Perceptions of Self and Significant Others in Assaultive and Nonassaultive Criminals

L I

Randy Martin Department of Psychology, West Liberty State College

Assaultive and nonassaultive inmates at a state correctional facility were compared on the processes and out- comes of evaluation o f self and signifi- cant others. Respondents were admin- istered a demographics interview and a modified version of the Role Con- struct Repertory Test. The two groups differed significantly on factors relat- ing to self regard and the perceptual schema employed in evaluating self and others. Assauhives were higher in se!/'regard and exhibited more percep- tual rigidity/concreteness while pos- sessing lower levels o f dixcriminability and abstractness.

In spite of the tremendous amount of literature devoted to the topic of violence and violentcrime over the past 100 years or so, there still are some severe deficiencies in the knowledge necessary to adequately address issues in identification, prediction, preven- tion, and rehabilitation. Until very recently, demographic /soc io logica l

(classification of antecedents) infor- mation and individual psychiatric case studies have provided the two primary sources of data in the area. Conse- quently, the study of criminal behavior is and has been dominated by attempts at parceling out the different "causes." This approach is characterized by the advocacy of favorite "causes of crime," each of which has enjoyed some pop- ularity and acceptance. Unfortunately in this search for "the causes" of crime, the criminal behavior itself and the perspectives and motives of the offend- ers have been largely neglected, leaving many questions unanswered.

Glueck (referenced in Bovet, 1951, p. 20) stated that to address such ques- tions, we must specifically recognize in our supplementary research that "a factor cannot become a cause before it is a motive." The observation is quite consistent with Dengerink's (1976) conclusion tha t aggress ive/violent responses are subject to the control of personality variables, and there are

2 Jo. r .a l of Pol{ce mid Cflmtmzl Ps}ch¢>lo~, Oc¢¢.hl.~r 1'~5, '¢01, I . No. ]

occasions when these variables appear to have profound effects on such behaviors which can even counteract or override the effects of potent situational variables. Also, it is important to note that personality variables often consist of covert behaviors which are difficult, if aaot impossible to manipulate (in the "empirical" sense) directly. Therefore, the act of violence itself cannot serve as our only unit of study, because the motives are never self explanatory. The very least information we must have to make any sense of violence is the immediate antecedent of the act, but for more complete understanding, our focus must be on the perceptions and motives of "real players in concrete settings" (Toch, 1969).

The s tudy to be reported here addresses various personality variables, but da ta on moral and cognitive development and neuropsychological variables and brain dysfunction were also collected utilizing the same pop- ulation. This research is somewhat exploratory because a multimethod- ological paradigm was adopted and the focus was on mediational (personality) variables; also, the main thrust of the project was directed at a data set which has not really received much research attention with adult criminal popula- t ions . -percept ion of self (i.e., self concept, self esteem).

Of course the assessment of person- ality variables is no easy task. There are always questions about the validity of self report, pencil and paper data. However, the method adopted in this study, a modified Role Construct Repertory (Rep) Test, does much to minimize such problems. The inmates were required to offer their own personal constructs (characteristics) to be rated. Such an approach can elim- inate some of the problems which may occur when working with highly deviant groups who very often construe the world in ways which do not fit with

psychologists' preconceived ideas. Also, this procedure is not as subject to intentional biasing by the respondent, as it is far from transparent. The Rep affords these advantages which are often associated with the interview or case-study techniques, while maintain- ing a more s t ructured eva lua t ion format.

Given the relatively poor results and methodotogical problems with many of the studies taking a "personal i ty" approach, it has been concluded that no consistent pattern or cluster of traits could be identified in the personalities of violent individuals (Feshbaeh, 1970; Goldstein, 1975). This conclusion does not offer a very encouraging note on which to begin similar research, but there have been some fairly consistent findings that have turned up in the literature from time to time. A number of studies have alluded to and reported that self concept (i.e., self esteem, self respect) might play a role in various antisocial behaviors, including those of a more violent nature (Johnson, 1972; Geen, 1972; Balester, 1956/1970; Deitche, 1959; Kim, I967; Fitts, 1972; Fitts & Hamner, 1970; Toch, 1969, I977, 1979). However, very few studies were found that had attempted to assess differences in self concept in actual criminal populations. The works that were encountered were concerned, for the most part, either with juvenile delinquents (e.g., Fitts & Hamner, 1970; Balester, 1956/1970) or psychopathic personalilies (e.g., Fitts, t972). These works compared delinquents or psycho- pathics with "normals." No studies were found which utilized adult male crim- inal populations or which attempted to subdivide groups based on differential systems of self perception. Some of Toch's work (1969, 1977) has employed self evaluation processes as part of a classification system, but in a more indirect way. The categories developed by Toch (1969) actually relate more

Self Per~pll~# tn C~mln~le 3

directly to interaction or coping styles than they do to self concept specifically. Also, his system was designed for subdividing violent offenders.

Procedure

Subjects were 38 males convicted of various offenses, both assaultive and nonassaultive in nature (as defined by the F.B.I. Crime Index). A|I subjects were incarcerated in the Nebraska State Department of Correctiort's Diagnostic and Evaluation Center. Names were selected at random from the inmate population list, and the offender was then contacted as to whether he would be willing to participate. Therefore. all subjects were randomly selected from the general facility population (which consists of all convicted adult male criminals from the entire state, usually for a period of 1-3 months), but their participation was contingent upon their willingness to do so (the compliance rate was over 90%). Persons considered to be primarily sex offenders were excluded from the sample since it is believed that they constitute a some- what unique subdivision of violent or assaultive offenders.

All subjects were administered an interview, the Hand Test (a projective test designed to assess levels of assaul- tiveness) (Wagner, 1969), and a mod- ified version of Kelly's (1955) Role Construct Repertory (Rep) procedure. The interview pertained to more typ- ically demographic variables (e.g., family history, economic status, etc.) but additional information was atso obtained concerning arrest records, punishment history and perceptions, history of physical altercations, and ownership of weapons. Arrest informa- tion was also obtained from the official arrest record contained in each subject's institutional file.

The Rep Test provides a means of assessing the processes and outcomes of the evaluation of self and/or others

utilizing the respondent's personal construct system. The version of the Rep which was utilized was broken down into two sections, one assessing perception of self (Self Rep) and the other examining perceptions of signif- icant others (Reg Rep). The Self Rep was developed by Dr. Monte Page at the University Nebraska--Lincoln; it is a variation of Kelly's original Role Construct Repertory Inventory (Kelly, 1955). The original version of the Rep was designed to provide a less struc- tured means for assessing an individ- ual's frame of reference (construct system) as it pertains to making attri- butions and judgements about other persons occupying significant roles in the respondent's life.

On the Self Rep, subjects read phrases describing themselves in 15 various roles (e.g.1 Me in the role of a son or a daughter). Subjects then rated themselves, using a ]3-point scale (+6 0 -6), in each of the 15 roles on 15 bipolar dimensions. Those dimensions consisted of I5 construct pairs, 9 of which were generated by the individual subject with the following restrictions: 3 positive characteristics and their opposites; 3 negative characteristics and their opposites; and 3 characteristics i would like to have more of and their opposites. The remaining 6 pairs (feel guilty--feel no guilt; not angry--angry; not fr ightened--fr ightened; have hope--have no hope; not frustrated-- frustrated; and in control- -out of control) were provided by the researcher and were the same for all subjects.

The Reg Rep required that the respondent make general ratings of each of 20 persons from significant role relationships. The ratings were based upon the same 15 bipolar constructs and ut~ilized the same rating scale as discussed above.

4 Rzndy MJL~n

The Rep scoring procedure yields a multitude of potential scores or vari- ables for each individual Rep. Thirty of these variables were chosen for use in this analysis, based on some unpub- lished research by the author (Martin, 1981) comparing the Self Rep to the Tennessee Self Concept Scale. Both segments of the Rep Test were scored for mean ratings of the various role and person combinations and the corres- ponding standard deviations. Other computed scores were representative of the strategies adopted in using the scale. These include scores such as extremity, rigidity, discriminabitity, the absolute values and evaluativeness. Absolute scores were also computed for each pole of the provided constructs.

Results

Subjects were separated into three groups: assaultives, nonassaultives, and undefined. The assaultive group (n : t4) consisted of those individuals whose arrest records reflect a his tory of violence, that is, two or more arrests for assaultive crimes (at least one physical in nature), as defined by the F.B.I. Crime Index.

Nonassaultives (n : t 7 ) were those whose arrest records exhibited no incidents or very low levels of assaul- tiveness, one assault or less. The unde- fined group (n=7) was comprised of those individuals whose arrest history exhibited either two or possibly more assaultive arrests but did not contain any type of physical assaults against persons, or one serious assaultive arrest (primarily homicide) with very little, if any, other criminal history.

The findings of major interest are concerned with the differences between assaultives and nonassauttives, espe- cially on the Self Rep; t-tests were computed on all Rep variables and the provided constructs.

Self Rep: Assauhives vs. Nonassaultives

Analysis of these data yielded statis- tically significant differences on five variables and strong trends on two others. These variables correspond to the three (out of five total) major factors which were identified (through factor analysis) on the Self Rep in some unpublished research by the author (Martin, 1981). The first three variables (see Table I), Evaluativeness (percent

TABLE 1. Serf Rep Variable Means for Assaultives vs. Nonassaultives

Variable

Evaluativeness (percent zero ratings) Discrlminability-- Roles Diseriminability--Total

Assaultives

9.71 5.36 9.36

Nonassaultives

12.[2" 8.59*

I7.4l*

Rigidity--Concreteness (extremity of ratings)

Rigidity (tolal number of sixes)

908.36

76.64

721.06'

51.76"*

Self Regard--Power Roles Self Regard--Total (percentage of positive

ratings) Feel Guilty In Control * p < .05, 2~tailed * * p < .10, 2~tailed

2.23 63.71

24.71 58.35

0.42* 53.29**

16.65 48.78

Self Ferc~ptlon in C~mlnsls 5

zero ratings), Discriminabillty--Roles, Discriminability--Total, represent a relatedness/similarity continuum (fac- tor). These scores can be seen as being indicative of the level of selective self evaluation, with lower scores (assauF tives) indicating more willingness to judge self (Evaluativeness) and less d iscr iminabi l i ty in the evaluat ion process, across the various roles and constructs.

Another factor, rigidity (excessive use of the extreme ratings on the scale) is reflected in the variables Rigidity (total number of sixes) and Rigidity-- Concreteness (total extremity). This factor relates to over certainty in evaluating self. Simply stated, it reflects the level of all-or-none thinking (i.e., concreteness) about the self. The higher the score (assaultives) on both of these variables, the greater the rigidity in eval- uating self regardless of the circum- stances.

The third factor is general level of self regard. It is a measure of the outcome of the evaluation of self (i.e., self concept); the higher the scores (assaultives), the more positive the expressed self concept. The mean self rating for power roles and the total self regard score (percentage of positive ratings) are representative of this factor.

The main measure of self esteem is the mean of the 15 ratings for the role, "Me as I usually am." The assaultive mean was 2.46, and the nonassaultive mean was 1.02, indicating that the assaultives possess higher self esteem. These findings are consistent with much of the work done on self concept in criminal populations, discussed in some detail later.

The analysis of the provided con- structs ratings yielded no statistically significant differences, but two scores did show strong trends, Feel Guilty and In Control . The assaultive group reported experiencing more guilt across roles and also felt that they were more in control regardless of the situation.

In summary, assaultives were more willing to make evaluations of them- selves across roles and constructs (as indicated by significantly fewer zeros in the rating process). Also, assaultives showed less discriminability, rating themselves more positively and employ- ing the extremes of the rating scale significantly more. In other words, assaultives saw themselves more pos- itively, regardless of the role occupied, and exhibited more willingness to make a definite evaluation decision abont themselves for each construct-role pairing.

TABLE 2.

Variable

Regular Rep Variable Means for Assaultives vs. Nonassaultives

Assaultives Nonassauitives

Rating Similarity--People Discrimiuability--Family Subset Discriminabil~ty--'i-otal Ratings Range Rigidity (total sixes) Rigidity--Positiveness (positive sixes) Rigidity--Average (mean extremity of

ratings) Rigidity-- Negativeness (negative sixes) * p <~ ,05. 21tailed ** p < .I0, 2-tailed

78.88 26.00* 3.91 2.38* 9.62 16,62'*

22.12 13.12'* 77.38 40,00** 39.62 10.12" 4,57 3.71'*

62.50 29.88**

6 Rmnd~ M i r t l n

Reg Rep: Assaultives vs. Nonassaultives

As with the Self Rep, the greatest differences in the Reg Rep turned up between the assaultives and nonassaul- tires. The results are quite consistent with the Self Rep data in terms of scale usage (see Table 2). Assaultives exhib- ited lower scores on the variables relating to discriminability in the rating process, and their higher rigidity scores signify that when rating others, just as when rating themselves, assaultives tend to make more use of the extremes of the scale (i.e., more concrete, less abstract in the evaluation process). Furthermore, in the ease of rating others, they seem especially willing to use extreme ratings when making negative evaluations.

The standard deviation of the family subset ratings is slightly inconsistent with the above discriminability data. The assaultives demonstrated greater discriminability than did nonassaultives when rating the members of their family (mother, father, and brother and sister nearest own age).

Regression Analysis: Self Rep Variables

Stepwise inclusion multiple regres- sion (from the standard SPSS package) was conducted using variables from the Serf Rep. The dependem variable was the group classification of the respon-

dent (assaultive, non-assaultive, unde- fined). The independent variables were: Rigidity~ Self Regard--Total, Rigid- i ty-Concreteness, Discriminability-- Roles and Total, Evaluativeness (self), and Self Regard--Power Roles. The Rep variables chosen were those yield- ing meaningful differences in the assaultive vs. nonassaultive t-tests on the Self Rep. As stated at the outset, only these R ep variables were included because the primary focus of this study is differences between assauitives and nonassaultives, especially in the realm of self concept.

The seven variables accounted for a combined total of 33% of the variance, with Rigidity accounting for most of it, 20.7%. The remaining six Rep variables accounted for an additional I2%. Five of the variables attained significance at the .025 level or better. This analysis indicates that certain Self Rep variables, in this case Rigidity and Serf Regard--Total, may prove to be of some utility in developing a system for identifying and predicting violent offenders. The da ta may also be interpreted as manifestations of some of the dynamics underlying certain individuals" proneness to violence.

Discussion and Conclusions

The above data suggest that some intriguing and identifiable differences do exist between the three subdivisions

TABLE 3. Power of Meaningful Serf Rep Variables in Predicting Criminal Group

Variable Multiple R R Square RSQ Change F Ratio

Rigidity 0.45515 0.20716 0.20716 9.60643* Self Regard--Total 0.51026 0.26037 0.05321 6. ! 6043** Rigidity--Concreteness 0.51956 0.26995 0.00958 4.I9066"** Discdminabi{ity--Roles 0.55835 0.31 ! 76 0.04181 3.73704"** Diseriminability--Tot al 0.58839 0.32283 0.0I 107 2.73587"** Evaluativeness 0.59527 0.32707 0.00424 1.98948 Self Regard--Power Roles 0.5957I 0.32759 0.00053 1.71 I38 * = , 0 0 5 * * = . 0 1 * ' " = , 0 2 5 +

Self P e ~ e p f i o r i in Crlmlnt]s 7

of convic ted criminals , especial ly between assaultives and nenassaultives. These data, coupled with the facts that deviant {criminal) conduct is not evenly distributed throughout the social struc- ture (Wolfgang & Fcrracuti, 1967) and criminal violence is not evenly distrib- uted throughout the general criminal population (Newman, 1979), suggest that there are differences in ideas and attitudes toward the use of violence which can be observed through vari- ables related to psychological correlates as well as social determinants (Wolf- gang & Ferracuti, 1967). It was the purpose of this study to examine some of these potential psychological corre- lates while also incorporating factors relating to the sociological milieu within which the respondents develop, live, and function.

Assaultive Profile The assaultive profile the data sug-

gest is one of a somewhat over-inflated positive sell" concept, a lack of discrim- inability in evaluating self and others, and a tendency to think and evaluate in a very concrete (either/or) manner. Such persons, because of their inabil- ities in abstract thought ~ and discrimin- ability, have a much higher probability of mis in terpre t ing complex social events. It may also be relatively safe to assume, in conjunction with this overly concrete and rigid perceptual schema, that some deficits in role taking/empathy skills exist. Deficien- cies in these types of perceptual and interaction skills could drastically limit the range of interpretation for events and intentions, thereby rcsulting in inappropriate and often deviant respon- ses. When this either/or approach for dealing with the world is coupled with an acceptance of violence as a valid means for responding to others and confronting problems, a great many situations come to hold the potential for violence. The finding that assaul-

tJves demonstrated higher levels of positive self regard adds to the possibil- ity of a violent confrontation as it may provide justification and a means for rationalizing violent acts against others (e.g., "I am a very good person. I am always right. Therefore what happened was your fault, and you got what you deserved ").

Quite a bit of support for such a profile can be gleaned from the liter- ature. Bandura (1979) pointed out that the existence of some type of self regulatory system does not create a *'me- chanical servocontrol system wherein behavioral output is accurately moni- tored," nor do situational influences exercise mechanical control. Personal judgements operating m each subfunc- tion preclude the automalicity of the process. When we discuss personal judgement factors, we are by necessity addressing dynamic psychological and / or cognitive processes occurring within the individ ual.

Because of the inherent ambiguity and complexity of most events (espe- cially those of a social nature) and the resulting latitude for interpretation, adaptability, flexibility, and the ability to be abstract become of paramount importance in adequately handling a wide variety of situations. Rizzo and Ferracuti {1959) found that the perpe- t r a to r s of crimes against persons demonstrated a high level of rigidity and showed an inability to adjust to a variety of situations. Rigidity and poor adjustment skills preclude high discriminability, which in turn may result in deficiencies in foreseeing the consequences of one's behavior and the behavior of others. This lack of future perspective drastically affects the types of behaviors produced and tends to reduce rationality (Goldstein, 1975). This may lead to a tendency to react impulsively, often based on the antic- ipation of erroneously perceived chal- lenges and insults. An anecdote from

It :Rmud,y MurtJIn

my own research should serve to clarify this point, l interviewed an inmate who had 30 arrests for assault. This struck me as somewhat surprising as he seemed to be a rather personable fellow. When 1 questioned him as to how this might have occurred, he said that whenever he went into a bar someone would pick a fight with him. I asked him what the "instigators" had done, and he replied:

"They just look at me like they don't like me."

In addressing the issue of deficits in role taking/empathy skills Toch (1969) stated that most of us learn at an early age to take into account what others want and need, but violent adults continue to base their lives on the premise that the only purpose of others is to cater to them. Rizzo and Ferracuti (1959) found that assaultive perpetra- tors exhibited less empathy than either thieves or member of a 400-person control group of "normals."

These perceptual problems may be partially the result of and /or com- pounded by deficiencies in social skills. Such inadequacies become an integral part of violent behavior as they often result in individuals seeing no other means for accomplishing their ends (Toch, t969). It also seems likely that social in te rac t ion deficits may be (partially) responsible lbr the lack of adaptability and discriminability we find in assault(yes, since they are getting only minimal and often incorrect information from any given situation. This, in turn. can eventuate in the fai lure to see a l te rna t ives , which hampers effective self control. You will recall that assault(yes reported feeling more in control so they may not feel any need to look beyond their own immcdiately perceived solutions, espe- cially since they have a strong base for justification in their overinflated self concepts.

These combined deficits may be seen as constituting an antisocial character structure which is incapable of properly handling reality. This leads to the general conclusion that the social environment may precipitate antisocial conduct but most often only in persons with var ious combina t ions of the characteristics discussed above (Fried- lander, t947}. The presence of this character structure is often manifested by the individual's tendency to escalate trivial incidents (Toch, 1969). When all of these other factors are coalesced with the obvious acceptance of violence as a strategy for social interaction, the ini t ial s tance on any p o t e n t i a l l y problematic situation becomes one that makes violence highly probable. Vio- lence is tempting as it d rastlcaliy reduces the complexity of the situation. Reason and restraint in the face of difficulties indicates that one recognizes more than one side to a problem and that compromise might be a way to settle the dispute (Goldstein, 1975). But when one tends to make rigid and concrete eilher/or evaluations, one's ability to enter tain al ternatives is drastically diminished; and if violence is already a well established response in one's behav io ra l r eper to i re , it becomes even more imminent.

The general finding of the expression of a more positive self concept in assaultive individuals is supported by several studies. It was concluded that assaultives were egocentric and imma- ture (Rizzo & Ferracuti, 1959). Bandura and Waiters (1959) and Perry and Bussey (1977) discovered that assaultive boys experienced relatively few negative self reactions over aggressive activities and act ively rewarded themselves gcnerously for inflicting suffering. In the current study, the subjects were asked to generate three personal con- structs meeting the criterion of being faults or bad characteristics about oneself. Many of the inmates found it

~elf Perceplion in Lrin,ieml~ 9

difficult, if not literally impossible, to think of negative characteristics, even with prompting.

The work that provides the most support for the findings of this study is that of Toch (1969). In his book, Violent Men, an Inquiry into the Psychology of Violence, he delineates two general typologies of violent individuals: (l) self image promoters; (2) self indulging. Space constraints preclude us from examining these types and their subtypes in detail, but the common theme running through all of them is the maintenance of an over- inflated, (possibly) defensively moti- vated self concept through the use of violence.

It could be that the two general typologies that Toch (1969) offered are points (or clusters of points) on the same continuum. We may have indi- viduals who have experienced varying deficient amounts of positive regard from others, and, as a defense against the unpleasant feelings generated by their negative and often downright abusive interactions, they have stopped relying on feedback from others to validate their self concept. As a result of these defensive maneuvers, they have constructed a wall around their "real selves, '~ only letting out a distorted and highly defensive self image. After maintaining this facade for so long, they come to lose virtually all contact with their "real selves, ~' and the defensive image takes over completely. In a system like this, where the self relies only on itself, a rigid and overinflated concept can develop and flourish. These are ideas very similar to many of those offered by Kelly (1955), Rogers (1959, 1961), Homey (1945, 1950) and Angyal (1965).

From the current findings and those reported in the somewhat diverse range of literature reviewed, it can be con- cluded that self concept and the per- ceptual schema which have developed

to maintain it are important factors in the etiology of violent lifestyles, it also seems feasible to slate that the Rep format may prove to be an optimal technique for exploring various areas of functioning in criminal and other deviant populations. The Rep offers a reasonable blend of "looseness" and structure; it has both idiographic and nomothetic qualities.

Conclusions

Although this treatment did not afford the opportunity to fully explore or even touch upon all of the factors and issues surrounding this area of functioning and development in crim- inal offenders, it can be concluded from the Rep data that the self concept does seem to play an important role in the etiology of criminal violence. Also, a multidimensional continuum combin- ing self concept and perceptual schema (self and social) does exist (see Figure t). The assaultives represent one extreme of this continuum, exhibiting higher levels of positive self concept, higher levels of rigidity, and lower levels of discriminahility (more extremity) in their evaluation processes (i.e., higher on concreteness). They also report feeling more guilt and being more in control across roles. The undefineds occupy the other extreme, displaying less positive serf concept (i.e., more negativity), less extremity and rigidity, and higher levels of discrimlnability in their evaluation processes (i.e., lower on concreteness, and more abstractness). They also report feeling less guilt and being less in control (i.e., more out of control). The nonassaultives fall some- where between these two groups on all of the above dimensions. Of course, there is some within-group variation, and some may not fit the pattern at all.

The dynamic conceptualization that has been adopted in these analyses assumes that a variety of differently

I~ R~ald~ MaT'i]o

directed forces are simultaneously at work within the individual personality (Jarvinen, 1977), and it must be realized that most violent/aggressive responses are combinations of expressive, hostile, and instrumental components (John- son, 1972). Therefore, the violence- prone individual can be seen as reflect- mg and personifying psychological and social forces at work in the production of violence (Toch, I969). Given the multitude of factors that can be involved and the tremendous possibil- ities for interaction among them, it is clear that the etiology of violent acts and violent lifestyles constitutes a very complex array of internal and external factors and processes interacting in a multidimensionaiIy deterministic manner.

The high levels of violence perpe- try/ted by the assaultives are not "caused" by their vocation, but there is little doubt that the vocation provides an excellent arena for the expression ofviolenee. None of the factors outlined are complete determinants of violence (Newman, 1979) because the data still beg the question of how different individuals, often with very similar backgrounds, actually come to develop different degrees of proneness for violence. The answer to this question is the ultimate goal of all research in the area. Even though the findings here and in the literature do shed consid- erable light on some of the dynamics involved in this development process, it is a goal that still seems to be far from fruition.

Concreteness Positive Self Concept

HighGuilt ! Assaultives ~ an Control

Nonassaultives

Out of Control / Undefineds ~ Low Guilt

Negative Self Concept Abstractness

Figure I. Multidimensional Continuum of Proneness of Violence

N.tlf Perception in Cr imJnt l~ I I

Author Note

[ would like to thank Monte Page for his input during the entire course of this research and Di~k Diensthler for hls invaluable editing. Thanks also go to Dr. Kenneth Liggett and the folks at the Diagnostic and Evaluation Center of the Nebraska State Department of Corrections for all of their cooperation and help. And, special thanks to my partner. Monte Scott.

Note.

IThis contention is strongly supported by the cognitive/moral development data collected as part of this project. All three groups exhibited re~oning scores lower than the norms for their general age group and much younger ages, with the assaultives scoring a~ low as the Junior High level {Martin, 1983),

Referenee.~,

Angyal, A. (1965). Neurosis and treatment: A holistie theoo,. New York: The Viking Press.

Bales~er, R, J, (1970), The self-concept and juvenile deliqueney (Doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University, t956). Cited in W. H. Fitts& W. J. Hamner. The self concept and delinquency (Research monograph No. 1). Nashville Mental Health Center (74-104605).

Bandura, A. {1979}. The social learning perspeetlve mechanism of aggression. In H. Toch (Ed.), Psychology ofcrirne and criminal justice {pp. 198-266). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Bandura, A,, & Waiters, R. H. (1959). Adolescent aggression. New York: Ronald

Bovet, t.. (1951), Psyehiatric aspects of juvenile delinquency. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

Deitehe, J, H. (1959). The performance of delinquent and non-delinquent boys on the Tennes'see department of mental health self-concept scale. IDoetural dissertation, Indiana University, 1959), University Microfilms No. 59-3998.

Dengerlnk. H.A. (1976). Personality variables a.s mediators of attack instigated aggression. In R. G. Geen & E. C, O'Neal (Eds,). Perspectives on aggression (pp. 61-9gl, New York: Academic Press.

Feshbach, S. (1970). Aggression, In P.H. Mussen (Ed0, Carmichael:t, manual of child psk, choh~gy, VoI, H(pp, 159-259). New York: Wiley.

Eitts, W, H. I1972}. The sell'concept and psychopathology (Research Monograph No, 11. Nashville MentaL Health Center (72-77561),

Fitts, W, H., & l-Intoner. W. T. (1970), The sell' concept and deliquencT (Research Monograph No. 1), Nashville Mental Health (]enter (74-104.605).

Frled~ander. K, (I9~-7). The psychoanalytic approach to juvenile delinquent3,. New York: International Universities Press,

Geen, R_ G. (I972). Aggression (reprint). Morristown, N.I: General Learning Press.

Goldstein, J. H. (I 9751, Aggression and crimes of violence. New York: Oxford University Press.

Horney, K. (1945), Our inner conflicts: A constructive theory of neurosi.~', New York: W, W. Norton &Co.

Horne.~'. K. I1950}. Neurosis and human growth: The struggle toward se!l'realizarion. New York: W. W. Nt~rtt~n & Co.

Jarvinen, L, (1977). Personality characteristics of violent offenders and suicidal individuals. Suomalainen ~'edeakatimia Annales Academic Scientiarum Fennieae Dissertatione~" Humanarum Litterarurn IL Helsinki.

Johnson, R. N, (1972), Aggt'ession in man and animals. Philadelphia: W, B. Saunders Company.

Kelly, G, A, (1955), The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Nnrton~

Kim, Y, K, (1967), A comparison of self concept of deh'nquent and non-delinquent boys, Unpublished master's thesis, Scout National University, Senai, Korea.

Martin, R. L, (1981}~ A comparison c?f the se!['construet repertory with Tennessee self concept seale~ Unpublished master's thesis, University of Ne~0raska-Lincoln,

Newman, G. R. (1979), Understanding violence. New York: J, B. IJppineott Company.

LZ Rind~y .'Mirtin

Perry. D. G+, & Bussey, K. (1977). Self-reinforcement in high and low-aggressive boys following acts of aggression, Child development, 48, 653~657.

Rizzo, G. B., & Ferracuti, F. (1959). frnpiego del test di Rorschach in criminoh~gia clinlea, Cited in M. E, Wolf gang & F, Fexracuti (Authors). 1967, The suficu#ure of vkdence to~¢,ard# an integrated theory in erimbzok~g)', New York: Tavistock Publications.

Rogers, C. R. (1959), A theory of therapy, personality, and interpersonal relationships, as developed in a client-centered framework. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study oj'a ~'cien~'e (Vol. 3). New York: Mc(~.raw Hill.

Rogers, C. R, (1961), O;,z becoming a person, Bostorl: Houghton Mifflin Company,

Toeh, H. (1969), Violent men: An inquiry into the psychology o f violence. Chleago: Aldlne Publishing Company.

Toch, H. {[9771. Living in prison the ecoh~gy o f survival. New York: Free Press.

Toch, H. (I979). The psychott~gy of imprisonment. In H. Toch (Ed.), P,~ychologv ¢t/'crime and c'riminal ]ustiee (pp, [06-132). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston,

Wagner. E. C, (1969), The hand tesl picture cards; Los Angeles: Western Psycbutog~cal Services.

Wntfgang, M. E., & Ferracut[, b'. (1967). The subculture o f vinlence to,,urals an integrated theory #t criminology, New York: Tavistoek Publications,

~elt' P~el~lior~ in Crimi~Ll~ I~