”5341.," h

 

$5193?s;I;a‘:-i-:III:g’§°

' . -‘ " I
“‘.l- I l t . v
)z4.HI':\I ' ' “I .

THE POTENTIATION 0F HOSTILITY-GUILT
IN THE INHIBITION OF EXTERNALLY FOCUSED
RESPONSE TO AN INSTANCE 0F INDECENT EXPOSURE

Thesis for the Degree of M. S.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
CLAUDE TOURNAY
1977

    
  

. L '.- ~l .. . ‘ ,'
t: 1 ‘ . I ~ I 1 E .\ 3

I '.Q 1.5L; II‘. Smtc
Univcrsity

'—_lu. n..— - ---—

 

ABSTRACT
THE POTENTIATION OF HOSTILITY-GUILT IN THE

INHIBITION OF EXTERNALLY FOCUSED RESPONSE
TO AN INSTANCE OF INDECENT EXPOSURE

BY

Claude Tournay

The relationship between divulgence of a personal
experience as the victim of an incidence of maladaptive
sexual behavior and guilt was investigated in 69 females
of two state universities. The tendency to report to
others such minor sexual offense as exhibitionism was
estimated by using a three alternative seven point scale.
Guilt was assessed by the Mosher Forced-Choice Guilt
Inventory (MFCGI) scale which uses referents from Freud's
theoretical conception of guilt. A lower inclination for
third party involvement, generated by inhibition formation,
was significantly related to the hostile guilt incidence

score indicated by the MFCGI.

THE POTENTIATION OF HOSTILITY—GUILT
IN THE INHIBITION OF EXTERNALLY FOCUSED RESPONSE

TO AN INSTANCE OF INDECENT EXPOSURE

By

Claude Tournay

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

School of Criminal Justice

1977

 

 

 

 

 

Member

LIST OF TABLES

INTRODUCTION .

TABLE

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND . .

RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS . . .

Statistical Hypothesis

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN . . .

Measure of
Measure of
Interviews
RESULTS . . .
CONCLUSION . .
GLOSSARY . . .
APPENDICES . .

APPENDIX

Guilt . . .
Tendency to

OF CONTENTS

1. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS . . . .

2. STATISTICAL CALCULATIONS . . .

3. INTERVIEWS . . . .

4. MOSHER F-C INVENTORY . . . . .

BIBLIOGRAPHY .

ii

Page

iii

14
17
18
19
20
20
22
29
38

40

40
50
53
61

72

Table

LIST OF TABLES

Frequency distribution of guilt incidence
as measured by the MFCGI and of tendency
to report for each participant . . . .

Combined data-~admitted pr0pensity to
divulge incidence of exhibitionism to a
third party for both HI and LO guilt
incidence Ss . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Calculations of the variance of High
Hostility Guilt Girls (HHGG) propensity
scores on the tendency to report Yes
alternative answers . . . . . . . . . .

Calculations of the variance of High
Hostility Guilt Girls (HHGG) propensity
scores on the tendency to report Maybe
alternative answers . . . . . . . . . .

Calculations of the variance of High
Hostility Guilt Girls (HHGG) propensity
scores on the tendency to report No
alternative answers . . . . . . . . . .

Calculations of the variance of Low
Hostility Guilt Girls (LHGG) propensity
scores on the tendency to report Yes
alternative answers . . . . . . . . . .

Calculations of the variance of Low
Hostility Guilt Girls (LHGG) propensity
scores on the tendency to report Maybe
alternative answers . . . . . . . . . .

Calculations of the variance of Low
Hostility Guilt Girls (LHGG) propensity
scores on the tendency to report No
alternative answers . . . . . . . . . .

High Hostility Guilt Girls (HHGG) . . . .

iii

Page

23

26

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

Table Page
10. Low Hostility Guilt Girls (LHGG) . . . . . . . 48

11. Mean scores of the tendency to report sex
crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

12. Analysis of variance of tendency to report
scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

iv

INTRODUCTION

According to Amir (1967), there is little chance to
estimate with accuracy the number of victims of exhibition-
ism simply because many of them choose not to report the
offense to the police.

Gebhard et al. (1965), found that adults are in
general more likely to report directly to the police than
are minors, and minors report the offense directly more
often than do children. Overall, they observed that in
exhibition, about half of the cases were turned in to the
police by the offended female.

Landis (1956), investigating the childhood experi-
ences of 1,800 college students with sexual deviates, dis-
covered that almost one in two of the victims had told their
parents. He also noticed that a child is more willing to
tell her parents about the stranger who exposes himself to
her than about other sexual offenses or indecent liberties,
which are usually committed by individuals known to the
child:

Friends predominate in heterosexual offenses vs.
minors or adults, and also are fairly evident in

homosexual offenses involving children or minors
(Gebhard et al., 1965, p. 775).

Landis explains this difference by the fact that the girl
is usually a little older when she encounters an exhibition—
ist, and, he being someone she most of the times has never
seen before (well over 90 percent of the cases: Gebhard et
al., 1965, p. 774), she feels that there could be no impli-
cation of possible cooperation on her part in the uncon-
gruous behavior she witnesses.

As may be expected, various factors operate on a
victim in deciding whether to report or conceal a sexual
offense. This study will examine a theoretical conception
of the inhibitive tendency generated by guilt not to report
to others an incidence of violation of social code of con-
duct of a sexual nature.

The purpose of the present investigation is to
assess the relationship between the level of guilt experi—
enced by the victim of an instance of psychosexual offense,
namely exhibitionism, and a nonreportive attitude subsequent
to the incident. It is hypothesized that we will find a
significant correlation between the victim's level of guilt
and a nonreportive behavior due to unconscious material
that engenders acute tension in the victim. Mosher (1966)
suggests that guilty 58 should condition more readily to
"superego" or guilt-related content than should less guilty
Ss. Furthermore, Nunberg (1955) advises us that a tense
person reacts to danger differently from a normal individ-

ual:

The tense person develops a latent readiness for

explosion which through an additional influx of fear

from the perception of danger, causes him to become

paralyzed (p. 195).
It is assumed here that an individual, whose preconscious
inclination toward guilt with respect to his unresolved
instinctual impulses prevents him from normal social trust,
is basically a tense creature.

Therefore, it is not unreasonable to anticipate

that the situation referred to in the present discussion
would sharply increase his tension level, possibly to the

point of anxiety hysteria seen by Fenichel as the

"simplest kind of psychoneurosis."

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Galton (1884) stated one of the most notable dif-
ferences between people lay in emotional temperament. He
indicated that "a sudden excitement, call, touch, gesture,
or incident of any kind always evokes, in different
persons, a response that varies in intensity, celerity,
and quality" (Goodstein & Lanyon, 1971, p. 7). Nunberg's
view (1955) on the reactive comportment of an individual
has a similar aspect:

The reaction of anyone to an outer stimulus is simple
and clear: either it is accepted and assimilated in
one way or another, or it is rejected through defense
or flight (p. 55).

Indeed, the determining factors making one adopt
one attitude over another in response to an external cause
are likely to be found in the realm of psychic and moral
disposition. In point of fact, it has been argued in some
interpretations of moral development that different
reactions and attitudes are to be expected from adoles-
cents on the basis of their level of moral consciousness
(Piaget, 1948; Kohlberg, 1958; Durkin, 1959).

Aronfreed (1968) has dealt in detail with the
development of the child's conscience and the manner in

which this development affects the child's conduct. His

4

general feeling is that "conscience involves those areas
of conduct where social experience has attached substantial
affective value to the child's cognitive representation
and evaluation of his behavior" (p. 6). He adds, however,
that, as far as analyzing the various psychogenic dynamisms
of an adolescent‘s responsive attitude, it is the uncon-
scious layer of that individual's psychological make-up
that we ought to examine rather than his level of moral
consciousness.

This position is certainly in line with Kardiner's
(1939) who advises us to look for the presence of neurotic
guilt in case of instinctual reactions.

Nunberg (1955), detects in the feeling of guilt
the introduction of a powerful moral factor, which he
describes as "a state of mind which results from real or
intended inhibitions imposed by the superego on the ego”
(p. 159). Gerhart and Singer (1953) describe this moral
factor in a more dramatic way, referring to it as "the
painful internal tension generated whenever the emotionally
highly charged barrier erected by the superego is being
touched or transgressed." Stein (1968) reminds us that
Freud made it clear that neurotics were kept anxious,
guilty, and restricted by "compulsions and depressions
because of their fearful overresponses to their sexual
and aggressive impulses which were defensively avoided

rather than consciously related to" (p. 142).

Horney (1930) has indicated that we may also expect
in this situation a reaction formation of excessive
inhibition aiming at masking the repressed drive for
expression, due to anxiety from a guilty neurotic superego
whenever confronted with an outer stimulus likely to
cathect one's pregenital needs. As a result, we have the
executive activity of the affected person completely
suppressed, and the establishment of the psychic con-
stellation known as inhibition (p. 111). Thus, we see that
through his anxiety, which is an anticipation of danger,
an individual protects himself against incongruous grati-
fication of his dormant erotic and destructive instinctual
tendencies whose presence is due to a neurotic superego
that has kept him fixed to his infantile conditioning.

For Nunberg, this infantile social anxiety forms the core
of what later becomes the "fully developed sense of guilt."
But he adds that, in nonpathological cases, the individual
will have suppressed his oral, anal, and aggressive
impulses:

The normally adapted child complies with social
standards (p. 159).

Fenichel (1945) mentions that the clinical basis
of the new Freudian theory is the existence of aggression:

Aggressive tendencies of all kinds constitute a con—
siderable proportion of all human drives. In part,
they manifest a reactive character, which means that
they are the response to frustrations and have as
their goal the overcoming of frustrations (p. 58).

Kardiner (1939) agrees with that, saying that "all
forms of contact with an object can be considered aggres-
sive, and all human relationships contain an element of
aggression" (p. 57), adding, however, that an individual
always has some technique for its expression whether con-
trolled and checked by social pressure or neurosis. Regard-
ing this point, Kardiner reminds us that "the social force
which in the family is exercised as parental authority,
particularly that of the father, becomes, through inter-
nalization of parental prohibitions and precepts, a faculty
with attributes of morality and power in the form of the
superego" (p. 65).

For Freud (1927, 1930, 1933) it is also the process
of identification with the parents that leads to the acqui-
sition by the child of standards of moral behavior, and
it is the violation of these internalized rules of moral
and social conduct that lead to guilt at a later stage of
moral development.

Ruma and Mosher (1967) corroborate this assertion
by bringing new substantiation to the belief that, "while
the young child avoids transgressing moral standards due
to fear of external punishment from the parents, the older
child will avoid transgressing moral standards to prevent
the painful emotional experience of the guilt feeling

proper."

Kardiner explains that "the controlling external
force is transformed so as to Operate from within, thus
becoming a fear of a psychic faculty which the individual
has erected within himself. Hence, in place of a fear of
external authority, there is an inner anxiety" (p. 65).

Nunberg suggests that "the feeling of guilt, in
the strict sense of the term, develops out of conflict
not with the external world, but rather with the internal
world" (p. 159). While social anxiety brings about the
child's first adaptation to society, guilt, on the other
hand, provides the necessary energy against the release
of instinctual impulses.

This faculty of self-observation which, according
to Kardiner, includes ideals originating in reaction for-
mations against forbidden instinctual tendencies, results
in "the fear of consequences of certain assertive tendencies"
(p. 63), which are therefore quickly inhibited or expressed
in such a way that "the original aggression is turned on
the subject himself" (p. 64).

At this point, we think appropriate to stress the
strong relation of the sense of shame to external con—
ditions. In effect, Kardiner makes it clear that this
particularity can be easily proved in individuals who
presumably have no sense of guilt about certain activities
until they are obliged to talk about them to someone else:

Under the conditions of secrecy, guilt or discrepancy
between ego and super-ego is tolerated without much

conflict. As soon as the outer world is included,
the guilt breaks out afresh (p. 74).

We wish to point out that, for Freud shame rather
than guilt was related to sexuality in general, and
especially so to the one aspect of sexuality that interests
the present research. Gerhart and Singer (1953) underline
the fact that Freud saw in sexual exhibitionism "a clinical
situation in which the subsequent feelings of guilt really
concealed a shame problem."

We surmise that this pathological phenomenon can
likewise be observed in the victim of such an offense, as
a verification of Anna Freud's concept of ”identification
with the aggressor." Sarnoff (1951) reminds us that before
the child reaches the verbal level, he tends to use identi-
ficatory thinking exclusively: he will internalize whatever
attitudes his parents have toward him, both positive and
negative. "If the self-attitudes thus acquired are essen-
tially negative," adds Sarnoff, ”the child's feelings of
internal weakness motivate him to incorporate the charac-
teristics of others whom he perceives to be powerful and
threatening." This inclusion occurs unconsciously and
serves to diminish the anxiety aroused in the self as it
encounters ego threatening situations.

Balint (1945) suggests that "the capacity to
resist the use of identification as a means of dealing
with threatening external objects develops out of the kind

of interpersonal relationships the child has experienced."

10

And, finally, Nunberg observes that "whether an identifi-
cation is total or partial, it always fulfills an aim, and
often expresses something in common with the person with
whom one is identifying."

Hence, we ought to consider that if inhibition and
anxiety hysteria are used as defense mechanisms against
exposure to exhibitionistic compulsion, perhaps the feeling
of guilt, experienced at the preconscious level which conse-
quently protects the victim's ego, is in effect a reaction
to some instinctual demand suddenly awakened by the sexual
confrontation. Perhaps also, it is the nature of the
reaction which accounts for the subsequent sense of shame,
and the victim's reluctance to tell anyone about the event,
this attitude resulting from the ensuing feeling of degra-
dation. Let us remember that the severity of a neurotic
superego gives one a low frustration threshold.

Nunberg feels that the sense of guilt not only
interferes with objectionable instinct gratification and
increases instinct tension, but it may also procure maso-
chistic gratification (p. 171). For Helene Deutsch (1925),
who was the first to introduce the concept of feminine
masochism, "every masochistic function contains a component
of moral masochism that serves to gratify guilt feelings"
(p. 263). Similarly, Nunberg sees in moral masochism the
influence of the superego, as sadism or a pregenital sexual

need is deflected from the object onto the ego, and

11

discharged there. As a result, "an active instinctual
drive—~the sadistic attitude of the id toward the external
world-~is changed into a passive one--the passive attitude
of the ego" (Nunberg, 1955, p. 170).

This displacement of the psychic stress from the
object onto the ego that characterizes our nonreportive
subjects is simply the mechanism of the common psychological
phenomenon known since Jung (1921) as introverted feeling
which is "aroused by internal or subjective conditions,
especially primordial images arising out of archetypes"
(Hall et al., 1973, p. 100).

In order to illustrate what we mean, we would
predict that, in the case of the victim of an indecent
exposure, the person who has a high hostility guilt inci-
dence, when compelled into such a psychologically threaten—
ing situation, will identify with the perceived threat--her
own instinctual impulse cathected by this startling sexual
offense-~and absorb it into her ego rather than expressing
any resentment toward the actual threat. Her superego is
then able to discharge its aggressive feeling against the
representative of the object within the ego. The ego,
however, which identifies with the sexual situation, enjoys
this aggression masochistically. And, we end up having,
in agreement with Nunberg's view, "a libidinal masochistic
relationship between the ego and the superego" (Nunberg,

1955, p. 170).

12

A libidinal striving is added to the feeling of
guilt toward hostile thoughts, and her morality is debased
to the level of masochism. Thus, we recognize the situ-
ation of a nonreportive person who has just been the victim
of an instance of sexual perversion. Freud (1924, 1937)
has at various times called attention to the difficulty
in psychoanalysis of conquering a severe unconscious sense
of guilt. Fenichel (1945) reminds us that "children exhibit
numerous types of instinctual behavior which in content are
identical with the drives which in perverse individuals
replace normal sexuality" (p. 56). Hence, a fixation at
any pregenital stage of development will very likely have
some dramatic influence upon adult psychosexual personality
traits.

Fenichel also advances that "there are various
frequent specific inhibitions of aggressiveness due to
anxieties and guilt feelings in persons whose aggressive
or sadistic tendencies have been repressed" (p. 178).

These individuals, as a rule, avoid all arguments, all
manifestations of hostile nature. This attitude soon
becomes an unvarying entity, exerting a continuous influ-
ence upon functioning, which has been called by Allport
(1961) "the personal disposition" of an individual and
described as a generalized neuropsychic structure of over-

powering force.

13

Thus, concludes Nunberg, the component instincts
may establish the path for the genital function or inhibit
it to a certain degree. While the normal superego of an
individual undergoes changes in accordance with the external
reality, reflects Kardiner (1939), the neurotic superego
will tend to be tainted with its infantile conditioning.

Nunberg feels that in some cases sexual relation—
ships can be approached only with the help of fantasies
belonging to the pregenital stages:

If they are conscious, they border on perversion;
if they are unconscious, they form an integral part
of the neurosis. While in the perversion, the
instinctual impulse is conscious and active, in

hysteria, for instance, it is unconscious and
repressed (p. 268).

RESEARCH HYPOTHES IS

MacDonald (1973) expresses the view that the
diversity of reactions to exhibitionism is related to the
presence of threats of violence, the age of the victim,
her cultural background, personality, and prior sexual
experiences. He notes that reactions range from lack of
concern or deceptive apparent lack of concern through mild
irritation, fear, anger, disgust, to marked emotional dis-
turbances. Be that as it may, our particular investi-
gation will cover only the relationship between the ten-
dency to report such a manifestation of social and psycho-
sexual deviance to others and the level of hostility-
guilt of the victim, as measured by the Mosher Forced-
Choice Guilt Inventory (MFCGI). Mosher (1968) explains
that measuring guilt, conceptualized as a disposition,
becomes relevant in situations where Opportunity to vio-
late moral standards is present. Females who score higher
on these guilt measures are expected to inhibit the
expression of aggressive or sexual behaviors when faced
with temptation. Hence, we anticipate that the higher on
the Hostility-Guilt scale of the MFCGI the subject scores,

the more likely she is to experience stress as a result of

14

15

her low frustration threshold. It is expected that we will
observe at that point the undergoing by the High Hostility
Guilt Girl (HHGG) of an acute form of anxiety hysteria,
from which, as it is seen in most cases of neurosis, she
can only escape through the use of autoplastic measures,
such as symptom formation.

Regarding this point, Nunberg (1955) reminds us
that the purpose of symptom formation is to remove the
anxiety or to escape from the situation of danger:

The symptom offers two advantages:

(1) through it the ego evades the instinct

demands;

(2) the ego gains the capacity of removing the

anxiety (p. 301).

In this particular situation, the HHGG will sup-
posedly try to escape from the inner state of tension that
she experiences as a consequence of the hostile sexual
exposure, first, by fleeing away from the actual threat,
and secondly, by inhibiting all hostile impulses generated
by the incident. In doing so, she protects herself through
her symptom formation against her perceived threat, i.e.,
the hypercathexis of her component instincts.

Hence, because of this mechanism of defense against
affect through symptom formation, it is expected that a
never-married coed female with a high incidence of hos-
tility guilt will not report the incident to others if

exposed to hostile sexual deviance. Conversely, a never-

married coed female scoring low on the Hostility-Guilt

16

scale of the MFCGI, who therefore is not expected to
experience the affect of guilt, will not manifest any evi—
dence of psychoneurotic reaction. She is therefore
expected to be more likely to report to others an inci-
dence of hostile sexual nature if confronted with such.

Nunberg makes the point that "a hysterical symptom
is among other things a memory symbol of a real affective
experience" (p. 267). A comprehensive knowledge of the
individual appears indispensable. "Indeed, proposes
Kardiner, the distinctions between individual character
formations depend on the different habitual attitudes,
perCeptions, and action formulas to the same external
stimuli which each individual creates for himself" (p. 86).

Bloch and Prince (1967) argue that "human behavior
may be perceived only in relation to an activating situation
to which the person responds selectively. Why the indi—
vidual responds as he does to certain situations and the
key elements of and not to others, depends upon the link-
ages he has established with the past, or specifically
incidents within similar situations" (p. 139).

We realize that in view of those important con-
siderations we should have investigated the history of
each HHGG thoroughly, hoping to find at some stage of her
development the unconscious material responsible for their
deviate reaction. This we could not do because of the

anonymity of the major portion of our subject sample.

17

However, a fair number of the coeds personally approached,
who had had the experience of being subjected to indecent
exposure, agreed to narrate to us what had happened on
those occasions. The recountal was tape-recorded and
practically uninterrupted. In Appendix 2, the interviews
are given on a strictly informative basis and were no part

of the data used in the present study.

Statistical Hypothesis

 

On this basis, the following hypothesis is the
target of our inquiry:

Female 85 who score high on the MFCGI hostile guilt

subscale are less likely to show interest for third

party involvement in case of incidence of unasked
sexual exhibitionism than are female 83 whose hostile
guilt scores are low.

Ho: the observed difference in guilt incidence in the
female's tendency to report the indecent exposure
incident to a third party occurred by chance,
given the distribution in the population of HHG
individuals and LHG individuals are the same.

p < .05

H.: the population of HHG individuals and LHG individ-
uals differ in the distribution of propensity to
report indecent exposure occurrences to a third
party.

H : P1 = P2 against Hi: P1 ¢ P2

EXPERIMENTAL DES IGN

One hundred and ten never-married females were
chosen without random sampling design on the campuses of
Michigan and Washington State universities, and were given
an envelope containing one copy of the MFCGI and one copy
of a questionnaire designed to measure their personal dis-
position to divulge an incident involving sexual exhibition-
ism.

They were asked to answer both tests and to return
the answer sheets by mail, using the self-addressed enve—
lope provided. Out of the 110 coeds, a total of 69
returned the answer sheets completed. Forty-three answers
came from Michigan State, and 26 answers were returned
from Washington State. Ages varied from 18 to 25, with a
mode of 19, and a mean of 20. All participants were chosen
by chance, in the following manner:

-- 24 were personally approached and asked whether
they had the time to spare, either as they were
walking on campus or sitting on buses serving the

campus of MSU;

18

19

-— 18 returned the answer sheets by mail after they
had been deposited in their mailbox out of 25
names chosen at random;

-- finally, 25 out of 50 returned the answer sheets
that had been left in a pile in one of the WSU

dormitories.

Measure of Guilt

 

The participants completed the 78—item Mosher
forced-choice guilt inventory. The 78 items are to be
scored at four points along a guilt dimension: very guilty
(2), guilty (1), nonguilty (-l), very nonguilty (-2).
Three subcategories of guilt (sex guilt, hostile guilt,
and morality-conscience guilt) are distinguished. Using
the scoring weights mentioned above, theoretically the 39
sex guilt items scores could range from 64 to -61; the 22
hostile guilt items could range from 33 to -33; and the 17
morality—conscience items could range from 27 to -24.
Split—half reliability coefficients for each of the three
scales are in the .903. Mosher (1966a) has provided evi-
dence of the convergent and discriminant validity of the
guilt scales in a multitrait-multimethod matrix analysis.
A series of construct validational studies (Galbraith,
1964; Lamb, 1963; Mosher, 1961, 1965, 1966; Mosher &
Mosher, 1967; Ruma & Mosher, 1967) has been offered to
support the Mosher scales as measures of guilt. The MFCGI

assumes to measure the individual's generalized expectancy

20

for self-mediated punishment for violating or anticipating
the violation of internalized standards of proper behavior
(Ruma & Mosher, 1967).

In the present research, only the scores of the 22
hostile guilt items are relevant and confronted with the
scores obtained on the tendency to report scale (see

Table 1).

Measure of Tendency to Report

 

Seven "suggested confidants" were proposed to the
following question: should an unknown male, for whom you
would not have otherwise any positive or negative feeling,
indecently expose himself to you against your will, would
you tell any of the persons mentioned here about this
experience? Three alternatives were given: yes; maybe;
and no. One point was accorded for each confidant checked

in any one of the three alternative columns (see Table 2).

Interviews

 

Five of the respondents personally approached
during the course of the study informed us that they had
experienced an incident of indecent exposure. They agreed
to tell us about what happened, how they felt, and who
knew about it. We tape-recorded the interviews with their
consent, the transcript verbatim of which appears in

Appendix 3.

21

We chose to include this aspect of the research
on a limited basis to provide further information about

perceptual responses of a subset of Ss.

RESULTS

Restating the hypothesis in terms of the specific
measure used to operationally define the constructs, it
was predicted that the overall tendency to report an
indecent exposure of coeds who are high on the measure of
the MFCGI hostility—guilt subcategory will be lower than
the overall tendency to report an indecent exposure of
coeds who are low on the same scale. The instinctual
impulse-guilt-affect was expected to create a higher
emotional upset than the external threat in and of itself.
Thus, coeds who score high on hostility-guilt were expected
to have a lower tendency to report than coeds who score
low on hostility-guilt.

The obtained range (see Table 1) was for the
hostility-guilt scores from +27 to -33 with a mean of
13.95; a median of +1; two modes of -11 and +11; and a
standard deviation of 7.3. The admitted propensity to
divulge an incidence of exhibitionism to a third party
(see Table 2) was lower for the HHGG group on all proposed
confidants, except with regard to their best friend where
their tendency to report matches the tendency to report of

the LHGG group. The "uncertain" alternative answers show

22

23

Table 1.~~Frequency distribution of guilt incidence as measured by
the MFCGI and of tendency to report for each participant.

———_.——._
__

85 Response Scores (n = 69)

 

 

 

 

 

Individual Guilt Scale Tendency to
Data report incidence

Ss # Age Hostility c::::i::2e SIX sZiuZIS§::?

Guilt Guilt Guilt

33 to ~33 27 to ~24 64 to ~61 Yes Maybe No
1 21 +27 +12 ~42 l 3 3
2 19 ~ 3 ~ 9 ~55 4 2 l
3 24 +17 ~11 ~19 6 1 O
4 23 ~13 + 6 ~35 7 0 0
5 18 ~17 ~16 ~59 6 O 0
6 22 ~13 ~ 5 ~46 6 1 O
7 21 +23 ~24 ~55 l 4 2
8 21 +21 ~ 4 ~55 1 2 4
9 19 +13 ~16 ~45 4 2 1
10 21 + 3 ~18 ~47 4 3 0
ll 21 ~13 ~19 ~44 4 3 O
12 22 ~11 ~18 ~56 5 2 0
l3 19 + 1 ~22 ~57 4 3 0
14 19 +11 ~13 ~55 4 2 l
15 21 ~ 7 ~24 ~59 4 2 1
16 23 ~19 ~15 ~59 5 2 0
17 25 +11 ~ 2 +19 4 l 2
18 22 + 7 ~15 ~59 3 4 0
19 22 ~ 7 ~18 ~59 6 1 0
20 22 +11 ~ 7 ~51 0 3 4
21 22 ~19 ~22 ~55 7 O 0
22 24 ~23 ~13 ~55 5 2 0
23 23 ~ 3 ~16 ~49 6 O 1
24 19 +21 ~ 8 ~42 6 1 0
25 19 +13 ~ 3 ~55 6 l O
26 21 ~17 ~24 ~59 7 0 0

24

Table l.~~Continued.

 

85 Response Scores (n = 69)

o

 

 

 

 

Individual Guilt Scale Tendency to
Data report incidence

Ss # Age HOStIlitY c::::I:::; S?“ sZiuzisgiiT

Guilt Guilt Guilt

33 to ~33 27 to ~24 64 to ~61 Yes Maybe No
27 21 +23 + 5 ~38 3 l 3
28 20 + 7 ~ 4 ~52 6 0 l
29 19 - 9 0 ~24 6 1 0
3O 19 + 7 ~10 ~38 7 O 0
31 18 ~31 ~17 ~59 7 0 0
32 18 ~17 ~12 ~59 4 3 O
33 18 + 9 + 1 ~36 4 3 0
34 18 + 7 0 ~31 5 2 0
35 ~25 ~ 5 ~39 3 3 1
36 20 +13 +15 +39 3 3 1
37 21 ~19 ~ 8 + 6 3 3 1
38 19 ~13 +15 +22 7 O 0
39 19 +23 +11 +46 0 l 6
40 20 +15 ~ 3 ~46 2 4 1
41 18 +13 ~ 5 ~27 0 3 4
42 19 ~33 - 3 +30 6 l 0
43 18 +17 ~24 ~59 0 O 7
44 19 +15 ~ 1 ~49 5 2 O
45 ~31 ~12 ~49 4 3 0
46 19 ~11 + 5 ~ 7 4 l 0
47 21 ~21 ~18 ~54 6 1 O
48 20 ~11 ~18 ~55 7 O 0
49 20 ~ 7 ~ 4 ~33 5 2 0
50 ~23 ~ 8 ~54 5 2 O
51 19 ~25 + 1 ~40 4 1 2
52 20 + 3 ~ 9 ~50 7 0 O

Table l.~~Continued.

25

 

53 Response Scores (n

= 69)

 

Guilt Scale

 

Tendency to

report incidence

 

 

Hostility Morality~ Sex of hostile
Guilt Conscience Guilt sexual dev.
Guilt

33 to ~33 27 to ~24 64 to ~61 Yes Maybe No
53 19 + 9 -19 ~48 6 O 1
54 18 +11 ~16 _57 5 2 O
55 18 +15 + 6 -55 6 0 1
56 19 —17 -20 -53 7 O O
57 20 + 3 _ 8 _49 7 0 O
58 - 9 _14 _55 5 2 O
59 21 -11 -13 _59 7 0 O
60 22 +17 -17 ~48 5 0 2
61 20 —11 -24 _51 4 3 O
62 20 +11 _ 7 _53 4 3 0
63 20 + 7 + 5 _53 6 0 1
64 + 1 ‘17 '14 l 3 3
65 18 +19 +13 _ 3 5 2 0
66 18 +11 -13 _51 7 O 0
67 19 +19 + 8 +22 6 1 O
68 19 -11 - 4 ~38 4 2 1
69 24 - 9 -13 _53 4 3 0

 

26

Table 2.~~Combined data~~admitted propensity to divulge
incidence of exhibitionism to a third party for
both HI and LO guilt incidence Ss.

 

Yes Uncertain No

 

Ss: HI guilt incidence level

 

would tell a friend 17 12 4
would tell her roommate 24 6
would tell her best friend 32 2
would tell her sister/brother 18 11
would tell her mother/father 18 6
would tell her boyfriend 22 9
would tell the police 13 14
Ss: LO guilt incidence level
would tell a friend 26 5
would tell her roommate 30 2 0
would tell her best friend 32 l 0
would tell her sister/brother 21 11 1
would tell her mother/father 18 12 1
would tell her boyfriend 31 2 0
would tell the police 16 12
n HHGG = 36
LHGG = 33

Total sample = 69

27

more hesitation felt by the HHGG group than by the LHGG
group, with the exception of their reportive attitude
toward their parents where the LHGG Ss expressed a greater
hesitation, while the HHGG Ss definitely knew they would
not tell their parents.

Tables 3, 4, and 5 (see Appendix 1) contain the
means, variances, standard deviations and standard scores
of the YES propensity, the MAYBE propensity, and the NO
propensity for the HHGG group and Tables 6, 7, and 8 (see
Appendix 1) contain the same informations for the LHGG
group.

A x2 test, for independence between our two vari-
ables, i.e., guilt over hostility and propensity to report
exhibitionism incidences to others, was conducted (see
Appendix 2). The resulting x2 test was significantly
different from chance expectations p < .001 indicating
that the interaction between those two measures has a
positive negative effect upon the victim's reactive atti-
tude to indecent exposure.

The presence of the significant interaction between
hostility-guilt incidence revealed in Table 1, page 24,
and an examination of the descriptive statistics reported
in Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, in Appendix 1, indicate
the hypothesis was supported and confirmed by the Pearson

correlation found in Tables 9 and 10 (see Appendix 1).

28

Finally, an ANOVA of tendency to report was con-
ducted. Again, as with the x2 the null hypothesis was
rejected and the independent variable was seen as producing
an effect p < .05 in the expected direction: coeds who
scored low on hostility-guilt were more likely to report

an occurrence of sexual deviance than were the high

hostility guilt coeds (see Tables 11 and 12, in Appendix 2).

CONCLUSION

By and large, the data have supported the construct
validity of the Mosher measure of hostility guilt. Females
who are predisposed to responding with guilt over "intem-
pestive" sexual behavior, admitted limiting their reaction
pattern to themselves in higher percentage than the
females who were not similarly predisposed.

However, aspects of the results are surprising.

It was expected that the LHGG should be more likely to
report an incidence of maladaptive sexual behavior, and
this was the case. Also, it was expected that the HHGG
who are in a state of psychic disturbance, brought about
by anxiety and defense over the indecent exposure, should
have a strong tendency of not reporting to others, and
this was not exactly the case.

Social determinism apparently being a common
organizing agent for both groups in the response pattern
of the majority of the participants, the norm was to con-
fide in somebody the deviant encounter. Still, the
inhibitive neurotic reaction processes appeared to be over
three times as prevalent in the HHGG category than in the

LHGG category.

29

30

In addition, another unanticipated result shows
that most pe0ple of either group would be least likely to
report to the police such event than to any other sug-
gested confidant (Table 2). Their main reason seems to be
that exhibitionism does not physically injure another
person. They see the "performer" as a minor sex pervert
whose conduct offends good morals, and tend to see his
act as improper rather than illegal. To most of them, it
is simply something that "has happened during the day
worthy of telling close friends": for LHGG, their best
friend, boyfriend, and roommate; for HHGG, only their best
friend.

Hence, they tend to feel that law enforcement
intervention resulting in the arrest, the indictment, and
the incarceration of the exhibitionist would be an exces-
sive punishment. Rickles (1950) reports that his personal
experience has conclusively shown that the public need have
no fear of exhibitionists: they are not a physical threat
to anyone.

There is a possibility, however, that young children
especially girls, may suffer some degree of psychic
trauma as a result of being witnesses to their act
(Rickles, 1950, p. 42).

Ellis and Brancale (1956) have observed through
their study of 300 sex offenders that force or duress is
virtually never employed by sex offenders convicted of
exhibitory acts (p. 50). However, according to MacDonald

(1973), force or threat is occasionally used by the

31

exhibitionist. He found out that four out of 200 exhibition-
ists he studied used force, three followed their victim,

and two chased their victims (MacDonald, 1973, p. 54).
Naturally, in that case, feelings change: criminal charges
and prison sentences seem to be appropriate, agreed most

of the coeds interviewed. However, it is likely that if a
man grabs a woman, the probability is great that he is

more of an assaulter than a mere exhibitionist.

Landis (1956) found that overall, "younger girls
were more seriously affected by deviate sexual experiences
than were older girls" (pp. 30-31). "But," says Rickles
(1950), "even this is not serious unless it is made so by
the exaggerated reactions of parents or other adults"

(p. 42).

MacDonald (1973) even mentions the occurrence of
surprisingly frequent cases in which rough neighborhood
children tease what they consider a potential exhibition-
ist while one of them goes and gets the police (p. 78).

Finally, Sagarin (1974) seems to express a widely
shared opinion in the following statement:

The career exhibitionist that violates the norms of
society is more of a nuisance to the victim or the
community than a threat in the usual criminal sense,
and is probably best handled by a combination of
legal and psychiatric processes (p. 159).

A combined scheme mixing court injunction and

family therapy appears advisable since oftentimes "only

legal pressure can keep exhibitionists in psychotherapy"

32

(Mathis & Collins, 1970). Lester (1975) concedes that a
few exhibitionists intend their act to be an invitation

to further sexual involvement, but the great majority of
exhibitionists do not want sexual involvement with the
audience (p. 7). Yet, when suddenly confronted in a lonely
place by a man with his penis exposed, there is little
inclination on the part of the female to find out whether
he is a rapist, or a mere exhibitionist.

Gebhard etial. (1965) are convinced that exhi-
bitionists expose themselves without any conscious drive
to provoke a sexual approach from the female and would be
disturbed or embarrassed if a female responded in this
fashion:

Often we asked exhibitionists what they would do if
a female to whom they had exhibited were to make a
sexual approach. The answer was not infrequently:
"Well, I don't know . . . . I guess I'd run away"
(p. 391).
On the whole, conclude Gebhard et al. exhibitionists are
to be pitied rather than feared (p. 399). V

Accordint to Ullerstam (1966), Kinsey considers
that the exhibitionists' only problem derives from the
reaction of their environment (p. 4). Ullerstam advocates
that every human being has his own pattern of talents and
abilities; likewise, he has an urge pattern, consisting of

various habits of sexual behavior, such as exhibitionism

(p. 32).

33

Malmquist (in Resnik & Wolfgang, 1972) reminds us
that perverse development is a failure of polymorphous
elements to undergo transitions and become subsumed under
striving for heterosexual objects with coitus as a goal
(p. 75). Gebhard et a1. (1965), point out that "a combina-
tion of insecurity, real or imagined emotional deprivation,
and sense of failure is common among patterned exhibition-
ists, and the exposure may be a simultaneous expression
of retaliation, declaration of masculinity, and sexual
solicitation" (p. 397). However, "the exhibitionist is
a person for whom exhibition is a desired end in itself"
assures Gebhard et a1.

"Surely," comments Ullerstam, "the fact that a
pathological process creates its own potential for
pleasure, cannot, in itself, justify a desire to force
these people to lead unhappy lives" (p. 4), urging his
readers to "allow our fellow human beings the beneficial
magic of the exhibitionistic rite" (p. 67), and above all
"not to report him to the police." Indeed, punishing an
individual as a "criminal" on account of a poor decision
of norm violation may not simply annihilate any chance for
that individual to understand the teleological raison
d'étre of the law that he violated, but, and this we see
as critical in and of itself, his social reinsertion

almost certainly will be difficult.

34

Exhibitionism is considered to be a criminal act
by almost every state in the nation~~indecent exposure is
not mentioned in the Alaska Statutes-~being seen as either
a gross misdemeanor for a first offense in most states or
as a felony punishable by imprisonment in state prison for
not less than one year in a few (California), for the second
and each subsequent conviction. This latter sentence is
what most convicted exhibitionists are likely to receive,
since Gebhard et al. (1965) found out that "the exhibition-
ists are quite recidivistic”:

Relatively few (13 percent) have only one conviction;
about one third, the second largest proportion recorded,
had four to six convictions; and they display the third
largest percentage of those convicted seven or more
times (16 percent) (p. 394).

Schur (1973) reminds us that "for the positivists,
the important thing if criminology was to become a science
was to shift attention from the crime to the criminal"

(p. 30). We suggest that, maybe, time has come to reshift
it from the offender to the interaction between rule-
violators and those who respond to their behavior (Becker,
1963; Scheff, 1966; Amir, 1967).

Scheff (1966) has noticed a prevalence of violation
of cultural norms higher in "normal" p0pu1ations than in
subgroups of diagnosed deviants, observing that the one
thing that distinguishes the "normal" rule-breaker from

the "abnormal" one is precisely the response of the witness

to the deviation.

35

Noticeably, there is a bit of the exhibitionist
in nearly all females, and in many males as well. Every~
one wants to be physically sexually attractive: it is
psychologically important to anyone. Society even expects
and encourages a certain display of physical charms. Were
it not for the fact that most people do not expose their
genitalia, many a male and female on a sunny beach could
be called exhibitionist, for the plausible sexual gratifi-
cation they receive from displaying their anatomy. They
very likely enjoy the knowledge that they are sexually
desirable.

With the coming of spring weather, exhibitionistic
beach attitudes are soon adopted on most campuses, and the
audacious streaker and the "aguichante" thinly dressed coed
suddenly present the "flasher" with a condoning atmosphere.
Hindelang (197 ) tells us that "those who engage in a
particular illegal behavior are more approving of that
behavior than those who do not"; henceforth, one can hardly
expect these lady Godivas of modern times to want police
protection from indecent exposure.

As inferred by Schur (1973), it appears therefore
legitimate to suggest that "close attention to reaction
processes be given high priority in the field of crimi~
nology, in order to produce a realistic assessment of

deviance problems" (p. 10).

36

Attitudinal research is particularly relevant to
our matter of concern because in the area of psychosexual
deviation, there is an obvious tendency of the political
or administrative authorities to make assumptions about the
acceptance level of their community, without first assess-
ing the relative seriousness of the abusive conduct.
Perhaps, this is due to the fact that most of these groups
are constituted by men, since Barclay and Haber (1965)
have shown that men appear to be more defensive than women
about sex and aggression. To take but one example, while
in the sixties the simple suggestion for the tolerance of
braless areas in his coastal resort town cost a French
mayor his position, at the present time nude beaches are
flourishing in many part of the French seashore, providing
a simultaneously hedonistic and therapeutic guilt-free
exhibitionistic setting.

We will conclude these reflections with one of
Schur's cardinal considerations which indicates that "if
the public definition of deviance is central to our under-
standing of what is simply immoral and what is in fact a
dangerous offense, then the investigation of public atti-
tudes is especially crucial" (Schur, 1973, p. 10), and one
of Schur's enhanced comments:

A complete understanding of deviance is only possible

through an analysis that relates an individual's
actions to the responses of others (p. 40).

37

Carson (1969) has indicated that the problem of
circular causality in person-environment relationships is
rather subtle:

If a person's reaction or response to an event is
determined by his perception of that event, and not
by the objective event itself, it follows that the
truly functional 'stimulus' that evokes his response
is in part determined by that response, in the sense
that one of its component parts is his perceptual
representation or 'interpretation' of the stimulus.
Thus, the functional stimulus is determined by a com-
ponent of the person's total response to it, and it
may be altered by that response (pp. 14-15).
This viewpoint appears to be very much in line with what
we have seen in our findings, where most nonreportive sub-
jects were less affected by the actual event than they
were by the perceived threat which was responsible for
the highly emotionally disturbing impact of the experience.
This type of circular causality is termed by Carson 'the
response determined stimulus effect.‘ He urges us to keep
in mind that "all things considered, the causal attributions
made by the witnesses in explaining a behavior are what
establishes its degree of abnormality" (Carson, 1969,
p. 227).

Manifestly, further research should be done on a
periodical basis in order to investigate the changing
societal reactions to deviance in general and in maladap-

tive sexual behavior in particular, and adjust our criminal

code, law statutes, and morality accordingly.

GLOSSARY

Cathexis: investment of libido (drive energy) directed

from the id (source of instinctual drive energy)
into an object.

also used as a verb.

Neuropsychic structure: intrapsychic aspect of personality.

Symptom

aspect going inside the person in terms of internal
attitudes, fantasies, dreams, that depends upon
individual phenomenology rather than overt behavior.
formation: idiosyntonic censor which signals
anxiety and protects the organism from excessive
stimulation.

the censor is a general construct which is not a
defense mechanism in the sense of other defense
mechanisms.

the repression by the censor is the signal anxiety

that indicates that something is about to happen.

Potentiation: a notion of a supraorganic principle which

refers to a sort of indefinable potentiality that
makes development of individual unpredictable.
applies when libido is manifested consciously in

striving potentiated by psychic energy.

38

39

Drive components: aspects of a drive that determine the

orientation of the drive.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

APPENDIX 1

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

Table 3.~~Calculations of the variance of High Hostility
Guilt Girls (HHGG) propensity scores on the
tendency to report Yes alternative answers.

 

 

 

 

Frequency Intermediate
Suggested Yes propensity count calculations
confidant scores 2 2
f X fx fX
friend 17 l 289 17 289
roommate 24 1 576 24 576
best friend 32 l 1024 32 1024
sister/brother 18 2 324 36 648
mother/father 18
boyfriend 22 1 484 22 484
police 13 1 169 13 169
144 7 144 3190
2 — o — o =
Sx — 38, SK — 6.16, Mean 20.57
2 scores = ~.58; +.55; +1.85; -.41; -.41; +.23; +1.22

 

40

41

Table 4.~~Calculations of the variance of High Hostility
Guilt Girls (HHGG) prOpensity scores on the
tendency to report Maybe alternative answers.

Frequency Intermediate

 

 

 

Suggested Maybe propensity count calculations
confidant scores 2 2
f X fX fx
friend 12 1 144 12 144
roommate 6 2 36 12 72
best friend 2 1 4 2 4
sister/brother 11 l 121 11 121
mother/father 6
boyfriend 9 l 81 9 81
police 14 l 196 14 196
60 7 60 1618
s: = 17; 5x = 4.12; Mean = 8.57

z scores = +.83; ~.62; ~l.59; +.58; ~.62; +.10; +1.31

 

42

Table 5.~~Calculations of the variance of High Hostility
Guilt Girls (HHGG) propensity scores on the
tendency to report No alternative answers.

 

Frequency Intermediate

 

 

 

Suggested No propensity count calculations
confidant scores 7—- 2
f X fX fX
friend 4 l 16 4 16
roommate 2 .2 4 4 8
best friend 2
sister/brother 3 2 9 6 18
mother/father 8 1 64 8 64
boyfriend 3
police 6 l 36 6 36
28 7 28 142
2
S = 5; S = 2.23; Mean = 4
x x

z scores = 0; ~.89; ~.89; ~.44; +1.79; ~.44; +.89

 

43

Table 6.~~Calcu1ations of the variance of Low Hostility
Guilt Girls (LHGG) propensity scores on the
tendency to report Yes alternative answers.

 

Frequency Intermediate

 

 

 

Suggested Yes propensity count calculations
confidant scores 2 2
f X fX fX
friend 26 l 676 26 676
roommate 30 l 900 30 900
best friend 32 1 1024 32 1024
sister/brother 21 1 441 21 441
mother/father 18 1 324 18 324
boyfriend 31 l 961 31 961
police 16 1 256 16 256
174 7 174 4582
S2 = 42.83; s = 6.48; i = 28.85
x x

z scores = -.43; +.l7; +.48; ~1.21; +1.67; +.33; ~1.98

 

44

Table 7.~~Calcu1ations of the variance of Low Hostility
Guilt Girls (LHGG) propensity scores on the
tendency to report Maybe alternative answers.

 

Frequency Intermediate

 

 

 

Suggested Maybe propensity count calculations
confidant scores 2 2
f x fx fx
friend 5 1 25 5 25
roommate 2 2 4 4 8
best friend 1 l l l l
sister/brother 11 1 121 11 121
mother/father 12 2 144 24 288
boyfriend 12
police 12
45 7 45 443
s: = 25.66; s = 5, x — 6

z scores = +.20; ~.80; ~l.00; +1.00; +1.20; ~.80; +1.20

 

45

Table 8.-~Calculations of the variance of Low Hostility
Guilt Girls (LHGG) propensity scores on the
tendency to report No alternative answers.

 

Frequency Intermediate

 

 

 

Suggested No propensity count calculations
confidant scores #2 .2
f X fx fX
friend 1 3 1 3 3
roommate 0 3 0 0 0
best friend 0
sister/brother 1
mother/father 1
boyfriend 0
police 5 l 25 ‘5 25
8 7 8 28
S = 3.1; S = 1.7; X = 1.14;

z scores = ~.08; ~.06; ~.06; -.08; ~.08; ~.06; +2.21

 

Table 9.~~High Hostility Guilt Girls (HHGG).

46

 

 

 

 

Independent Dependent variable Computation
Subject variable Y XY
# M . Tendency to report scores
Hostility-
Guilt scores yes maybe no yes maybe no
1 27 729 l (l) 3 (9) 3 (9) 27 81 81
3 17 289 6 (36) l (1) O (O) 102 17 0
7 23 529 1 (1) 4 (16) 2 (4) 23 92 46
8 21 441 l (1) 2 (4) 4 (16) 21 42 84
9 13 169 4 (16) 2 (4) l (1) 52 26 13
10 3 9 4 (l6) 3 (9) O (O) 12 9
13 1 l 4 (16) 3 (9) O (O) 4
14 11 121 4 (l6) 2 (4) l (l) 44 22 ll
17 11 121 4 (l6) 1 (1) 2 (4) 44 11 22
18 7 49 3 (9) 4 (16) 0 (0) 21 28 0
20 11 121 O (0) 3 (9) 4 (16) 0 33 44
24 21 441 6 (36) 1 (1) O (0) 126 21 O
25 13 169 6 (36) 1 (l) O (O) 78 13 0
27 23 529 3 (9) 1 (l) 3 (9) 69 23 69
28 7 49 6 (36) O (O) 1 (l) 42 0 7
30 7 49 7 (49) 0 (0) O (0) 49 0 O
33 9 81 4 (16) 3 (9) 0 (0) 36 27
34 49 5 (25) 2 (4) 0 (O) 35 14
36 13 169 3 (9) 3 (9) 1 (l) 39 39 13
39 23 529 O (O) 1 (l) 6 (36) O 23 138
40 15 225 2 (4) 4 (16) l (l) 30 60 15
41 13 169 O (O) 3 (9) 4 (16) 39 52
43 17 289 0 (O) O (0) 7 (49) 0 O 119
44 15 225 5 (25) 2 (4) O (0) 75 30 0
52 3 9 7 (49) 0 (0) 0 (0) 21
53 9 81 6 (36) 0 (0) l (1) 54 O
54 11 121 5 (25) 2 (4) O (0) 55 22
55 15 225 6 (36) 0 (0) 1 (1) 9O 0 15

47

Table 9.~~Continued.

 

 

 

Independent Dependent variable Computation
Subject variable Y XY
# H . Tendency to report scores
Gfiiitliigzes yes maybe no yes maybe no
57 3 9 7 (49) 0 (0) O (0) 21 0 O
60 17 289 5 (25) O (O) 2 (4) 85 0 34
62 11 121 4 (l6) 3 (9) O (O) 44 33 0
63 7 49 6 (36) 0 (O) 1’ (l) 42 0 7
64 1 l 1 (1) 3 (O) 3 (O) l 3
65 19 361 5 (25) 2 (4) 0 (0) 95 38 0
66 11 121 7 (49) 0 (O) 0 (0) 77 0 0
67 19 361 6 (36) l (1) O (0) 114 19 0
n = 36 454 7300 144(756) 60(164) 48(180) 1628 768 788

 

Correlation of our independent variable Hostility-Guilt scores
x of HHGG with the three alternatives of our dependent variable Y:
HG incidence and Yes scores relationship: rxy = ~.35

HG incidence and Maybe scores relationship: rxy = +.35

HG incidence and No scores relationship: rxy a +.51

48

Table 10.~~Low Hostility Guilt Girls (LHGG).

 

 

 

 

Independent Dependent variable Computation
Subject variable Y XY
# R . Tendency to report scores
Hostility-
Guilt scores yes maybe no yes maybe no
2 ~ 3 9 4 (16) 2 (4) 1 (1) ~ 12 ~ 6 ~ 3
4 — 13 169 7 (49) O (O) O (0) ~ 91 ~ 0 ~ 0
5 ~ 17 289 6 (36) O (O) 0 (O) ~102 ~ 0 ~ 0
6 ~ 13 169 6 (36) 1 (1) O (O) - 78 ~13 ~ 0
11 ~ 13 169 4 (l6) 3 (9) O (0) - 52 ~39 ~ 0
12 - 11 121 5 (25) 2 (4) 0 (O) - 55 ~22 ~ 0
15 - 7 49 4 (16) 2 (4) l (1) ~ 28 ~14 ~ 7
16 ~ 19 361 5 (25) 2 (4) O (O) - 95 ~38 ~ 0
19 ~ 7 49 6 (36) 1 (1) 0 (0) - 42 ~ 7 ~ 0
21 ~ 19 361 7 (49) O (0) 0 (0) ~133 ~ 0 ~ 0
22 ~ 23 529 5 (25) 2 (4) 0 (O) ~115 ~46 ~ 0
23 ~ 3 9 6 (36) O (0) l (1) - 18 ~ 0 ~ 3
26 ~ 17 289 7 (49) 0 (0) 0 (0) -119 ~ 0 ~ 0
29 ~ 9 81 6 (36) 0 (0) 0 (0) - 54 ~ 0 ~ 0
31 ~ 31 961 7 (49) O (O) 0 (O) ~217 ~ 0 ~ 0
32 ~ 17 289 4 (16) 3 (9) O (0) ~ 68 ~51 ~ 0
35 ~ 25 625 3 (9) 3 (9) l (1) - 75 ~75 ~25
37 ~ 19 361 3 (9) 3 (9) 1 (1) ~ 57 ~57 ~19
38 - 13 169 7 (49) O (O) 0 (0) ~ 91 ~ 0 ~ 0
42 - 33 1089 6 (36) 1 (1) O (O) ~198 ~33 ~ 0
45 ~ 31 961 4 (16) 3 (9) O (O) ~124 ~63 ~ 0
46 ~ 11 121 4 (16) 1 (l) 0 (0) ~ 44 ~11 ~ 0
47 ~ 21 441 6 (36) 1 (1) 0 (0) -126 ~21 ~ 0
48 ~ 11 121 7 (49) 0 (0) 0 (0) ~ 49 ~ 0 ~ 0
49 ~ 7 49 5 (25) 2 (4) O (O) - 35 ~14 ~ 0
50 ~ 23 529 5 (25) 2 (4) 0 (0) ~115 ~46 ~ 0
51 - 25 625 4 (16) 1 (l) 2 (4) -100 ~25 ~50
56 - 17 289 7 (49). O (0) O (0) ~ll9 ~ 0 ~ 0

49

Table 10.~~Continued.

 

 

 

 

Independent Dependent variable .
. Computation
Sub'ect variable Y XY
3 X Tendency to report scores
Hostility- b
Guilt scores yes maybe no yes may e no
58 ~ 9 81 5 (25) 2 (4) 0 (0) ~ 45 ~18 ~ 0
59 ~ 11 121 7 (49) O (O) O (0) ~ 77 ~ 0 ~ 0
61 ~ 11 121 4 (l6) 3 (9) O (0) ~ 44 ~33 ~ 0
68 ~ 11 121 4 (l6) 2 (4) 1 (1) ~ 44 ~22 ~11
69 ~ 0 81 4 (16) 3 (9) 0 (0) ~ 36 ~27 ~ 0
n = 33 ~509 9809 174(972) 45(105) 8 (10) ~2686 ~68l ~118

 

Correlation of our independent variable Hostility-Guilt scores
x of LHGG with the three alternatives of our dependent variable Y:

HG and Yes scores relationship: rxy = ~.6l
HG and Maybe scores relationship: rxy = ~.O4
HG and No scores relationship: r = ~.Ol

xy

APPENDIX 2

STATISTICAL CALCULATIONS

APPENDIX 2

STATISTICAL CALCULATIONS

The value of x2, with (3-1)(2~1) = 2 degrees of

freedom for the variables, is:

2 = 459 ( 1442 + 602 + 282 + 1742 +
X 2327338 2327133 232736 227.318
2 82

45 + ~ 1)
227.105 227.36

459 (20736 + 3600 + 784 + 30276 + 2025 +

64
8172

- 1)

459 (.281 + .147 + .106 + .419 + .085 + .007 - 1)
459 (.045)

20.655

The percentile points of CHI-Square distributions
tells us that the probability of the relationship between
our two variables (hostility-guilt high incidence and
propensity not to report exhibitionism occurrences to
others) to occur by chance is less than .001.

We may therefore conclude that there is a tendency
for HHGG to show a higher inclination not to report such

an encounter to others than we find in LHGG.

50

51

Table 11.~~Mean scores of the tendency to report sex crime.

 

 

Yes Maybe No Row totals Row means
HHGG 144 60 28 232 77.33
LHGG 174 45 8 227 75.66
Column totals 318 105 36 459

Column means 159 52.5 18

 

52

Table 12.~~Ana1ysis of variance of tendency to report
scores.

 

(144)2 + (174)2 + (60)2 + (45)2 + (28)2 + (8)2
7

 

 

 

 

SSA =
(144 + 174 + 60 + 45 + 28 + 8)
6(7)
= 20736 + 30276 + 3600 + 2025 + 784 + 64 _ (459)2
7 42
= 57485 _ 210681
7 42
SSA = 8212 ~ 5016 = 3196
SSS/A = (3190 + 4582 + 618 + 443 + 142 + 28) ~
(144)2 + (174)2 + (60)2 + (45)2 + (28)2 + (8)2
7
_ _ 57485
— 9003 -—7——
SSS/A = 9003 ~ 8212 = 791
Source SS df MS F
among groups 3196 5 639.20 29.85
within groups 791 36 21.41
Total 3987 41 p < .05

F(5,36) = 2.53 Reject no if F observed 1 2.53.
Since F observed exceeds this value, we reject the null
hypothesis and conclude that the independent variable

produced an effect.

APPENDIX 3

INTERVIEWS

APPENDIX 3

INTERVIEWS

Subject #1, age 21, Hostility-guilt score = +27

I was walking on the highway. A red truck pulled
off of the road on the other side of the highway. And
there was a guy in there calling me over. I couldn't hear
him and he was saying something to me. So, I went running
over to the truck. He opened the truck door, and he sort
of leaned partway out and said: "You know what this is?"
He was holding his penis. It was erect, and he had a
rubber on it. I just looked at it and said: "Yes," turned
around and left. (Giggling) I just kept walking down the
road, and I felt like I was in shock. That was it.

Then, I thought that I should have gotten the
license plate or something. But I was scared to turn
around, and so, I kept walking. I was on my way to my
girlfriend's house. When I got there I was too embarrassed
to tell her. And I never ended up telling anybody. I
was too embarrassed. I was scared of red trucks for about
six months (laughs). Now, it seems kinda funny, but then,
it was really scary.

The only time I thought about it was when I got
an obscene phone call (giggles). I started thinking about

53

54

this other guy. But other than that I never thought about
it.

I wasn't as scared after the obscene phone call
because I was not in immediate danger. With this other
guy, I was really scared. You know, he could have pulled
me into the truck, or something. Like he showed me some-
thing I had never really seen before (gentle laughs),
you know. I don't even have any brothers (louder laughs).
I was only sixteen. I had a boyfriend, but I didn't even
tell him. I was too embarrassed.

If I felt anything, I think it was just a sort of
like now there is a wall between us (boyfriend and her)
because there was something I couldn't tell him. I didn't
want to. I was too embarrassed. He never was aware of
this. We were just dating now and then. It was not a
heavy, big relationship, you know. I have two sisters,
and we are about only a year apart. So, we are really
close. And it's unusual that I didn't tell them. But,

I just couldn't.

I dreamt about it after it happened. Right away,
I started dreaming it, and it was months after that they
would come back to me. I was really scared by it. But
now, it doesn't scare me as much. It's been a long time.

When I saw the guy in the truck I thought it was
really disgusting. I even thought "ooh!" You know.

Afterwards, I was thinking about it, and I thought the whole

55

thing was totally revolting and I'd never have kids (gig-
gles). But the first time I made love, I didn't associate
anything with that.

As I've gotten older, not only I do have sexual
relationships, but my whole outlook on these things, you
know, things are a lot more open.

If it happened now, I know I wouldn't be as upset
as I was then. I think I'd just go home and laugh or some-
thing. But I still don't think I'd go to the police, or
tell my parents or anybody. I'd be embarrassed to go to
my parents. I might go to my boyfriend or my girlfriend.
I wrote on your card that I wouldn't tell him. And I
wrote that I'd be more likely to tell my best girlfriend,
which is probably what would happen. It would depend.
Like if I was to talk to him right after, but if I wasn't
I'd be more likely to tell my girlfriend.

I was sixteen when I first made love. I don't
think I told anybody about it. I was still pretty young,
you know, as far as my friends. I wasn't really sure
where they stood, and I was too embarrassed, so I didn't.

It was half a year after the buy in the red truck.

Subject #6, age 22, Hostility-guilt score = ~12

There were three or four of us girls walking down
Grand River Avenue. It was on a weekend at night. It
was kinda late. We were just walking down the street

talking, and all of a sudden, we saw this man, he was

56

kind of older, and he kind of had a funny expression on
his face, I thought, a sort of he had a coat on, and he
walked toward us. At the same time he started walking
toward us, something else happened, and I looked around
and then he was by. And it was over. And everybody was
talking about how he exposed himself. Everybody was dis-
gusted about the whole thing. I didn‘t even see it, but
I knew it had happened because everybody was talking about
it.

The reaction of everybody else was just disgust.
Nobody was upset, nobody was really shocked. It was just
a disgust type of reaction. And I sort of felt the same

way. We probably laughed, yeah.

Subject #2, age 19, Hostility-guilt score = ~3

I was in a shopping center, in the parking lot,
when (giggles) I saw a man standing by a car, and he
exposed himself. He just took his pants off, and he stood
there. And I just looked at him, and I just kept walking,
I got into my car and drove away. I didn't think anything
of it, really. He just stood there, looked at me and
smiled at me. He had his pants off, he took them off
completely (giggles). He just stood there and waved at
me as I drove away in my car. It was last summer. It
was in Roseville, it's about 16 miles north of Detroit.
It was mid-afternoon. Then I went home. I told people,

but I really didn't think anything of it. I told my

57

friends. No, I didn't tell my parents. My parents have a
lot of hang-ups. (Laughs) I told my boyfriend too. He
just told me never to go out there alone again, by myself.
I think he was a little bit upset by it. He didn't say
too much.

I just thought he was an ass (laughs). That's
all I thought. He was an ass (laughs). I really wasn't
that scared by it, I don't think. I was just more sur-
prised, but I really wasn't that scared or anything. All
I had to do was get into my car and drive away. So, it
really didn't scare me very much. (I had at that time
sexual relations. And it didn't change my feelings about
it. First time I made love after it happened, I enjoyed

it just regular, I think.

Subject #8, age 21, Hostility-guilt score = +21

The first time, I was in the library and it was in
the graduate section. This young man walked up to me and
asked me where he could find a book on Masters and Johnson.
That's what he said to me. And I said: "Well, why don't
you try going down looking at the card catalogue, on the
first floor?" And you know, it's apparent it was an
indecent exposure. He was just standing there with his
pants open. And I just told him that, turned around, and
walked away. At that time, I didn't fear because it was

a lighted area in the library. I thought it was kind of

58

funny, you know, like I thought something must be emotion-
ally wrong with him for him to do that . . . .

The second time it happened I was walking down
Michigan Avenue. It was late at night and it was in the
summertime. An older man came out of nowhere from the
side of the street and he had his pants open and he said
to me: "Come on over here, honey, I really have something
good for you, and you'd really like it." He was holding
his penis in his hand, and I was really scared. I didn't
wait more than about three seconds and took off running
as fast as I could. And I kept feeling he was following
me, and I lived alone at the time. So, I kept dodging
in the apartment and kept checking if he was running after
me. But he wasn't. When I got home, I was scared for
like two hours after that. I had seen a police car but I
just ran across the highway. It was going in the other
direction. I thought about calling the police, but I
thought he‘d be gone by the time they get there. And it
wouldn't do much good.

For some reason, at the library, I wasn't even
bothered by that. But if the man in the street had had a
weapon or something, it wouldn't have been very funny.
But as it was, it turned out okay. The second time it
happened I did have trouble falling asleep because it was
an older man. He was in his forties, he was big and he

just really had scared me because I was alone at the time.

59

I smoked about four or five cigarettes to calm down, went

to bed, and just laid there.

Subject #21, age 21, Hostility-guilt score = ~19

My sister and I were coming back from a fair. As
we were getting to the car, we noticed someone that was
following us. It was on a side street, so we kinda hurried
up because we were a little bit nervous. Then, he started
running after us. So, we ran to the car. We got in the
car. We locked it. He came to the window of the door and
exposed himself. He started jacking off against the
window, saying all kinds of obscene things, you know,
mouthing Obscenities, pressed up against the window. Then
we just laid on the horn and we took off as soon as
possible. He was just a young kid. He was probably about
sixteen or seventeen, I'd say.

The second time was on campus, here. I think he
was a guy in my class. I had had Nat Sci in the nat sci
building. I was going out after class, and I was going
down the stairs. I heard somebody following me. So, I
hurried up the side court of the stairwell. I turned
around for a second and I saw him exposing himself, and
he was jacking off. Then I just walked out the door and
he still kept knocking on the window, pressing himself
up and jacking off against the window. That time I
reported him to the police too after I got home. I didn't

tell my parents. My sister and I both talked about it

60

because we both were really scared and everything. We
didn't know what to do. The second time I talked to the
girls in the dorm, and they are the ones that got me to go
to the police.

The last time, the guy was in the basement of a
building that had a window in the basement. He tapped
on the window. I just looked down and there he was. I
just kept on walking, just ignored him. I didn't report
him or anything. That time it really didn't bother me

that much.

APPENDIX 4

MOSHER F-C INVENTORY

APPENDIX 4

MOSHER F-C INVENTORY

This questionnaire consists of a number of pairs
of statements or opinions which have been given by college
women in response to the "Mosher Incomplete Sentences
Tests": These women were asked to complete phrases such
as "When I tell a lie . . . ." and "To kill in war . . . ."
to make a sentence which expressed their real feelings
about the stem. This questionnaire consists of the stems
to which they responded and a pair of their responses which
are lettered A and B.

You are to read the stem and the pair of completions
and decide which you most agree with or which is most
characteristic of you. Your choice, in each instance,
should be in terms of what you believe how you feel, or
how you would react, and not in terms of how you think you
should believe, feel, or respond. This is not a test.
There are no right or wrong answers. Your choices should
be a description of your own personal beliefs, feelings
or reactions.

In some instances you may discover that you believe
both completions or neither completion to be characteristic

61

62

of you. In such cases select the one you mg£g_strongly
believe to be the case as far as you are concerned. Be
sure to find an answer for every choice. Do not omit an
item even though it is very difficult for you to decide,
just select the more characteristic member of the pair.
Your answers are to be recorded on a separate
answer sheet. If alternative A is more characteristic of

you for a particular item blacken the space in the column

under E. If alternative B is more characteristic of you
for a particular item blacken the space under the column
headed g.

1. I punish myself . . .
A. very infrequently.
B. when I do wrong and don't get caught.

2. If I killed someone in self-defense . . .
A. I would be glad to be alive.
B. I would be a murderer.

3. Women who curse . . .
A. usually want to bring attention to themselves.
B. in private are still ladies.

4. When anger builds inside me . . .
A. I let people know how I feel.
B. I'm angry at myself.

5. If in the future I committed adultery . . .
A. I hope I would be punished very deeply.
B. I hope I enjoy it.

6. Obscene literature . . .
A. is all right if you like it.
B. ought to be completely abolished.

7. "Dirty" jokes in mixed company . . .
A. do not bother me.
B. are something that make me very uncomfortable.

63

Masturbation . . .
A. helps one feel eased and relaxed.
B. is wrong and will ruin you.

I detest myself for . . .
A. nothing, I love life.
B. for my sins and failures.

Sex relations before marriage . . .
A. should be permitted.
B. are wrong and immoral.

If in the future I committed adultery . . .
A. I would be unworthy of my husband.
B. I would have a good reason.

I should have been punished for . . .
A. many things I kept secret.
B. for very few things.

Capital punishment . . .
A. is totally acceptable for capital crimes.
B. is wrong and should be stopped.

If I committed a homosexual act . . .
A. it would be my business.
B. it would show weakness in me.

When caught in the act . . .
A. I make a fool of myself.
B. I try to get out of it the best I can.

After a childhood fight, I felt . . .
A. guilty and ashamed.
B. that I had triumphed.

When I was a child, sex . . .
A. was not talked about and was a feared word.
B. was fun to think about.

When I have sexual dreams . . .
A. I sometimes wake up feeling excited.
B. I try to forget them.

When I was younger, fighting . . .
A. didn't bother me.
B. never appealed to me.

Arguments leave me feeling . .
A. elated at winning.
B. depressed and disgusted.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

64

"Dirty" jokes in mixed company . . .
A. can be funny depending on the company.
B. are in bad taste.

Capital punishment . . .
A. is a good deterrent to crime.
B. does not deter crime, so why keep it.

Obscene literature . . .
A. makes interesting reading.
B. is for people with sick minds.

I detest myself for . . .
A. nothing at present.
B. being so self-centered.

Petting . . .
A. is an expression of affection which is satisfying.
B. I am sorry to say is becoming an accepted practice.

Unusual sex practices . . .
A. are not so unusual.
B. don't interest me.

After a childhood fight, I felt . . .
A. good if I won, bad otherwise.
B. hurt and alarmed.

If I hated my parents . . .
A. I would need psychiatric help.
B. I would rebel at their every wish.

"Dirty" jokes in mixed company . . .
A. disgust me.
B. do not bother me as long as they are just in fun.

If I had sex relations, I would feel . . .
A. very dirty.
B. happy and satisfied.

Sex . . .
A. is good and enjoyable.
B. should be saved for wedlock and childbearing.

After an outburst of anger . . .

A. I usually feel quite a bit better.

B. I feel ridiculous and sorry that I showed my
emotions.

I punish myself . . .
A. when I make mistakes.
B. rarely.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

65

After an argument . . .
A. I feel proud in victory, understanding in defeat.
B. I wish that I hadn't argued.

A guilty conscience . .
A. does not bother me too much.
B. is worse than a sickness to me.

When I have sexual desires . . .

A. I enjoy it like all healthy human beings.

B. I fight them for I must have complete control of
my body.

Prostitution . . .
A. makes me sick when I think about it.
B. needs to be understood.

After a childhood fight, I felt . . .
A. that it was partly my fault.
B. much better, but made friends afterward.

Unusual sex practices . . .
A. might be interesting.
B. are disgusting and revolting.

The idea of murder . . .
A. is inconceivable to me.
B. understandable at times.

Sex relations before marriage . . .
A. are disgusting and unnecessary.
B. are o.k. if both partners are in agreement.

Masturbation . . .
A. is sickening.
B. is understandable in many cases.

One should not . . .
A. say "one should not."
B. lose his temper.

If in the future I committed adultery . . .
A. I would resolve not to commit the mistake again.
B. I would hope there would be no consequences.

Unusual sex practices . . .
A. are all in how you look at it.
B. are unwise and lead only to trouble.

Obscene literature . . .
A. helps people become sex perverts.
B. is fun to read once in a while.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

66

Capital punishment . . .
A. is the only thing some criminals can understand.
B. is legal murder; it is inhuman.

Petting . . .
A. is just asking for trouble.
B. can lead to bigger and better things.

After an outburst of anger . . .
A. my tensions are relieved.
B. I am jittery and all keyed up.

When I have sexual desires . . .
A. I know it's only human, but I feel terrible.
B. I usually express them.

If I had sex relations, I would feel . . .
A. guilty, sinful and bad.
B. happy if I loved the boy and he loved me.

I punish myself . . .
A. for very few things.
B. by denying myself a privilege.

Masturbation . . .
A. is stupid.
B. is a common thing in childhood.

Sin and failure . . .
A. are the works of the devil.
B. do not depress me for long.

Unusual sex practices . . .

A. are the business of those who carry them out and
no one else's.

B. are dangerous to one's health and mental condition.

After an argument . . .

A. I feel happy if I won or still stick to my own
views if I lose.

B. I am disgusted that I let myself become involved.

Petting . . .
A. is justified with love.
8. is not a good practice until after marriage.

After a childhood fight, I felt . . .
A. like I was a hero.
B. as if I had done wrong.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

67

When I have sexual desires . . .
A. I try to go to sleep and forget them.
B. I become easily aroused.

I detest myself for . . .
A. not always listening to those who know better.
B. very little.

If I had sex relations, I would feel . . .
A. cheap and unfit for marriage.
B. warm and very good.

Sex relations before marriage . . .

A. ruin many a happy couple.

B. might help the couple to understand each other
and themselves.

I regret . . .
A. the way I have behaved.
B. few things in my life.

Masturbation . . .
A. is a normal outlet for sexual desires.
B. is wrong and a sin.

After an argument . . .
A. if I have won, I feel great.
B. I am sorry for my actions.

Petting . . .

A. depends on whom I'm with.

B. is against my better judgment but hard to resist
for some.

After a fight, I felt . . .

A. relieved.

B. it should have been avoided for nothing was
accomplished.

Masturbation . . .
A. is all right.
B. is a form of self destruction.

Unusual sex practices . . .
A. are all right if both partners agree.
B. are awful and unthinkable.

If I committed a homosexual act . . .
A. I would want to be punished.
B. I would be discreet.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

68

When I have sexual desires . . .
A. I attempt to repress them.
B. I sometimes think of past experiences.

If I had sex relations, I would feel . . .
A. all right, I think.
B. I was being used not loved.

Arguments leave me feeling . . .
A. that it was a waste of time.
B. as if I might have accomplished something.

Sin and failure . . .
A. depress me more than any other acts.
B. are not necessarily related.

If I felt like murdering someone . . .
A. I would be ashamed of myself.
B. it would be for a good reason.

Sex relations before marriage . . .
A. are not good for anyone.
B. with the person I hope to marry is o.k.

After an outburst of anger . . .
A. I feel much better.
B. I usually hate myself for being so silly.

"Dirty" jokes in mixed company ; . .
A. should be avoided.
B. are acceptable up to a point.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

813’ 033’ mil, CUB? (113’ £1333 (DIP 073’ U13, U735 U133 (DID

033’ ("£13,

can:

(113’

MC
MC

HG
HG

MC
MC

HG
HG

+2

MC

MC

~2

+2

+2

MC

MC

+2

+2

MC

MC

HG
HG

~1
+1

MC
MC

HG
HG

-1
+1

+2

+2
~l

~2
+2

+1
~2

+2
~2

69

Mosher F-C Guilt Inventory

Form F

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

(1'11? U335 (11> U111? (133’ (173’ (1711’

U1? U7?

U1? UJW U3?

GI? U1? HIP a!»

HG
HG

HG
HG

+1
HG
HG

MC
MC

MC
MC

~2

+2

+1

HG
HG

HG
HG

+2
~2

+2
~2
+2

HG
HG

+1

-2
+2

-1
+1

-2
+2

+2

+1

+2

~l
+1

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

W35 W33 WII’ W3, WD’ W3, W33 W33

W3, W3’

W3, W3’

WIP‘

W11, W3, W3,

WS’

MC
MC

HG
HG

MC

MC

+2

+2

HG

HG

+2

HG
HG

+2
-2

MC
MC

HG
HG

+2
~2

HG
HG

+1

~2
+1

+2
~2

-2
+2

+1

70

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

WD’ W3, WD’

W3’

W35 WW Wiv Wlb' W3, W3, W3’ W35

W35 W3, W3’ WII’ W11>I

MC
MC

~2
+2

HG
HG

MC
MC

~2
+2

HG
HG

+1

+1

+2

+2

-2
+2

+1

+2

+2

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

WW WW WW

WW WW WW WW

WW WW WW WW

WW

HG
HG

GH
HG

MC
MC

HG
HG

+1

HG

HG

+1

~l
+1

~2
+2

71

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Akers, R. Deviant behavior. Belmont, Cal.: Wadsworth
Publishing Co., 1973.

 

Allen, C. A textbook of psychosexual disorders. London:
Oxford UniVersity Press, 1969.

 

Allen, F. A. The borderland of criminal justice. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1964.

 

Allport, G. Pattern and growth in personality. New York:
Holt, 1961.

 

Amir, M. The role of the victim in sex offenses. In
H. Resnik and M. Wolfgant (eds.), Sexual behaviors:
social, clinical and 1e a1 aspects. Boston, Mass.:
Little, Brown & Co., 1972'

 

Arief, A. J., and Rotman, D. Psychiatric inventory of
100 cases of indecent exposure. Arch. Neurol.
Psychiatr., Chicago, 41, 495-8, 1942.

 

 

Aronfreed, J. Conduct and conscience: The socialization
of internalized control over behavior. New York:
Academic Press, 1968.

Aronfreed, J. The nature, variety, and social patterning
of moral responses to transgression. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, Vol. 63,
No. 2, 223-240.

 

Balint, A. Identification. In S. Lorand et al. (eds.),
The yearbook of psychoanalysis. Vol. 1. New
York: Inter. Univ. Press, 1945.

Barclay, A. M., and Haber, R. N. The relation of aggres-
sive to sexual motivation. Journal of Personality,

 

Becker, H. S. Outsiders. New York: Free Press, 1963.

 

72

IIIlllllclI‘!I

73

Berger, E. The battle of the conscience: a psychiatric
study of the inner working of the conscience.
Baltimore: Monumental Printing Co., 1948.

 

 

Black, D. J. Production of crime rates. American Socio~
logical Review, 35, August 1963.

 

 

Bloch, H., and Prince, M. Social crisis and deviance:
theoretical foundations. New York: Random House,
1967.

 

 

Block-Lewis, H. Shame and guilt in neurosis. New York:
Intern. Univ. Press, 1971.

 

Carson, R. Interaction concepts of personality. Chicago:
Aldine Publishing Company, 1969.

 

Chodoff, P. Feminine psychology and infantile sexuality.
In Baker Miller, Jean (ed.), Psychoanalysis and
women. Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Books Ltd.,
1973.

 

Christoffel, H. Exhibitionism and exhibitionists. Intern.
Journal of Psychoanalysis, 2, 11, 321-45, 1936.

 

Deutsch, H. The psychology of women. New York: Bantam
Books,II973.

 

Douglas, J. Research on deviance. New York: Random House,
1971.

 

Douglas, J. American social order. New York: Free Press,
1971.

 

East, W. Observations on exhibitionism. LANCET, 370-5,
1924.

Ellis, A., and Brancale, R. The_psychology of sex offenders.
Springfield, Illinois: Charles Thomas Publisher,
1956.

 

Fenichel, O. The psychoanalytic theory of neurosis. New
York: Norton, 1945.

 

Freud, A. The ego and the mechanisms of defense. New
York: Intern. Univ. Press, 1946.

 

Freud, S. The ego and the id. In John Rickman (ed.), A
general selection from the works of Sigmund Frefid.
New York: Doubleday Anchor Books Co., 1957,
originally published in London by Hogarth Press,
1927.

74

Freud, S. A general introduction to psychoanalysis. New
York: Pocket Books, 1973, originally published
by the Liveright Publishing Corporation, 1924.

 

Gebhard, P.; Gagnon, J.; Pomeroy, W.; and Christenson, C.
Sex offenders: an analysis of types. New York:
Harper & Row, Publishers, 1965.

 

Gerhart, P., and Singer, M. Shame and guilt: agpsycho-
analytical and a cultural study. Springfield,
Illinois: C. Thomas, 1953.

 

 

Goffman, E. Asylums. New York: Doubleday & Co., 1961.

Goodstein, L., and Lanyon, R. Reading in personality
assessment. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1971.

 

 

Hackett, T. P. The psychotherapy of exhibitionists in a
court clinic setting. Semin. Psychiatr., 3: 297,
1971.

 

Hall, C., and Nordby, V. Apprimer of jun ian psychology.
New York: New American Library, 1 73.

 

Havigurst, R. Adolescent character and personality. New
York: John Wiley, 1949.

Hermann, K., and Schroder, G. Un cas d'exhibitionisme chez
une femme. Acta Psychiatr. Neurol. Scand., 10,
547, 1935.

 

Hindelang, M. Moral evaluations of illegal behaviors.
Social Problems, 21, 370, 1974.

 

Honigmann, J. 2A cultural theory of obscenity. Journal of
Criminal Psychopathology, 5, 715-738, 1944.

 

 

Horney, K. Femininepsychology. New York: Norton & Co.,
1973.

 

Horney, K. Neurosis and human growth. New York: Norton
& Co., 1950.

 

Jessor, R.; Graves, T.; Hanson, R.; and Jessor, 8.

Society, personality, and deviant behavior. New
Yor : R. Krieger PubliShing Company, 1975.

Kardiner, A. The individual and his society. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1939.

 

 

75

Karpman, B. The psychopathology of exhibitionism. Journal
of Clin. Psychopath., 9: 179, 1948.

 

Keppel, G. Design and analysis: a researcher's handbook.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PrentiCe Hall, 1973.

 

Kitsuse, J. Societal reaction to deviant behavior:
Problems of theory and method. In Denzel Benson
(ed.), Reading in deviant behavior. New York:
MSS Inform. Corp., I973.

 

Kohlberg, L. Collected papers on moral development and
moral education. Pullman, Wash.: Washington State
University Press, 1973.

 

 

Kohlberg, L. Moral development and the education of
adolescents. In R. Muuss (ed.), Adolescent
behavior and society. New York: Random House,
1975.

 

 

Kutner, 8. Sex guilt and the sexual behavior sequence.
The Journal of Sex Research, May 1971, Vol. 7,

 

Landis, J. Experiences of 500 children with adult sexual
deviation. Psychiatr. Q (Suppl.), 30: 91, 1956.

 

Lasegue, C. Les exhibitionnistes, L'Union Medicale,
23: 703, 1877.

 

Lester, D. Unusual sexual behavior. Springfield, 111.:
C. Thomas, 197 .

 

Levitan, H. An exhibitionist. Psychoanal. gpater., 32,
246-8, 1963.

 

Linn, L. A handbook of hospital psychiatry. New York:
International University Press, 1955.

 

MacDonald, J. Indecent exposure. Springfield, 111.:
C. Thomas, 1973.

 

Maddi, S. Personality theories: a comparative analysis.
Homewood, Illinois: Thel Dorsey Press, 1976.

Malmquist, C. Juvenile sex offenders. In Resnik, H.,
and Wolfgang, M. (eds. ), Sexual behaviors:
social, clinical, and legal aspects. Boston:
Little Brown and Company, 1972'.

 

 

76

Maslow, A. Self—esteem (dominance-feeling) and sexuality
in women. Journal of Social Psychology, 1942,
39, 259-294.

 

Mathis, J., and Collins, M. Progressive phases in the
group therapy of exhibitionists. Int. J. Group
Psychotherapy, 39, 163-9, 1970.

 

 

Matza, D. Delinquency and drift. New York: John Wiley &
Sons, 1964.

 

Mosher, D. Interaction of fear and guilt in inhibiting
unacceptable behavior. Journal of Consulting
Psychology, 1965, 39, 16l~67.

 

 

Mosher, D. The development and multitrait-method matrix
analysis of the three measures of three aspects of
guilt. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1966,
39, 25-29.

 

Mosher, D. Differential influence of guilt on the verbal
operant conditioning of hostile and "superego"
verbs. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1966,
Vol. 39, No. 3, 280.

 

Mosher, D. Sex differences, sex experiences, sex guilt,
and explicitly sexual films. Journal of Social
Issues, 1973, vol. 29, 3.

 

Mosher, D., and Greenberg, I. Females' affective responses
to reading erotic literature. Journal of Consulting
Psychology: 1971, 33, 472-477.

 

 

Naville, F., and Dubois-Ferriere, H. Etude sur l'exhibition-
isme. Paris: 1938.

 

Nunberg, H. Principles of psychoanalysis. New York:
Inter. U. Press, 1955.

 

Oliver, W., and Mosher, D. Psychopathology and guilt in
heterosexual and subgroups of homosexual reform-
atory inmates. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1968, 9, 323-3292

 

 

Piaget, J. The mogal judgment of the child. Glencoe,
Illinois: Free Press, 1948, ofiginally published
in 1932.

Resnik, H., and Wolfgang, M. Sexual behaviors: social,
clinical, and legal aspects. Boston: Little Brown
& Co., 1972.

 

 

77

Rickles, N. Exhibitionism. Philadelphia: J. Lippincott
Co., 1953.

 

Rosenberg, M. The logic of survey analysis. New York:
Basic Books, 1968.

 

Ruma, E., and Mosher, D. Relationship between moral
judgment and guilt in delinquent boys. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 1967, 13, 122-127.

 

Sagarin, E. Sexual criminality. In Blumberg (ed.),
Current perspectives on criminal behavior. New
York: A. Knopf, 1974.

 

Sarnoff, I. Identification with the aggressor: some
personality correlates of anti-semitism among Jews.
Journal of Personality, 1951, 20, 199-218.

 

Scheff, T. Being_mentally ill. Chicago: Aldine Publ. Co.,
1966.

 

Schill, T. Need for approval, guilt, and sexual stimu-
lation and their relationship to sexual respon-
sivity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 1972, Vol. 38, 3, 3l~35.

 

 

Schur, E. Crimes without victims. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice HalI Inc., 1973.

 

Schur, E. Radical non-intervgntion. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc., 1973.

Staats, A. Social behaviorism. Homewood, Ill.: The
Dorsey Press, 1975.

 

Stein, E. Guilt: theory and therapy. Philadelphia:
Westminster Co., 1968.

Thurstone, L., and Chave, E. The measurement of attitudes.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1929.

 

Ullerstam, L. The erotic minorities. New York: Grove
Press, 1966.

 

Wiggins, J. Personality and prediction:principles of
personglityassessment. Reading, Mass.: Addison-
Wesley Publ. Co., 1973.

Zechnich, R. Exhibitionism. Psychiatricggarterly,
93, 70-75, 1971.