DISCRERANOIES IN SOCIALIZATION,
SELF, AND RELATED VARIABLES
BETWEEN HIGH SCHOOL AND
TRAINING SCHOOL YOUTH: A
PRELIMINARY EXPERIENCE SURVEY

Thesis for the Degree of M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
LAURENCE LEWIS
1972

 

HVDE.

 

 

 

 
  
 

  

LIBRAR Y
Michigan State

University

“—

      

 

 
 

    

7 BINDING av

I
I .

 

 

III HUAB&SIINS’ I» .
I .-800K BINDERY INC ji

 

‘ LIBRARY PIN‘DFII I m
,SPIIMIPIIIITJII f—"'_‘ "

IIK: [AI/.7“- A .aI'l

 

 

M7

 

ABSTRACT

DISCREPANCIES IN SOCIALIZATION, SELF, AND
RELATED VARIABLES BETWEEN HIGH SCHOOL
AND TRAINING SCHOOL YOUTH: A
PRELIMINARY EXPERIENCE SURVEY

BY

Laurence Lewis

This study is an attempt to gather some exploratory
information concerning the socialization process, self—
concept, self—attitude, juvenile delinquency and subse-
quent internment in the training schools, and related
variables. The general statement of the problem would be:
Why do most youths spend their adolescence in secondary
school, while some spend it in training school? More

Specifically:

1. How do socialization agents influence the indi-
vidual youth's self-concept, self-esteem, and
other variables (e.g., attitudes, values); the
youth's response to the process of socialization;

and each other's attempts to socialize the youth?

2. How do agents of socialization perceive themselves,
the socialization process, and treatments of more

or less anti-social youths?

Laurence Lewis

3. What is, or should be, the role of juvenile
detention institutions, such as the training

schools, in the treatment of anti-social youths?

4. How do various treatment methods, models, and
ideologies deal with socialization problems mani—

fest in the behavior of anti-social youths?

The method used here is the experience survey, a

 

systematic set of interviews with experienced people in

the field of study. In this research, these included deans,
counselors, and administrators of three secondary schools
in the Lansing, Michigan school district, and psychologists,
counselors, and supervisors of the Lansing Boys‘ Training
School and Adrian Girls' Training School. Direct
questioning and examination of records were employed as
tools for information gathering.

The attempt was to discern differences between high
school and training school students along the relevant
dimensions. Differences between the two populations were
discussed concerning family structure and characteristics,
early and later socialization methods, self-perception,
self-attitudes, attitudes toward authority, value
structures, temporal structure and "short-run hedonism,"
affection and attention, "youthful rebellion," parental
cooperation, and various dimensions of treatment methods.

Nine major tentative conclusions were put forth

concerning the interrelationships between such variables

Laurence Lewis

as locus-of-control orientation, school attendance and
performance, success at socialization, and juvenile
delinquency and subsequent internment. Three other
relationships studied remained undetermined. Also, some
evaluations of four dimensions of treatment methods were
made and discussed.

The value of this study to research in the field is
that it establishes direction and specificity for further

investigations.

DISCREPANCIES IN SOCIALIZATION, SELF, AND
RELATED VARIABLES BETWEEN HIGH SCHOOL
AND TRAINING SCHOOL YOUTH: A

PRELIMINARY EXPERIENCE SURVEY

BY

Laurence Lewis

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Sociology

1972

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My gratitude is expressed to my wife, Sharon, for
her encouragement and patience; to my guidance committee,
Drs. John H. McNamara, Donald W. Olmsted, and William L.
Ewens for their suggestions and advice; to all my inter-
viewees at Lansing Boys' Training School and Adrian Girls'
Training School, and at Eastern, Everett, and J. W.

Sexton High Schools in Lansing for their time and infor-
mation; and a special thanks to Mr. A. Dale Shears, staff
psychologist at Lansing Boys' Training School, for his
continuing help and the use of his projective material,
and to Mr. Vergil M. Pinckney, of the Office of Youth
Services, for his help in obtaining whatever data was
available.

Finally, my gratitude to Kenneth Keniston, who
stimulated my interest in the field of youth behavior and
juvenile delinquency with the profound exposition:
"Childhood is seldom the unmitigated fulfillment portrayed

in the toilet-paper ads."

ii

Chapter
I. NATURE OF THE PROBLEM . . . .
II. RESEARCH DOMAIN . . . . . .
Populations. . . . . .
Secondary Educational Institutions
Juvenile Detention Institutions
III. VARIABLES . . . . . . . .
Socialization . . . . . .
se 1f 0 O O O O O 0 0
Related Variables. . . . .
IV 0 MET HODOLOGY O O O I O O O
The Experience Survey . . .
Some Possible Confounding Factors
V. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Family Structure . . . . .
Generational Continuity. . .
Early Socialization . . . .
Later Socialization . . . .
Self-Perception . . . . .

Attitudes . . . . . . .
Self-Attitudes. . . . .
Attitudes Toward Authority. .
Value Structure . . . . .
"Short-run Hedonism". . . .
Temporal Structure . . . .
Affection and Attention. . .
"Youthful Rebellion". . . .
Parental Cooperation. . . .

Treatment Dimensions. . . .

iii

Page

A

\IC‘Ib

10

10
11
14

18

18
22

25

26
27
27
30
35
38
39

49
51
52
54
55
56
57

Chapter Page
VI. TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . 64

On Socialization Processes. . . . . . . 64
On Treatment Dimensions. . . . . . . . 75

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Adaptation of "Percentage of Students
Perceiving Various Ways to Get Ahead
Fastest" (Northeastern High School
Sample), by W. D. TenHouten . . . . . . 36

2. High School Student Differentation of
"Police" Concept. . . . . . . . . . 42

3. High School Student Authority Differentiation:
"Police Department" vs. "School" . . . . 44

4. High School Student Authority Differentiation:
"Police" vs. "Police Department" . . . . 45

5. High School Student Authority Differentiation:
"Teachers" vs. "School" . . . . . . . 46

6. High School Student Authority Differentiation:
"Police" vs. "Teachers" . . . . . . . 47

7. Subjective Desirability of Combinations of
the Various Treatment Dimensions . . . . 78

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page

1. Overall Scheme of Socialization Process
Interrelationships . . . . . . . . . 76

vi

CHAPTER I

NATURE OF THE PROBLEM

This thesis is a report on efforts to clarify some
thoughts on the socialization processes and self-
orientations among juveniles in two institutions: high
school and training school. Since this is a preliminary
study for subsequent, more detailed research, the insti-
tutional populations here were chosen to represent a
sample of "normal" high-school-aged youths and a sample of
"extreme" delinquent youths. Efforts are aimed at a
comparative study of qualitative differences in "sociali-
zation," "self," and related variables between the two
populations.

Given the constant exposition of the increasing
incidence of youth crime by governmental agencies and the
mass media, and the high rates of recidivism of problem
youths in juvenile detention facilities, the need for more
research in the field of juvenile delinquency is evident.
When one reviews the literature in the field, one is lead
to the most general statement of the problem at hand: Why

do most youths spend their adolescent years in secondary

educational institutions, while some spend those years in
juvenile detention institutions?

For the purposes of research, however, this
question is much too broad. The juvenile delinquency and
social psychology literature do indicate the relative
importance of socialization (especially "early" sociali-
zation), self-concept, and self-esteem as influences on
other social psychological phenomena and on later behavior
patterns. Therefore, for my purposes here, the problem

can be stated in four related multiple questions:

1. How do socialization agents influence the indi-
vidual youth's self-concept, self-esteem, and other
variables (e.g., attitudes, values); the youth's
response to the process of socialization; and each

other's attempts to socialize the youth?

2. How do agents of socialization perceive themselves,
the socialization process, and treatments of more

or less anti-social youth?

3. What is, or should be, the role of juvenile
detention institutions, such as the training

schools, in the treatment of anti-social youths?

4. How do various treatment methods, models, and
ideologies deal with socialization problems mani-

fest in the behavior of anti-social youths?

It is to these questions that this thesis

addresses itself.

CHAPTER II

RESEARCH DOMAIN

Populations

 

In the case of high-school-aged youths, the group
studied was students at three of Lansing, Michigan's four
city secondary schools.1 Since most youth, in whatever
state or area, eventually attend secondary school, this
was felt to be an adequate place to obtain information
about the majority of juveniles in Michigan.2 Students

in the district come from a reasonably representative

 

1The fourth high school only recently opened and
is very experimental regarding the nature of its curriculum.
The school officials with whom I spoke felt that they could
tell me little because of the newness of their jobs, the
school, and the resulting problems loosely termed "getting
organized."

21D later studies, this group will be further
divided into categories of "self-reported" delinquents and
non-delinquents. For a complete discussion of the pros
and cons of the "self-report" method of measuring de-
linquent activity, including lists of questions, scales,
and narrative employed by its users, see Hardt and Bodine
(1965). There is ample justification for making this
distinction, especially in the "hidden delinquency" liter-
ature. See, e.g., Robison (1936), Schwartz (1945), Murphy,
et al. (1946), Porterfield (1946), Short and Nye (1958),
Eriison and Emprey (1963). Also, demographic character-
istics of students, e.g., race, sex, socioeconomic status,
and other family characteristics, will be considered.

variety of race and ethnic groups, socioeconomic statuses,
family occupational groups, and other such demographic
categories.

In the case of delinquent youth, the group studied
was students at the Michigan State Boys' Training School
(BTS) at Lansing and Girls' Training School (GTS) at
Adrian, both supervised by the Institutional division of
the Office of Youth Services, Michigan Department of Social
Services. This group was chosen as an "extreme" example of
juvenile offenders because, in general, the youths have
been made wards of the state, i.e., taken away from their
parents, because of repeated delinquent behavior and
general "incorrigibility." It is thought that boys and
girls at these institutions will display "extreme" social
psychological tendencies characteristic of delinquent
youth.

It is worthwhile to mention at this point that both
the education and adjudication processes have, of course,
several steps prior to secondary and training school.
Studying at these levels, however, is no drawback to
purposes here. Records of both institutions indicate
aspects of these intermediate steps (e.g., elementary and
middle school, police and probation authorities) and the
youth's responses to these institutions. In the process,
and at the age level desired, these levels are comparable

"ends of the line," i.e., before college or working

adulthood, adult prison or, in some cases, mental insti-

tutions.3

Secondary Educational Institutions

 

The Lansing public high schools chosen for this
research appear, at face value, to be reasonably typical
of secondary educational facilities statewide. Curriculums
include general education, college preparatory programs,
business-oriented studies, and vocational education, the
latter usually coupled with some form of work-study program
with cooperating local businesses. Institutional structures
and faculty educational backgrounds are also similar among
the schools. One school is located on Lansing's south
side, drawing students from a virtually all white, middle-
class area. Very few Blacks and Chicanos attend this
school, and about 47 per cent of its students who graduate
continue on to some form of post-secondary education.
Another school is located on the ease side of town,
drawing its students from an admixture of middle- and
working-class areas. The Black and Chicano enrollment
here is about 8 per cent, and 34 per cent of these students

continue their education after graduation. The third

 

3Several studies have been done, for example, which
separate "mentally retarded" delinquent youths from other
delinquents. Unfortunately for research purposes, defi-
nitions of such things as I.Q. requirements for placement
in that category are inconsistent from study to study.
See, e.g., Spata (1965), Wilson (1970).

school is on the west side of the city, drawing its
student body primarily from.working-class and inner-city
areas, with some middle-class enrollment. A relatively
high percentage of Blacks and Chicanos attend this school,
with approximately 20 per cent of its graduating class
continuing their education. The latter two schools'
districts encompass all the areas in Lansing which are
defined by the United States Census Bureau as "major

concentrations of poverty."4

Juvenile Detention Institutions

 

Youth in Michigan first come in contact with the
Office of Youth Services as a result of juvenile court
action, usually for repeated delinquent behavior and
probation violations. Decision-making power as to the
institutionalization or non-institutionalization of the
youth rests with the OYS. Should their decision be to
institutionalize the youth, there are several places for
such internment. These are one of five Shelter Homes in
the Upper Peninsula (two in Escanaba, one each in Sault
Ste. Marie, Marquette, and Ironwood), a Group Home in one
of several small towns, one of seven Halfway Houses in
several Michigan urban areas, the Michigan Children's
Institute-Arbor Heights Center in Ann Arbor, one of three

major treatment programs of the W. J. Maxey School in

 

4Specifically, Lansing census tracts 2, l3, 14, 15
and 18. See U.S. Census Bureau (1966).

Whitmore Lake, the Girls' Training School in Adrian, and
the Boys' Training School in Lansing. The latter two were
chosen for study here.

The Lansing BTS contains 103 boys, with a median
age of 15 years. The primary emphasis of the school is
therapy and behavior modification through a variety of
techniques. Recently, however, the methods of Harry
Voorath, called Positive Peer Culture (PPC), have been made
the primary operating philosophy at BTS. It is a group
therapy technique stressing interpersonal "caring" among
the boys and utilizing the peer group as a vehicle for
behavior change. The boys themselves provide the element
of social disapproval of anti-social behavior, and
ostensibly reinforcing resocialization efforts of other
agents. More will be said about this later.

There are educational programs at BTS, including
special and remedial education, library services, and
driver education. Skills training includes institution
maintenance (food services, laundry, etc.), graphic arts,
machine and small engine repair, woodworking, shoe repair,
and upholstering. Recreational programs include swimming,
bowling, physical education, and some intramural sports.

Adrian GTS contains 140 girls of roughly the same
age group as BTS. Treatment methods here are described as
"multidimensional," with no particular operating philoSOphy

or model. This, however, will probably become more

structured and internally consistent, especially if PPC
efforts at BTS are reasonably successful.

Educational programs at GTS consist primarily of
remedial education and some high school "solids," plus
"restaurant training" and cosmetology. Also offered is
skills training in office machine operation, health
occupations, food services, and child care. Recreational
activities are varied, depending upon the interests and

expertise of the group and the staff.

CHAPTER I I I

VARIABLES

Socialization

 

Socialization is the process by which a society
transmits to its individual members: (1) the culturally-
defined primary values of the society; (2) the socially-
defined goal-objects which symbolize the societal interpre-
tation of those values; (3) concomitant attitudes and
interpretations of events; (4) the socially prescribed
methods by which these goal-objects may be attained; and
(5) the necessary skills requisite to these methods. It
is a process of a primarily punishment-reward nature
carried out by particular "agents" of socialization, a
conditioning to a particular type of content learning.
Socialization, then, is a branch of total learning, the
learning of particular responses, interaction processes,
and behavior patterns which presumably allow an individual
to function socially in the society in a manner detrimental

to neither the person nor the society.5 If a youth is

 

5The delinquent youths in this study, although
unsocialized and anti-social, are quite adept at learning.
Despite a school of thought which claims that this type of

10

11

"unsocialized," he has not acquired the above type of
learning. This virtually always results in some degree of
"anti-social," or "sociopathic," behavior, i.e., inter-
action breakdowns with others and defensive behavior at
others' expense.

The "socialization agents" on whom I focus are the

family, the school, and the peer group. These three agents

 

appear to be most influential towards the individual
youth's behavior (see, e.g., W. TenHouten, 1965), allowing
many insights into answering the most general question,
i.e., why a youth spends his adolescence in training
school. This latter institution I prefer to designate as
an agent of "resocialization,” for this appears to be its

purpose.

Self

 

Concerning the next variable, "self," there is
much confusion in the field of its conceptualization.
Many theories exist concerning the nature of the self and

its functions.6 On the individual level, we have

 

young person is "just stupid," one study showed their
average Wechsler I.Q.‘s to be comparable to any other
population of youths (Versilius, 1964:54). They are par-
ticularly good at using other people to their own perceived
advantage, i.e., conning or "working a game." In other
words, they do learn and often well, but the content of
that learning is different. Miller's (1958) discussion of
"smartness" among delinquents illustrates this point well.

6For summaries of many of the theories, see Sherif
(1968), Coleman (1960: 449-74), Hall and Lindzey (1957:
467-99).

12

"personality,' which can be conceived of for the purposes
here as being dichtomous, i.e., "self" and "other." The
self side of the personality is the more important one
here, the other becoming useful operationally as a method
of bringing the self into focus (since it is formed from
interaction with others).

Self is the part of the personality dealing with
cultural symbols and values that can be denoted in the
first-person (I, me, my, myself, mine), as opposed to

7

second- and third-persons, i.e., the "other." It is

composed of certain attitudes (evaluations), values (ideal

 

modes of conduct and/or end-states of existence), per-

ceptions (views of reality), goal-objects (specific

 

societal symbols of values), and a totality of experiences,

 

all resulting from the interaction processes of learning
and socialization, and one's mere existence in a spatial
and temporal world. Self-attitudes are evaluations of
oneself, as opposed to attitudes about other environmental
objects. Self-values are the particular values which an
individual considers positive. Self-perceptions ("self-
image," "self-concept") are who or what one views oneself,
or aspects thereof, to be. Self-goal-objects are the

individual ideal achievements selected from the environment

 

7This "other" scheme might be subdivided again into
"significant other" (second-person) and "generalized other"
(third-person), but that is not important at this point.

13

and society, based on interpretations of cultural values.
The totality of experiences is self-explanatory. Any
aspect of the self may be conscious or unconscious at any
given time and in any given situation.

To the newborn infant, the only things that are
present are what he brings into the world with him, like
hereditary and biological variables and his senses. It
is through the latter that the self initially develops.

At first, a baby cannot see himself or perceive
himself in any way as an entity apart from all other objects
he senses. I don't believe that an infant can, at first,
differentiate between an object touching him and him
touching an object. It is only when, through a compli-

cated, trial-and—error sensory interaction with his

 

environment that the child becomes aware of himself as a
distinct object, one in which he has a vested interest.
This awareness is aided by auditory recognition of his
name as "mine," a name which he compares with other
auditory symbols for other objects. (This is the primary
reason for defining the self in first-person terms.) At
first, "my" and "mine" encompass just about everything in
the child's environment. Through a reward-punishment
parental socialization, he eventually learns that not
everything is his. As a result of the continuation of
such social processes, sensory interaction is replaced

primarily by interpersonal interaction, and subsequently

 

14

including both "significant" (e.g., family) and "gener-
alized" (e.g., adults in general) others.

All types of interaction contribute to the develop-
ment of the self in this way.8 Here, we are interested in
the contribution of significant and generalized others
(who are here manifested as agents of socialization) to

the selves of the youths studied.

Related Variables

 

The concept of "attitude" has long been in
existence as both an object of research in itself and as
a tool for explaining and predicting human behavior in a
number of situations. The concept of "value" is a more
recent addition as an empirical tool of social scientists.
Rokeach (1968b) has stated before a conference of his
colleagues that it is time to shift the emphasis of social
psychology research from attitudes to values and "value-
attitude systems." Studies have been done in some areas
indicating the possible worth of such a consideration
(Rokeach and Parker, 1970; Rokeach and Homant, 1970). In
any case, both concepts and their hybrid will be considered
in this study.

An attitude is an evaluation of some object,

situation, or both. Characteristically, it is object

 

8This self-development scheme resembles that of
Charles Horton Cooley. For a convenient and complete
summary of Cooley's position, see Borgatta (1969).

15

and/or situation specific, and the evaluation takes place
along a positive-negative dimension.

A value is an ideal or abstract of a particular
"mode of conduct" or "end-state of existence" (Rokeach,
1968a).9 They differ from attitudes in that they are not
situationally defined, and are often objects of attitudes,
i.e., evaluated as positive or negative. For example, the
value "conformity" is an abstraction of both a mode of
conduct and an end-state of existence. It may be evaluated
as good or bad, in general or in given situations.

Rokeach never specifically defines the "value-
attitude system." However, it can be thought of in terms
of the nature of the interrelationships between attitudes
and values within any individual. Such interrelationships

include consistency at different levels of analysis. For

 

example, how does one who places high value on "conformity"

10

feel about the S.D.S.? Other such relationships might

include attachment, involvement, and commitment to par-

 

 

 

ticular values or value structures (Hirschi, 1969). From

there, the relationships of attitudes, values, and

 

9My definition of "value" differs slightly from
Rokeach's in my use of the phrases "ideal or abstract of"
vice simply "ideal." The latter implies an automatic
positive evaluation by society of such a mode or end-state,
which I do not want to imply. In actuality, all of
Rokeach's values could be considered societally-prescribed
in the United States.

10This would have to be done by establishing
indices of consistency.

16

value-attitude systems to certain kinds of behavior may be
ascertained more specifically.

One will notice my heavy reliance on the work of
Rokeach in the preceding paragraphs. This is not to say
that I agree with his conceptualizations in toto.11
Suffice it to say that I am operationalizing some of his
individual concepts and ignoring his more elaborate total
system.

Perceptions are views of reality, that which one
accepts to be real or true.12 They differ from attitudes
in that no evaluative judgment is involved. Using the

13 for

common scales of the "semantic differential,"
example, the "potency" and "activity" dimensions can be
considered perceptions, whereas the "evaluative" dimension
is an attitudinal continuum.

Goal-objects are the tangible societal objects

which symbolize values. For examples, diamonds and

Cadillacs are goal-objects that can symbolize "wealth" or

 

11E.g., I concern myself with neither his concepts
of a "belief system," which I feel is not supported by his
own statistical analysis, nor his distinctions between
"beliefs," "attitudes," "perceptions," and other variables,
which I also consider debatable, and of little use here
(see Rokeach, 1968a: chaps 1, 2, and 5). Also questionable
is his distinction between "instrumental" values (modes of
conduct) and "terminal" values (end-states of existence),
which my example of "conformity" I believe illustrates.
For his lists of both types of values, see Rokeach (1968c).

12This concept is similar to Rokeach's "primary
beliefs" (1968a: chaps l and 2).

13See Osgood (1967), Kerlinger (1964: chap 32).

17

"success" in the materialistic sense. Individual differ—
ences in self-goal—objects arise when one likes diamonds
and abhors Cadillacs. Likewise, friends and children may
also symbolize "wealth" and "success" in another sense,
and in the same manner, one may love friends and hate
children. Therefore, individual self-goal-objects are
important to consider here not only in themselves, but
also as indicators of the individual's interpretation of
values. For research purposes, they may also serve as a
measure of consistency between attitudes and values.
Goal-objects are attitude objects, like values, but differ
from values in that they are not ideals or abstractions,
but specific "things."

One's totality of experience, every single event
of an individual's life, must be considered as an important
part of the self. It is a "bank" of additional resources
which an individual may draw upon for clues to behavior in
any given situation, and can certainly account for much of
the difficulty in attempts at changing behavior. However,
the variable is practically unresearchable because of the
myriad of such experiences in any given self. Therefore,
it will be assumed in this thesis that one's totality of

experience can act as either a reinforcing or modifying

 

 

agent to the individual's behavior.

CHAPTER IV

METHODOLOGY

The Experience Survey

 

Originally, the method of study was to be some form
of "participant observation" of youth in the high school
setting, outside the school setting, and in the training
school setting.14 However, I was not given access to the
youths directly because of the many somewhat vague ideas
which I presented to the relevant authorities in the early
stages. As a result, I was only allowed to interview the
staff members in the institutions, prior to a more compre-
hensive proposal. Therefore, the method used here, by

necessity, was what Selltiz and his colleagues (1960:

55—65) called an experience survey; formulative, explora-

 

tory, and "insight-stimulating."
Constructing a model based on the Selltiz et a1.
text, I drew several propositions and stipulations from

that work:

 

14Naturally, there are very few settings outside

the training schools in which participant observation
would be feasible.

18

19

. . . a selected sample of people working in the

area is called for" (1960: 55).

"Perhaps the most direct method of selecting
informants is to ask strategically placed adminis-
trators working in the area one desires to study to
point out the most informative, experienced, and

analytical people" (1960: 56).

"The aim of the experience survey is to obtain
insight into the relationships between variables
rather than to get an accurate picture of current
practices or a simple consensus as to best

practices" (1960: 55).

. . . the formulative and discovery functions of
the experience survey require that the interview
always allow the respondent to raise issues and
questions the investigator has not previously

considered" (1960: 57).

"Concrete illustrations, from the respondent's
own experience, of successful and unsuccessful
attempts to achieve a specific effect are of

particular value" (1960: 57).

"At a certain point the investigator will find
that additional interviews do not provide new
insights, that the answers fall into a pattern

with which he is already familiar" (1960: 56).

20

Following propositions (l) and (2), I started with
school board administration people, school principals, and
the assistant director of the OYS. In some cases, these
people were good respondents themselves, since many school
principals, for instance, were once teachers, counselors,
and deans. These administrators then directed me to the
people dealing more directly with youths, and these peOple,
in turn, directed me to others whom they thought would be
helpful, and so on. The results were interviews with
fourteen school counselors, boys' and girls' deans,
assistant principals, and a truant officer of the Lansing
schools system. At BTS, my interviews were with the staff
psychologist and four of the "cottage counselors," i.e.,
the supervisors of the individual residence halls. At
GTS, I talked to a section supervisor and ex-counselor,
and three of the "cottage counselors." All interviews
were by appointment, were carried on in an office or waiting
room setting, and ranged in duration from one to two and
one-half hours.

Following prOpositions (3), (4), and (5), I first
explained the nature of the study in general terms, and
asked broad-based questions concerning the respondent's
experience in dealing with the youths in question, i.e.,
high school or training school. This usually evoked
responses indicating the number of years they have spent
dealing with youth, general statements about how the

young people have or have not changed over the years, and

21

the like. From there, questions and responses became more
and more specific and detailed as to particular cases and
problems, and the various treatment methods applied. My
questions focused on my concern with relevant variables
being considered here (e.g., How do you think he really
felt about . . . ?, How did his parents react to . . . ?,
What sort of considerations guided . . . ?, etc.). General
life histories and specific events, based primarily on
official records and sometimes on the personal knowledge

of the respondent, would usually enter the discussion at
this point. Material from official records was read to me
by the respondent (i.e., I personally viewed none of them)
and they were always kept anonymous. In a few interviews,
no such particulars appeared forthcoming, so I simply asked
for specifics, and always got them. At this point in the
interviews, this process of general to specific would often
reverse itself, especially with regard to general state-
ments about the individual youth's personality orientations,
and comparatively with other youths.

Finally, concerning proposition (6), later inter-
views did in fact start to be repetitions of previous ones;
different cases, but pretty much the same patterns of
response and analysis from the respondents. It is at this
point that further interviews become fruitless, and it is
time for the researcher to get to the major part of his

task--integration of diverse, qualitative material and the

 

generation of hypotheses, or tentative conclusions.

 

22

This reliance on the ability of the researcher to
prepare a more or less unified interpretation of a variety
of material is probably the most criticized aspect of the
experience survey method. Quoting from the reference text,
the authors justify the method (and I agree) as follows:

This last characteristic has led many critics to view
the analysis of insight-stimulating instances as a
sort of projective technique, in which conclusions
reflect primarily the investigator's predisposition
rather than the object of the study. Even if this
reproach is appropriate to many case studies, the
characteristic is not necessarily undesirable when the
purpose is to evoke rather than to test hypotheses.
For even if the case material is merer the stimulus
for the explicit statement of a previously unformu-
1ated hypothesis, it may serve a worth-while function
(Selltiz et al., 1960: 60-61).

Some Possible Confounding Factors

From a methodological standpoint, the interviews
indicated two possible sources of difficulty in this type
of qualitative comparison study.

First, the training schools draw most of their
populations from central-city Detroit and out-state rural
areas, and primarily youths from lower socioeconomic
strata and family occupational groups. Racially, BTS is
50 per cent Black, 49 per cent White, and l per cent
Chicano.15 Many peOple would interpret this to mean that
such social groups breed delinquent youths, and a few

social causes of delinquency are hereby established.

However, my respondents at the training schools felt that

 

15Similar data on GTS was not available.

23

this was a gross oversimplification. Youths from other,
more affluent and prestigious social groups are given the
services of private psychiatrists, or their behavior is
covered up in other ways (not excluding outright bribery!)
by their parents.16

Secondly, the given reasons for committing girls to
GTS are primarily labelled as truancy, both from school
and home, which is legal behavior in the former case at
age 16, and in the latter at age 18. The only "crimes"
these girls have been involved in are drug abuses and
prostitution, the latter almost always a result of the
former. At BTS, there is a much broader range of reasons
for the boys' internment; from truancy and general incorri-

gibility to breaking and entering, theft, rape, and in a

 

 

couple of cases, murder. Most of my respondents felt that
this made no difference when such variables as sociali-
zation and self were being considered. The girls and boys
display very similar problems social-psychologically,
regardless of how the symptoms of trouble manifest
themselves. Several, however, felt that boys and girls
are considerably different in these respects. Also,
several felt that parents were more "protective" toward
girls than toward boys, and therefore displayed more

characteristics common to youth from more affluent families.

 

16Evidence of differentiation in treatment due to
family economic status often arises in the literature.
See, e.g., Goldman (1963), Eisner (1969).

24

By this it is meant that parents sought private help if at
all possible, or tried to solve the problems without any
professional help. A few felt that such differences are
inherent in the juvenile justice system, but no one could
be very specific--except that judges in juvenile courts are
more hesitant about sending girls to the training school
than boys.

There is no way of ascertaining whether or not the
two factors muddle the qualitative findings, or if so, how
much. In any case, it can be assumed that they tend to
compound various discrepancies between the high school and
training school populations presented here, but in no way
deny the findings.

The next section of this work will be an inte-
gration of materials from my interview notes, which were
organized and summarized in all cases directly following
the interview. The format of the discussion could best be

called "comparative, and examples and other related data
from a variety of sources will be used. However, pg_

directly comparable data between these two populations was

 

available, so supportive data can only be considered
illustrative of a particular point. Most data available
concerned Lansing or comparable high school youths. The
training schools, especially GTS, had and knew of very

little.

CHAPTER V

RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Comparing the high school (HS) and training school
(TS) youths, one can see many similarities and differences
along many dimensions. The more obvious ones follow, not
necessarily in order of importance. Two stipulations can
be made at the outset, however.

First, when references are made to disciplinary
problem youths in the high schools, they usually serve to
illustrate one or more factors common among TS youth. The
best that can be said here is that HS problem kids show
some social problem symptoms, but not all or as many as
are well in evidence among TS youths. In other words, the
former youths have something going for them despite some
social handicaps. When problem kids were mentioned by my
respondents in the high schools, they almost always
followed up by adding a qualifying statement like: "But

even so, this girl did have a lot in her favor, like

Second, since no self-report questionnaire designed

to measure "undetected" delinquent behavior was used here,

25

26

and my respondents had no systematic data, nothing can be
said about the delinquent activities of the HS youth sample,
problem kids or otherwise. I will assume, however, that
such activity is not indigenous or mutually exclusive to
any particular group studied here, since most variables

and problem manifestations have their origins long before
contact with the training schools, and all training school

youths were once in the regular school systems.

Family Structure

 

Often there are differences between youths because
of the nature of the family unit structure. Records from
the training schools show an extremely large number of
youths from "broken homes," and if there is a parent in
the household, it is almost always the mother. Another
somewhat common characteristic among TS youths is the large
number of siblings with which they must share whatever
benefits derive from the family.

However, any relationship to delinquent behavior
appears not to be in the family structure per se, but in
the nature of the family interrelationships. Many HS
youths come from families of one or no parents with lots

of children, but they never get to the training schools.17

 

17No empirical data concerning the percentage of
Lansing HS youth with incomplete family structures was
available. However, Lewis (1968) found that 35 per cent of
the youths at Berkeley High School, Berkeley, California,
had such family structures, and where one parent was
present, it was the mother in 78 per cent of the cases.

27

Where the problems appear is usually when the parents and
older siblings show little or no interest in the child

and take little or no part in his socialization (Glueck
and Glueck, 1962; D. TenHouten, 1965; Rodman and Grams,
1967). What is common to the TS youths are such recorded
statements in their records as: "Parents show no interest
in child," "No father, mother an alcoholic," "No father,
mother a 'fence,'" "No father, mother a prostitute,"
"Parents constantly fighting, take out aggressions on
child," and so on. All of these are obvious drawbacks to

child-rearing.

Generational Continuity

 

Records of TS youths sometimes show that the
parents of youths have histories of juvenile and adult
criminal activity. This is also the reason in some cases
why the family structure is incomplete, i.e., the father
is in jail. This phenomena is virtually absent among the
HS youths studied, only presenting itself once in a long
while among youths having disciplinary problems--but even

then, very seldom.18

Early Socialization

 

The role of socialization through sensory inter—

action with the environment and interpersonal interaction

 

18For illustrations of the types of parental
behavior and family characteristics common to "sociopathic"
people, see Robbins (1966: 159-80).

28

with others has been discussed in relation to the develop-
ment of the self in the child. During the "early," i.e.,
pre-school, period of his life, this socialization is
carried on primarily by the family, usually the child's
first "significant other." In addition to self develop-
ment, goal-oriented behavior, self- and other-perceptions,
and attitudes begin to take form during early sociali-
zation. The process of socialization at this stage is

basically of a punishment-reward nature involving specific

 

behaviors. However, there is a great variance in the
nature of the process in any given family setting. The
comparison of the family backgrounds of HS and TS youths
illustrates major differences between the two groups.

In the case of HS youth in general, a more or less
consistent pattern of behavior-related rewards and punish—
ments have been administered by the family. When Junior
does something his mother does not like, he is punished
for it; if she does like something he does, he is rewarded.
There are also neutral acts by the child in that they
elicit neither punishment nor reward from a parent, of
course, and complications may arise in the organization
of this pattern. For example, there may be a time lapse
between the act and the response to it, i.e., the child
may not know which of his many acts (even ones he has
forgotten) that the parent is rewarding or punishing.

Even with these sorts of complications, the responses by

29

the parent are related to some behavior of the child, more

 

or less systematically.

An extremely common item in the case histories of
TS youths is a punishment-reward socialization which is
unrelated to the behavior of the child. This is not to
say that their parents do not punish or reward them. Much
too often, however, they did it for their own reasons,
unknown to the child and not connected to anything he did.
For example, the father tells his son to pick up his toys
and he will give him a quarter. If the boy does this, his
father may or may not give him the quarter. He may even
get a spanking for his efforts, or in more cruel cases, a
full-fledged beating. Or he may get no response at all
from his father. Another time he might be sitting on the
living room floor playing with a toy, or doing absolutely
nothing, and the father will walk over to him and hand
him a quarter--or, again, give him a spanking. The point
is that the response is not behavior-related, and this
problem has many implications in self and social develop-
ment.

As a result of this, typical HS youths believe
their behavior really matters in obtaining rewards in the

greater society, i.e., there is an internal locus of

 

control. TS youths, however, possess highly fatalistic

orientations, i.e., an external locus of control. They

 

are an object of forces beyond their grasp, and nothing

they do has anything to do with obtaining rewards.

30

Later Socialization

 

Once the child starts school, there are two primary
agents which share in socialization with the family--the
school and the peer group.

Education is the socialization process (again,
mostly of a punishment-reward nature) first encountered by
the youth in which is contained all aspects of the total
process. The specific socializing agents are the teachers
and other school officials, and the other children. The
peer group is, then, both an agent and an object of
socialization, as the parents, teachers, etc., are both
agents and objects of continuing socialization (and
sometimes resocialization), responding to changes in
society and culture in a defensive, neutral, or supportive
manner.

A youth who has developed an internal locus of
control responds to this system in roughly the same way
he responds to family socialization, i.e., by learning
which behaviors elicit rewards and which do not, and
becomes "well adjusted" to societal norms of behavior,
eepecially if the school's legitimacy as a socialization
agent is reinforced in the home. In addition, if parents
and school officials reinforce the individual's peer group
affiliations (e.g., by parents saying "I like your friends,"
or teachers praising certain individuals or groups with

whom the youth associates), the youth appears then to be

31

well on the way to attainment of society's highly valued
goal-objects.

In the case of TS youth, records show no such
systematic socialization combinations. If the early
socialization into prescribed behaviors is relatively
absent, then it is very likely that parental reinforcement
of the school's attempts will also be absent. If the child
responds to teacher's praise of his drawing of a pretty
giraffe, for instance, and the parents ignore or rebuff
the effort, then a vital part of socialization is missing.
If teachers do not praise the child's drawing, then another

part is missing. If the Child:

(a) does not associate with a peer group whose members
have a more or less internal locus of control and
have received some positive recognition as

socializing agents,
(b) tries to associate as such and is rebuffed by them,

(c) does associate as such and their value as a
socialization agent is ignored or denied by teachers

and parents,

(d) attempts to associate with a peer group who, like
himself, possesses external control loci--and

fails.

All of these events may lead to anti-social behavior in

the child. Records of TS boys and girls show one or more

32

of these characteristic peer-association attempts in the
schools, in virtually every case history studied.

If the youth is successful in (d), there is a
19

 

probable basis for delinquent "gang" membership.
However, social interaction within a gang and between the
gang and non-gang members tend to operate on the basis of
certain norms of behavior (Cohen, 1958; Matza, 1964;
Miller, 1958; Short ep_gl., 1965). These norms are
designed in general to preserve the gggpp rather than the
individual. For example, such behavioral traits as
"sounding" (Matza, 1964) or "ranking" (Miller, 1958) are
acceptable within the gang, but never outside it with non-
gang members.

In the case of BTS youth,20 my respondents there,
in their varying number of years at the institution, claim
that they have yet to see a youth committed who has had
a history of successful delinquent-gang participation.
Youths at both training schools have considerable diffi-
culty making successful associations with anybody, and the

ones they do make are almost always of a short-run nature

 

19Reiss and Rhoses' "status deprivation" (1963),
Cloward and Ohlin's "opportunity theory" (1961), some of
Sykes and Matza's "techniques of rationalization" (1957),
Short and Strodtbeck's "group processes" (1965), and
Miller's "focal concerns" (1958) appear to have at least
partial relevance to this process.

20Girls seldom operate in gangs, unless associated
with a particular boy or boys individually. In these
cases, they might better be described as "near-groupers"
(Yablonsky, 1959).

33

and based upon some pragmatic consideration, usually
selfish. Their reaction to being "sounded," for instance,
would range from severe paranoia to utter pgpig, Many of
these youths had accomplices in their delinquent activi-
ties, but when caught, they almost always implicate them,
and often blame the other youths for the major part of the
endeavor, thinking that this might get themselves off
easier. In other words, no such norms of behavior operate,
nor could they operate, with these youths--only self-
survival and self-defense.

In any case, the end result of these school- and
peer-related events is an increase in the youth's totality
of experience reinforcing anti-social behavior patterns and
external control loci, and keeping socialization attempts,
or the lack thereof, as unsystematic and un-behavior-
related as earlier ones. However, if a teacher praises a
child for something, and the parent ignores or beats him,
error can be introduced into research because of several
factors. For instance, if he has developed an affinity for
a particular teacher, it may temper the effect of his
parents' rebuff. Such interplay between the child and the
socializing agent, on an individual basis, can be an
important variable here as to whether or not he responds
to socialization attempts. This can also be true in early
socialization, but dependency upon parents would appear to

favor the child leaning toward them for final rewards.

34

Also, records at the training school show that death, or
other such separation from the child, of a parent with
whom the child has a definite affinity most often is the
trigger of anti-social behavior in later adolescence.

If rewards do not appear forthcoming to the child,
and no such interpersonal affinity develops between the
child and the socialization agent, the most common reaction
to this befuddling situation is to Epp_from it. This is
when the formal juvenile authorities first come in contact
with the child--he is truant, often from both home and
school, but usually only the latter at first. A study of
youths referred by the juvenile court in Kent County,
Michigan, to detention institutions showed that 60 per cent
of these youths had "poor" school records, and 84 per cent
had histories of school truancy (over one-half of these
cases were described as "excessive"); all this despite a
_median Wechsler I.Q. of over 100 (Versluis, 1964: 51-54).
HS problem kids are also often truant, and more often
tardy. However, this pattern of behavior seldom starts at
the early primary grade level. In the TS youths records,
almost all_showed repeated truancy from school and

sometimes from home prior to ten years of age. Contact,

 

then, with two, and sometimes three, important agents of
socialization goes from often—but-insufficient to virtually

nill-and-absent.

35

Self Perception

 

The difference between HS and TS students here
appears to be primarily defined by the internal- vs.
external-locus-of-control phenomenon.

Most HS students perceive themselves as "actors,"
that they are in some way responsible for their own
behavior. This perception may be tempered somewhat by the

current "youth culture" Zeitgeist, that there are powers-

 

that-be who hamper their individual, and sometimes
collective, freedom. However, in most situations, HS
students are generally willing to try new methods when one
fails, or summarize failures with the expletive, "I blew
it!", instead of repeatedly blaming problems on powers
beyond their control (whether they actually are or not).
W. D. TenHouten's (1965: 326) data illustrates this point
for youths in a sample of three Northeastern high schools.
These youths chose "hard work" and "brains" as the "way to
get ahead fastest" in this world, as opposed to chance
factors like "family" and "good luck," regardless of the
sex/race variable. His data is illustrated in Table 1.

HS problem youths often blame problems on someone
or something other than themselves, but this is apparently
not an overall characteristic. When it does happen, most
of my HS respondents attributed it to a sham, that what the
youths really want is attention. That these youths are
different from TS youths is evidenced by the fact that

most of them eventually graduate from high school. Most

36

TABLE l.-—Adaptation of "Percentage of Students Perceiving
Various Ways to Get Ahead the Fastest“ (North-
eastern High School Sample), by W. D. TenHouten.a

 

 

 

 

Way to Get Boys Girls
Ahead Fastest Black White Black White
Hard WOrk 41% 44% 45% 50%
Brains 37 30 25 21
personality 10 5b 21 14
Know People 9 17b 6 12
Family 3 2 2 2
Good Luck 1 1 1 ..°
101%d 100% 100% 99%d
(1067) (1636) (1203) (1639)

 

aTenHouten (1965: 326).
bThe only discrepancy in the ordering.

cLess than .5 per cent.

dDue to rounding.

37

often, this appears to be the case among kids who act up
in class. They are quick to blame it on the teacher
(which is sometimes true), but what they appear to want is
recognition, either from peers or the teacher.

In the case of TS students, however, they blame

virtually everything_on forces outside themselves. They

 

have no responsibility whatsoever for their actions, or
rewards or misfortunes which befall them. They see
themselves as objects of external powers, as being "acted
upon" rather than being "actors." To most of them, they
see no rhyme or reason to how authority figures treat them,
just randomly distributed punishments and rewards unrelated
to their own actions. In terms of Table 1 variables,

"family, and especially "good luck," would have been more
prevalent had they been asked the question. And they view

this authority almost always as oppressive.

 

The overt manifestation of this type of self-
perception is anti-social behavior, with the motivating
factor being fear and self-defense. Such defensive
characteristics of this self-perception is evident in the
following passages, where nine BTS students were asked the
question: "If you could be an animal, any animal you
wanted to be, what kind would you be, and why?" Eight of
these nine boys projectively showed these characteristics,

as the following six quotations exemplify:21

 

21This data is the personal data of A. Dale Shears,
Staff Psychologist, Boys' Training School, Lansing.

38

German Shepherd--so most other dogs couldn't take
advantage of you.

 

Siamese Cat--most other animals live in the woods, cats
live in homes where children and people care for him;

. . . a warm house. A cat wouldn't have to worry
who's going to shoot me or what.

 

German Shepherd--used to have one . . . used to fight
good’with other dogs.

 

Ea le--you're not supposed to kill eagles in the state
of Michigan.

Robin--can fly up in the air and nobody can mess with
me. If I'm on the ground, they can throw rocks at me.

Siamese Cat--I just like cats. They're friendly. They
couldfi't do no harm to you.

 

Self-defense and fear of personal adversity is blatantly

evident.

Attitudes

 

None of my respondents, HS or TS, could give me
any general ideas concerning general attitude patterns among
their students. Most claimed that few such patterns
evolved and great variance exists on any particular
attitude-object. However, concerning three such objects,
their responses about the attitude orientations of youths
were concise enough to examine here in more detail. These

concerned attitudes toward themselves, toward what could

 

generally be called authority, and toward what I have

 

defined as values.

39

Self-Attitudes

 

If self-perceptions answer the question "Who (or
what) am I?" then self-attitudes, or "self-esteem," answer
the question "How do I feel about that?" or "What do I
think of myself?” Self-attitudes, then, are evaluations
of one's self-perception, like adjectival self-descriptions
on an evaluative dimension.

In the case of HS students, my respondents
described them as generally positive, but sometimes
negative in certain aspects. HS students, for example,
may consider themselves physically unattractive, i.e.,
have a negative evaluation of their looks, but at the same
time think positively about their "nice personality," or
physical prowess (boys), or culinary talents (girls). In
other words, negative characteristics are generally over-
balanced by positive ones, lending a more or less high
level of self-esteem.

TS students generally possess the opposite, i.e.,
more negative than positive evaluations and a more or less
low level of self-esteem, often connoting impotence. This
would be predictable, given the external-locus-of-control
phenomenon and the fear evident in their self-perceptions.
Some of the TS students perceive themselves as "human,"
yet attach to that various negative evaluations.

In other words, based on my respondents' state-
ments, were one to place indices of self—attitude orien-

tations on a positive-negative continuum (or "self-esteem"

40

on a high-low one), one should find a significant differ-
ence in means (HS toward the positive or high, TS toward
the negative or low), with some variance to both, and some
probable overlap in their curves. Specific empirical

verification of this, however, is problematic.

Attitudes Toward Authority22

 

Differences between HS and TS youth in this respect
would not become immediately apparent in a simple obser-
vation study. In both cases, it is defined by my
respondents as "poor." However, a closer examination
reveals some distinct qualitative differences.

In the case of HS students, most of my informants
attributed such poor attitudes to the contemporary

Zeitgeist concerning the legitimacy of authority.

 

Counselors and deans described youth today as generally
prone to questioning anything that rings of absolutism,
especially agents of authority. Kids often ask them why
school officials' decisions should matter to them as to
their life plans. If answers to these questions are
adequate to the youths, they will accept them, but that
will not stop them from questioning. Often, authority
figures are generalized into socially defined groups,

e.g., police. High school youths often refer to the

 

’ 22Empirical data on this topic in public schools is
comparatively available. See, e.g., Johnson (1969),
Lewis (1968), Miller (1971), Scott (1969).

41

police as "fuzz" or "pigs,"23 but may have very positive

attitudes toward particular policemen, or even groups of
policemen; say, a particular department. For example,
Lewis (1968) asked tenth-grade students at Berkeley
(California) High School to describe their general
attitudes toward both "police in general" and the
"Berkeley police." Using his data, assuming that the
sample was drawn from a normally distributed population
of tenth-graders in the city, and testing for significant
differences in the mean scores for the two "police"
stimuli, Table 2 illustrates these students' tendency to
differentiate the concept "police" in attitudinal
formation.24
In short, HS students' poor attitudes toward
authority may be described as an adherence to current peer
themes and symbolic typefications, systematically related
to specific behaviors and situations in which the defi-
nition of right and wrong are not shared by the authority
and the youths. However, when questioned specifically and
individually, the operating generalizations become evident
in their propensity to become specific, and usually not so

negative.

 

23A somewhat imaginative variant of this is in
referring to police helicopters as "pork-choppers"!

24To show only differentiation, a two-tailed 2—
test is necessary.

42

TABLE 2.--High School Student Differentiation of "Police"
Concept.

HO: Mean1 = Mean2

H Mean1 # Mean2

A:

 

Positive Indifferent Negative

(3) (2) (1)

 

Question 1: "How would you describe your attitude toward
pplice in general?"

 

N: 55 31 47 (133)
Mean = 2.06
Variance = .77

Question 2: "How would you describe your attitude toward

the Berkeley police?"

 

N: 80 31 22 (133)
Mean = 2.44
Variance = .58

Z-value for difference between means = 3.80

Level of significance = less than .01

Therefore, REJECT HO

 

43

This appears to be true not only within one
authority group, but also between authority groups, between
authority groups and authority "figures," and between
authority figures alone. Miller's attitudinal study of HS
youths in Lansing, Michigan, using the Rotter Incomplete
Sentence Blank technique, illustrates this point when data
for “police," "police department," "teachers," and "school"
are compared interchangeably (1971: 264, 274). Using the
same method of comparison of mean differences used in
Table 2, these comparisons are shown in Tables 3, 4, 5,

and 6.25

Again, all measured differences are significant
at least to the .05 level.
This is not the case among TS youth. First, as to

the Zeitgeist effect mentioned earlier, the TS youths

 

generalize even more concerning authority. Authority to

 

them is anyone "bigger" than they are, who possesses a
mighty "fist," be the authority police, school officials,
probation officers, or whatever. All of my respondents

felt that the aforementioned Zeitgeist effect, p0pular in

 

the HS "youth culture," has had little effect on T8 youth.
They cite as evidence their lack of participation in

school, and with peers in general, and their general

 

25It has been shown that a "no response" could very
well be considered negative (Marcus and Maher, 1957).
However, since Miller codes degrees of positive and
negative here, the "no response w1ll be appropriately
coded with "neutral,” as Miller himself does later in his
research.

44

TABLE 3.--High School Student Authority Differentiation:
"Police Department" vs. "School."

 

 

 

 

 

HO: Mean1 = Mean2
HA: Meanl ¥ Mean2
Dir. Indir. Neut. - Indir. Dir.
Pos. Pos. No Resp. Neg. Neg.
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1)
Question 1: "The police department ."
N 299 232 340 105 145 (1121)
Mean = 3.38
Variance = 1.73
Question 2: "The school ."
N 235 306 210 195 175 (1121)

Mean = 3.20
Variance = 1.93

Z-value for difference between means = 3.16

Level of significance = less than .01

Therefore, REJECT HO

 

45

TABLE 4.--High School Student Authority Differentiation:
"Police" vs. "Police Department."

 

HO: Mean1 = Mean2

HA: Mean1 # Mean2

 

 

 

Dir. Indir. Neut. - Indir. Dir.
P08. P03 No Resp. Neg. Neg.
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1)
Question 1: "Most police are ."
N 356 406 72 79 208 (1121)

Mean = 3.55
Variance = 2.14

Question 2: "The police department ."

 

N 299 232 340 105 145 (1121)

Mean = 3.38
Variance = 1.73

Z—value for difference between means = 2.89

Level of significance = less than .01

Therefore, REJECT HO

 

46

TABLE 5.--High School Student Authority Differentiation:
"Teachers" vs. "School."

 

HO: Meanl = Mean2

H : Mean1 # Mean2

 

 

 

A
Dir. Indir. Neut. - Indir. Dir.
P08. P03 No Resp. Neg. Neg.
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1)
Question 1: "Most teachers are ."
N 276 415 62 106 272 (1121)

Mean = 3.34
Variance = 2.34

Question 2: "The school ."

 

N 235 306 210 195 175 (1121)
Mean = 3.20
Variance = 1.93

Z-value for difference between means = 2.27

Level of significance = less than .05

Therefore, REJECT HO

 

47

TABLE 6.—-High School Student Authority Differentiation:
"Police" vs. "Teachers."

 

H : Mean1 = Mean2

 

 

 

 

HA: Meanl # Mean2
Dir. Indir. Neut. - Indir. Dir.
Pos. Pos. No Resp. Neg. Neg.
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1)
Question 1: "Most police are ."
N 356 406 72 79 208 (1121)
Mean = 3.55
Variance = 2.14
Question 2: "Most teachers are ."
N 276 415 62 106 272 (1121)

Mean = 3.34
Variance = 2.34

Z-value for difference between means = 3.32

Level of significance = less than .01

Therefore, REJECT H0

 

48

inability to read and understand anything above the level
of children's literature.

Second, as to any systematic relation to behavior,
these youths so often perceive no such relationship in
their dealings with authority. This would again be
predictable, given the evidence of their incomplete
socialization mentioned earlier. These youths do not view
authority in terms of someone telling them "right" from
"wrong," for their concepts of these phenomena have no
bearing on any moral code. Rather, it is related to the
idea that a person is "right" if his fist is big enough
to "convince" you. If it is not, he simple is not "right."
But, in any case, it has nothing to do with the youth's
behavior. The locus of control is, again, completely
external.

This concept of authority and patterns of reaction
to it are common among both TS boys and girls, but most
common in the case of boys. There were many more girls
with attitudes toward authority more similar to HS youth
than boys.26 Two of my respondents, a GTS section super-
visory and a BTS cottage counselor, suggested a possible

reason for this difference. They attribute this to girls

 

26However, two studies of HS youth, done at the
same time but different locations, and using sex, race,
and attitudes toward olice as variables, found Black girls

 

to possess the most negat1ve attitudes (Lewis, 1968;
Johnson, 1969).

49

not being repeatedly truant from school as young as boys,27

thereby the increased exposure to formal education, and
consequently higher reading levels, and exposure to the
current "youth culture."

It should be noted that the Zeitgeist phenomenon

 

may be misleading. The counselors and deans who suggested
it may be merely thinking of the differences between today
and when they were in high school. In other words, the HS
kids may or may not have "poor" attitudes toward authority,

but they certainly are different from those common among

 

youth of yesteryear. The term "poor" may only be a
relative one from the standpoint of the attitudes of the

school officials.

Value Structure

 

Values, i.e., ideal modes of conduct or end-states
of existence, are attitude objects. Referring to my
earlier example, "conformity," people form a positive or
negative predisposition to this idea.

The striking thing about this phenomenon is the
similarity between HS and TS students. HS students appear
to embrace traditional societal values and desire socially-

28

accepted goal—objects, which may not be surprising. What

 

27Both respondents claimed they had seen empirical
evidence of this, but neither could cite a source, or
postulate any empirically-supported reasons for it.

28Unfortunately, most value studies encountered in
my review of the literature used rank-order methodology,

50

might be, however, is that TS students apparently do
likewise. When asked the question: "If you had three
wishes, what would they be?" nine BTS students' answers
projectively indicated an abundance of traditional values
and goal-objects. They have been categorized as follows:29

"finish high school and college" (EDUCATION)

"own the whole world," "all the money I want,"

richest man in the world" (WEALTH)
"have a job," "get a job" (JOB, WEALTH)
"have a car," "buy me a car" (AUTOMOBILE)

"had a family," "be at home,“ "go home," "being home"

(SECURITY, HOME AND FAMILY, RELEASE FROM INSTITUTION)

"was on my own" (INDEPENDENCE, RELEASE FROM INSTI-

TUTION)

"straighten up, "turn over a new leaf," "wasn't in
here," "get out of here" (RELEASE FROM INSTITUTION,

RETURN TO SOCIETY)

 

and usually testing only for a value "heirarchy" of
socially-accepted values (Osgood et al., 1961; Rokeach,
1968c; Miller, 1971). Values witfi a negative connotation
are seldom considered in depth. Also, all of the above
names studies, save Miller's, were done with college
student samples.

29The number of quotes does not add up to the

expected twenty-seven because some of the boys named less
than three wishes. This data, again, is the personal data
of A. Dale Shears, Staff Psychologist, Boys' Training
School, Lansing.

51

"make a good success of my life," "a hundred more

wishes," "live forever,’ "live in happiness and

peace" (GENERAL)

This is, of course, not conclusive proof, but the indi-
cations of the traditional values and goal-objects are
evident.

There appears to be some differences concerning
the socially-prescribed methods of attainment of these
goal-objects, however. Much more negative predispositions
toward these methods appear among TS youths than among HS
youths. Most of my respondents attributed this to another

facet of the education process--the acquistion of skills

 

necessary to implement these socially-approved methods of
attainment. Given the truancy records and generally poor
socialization of most TS students, it seems very reasonable
to assume that their facility at these skills (e.g.,
reading, writing, etc.) are severely lacking. If a youth
cannot handle prescribed methods adequately and obtain
societal rewards as a result, the youth would be prone to

attaching negative predispositions to them.

"Short-run Hedonism"30

 

The "get-what-you-can-now" appears at least some-

what pervasive throughout both HS and TS students.

 

30This term is Cohen's (1958), and the ideas
presented are very similar to his.

52

However, in the case of HS students, their view of future
attainment of goals is also present and pervasive, and for
many, taken for granted. Most see at least some value in
formal education, some value in starting "at the bottom"

31 and in

and working your way up by learning the job,
general, some value in putting off immediate gratifications
for future rewards.

This is not the case with most TS youths. Since
they see rewards as randomly distributed and not behavior—
related, the belief is that when opportunity for immediate
rewards presents itself, take advantage of it p22, for
there will probably be no tomorrow. The big fist of
authority could fall on you at any minute. To many TS
youths, pleasures and rewards in life are few, and they
are to be sought out and taken whenever and wherever they

should arise.

Temporal Structure

 

Related to the pursuit of immediate pleasures and
rewards is the general ability or inability to structure
one's time. In the case of HS students, in addition to
their more or less future-oriented behavior, there is the
question of day-to-day life. If HS students get bored,

they have gained many resources through socialization,

 

31Every high school studied had a pervasive and
well-pOpulated "work-study" program.

53

learning, and peer-group associations with which to
alleviate boredom. Some may read, some have hobbies, and
most have friends and some money, which open many doors to
activity.

However, among TS students, one of their more

serious problems appears to be their inability to structure

 

and utilize time, i.e., to alleviate boredom. As one of
my respondents at BTS put it, "To these kids there are
twenty-four hours in a day. You can sleep away some of
them, but what do you do with the rest?" These youths
apparently lack the resources gained through socialization
with which to take care of this problem. Few read because
of such generally poor ability to do so; few do at all well
in sports, especially team sports, because this involves
association with others, albeit pragmatic, with little
meaningful rewards; few have anything which remotely
resembles a hobby; and almost all have extremely short
attention-spans. The television, for those who have had
them, is often a source of some alleviation, but how long
can one watch T.V. before that becomes boring, too? If
most of these youths were not in the training school, and
someone asked them what they would do next week, or
tomorrow, or even an hour from now, they would have no

answer .

54

Affection and Attention

 

Another possible source of difficulty in sociali-
zing the child is the lack of parental affection and
attention received by him. While this is a severe problem
among TS youths, it is also extremely common among HS
problem youths, and even some HS youths who are not a
problem to school officials.

In the latter case, my respondents felt that they
had found another source of affection and attention some-
where along the way, probably from teachers, peers, or
other more distant relatives or neighbors living in the
Lansing area. In the other cases, this seems to relate to
family structure and relations within the family. For
example, many siblings results in less attention, therefore
affection, from the parents for each individual child,
especially if there is only one parent source. Also, if
the child is unwanted, parents are more likely to show no
affection, and often ignore or rebuff the child. However,
if there are many children in the family, it is often the
case that one or more of them supply the source of
attention and affection, and consequently become sociali-
zation agents (good and poor) much like the parents or

the peer group (D. TenHouten, 1965).

55

Consequently, what can be said here is fairly
indefinite,32 but when added to other problems common among
TS youths, the effect of lack of attention and affection
can compound the difficulties, although not necessarily

when taken as a lone variable.

"Youthful Rebellion"

 

Related in some ways to the Zeitgeist effect is the

 

question of "normal youthful rebellion," or in contemporary
terms, the "generation gap." It is no secret to social
scientists that the socialization processes on any given
individual are not perfect, and conflicts will arise between
and among socialization agents, and between the individual
and the "realities of life." These conflicts are a major
source of differences between generations, and would be
expected to be manifest among both HS and TS youths.

Given the differences in socialization already stated among
the two groups, one might expect greater "rebellion" among
TS students because of more sources of conflicts.
Problematic, however, is defining the concept of "youthful
rebellion" and measuring its particular impact on the
youth. One can say that the effects are probably the same
in both cases if the quantitative or qualitative differ-

ences between parents and children are the same. There

 

32Robbins (1966), in his study of the "sociopathic"
personality, places lack of parental affection relatively
low on the priorities as a causal factor for the phe-
nomenon.

56

may be a case for this argument if parents of TS youths
are, in fact, reasonably unsocialized themselves, and
parents of HS youths are reasonably socialized, making the
differences between the generations comparable. This may
also be true in a changing social structure, where
socialization agents are responding to different values,
attitudes, norms of behavior, etc.

What appears to result from this concept, often

referred to by my HS respondents, is total confusion. I

 

feel that other consequences and differences are more
relevant, more important, more easily conceptualized, and

vastly more measurable.

Parental Cogperation

 

The role of parental (or in locoyparentis, e.g.,

 

older siblings) reinforcement of other agents of sociali—
zation has been noted as crucial to the complete sociali-
zation process. At the HS and TS level, however, it has
varying impact.

In the case of HS youths, parental cooperation is
regarded by my respondents as vitally important for the
proper socialization of the youth. When it is there, it
"makes the school's job easier." This is simply a
continuation of earlier parental support for the school's
legitimacy in raising the child, and the earlier support
appears to have more impact on the child's acceptance

of this legitimacy. For example, in cases where HS youths

57

have "changed parents," i.e., are living with someone other
than whom they resided with during early school years, if
the earlier parent did not reinforce the school's position,
the youth is likely to have problems in school, regardless
of how staunchly it is supported by the new parents.
Similar "parent changes" and differences in support
of the school are evident in records of TS youths.
However, once the youth has been sent to the training
school, parents have little say concerning the youth-—
he is a "ward of the state"--and whether or not they are
cooperative may be helpful or hindering, but often it is

a moot point.33

Treatment Dimensions

 

.At this point, it may be somewhat enlightening to

examine some of the methods of handling HS and TS problem

34

youths which are used by some of my respondents. Their

approaches can be differentiated along four dimensions.

 

 

331 am given to understand that this situation is
changing. Parents of TS youths have recently been given
more say in decisions concerning their children. However,
the extent of these new rights seemed unclear to my
respondents at the training schools.

34Very little research is available concerning the
relative effectiveness of treatment methods. In my
review of the literature, there were two studies done
concerning BTS (Wilson, 1970; Spata, 1965), one unsuc-
cessful study concerning BTS (Caronis, 1963), and one more
concerning the Michigan State Reformatory at Ionia (Cohen,
1964).

58

1. ASSISTANCE OF PARENTS vs. ASSISTANCE OF PEERS.
HS officials have the option of calling parents into school
to discuss and aid in solving problems with HS youths.
They often do, sometimes right after the first offense,
sometimes after "all else fails," and other times somewhere
in between those two instances. How soon is often related
to the school official's knowledge of the youth's parents
and their perceived probability of cooperation. Many
officials blame problem HS youths on unc00perative
parents.

TS officials, given the parents' lack of rights
over decisions concerning the youth, or their unwillingness
or inability to cooperate when asked, previously relied
solely upon themselves and the norms of the institution
enforced by them for discipline, control, and resociali-
zation. More recently, however, BTS has been using the
power of peer influence on the boys, through Positive Peer
Culture (PPC). Often, a youth is not released from BTS
unless other (hand-picked) youths say it is all right.

The peer norm that has been established is that once out,
the other boys do not want to see them back there again.
They want them to do well in society, i.e., they "care."
Prior to the proposed release of a boy by school officials,
some of the other youths might feel he will do something
after he gets out which will cause him to be sent back

(usually stated or hinted in something the boy says). In

59

a case where an about-toebe-released boy hinted that he
was going to kill his father when he got home, the other
boys stayed up with him day and night trying to talk him
out of it, a session which involved some violence. If
this does not work, they can request that the boy not be
released, and the request is usually granted by BTS
officials, barring extenuating circumstances. If a boy
escapes, other boys are sent out to bring him back, and
in fact do so. This method serves to legitimize this peer
group authority (within bounds) and give the boys a sense
of group cohesiveness and responsibility for each other.
No such usage of peer group socialization is
prevalent at GTS. My respondents there seemed to feel it
would never work with girls because girls seem to be more
competitive with each other. However, if PPC is successful
at BTS, an operating philosophy of just such a nature will
probably be installed at GT8 (as well as other OYS insti-

tutions).

2. YOUTH-INVOLVED DECISIONS vs. YOUTH-EXCLUDED
DECISIONS. This concerns the question of the say of the
youth himself in decisions that affect him and his problems
with HS or TS officials. Youth-involved decisions refer
to such practices as sitting down with a problem youth,
discussing the problem with him, trying generally to TEES.

him tell the official what he did wrong, and letting him

 

have some say in the punishment, at least as to its

60

fairness. Youth-excluded decisions, then, refer to
punishments levied by authorities, with or without talking
to the youth but never asking his opinions, and generally
with the youth usually mum and powerless in the decision-
making process.

There are evidences of both types of decision-making
among both HS and TS officials. Strict disciplinarians,
or "hard-liners," at both institutions are prone to
exclude youths from such decisions. Their feeling is that
society has expectations of youths behavior, that they are
agents of society (and therefore responsible in part for
the youth's socialization) and know what is best for him,
and that the youth must change his orientations to fit
society and not vice versa. Proponents of youth—involved
decision-making feel that the youth must have some say in
decisions that directly affect him, be it ever so limited,
and that this instills in the youth a sense of power and
responsibility for his acts and their consequences, and

therefore a sense of potency in general.

3. IMMEDIATE PUNISHMENT VS. DELAYED PUNISHMENT. The
former refers to the "nip-it-in-the-bud" philosophy of
correction, where punishment is immediate, unquestionable,
and there is no leniency for first-timers. This is often
the case whether or not the youth has a say in it, and
regardless of how many socialization agents are involved

in the decision. The latter refers to punishments levied

61

only after multiple offenses, and usually after many
previous efforts to "reason" with the youth instead of
punish him.

Again, both approaches are in evidence at both the
HS and TS institutions. Officials who use the "immediate"
approach justify it by saying that the youth must know
explicitly, and right away, what will and will not be
tolerated, and what behaviors are expected of him and
acceptable to the officials. Some also say that the
punishment must be fair and/or exceptionally firm. Delayed
punishment is usually justified by saying that the youth
must be given every opportunity to decide for himself what
is right and wrong, with the help of reasoning and under-
standing, vice direct punitive action, on the part of the

officials.

4. RIGID SOCIETAL VIEW VS. FLEXIBLE SOCIETAL VIEW.
The question of social expectations of acceptable behavior
in youths has been addressed in terms of the other
dimensions. One must also take into account the official's
view of those expectations. All officials appear to see
themselves as "teachers," agents of socialization given
the task of correcting previously demonstrated behavior
problems of youths charged to them. However, it is
obvious from some of the approaches mentioned that some HS
and TS officials View society as a more or less rigid

structure of expectations, with some acceptable range of

62

behavior depending upon the situation, but nevertheless
unbending in its definition of the improper. Others view
society as a reasonably flexible organization, allowing
for a relatively wide range of behavior in any given
situation, and extremely variable in its reaction to non-
sanctioned or prohibited behavior. These societal views
appear to have a definite bearing on the type of approach
used by the officials, and how best to alleviate problems
of the youths.35
In summary, it can be seen that there is much
variance in approaches to "correction" (i.e., "resociali-
zation"), and officials charged with this task have
relative autonomy in their chosen approach. Dimensions
(2), (3), and (4) of these approaches cross institutional
(i.e., HS and TS) boundaries. If parents are given more
say concerning decisions affecting TS youths, (1) could

also be included as cross-institutional.36

 

35There are, of course, many other facets of the

individual HS or TS official that may influence his
immediate or long-run reaction to his perceived position
as socialization agent, but most long-run approaches
mentioned here have this factor as a common denominator.
For more detailed discussions of the extraneous variables
influencing officials' approaches to delinquents, see
especially Eisner (1969), Goldman (1963), Glueck and
Glueck (1956).

36There is no indication that HS officials will use
eer influence to a greater extent, however. There are
sucH things as "student judiciaries" in some high schools,
but aside from the fact that their power in decision-
making is virtually nil, they are almost always comprised
of straight-A, extremely "well-adjusted" students. These

63

Summarizing generally from the entire discussion,
many differences and some similarities between HS and TS
youths are evident. Many of the differences seem a matter
of degree on some dimension, others to be completely
contrary opposites. In all cases, however, the differ-

ences appear explainable in terms of socialization.

 

The point now becomes what hypotheses, or "tentative
conclusions" for further research, can one infer from all
this qualitative material, especially hypotheses which can
be tested quantitatively. And it is to these hypotheses

I now turn.

 

youths often have little in common with average students,
regardless of whether or not they are having problems.
Concerning these bodies, therefore, I feel the use of the
term "peer" in their relationship with problem HS youths
is farcical.

CHAPTER VI
TENTAT IVE CONCLUS IONS

On Socialization Processes

The following conclusions are intended to be
hypotheses for further research, as the experience-survey
method demands. Some of these tentative conclusions will
be the subject of subsequent empirical study by this author,
and where possible research methods for such study are at
least roughly formulated, they will be mentioned in
footnotes. I feel that the following pipe_major conclusions
illustrate the importance of the socialization process and
specific aspects thereof in answering the questions

addressed in the beginning.

1. Locus-of—control orientation is conditioned by
the behavior-relatedness of punishments and rewards
meted out by the family during early sociali—

zation.37

 

37This will be difficult to measure quantitatively.
The locus-of-control phenomenon can be done by a series of
agree-disagree questions, and formed into a Guttman-type
scale of greater or lesser degree of external-locus-of-
control. (See Guttman, 1967; Riley et al., 1954: chap 18.)
As for a method of measuring behavior-relatedness of

64

65

In the pathological case, the greater the amount
of non-behavior-related punishments and rewards given to
the youth by the family in his pre-school life, the greater

will be an external-locus-of-control belief in the youth.

2. School attendance and performance, while inter-
related in themselves, are conditioned by:
a. The locus-of-control orientation of the youth,
b. The inter-reinforcement of the legitimacy of

the three socialization agents as such.38

The greater the belief in an external-locus-of
control, and the poorer the legitimacy reinforcement of
the school as a socialization agent by the parents and
peers, the lower the value the youth will place on going
to and doing well in school, and consequently, the poorer

will be his attendance and performance in school.

 

punishments and rewards, a possibility might be to give the
youth a hypothetical situation calling for a reward or
punishment, and asking him how his parents would react to
the situation in an open—end question, then coding his
answer. Scoring “1" for non-behavior-relatedness and "O"
for behavior-relatedness, the test may then be comparable
to the locus-of-control data, and amenable to correlational
techniques. However, other methods should be sought out
and explored.

38Using a Guttman-type scale for (a), a corre-
lational comparison to school attendance (truancy records)
and school performance (G.P.A.) appears possible. Inter-
relational effects between school attendance and perfor-
mance will have to be taken into account to check for such
things as spuriousness. The degree of inter—reinforcement
between socialization agents is very important, but as yet,
I have not found an adequate measure of the phenomenon.

66

3. School attendance and performance conditions:
a. The knowledge of skills requisite for socially-
accepted goal-attainment methods,
b. The ability to structure time,
c. Exposure to and knowledge of the youth

Zeitgeist,

 

d. The tendency to differentiate authority,

e. Self-perception.

All of which helps determine the success of the sociali—
zation process and the frequency, variability, and
seriousness of delinquent behavior in a non-gang situ-
ation.39
In school, a youth learns socially-accepted ways
of manipulating objects and symbols in his environment
which enhance his self-perception as an "actor" and
facilitate the attainment of socially-accepted goal-
objects. He learns how "a dollar saved is a dollar
earned," that it is good to put off immediate pleasures

for future rewards. He gains resources which enable him

to occupy his time in socially-accepted ways. In the

 

39Concerning the interrelationships stated above,
many school "achievement tests" measure (a), and some
"personality inventories" have items which deal with (b)
and (e). Lewis (1968) and Miller (1971) have used measures
of (d), as stated earlier. Comparative analyses between
some of these measures, or indices derived from them, and
school attendance and performance appear feasible. In the
case of (c), however, measurement will be tricky and of
questionable reliability, so no plans have been made as to
possible methods.

67

school situation, he is placed in a classroom of youths
like himself, with an authority figure in charge of his
activities. He begins to realize the teacher-pupil
relationship, the dichotomy of a "her" and an "us," and
begins to differentiate it from the parent-child relation-
ship in many aspects. And the later socialization process
has begun.

Needless to say, then, the poorer one's attendance
and performance in school, the poorer the youth will be
concerning all these variables, and the chances of suc-
cessful socialization become smaller. (The delinquent
behavior manifestation will be discussed in conclusion

[8]).

4. Self-perceptions are conditioned by:
a. The locus-of-control orientation of the youth,
b. School performance,

c. The success of peer relations in school40

The greater the youth's external-locus-of-control
orientation and the poorer his school performance (e.g.,
manipulating symbols and objects in socially-prescribed

ways), the greater is his self-perception as "acted upon."

 

40Measurement techniques of (a) and (b) have been
discussed. Self-perception as "actor" or "acted upon" is
amenable to Guttman analysis and to scales of the "semantic
differential," i.e., "active-passive," and "strong-weak"
(Osgood, 1967; Kerlinger, 1964: chap 32). Possibly a
"like me-not like me" dimension could be added. The latter,
(c), must be done, I suspect, using some index, as yet
undetermined.

68

Likewise is the case if his interaction with peers is

unrewarded or upset by negative reactions from them.

5. The success of peer relations in the school is
conditioned by:
a. The inter-reinforcement of the legitimacy of
socialization agents as such,

b. Self-attitudes41

The lesser the reinforcement by parents and
teachers of the legitimacy of one's peer associations,
the less the youth will associate as such. It is recognized
that this might be somewhat confounded by the concept
roughly referred to in the text as "youthful rebellion,"
but the true incidence of this, according to my inter—
viewees, is relatively small. But for seemingly sure,
the poorer one's attitude toward himself, the poorer his
chances for success in peer relationships.

From (4) and (5) we derive the next conclusion.

6. There is synergic relationship between the success
of peer relations in school, self-perception, and
self-attitudes, the sum of which helps determine

the success of the socialization process and the

 

41The method for (a) is still doubtful. Self-
attitudes, however, can be measured by "semantic differ—
ential," Guttman sentence-completion (Miller, 1971), or
many other techniques. See Edwards (1957), Kerlinger
(1964), Riley et al., (1954), Likert (1967).

69

frequency, variability, and seriousness of

delinquent behavior in a non-gang situation.42

Since self—perception is a function of feedback
from peers and success at interaction with them, self-
attitudes are a function of self-perception, and success
at peer relations are a function of self-attitudes, then
a circular interrelationship develops and reinforces
itself, and characterizes one's capability at social
interaction. Since socialization is a social process of
interaction, then pathologies here decrease the chances
of successful socialization. (Again, see conclusion [8]

for a discussion of actual delinquent behavior.)

7. There is a two—way relationship between the

success of peer relations in the school and

exposure to and knowledge of the youth Zeitgeist.43

 

It has already been noted that the schoolroom
situation sets up the teacher-pupil dichotomy, and begins

to socialize the youth into the role of pupil. Once

 

42This index of this "sum" might best be called an

"index of successful interaction capabilities," or nega-
tively, an "index of sociopathology." Specifics on
deriving this index are not complete as yet.

43As mentioned earlier, the Zeitgeist measurement
would be difficult at best. These two variables reinforce
each other, and each's success is at least somewhat
dependent on the other. However, as to the measurement
techniques and, in fact, the relative importance of
measuring this particular reinforcement phenomenon, I am
undecided at this point.

 

70

done, the success of peer relations is enhanced by the
realization of the common role among other youths in the
same situation. Likewise, knowledge of and exposure to

the norms applicable to the role, and norms developed
through interaction with other youths, enhance the prospect
of successful peer relations. When a realization of
certain commonalities between teacher-pupil and the
parent-child dichotomies develop in the youth later on,

a "generation gap" begins to take form.

8. School attendance and performance and one's
Success at social interaction with peers are the
major determinants of the frequency, variability,
and seriousness of delinquent behavior in a non-

gang situation.44

As has already been mentioned, the success of the
socialization process is a function of the time spent and
performance in school, and the sum of the circular process
of self—perception, self-attitudes, and success at peer
relations in school. It is also a function of other
factors, but for purposes here, these two are considered

primary.45 The greater the pathologies in these areas,

 

44Measurement here will involve somewhat of a
replication of Short et a1. (1963) and comparisons made
to measures of school attendance and performance and peer
relations indices. The specific comparison method is as
yet undetermined.

45,, - - - n °
Success of 5001al1zat1on process 15 an
abstraction of the components of the process summed up,

71

the less the success of socialization, i.e., the youth's
interaction with these two socialization agents will be at
a minimum at best. Any delinquent activity he engages in
will be pretty much on his own, while other youths'
delinquent activity will be tempered by the effects of
socialization agents, and relatively "protected" by the
peer group. This, of course, assumes some delinquent
activity on the part of HS youths, an assumption well
documented in the "hidden delinquency" literature.46
Frequent truancy gives the youth more time to commit more
different offenses more often, a behavioral proposition
about TS youths supported by Short et_gl, (1963) and the

interviews, and poor relations with peers create the

"loner."

9. The frequency, variability, and seriousness of
delinquent behavior, along with certain given
demographic characteristics of the youth and his
family, determines whether or not a youth is

arrested, referred to OYS by the juvenile court,

 

i.e., not as relevant taken alone as a variable for con-
sideration as certain of its components. "Other variables"
may include psychological dimensions like emotional states,
affection, attention, and tolerance for ambiguity; or
social psychological and sociological ones like values,
demographic characteristics, or geographical area. No
attempt is made here to separate them and diagram their
inclusion into the process, except for affection, attention,
and values. And in the cases of those variables, attempts
were basically unsuccessful. (See conclusions [11] and
[12]).

46See footnote 2.

72

and spends his adolescence in the training

schools.47

If one commits many varied delinquent acts outside
the "protective" environment of a peer-group situation,
one is more likelyto get caught more often, by sheer
chance alone if nothing else. However, studies have
shown that the disposition of the youth by relevant
authorities, from the arresting officer to the juvenile
court judge to the OYS official, will depend heavily on
these authorities' images of certain demographic charac-
teristics of the offender and his family, i.e., there is
a selectivity operating at all levels of the adjudication
process.48 Therefore, the combined effects of these
factors determine whether or not the youth spends his teen
years in training school or is allowed to return to
society. However, this conclusion taken by itself, i.e.,
without conclusions (1) through (8), ignores too many pre-
conditioned phases of the socialization process which are
extremely important in assessing the youth's behavior.

Those are the major conclusions arrived at from

this research. The following are three more relationships

 

47From the standpoint of measurement techniques,
this may be difficult. Demographic comparisons of the
youths in the sample will have to be done all through the
adjudication process, but intermediate stages of such will
require the cooperation of several other agencies (e.g.,
probation).

48See footnotes 16 and 35.

73

which were studied here, but their relationships to the
nature of the socialization process remained undetermined

after the study.

10. Given demographic characteristics of the youth have
an undetermined relationship to the success of the
socialization process and the nature of delinquent

behavior.49

Specifically, the fact that a person is born Black,
poor, into a large family, etc., may or may not relate
directly in some way to deficiencies in socialization and
anti—social behavior. Saying, for example, that a greater
percentage of Black youths than White youths are delinquent
is begging the question. From the interviews, a more
important consideration would be how such things relate to
the behavior-relatedness of early socialization attempts,
or to the success and type of peer relations established
in the school. In any case, there is no way of ascer-

taining this from the current research.

11. The amount of attention and affection given the
youth by socialization agents has an undetermined
relationship to the nature and success of the

. . . 50
soc1alizat1on process.

 

49 . . .
No spec1f1cs on measurement have been determined

at this point.

501 feel that this variable might account for some

of the variance in the populations, but I have derived no
method of measurement as yet.

lllilll-[E

 

 

74

Too much differing opinion and not enough empirical
evidence exists on this question. It appears evident that
these two variables, probably interrelated in themselves,
complement socialization efforts, but to what extent?

How does the lack of these two phenomena affect school
attendance and performance, or the success of peer
relations in school? Can the affection and attention of
one socialization agent offset the lack thereof in
another? The interviews shed no light on its placement
in the socialization process and its interrelationships
and effects on other variables.

12. The placement of values in the overall scheme of

the socialization process is undetermined.51

Values apparently enter the picture somewhere, for
both HS and TS youths, and probably during both early and
later socialization. For example, attitudes connote a

negative or positive evaluation of certain phenomena

 

51There have been several methods of measuring
rank-order value systems, but most have concerned only
positive, socially-accepted values. I see no reason why
this must be so. Rank-ordering, using simple mean ranks,
appears limiting to a thorough study of values, and lending
much variance to the results. Rokeach (1968c) found the
"paired comparisons" method (Edwards, 1957: 19-52;
Thurstone, 1927) more reliable than simple ranking. In
addition, since values are a type of attitude object, the
semantic differential appears applicable. Osgood et al.
(1961) used "ways of life" to refer to values, which is
easily amenable to my definition of them. In short,
measurement techniques are in abundance, and more than one
method appears preferable here.

75

based upon some criteria. Values, or consistency between
self-values and those positively-defined by the greater
society, may be those criteria. Also, consistency between
one's self-attitudes and self-values, i.e., the probably
value-attitude system of Rokeach (1968b), may be a
function of behavior-related reward-punishment criteria,
or some other component. However, there is no way of
ascertaining their relationships to the socialization
process, individual components thereof, or the nature
of delinquent behavior by this research method.

An illustration of the total scheme of the
interrelationships presented here appears schematically

in Figure 1.52

On Treatment Dimensions

 

In the discussion of treatment dimensions earlier
in the text, it may have been somewhat apparent as to
which facets appear more related to solving the problems
of the socialization process as I have portrayed them.

In case it was not, I will reiterate here.

 

52One further methodological note. A comparison
and discussion of major theories of juvenile delinquency
would be appropriate in further research. For such
purposes, then, a sample of gang delinquents might also be
studied, since most theories deal with this aspect of
delinquency. Gang delinquents, I am told, are often
found at the Michigan State Reformatory at Ionia. Also,
I believe the evidence of the process discussed in this
research will show up as well-entrenched in the youths at
intermediate stages of the adjudication process. Therefore,
a sample of, say, probationers should also be considered.

76

 

______ [‘GIVEN DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICSjF- — -'—

 

 

 

 

 

 

Early AFFECTION BEHAVIOR-RELATEDNESS
Social— AND OF PUNISHMENTS
ization ATTENTION I AND .WARDS;

 

 

 

 

 

/
_ - - _ — — —.— [LOCUs-OF-CONTROL ORIENTATION l‘-- --

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SOCIALIZATION AGENT
LEGITIMACY VALUE
INTER-REINFORCEMENT . II __ __
\I I SUCCESS OF PEER I
SCHOOL ATTENDANCE <%# —>: RELATIONS IN
AND PERFORMANCE I SCHOOL
. . \
Later KNOWLEDGE OF SKILLS] ‘I 4
Social- 9' FOR GOAL-ATTAINMENT SELF- l
ization I PERC

 

 

 

 

b ABILITY TO I \I/
STRUCTURE TIME

 

 

 

 

 

| [SELF-ATTITUDE ]

 

l._____

1; EXPOSURE TO AND <3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KNOWLEDGE OF T“ ”—
YOUTH ZEITGEIST
TENDENCY TO SUCCESS
.> DIFFERENTIATE AT <__.
AUTHORITY SOCIALIZATION
\ PROCESS
*“""“"“‘”’"_' \I/(I/

 

 

FREQUENCY, VARIABILITY, AND
SERIOUSNESS OF DELINQUENT BEHAVIOR
IN A NON-GANG SITUATION

 

 

 

 

\» INSTITUTION IN WHICH
/' ADOLESCENT CAREER SPENT

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1. Overall Scheme of Socialization Process
Interrelationships.

 

77

First, concerning the question of assistance in

socialization, one should obtain all the help one can get,

 

be it parents, peers, or both. The type of assistance
selected in any particular case should be that which

reinforces the socialization agent's legitimacy as such.

 

Second, youth-involved decisions appear more

 

valuable to resocialization efforts. This would apparently

aid the individual's potencyjperception in decisions which

 

affect him, thereby helping in the development of a self-

perception as "actor."

 

Third, the punishment should be immediate. The

 

fact that the youth should have some say in punishment does
not mean that the anti-social act should go unpunished.
It appears that the immediacy of punishment (and rewards,

too) would help instill a sense of behavior-relatedness

 

to these things.

Finally, I believe that the flexible view of
society is more supported in fact, given the wide range of
so-called deviance which is at least tolerated in society
today.

Table 7 illustrates the desirability of all
possible combinations of these dimensions. Numbers in
the cells indicate the number of desirable characteristics
of each four-way combination which the cell represents.

"Desirability" here is, of course, subjective on my part

78

TABLE 7.--Subjective Desirability of Combinations of the
Various Treatment Dimensions.

 

 

 

 

Assistance
Decision Yes No
Societal View Participation
Punishment
Imm. Del. Imm. Del.
Youth-Inv. 3 2 2 1
Rigid
Youth-Excl. 2 1 1 0
a
Youth-Inv. 4 3 3 2
Flexible

Youth-Excl. 3 2 2 l

 

aThis is the optimum combination, i.e., flexible
societal view, youth-involved decisions, immediate punish-
ment, and the use of assistance.

79

based on this text, since no actual data was available
concerning the successes of treatment methods.

To assess failures in resocialization and insti-
tutional recidivism, other factors would have to be taken
into account. For example, taking any given combination
of these dimensions, what is the probability of the
combination's existence, and the population of its users?
It appears from my research that it is very improbable
to find the combinations portrayed in, say, cells 2 and
15, in existence, much less in use to any extent. By the
same token, it appears relatively probable to find the
combinations in cells 5, 7, and 10 in existence, and in
fact in use by at least some officials.

In conclusion, the preliminary and exploratory
nature of this study predisposes this author to call his
conclusions "tentative." However, those conclusions
allow direction and systematization for more empirical
investigation, both at the qualitative and quantitative
levels. Therefore, it serves the field of delinquent
behavior by begging the questions, many of which will be

investigated by this author in later research.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Borgatta, E. F.

1969 Social Psychology at the Turn of the Century:
Charles Horton Cooley's "Human Nature and the
Social Order"; in E. F. Borgatta (ed.), Social
Psychology: Readings and Perspective (Cfiicago;
Rand McNally), pp.'12-26.

 

Caronis, G. P.
1963 An Experimental Study in Evaluating the Adjustment
of a Group of Disturbed Delinquents Exposed to
Guided Group Counseling Within a Training School
Setting (Unpub. M.S. Thesis; Mich. State Univ.).

Cloward, R., and Ohlin, L. E.
1961 Delinquengy and Opportunity (Glencoe, 111.; Free
Press).

Cohen, A. K.
1958 Delinquent Boys:_;The Culture of the Gang
(Glencoe, I11.; Free Press).

 

1966 Deviance and Control (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.;
Prentice-Hall).

 

Cohen, B. J.
1964 Differential Correctional Treatment Programs and
Modification of Self-Image (Unpub. Ph.D. Diss.;
Mich. State Univ.).

Coleman, J. C.
1960 Personality Dynamics and Effective Behavior
(ChICago; Scott, Foresman).

 

Edwards, A. L.
1957 Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction (New
York; Appleton, Century, CroftS).

Eisner, V.
1969 The Delinquency Label: The Epidemiology of
Juvenile Delinquency INew York; Random House).

 

80

81

Erikson, M. L., and Emprey, L. T.
1963 Court Records, Undetected Delinquency and Decision
Making; in Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology,
and Police Science (vol. 54), pp. 45659.

 

Glueck, S., and Glueck, E.

1956 Physique and Delinquency (New York; Harper and
Row).

1962 Family Environment and Delinggenqy_(Boston;
Houghton-Mifflin).

Goldman, N.

1963 The Differential Selection of Juvenile Offenders
for Court AppearanceiIWashington, D.C.; NatTl
Research Info. Center, Nat'l Council on Crime and
Delinquency).

Guttman, L. A.
1967 A Basis for Scaling Qualitative Data; in M.
Fishbein (ed.), Readings in Attitude Theory and
Measurement (New York; John Wiley), pp. 96-107.

 

Hall, C. S., and Lindzey, G.
1957 Theories of Personality (New York; John Wiley).

Hardt, R. H., and Bodine, E. G.
1965 Development of Self-Report Instruments in De-
linquency Research: A Conference Report (Syracuse;
Syracuse Univ. Press).

Hirschi, T.
1969 Causes of Delinquency (Berkeley; Univ. of Cali-
fornia Press).

 

Johnson, K. W.
1969 Socioeconomic Status as Related to Junior High
School Students' Attitudes Toward Police (Unpub.
M.S. Thesis; Mich. State Univ.).

Kerlinger, F. N.
1964 Foundations of Behavioral Research (New York;
Holt, Rinehart, Winston).

 

Lewis, L.
1968 Minor Juvenile Delinquency and Attitudes Toward
Police: A Study at Berkeley High School (Unpub.
Res. Paper; Univ. of California, Berkeley).

82

Likert, R.
1967 The Method of Constructing an Attitude Scale; in
M. Fishbein (ed.), Readings in Attitude Theorypand
Measurement (New York; John WileyY} pp. 9035.

 

 

Marcus, B., and Maher, B. A.
1957 The Validation of the Rotter Incomplete Sentence
Blank on an English Criminal Population (Unpub.
Res. Paper; Northwestern Univ.).

Matza, D.
1964 Delinquency and Drift (New York; John Wiley).

 

Miller, M. G.

1971 Socialization and the Compliance System: An
Attitudinal Study of Adolescents, Their Teachers,
and Police Officers (Unpub. Ph.D. Diss.; Mich.
State Univ.).

Miller, W. B.
1958 Lower Class Culture as a Generating Milieu of Gang
Delinquency; in Journal of Social Issues (vol. 14;
no. 3), pp. 5-19.

 

Murphy, F. J., Shirley, M. M., and Whitmer, H. L.
1946 The Incidence of Hidden Delinquency; in American
Journal of Orthopeychiatry (vol. 16; no. 4;
October), pp. 686-96.

 

Osgood, C. E.
1967 Cross-Cultural Comparability in Attitude Measure-
ment via Multilingual Semantic Differentials; in
M. Fishbein (ed.), Readings in Attitude Theory and
Measurement (New York; John Wiley).

 

 

, Ware, E. E., and Morris, C.

1961 Analysis of the Connotative Meanings of a Variety
of Human Values as Expressed by American College
Students; in Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology (vol. 62; no. 10, pp. 62-73.

 

 

Porterfield, A. L.
1946 Youth in Trouble (Fort Worth; Leo Potishman
FoundatiOn).

 

Reiss, A. J., Jr., and Rhodes, A. L.
1963 Status Deprivation and Delinquent Behavior; in
Sociological Quarterly (vol. 4; Spring), pp. 135-49.

 

Riley, M. W., Riley, J. W., and Toby, J.
1954 Scale Analysis (New Brunswick, N.J.; Rutgers Univ.
Press).

 

83

Robbins, L. N.
1966 Deviant Children Grown Up: A Sociological and
Psychiatric Study of the Sociopathic Personality
(Baltimore; Williams and WiIkinsII

 

 

Robison, S. M.
1936 Can Delinquency Be Measured? (New York; Columbia
Univ. Press).

 

Rodman, H., and Grams, P.

1967 Juvenile Delinquency and the Family: A Review
and Discussion; in Task Force Report: Juvenile
Delinquency and Youth Crime (Washington, D. C.;
U. S. Gov t P. O. ), Appendix L.

 

 

Rokeach, M.
1968a Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values (San Francisco;
Jossey-Bass).

 

1968b A Theory of Organization and Change Within Value-
Attitude Systems; in Journal of Social Issues
(vol. 24; no. 1; January), pp. 13-33.

 

1968c Comparison of Rank-Order and Paired Comparison
Methods for Measuring Value Systems; in Perceptual

 

and Motor Skills (vol. 27; no. 2; October),
pp. 417:8.

 

, and Parker S.

1970 Values as Social Indicators of Poverty and Race
Relations in America; in Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science (vol. 388;
MarEh)p Pp. 97‘111.

 

 

, and Homant, R.

1970 Value for Honesty and Cheating Behavior; in
Personality: An International Journal (vol. 1;
no. 2; Summer), pp. 153-62.

 

Schwartz, E. E.
1945 A Community Experiment in the Measurement of
Delinquency; in National Probation Association
Yearbook (Washington, D.C.; Nat'l Pr6bation Ass'n).

 

Scott, R. D.

1969 A Comparative Study of the Influence of Sex, Race,
and Socioeconomic Status on the Attitudes of
Children Toward Authority Figures (Unpub. M.A.
Thesis; Mich. State Univ.).

84

Selltiz, C., Jahoda, M., Deutsch, M., and Cook, S. W.
1960 Research Methods in Social Relations (Rev. ed.)
TNew York; Henry Holt).

Sherif, M.
1968 Self Concept; in D. L. Sills (ed.), International
Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (New York;
Macmillan and Free Press; vol. 14), pp. 150-9.

Short, J. F., Jr., and Nye, F. I.

1958 Extent of Unrecorded Delinquency, Tentative
Conclusions; in Journal of Criminal Law, Crimi-
nology: and Police Science (vol. 49; November-
DecemberY, pp. 296-302.

 

, and Strodtbeck, F. L.
1965 Group Processes and Gang Delinquency (Chicago;
Univ. of Chicago PreSS).

, Tennyson, R. A., and Howard, K.

1963 Behavioral Dimensions of Gang Delinquency; in
American Sociological Review (vol. 28; June),
pp. 411-28.

 

, Rivera, R., and Tennyson, R. A.

1965 Perceived Opportunities, Gang Membership and
Delinquency; in American Sociological Review
(vol. 30; February), pp. 56-67.

Spata, P. J., Jr.

1965 A Study of the Social Position, Reputation and
Adjustment of the Mental Retardate in an Insti-
tutionalized Delinquent Population (Unpub. Ph.D.
Diss.; Mich. State Univ.).

Sykes, G. M., and Matza, D.
1957 Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of
Delinquency; in American Journal of Sociology
(vol. 22; December), pp. 664-70.

TenHouten, D.
1965 Siblings and Socialization (Unpub. M.A. Thesis;

Mich. State Univ.).

TenHouten, W. D.
1965 Socialization, Race and the American High School
(Unpub. Ph.D. Diss.; Mich. State Univ.).

Thurstone, L. L.
1927 The Method of Paired Comparisons for Social
Values; in Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy-

chology (vol. 21): PP. 384-400.

 

85

U.S. Census Bureau
1966 Meps of Major Concentrations of Poverty in Standard
MetropOIitan Statistical Aeees of 250,000 or More
PopulatiOn (Washington, D.C.; U.S. Gov't P.O.),
v61. 2.

Versluis, P. P.
1964 An Exploratory Study of Adjustment of Delinquent
Children in Private Institutions (Unpub. M.A.
Thesis; Mich. State Univ.).

Wilson, J.
1970 What Happens to Defective Delinquents? (Unpub.
Res. Paper; presented to Bureau of Group Service,
Mich. Dept. of Social Services).

Yablonsky, L.
1959 The Delinquent Gang as a Near-Group; in Social
Problems (vol. 7; Fall), pp. 108-17.

General References

 

Allport, G. W.
1967 Attitudes; in M. Fishbein (ed.), Readings in
Attitude Theory_and Measurement (New York; John
Wiley), PP- 1'13.

 

Berg, I.
1967 Economic Factors in Delinquency; in Task Force
Report: Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime
(Washington,D.C.; U.S. Govrt P.O.), Appendix 0.

 

Bernard, J.
1967 Teen-Age Culture: An Overview; in E. W. Vaz (ed.),
Middle-Class Juvenile Delinquency (New York; Harper
and Row), pp. 23-38.

Bogardus, E.

1967 Measuring Social Distances; in M. Fishbein (ed.),
Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement (New
York; JOHn Wiley), pp. 71-6.

Council of State Governments
1965 Juvenile Delinquency: A Report on State Action
and’ResponsibiliEies (Chicago; CounEil of State
Gov'ts, Pres. Comm. on Juv. Del., Nat'l Council
on Crime and Delinquency).

 

 

 

86

Fannin, L. F., and Clinard, M. B.
1967 Differences in the Conception of Self as a Male
Among Lower and Middle Class Delinquents; in E. W.
Vaz (ed.), Middle-ClaseeJuvenile Delinquency
(New York; Harper andiRow), pp. 101-12.

 

Gigliotti, R. J.
1969 A.Matrix of Social and Personality Variables for
the Prediction of School Achievement (Unpub. M.A.
Thesis; Mich. State Univ.).

Hirschi, T., and Selvin, H. C.
1967 Delinquency Research: epAppraisal of Analytic
Methods TNew York; Free Press).

 

Luger, M., and Saltman, E. B.
1967 The Youthful Offender; in Task Force Report:
guyenile Delinquepcy and Youth Crime TWSShihgton,
D.D.; U.S. Gov't P.O.), Appendix G.

 

Merrill, M. A.
1947 Problems of Child Delinquency (New York; Houghton-
MifflifiT.

Miller, W. B.
1962 The Impact of a Total-Community Delinquency Control
Project; in Social Problems (vol. 10; Fall),
pp. 168-91.

 

Morse, R. J.

1963 Self-Concept of Ability, Significant Others and
School Achievement of Eighth-Grade Students: A
Comparative Investigation of Negro and Caucasian
Students (Unpub. M.A. Thesis; Mich. State Univ.).

President's Commission on Law Enforcement Administration
of Justice
1967 TaskeForce Report: Juvenile Delinquency and Youth
Crifie (Washington, D.C.; U.S. Gov't P.O.),
pp. I-56.

 

Robison, S. M.
1960 Juvenile Delinquepcy: Its Nature and Control
(New York; Holt, Rinehart, Winston).

 

Rubin, S.
1949 The Legal Character of Juvenile Delinquency; in
Annals of the American Acedemyeof Political and
Social Science (vol. 26; January), pp. 1-8.

 

 

87

Sabine, G. A.

1971 When You Listen, This is What You Can Hear:
Teenagers Tell Abouthheir Parents,e§chools,
Teachers, and Stugent Protest (Iowa City, Ia.;
AmeriCan College Testing Program).

 

 

 

Schafer,.W. E., and Polk, K.
1967 Delinquency and the Schools; in Task Force Report:
Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime (Washington,
D.C.; U.S. Gov't P.O.), Appendix M.

 

 

Sellin, T., and Wblfgang, M. E.
1964 The Measurement of Delinquency (New York; John
Wiley).

 

Tappan, P.
1949 Juvenile Delinquency (New York; McGraw-Hill).

 

Toby, J.
1967 Affluence and Adolescent Crime; in Task Force
Report: Juveeile Delin uenc and Youth Crime
TWaShington, D.C.; U.S. Gov t P.0T7) Appendix H.

 

 

 

U.S. Department of H.E.W., Children's Bureau
1967 Survey of Juvenile Courts and Probation Services;
in Task Force Report: Juvenile Delinquency and

 

Youth Crime_(Washington, D.C.; U.S. Gov't P.O. ,
Appendix B.

 

, Office of Education

I967 Delinquency and the Schools; in Task Force Report:
Juvenile Delinquepcy and Youth Crime (WSShington,
D.C.; U.S. Gov't P.O.), Appendix N.

 

 

westley, W. A., and Elkin, F.
1967 The Protective Environment and Adolescent Sociali-
zation; in E. W. Vaz (ed.), Middle-Class Juvenile
Delinqueney_(New York; Harper and Row), pp. 9-22.

 

 

Wise, N. B.
1967 Juvenile Delinquency Among Middle-Class Girls;
in E. W. Vaz (ed.), Middle-Class Juvenile
Delinqueney (New York; Harper and Row), pp. 179-88.