6 184 s e llin g nude p ic tu r e s , and m alicious m ischief or d e s tru c tio n of p ro p e rty . Inmates were a ls o more le n ie n t than p o lic e of f i c e r s in t h e i r judgments of p r o f a n ity , but the e x te n t of the d iffe re n c e between the samples was i n s i g n i f i c a n t . These c a te g o r ie s of normative v alues include not only i l l e g a l a c ts but ty p es of behavior which are assumed to be pro scrib ed (at l e a s t , not p re sc rib e d or rewarded) by s o c ie ty in g e n e ra l. The c o n f l i c t of normative v alu es between inmates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s which t h i s study has e s ta b lis h e d re p re se n ts more g e n e ra lity th a n a c o n f l i c t over s t r i c t l y le g a lly defined norms of behavior. The c o n f l i c t e s ta b lis h e d between the two samples of respondents a ls o r e p r e s e n ts a d iffe re n c e reg ard in g the p r o p rie ty of a c ts which are judged in term s of s o c ia l and moral stan d ard s in s te a d of s t r i c t l y le g a l one s. As has alread y been d isc u sse d , p o lic e o f f i c e r s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t than inmates in t h e i r judgments of a l l four items which d ep icted one person inform ing on another— th e se were the only item s in the q u e s tio n n a ire t o ward which p o lic e o f f i c e r s were s i o n i f i c a n t l v more le n ie n t than inm ates. These item s d e p ic te d persons inform ing on o th e rs who had committed i l l e g a l a c ts ( s h o p lif tin g ) or pro scrib ed a c ts (ch ea tin g in sc h o o l). In being s i g n i f i c a n t l y more severe th a n p o lic e o f f i c e r s towards inform ing on o th e rs f o r committing i l l e g a l or p ro sc rib e d a c ts , inmates were, in e f f e c t , being c o n s is te n t w ith the marked p r o c l i v i t y 185 of being s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t than p o lic e o f f i c e r s in t h e i r judgments of the i l l e g a l and s o c ia ll y p ro sc rib e d types of behavior which were d e p ic te d in the q u e s tio n n a ire . The c o n f l i c t of normative v alu es between the two samples was not p re d ic a te d so le ly on judgm ental d if f e re n c e s concerning le g a lly p ro sc rib e d conduct* but was a ls o based upon d if f e r e n c e s in judgments concerning conduct which is more g e n e ra lly ( l e s s o f f i c i a l l y ) p ro sc rib e d by public opin ion and s o c ia l sa n c tio n s, and, in p a r t , upon judgments of a c t i v i t i e s with which p o lic e o f f i c e r s have no more in tim ate connection as ag en ts of c o n tro l than any o th er segment of the g e n e ra l p u b lic . The inference may be made, th e re fo r e , t h a t c rim in a ls are probably more le n ie n t toward s o c ia l im p r o p rie ty than is s o c ie ty a t la rg e , and th a t the code of p r o p rie ty which they a c c e p t, r e g a rd le s s of the behavior p a t te r n s in which they p a r t i c i p a t e , is probably le s s r i g i d and le s s m o ra lis tic than th a t accepted by s o c ie ty . Comparison w ith Other Em pirical S tu d ie s In h is study, Simpson concluded t h a t th e re was gen e r a l agreement between s e le c te d samples of te a c h e rs and of p ris o n e r s concerning the r e l a t i v e se rio u sn e ss of crim in a l a c t s . ^ H i l l , in h is study, concluded th a t s e le c te d samples of d e lin q u e n ts and nondelinquents were not s ig n i f ic a n t ly r ' ^Ray Mars Simpson, " A ttitu d e s of Teachers and P ris o n e rs toward S erio u sn ess of C rim inal A c ts," The Jo u rn a l of C rim inal Law and C rim inology. XXV;1 (May-June, 1934), 73. d i f f e r e n t i a t e d in terms of the ran k in g s of c e r t a i n pro scrib ed a c ts — judged in terms of t h e i r s e rio u s n e s s .^ In f a i l i n g to d i f f e r e n t i a t e c rim in a ls or d e lin q u e n ts from non c rim in a ls or n o n d elinquents, these fin d in g s and co n clu sio n s were c o n tra ry to those of t h i s study. In reach in g t h e i r co n c lu sio n s, however, Simpson and H ill ranked the v a rio u s items which they p resen ted to t h e i r s u b je c ts in q u estio n n aire form but did not base t h e i r co n clu sio n s of the d i f f e r e n t i a l i n t e n s i t y with which t h e i r two samples of s u b je c ts judged each q u e stio n n a ire item. The p o s s i b i l i t y rem ains t h a t , even though c rim in a ls and noncrim inals might, fo r in sta n ce , judge murder to be more se rio u s than kidnapping, and kidnapping more se rio u s than t h e f t , and t h e f t more se rio u s than p r o fa n ity , and so on, c rim in a ls and noncrim inals might s t i l l be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t in t h e i r judgments of the p ro p rie ty of each of th ese b e h a v io ral p a t te r n s . Although the co n c lu sio n s concerning the d iffe re n c e s between c rim in a ls and n o n -crim in als reached in t h i s study do not agree with those of Simpson and H i l l , they do not stand in c o n tra d ic tio n because the o p e ra tio n a l bases upon which they were p re d ic a te d were d is s i m i l a r . R einhardt and H arp er,4 in t h e i r study, employed an ^George E. H i l l , "The E th ic a l Knowledge of D elin quent and Nondelinquent Boys," The Jo u rn a l of S o cia l Psy chology. VI:1 (F ebruary, 1935), 113-14. 4James M. R einhardt and Fowler Vincent Harper, "S ocial and E th ic a l Judgments of Two Groups of Boys— 187 o p e ra tio n a l base fo r c o n c lu sio n s concerning the d i f f e r e n t i a tio n of t h e i r two samples more s im ila r to the one used in the p re se n t study than those employed by Simpson and H i l l . In a s s e s s in g the resp o n ses of samples of d e lin q u e n ts and nondelinquents in term s of judgm ental i n t e n s i t y of resp o n ses to c e r t a i n d e p ic te d s o c ia l s i t u a t i o n s . R einhardt and Harper concluded th a t d i s t i n c t d if f e re n c e s in e t h i c a l judgments e x i s t between d e lin q u e n ts and n o n d e l i n q u e n t s , a n d t h i s con forms to the o v e r a ll co n c lu sio n s reached in the p re se n t study. In a d d itio n to comparing the g en e ra l fin d in g s and co n clu sio n s of t h i s study with th re e of the four e m p iric a l s tu d ie s reviewed in the second c h a p te r, c e r t a i n more sp e c if ic fin d in g s and co n clu sio n s of t h i s study are now compared w ith those of a l l four of the e m p iric a l s tu d ie s p re v io u sly reviewed. This study determ ined t h a t out of a l l ty p es of be havior a s s e s s e d , those item s d e p ic tin g "one person inform ing on another" were the only ones toward which p o lic e o f f i c e r s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t than inm ates. This corrobo r a t e s H i l l ' s statem ent th a t d e lin q u e n ts regarded " 's q u e a l in g ' second only to kidnapping in i t s h e i n o u s n e s s . T h e s e D elinquents and N o n -d e lin q u e n ts," J o u rn a l of the American I n s t i t u t e of C rim in al Law and CrimTnoloQv. XXI:3 tNovember. 1930), 364-378. ^ Ib id . . p. 378. ^ H ill, l o c . c i t . 188 fin d in g s a ls o c o rro b o ra te the popular n o tio n t h a t c rim in a ls in te n s e ly d i s l i k e "in fo rm ers," " s q u e a le rs ," and s o -c a lle d " s to o l p ig e o n s." Simpson's d ata showed th a t "sex o ffe n d e rs tend to minimize the se rio u sn e ss of t h e i r o f f e n s e s ,7 and H ill found th a t d e lin q u e n ts were more l i b e r a l toward sexual v io la tio n s and i r r e g u l a r i t i e s than were nondelinquents.® These fin d ings co in cid e w ith the fin d in g s of the p re se n t study which showed th a t inm ates were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n ie n t than po lic e o f f i c e r s in t h e i r judgments of p ro sc rib e d types of sexual beh av io r. B a ll, d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g d e lin q u e n ts from nondelin quents in t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward s te a li n g , found th a t th e re was a . . . pronounced d iffe re n c e in a t t i t u d e s toward s te a lin g between the d elin q u en t sample of 108 boys and the th re e nondelinquent groups. The d e lin q u e n ts were found to p o sse ss a more p o s itiv e a t t i t u d e toward the prevalence of s te a lin g than the nondelinquent s . 9 H ill re p o rte d th a t d e lin q u e n ts regarded four ty p es of bur g la ry le s s s e rio u s ly than did n o n delinquents. The fin d in g s of the p re se n t study, in showing th a t inmates were s i g n i f i c a n tly more le n ie n t th an p o lic e o f f i c e r s in t h e i r judgments of t h e f t and robbery, co in cid e with the fin d in g s p re se n te d by B all and H i l l in s o fa r as they dem onstrate th a t c rim in a ls 7Simpson, op. c i t .. p. 80. ® H ill, lo c . c i t . 9John C. B a ll, "D elinquent and Non-Delinquent A t t i tu d es toward the Prevalence of S te a lin g ," Jo u rn a 1 of Crim i- n a l Law. Crim inoloov. and P o lic e S cien ce. XLVIII:3 ISeptem- 189 and d e lin q u e n ts are more t o l e r a n t in t h e i r a t t i t u d e s or judgments of t h e f t and robbery than are noncrim inals and nonde1inquent s . The p re se n t study included an a n a ly s is of only th re e b e h a v io ra l c a te g o r ie s which were a s se ss e d or e la b o ra te d among the four e m p iric a l s tu d ie s review ed; "one person in forming on a n o th e r ," "p ro scrib ed sexual b e h a v io r," and " th e f t or ro b b e ry ." Inform ation concerning the a t t i t u d i n a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of c rim in a ls and d e lin q u e n ts from noncrim i n a ls and nondelinquents toward the e ig h t o th er b eh a v io ral c a te g o r ie s included in the q u e s tio n n a ire used in t h i s study was not e la b o ra te d in the s tu d ie s reviewed and, th e r e f o r e , no f u r th e r com parisons re g a rd in g the s p e c if ic fin d in g s can be made. L im ita tio n s and Weaknesses S everal l i m i t a t i o n s to the co n c lu sio n s may be drawn from the f in d in g s and r e s u l t s of t h i s study. F i r s t , the fin d in g s of t h i s study in d ic a te d th a t inm ates and p o lic e of f i c e r s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d not only in term s of t h e i r judgments of le g a l l y p ro s c rib e d ty p e s of beh av io r, but in term s of t h e i r judgments of ty p e s of human behavior which are le s s o f f i c i a l l y p ro sc rib e d by p u b lic opinion or s o c ia l s a n c tio n . Because p o lic e o f f i c e r s are no more in tim a te ly a s s o c ia te d w ith the c o n tro l of behavior which is b er-O ctober, 1957), 274. 190 only p u b lic ly or s o c ia ll y p ro sc rib e d than i s any o ther seg ment of s o c ie ty , the in feren ce was made t h a t the c o n f l i c t of normative values between inmates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s which t h i s study e x h ib ite d probably in d ic a te d a more g e n e ra l con f l i c t of normative v alu es between c rim in a ls and s o c ie ty a t la rg e . Such a con clu sio n is lim ite d to being i n f e r e n t i a l , fo r t h i s study has not dem onstrated th a t the judgments of p o lic e o f f i c e r s are any more s im ila r to those of s o c ie ty a t large than are those of c rim in a ls . P o lice o f f i c e r s a re , however, the d eleg ated ag en ts through whom the d e f i n i t i o n s of p r o p rie ty a tta c h e d to human behavior by s o c ie ty a t larg e are enforced, and through whom those d e f i n i t i o n s of p r o p ri ety deemed so im portant by so c iety as to be in co rp o rate d in to law are en fo rced . P o lice o f f i c e r s a re , th e r e f o r e , sub s ta n tiv e ly accepted as a group which m irro rs s o c ie ty in terms of the d e f i n i t i o n s of p r o p rie ty a ttac h e d to human be h avior— the assumption i s made th a t they are more r e p r e s e n t a tiv e of s o c ie ty than are c rim in a ls in the d e f i n i t i o n s of b eh a v io ral p r o p r ie ty . This i s a lo g ic a l but im p lic it as sumption; t h i s assumption must, in the s t r i c t e s t sense, be supported by in feren ce when the fin d in g s of t h i s study are used to pro claim a c o n f l i c t of normative v alu es between c rim in a ls and so c ie ty a t la rg e . Secondly, any co n clu sio n s re g ard in g a c o n f l i c t of normative v alu es which are based upon the fin d in g s of t h i s study must be lim ite d t o a r e a l i z a t i o n of the o p e ra tio n a l 191 procedures upon which the fin d in g s were p re d ic a te d . Con c lu s io n s may be d eriv ed only from the f a c t th a t inmates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s d if f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y in the i n t e n s i t y with which they judged c e r t a i n s e le c te d ty p es of i l l e g a l or p ro sc rib e d behavior. No co n clu sio n s may be reached (based on the fin d in g s of t h i s study) concerning a c o n f l i c t of valu es between inmates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s which connote th a t th ese two groups compare v a rio u s ty p e s of p ro scrib ed behavior d i f f e r e n t l y . The c o n f l i c t of v alu es e s ta b lis h e d in t h i s study was not based upon an a n a ly s is of the ways in which the two samples of respondents ranked the d ep icte d types of behavior in term s of the s e v e r ity a tta c h e d t o each. T h ird , while the f in d in g s of t h i s study dem onstrated th a t inmates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s were d i f f e r e n t i a t e d sig n i f i c a n t l y in t h e i r judgments of not only i l l e g a l behavior but s o c ia lly p ro sc rib e d behavior as w e ll, co n clu sio n s r e garding d if f e r e n c e s in judgment of s p e c ific ty p e s of behav io r must be lim ite d to the eleven s p e c ific c a te g o r ie s of behavior which were encompassed in t h i s study. The fin d in g s of t h i s study cannot be g e n e ra liz e d to form a b a s is f o r con c lu s io n s as t o whether inmates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s were (or would be) d i f f e r e n t i a t e d in t h e i r judgments of s p e c ific ty p e s of p ro sc rib e d or i l l e g a l behavior not d e p ic te d in the q u e stio n n a ire which was subm itted to them. F ourth, the fin d in g s of t h i s study provide a b a s is f o r co n c lu sio n s which are lim ite d t o the d is c u s s io n of 192 d if f e r e n c e s between c rim in a ls and noncrim inals in regard to normative v a lu e s. C onclusions as to the ab so lu te value placed on v ario u s forms of conduct by e i t h e r c rim in a ls or noncrim inals would be erroneous. T h is study did not involve the d e te rm in a tio n of the ab so lu te value placed on any form of behavior by e i t h e r sample of respondents— no average scores were c a lc u la te d . T h erefo re , any co n c lu sio n s to the e f f e c t t h a t c rim in a ls , f o r in s ta n c e , "accept t h e f t as prop er," "th in k lying i s not bad," " to le r a te fam ily d e s e r tio n ," and so on, would be h ig h ly misguided. F i f t h , and l a s t , a c e r t a i n l i m i t a t i o n is connected w ith the co n clu sio n s which may be drawn from the fin d in g s of t h i s study by v ir tu e of the f a c t th a t the su b je c ts who p a r t i c i p a t e d in t h i s study were matched in term s of se le c te d b io g ra p h ic a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Furtherm ore, the s u b je c ts composing the sample of inmates were a l l misdemeanants. The s u b je c ts in each sample were matched in term s of s e le c te d b io g ra p h ic a l f a c t o r s in order to a t t a i n a lo g ic a l b a s is of in f e r r in g th a t the d if f e r e n c e s e s ta b lis h e d between the sam p le s re p re s e n te d d if f e r e n c e s between c rim in a ls and noncrim in a ls — and th a t o th e r ex tran eo u s b io g ra p h ic a l f a c t o r s were not re s p o n s ib le fo r the judgm ental d if fe re n c e s which were e s ta b lis h e d . Yet, th e re i s s t i l l l im ita tio n a tta c h e d to the c o n c lu sio n s which may be drawn from the fin d in g s of t h i s study; a sample of ad ju d ic a te d fe lo n s might have r e sponded d i f f e r e n t l y to the item s p re se n ted in the q u e stio n 193 n aire than did the sample of misdemeanants which was used; samples matched in term s of o th er b io g ra p h ic a l f a c t o r s might have been e i t h e r more d i f f e r e n t i a t e d or le s s d i f f e r e n t i a t e d in t h e i r judgments of the q u e s tio n n a ire item s; c r im i n a ls - a t - large might be d i f f e r e n t from in c a r c e ra te d inm ates; a re p re s e n ta tiv e sample of c r im in a ls composed of s u b je c ts w ith varying b io g ra p h ic a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s might have been more or le s s d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from a r e p r e s e n ta tiv e sample of p o lic e o f f i c e r s composed of s u b je c ts w ith varying b io g ra p h ic a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . These p o s s i b i l i t i e s re p re s e n t lim ita tio n s to the g e n e r a lity which may be a tta c h e d to the co n c lu sio n s drawn from the fin d in g s of t h i s study. The p r in c ip a l weakness of t h i s study i s a methodo lo g ic a l one. Because of the enforced d i f f i c u l t i e s a s s o c i ated w ith drawing samples of inmates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s , a t r u l y random sample of inm ates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s — re p re s e n ta tiv e of a l l inm ates and a l l p o lic e o f f i c e r s , defined in term s of the fiv e b io - s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s e s ta b lis h e d as r e q u i s i t e fo r in c lu s io n in the samples— was not o b tain ed . The s u b je c ts in each sample were v o lu n te e rs; they were tr e a te d as i f th ey had been drawn by a p ro c e ss of random s e le c tio n . T his was a necessary in feren ce in the a p p lic a t i o n of the s t a t i s t i c a l pro ced u res which were used to a n a l yze the d a ta of t h i s study. Another weakness of t h i s study concerns the f a c t th a t the value-judgm ent sc ale which was devised was appro- 194 p r ia te only to an o rd in a l le v e l of measurement. The scale was not deemed a p p lic a b le to an in t e r v a l le v e l of measure ment. The use of an i n t e r v a l scale would have provided the p o s s i b i l i t y of a s c e r ta in in g the average judgment expressed by each sample toward each item included in the q u estio n n a ir e . The use of an i n t e r v a l scale would have provided the p o s s i b i l i t y of c o n c e p tu a liz in g the degree of wrongness each sample a t t r i b u t e d to each q u e s tio n n a ire item w ithout any re q u ire d comparison t o the degree of wrongness a t t r i b u t e d to the item by the o th er sample of resp o n d e n ts. The use of an i n t e r v a l scale would, th e r e f o r e , have made i t p o ssib le to ty p if y the normative v alu es of each sample in more ab so lu te and d e f i n i t i v e term s th a n was p o ssib le in t h i s study. The fin d in g s of t h i s study were lim ite d to the r e l a t i v e d i f f e r ences between the samples because the value-judgm ent scale which was used was a p p lic a b le to an o rd in a l le v e l of meas urement; the co n clu sio n s drawn from the f in d in g s of t h i s study are th e re fo r e weaker th an those which might have been drawn had an i n te r v a l le v e l of measurement been a t ta i n e d . Needs f o r F u rth e r E m pirical Research The needs f o r f u r t h e r re se a rc h which are c i t e d in the follow ing d is c u s s io n are based upon c o n s id e ra tio n of the l i m i t a t i o n s and weaknesses of the p re se n t study and upon c o n s id e ra tio n of the t h e o r e t i c a l and m ethodological re q u ire ments needed to provide a fo u n d atio n f o r the v a lu e - c o n f lic t 195 approach to the e x p lan atio n of c r im i n a li ty . F i r s t of a l l , th e re i s need f o r a g r e a te r number of e m p iric a l stu d ie s d ealin g w ith the v alu es approach to the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of c rim in a ls from n oncrim inals. C u rre n tly , th e re i s a p a u c ity of such s tu d ie s upon which d is c u s s io n s concerning the c o n f l i c t of v alu es between c rim in a ls and non c rim in a ls may be p re d ic a te d . Second, th e re i s a need to e s t a b l i s h the e x te n t of d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between c rim in a ls and noncrim inals in t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward asc rib e d v alu es as w ell as p ro sc rib e d v alues. Such e sta b lish m e n t would lend the v a lu e - c o n f lic t approach more g e n e r a lity in d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g between c rim i n als and noncrim inals. T h ird , the e x te n t of a s s o c ia tio n between the a t t i tu d e s and v alu es of ju v e n ile d e lin q u e n ts and the a t t i t u d e s and v alu es of a d u lt o ffe n d e rs should be e s ta b lis h e d . In the l i t e r a t u r e , inform ation reg ard in g the value dim ensions a t tached to delinquency i s o fte n deemed a p p ro p ria te t o c e r t a i n t y p i f i c a t i o n s of c r im i n a li ty — delinquency and c r im i n a li ty are fre q u e n tly tr e a te d as e s s e n t i a l l y s im ila r e n t i t i e s . More re se a rc h i s needed to determ ine whether t h i s i s a fa c t u a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . F ourth, s tu d ie s are needed which show the e x te n t to which the value o r ie n ta tio n s of c rim in a ls are a s s o c ia te d w ith the type and s e v e r ity of the crim es they have commit te d . Such s tu d ie s might show, fo r example, whether fe lo n s 196 a re more t o l e r a n t in t h e i r ju d g m en ts of p r o s c r ib e d b e h a v io r th a n a re m isd em ean an ts. Such s tu d i e s would a ls o show w h eth er c r im in a ls te n d e d to be more t o l e r a n t in t h e i r ju d g m ents of th o s e p r o s c r ib e d a c ts th e y th e m s e lv e s had com m itted th a n in t h e i r ju d g m en ts of p r o s c r ib e d a c t s th e y had n o t com m itte d . F i f t h , th e r e i s need to e s t a b l i s h th e r e l a t i o n be tw een c e r t a i n s o c i a l background f a c t o r s and v alu e o r i e n t a t i o n s . S tu d ie s , in f u l f i l l i n g such n eed , m ight in v e s tig a te w hich v alu e o r i e n t a t i o n s a re le a rn e d from p rim a ry group r e l a t i o n s h i p s and w hich on es a re le a rn e d from se co n d ary group r e l a t i o n s h i p s . They m ight seek to d e te rm in e w h eth er d i f f e r e n t i a l a s s o c i a ti o n s m irro r d i f f e r e n t i a l v a lu e o r ie n ta t i o n s ; th e y m ight a ls o seek to d e te rm in e th e r e l a t i o n be tw een th e d im e n sio n s of v alu e o r i e n t a t i o n s and s o c ia l back ground f a c t o r s such a s p o v e r ty , b ro k en home e n v iro n m e n t, fa m ily s t a t u s , and so f o r t h . F i n a l l y , th e r e i s a need t o d e te rm in e th e e x te n t to w hich th e v alu e o r i e n t a t i o n s of law e n fo rcem en t o f f i c e r s r e f l e c t th o s e of s o c ie ty in g e n e r a l. Such s tu d ie s b ein g p re d ic a te d upon t h i s need would p e rm it a sse ssm e n t of th e d eg ree to w hich any v a lu e c o n f l i c t betw een c r im in a ls and law en fo rcem en t o f f i c e r s r e p r e s e n te d a c o n f l i c t of v a lu e s betw een c r im in a ls and s o c ie ty . B I B L I O G R A P H Y BIBLIOGRAPHY Books B a rro n , M ilto n L. The J u v e n ile in D e lin q u e n t S o c ie ty . New Y ork: A lfre d A. K nopf,' 1&~4. 549 p p . B eck er, Howard, and B o sk o ff, A lv in ( e d s . ) . Modern S o c io 1oq- i c a l T h e o ry # New Y ork: The D ryden P re ss# 196*7. 756 p p . B e rn a rd , J e s s i e . S o c ia l P roblem s a t M id c e n tu rv . New Y ork: The D ryden P r e s s , ISoV. 654 p p . Bougie^, C . C h a r le s . The E v o lu tio n of V a lu e s . T r a n s la te d by H elen S ta lk e r S e l l a r s . toew Y ork: H enry H o lt and Company, 1926. 277 p p . C lin a r d , M a rs h a ll B. S o c io lo g y of D e v ia n t B e h a v io r. New Y ork: R in e h a rt & Company, 1957. 599 p p . C o o ley , C h a rle s H. S o c ia l P r o c e s s . New Y ork: C h a rle s S c r i b n e r 's S o n s, 191B. 480 p p . C u b e r, John F . , and H a rp e r, R o b e rt A. P roblem s of A m erican S o c ie ty ; V alu es in C o n f l i c t . New Y ork: H enry H o lt and Company, 194&. 394 pp. E l l i o t t , M abel A. Crime in Modern S o c ie ty . New Y ork: H a rp e r & B r o th e r s , 1952. 8^4 p p . E v e r e tt , W alter Goodnow. M oral V a lu e s . New Y ork: H enry H o lt and Company, 1926. 4l39 p p . F i c h t e r , Jo se p h H. S o c io lo g y . C h ica g o : U n iv e r s ity of C h icag o P r e s s , 1&V7 450 pp. G u ilf o r d , J . P . F undam ental S t a t i s t i c s in P sy ch o lo g y and E d u c a tio n ^ New Y ork: M cG raw -H ill Book Company. i9 o o . b&5 p p . H o rto n , P a u l B ., and L e s l i e , G erald R. The S o c io lo g y of S o c ia l P ro b le m s. New Y ork: A p p le to n -C e n tu ry -C ro fts , 1955. 584 p p . 198 199 L ep le y , Ray ( e d . ) . V alu e ; A C o o p e ra tiv e I n q u ir y . New Y ork: C olum bia U n iv e r s ity P r e s s , 1 9 4 9 . 4 8 7 p p . M annhein, Hermann W. C rim in a l J u s t i c e and S o c ia l Recon- § t r u c t i o n . New Y ork: O xford U n iv e r s ity 'fire V s, ~ 1946. W p p . M erto n , R o b e rt K. S o c ia l T heory and S o c ia l S t r u c t u r e . G le n c o e , 1 1 1 .: The F ree P re s s , l9 b ^ . 64b p p . P e r r y , R alph B a rto n . Realm s of V a lu e . C am bridge, M a ss.: H arv ard U n iv e r s ity P r e s s , 1954. 497 p p . R e c k le s s , W a lte r C . The C rim e P roblem . New Y ork: A p p le to n - C e n tu r y - C r o f ts , 1950. 537 p p . S ie g e l, S id n e y . N o n o aram etric S t a t i s t i c s f o r th e B e h a v io ra l S c ie n c e s . New Y ork: McdSraw-Hill Book Company. I $ b 6 . 312 p p . S o ro k in , P. A. S o c ie ty . C u l tu r e , and P e r s o n a l i t y . New Y ork: H arp er and B r o th e rs , 1 9 4 7 . 7 4 2 p p . S u th e r la n d , Edwin H. P r i n c i p l e s of C rim in o lo g y . C h icag o : J . B. L ip p in c o tt C onpany, l9 4 , 7. 643 p p . Thomas, W illia m I . , and Z n a n ie c k i, F l o r i a n . The P o lis h P e a s a n t in Europe and A m erica. V o l. T! B o s to n : R. G. B ad g er, Tne Gorham P r e s s , 1918. 526 p p . W illia m s , R obin M. A m erican S o c ie ty . New Y ork: A lfre d A. K nopf, 1951. b4b p p . P e r i o d i c a l s A d le r, F ra n z . 'The V alue C oncept in S o c io lo g y .M The Am eri c a ^ J o u r n a l of S o c io lo g y . LX II (Novem ber, 1 9 5 6 ), B a ll, Jo h n C. "D elin q u en t and N o n -d e lin q u e n t A t t i t u d e s t o w ard th e P re v a le n c e of S t e a l i n g ," The J o u r n a l of C rim in a l Law. C rim in o lo g y , and P o lic e S c ie n c e . XLVIII (S e p te m b e r-O c to b e r, 19&7J, 2 b 9 -1 7 t4 . B a rro n , M ilto n L. " J u v e n ile D elin q u en cy and A m erican V al u e s / ' A m erican S o c io lo g ic a l R eview . XVI ( A p r il, C lo w ard , R ic h a rd A. " I l l e g i t i m a t e M eans, Anomie, and D evi a n t B e h a v io r," A m erican S o c io lo g ic a l R eview . XXIV 200 ( A p r il, 1 9 6 9 ), 164 -7 6 . C re s s e y , D onald R. "H y p o th eses in th e S o c io lo g y of P u n ish m e n t," S o c io lo g y and S o c ia l R e s e a rc h . XXXIX ( J u ly - A ugust , 19b5 ) , 3 9 4 - 4 0 6 . Eubank, E. E. " E rro rs of S o c io lo g y ." S o c ia l F o rc e s . XVI (D ecem ber, 1 9 3 7 ), 180-81. F u l l e r , R ic h a rd C. "The Problem of T each in g S o c ia l Prob le m s," The A m erican J ou r n a l of S o c io lo g y , XLIV ( November, 1 9 3 8 ), 4 1 5 -3 5 . . "M orals and th e C rim in a l Law," The J o u r n a l of C rim in a l Law and C rim in o lo g y . XXXII (M a rc h -A p ril, l $ 4 i ) , 6 2 4 - 3$ . G l a s e r , D a n ie l. " C rim in a lity T h e o rie s and B e h a v io ra l Im ag es," The A m erican J o u r n a l of S o c io lo g y . LXI (M arch, lSS&T." 4 5 3 -4 4 . H ayes, Edward C. " S o c ia l V a lu e s ," The A m erican J o u r n a l of S o c io lo g y . X V III (J a n u a ry , 1 9 1 3 ), 4-/6-bob. H i l l , George E. "The E t h i c a l Knowledge of D e lin q u e n t and N o n d elin q u en t B o y s," The J o u r n a l o f S o c ia l P sy c h o l ogy. VI (F e b ru a ry , 1 9 3 b ), 107-14. CJueen, S tu a r t A. " S o c ia l D is o r g a n iz a tio n ." S o c io lo g y and S o c ia l R e s e a rc h . XLII (J a n u a ry -F e b ru a ry , l9 b o ) , 16% 76. R e in h a rd t, Jam es M ., and H a rp e r, F ow ler V in c e n t. " S o c ia l and E th ic a l Judgm ents of Two G roups of Boys: D e lin q u e n ts and N o n -D e lin q u e n ts," J o u r n a l of th e A m erican I n s t i t u t e of C rim in a l Law and C rim in o lo g y . XXI (November, S e l l i n , T h o rs te n . " C u ltu re C o n f lic t and C rim e ." The Am eri c a n J o u r n a l of S o c io lo g y . XLIV ( J u ly , 1 9 3 8 ), £7 -1 0 3 . S e lv in , Hanan C . "A C r iti q u e of T e s ts of S ig n if ic a n c e in S urvey R e s e a rc h ," A m erican S o c io lo g ic a l R eview . XXII (O c to b e r, 1 9 5 7 ), S i$ -^ 7 . Sim pson, Ray M ars. " A ttitu d e s of T e a c h e rs and P ris o n e r s to w ard S e rio u s n e s s of C rim in a l A c ts ," The j o u r n a l of C rim in a l Law and C rim in o lo g y . X X V (M ay-June, 1934). >6- 33. 201 T u rn e r W irth , R alph H. " V a lu e -C o n flic t in S o c ia l D is o rg a n iz a t i o n , " S o c io lo g y and S o c ia l R e s e a rc h . XXXVIII (May- J u n e , 1 9 5 4 ), 3(51-Soft. L o u is. " I d e o lo g ic a l A sp e c ts of S o c ia l D is o rg a n iz a t i o n . " A m erican S o c io lo g ic a l R eview . V (A ugust, 1 9 4 0 ), 4*72-82*. A P P E N D I X E S APPENDIX I THE INFLUENCE OF DIFFERENT MEDIAN AGE AND EDUCATIONAL LEVEL OF I MATES AN D POLICE OFFICERS UPON THE MEASUREMENTS OF INTER-SAMPLE DIFFERENTIATION APPENDIX I THE INFLUENCE OF DIFFERENI MEDIAN AGE AND EDUCATIONAL LEVEL OF INMATES AND POLICE OFFICERS UPON THE MEASUREMENTS OF INTER-SAMPLE DIFFERENTIATION W hile th e two sam ples of re s p o n d e n ts who to o k p a r t in t h i s stu d y were m atched in te rm s of th e ran g e of t h e i r a g e s and th e ran g e of th e number of g ra d e s th e y had com p le te d in s c h o o l, th e m edian age of p o lic e o f f i c e r s was s ig n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r th a n t h a t of in m a te s and th e m edian num b e r of g ra d e s in sc h o o l co m p leted by p o lic e o f f i c e r s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h ig h e r th a n th e m edian number of g ra d e s in sc h o o i co m p leted by in m a te s . An a n a ly s is of th e s e m edian d is c r e p a n c ie s was c a r r i e d o u t in o rd e r to d e te rm in e w h eth er th e y s i g n i f i c a n t l y " b ia s e d " th e f in d in g s and r e s u l t s of t h i s stu d y . Among th e one hundred in m ates who p a r t i c i p a t e d a s re s p o n d e n ts in t h i s s tu d y , th e r e w ere tw e n ty -e ig h t who had co m p leted n o t l e s s th a n (n o r more th a n ) tw elv e g ra d e s of s c h o o l. Among th e sam ple of one hundred p o lic e o f f i c e r s , th e r e were n i n e t y - s i x s u b je c ts who had co m p leted a maximum t o t a l of tw elv e g ra d e s in s c h o o l. In o rd e r t o a s s e s s th e in flu e n c e of th e m edian d is c r e p a n c ie s betw een th e sam ples 204 205 in re g a rd to age and l e v e l of e d u c a tio n a l a tta in m e n t* two subsam ples of f i f t e e n s u b je c ts each were drawn random ly from th e t o t a l number of s u b je c ts in each sam ple who had co m p leted a maximum of tw elv e g ra d e s in s c h o o l. P ro c e d u re of S e le c tin g th e S ubsam ples In o rd e r to d e te rm in e w h eth er th e age and e d u c a tio n a l d i f f e r e n c e s betw een th e two sam ples w ere b ia s in g f a c t o r s on th e m easurem ents of ju d g m e n ta l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n w hich were o b ta in e d in t h i s study* th e two su b -sam p les w hich were draw n were m atched on an in d iv id u a l b a s i s . Each subsam ple was com posed of f i f t e e n s u b je c ts who had co m p leted a maximum of tw elv e g ra d e s of s c h o o l. Each s u b je c t in each subsam ple had an in d iv id u a l c o u n te r p a r t in th e o th e r subsam ple whose age was i d e n t i c a l w ith h i s own. T ab le 28 p r e s e n ts th e ag es of a l l of th e tw e n ty - e ig h t in m a te s who had co m p leted a maximum of tw elv e g ra d e s in s c h o o l. T ab le 26 a l s o p r e s e n ts th e t o t a l number of po l i c e o f f i c e r s who had co m p leted a maximum of tw elv e g ra d e s in sc h o o l and who a ls o were of i d e n t i c a l a g e . By r e f e r r i n g t o T ab le 28* i t may be n o tic e d t h a t th e r e was one inm ate of tw en ty -o n e y e a rs of a g e , and one p o lic e o f f i c e r who was tw en ty -o n e y e a rs of a g e . T hese two s u b je c ts were m atched a u to m a tic a lly . When th e f r e q u e n c ie s w ith in an age le v e l v a r ie d from one sample to th e o th e r , th e s u b je c ts were m atched by random s e l e c t i o n . F or in s ta n c e * i t may be n o ted 206 TABLE 28 AGES OF INMATES W H O HAD COMPLETED TWELVE GRADES OF SCHOOL AND THE N U M BER OF POLICE OFFICERS WITH IDENTICAL AGES Aqe s Number of Number of In m ate s P o lic e O f f ic e r s 21 ' 1 1 22 1 3 23 3 3 24 1 1 27 1 7 29 1 b 32 2 3 33 1 b 34 1 4 36 1 4 37 2 1 39 2 3 40 1 1 41 2 1 42 2 4 43 1 1 44 1 4 45 2 3 bQ 1 2 bb 1 2 207 t h a t two in m a te s were f o r ty - tw o y e a rs o ld , w h ile f o u r p o lic e o f f i c e r s were of t h i s a g e . Thus two of th e s e fo u r p o lic e o f f i c e r s were random ly ch o sen and th e y were th e n random ly m atched w ith th e two in m a te s who were f o rty - tw o y e a rs o ld . There were tw e n ty -s ix p a i r s of in d iv id u a ll y m atched s u b je c ts o b ta in e d by t h i s p ro c e d u re . F if t e e n of th e s e tw e n ty -s ix m atched p a i r s of s u b je c ts were th e n random ly ch o sen t o serv e a s su b sam p les. The su bsam ples were i d e n t i c a l in te rm s of age and l a s t grade co m p leted in s c h o o l. R e la tio n betw een subsam ple d i f f e r e n c e s and th e ju d g m en tal d if f e r e n c e s betw een th e t o t a l sa m p le s. — The sub sample of in m ates was com pared w ith th e subsam ple of p o lic e o f f i c e r s in t h e i r ju d g m en ts of th e ite m s in c lu d e d in th e qu es t i o n n a i r e . The r e s u l t s a re p re s e n te d in T ab le 29. The r e s u l t s were d e te rm in e d by means of th e K olm ogorov-Sm irnov t e s t . When t h i s t e s t i s u sed w ith a sample s iz e of f i f t e e n , a d if f e r e n c e of 7 must be o b ta in e d in o rd e r t o s t a t e t h a t two sam ples (w ith f i f t e e n s u b je c ts e a c h ) d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t ly ( a t th e b p e r c e n t l e v e l) in th e d i r e c t i o n of t h e i r r e s p o n s e s .^ T h is means t h a t a d if f e r e n c e of a t l e a s t 7 had to be a t ta i n e d in o rd e r t o show t h a t e i t h e r subsam ple was s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n i e n t th a n th e o th e r in i t s judgm ent of a g iv e n q u e s tio n n a ir e ite m . In o rd e r t o show t h a t th e two ^See T ab le L in th e ap p en d ix of N onparam etric S t a t i s t i c s f o r th e B e h a v io ra l S c ie n c e s by S id n ey S ie g e l, TNew YorV: M cG raw -H ill Book Company, I9 b 6 ), p . 278. 208 TABLE 29 DIFFERENCES BETW EEN SUBSAMPLES IN THEIR JUDGMENTS OF QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS No. of Item D iffe re n c e No. of M atched Item D iffe re n e e 1 6 27 7 2 9 28 10 3 11 29 10 4 2 26 b b 7 30 11 0 10 36 12 7 b 32 4 8 -9 * 33 - 9 9 8 34 9 10 6 39 9 11 - 1 37 6 12 2 38 2 13 10 31 10 14 0 40 7 15 6 41 10 16 4 3b 6 17 - 8 43 -1 0 18 9 42 9 19 9 49 7 20 10 44 10 21 3 46 9 22 10 47 8 23 6 4b 9 24 10 46 10 2b b 50 9 ♦ D iffe re n c e s w hich a re p re c e d e d by m inus s ig n s in d ic a te t h a t th e subsam pie of p o lic e o f f i c e r s was more le n i e n t in i t s judgm ent th a n was th e subsam pie of in m a te s . Those d i f f e r e n c e s w hich a re p re c e d e d by no s ig n a re p o s i t i v e and in d ic a te more le n ie n c y of judgm ent from in m a te s th a n from p o lic e o f f i c e r s . subsam ples were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d — w ith o u t r e g a rd to th e d i r e c t i o n of th e d if f e r e n c e (a t w o - ta il e d t e s t of s i g n i f i c a n c e ) — a t th e b p e r c e n t le v e l by a g iv e n ite m , th e d if f e r e n c e had t o a t t a i n a m agnitude of 8 . By r e f e r r i n g t o T ab le 29, c e r t a i n o v e r a l l d if f e r e n c e s betw een th e sub sam ples a re a p p a r e n t. The o v e r a l l d if f e r e n c e s betw een th e subsam ples and t h e i r r e l a t i o n t o th e d i f f e r e n c e s e s ta b li s h e d betw een th e t o t a l sam ples a re a s f o llo w s . 1. The subsam ple of in m a te s was more l e n i e n t th a n th e subsam ple of p o lic e o f f i c e r s in ju d g in g f o r t y - f o u r o u t of f i f t y q u e s tio n n a ir e ite m s . The tw o su b sam p les were e q u a lly le n ie n t in t h e i r ju d g m en ts of one ite m . The subsam ple of p o lic e o f f i c e r s was more l e n i e n t th a n th e subsam ple of in m a te s in ju d g in g f iv e ite m s . The t o t a l sample of in m a te s was more l e n i e n t th a n th e t o t a l sam p le of p o lic e o f f i c e r s in ju d g in g f o r ty - tw o o u t of f i f t y q u e s tio n n a ir e ite m s . Both subsam ple f in d in g s and t o t a l sample f in d in g s in d ic a te d t h a t th e number of in s ta n c e s in w hich in m a te s w ere more l e n i e n t th a n p o lic e o f f i c e r s was s ig n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r th a n th e number of in s ta n c e s in w hich p o lic e o f f i c e r s w ere more le n i e n t th a n inm ate s . 2. T h ere were tw e n ty -n in e ite m s w hich s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d th e two su b sa m p le s. T here were t h i r t y - t w o ite m s w hich s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d th e t o t a l sa m p les. The f in d in g s b ased on b o th subsam ple co m p ariso n s and t o t a l sam ple com p a r is o n s in d ic a te d t h a t in m a te s and p o lic e o f f i c e r s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d in t h e i r ju d g m en ts of n o rm ativ e v a lu e s . The subsam ple of in m ates was s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n i e n t th a n th e subsam ple of p o lic e o f f i c e r s in ju d g in g tw e n ty -n in e ite m s . The t o t a l sample of in m a te s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n i e n t th a n th e t o t a l sam ple of p o lic e o f f i c e r s in ju d g in g t h i r ty ite m s . The subsam ple of p o lic e o f f i c e r s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n i e n t th a n th e subsam ple of in m a te s in ju d g in g f o u r ite m s . The t o t a l sam ple of p o lic e o f f i c e r s was* lik e w is e * s i g n i f i c a n t l y more le n i e n t th a n th e t o t a l sam ple of in m a te s in ju d g in g f o u r ite m s— th e same fo u r ite m s . The f in d in g s based on b o th subsam ple co m p ariso n s and t o t a l sam ple co m p ariso n s in d ic a te d t h a t th e num b e r of in s ta n c e s in w hich in m a te s were s i g n i f i c a n tly more l e n i e n t th a n p o lic e o f f i c e r s was* in i t s e l f * s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r th a n th e number of in s ta n c e s in w hich p o lic e o f f i c e r s were s i g n i f i c a n tly more l e n i e n t th a n in m a te s . 211 C o n c lu sio n Based on th e e s s e n t i a l s i m i l a r i t y of th e f in d in g s c o n c e rn in g th e ju d g m e n ta l d if f e r e n c e s of th e subsam ples and th o s e c o n c e rn in g th e t o t a l sam ples* th e c o n c lu s io n i s t h a t th e age and e d u c a tio n a l d if f e r e n c e s betw een th e t o t a l sam p le s were n o t s u b s t a n t i a l l y in v o lv e d a s b ia s in g f a c t o r s . The ju d g m e n ta l d if f e r e n c e s e s ta b li s h e d from th e re s p o n s e s of th e t o t a l sam ples of in m a te s and p o lic e o f f i c e r s (who d i f f e r e d in m edian age and e d u c a tio n ) were e x tre m e ly s im ila r t o th e ju d g m e n ta l d if f e r e n c e s e s ta b li s h e d from th e re s p o n s e s of th e su b sam p les of in m ates and p o lic e o f f i c e r s (who were i d e n t i c a l in age and in th e maximum number of g ra d e s th e y had co m p leted in s c h o o l) . I f age and e d u c a tio n a l d i f f e r e n c e s had been re s p o n s ib le f o r th e ju d g m e n ta l d if f e r e n c e s o b ta in e d from th e t o t a l sam ples* such ju d g m e n ta l d if f e r e n c e s sh o u ld have b een g r e a t l y red u ce d when o b ta in e d from sam ples w hich were i d e n t i c a l in te rm s of age and e d u c a tio n a l a t t a i n m ent. Such was n o t th e c a s e . APPENDIX I I COPY OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE This questionnaire is p art of a s c ie n tific research pro ject being carried out w ithin the Sociology Department of the University of Southern C alifornia. Your cooperation in answering th is questionnaire is inportant and is appreciated very much. The questionnaire is to be f ille d out and returned on a s tr ic tly anonymous b a sisj no names w ill be given or used in any way. PLEA SE STATE: (1) TH E L A ST G R A D E Y O U C O M P L E T E D IN SC H O O L: (______ ) (2) Y O U R A G E: (______ ) (3) Y O U R RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION O R PREFERENCE: ( ) P ro testan t ( ) Catholic ( ) Jewish ( ) Other (U) Y O U R RA CIA L B A C K G R O U N D : ( \ White ( ) Negro ( ) Mexican-American ( ) Other INSTRUCTIONS: Check the one answer which most closely represents the way you fe e l about each of the following 50 questions. D o not spend too much time on any sin g le question,* your f i r s t and quickest reactio n to each question is the one which is im portant. (1) IF A 17 Y E A R O L D B O Y BEATS-UP HIS FATHER: The Boy Is : ( ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way ( ) wrong, but should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a l l ( ) wrong, but should not be punished in any way ( ) not wrong and should” not be punished in any way (2) IF A W O M A N “LIFTS" T H E W A L L E T O F TH E M A N W H O H A PPE N S T O B E SITTING N E X T T O H E R A T A BAR: The W om an I s : ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way ( ) wrong, but should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a ll ( ) not wrong and should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way ( ) wrong, but should not be punished in a n y way (3) IF A 16 Y E A R O L D B O Y H A S SE X U A L RELA TIO N S W ITH TH E GIRLS W H O M H E D A T ES: The Boy I s : C ) noT~ wrong and should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong, b u t should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way ( ) wrong, b u t should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a l l ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way - 1 - (U) IF A M A N HITS A PE R SO N W ITH HIS C A R A N D D O E S N O T E V E N STO P A T T H E SC E N E O F T H E ACCIDENT: The Man Is : ( ) wrong, but should "receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a l l ( ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way ( ) wrong, but should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way ( ) not wrong and should not be punished in any way (5) IF A M A N "SN A TCH ES’ * T H E PU RSE OF A W O M A N W H O H A PPE N S T O B E W A LK IN G -BY : The Man I s : C ) wrong and should be punished moderately in seme way ( ) not wrong and should not be punished in any way C ) wrong, Mb should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a ll ( ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way ( ) wrong, but should not be punished in any way (6) IF A M A N H A S SE X U A L RELA TIO N S W ITH A PROSTITUTE: The Man Is : ( ) wrong, but should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a l l ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way ( ) not wrong and should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong, but should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way (7) IF A M A N B EA TS HIS 12 Y E A R O L D SO N UNTIL H E IS BRUISED: The M an Is : ( ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way ( ) not wrong and should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong, but should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a l l ( ) wrong, b u t should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way (8) IF A H IG H -SC H O O L B O Y TELLS HIS T E A C H E R A B O U T O N E O F T H E GIRLS W H O H A S B E E N C H EA T IN G O N T H E E X A M S GIV EN IN CLASS: The Bo^ Is : ( ) wrong, b u t should not be punished in any way I ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way ( ) wrong, but should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment ( ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way ( ) not wrong and should not be punished in any way (9) IF A M A N L E A V E S HIS W IFE A N D C H ILD R EN A N D M A K E S N O EFFO RT The Man I s : T ) wrong, but should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment ( ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way ( ) wrong, but should not be punished in any way ( ) not wrong and should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way (10) IF A 17 Y E A R O L D B O Y TRIES T O R A PE A 16 Y E A R O L D GIRL W H O N E IG H B O R H O O D : The Boy I s : ( ) wrong, but should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment ( ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way ( ) not wrong and should not be punished“In any way ( ) wrong, but should not he punished in any way a t a l l T O SU PPO R T T H E M : a t a l l LIVES IN HIS a t a l l - 2 - (11) IF A W O M A N C A L L S H E R 10 Y E A R O L D S O N A D IR T Y N A M E : The W om an Is : ( ) wrong, but should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way ( ) wrong, but should receive p rac tica lly no punishment a t a ll ( ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way ( ) not wrong and should not be punished in any way (12) IF T H E M A N IN C H A R G E O F A G R O U P O F B O Y -SC O U TS B EA TS O N E O F T H E B O Y S U N TIL H E IS BRUISED: The Man I s : ( ) wrong and should he punisEed moderately in some way ( ) not wrong and should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong, but should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a l l ( ) wrong, but should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way (13) IF A W O M A N C H A R G E S M E N M O N E Y FO R LETTING T H E M H A V E S E X U A L RELA TIO N S W IT H H ER : The W om an I s ; ( ) wrong, but should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong, but should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a ll ( ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way ( ) not wrong and should not be p u n ish ed in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way (lh ) IF A M A N ST EA LS $100 F R O M A H O M E FO R O R PH A N S: The Man Is : ( ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way ( ) not wrong and should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way ( ) wrong, but should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong, but should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a l l (1$) IF A H IG H -SCH O O L GIRL C O N T IN U A L L Y C H E A T S O N T H E E X A M S W H IC H SH E IS G IV EN IN H E R CUSSES: The G irl Is : ( ) not wrong and should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong, but should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a l l ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in seme way ( ) wrong and should be punished s e v e re jy in some way ( ) wrong, but should not be punished in any way (16) IF A B O Y TELLS LIES A B O U T HIS SISTER: The Boy Is : ( ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way ( ) wrong, but should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a l l ( ) wrong, but should not be punished in a n y way ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way ( ) not wrong and should not be punished in any way (17) IF A M A N O B S E R V E S A H IG H -SC H O O L GIRL SHOP-LIFTING JE W E L R Y IN A ST O R E A N D H E TELLS T H E STORE-DETECTIVE A B O U T IT: The Man I s : ( ) wrong, but should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong, but should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a l l ( ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way ( ) not wrong and should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way - 3 - (18) IF T H E M INISTER O F A C H U R C H H A S SE X U A L RELA TIO N S W IT H A PROSTITUTE; The M inister Is ; “ T ) wrong, but should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way ( ) wrong, but should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a l l ( ) not wrong and should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way (19) IF A H IG H -SCH O O L GIRL T A K E S S O M E C L O T H E S F R O M A D E P A R T M E N T ST O R E W IT H O U T PA Y IN G FO R T H E M ; The G irl I s : ( ) wrong and should bepunished severely in some way ( ) not wrong and should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way ( ) wrong, and should not be punished In any way ( ) wrong, but should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a l l (20) IF A N 18 Y E A R O L D GIRL SELLS N U D E PH O T O G R A P H S O F H ERSELF T O TH E PU BLISH ER O F A "M A N ’S M AGAZINE": The G irl 1st ( ) wrong, b u t should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a l l ( ) wrong, but should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way ( ) not wrong and should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way (21) IF A 13 Y E A R O L D B O Y T H R O W S A R O C K T H R O U G H T H E W IN D O W OF A M A N 'S H O U SE: The Boy I s ; C ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way ( ) wrong, but should receive p ra c tio a ily no punishment a t a l l ( ) not wrong and should not be p u n ish e d in any way ( ) wrong, b u t should n o tloe punished in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way (22) IF A M A N T A K E S $100 F R O M T H E OFFICE W H E R E H E IS E M PL O Y E D : The Man Is : ( ) wrong, but should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way ( ) wrong, but should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a l l ( ) not wrong and should not be punished in any way (23) IF A B O Y SPREA D S LIES A B O U T A GIRL W H O LIVES IN HIS N E IG H B O R H O O D ; The Boy I s : C ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way ( ) not wrong and should not be punished in ary way ( ) wrong, b u t should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a l l ( ) wrong, b u t should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way (2U) IF A 16 Y E A R O L D GIRL H A S SE X U A L R ELA TIO N S W ITH T H E B O Y S W H O M SH E D ATES: The G irl I s : ( ) wrong, but should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way ( ) wrong, but should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a ll ( ) not wrong and should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way - h - (2$) IF A W O M A N RUNS-OFF A N D L E A V E S H E R H U S B A N D A N D C H IL D R E N F O R O V E R SIX M O N T H S A N D GIVES N O E X PL A N A T IO N FO R L E A V IN G * The W om an Is* ( ) not wrong and should not he punished in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way ( ) wrong and should be punished s e v e re ly in some way ( ) wrong, but should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong, but should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a l l (26) IF A M A N HITS A PE R SO N W ITH HIS C A R B U T D O E S N O T STOP A T THE SC EN E O F TH E A C C ID EN T B E C A U SE H E IS R U SH IN G HIS WIFE T O TH E HOSPITAL: The Man Is: ( ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in sane way ( ) not wrong and should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong, but should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a l l ( ) wrong, but should not be punished in any way (27) IF A 17 Y E A R O L D B O Y BEATS-UP HIS FA TH ER B EC A U SE H E S A W HIS FA TH ER BEA TIN G HIS M O T H E R : The Bojr Is* ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way ( ) wrong, b u t should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished sev erely in some way ( ) wrong, but should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a l l ( ) not wrong and should not be punished in any way (28) IF A W O M A N "LIFTS" TH E W A L L E T O F T H E W E A L T H Y M A N W H O H A PPEN S T O B E SITTING N E X T T O H E R A T A BA R, B EC A U SE H E R H U S B A N D H A S LEFT H E R A N D SHE N E E D S M O N E Y F O R D O C T O R BILLS* The W om an I s : ( ) wrong, but sho'uld*~hot be punished in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way ( ) wrong, but should reoeive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a l l ( ) not wrong and should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way (29) IF A 16 Y E A R O L D B O Y H A S SEX U A L RELATIO N S W ITH TH E GIRLS W H O M H E DATES, B E C A U S E T H E Y "W A N T IT" A N D A SK HIM FO R IT: The Bo£ I s : ( ) wrong, but should not be punished in any way ( j wrong, but should receive p ra c tio a lly no punishment a t a l l ( ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way ( ) not wrong and should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way (30) IF A M A N "SN ATCHES" TH E PU RSE O F A RICH W O M A N W H O H A PPEN S T O BE W A LK IN G -BY , B E C A U SE H E IS O U T O F W O R K A N D H E N E E D S M O N E Y TO C A R E FO R HIS SICK C H ILD R EN * The Man I s : C ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way ( ) wrong, b u t should not be punished in any way ( ) not wrong and should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong and should bo punished moderately in some way ( ) wrong, but should reoeive p ra c tio a lly no punishment a t a l l - 5 - IF A W O M A N C H A R G E S M E N M O N E Y FO R LETTING T H E M H A V E SE X U A L RELA TIO N S W IT H H E R B E C A U SE H E R H U S B A N D LEFT H E R A N D SH E H A S N O M E A N S O F SUPPORT: The W oman l e t ( ) wrong, but should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a l l ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way ( ) not wrong and should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way ( ) wrong, but should not be punished I n any way IF A M A N B EA TS HIS 12 Y E A R O L D S O N UNTIL H E IS BRUISED, B E C A U SE T H E B O Y D ELIB ER A TELY SET A FIRE IN TH E G A R A G E: The Man I s : ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately In some way ( ) wrong, but should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way ( ) not wrong and should not be p u n ish e d in any way ( ) wrong, b u t should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a l l IF A H IG H -SCH O O L B O Y TELLS HIS T E A C H E R A B O U T O N E O F TH E GIRIS W H O H A S B E E N C H EA T IN G O N T H E E X A M S GIVEN IN C LA SS B E C A U SE H E FEELS T H A T H E R C H E A T IN G IS UNFAIR T O TH E O T H E R ST U D EN T S IN TH E CLASS: The Bo£ I s : ( ) not wrong and should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong, but should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a l l ( ) wrong and should be punished severely In some way ( ) wrong, but should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way IF A M A N L E A V E S HIS W IFE A N D C H ILD R EN A N D M A K E S N O EFFO RT T O SU PPO R T T H E M B E C A U SE HIS W IFE M A K E S HIS LIFE A T H O M E C O M P L E T E L Y M ISERA BLE B Y T H E W A Y SH E ACTS: The Man I s : ( ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way ( ) wrong, b u t should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a l l ( ) not wrong and should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way ( ) wrong, b u t should not be punished in any way IF A B O Y LIES A B O U T HIS SISTER B EC A U SE SH E TELLS LIES A B O U T HIM : The Boy I s : C ) wrong, b u t should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a l l > ) wrong and should not be punishea in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way ( ) wrong, but should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way IF A M A N H A S SE X U A L RELA TIO N S W ITH A PROSTITUTE B E C A U S E HIS W IFE H A S LEFT H IM A N D H E IS LO N ELY : The Man Is : ( ) wrong, b u t should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way ( ) wrong, but should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a l l ( ) not wrong and should not be punished in any way IF A W O M A N C A LLS H E R 10 Y E A R O L D SO N A D IRTY N A M E B E C A U SE H E H A S B E E N N A G G IN G A T H E R A LL D A Y LO N G : The W om an I s : ( ) wrong and should be puniWHgd ftofl&rltely in some way ( ) wrong, but should receiv e p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a l l ( ) not wrong and should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way ( ) wrong, b u t should not be punished in any way - 6 - (38) IF TH E M A N IN C H A R G E O F A G R O U P O F B O Y -SC O U T S B E A T S O N E O F T H E B O Y S UNTIL H E IS B R U ISED B E C A U SE T H E B O Y D EL IB E R A T E L Y SET A FIRE IN TH E M EETIN G -H A LL: The Man Is : C ) noT~wrong and should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished severely in sons way ( ) wrong, but should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong, but should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a l l ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in sane way (39) IF A 17 Y E A R O L D B O Y TRIES T O R A PE A 16 Y E A R O L D GIRL W H O LIVES IN HIS N E IG H B O R H O O D , B E C A U SE SHE H A S B E E N "TEASING" H IM FO R QUITE A W H IL E A N D SA TIN G H E W A S "CH ICK EN T O T R Y IT ": The Boy Is t ( ) wrong and should be punished severely Tn some way ( ) wrong, but should not be punished in a n y way ( ) not wrong and should not be punished in aiy way ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way ( ) wrong, but should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a l l (UO) IF A M A N STEA LS $100 F R O M A H O M E FO R O R P H A N S B E C A U SE H E IS O U T O F W O R K A N D HIS C H ILD R EN A R E SICK: The Man Is : ( ) wrong, but should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a ll ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way ( ) not wrong and should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way ( ) wrong, but should not be punished in any way ( Ul) IF A H IG H -SCH O O L GIRL C O N T IN U A L L Y C H E A T S O N TH E E X A M S G IV EN IN H E R CLASSES, B E C A U SE H E R M O T H E R M A K E S H E R D O SO M U C H W O R K A R O U N D H O M E T H A T SH E H A S N O TIM E T O S T U D Y H E R S C H O O L -W O R K * The G irl Is : ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way ( ) wrong, but should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way ( ) wrong, but should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a l l ( ) not wrong and should not be punished in any way (U2) IF A MINISTER O F A C H U R C H H A S SE X U A L R ELA TIO N S W ITH A PROSTITUTE B E C A U S E HIS W IFE H A S LEFT H IM A N D H E IS LON ELY : The M inister Is: ( ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way ( ) not wrong and should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong, but should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a l l ( ) wrong, but should not be punished in a n y way ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way (U3) IF A M A N O B SE R V E S A H IG H -SCH O O L GIRL SHOP-LIFTING JE W E L R Y IN A STO RE A N D H E TELLS T H E STO RE DETECTIVE A B O U T IT, IN O R D E R T O O E T A R E W A R D FO R D O IN G SO: The Man I s : ( ) not wrong and should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong, but should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a l l ( ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way ( ) wrong, but should not be punished in a n y way ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way (UU) IF A N 18 Y E A R O L D GIRL SELLS N U D E P H O T O G R A P H S O F H ER SELF T O T H E PU BLISH ER O F A "M AN'S M A G A Z IN E " IN O R D E R T O E A R N M O N E Y FO R H E R C O L L E G E ED U C A TIO N : The G irl Is : ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way ( ) wrong, but should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a l l ( ) not wrong and should not be punished j in any way >ly in sc ) wrong, but should not be punished in any way | ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way - 7 - (U5) IF A B O Y SPR E A D S LIES A B O U T A GIRL W H O LIVES IN HIS N E IG H B O R H O O D , B E C A U S E THIS GIRL TELLS LIES A B O U T HIM : The Bo^ la : ( ) wrong, but should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a l l ( ) wrong, but should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished severely In some way ( ) not wrong and should not be punishedIn any way ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately In some way (I46) IF A 13 Y E A R O L D B O Y T H R O W S A R O C K T H R O U G H T H E W IN D O W O F A M A N 'S H O U S E B E C A U SE THIS M A N IS M E A N A N D IS A L W A Y S SW E A R IN G A T TH E C H ILD R EN IN T H E N E IG H B O R H O O D : The Boy Is : ( ) wrong and’"sKoula Tie punished moderately In some way ( ) wrong, but should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a l l ( ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way ( ) wrong, but should not be punished in a n y way ( ) not wrong and should not be punished in any way (U7) IF A M A N T A K E S $100 F R O M TH E OFFICE W H E R E H E IS E M P L O Y E D IN O R D E R T O P A Y S O M E OF HIS O V ER -D U E BILLS; A N D T H E N A M O N T H LATER, H E PU TS T H E M O N E Y B A C K IN T H E OFFICE W H E R E IT W A S IN TH E FIRST PLACE: The Man Is : C ) wrong, but should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way ( ) not wrong and should not be p u n ish ed in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way ( ) wrong, but should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a l l (h8 ) IF A 16 Y E A R O L D GIRL H A S SE X U A L RELA TIO N S W ITH TH E B O Y S W H O M SH E D A T E S B EC A U SE T H E Y "W A N T IT A N D A S K FO R IT ": The G irl I s : ( ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way ( ) not wrong and should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong, but should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a l l ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way ( ) wrong, but should not be punished in any way (il9) IF A H IG H -SCH O O L GIRL T A K E S S O M E C L O T H E S F R O M A D E P A R T M E N T STO RE W IT H O U T PA Y IN G FO R TH EM , B E C A U SE SHE IS P O O R A N D C A N N O T A F F O R D T O B U Y T H E K IN D O F C L O T H E S W H IC H T H E P O PU L A R GIRLS W E A R A T SC H O O L: The G irl Is : ( ) wrong, b u t should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a l a l l ( ) wrong, but should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way ( ) not wrong and should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong and should be punished severely in some way (50) IF A W O M A N RUNS-OFF A N D L E A V E S H E R H U S B A N D A N D C H ILD R EN FO R O V E R SIX M O N T H S, B E C A U S E H E R H U S B A N D M A K E S H E R LIFE A T H O M E C O M P L E T E L Y M ISERA BLE B Y T H E W A Y H E A C T S j The W om an I s : ( ) wrong and shouT3 be punished severely in some way ( ) wrong, but should receive p ra c tic a lly no punishment a t a l l ( ) wrong and should be punished moderately in some way ( ) not wrong and should not be punished in any way ( ) wrong, but should not be punished in any way - 8 -

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Reference Group Theory, Selection, And The Images Of Professions

PDF

The Construction And Empirical Test Of A Theory Based On Selected Variables In Small-Group Interaction

PDF

Perception Of The Power Structure By Social Class In A California Community

PDF

The Career Business Executive As A Definitive Occupational Type

PDF

Interpersonal Relations In Ethnically Mixed Small Work Groups

PDF

Social Class Membership And Ethnic Prejudice In Cedar City

PDF

Group Factors And Individual Internalization Of A Value

PDF

Role Expectations Of American Undergraduate College Women In A Western Coeducational Institution

PDF

Attitudes Of Ministers And Lay Leaders Of The American Baptist Conventionof The State Of Washington On Selected Social Issues

PDF

Personality Characteristics: Ideal And Perceived In Relation To Mate Selection

PDF

An analytical study of attorneys' occupational values and satisfaction

PDF

Consensus Of Role Perceptions In A Welfare Planning Council

PDF

S.T.P.: A Simulation Of Treatment Processes

PDF

Bam: An Innovative Change Model--Barriers Encountered In The Implementation Of A Classical Research Design To Modify The Behavior And Attitude Of Staff And Inmates In A Correctional Institution

PDF

The Selfish Self: A Social Psychological Study Of Social Character

PDF

A Study Of Factors Related To Police Diversion Of Juveniles: Departmentalpolicy And Structure, Community Attachment, And Professionalization Of Police

PDF

Some Social Factors Affecting The Power Structure And Status Of A Professional Association In Reference To Social Work

PDF

Time And Man-Nature Value-Orientations As Related To Sex Identity, Ethnicidentity, And Socioeconomic Status And As Predictors Of Academic Success

PDF

A Study Of Relationships Between Occupational And Marital Roles And Marital Adjustment

PDF

A Critique Of The Concept Ethnocentrism As Set Forth In Selected Social Science Literature

Asset Metadata

Creator Rollins, Glenn Richard (author)

Core Title Normative values of selected law enforcement officers and adult male offenders

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Sociology, general

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

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,sociology, criminology and penology

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Vincent, Melvin J. (committee chair), Brackenbury, Robert L. (committee member), McDonagh, Edward C. (committee member), Sabagh, Georges (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-229920

Unique identifier UC11358080

Identifier 6103824.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-229920 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6103824.pdf

Dmrecord 229920

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Rollins, Glenn Richard

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