RUTH CAVAN s HYPOTHETICAL BEHAVIORAL CONTINUUM:- f j

AN EMPIRICAL TEST

Thesis for the Degree 0? M. A.
MICHTGAN STATE UNWERSITY '-
DONALD GENE WILLTAMS.
1968

      
     

A“

’ LIBRARY
Middt lSdec

'TH Egg Umvcrsny

RUTH CAVAN'S HYPOTHETICAL BEHAVIORAL CONTINUUM:
AN EMPIRICAL TEST

By

Donald Gene Williams

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Sociology

1968

ACKNOT‘TLEDGI‘IEI‘TTS

This author is indebted to many persons who
freely contributed their time and energies to the

completion of this project and wishes to express
his appreciation for their assistance and advice.
Special mention is due the writer's faculty advisor,

Dr. Orden Smucker, for his guidance and patience.

Donald Gene Williams

-11-

TABLES OF CONTENTS

Chapter

V

l:

II:

III:

Introduction ................

An Overview of Approaches to
Criminal Behavior .............

Crime as Deviant Behavior ---------
Cavan's Behavioral Continuum -------
Underconformity and Overconformity - - - -

Summary ..................

Development of Hypotheses and Methodology- -

Empirical Evidence of a Behavior
Continuum .................

Hypotheses ................
Methodology ................
Characteristics of Sample ---------
Technique of Gathering Data --------
Pretest ..................

Definition of Terms ............

Results ...................

Attitudes Toward Underconformity and
Overconformity ..............

Severity of Attitudes Toward Under-
conformity and Overconformity -------

Significant Others Named By Sample - - ---

-iii-

Page
1

2
8
l2
15
2R

25

26
32
R1
R1
11,6
50
SM

58

58

66
81

Chapter Page

IV: Conclusion and Summary ----------- 95
Summary ------------------ 95
limitations of Current Study ------- 96
Implication and Suggestions for
Needed Research -------------- 101

APPENDIX --------------------- 108

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................... 117

-1v-

Table

I:

II:

III:

VI:

VII:

VIII:

IX:

LIST OF TABLES

Characteristics of stages of

continuity in behavior ---------

Average number of offenses reported
by Texas college students among 200
men and 137 women in pre-college
days, and the percentage reporting

one or more of the offenses -------

Percentage of 1020 men and 678 women
committing specific offenses in

law York City ..............

Honesty continuum.with characteristics
of stages according to the traditional
interpretation and to Cavan's

interpretation —————— - ......

Percentage of males and females re-
sponding to the following question:
Which one of these things would be
the hardest for you to take -- your
parents' disapproval, your teacher's
disapproval, or breaking with your-

friends? ................

Whose advice do adolescents take?- - - -

Social characteristics of college

class and sample ............

Scale of juvenile delinquency as

developed by Short and Eye .......

Characteristics of overt behavior
represented by fictitious persons in

stories used in study ..........

-v-

Page

21

27

30

3h

RO

ML

R9

52

Table Page

X: Number and percentage of students
in college freshman sample re-
porting attitudes toward various
degrees of conformity ---------- 61

XI: Number and percentage of male
students in college freshman
sample reporting attitudes toward
various degrees of conformity ------ 67

AII: NUmber and percentage of female

students in college freshman

sample reporting attitudes toward

various degrees of conformity ------ 72

XIII: Number and percentage of students in
college freshman sample reporting
attitudes toward various degrees of
conformity ---------------- 76

XIV: Number and percentage of students in
freshman sample who named at least
one person from the following
categories of significant others as
being concerned about "How well you
obey the rules of honesty?" ------- 83

XV: Number and percentage of college
freshmen who named a person from
one of the following categories of
significant others first in response
to "Name those persons you feel are
most concerned about how well you
obey the rules and regulations of
honesty." ---------------- 8h

XVI: Number and percentage of students in
freshman sample who named at least
one person from the following
categories of significant others as
being concerned about "How well you
obey the rules of honesty" -------- 86

-vi-

Table
XVII:

XVIII:

Number and percentage of students

in freshman sample who named a

person from one of the following

categories of significant others

first in response to ”Name those

persons you feel are most con-

cerned about how well you obey

the rules and regulations of

honesty." ----------------- 88

Number and percentage in pretest

sample who named at least one

person from each of the following

categories of significant others ----- 91

-vii-

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

I: Hypothetical formulation of a
behavior continuum as presented
by Gavan ------------------

II: Traditional formulation of behavior
continuum .................

III: Discrepancies between lower-class
and middle-class evaluation of
identical behavior -------------

IV: Graphic presentation of percentage
of students in college freshman
sample reporting attitudes toward
various degrees of conformity --------

V: Graphic presentation of the median
attitudinal responses of the
students in the college freshman
sample toward various degrees of
conformity -----------------

-viii-

Page

in

AZ

65

79

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page
I: Research Instrument -------------- 108

-1x-

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Social scientists have offered.many and varied
explanations for deviant behavior. All of these expla-
nations have been based on three common assumptions:
first, deviant behavior is the result of a pathological
condition; second, the deviant is the critical variable
in the analysis of deviant behavior; and third, behavior
can be described in terms of a continuum extending from
disapproved deviant behavior through tolerated conform-
ity to idealized conformity to idealized conformity.
Chapter I will explore the plausibility of each of these
assumptions.

Primarily this thesis will examine the relative
merit of two opposing models of the behavioral continuum.
The first model conceives the behavioral continuum as a
linear model; that is, approval for behavior increases
prOportionately to the degree of conformity of that be-
havior. On the other hand, the second.model suggests
that a more appropriate scheme is a curvilinear model.
That is, approval for behavior increases proportionately
to the degree of conformity of that behavior; but only
up to a certain point, then disapproval for behavior in-
creases proportionately to the degree of overconformity

represented by that behavior.

-2-

Before an attempt is made to systematically
examine these assumptions, a brief review of the var-

ious approaches to criminal behavior is in order.

5p OVERVIEW pg APPROACHES pg CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR

 

 

Throughout the ages, man has sought to explain and
understand social deviation. Prior to the 18th century,
the explanations offered tended to be demonological in
nature; that is, the individual was considered to be
possessed by "other world powers." During the 18th
century Cesare Beccaria founded the classical school of
criminology. The major position of this school was that
the individual's behavior was guided by rational judgment
and free will; that is, an individual engaged in criminal
activities because of the anticipation of the pleasure
the activities would bring. The neo-classical school
modified this position in.part as it allowed exclusions
from.punishment because of mitigating circumstances, age
of the offender (youth), or the psychological condition
of the offender (insanity).l

Since the early 19th century when the positivistic
school of criminology replaced the neo-classical school,
there has been a long succession of criminological the-

ories, most of which have not stood the test of time.

 

1 For a complete discussion of the early history of
criminological theory, see George Vold, Theoretical
Criminology_(New York, 1958).

-3-

It is possible to classify these theories into three
groups depending upon their theoretical orientations:
biological and constitutional theories, in which devi-
ancy is explained through the inherited physical and
mental makeup of man; psychogenic theories, in which
deviancy is explained through the formation of an anti-
social character; and sociological theories, in which
deviancy is explained through the pressures and pulls
of the social milieu. While these classifications are
arbitrary and tend to obscure the interdependency of
significant variables, they do have utility for ana-
lytical purposes.2

The biogenic orientation, the dominant theory in
Europe today, points to the inheritance of physiological
weaknesses or the inheritance of pronenesses toward
crime and delinquency. The specific formulation of
this hypothesis varies considerably: the attempt to
prove inheritance of proneness through the method of
studying criminal twins (Lange, Rosanoff, and Kraz);
the attempt to identify body-mind types (Kretschmer,
Sheldon, and Hooton); the attempt to identify and ex-
plain habitual (serious) offenders as contrasted with
occasional offenders or offenders of opportunity (Frey,

vervsech, and Exner); the attempt to trace the

 

2 For an excellent summary of the three orientations
to Criminological theo , see Halter Reckless, The Crime
Problem (New Ybrk, 1961 , Chapters 12-18, pp. 233-360.

-14...

inheritance of bad strains through the descendants of
notorious degenerate families (Dugdale, Goddard,
Davenport, and Estabrook); and the specification of the
mesomorphic somatotype (muscular) as the type of con-
stitution which is most usually related to delinquency
(Sheldon, and Gluecks).3

The psychogenic school views character and per-
sonality as a function of early childhood deve10pment.
August Aichhorn, one of the fountainheads of this orien-
tation, maintains that faulty development in the first
few years of life makes it impossible for the child to
control his impulses. The child lingers on as sort of
an aggrandizing infant, living in the pleasure principle
and failing to deve10p the reality principle in life.
Friedlander refers to this process as an antisocial
character structure, and Redl calls it a faulty super-
ego. Others in this tradition have attempted to show
the relationship between deviant behavior and feeble-
mindedness (Goddard, Kuhlman, and Zeleny). Still others

view deviant behavior as an eXpression of neurotic

 

3 For a complete discussion of the biogenic orienta-
tion, see Ibid., Chapter 1h, pp. 270-290; and Herbert
Bloch and Pgank Flynn, Delinquency (New York, 1956),
Chapters 5 and 6, PP. 964Ih9.

-5-

mechanisms (Gluecks, Hathaway, and Monachesi).LL
Sociologists, ever since Ferri, have been calling
attention to bad environmental conditions as causal
factors of deviant behavior. This hypothesis was
echoed by Bonger, who placed the blame for a dispro-
portional amount of crime and delinquency among the
proletariat on the pressures of the capitalistic sys-
tem.5 Using the sociological framework, American
criminological theory has taken divergent forms: Vbld
argues that criminal behavior is the outcome of groups
with opposing interests which are in conflict to main-
tain their respective statuses and/or to gain new sta-
tus;6 Taft argues that criminal behavior is the result
of the general cultural structure of American society
which provides opportunities for crime (A community
has as much crime as it deserves!);7 Shaw, Mo Kay, and
Thrasher explain deviancy in terms of community or

social disorganization;8 Sutherland argues that criminal

 

U For a complete discussion of the psychogenic
orientation, see Reckless, pp.‘pip., Chapter 15, pp.
291-300; Bloch and Flynn, gp. cit., Chapter 7, pp.
151-175; and Marshall Clinard,_33ciology pf Deviant
Behavior (New York, 1963), Chapter 5, pp. 116-IHI.

5 Ruth Shone Gavan, Readi 3 3p Juvenile Delin-
quency (New York, 196h), p. I60.

6 Vbld, pp, cit., pp. 203-261.
7 Donald Taft, Criminology (New York, 1956), p. 321.

8 Clifford Shaw, and Henry Mo Kay, Juvenile Delin-
quency and Urban Areas (Chicago, l9k2 ; and Frederic
Thrasher, The Gang (Chicago, 1936).

-6-

behavior is the result of differential association
(according to this theory, delinquent or criminal
behavior is learned - as are most other kinds of be-
havior - learned in association with others, according
to the frequency, intensity, priority, and duration of
contacts);9 Glaser proposes differential identification
as a substitute for differential association (one takes
over the models of behavior from those (reference) groups
with which one identifies);lo Cohen, employing Merton's
anomie as an acute disjunction between the cultural
values and goals and the socially structured capacities
of members of certain groups to act in accord with those
values and goals, contends that working class boys who
turn their backs on middle class virtues and values find
a solution for their status problems in the delinquent
subculture of the gang (alternative solutions are the
stable street corner boy who conforms to the working
class style of life, and the college boy who strives for
middle class status by adopting middle class styles);11
and Cloward and Ohlin, combining the anomie tradition
and the Chicago tradition, assert that the urban slum

boys gravitate to delinquent subcultures when they do

 

9 Edwin Sutherland and Donald Cressey, Principles
pf Criminology(Chicago, 1955), pp. 6-8.

10 Daniel Glaser, "Criminality Theories and Be-
havioral Images," American Journal p£_Sociology, VXI
(Nay.11956), NBO-NSO. .

1

Albert Cohen, Delinquent Boys (New York, 1955).

 

-7-

not have access to legitimate avenues of success, but
they do have access to illegitimate avenues (they con-
tend that if both the legitimate and the illegitimate
avenues to status are closed, the boys will gravitate
to either a retreatist or a conflict subculture).12
Due to the inability of the previously mentioned
theories to explain all delinquent acts that occur,
some criminologists have turned to multiple factor expla-
nations of deviant behavior. Out of their research of
500 delinquent and 500 nondelinquent boys, the G-luecks13
prOposed a five point causal law. According to this
formulation, delinquents are distinguishable from non-
delinquents (l) physically, in being essentially
mesomorphic; (2) temperamentally, in being restless,
impulsive, aggressive, destructive; (3) emotionally, in
being hostile, defiant, resentful, assertive, and non-
submissive; (h) socioculturally, in being reared by
unfit parents; and (5) psychologically, in being direct,
concrete learners. Also using the multiple factor ap-

proach, Reckless proposes the containment theory to in-

corporate and merge pull, pressure, and push theories

 

12
Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin, Delinquency and

Opportunity_(New York, 1960).

13 Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck, UnravelingJuVenile
Delinqgengy(New York, 1950), pp. 28I?282.

 

-8-

into one theoretical framework.1hr He argues that be-
havior is the result of the interaction of the push
forces of the internal motivational system, the pull and
pressure forces of the external social system, and the
internal and external containments upon these forces;
that is, delinquency occurs when the forces (push and
pressure) toward delinquency are greater than the forces

(inner and outer containments) against delinquency.

CRIME A§_DEVIANT BEHAVIOR

 

 

The assumption that deviant behavior is the result of
a malfunctioning in the individual and/or in the social
order and the assumption that the deviant is the critical
variable in the explanation of deviant behavior have been
questioned by the developing perspective of the sociology
of deviancy.

Historically, explanations for criminal behavior
have been based on these two assumptions. Most of these
explanations consider crime to be a vagrant form of human
activity which has somehow broken away from the more
orderly currents of social life and which needs to be
controlled. The primary issue raised by most criminol—
ogists has been the explanation of the comission of an
offense by an individual. Since it has generally been

understood that criminal behavior would occur only if

 

l
h Reckless, 3p. cit., Chapter 18, pp. 335-360.

-9-

something was wrong with the individual involved or if
something was wrong within the social organization it-
self, explanations for deviant behavior, as noted in the
preceding section, were given in terms of "machinery in
poor condition." In other words, deviancy is the result
of biological malfunctions, psychological disorders, or
social disorders and anomie. Further, most of these
explanations focused on the deviant or the circumstances
in which the deviant was found as the critical variable.
As seen from the developing perspective of the
sociology of deviancy, deviant behavior can be defined
as conduct which requires the attention of social control
agencies. Deviance is not a property inherent in certain
forms of behavior; it is a property conferred upon these
forms by the audiences which directly or indirectly
witness them. Howard Becker refers to this as the proc-
ess of labeling:15
Social groups create deviance by making the
rules whose infraction constitutes deviance,
and by applying those rules to particular people
and labeling them.as outsiders. From this point
of view, deviance is not a quality of the act
the person commits, but rather a consequence of
the application by others of rules and sanctions
to an 'offender." The deviant is one to whom
that label has successfully been applied; de-
viant behavior is behavior that people so label.

The critical variable, then, is the social audience rather

 

15 Howard Becker, The Other Side: Perspectives pp.
Deviance (New York, 196E7} p. 3.

 

~10-

than the individual actor since it is the audience which
eventually determines whether or not any episode of be-
havior or any class of episodes is labeled deviant.16

This process of labeling, according to the sociology
of deviancy, also involves a process of selection. First,
the community isolates only a few scattered episodes of
behavior and decides that they reflect what a person is
really like. After all, even the worst criminal conforms
to societal norms most of the time: he wears the "proper"
clothing, eats the "proper" food and in a "conventional"
manner, speaks the "proper" language, and in a thousand
other ways, respects the ordinary conventions of society.
Secondly, society does not label all possible acts of
nonconformity as deviant but selects only certain in-
dividuals and episodes to so label. This screen is not
as selective when dealing with extreme forms of deviance
such as serious crimes; but in the day to day type of
screening, the process is sensitive to such things as the
individual's social class, his race, his sex, his past
record as an offender, the amount of remorse, and so
forth.

Society usually provides a sharp rite of transition
when one enters the distinctly deviant role. These rites

provide a "formal conformation" between the deviant and

representatives of society (as in a criminal trial); they

 

16 Kai Erikson, "Notes on the Sociology of Deviance,"
Social Problems, IX (Spring, 1962), 311.

-11..

announce some "judgment" about the nature of deviancy
(the verdict in a trial, for example); and they perform
an act of "social placement" which redefines the in-
dividual's position in society (for instance, that of
prisoner).17 Because of this social replacement, meme
bers of society can accord the deviant treatment con-
sidered to be appropriate for such a deviant. At the same
time, the deviant usually accepts this redefinition and
readjusts his behavior accordingly:18

No more self-defeating device could be dis-

covered than the one society has developed in

dealing with.the criminal. It proclaims his

career in such loud and dramatic forms that

both he and the community accept the judg-

ment as a fixed description. He becomes con—

scious of himself as a criminal, and the

community expects him.to live up to his

reputation, and will not credit him if he does

not live up to it.
A central thesis in this kind of analysis is that "self-
fulfilling prophecy mechanisms" help to explain deviance;
that is, we define an individual as deviant and treat him
accordingly, and because of the definition and the treat-
ment, the individual behaves in a deviant manner. His
"19

deviant behavior then justifies our original "prophecy.
An important aspect of deviancy analysis in these

 

17 Ibid., p. 316.

18 Edwin Schur, Crimes Without Victims (Englewood
Cliffsa 1965). p. 3.

19

 

Erikson, gp. cit., p. 311.

-12..

terms is that crime promotes solidarity in the social
group. According to this theory of deviancy, one of

the main organizational components of a social system

is that of boundary maintenance. A well-functioning
social system should be analyzed in terms of two dif-
ferent and often competing forces: those forces which
promote a high over-all degree of conformity among its
members, and those forces which encourage some degree of
diversity so that actors can be deployed throughout
social space to patrol the system's boundaries. In
other words, the deviant performs a function for society
by representing those forces which lie outside the
group's boundaries; that is, the deviant informs us
"what evil looks like," or "what shape the devil can
assume."20 Each time the group censures some act of
deviation, it then sharpens the authority of the vio-
lated norm and declares again where the boundaries of

the group are located.

CAVAN'S BEHAVIORAL CONTINUUM
The assumption that behavior can be described in

terms of a continuum extending from disapproved deviant

 

20

21 For a complete discussion, see Becker, gp.‘g£§.;
Erikson, gp. cit., pp. 307-3lk; Marshall Clinard,
Sociology of DEViant Behavior (New Yerk, 1963); John
Kitsuse, liSgcietal Reactions to Deviant Behavior,"
Social Problems, IX (Winter, 1962), 2k7-257; Schur, gp.
cit.° and Gresham.Sykes, Crime and Sociepy (New Yerk,
I936 .

Ibid,, p. 15.

 

-13-

behavior through tolerated behavior to idealized be-
havior is questioned by Ruth Cavan's proposal for a
hypothetical formulation of a behaVior continuum.22
According to this hypothetical formulation, behavior
falls into a continuum.ranging from.condemnable be-
havior (area A) through decreasing degrees of dis-
approved behavior to the central area (area D) and then
through increasing degrees of good behavior to near per-

23

fection (area G) which is also condemned.

 

22 This hypothetical formulation of a behavior con-

tinuum is outlined in Ruth Cavan, Juvenile Delingpenpy
(New Ybrk, 1962); Ruth Cavan, Readipgs ip Juvenile
Delinquency_(New York, 196k); and Ruth Gavan, "The Con-
cepts of Telerance and Contraculture as Applied to
Delinquency," Sociological Quarterly, II (1961), 2h3-258.

 

23 Cavan contends that the line above the curve
represents the volume of behavior which falls into each
area. She cites the following sources as evidence to
support a bell-shaped curve: Floyd H. Allport, "The
J-Curve Hypothesis of Conforming Behavior,‘ Journal 2;

Social Ps cholo V (193h), 1h1-83; and R. T. La Piers
and P. R. Farnsworth, Social Psychology (New York, 1936),

p. MOO.

-1);—

Figure I: Hypothetical formulation of a behavior con—
tinuum as presented by Gavan u

 

 

 

 

 

B1
'11
c)

A 7B C D

Extreme underconformity
Moderate underconformity
Minor underconformity
Normal conformity

Minor overconformity
Moderate overconformity
Extreme overconformity

Q’IJtIJPQtIHD

Historically, criminological theorists have tended
to think in terms of dichotomies: the sinner and the
saint, the criminal and the law-abiding citizen, the
juvenile delinquent and the modal child. They tend to
think in terms of black and white; on the other hand,
Gavan argues that between these two rare extremes are
many shades of gray. For instance, Gavan proposes such
a series as “pitch black, charcoal gray, slate gray,

tattletale gray, dingy white, offwhite, and lily white."25

 

2” Source: Gavan, 196R, p. 17.
25 Ibid., p. 18.

-15-

In this series of seven, the area of normal conformity
(area D) is not white but tattletale gray. (Cavan
borrowed this term from the advertisements of a few years
ago in which the sheets flapping on the line were tattle-
tale gray because the housewife had not used the right
kind of laundry soap.) Cavan contends that observed
behavior falls into similar gradations: "the child may
break into a store at night and steal (black); deliberately
pick up valuables during store hours; occasionally pick
up things as Opportunity arises; pilfer small objects
(tattletale gray); be meticulous about taking things;
remonstrate with others who steal; or report other
children to teachers or police for even minor pilfering

(lily white)."26

UNDERCONFORMITY.AND OVERCONFORMITY
Modern criminology recognizes a continuum of criminal
behavior ranging from "criminal" to "law-abiding law-
breaking" to "law-abiding."27 This continuum is based on
the tendency to think of social norms not as workable

expectations of behavior but as ideal or perfect standards.

 

/
2° Ibid., p. 18.

27 For example, see Austin Porterfield, Youth 33;
Trouble (Fort WOrth, 19h6); James Wallerstein and Clement
wyle, "Our Law-abiding Law-Breakers," National Probation
(April, 19h7), pp. 107—112; and James Short and Ivan Nye,
"Extent of Unrecorded Juvenile Delinquency, Tentative
Conclusions," Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and
Police ScienooI'IE'CIOES), 296:302.

-16...

According to this information, most people fit their
behavior into the middle area of tolerable "law-abiding

law-breaking" behavior.

Figure 11 : Traditional formlation of behavior continua-23

 

 

 

 

 

r“\
A B G D I I ' G
Disapproved The Ion Approved
Deviations Tolerance units Deviations
Disapproved Deviations Behavior Patterns Approved Deviations
(Institutions)
1. The Poor 1. Economic 1. The Health
2. Criminals 2. Political 2. 'Best' Citisens
3. The Sick 3. Medical 3. The Very Healthy
4. ktrenely Hal- 4. Domestic 1.. (mi-.1:
adjusted
5. Bored, Ova-worked 5. Recreational 5. v.11
6e 1.013“. 6e Communal, We 6e Adjusted
7e Illiterates 7e Educational 7e Th. 11m
8. Vandals 8. Esthetio 8. Esthetes
9. Violently Anti- 9. Woo-Religions 9. The Virtuous,
Religions Devont

 

28 Source: Adapted from George A. Lnndberg, Clarence G.
Sohrag, and Otto l. Larsen, W (New Iork, 1958), p. 349.

-17-

T6 the left of this tolerable area is disapproved be-
havior (criminal); however, to the right, this for-
mulation shows approved deviations. Approved deviations,
according to this continuum, exceed the standards set by
the group and include at the extreme some 2 or 3 per cent
of the peOple who more than conform to standards of the
group and who are given public recognition for their
overconformity. According to modern criminology, the
ideal standards for behavior would be at the extreme
right, would constitute virtual perfection, and would be
attained practically by almost no one. Everyone except
the 2 or 3 per cent on the right side would be "deviants",
or "criminal."29

Current criminological research is often based on a
deviant-ideal continuum. For example, Sheldon and Eleanor
Glueck in their much discussed book, Unraveling Juvenile
Delingpency, use this continuum in their comparison of
delinquent children (area A) with near-perfect children
(area G).3O To make this comparison, the Gluecks:matched
500 correctional school boys with 500 boys of exemplary
behavior who had identical ages, intelligence, and social
backgrounds. Not only were these control boys without
any police, court, or correctional-school record, but 7k

per cent were without any known delinquency of eVen a

 

29 For a complete description of this continuum, see
Ibid., ppe 339'3750

3O Glueck, 9p, cit.

 

-18..

minor nature. The Gluecks had difficulty in finding

500 such overly good boys, and eventually had to include
a few boys guilty of such.misbehavior as smoking in early
years, hopping trucks, once or twice swiping much desired
articles from.department stores, crap shooting, dis-
obeying parents, and sneaking into movies. Most of the
deficiences were very trivial and had occurred when the
boys were seven or eight years old. The Gluecks, then,
were comparing boys from area A, the most seriously
underconforming, with boys from area G, the near-perfect
overconforming. Their findings report that whereas the
delinquents tended to be active, aggressive, impulsive,
and rebellious, the control group of "normal boys" tended
to be neurotic, fearful of failure or defeat, and sub-
missive to authority.

Actually, it seems very doubtful whether so much
admiration is really accorded the overconforming group as
most criminologists state or imply. The good behavior
and achievements that are rewarded by society seem much
more likely to be in area D or E (tolerable limits) than
in areas F or G (overconforming deviations). Gavan argues
that the distribution of this admiration can be seen by
a consideration of the descriptive terms and epithets

used to describe the behavior of the boys falling into

-19-

each of the areas:31

Boys in area A are often referred to as little
savages, hoodlums, punks, bums, or gangsters--
not very complimentary terms. But boys in
area C also are not complimented; they are
often referred to as sissies, goody-goods,
teacher's pet, drips, brains, fraidy-cats,
wet blankets, or squares. Adults and youth
alike admire the boys in area D, who are
essentially conforming but not rigidly so.
The area D youth is "all boy," or the
all-American boy; he can take care of himself;
he is ambitious; he can hold his own with

the best of them; he is a good sport. A
little later, in college, me makes a "gentle-
man's C." He may occasionally borrow small
things that he needs and forget to return
them, truant off and on but not enough to
damage his school record, cheat on tests in
subjects that he doesn't like, mark up the
walks and walls of a rival high school, do
some property damage under the stress of
excitement, outwork and outsmart his rivals,
lie for his own advantage, and occasionally
sass his parents and neglect his home chores.
But he stays within the tolerance limits; he
is developing, even in misbehavior, traits
that will help him.fit into the adult comp
petitive D pattern of behavior; he is moving
toward the social expectations for his future
as an adult.

Gavan contends that overconformity is fully as
deviant as underconformity, but in the opposite direc-
tion. Youths who fall into areas C and E are regarded
as members of the social institutions and groups that
control area D. They are considered to be "one of
ours," erring a little, but to be brought back into the
group, disciplined if need be, and forgiven. Over-
conformers are urged to get into the swing of things, to
enjoy themselves, and not to interfere with other people's

fun. Youths who fall into areas B and F are felt to be

 

31 Cavan, 196h, p. 22

-20..

marginal deviants. The underconformers are warned or
arrested by the police, but not referred to the

juvenile courts. Overconformers are socially ostra-
cized, ignored in invitations to parties, and excluded
from.membership in.many groups because it is felt that
they hamper activities. The predominant attitude toward
these youths is one of reclamation; that is, those
people in area D try to encourage those youths in areas
B and F to engage in "normal" activities. Those youths
in areas A and G are the "real" deviants. Undercon-
formers may be expelled from.achools, or may be committed
to a correctional institution. Overconformers are
socially ostracized and even, at times, held to be in
violation of the law (for example, certain religious
zealots have been committed to correctional institutions

for refusing to serve in the armed forces.)

-21..

senate—"em I 0 send

95.33.33 I h 3.:

war—06H I u send

309a: edu- «eogaeooe . 3:98.“:an I a seed

accuse no Hoonoe .3 coupes 5533.8 I e eehq

hos-ems Hoaooe 3 Houseman «codenamed... Haemo- «uuonfiss eofluom I m send
Hooaoe deuoavoeunoe 3 as; goofing-nae noose- .nodaoe we: I 4 send

nodal—I880 I a eehq

Hebgnneedn I u send

Hogans coo-31. doggone“. I n so:
Hobos-Es 5.3 soda-Bench. I u send
Hobos-Es wee-3.3 dogged-on. I 0 send
depended-.8 I n so:

eeuoo when. 3303.930 I d sand

53038.net eschews I a so:
Dion-noose: ensue; I u send
33350905 .352 I u send
had-Echoes dunno: I u send
3302333: song I 0 send
hogan-noose? evens—vex I m seed
gaseous-oceans: g I d dead

«meow-.23 5 53838.. to ocean- uo 8.3. 2-38.88 .H .2:

a fiOfiflOd.‘ Onflfim

new—5.3.1: 0.233

38.3

-22-

ooosno» anyone .3369 .enoaaefleu

wee Hen-hon hoods «gen wen-«honeyed: awn—«seam hosEI n .394

, 38:98! no wagons Escapade." .

wee Hashes stage Bataan «mud-ween use sung-um.- I o seu4
emu-Av no on: goaeeooo

Managers“. Ken .35! «hedged-noun «season—Hep Mo honeoueAI m seu4
8333. min

«answerer Nee esouhee nee-k «bananas “been?" eel—4I 4 3.3

gogaoofifltsoauog
euefio 55 season I h sen4

each-So 25 e e4 I n eeh4
veesaonevnoo mad-.3830 s e4. I n eeu4
passe-”38:0: addressee? .4 I o sen4
«Second-sauna... tosses-consona-
asflbo Jeep—saddens e4 I 4 seh4

sends» a no sedan-anew I o een4

eke-3o a.“ honed-3n no 5.33.30 I h eeh4

penance denounce nu eager-so on I M 894

eundaeeu ads» on an no need.» no season-.34 I n sen4

0H9» no eusaaeeu «a no needs» no 3390004 I o een4

sends» a no soapoeneu use easeoneoos see-.5!— ununebe: I m 3.:
n «o sends» Mo sodas—”em I 4 e84

Avegdanoov H Quasa-

.33

.vaeooooIMHee e .330

.335 et-s» coups: . .326

-23-

9350 .3 3530- uo can 3 8.34395 .hnnoooaa
a. 9.333 .8309 no honouov 3. 9353.3 nofli no». anon-m I o 3A4
v.3-
nmaonv n25 .335 gaudy—fiv- o: «unoffic- 3" no». .3533:
nouonao mo 53.3.30 .ngauooonon ulofio 03 3. won 0.30 2.83 I h 6:4
588 on $43.on on
“owing a.“ bade 303...?" No. Foam-ion 5%) Duo SEEP—om I M £4

30330.33 H Ida-n.

.8 .a fig .8nuon an

 

A333 Seal-nu

.. 2 h-

SUMMARY

Throughout recorded history, man has sought to
explain and.understand social deviation. His expla-
nations for this deviation can be grouped under three
orientations: biological, psychological, and socio-
logical. All of these orientations are based on three
common premises: first, deviancy is the result of a
malfunctioning in the individual and/or in the society;
second, the deviant is the critical variable for the
analysis of deviant behavior; and third, human be-
havior can be described in terms of a continuum.ranging
from.deviant behavior through tolerated behavior to
ideal behavior (most people fall between the two rare
extremes).

This chapter has suggested that these basic premises
need not be upheld; in fact, the support of these
premises might be detrimental to the complete under-
standing of social deviancy. First, social deviancy
need not be the result of a.malfunctioning individual
or group, but merely the overt expression of a boundary
maintenance function in an organized group. Second,
social deviancy need not be analyzed via the social
deviant, but might be analyzed via the social audience
(either rule makers or rule enforcers). Third, human
behavior can be described in terms of a continuum.ranging
from disapproved underconformity through normal behavior

to disapproved overconformity.

CHAPTER II

EVELOPHENT OF HYPOTHESES AND METHODOLOGY

In her Presidential Address to the Midwest
Sociological Society in 1961,1 Ruth Shone Cavan intro-
duced her hypothetical formulation of a behavior
continuum. At that time, she presented three basic
hypotheses which had not yet been submitted to empirical
testing. The hypotheses were as follows: 1) behavior
may be placed on a continuum running from an undercon-
forming contraculture through various degrees of
disapproved behavior to normal conformity and then
through stages of overconforming behavior to an over-
conforming contraculture; 2) the reaction of the nor-
mally conforming segment of the pOpulation to deviations
varies in severity according to the threat posed to
the social norms by either under- or overconformity;

3) minor deviants usually are drawn back into conformity,
but serious deviants often are treated so severely that
they are alienated and withdraw into a contraculture.

The purpose of this thesis is to empirically examine

Cavan's hypothetical formulations.

 

1 Ruth Gavan, "The Concepts of Tolerance and
Contraculture as applied to Delinquency," Sociological
Quarterly, II (1961 2u3-258.

 

-25-

-26..

EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE CE :3 BEHAVIOR CONTINUUI-I

Cavan's premise that human behavior can be placed
on a continuum ranging from.strict adherence to the legal
code to serious violations of that code can be supported
by empirical research. Most of this research has been
identified as an effort to examine the extent of un-
recorded crimes and juvenile delinquencies.

Porterfield demonstrated the utility of a behavioral
continuum.in reference to juvenile delinquencies.
Porterfield analyzed 20u9 cases brought before the Fort
worth Juvenile Court and compared their records with the
admitted delinquencies of a group of 337 college students,
composed of 200 men and 137 women. Offenses of the
college students were obtained in answer to a question-
naire presented personally and returned anonymously.

100% of both the college men and women admitted pre-

college offenses.

 

2 Austin Porterfield, Youth 3g Trouble (Fort Worth,
19,4-6 ) o .

-27-

 

 

 

.R .n add .855... n

3. 95 can «an d S c.8a 0.8” .88 e8 83a
>3 0.2” mad can am am 0.03 c.8a $38 .. 803
oé «.5 2. new 5 5 c.8n 98” 8S. .. 83¢
o.» «.3 .5 3n on. R 98“ c.8H $3» .. 83.
ea “.3 em as on 3 0.8” 98." $8 u 83
ed 0.3 e 3 m n c.8a c.8a 83 :38
sgxaHinuipn

I... «.3 I... «.3 I an In... 0.8” 383a.
#2333.
o4 «.2 8 H3 3 o 0.8” 0.8a sassy:
e4 93 o3 E. 8 d 98” 98” 383...» Seen
«a 95 5 8. t. 3 c.8a 28” 285° .38
in flan a: «.3 mm 3 98” c.8a .3333
I... «.2 II 3 I .s II... c.8a .3333
a; “.3 an «3 on ea 0.03 c.8a 2626
e6 5a Sm o3 nu ma c.8H 0.8” 2°23.
.3 .3: 8 8m «a 5 98“ 98” £28.38
«A «A; «on as on mm 98“ 903 853nm

all” «in a log... .18.. «3.... 33....“ led:
a Human lfiflmfl. III—flag a
238.3 its no .55- .5 no 28:
no 26 agar—on
nia.nzasx:§n

22:90
on» no one. .3 one wanton-u 59:00.39 one and .5 $0,309.93 5 gnu-“o: RH
and :1- cow ago-u canoes». ouoHHoo uguoa_hn coauonou nonnouuo no son's: ouuugnd .HH canon

-28..

As Table II shows, these students represented a cross
section of all college classes and all economic groups.
The offenses themselves were as serious as those com,
mitted by the cases referred to the court but, appar-
ently, were not as numerous. Porterfield concluded that
some of the college students were as delinquent as the
juvenile court cases, but society had not seen fit to
bring the former into court."L

The Cambridge-Somerville Study in Massachusetts
gives additional credence to this point of view.5 This
study covered material secured through case workers in
a delinquency prevention project. The social workers
had contacts with sixty-one boys who were never brought
to court and forty whose offenses were registered with
the court. These boys had committed 6&16 offenses,
only ninety-five (1.5 percent of total) of which had
ever received official court action. Approximately lhOO
were infractions of city ordinances none of which re-
sulted in a court complaint; thO were minor offenses
and only twenty-seven or 0.6 percent were prosecuted.
Of 616 serious offenses, sixty-eight (11 percent) were
punished. The study concludes that most juvenile of-

fenses, apparently, tend to be hidden and that most

 

h Ibid., Chapter 2.

5 Fred Murphy, Mary Shirley, and Helen Witmer, "The
Incidence of Hidden Delinquency,’ American JOurnal g£_
OrthOpsychiatry, XVI (October, l9h6), 686:696.

-29-

6

boys commit some juvenile offenses.

Impressed by the above findings, James wallerstein
and Clement Wyle of the Randen Fbundation in New York
City devised a questionnaire listing forty-nine offenses
covered by the categories given below.7 The question-
naire was submitted to 1020 men and 678 women representing
a cross section of the pOpulation and a balanced pro-
portion of social religious groups in the metropolitan
area of New York City. These persons were asked to
indicate whether or not they had committed any of the
offenses in the following categories: malicious mischief;
disorderly conduct; assault; auto misdemeanors; health
law violations; indecency; gambling; larcency; burglary
and possession of burglar's tools; robbery and illegal
possession of firearms; bribery; falsification and fraud;
election frauds; tax evasion; coercion and extortion;
conspiracy and compounding a crime; and criminal libel.
(Murder was not included in the categories.)8

Answers to the questionnaires indicated that 91 per-
cent of the respondents admitted that they had committed
offenses after they were sixteen years old. The average

number of offenses committed in adult life was 18 for all

 

6 Ibid., pp. 695-696.

7 James Wallerstein and Clement Wyle, "Our Law-
Abiding Law-Breakers," National Probation, (April, 19h7),
pp. 107-112.

8 Ibid., p. 109.

-30-

men respondents with a range of 8.2 for ministers to

20.2 for laborers and ll for all women respondents with

a range of 9.8 for laborers to lh.h for those in.military
and government work. Wallerstein and Wyle conclude that
a sizeable prOportion of adults are "law-abiding law-
breakers."9

More recently, Short and Nye compared the confessed

Table III: Percentage of 1020 son and 678 women collitting
specific offenses in les’Iork City.1°

nines: launsailha £hunnailsnnn
Malicious mischief 8!. 81
Ifleankuiy4mMMMct 85 76
Asmmfli ‘9 5
lwuasfisduuummrs 61 39
lhdmmmmy 77 74
Gmflfling 7‘ 56
Lsrcenqy 89 83
Grmmiiareuuq'hummpttnnm) 13 11
Anhaimeft 26 8
Ihumiuur 17 4
Romnwy 11 1
Gmmumlulwmunms 35 3
Porjury 23 17
Filsificstion and fraud 46 34
Edmflfloninnmds 7 4
Tax evasion 57 ‘0
Coercion 16 6
Conspiracy 23 7
Gmuuntllibdl 36 29

 

9 Ibid., pp. 111-112

10 Source: Ibid., p. 110.

-31-

misbehavior of 2350 public high school students with
that of 320 state training school students.11 Question-
naires, consisting of twenty-one items of legal delin-
quencies translated into language more understandable

to adolescents, were anonymously filled out by the two
samples. From.the initial twenty—one item.delinquency
check list, nine items were selected for scaling on the
criteria that (l) the items might measure a common
dimension and (2) the offenses were committed by an
appreciable proportion of the respondents. The nine
items included: driven a car without a driver's license
or permit; taken little things (worth less than $2) that
did not belong to you; bought or drank beer, wine or
liquor (include drinking at home); purposely damaged

or destroyed public or private prOperty that did not
belong to you; skipped school without a legitimate
excuse; had sex relations with a person of the Opposite
sex; defied parents' authority to their face; run away
from.home; and taken things of medium.value (between

$2 and $50).12 Analysis of the completed questionnaires

revealed that every offense on the list was checked by

 

11 James Short and Ivan Nye, "Reported Behavior as
a Criterion of Deviant Behavior," Social Problems, V
(Winter, 1957—58), 208-213; "Extent-ET’Uhrecorded
Juvenile Delinquency: Tentative Conclusions " Journal
of Criminal Law, IL (November-December, 1958), 296-302;
End—"Scaling Delinquent Behavior," American Sociological
Review, XXII (June, 1957), 326-3hl.

12 Ehiég. 1957-58. pp. 208-213.

 

-32-

some high school boys and girls, although often only a

few. A.much higher percentage of the training school

boys and girls checked offenses, and admitted repetition

of the offenses. Short and Nye conclude that twenty-two

percent of the training school students are less delin-

quent than ten percent of the public high school students.13
In short, the above researches hypothesize and

empirically demonstrate that human behavior can be placed

on a continuum ranging from.strict adherence to criminal

codes to serious violations of the codes. Furthermore,

most human behavior falls between these two extremes.

HYPOTHESES

 

One example of the behavior continuum.is the "honesty"
continuum. This continuum would range from armed rob-
bery, burglary, and auto theft at one extreme through
petty theft and cheating on income tax returns through
minor cheating and unauthorized borrowing through bor-
rowing only with permission and critism of minor pilfering
to the reporting of even minor pilfering to authorities
at the other extreme.

There are two interpretations of such a continuum.
The first interpretation is the traditional interpre-
tation: the extreme represented by armed robbery is
interpreted as disapproved deviation with the resulting
public condemnation; the center area is interpreted as

the area of tolerable behavior; and the Opposite extreme

 

13 Ibid., June, 1957, p. 330.

-33...

is interpreted as approved deviation or idealized
behavior. In short, the traditional viewpoint
interprets the honesty continuum as ranging from.dis-
honesty at one extreme through "tolerable dishonesty"
to honesty at the other extremal"lr The second inter-

15

pretation, stemming, from the work of Gavan, asserts
that this continuum would range from deviant under-
conformity through normal conformity to deviant over-
conformity. Consequently, the public reaction to
behaviors at either extreme would be condemnation or
disapproval, and the public reaction to behavior be-
tween these two areas would be approval. In short,
Cavan's interpretation argues that the honesty continuum
ranges from dishonesty through honesty to "overhonesty."
Table IV summarizes the traditional interpretation and

its comparison with Cavan's interpretation of the

honesty continuum.

 

lu See Chapter I, pp. 9-17.
15 See Chapter I, pp. 11—17.

named—05%” 0330..” «Bach-30.305 .35: I 0 00.3
coached".- haquHnoohecfi each-E ”— m dead

doe:

003703 I o 00.4
Havana-ad I h 8.3
Hogan u send

a... 3...... i ._ a.
o 00.3

aerospace-B I m 00.2
scan-.5008 I d no.3

u o 00.3
3030A . 000302.. 006.394 h send
a send

bacon—0:03 esp-keno» a 00.2

aces-n 8583-. 0 .82

€30.33 «used-veg corona—no.3 u m 00.3
__ 4 send

033.3500 3 gonad-u hoods nope ton—cu I a 00.3

0.35.0 no 3.33:0 uenouueeeeom 01350 on: 3 «on 0.30 caravan I u send
noun-Eon 5.7.3 230 mud-5.309 I u send

Egon venue-3:25 «unionism H05": I n 00.3

nor-sad defines. on. eager- I 0 8.2

00.3031» no 50:00.9.“ I m 093

03-5; Expo." e25 .. a 8.:

land-E8 duet-.3
.cesoeougfl .- .550

0063.394 033nm

595030 ago-Fog
30533333” 30.3.808-

tE-aom £25

finoaefiafioafi .- 3950 3 es. 8338933
303893. on» 0v unfit-"0000 00 a. no ecdve «M30805 5.“: gang bacon—om . PH capo-u

.30 .0 :33 .2805.” 08 80 .0
.3000 .030 .55 .3 a 3 a .550 53 0.. 03080038 a .0 00 0.3.0 00

 

00300000000 I a 00.3
”03000003 I h 003
10.0.0000 0.005.? 00000300. I n 00.3
200000 035 00000300. I n 003
200000 9005.? 00000300. I o 003
33000008 I m 00.3

0030000008 I 4 003 0000303 0.0.300

a 003

aha-0000030.. . 3000000000000 08002 H h 00.3

030000000000 0.30033 “3000000000000 0000: I n 00.3
00.32. 50.0808 038.. I 0 8.: 1088 580008 0.035000

€030,003 Rm 0.309

-36-

Utilizing Cavan's formulation of the honesty

continuum, it is hypothesized that:

HYPOTHBSIS I: The normally conforming segment of
the late adolescent population re-
acts unfavorably both to under-
conformity (dishonesty) and to
overconformity (overhonesty).

Furthermore, Cavan theorizes that because of the

greater severity of the potential threat to the existing
social norms at the extremes on the behavioral continuum,
it would be expected that the severity of the reactions

to deviations would increase as one moves from area C on

17

the behavioral continuum through area A. Because over-
conformity, as well as underconformity, represents a
threat to the existing social norms, it would be expected
that the severity of reactions to social deviancy would
increase as one moves from area B to area G. Thus it is
hypothesized that:

HYPOTHESIS II: The reaction of the normally conform-
ing segments of the late adolescent
population to deviations varies in
severity according to the degree of
either overconformity or undercon-

formity.

The foregoing hypotheses rest on the contention that

 

l7 Gavan, 22, cit., pp. 18-26.

-37..

a characteristic of adolescence is the immense impor-
tance of the opinions of the peer group for the
adolescents.18 Most research findings suggest that the
peer group dominates the adolescent's thinking and his
behavior. Most social scientists argue that adolescents
are essentially conservative where their own age mates
are concerned; that is, adolescents conform both to the
opinions and to the appearances of other adolescents re-
gardless of their departure from adult standards of
conduct, dress, or acceptance of values. It is argued
that the motto of the peer group (adolescent) reads:

”One just doesn't do that."19 For example, if mini-
skirts, and bleached straight hair are generally worn by
adolescent girls, then the girl who wishes to escape the
opprobrium of being "different" must wear these styles of
fashion; or if long-hair is the latest fad for teenage
boys, then this haircut must be adopted by any adolescent
boy who wishes to be completely accepted by his peers.

If by some chance the adolescent is prevented by the

parents from following the ways of the agemates, the

 

18 See John Horrocks, Ps cholo of Adolescence
(Cambridge, 1951), pp. 86-12 3 . oseph Stone, and
Josepg Church, Childhood and Adolescenc%O(NewTEOrk, i957),

. 2 l-29 ; James Bossard and Eleanor ll e 800 o of
a? Child Divelopment (New York, 1966), pp. 363:522; Irene
Tasselyn, The Adolescent And His World (New York, 1952);
James Coleman, The Adolescent Society (New York, 1961);
and H. H. Hammers and D. H. Radler, The American Teenager
(New York, 1957).

19 Josselyn, 92, cit., p. 39.

-38-

adolescent is faced with.a.most embarrassing situation
against which.she or he is sure to struggle more or less
overtly. To an adolescent the fact that "the other kids
are doing it" is the most cogent and overpowering reason
for doing a thing, and parents will alienate their sons
and daughters by refusing to agree. In short, these
theorists argue that the adolescent peer group has iron
control of its members.

An opposing vieWpoint is presented by Coleman20 and
Remmers and Radler.21 Coleman contends that adolescents
are not oriented solely to one another; yet the pulls are
extremely strong, as the responses in Table V suggest.
Hammers and Radler attempted to determine the social

Table V: Percentage of males and females responding
to the following question: Which one of
these things would be the hardest for you
to take -- your parents' disapproval, your

teacher's disagproval, or breaking with
your friends?2

Boys Girls
ParentS' Disapproval 53.8% 52.9%
Teacherls Disapproval 3.5% 2.7%
Breaking wi th Friend [(2.7% A3466
Number of Cases (3621) (389M)

orientation of the American Adolescent. Their questions

 

20 0018171811, 92. Cit.) pp. 1‘57.

21 Remmers, 22, cit., pp. 178-237.

22
Source: Adapted from Coleman, g2. cit., p. 5.

-39-

set up a number of hypothetical situations and then

asked whose opinions or feelings the students considered
more important in each situation: people their own age,
parents or people of their parents's age, or neither age
group. An analysis of the results, summarized in Table

VI, suggest that the typical adolescent is responsive

to the feelings and opinions of his peers on such questions
as what to wear to a party, what club to join, how to act
with the gang, and personal grooming. On the other hand,
he is sensitive to the feelings and opinions of his parents
and other adults about his political feelings, about how to
spend his money, and about his personal problems or troub-
les. In other words, adolescents are responsive to the
pressures of the peer group with regard to some aspects

of behavior; but in other areas of behavior, they are

more responsive to adult standards.

-h0-

Table VI: Vhoee advice do adoleecente take?”

Parente or Neither One
People their people their ie lore in-
flnanflsaa sameunL___. .anL______. :mnduai...
What to wear to a party:
Malee 19$ 12%
tube 75‘ 15$ 10‘
Total 72$ 17$ 11‘
How you feel about people of other raoee or nationalitiee:
Melee 31$ 33$ 36%
Penalee 281 325 395
Total 30$ 32$ 33‘
Your political feeling”
11.1.. 23% 51.5 23%
Pelalee 191 55$ 26%
tunmi 2x! aux 23:
How you epend your money:
u.1.. 35% 43% 2°!
resales 26$ 53% 215
Total 31$ 49% 20$
01an you Join:
Melee 65$ 20$ 15%
renalee 63$ 25% 12%
Total 61.1 22$ 141
How to act when out with the gang:
Melee 60$ 25% 151
Penal“ 54$ 33$ 13%
runs. an! 291 145
Advice on pereonal problem or troublee:
Halee 16$ 74$ 10$
Penalee 17$ 76% 71
Total 16$ 75$ 91
Personal crooning (how to comb your hair, how to dreee, etc.):
Hales 61$ 18$ 21$
renalee 55$ 25% 20$
Total 58$ 21$ 21%

 

23 Source: Adapted from More, a. 913., pp. 234-235.

-1131-

In as much as honesty seems to be more closely
related to those questions on which the adolescents
where more responsive to the pressures of parents, it
is hypothesized that:
HYPOTHESIS III: Adolescents will tend to name parents
as those most concerned with their

observance of rules of honesty.

METHODOLOGY

 

This section is concerned with the characteristics
of the sample, the techniques of gathering the data, and

the definitions of terms.

CHARACTERISTICS 9g; SAMPLE

 

Gavan theorizes that each social class or other large
subcultural group has its own definition of what be-
havior falls into the area of tolerance, what behavior
is mildly disapproved, and what behavior is condemned.2u
EWen when these groups share a basic culture and verbally
accept the social norms, their concepts of approved and
disapproved behavior may differ. An example of this
discrepancy at the left hand extreme of the continuum
is the case of the father whose son was in a correctional
school for taking a car for joy riding. The father said,
"Of course, he took a few cars, but he did not strip
them; he just wanted to use them. He is not a bad boy."

But in the eyes of the judge, the boy had stolen the cars.

 

2h Gavan, g2. cit., p. 27.

'1L2-

An example of this discrepancy at the right hand extreme

of the continuum is the case of attitudes toward petting

in the lower-class and in the middle-class adolescents:

some middle-class groups regard petting as an acceptable

Figure III: Discrepancies between lower-class and
middle-cl ss evaluations of identical
behavior2

Lower Class Evaluation:

A B C D E F G

A B C D E F G

Middle Class Ehaluation:

substitute for premarital intercourse, but the lower-
class would regard this replacement as prudish over-
conformity. This attitudinal discrepancy would be
reflected in the area of honesty. In as much as this
hypothesis was not to be tested in this research, the
sample was drawn to reflect a homogeneous grouping;
however, the homogeneous sample limits the number of
important variables which can be employed in the analysis
of the data.

The sample for this research consists of all single
freshmen enrolled in a large section of a sociology class
at Michigan State University who reported no prior

conviction record and who were under twenty years of

 

25 Source: Adapted from Ibid., p. 28.

-u3_

age.26 All the students in this class filled out the

questionnaire (n = 197), but only k9 females and 21
males who fit the above characteristics were included

in the final sample. The following individuals were
excluded from the final sample: 10h non-freshmen, hB
sophomores, 21 juniors, and 35 seniors; 18 persons older
than nineteen years of age, 10 twenty years old, 6
twenty-one years old, and 2 twenty-two years or older;
h,married persons; and 1 individual who confessed to all
possible crimes. Table VII indicates that there are no
significant differences between the final sample and the
class sample for most major social variable; the only
exception were college class, age, and marital status
differentials.

The majority of the respondents are 18-19 years
old, white Single college freshmen whose parents were
born in theUnited States. About 50% of the respondents
are Protestant, 20% Catholic, 20% Jewish, and approxi-

mately 10% report no religious affiliation; furthermore,

 

26 Also rejected those questionnaires which confessed
to all possible crimes'and those filled out in a hap-
hazard manner. See questions 16-29 on questionnaire in
particular.

Table VII:

Claee
W mm

College Olaae:
Ireahnan
Sophomore
Junior
Senior

Sex:
Hale
Finale

Religion:
Proteetaat
Catholic
Jewiah
lone

Church Attendance:
‘Heekly
Monthly
Lees than.nenthly
lever

Subject-Parent Religion:
Sale
Different

18':
17
18
19
20
21
22 or older

Marital Statae:
Single
Harried
Divorced
Hidcw or widower

Race:
White

negro

175

58
32
31

158
34

195
2

-hh,

67.2
24.6
10.7
17.8

32.5
67.5

‘702
19.8
17.8
15.2

37.1
11.7
27.9
23.6

88.8
11.2

.5
20.9
29.6
16.2
15.7
17.3

80.2
17.3
2.0
.5

99.0
1.0

8anp1e
m

70

. 65K)!

26

18
17

388.:

Social characterietice of college claae and ealple

Utilieed
ZIIEIIEIII

100.0

30.0
70.0

48.6
20.0
18.6
12.9

37.1
12.9
25.7
24.3

88.6
11.6

1.6
57.1
61.5

100.0

100.0

~15-

Table VII (Continued)

Glass Sample

W m: 23mm m:
Hone Colnunity:

Rural 23 11.7 . 9

. Snell town 30 15.2 11

Large city 35 17.8 12

'Very large city 38 19.3 13

Suburb 64 32.5 22
Class Identification:

Lower class 2 1.0

‘Uorking class 13 6.6 5

Middle 01.... 175 88.2 62

Up”? 613.. 7 3e6 3
Father's Occupation:

Professional and

large business 55 27.9 19

white collar and

snall business 109 55.3 39

Skilled.nanual later 29 14.7 10

Other 4 2.0 2
Father's Education:

Grade school graduate 5 2.5 3

Bone high school 22 11.2 9

High school graduate 34 17.3 12

Sons college 71 36.0 22

College graduate 41 20.9 15

Post-graduate 24 12.2 9
Police Contact:

lone 115 58.4 40

Minor 72 36e5 26

Serious, infernal 10 5.1 I.

Serious, for-a1

Utilised
W

12.9
15.7

6.3
17.1
18.6
31.4

7.1
88.6
4.3

27.1

55.7
14.3
2.9

6.3
12.9
17.1
31.6
21.6
12.9

57.1
37.1
5.7

-ue-

about 90% of the sample hold the same religious faith

as do their parents. h0% of the sample attend church

at least once a month, while 25% of the sampe never
attend church. The majority of these students are
dependent upon their fathers for support, and the
majority of these fathers are white collar, small busi-
ness, or professional workers. 66% of the fathers has
at least attended college, and 96% of the fathers had

at least attended high school. About half of the
respondents report no "official" contacts with law
enforcement agencies, and a majority of those who report
contact have had contact only because of minor infractions
(traffic violations). Only four respondents had had
official contact with police because of major offenses
(theft, illegal use of alcohol, and disorderly conduct)

but formal charges were never pressed.

TECHNIQUE OE GATHERING DATA

 

There are several methods of obtaining desired in-
formation from.p0pulations. Because of the advantages
associated with the use of a written questionnaire as
compared to interviewing or direct observation, this
method was utilized for this research. The primary
advantage is the reduction of the biasviewpoint'

effect;27 that is, this technique gives the respondent

 

27
Matilda Riley, Sociological Research (New Yerk,
1963). pp. 166-19A-

-u7-

a sense of privacy and thus the respondent will often
report more freely.

The questionnaire consists of four sections. Section
I, questions 1 to 13, was utilized to gather information
on the social characteristics of the respondents. This
section was modeled after a questionnaire developed by
Vener and Smucker28 and one utilized by Maddox and

29

Mc Call. The questionnaire was further refined accord-

ing to the rules of questionnaire-deveIOpment outlined in
Goods and Hatt.30 Information secured in this section
includes: college class, age, sex, marital status,
religious affiliation, church attendance, race, parents'
birth.p1ace, residence, education and occupation of '
father, and prior criminal record. Occupational in-
formation was coded according to Center's Occupational
Index.31 5
Section 11, questions 1h and 15, was intended to

identify significant others in relation to the honesty

 

28 Arthur Vener and Orden Smucker,A udy of Social
Rules and Regulations, Michigan State University, East
Lansing.

29 Geor e Maddox and Bevode McCall, Drinkinngmong
Teen-Agers New Brunswich, 196A).

 

30 William.Goode and Paul Hatt, Methods ;3 Social
Research (New York, 1952).

31 Richard Centers, The Psyphology of Social Class,
(Princeton, l9h9), pp. h3-5l; and Bernard Barber, Social
Stratification (New York, 1957), 173-175.

-u8_

of the respondents; that is, this part was used to
identify those peOple the respondents feel are most
concerned about the respondents! honesty and whose
concern is important to the respondent; this section
was also used to identify the relationship existing
between those named as significant others and the
reSpondents. The following two questions were ems
ployed to accomplish this task:
Research has found that everyone is concerned
about the way others feel toward him. Some
peOples' opinions about you are very import-
ant to you, while other peOples' opinions are
not as important. Below you are asked to list
the names of those people MOST IMPORTANT to you.

1h) Name those people most important in your life.
Name How is this person related to you?

15) Name those persons you feel are most concerned

about how well you obey rules and regulations of

honesty.

Name How is this person related to you?
This technique is a modified form of one utilized by_
Brookover and others in the study of significant others
in the learning situation of high school students.32

Section III, questions 16 to 29, was adopted from

 

32 Wilbur Brookover, Ann Paterson, and Shailer
Thomas, "Self-Concept of Ability and School Achievement,"
U.S. Office of Education, Cooperative Researgh Pro'ect
#8 5, (East Lansing, 1962); Wilbur Brookover, JeanlIEPere,

n Hamachek, Shailer Thomas, Edsel Erickson, "Improving
Academic Achievement Through Students' Self-Concept
Enhancement," U.S. Office of Education COOperative
Research Pro set #1636, (East Lansing 1965)} andIWilbur
Brookover, on amacHek, and Edsel Erickson, "Relation-
ship of Self-Concept to Achievement in High School."
U.S. Office of Education COOperative Research Project
#2831, (East Lansing, 1966).

-ua-

of the respondents; that is, this part was used to
identify those peOple the respondents feel are most
concerned about the respondents! honesty and whose
concern is important to the respondent; this section
was also used to identify the relationship existing
between those named as significant others and the
reSpondents. The following two questions were em—
ployed to accomplish this task:
Research has found that everyone is concerned
about the way others feel toward him, Some
peoples! opinions about you are very import-
ant to you, while other peoples! opinions are
not as important. Below you are asked to list

the names of those people MOST IMPORTANT to you.

1h) Name those people most important in your life.
Name How is this person related to you?

15) Name those persons you feel are most concerned

about how well you obey rules and regulations of

honesty.

Name How is this person related to you?
This technique is a modified form of one utilized by.
Brookover and others in the study of significant others
in the learning situation of high school students.32

Section III, questions 16 to 29, was adOpted from

 

32 Wilbur Brookover, Ann Paterson, and Shailer
Thomas, "Self-Concept of Ability and School Achievement,"
U.S. Office of Education, Cooperative Researgh Pro'ect
#8 5, (East Lansing, 1962);2Wilbur Brodkover, Jean 9 ere,

n Hamachek, Shailer Thomas, Edsel Erickson, "Improving
Academic Achievement Through Students' Self-Concept
Enhancement," U.S. Office of Education COOperative
Research Project #1636, (East Lansing 1965); and“Wi1bur
Brookover,‘Don’HamaChek, and Edsel Erickson, "Relation-
ship of Self-Concept to Achievement in High School."
U.S. Office of Education C00perative Research Project
#2831, (East Lansing, 19667,

 

 

-ug-

a juvenile delinquency scale formulated by Short and
Ny6.33 This scale distributes the respondents on a
continuum ranging from.1ow delinquency to high delin-
quency. Table VIII outlines the scale of delinquency,
In addition to the scale of delinquency, three questions

Table VIII: Scale of juvenile delinquency as
developed by Short and Nye3

 

Scale Code Offensea

16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 2h 25
00 O 0 O O O O 0 O O O 0
01 O l O 0 O O O 0 0 0 0
O2 0 l 1 O 0 O 0 O O 0 0
03 O l 1 l O O 0 O O O 0
0h 0 1 1 1 1 O O O O O O
05 1 2 1 1 1 O O O O O 0
O6 1 2 1 1 1 1 O 0 0 O 0
07 1 2 1 l 1 1 1 O 0 O 0
08 1 2 1 2 l 1 l O O O O
09 1 2 1 2 2 l 1 0 O O O
10 2 2 l 2 2 2 l O O O O
11 2 2 1 2 2 2 l 1 O O O
12 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 O 0
13 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 O 0
1h 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 l 1 O O
15 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 O 0
l6 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 O
17 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
18 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 l 1
l9 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
20 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

*Offense numbers refer to the reSpective questions on
the study questionnaire. On the Short and Nye scale,
the offenses are numbered from 1 to 10.

questions were included to ascertain the degree of

 

33 Short and Nye, 22 cit. (Winter, 1957-58), p. 208.
34 Source: Ibid.

-50-

overconformity on the part of the respondents.

In section IV, respondents were asked to indicate
their reaction to fictitious persons in various stages
of conformity to rules and laws pertaining to honesty
as presented in five short stories. Question 30 was
concerned with cheating: those who cheat, those who
do not cheat, and those who report cheating. Question
31 was concerned with minor trespassing: those who
would trespass, those who would not trespass, and those
who would report minor trespassing. Questions 32 was
concerned with petty theft: those who would steal small
items, those who would not steal small items, and those
who would report the theft of even small items to the
authorities. Question 33 was concerned with burglary:
those who break and enter with intent to commit theft,
those who would not, and those who would report this
activity to the police. Question 3h was concerned.with
auto theft: those who would steal a car, those who
would not steal a car, and those who would report auto
theft to the police. Table IX.summarizes the character-

istics of the actors in these stories.

PRETEST
An initial questionnaire was constructed, and
administered as a pretest to high school senior classes
in the Lansing area. This original questionnaire was

similar to the one utilized in this research except for

-51-

the last section; that is, the original questionnaire
utilized a revised version of the Bogardus Ethnic
Distance Scale.35 In this social distance scale, the
respondent is presented a list of questions which give
him an opportunity to declare his desired social distance
toward his sterotype of a category of individuals. The
types of statements he is to respond to either negatively
or positively with respect to each category of individ-
uals are as follows:
1. WOuld exclude from our town, if possible.
2. Would allow to live in.my town, but would prefer
in another section of town.
3. Would allow in my school, but prefer in other
classes.
h. Would accept as classmates in my room at
school.
5. Would allow in.my social club.
6. Neuld accept in my home as a dinner guest.
7. would like as a date, or a "special" personal
friend.
It was apparent from.the pretest that the social dis-

tance question needed to be made less ambiguous.

 

35 Emory Bogardus, "Race Reactions by Sexes,
Sociology and Social Research, XLIII (July-AuguSt:
I959),H39:HF1; and Distance Changes in the
United States During the Past Thirty Years," Sociolo
and Social Research, XLIII (November-December, 1958),

m-IBSe

 

 

-52-

Table 1!: Characteristics of overt behavior represented by
fictitious persons in stories used in stuw

m

Story 30:
Ed
Bill
Glen
Joe

Story 31:
Dick
George

San

Story 32:
Tom and Jin
Carl

Story 33:
Pete

Earl
Jack

Bruce
Story 31.:

John
Bob

W

Would not cheat, even though in trouble
Would initiate cheating to help himself
Would cheat to help friend

Would report cheating to teacher

Would initiate ninor trespassing
Would not engage in minor trespassing,
and would not report these who would
Would not engage in minor trespassing,
but would report those who would

Would initiate ”petty theft'

Would not engage in petty theft, but
would utilise the stolen goods

Would not engage in petty theft, but
would report petty theft to authorities

Would not engage in burglary, and would
report burglary to authorities

Would initiate burglary

Would not engage in burglary, and would
not report those who did

Would assist friend in burglary

Would initiate auto theft

Would not assist in auto theft, and would
report these who did to authorities
Would not assist in auto theft, and would
not report these who did

-53-

Consequently, the social distance scale was replaced
by the story-reaction technique.

After the questionnaire was revised, it was again
administered to another sample of high school seniors
at Pewamo-Westpalphia High School. Two versions of the
story-reactions were used in this testing: one using
open ended responses, and the other using structured
responses. The analysis of this pretest indicated
that not enough additional information was obtained
from the open ended responses to warrant their use.

On the basis of the results of the pretests, a
final draft of the questionnaire was developed.

When the scheduled administration of the ques-
tionnaire in Muskegon High School was cancelled,36 the
decision to utilize a sample of high school seniors was
re-evaluated. It was decided that, since college fresh-
men are in the final stages of gaining their independence
from their parents and are most susceptible to the in-
fluence of peers, a sample of college freshmen would be
less likely than a sample of high school seniors to
demonstrate the pervasive influence of their parents.
Thus by utilizing a sample of college freshmen, the re-
sults would be the least likely to show the validity of

Hypothesis III. In as much as the utilization of

36 Scheduled testing in a high school in the
Huskegon area cancelled due to possible effect on mill-
age vote.

-5u_

a college freshman sample rather than a high school
senior sample would not drastically influence the
results of Hypotheses I and II, the decision was made
to use a sample of college freshmen.

As the samples used in the pro-tests of the ques-
tionnaires were high school seniors and the sample to
be used in the final administration was college fresh-
men, the researcher retested the instrument using a
small sample of college freshmen. The shortcomings re-
vealed by this informal probing were taken into consid-
eration in the final development of the instrument.

On the basis of the results of the pretests, a
final draft of the questionnaire was developed and ad-

ministered.

DEFINITION 03 TERMS

 

Adolescence: Adolescence is that period of life be-

 

ginning with the pubescent growth spurt and ending with
full social maturity. Adolescence is a social-cultural
phenomenon (that stage of social life between childhood
and adulthood); while pubescence (that physical period
of about two years preceding puberty, and the physical
changes occuring during that time) and puberty (that
physical point of development at which the biological
changes of pubescence reach a climax.marked by the in-

dicators of sexual maturity) are biological phenomenon;

-55-

and juvenile (that age-level during which.a youngster
can be tried as a juvenile offendor: usually between
the ages of ten and seventeen in America, but reaching
as low as seven and as high as nineteen at times) is a
legal concept. For the general purposes of this thesis,
we need not concern ourselves with the specific delinea-
tion of particular boundaries for each of the above

categories.

Juvenile delinquency: Delinquency is both a legal con-

 

cept and a sociological concept. Delinquency as a legal
concept refers to that behavior which the people of a
state and their leaders believe to a threat to public
safety or a hindrance to the best development of the
child, and whose prohibition they have incorporated into
law. Delinquency as a sociological concept refers to
that behavior which peeple identify as delinquency and
react to asdelinquency. The usual confusion surrounding
this concept in criminological research and literature
concerns the demarcation of behavioral acts as delinquent.
This confusion is often the result of the failure to dis-
tinquish delinquency as a legal concept from delinquency
as a sociological concept. The positions of this debate
can be summarized as follows: some argue that the
commission of an illegal act constitutes delinquency,
others contend that an illegal act is delinquent only
when it is brought to the attention of official agents,

-56-

other argue that delinquency occurs only when an
offender is brought to the attention of the court,
others argue that delinquency occurs only when an
individual is adjudicated as a delinquent, and others
contend that delinquency occurs only when an individual
is labeled as a delinquent by society regardless of

the individual's interaction with the legal system.
This debate is of little concern for this particular
thesis and will not be settled herein. However, this
author maintains that the last position is the most

fruitful sociologically.

Deviant Behavior: Deviant behavior is that behavior

 

labelled by the social audience as an infraction of
societal rules and regulations, and to which resulting
sanctions and consequences are applied. In essence,
the deviant is one to whom the deviant label has
successfully been applied; deviant behavior is be—

havior that people so label.

Underconformity: Underconformity is an exaggeration

 

of the tolerance allowed by the modal norms.

Overconformity: Overconformity is an exaggeration of

 

the strict observance of formal social norms.37p

 

37 Values are ideals or ultimate goals. Social
norms are the specific formulations to implement values.
Modal norms are the practical, attainable formulations
which tolerate some flexibility and minor deviations.
For adequate functioning of society, a balance must be
maintained between the rigid social norms and the more
flexible modal behavior.

-57..

Attitude: Attitude refers to relatively enduring
system.of affective, evaluative reactions based up-
on and reflecting the evaluative concepts or beliefs
which have been learned about the characteristics of
a social object or class of social objects.38 That
is, an attitude is the positive, neutral, or negative
feelings toward an object or class of objects. The
attitude should always be distinquished from the

overt behavior presumably related to it.

Significant others: Significant other is a person
defined as important by an individual to that individ-
ual and whose expectations for behavior influence the
behavior of that individual. Significant others oper-
ationally defined are those listed in answer to the
following question: Name those persons you feel are
most concerned about how well you obey rules and

regulations of honesty.

Honesty: The character or quality of being honest;
that is, not cheating, stealing, or lying.

 

38 Marvin Shaw and Jack Wright, Scales for-the
Measurement 9£_Attitudes (New York, 1967).

 

CHAPTER III
RESULTS

This chapter will focus on the analysis of the
findings of the research conducted for this study.
Generally, the discussion will examine the reactions
of the normally conforming adolescents to various
degrees of conformity (underconformity - conformity -
overconformity). In addition, the discussion will
also examine those who influence the adolescent's

conformity to the rules and regulations of honesty.

ATTITUDES TOWARD UNDERCONFORMITY AND OVERCONFORMITY

 

Hypothesis I asserts that the normally conforming
segment of the late adolescent population reacts neg—
atively both to underconformity (dishonesty) and to
overconformity (overhonesty). Underconformity is an
exaggeration of the tolerance allowed by modal norms.
In terms of honesty, underconformity consists of those
behavioral acts labeled as theft, cheating, or tres-
passing. Overconformity is also an exaggeration of
the tolerance allowed by modal norms. In terms of
honesty, overconformity consists of those behavioral
acts such as strict adherence to the rules of honesty

and "tattle-taling" on others. In short, hypothesis

-53-

-59-

I suggests that the normally conforming segment of
the late adolescent population disapproves both of
underconformity (not strict enough adherence to the
rules of honesty) and of overconformity (too strict
adherence to the rules of honesty).

If hypothesis I is valid, one would expect that
the college freshman sample would express disapproval
both of those fictitious persons representing dis-
honesty and of those persons representing overhon-
esty. The results of this study support this conten-
tion.

Table X reports a summary of the data pertaining
to this hypothesis; that is, Table X shows the per-
centage of students in the college freshman sample
who report approval or disapproval of behaviors
reflecting various degrees of conformity to the modal
norms of honesty. The table indicates that a majority
of the students in the sample disapprove of those who
engage in cheating, petty larcency, burglary, and
auto theft. The table also shows that a majority of
the students disapprove of those who report minor tres-
passing (swimming in a private lake), who report minor
theft (stealing watermelons), or who report cheating.
On the other hand, a majority of the students express
approval of those who would report auto theft or

burglary, and of those who would not engage in auto

-60...

theft, cheating, or trespassing. In short, the
students in the college freshman sample expressed
disapproval of underconforming behaviors and of
overconforming behaviors; but they expressed approval
of the conforming behaviors between these two extremes.
By arbitrarily assigning a numerical value to
each attitudinal response (approval: 0; no opinion: 1;
and disapproval: 2) and determining the median attitu-
dinal values toward various degrees of conforming
behaviors, these behaviors can then be ranked according
to the magnitude of their median attitudinal values.
The following behaviors received a median value of 2
(disapproval): auto theft, burglary, cheating, petty
larcency, reporting minor trespassing, reporting minor
theft, and reporting cheating. The following behaviors
received a median attitudinal value of O (approval):
reporting burglary, refusing to commit auto theft,
neither committing nor reporting cheating, and neither
committing nor reporting minor trespassing. As shown
in Table X, one can identify some of the behaviors
receiving a median score of 2 as underconformity and
others as overconformity. Thus the placement of the
underconforming behavior at the bottom of the table and
the overconforming behavior at the top of the table re-
sults in a behavioral continuum similar to Cavan's
hypothesized continuum.

By converting the data from tabular form (Table X)

aecpe we unseen eon venoenaene on assesses us coupons masseuse sweeps nanosepun eeanecnee
octane «sauces seawee- on confidanpnu

wt é o

hwmrIIupIIIDRV InImupmpnmIIhrw mununurIIhpIhmp.

 

werequowe.weupcodpnn
denunc- uenweea on

 

 

aommwmmmmu neuron menmnme n mneoene unseen .mwmmmml .mwmmmw
”amend Ipuow aneuueaa:
pun Amen. w >.u o HM.o um m~.o m
woven» space are»&
wevoud eweeawun
xenon» acne arena
Amoco as “0.0 He up.» no ~m.a .u
mavens cewmueuw
cheev uh qq.u u 4.H HM Hm.e o
zepdweu oownpé new Havana
drone Arenaqv mm mm.o o H~.o u b.w o
ueneuew ooanun non woven» .

-62-

add...”

 

 

 

o.ww on n.<H 0H a.~ N
b.mb mm o.wH mH b.m w
m.#b mm m.<N. 6H «.H H
o.or mi H.SH NH ¢.~H m
m.~< on 0.N¢ on n.#H 0H
¢.H< am H.5n 0N «.Hn mH
m.¢ n w.w w H.5m Ho
guesses: 3% 3%
N new so I QOH on qulllwmnmmmqm
3%
Aconnanoov N eHnsh

333
atone

Asbenv
nonsensH haven

AneHov
mnHveono nH sheave 6H4

3.:
stanza :33. and»:

335
33:93.3 .3qu

Axosbv.husHunun
phonon son aHanoo noanex

Aemuooav unHeoonuouv
anodes you page .358:

uvHsuounoo
no ooenuon enoHneb
unHaoeHuom aAoHeenem

 

-63—

 

 

OeOOH Ob Dec 0
Hebw ww 0.9 O
Gomm mm 0.0 0
male”. Mummy-4 vueonem henna:
N pen 3 Adlflmdflfl—dldm

 

o6 o

TN N

H.b m
Muhammanmmmmm
HNHIIHmmmEMH

 

nab a“ novsvHaad

33:333

H eriH

Anson v
8.5 35

crane
be;

Heaths
hang a 34

.IIIHAflwllllIle shoe
Mo noehmon eaudheb
38.02 23:33

-617-

into graphic format (Figure IV), the behavioral con-
tinuum based on the attitudinal responses toward the
behaviors can.more easily be identified. If the
traditional behavioral continuum is the apprOpriate
model, Figure IV should show a linear relationship.

In other words, the social audience should pre-
dominately disapprove of those behavioral patterns
reflecting underconformity; they should.moderately
disapprove of those behavioral patterns reflecting
conformity; and they should predominately approve of
overconformity. On the other hand, if Cavan's hypo-
thetical behavioral continuum is the apprOpriate model,
Figure IV should show a curvilinear relationship. That
is, the social audience should express disapproval of
underconforming behavior; they should approve of con-
forming behaviors; and they should express disapproval
of overconforming behavior. The data in Figure IV
support Cavan's rather than the traditional continuum,
Focusing on the solid line graph in Figure IV which
shows the extent of approval associated with each be-
havioral category this graph shows that those behavioral
patterns at the top representing overconformity received
only slight approval from.the college freshman sample.
Those behavioral patterns at the bottom.representing
underconformity also received only slight approval.
However, those behavioral patterns in the center repre-

senting conformity received high approval. In short,

-65-

Pigure IV: Graphic presentation of percentage of students
in college freshmen sample reporting attitudes
taverd various degrees of conforaity

Categories Percentage
of conforn- 0 l 2 3 I. 5 6 7 8 9
0

1m 0
San /
Carl /
Joe .. ’

Bob /’

Pete /

Jack \

i'lIanes are used in this graph rather than the coeplete
description of each category. For a couplete description
of each category, see Tables I! and I.

-66-

the college sample approved of conforming behaviors

but disapproved of underconforming behaviors and over-
conforming behaviors. The broken line graph in Figure

IV presents the reverse pattern. That is, disapproval

is high at the extremes, and low in the center. In

other words, the college sample expressed little
disapproval for conformity, but expressed high disapproval
for both underconformity and overconformity.

In summary, Hypothesis I suggests that the normally
conforming segment of the late adolescent population
reacts negatively both to underconformity and to over-
conformity. The data of this study supports this

hypothesis.

SEVERITY OF ATTITUDES TOWARD
UNDERCONFORMITY AND OVERCONFORMITY

Hypothesis II asserts that the reaction of the
normally conforming segment of the late adolescent
pepulation to deviations varies in severity according
to the degree of either overconformity or undercon-
formity. The data of this study support this hypothesis.

One measure of this relationship is the elaboration
of the percentage of students who approve or who dis-
approve of various degrees of conformity. Thus if
hypothesis II is valid, the percentage of students who
disapprove of a particular behavior should increase as

the degree of overconformity or underconformity of that

-67-

0.0

0.0

m.¢H

0.0N

m.mm

0.b<

q.Nn

HH

m.«

0.0

m.<H

m.0

n.mm

e.N<

¢.N<

o

m.<H

m.nN

w.<

0.0H

m.<H

w.<

m.<

H

H.wn

H.0m

¢.Ho

H.0m

0.0H

w.<

0.0

0

e.N<

H.0n

w.<

0.0

0.0

0.0

 

 

LwlIIIINIIIIIwIIIIIuIIIIIwIIIuIIIIflJ

sauces“ Havana oaHn Heronm seHn nowmwno Heewwwad
383

wow
ska

 

muouam
Nun no a»

 

2.5 newts-e
phones non aHano uenuHen

Ahnnsnv anonu ease
enemas non anIoo nonaHezI

3.0
banana toas-

303
£23 So. too:-

to:
mane-one ions-

:23
C23 ass- tease

A53

ueHeeoeeen» aesaeiunanoneN

. uvwmummmmm
no neenuen auoHnsb

£8.02 £3.38

thanoHsoo no oooumev osoHnsb nausea eeunaHaas
mnHaMOQou oHaaue nssnoenu oueHHoo :H saucepan eHsfl.uo omeaneouea one sense: .HN eHan

-68-

0.0M

m.¢

w.<

m.¢H

w.¢

0.0

0.0

 

uncham

0

0.6%

n.0n

~.bm

o.H@

0.0H

«.mn

0.0

0H

0

 

0.0N

“.mn

«.mn

a.m

H.bm

0.N<

m.¢

nadnwno
0

“main“ mensweav¢

N

w.<

m.<a

m.<

n.¢a

0.0H

0.MN

Q.Hb

n w.w a
H 0.0 0
n 0.0 0

Q 0.0 0

ma 0.0H e

jlullwlglflllldlljlldlllj

aduvm: Hutch“ «can Hubbumwunun

AH Ao
Huron Happy g4
vacuum

 

Avoaadanouv HM Odnuh

Aflaamv
238.6

Anbinv
“veranda haaom

Aa.HaV
9.38% 5 :3... 3d

7.8
fauna .33. .538

humanv
maaonuguouv_uoagz

Auoanv huuauuup
anon.“ no: «fiasco nonvnon

Acuuoocv undo-anucna
agency no: val-co heaven:

'31
no uoonuon oaounjp

9.3863" 3.3.3

-69-

« 0.Ho ma

w «.mm HH

< H.bm NH

down 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0

d.wm w 0.0 o

0.N< m 0.0 o

 

0.0 0 “.0 N

0.0 0 0.0 0

 

wt .u lwlldlllwllullldllu w w
nauvnx. Habowmwuudn Hubwmwmdoun nowmwno Hapwmwgq .Hubwmw04
vacuum 0: manna»

 

 

AHmun“ nuvnvuvvm

Aoosndanoov HH OHAQH

c5360
£23 33

2.38
553m

Asfimv
53:5 5 34

”rummuuuum
no noonmon nsonnup

3.89:" .uofiflom

-70-

behavior increases. That is, as the degree of conformity
of behavior increases, the percentage of students ex-
pressing approval of that behavior will increase;
conversely, as the degree of unconformity of behavior
increases, the percentage of students expressing disap-
proval of that behavior will increase.

Table XI reports the number and.percentage of male
students in the college freshman sample reporting at-
titudes toward various degrees of conformity. A.majority
of these students report strong disapproval of burglary
and auto theft; they report disapproval of cheating and
petty larcency; and they are somewhat neutral in their
reaction to minor trespassing. These behaviors can be
identified as underconformity or dishonesty. Thus as
the degree of dishonesty increases, the severity of the
disapproval to that dishonesty in the male college sample
increases. On the other hand, a majority of these
students express strong disapproval of those who would
report minor treSpassing, and disapproval of those who
would report minor theft or cheating. These behaviors
can be identified as overconformity or "overhonesty."
Thus as the degree of "overhonesty" increases, the
severity of the disapproval of the male college sample
to that "overhonesty" increases. Between these two
extremes, there is a range of conforming behaviors
which receive approval from the male college sample:

those who neither commit nor report cheating or minor

-71-

theft, and those who report auto theft or burglary.

In short, Table XI suggests that the severity of approval
or disapproval among the male college students varies with
the degree of overconformity ("overhonesty") or under-
conformity (dishonesty). However, the data does not
suggest that the disapproval of overconformity (over—
honesty) is as severe as the disapproval of undercon-
formity (dishonesty).

Table XII reports a similar relationship for the
female college sample. A.majority of these students
expressed strong disapproval of those who would engage
in burglary or auto theft. They expressed disapproval
of those who would cheat, or commit petty larcency,

This group also expressed disapproval of minor trespas-
sing. On the other hand, these students expressed dis-
approval of those who would report minor trespassing,
minor theft,or cheating and of those who would not re-
port burglary. In short, the female college sample
expressed disapproval of underconformity (dishonesty),
the severity of this disapproval depending upon the
degree of underconformity; they expressed disapproval
of overconforming behavior ("overhonesty"), the severity
of the disapproval depending upon the degree of over-
conformity; but they expressed approval of the cenform-
ing behavior located between these two extremes. How-
ever, the female sample did not eXpress the severity

of disapproval to overconformity (overhonesty) as to

-72-

 

 

 

 

H 0.0 o H.o n m.m a o.Hm mm b.<n 5H
0 0.0 o 0.0 o H.o n m.o~ nH n.bo mm
H o.~ H H.< N «.m e H.mn bu 0.0m mH
H 0.0 0 «.0H m N.» a «.50 an n.1H b
H m.<~ NH <.o~ 0H «.mu HH o.o< «a H.d a
N N.OH n b.¢n pH 0.0m mH «.mH o H.o m
n «.m < «.mm on «.3 o «.3 b 0.0 o
m w.o~ 0H H.rn mm n.0H m H.< N o.~ H
filial: j: u 34 w 3 W a SJ
saddens” Havana «nan Huboua dean acuano Huronmmd Hubcuwg<
38% on . 28am
am up a

Acuuooov uaanaaauoua
phonon you nuance Abnvuoz

0.3 32.8
phonon no: amauoo nogaHou

2.55 8.5 3:.
ahonoa no: ads-co uoavuon

3.5
Edna:— fifié

3.5
8.5 32. £25.

7.3
358% £83.

2.38
figs .35.. toad

A53
unduocauouv head-"anonou

llama)
Ho cognac: cabana»

ufltfiué Borg—8

hvuaucunoc no nooumov uncanny nausea coszHaau undouoncu

QHQEuu aulnuonu ouoHHoo nH nanouso- oHunuu no ou-vnoouoa on. again:

.HHN OHOGH

 

«.3 on 0.0“ «H 0.0 0 H6 H4 N
”.3. aH o.Hm mu «6 w 0.0 o.~ H
«.3 H 95 an ~6H n 0.0 0.0 o
0.3 «H o.Hm mm 4.0“ OH 0.0 0.0
n.0H w o.Hm mm «.8 3 ~.~H 0.0 o
H... n .5 an tom 3 «.2 ..~ H
H6 m min 0H béd H «.3 o.u H
w w m N w u w H w u
3 Am 3 _ 3 as
t 55.0: H263 3.8 Hub?» 33 3330 Hub .3 H2633
macaw»... on 98.30

 

 

83

3033383 HHH OHAUH

A835
5.9. fl .2

238
3.2.5

755
hogan-H haw-m

AnOHov
3a.... 5 2.5. 3.4

3.5
Egan aoHSn 33va

380
333.93 .3on

30.3 huh-Hung

when?" no: $580 .8530:

Iguana. 4
no «00.800 33.3»
m5...d.m £35...

 

63. as. . «N8. $54 so..— .Sé 8a.... .8. .34 .«8. .8. 8m. .8. 8o. .5. 3o. 54“
“OH.“ .oo.m «noHuayu can ooHu-“nicnobp oonbuonqu any uquuoa an.» ua«vqu.ona ugu uvHu-ou sassy. HAD :

 

.
h»
an q 9.96 on «.om 0H 0.0 o o.o o 0.0 o Auschv
anon» can<
a >.nm He n.oH o 0.0 o o.o o o.o o AHA-av
.5nuHuunm
3 R E 3 8 no 3&5 Bot.»
xanvgzw Huronnwi-Hn Hupounwunan aoHano ngbn d. Huron m4 undue-Haas ouoabunvm
mass.» on 28a»
8%

 

 

Aooaudanoov HHN QHAQH

-75-

underconformity (dishonesty).

Another measure of the relationship between the
degree of conformity and the severity of the response
to that conformity is a median value calculated for the
attitudinal responses. This median attitudinal value
was calculated by arbitrarily assigning a numerical
value to the various degrees of approval-disapproval:
strong approval - O; approval - 1; no Opinion - 2;
disapproval - 3; and strong disapproval - n. Thus the
lower the median attitudinal value, the greater the
degree of approval toward that behavioral category.
Conversely, a high.median attitudinal value indicates
high disapproval of the behavior.

The median attitudinal values for the male college
sample are reported in Table XI; the values for the
female students are reported in Table XII; and the
values for the total college sample are reported in
Table XIII. Statistical analysis of the differences
between the median values for the males and females
indicates that the differences are not statistically
significant.1 The only two exceptions were the following:
the male students were more disapproving of those who

would report minor trespassing than were the females,

 

l The median test, involving the use of Chi square,
was utilized to test for statistical significance. For
a detailed description of this test, see Sidney Siegel,
Nonparametric Statistics For The Behavioral Sciences
(New York, 1956).

-76-

 

 

 

H 0.0 o m.< n 0.0 o H.bm oq 0.0m Hm
o 0.0 o v.H H o.» o o.on Hm coco «v
H «.H H QN u «v.3 a 98 an Qua mm
H n.¢ n <.HH o H.b m romo we w.HH a
n.H w.HH n H.bH NH <.H~ «H b.n¢ an n.< n
n H.bH NH n.<m «N hon“ wH oowH nH no< n
n o.o~ «H n.<m mm n.¢H 0H w.HH m 0.0 o
n o.on Hm o.mm hm m.~H o m.~ a ¢.H H
u a. n a a a a a. u a
4 m a H o
nque:_ H-pcMa uan Huromnwoan aownwno Hubwawgd Hupwu a4
uncnvm on unouvu
1 Sea;

Aouhooov undo-annoua
cannon no: aHslco noanox

2.5 303%
phonon no: aHaaco nonauo-

2.5.5 £2.» 82.
phonon and nus-co noanon

3.3
5.5» tag

398
CB» 82. 93%:

ASE
ufifiofi €33.

2.33
8.5 85- to“...

3.8
unduuunuoua hands phonomp

 

33°28
Mo noouuon nsouapp
Eggnog Bot-non

had-unuaoo no uooauoc cabana» cacao» nousoHvao
maHvuonou ngauu unannonu ouoHHoo aH uncapped no ouuvnoonon can guess:

.HHHN..H£¢H

 

 

 

noes mm b.m~ wH 0.0 o coo o coo o Annonv
. anonv pend
no<b «m $.NN 0H 0.0 o 0.0 o o.~ N. AHnuuv
huaHunnm
0.3 3 Qua mm 06 o n4 n o.~ u A835
5H5 5 34
o.~n mm 0.0m an n.¢H OH on H w.H H AHHHmv
2.336
H.bH NH o.wm Hw o.wH nH n.< n w.H H Aobunv
hogan-H 330%
w.H~ mH $.«n hm moqm bH «.H H o.o o AnuHuv
338% 5 2.23.. 34
b.nH HH n.<m an HobH NH momH @ 0.0 o Alsav
5.1.39.5:H 8H3. 838
>6 q Hfim om QS on QNH m. «A H 335
uaHouunuoua nonH:
«4 a 3M. 8 3h 3 0.8 «H «.H H 30o: 9.?
ahoncu no: «HI-60 nonaHoz
a m u 3w n mm m J... a ‘ Illuflflgéqlll
3 5 .3 3 2: no .8.»on 33.3»
uuchx. ngounaaan Hupoumauan aoHano Hupbunnd Hu>onmn< mnHvooHuom nuoupuavm
uaouvm on vacuum
Ho I a av

Anagpaoov HHHN 0.3.08

-73-

although both sexes disapproved of this behavior;2 and
the females were more disapproving of petty larcency
(stealing watermelon from a farmer) than were their
counterparts, however both the males and the females
disapproved of this behavior.3

The median scores reported in Tables XI, XII, and
XIII support Hypothesis II. The median attitudinal
values increase as the degree of the nonconformity in-
creases. Those behaviors identifiable as conformity to
the modal norms received relatively low median attitu-
dinal values indicating approval: the median value for
those who would neither commit nor report cheating was 0
(strong approval); the median value for those who would
neither commit nor report minor trespassing or auto theft
and for those who would report burglary was 1; and the
median value for those who would report auto theft was
1.5. As behavior departs from the modal norms, the extent
of disapproval increases: minor trespassing and failure
to report burglary received median attitudinal scores of

2 the reporting of minor trespassing, minor theft, or

‘0.

cheating, as well as cheating and petty larcency received
scores of 3; and burglary and auto theft received scores
of u. However, the median attitudinal values for over-

conformity (overhonesty) did not increase to the same

 

2 This difference was statistically significant at
the .10 level.

3 This difference was statistically significant at
the .05 level.

Figure V:

Categories
of Con--

mum.

San
Carl
Joe
Bob
Pete
Larry
Ed
George
Jack
Dick
Ton-Jin
Glen
Dave
Bill
Bruce
Earl
John

-79-

Graphic presentation of the nedian attitudinal
responses of the students in the college freshnen
sample toward various degrees of conformity

 

 

M tt tn 7 s
Strong lo Strong
Approval roval Opinion Disapproval Disa prevail
to App? 2L 3) 3L

 

 

 

 

fines are used in this graph rather than the complete
description of each category. For a complete description
of each category, see Tables II, II, III, and XIII.

-80...

prOportion as the median attitudinal values for under-
conformity (dishonest).

Another technique applicable for showing the relation-
ship of degree of conformity-nonconformity and of the
response to that conformity-nonconformity is the con-
version of the tabular data (Table XIII) into graphic
data (Figure V). If Hypothesis II is valid, Figure IV
should show a curvilinear relationship. That is, the
median attitudinal values for extreme underconformity
should be high; the median attitudinal values should
decrease as conformity is approached; and then the values
should increase as the degree of overconformity increases.
The chart in Figure V supports this contention. The be-
haviors at the top of the chart represent overconformity;
the behaviors in the center represent conforming behavior;
the behaviors at the bottom.of the chart represent under-
conforming behavior. The median values at the extreme
right of the chart represent strong disapproval of the
behavior by the college sample; the median values at the
extreme left represent strong approval; and those median
values between these two extremes represent the various
degrees of approval-disapproval between the extremes.
Those behaviors at the top of the chart (overconformity
or overhonesty) receive relatively high.median attitudinal
values (disapproval); those in the middle of the chart
(various degrees of overconformity) receive progressively

smaller values until the minimal median value (strong

-81..

approval) is reached; and those behaviors in the bottom
half of the chart (various degrees of underconformity)
receive progressively higher values. However, the graph
shows that the median attitudinal values for undercon-
formity (dishonesty) are greater than the median at-
titudinal values for overconformity (overhonesty).

In summary, Hypothesis II suggests that the re-
action to deviations by the normally conforming segment
of the late adolescent population varies in severity
according to the degree of either overconformity or
underconformity. The data of this study suggest that
the severity of the reactions to deviations do vary with
the degree of either overconformity or underconformity;
however, the data suggest the reaction to overconformity

is not as severe as to underconformity.“

SIGNIFICANT OTHERS NAMED §X_5AMPLE
In Chapter II, it was hypothesized that, for problems
of honesty, adolescents are most responsive to the
influence of parents. As college freshmen are in the
final stages of gaining their independence from their
parents and are most susceptible to the influence of peers,

this group would be the least likely to demonstrate the

 

n One explanation for the lack of complete Support
for this hypothesis by the data is that those behaviors
designated as overconformity were not deviant to the same
degree as those behaviors designated as underconformity.
That is, the data focused on a limited range of the be-
havioral continuum, and had a broader range been used,
the data might have supported the hypothesis.

-62..

pervasive influence of their parents. Thus by utilizing
a sample of college freshmen, the results would be the
least likely to show the validity of Hypothesis III.

One measure of this influence is a listing of those
persons Wthh adolescents feel are most concerned with
their observance of the rules of honesty. Table XIV
summarizes the number and percentage of the students
in the freshman sample who named at least one person from
the following categories of significant others as being
concerned about how well the students follow the rules
of honesty; parents or people their parents' age, peeple
their own age, unclassifiables, or self.5 Almost all
of the respondents named their parents or peOple their
parents' age (100% of the males, 9h% of the females, and
96% of the total sample). In comparison to this, only
half of the males (52%), three fourths of the females
(71%), and two third of the total sample (67%) named

people their own age.

 

5 Categories utilized in Tables XIV and XV are
similar to those employed by Remmers. See Chapter II,
pp. 28-30; and H. H. Hammers and D. H. Radler, Th2
American Teenager (New Yerk, 1957).

-83-

Table XIV: Number and percentage of students

in freshman sample who named at

least one person from.the follow-
ing categories of significant others

as being concerned about "How well
you obey the rules of honest?"

 

 

 

Males Females Total
(n=21) (n=b,9) (n=70)
Significant Others No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent
Parents or People
Their age 21 100.0 as 93.9 67 95.7
People Their
Own A86 11 52.h 36 73.5 h? 67.1
Unclassifiable
(Society, God, Pet,
etc.) 3 lh.3 11 22.u 1a 20.0
Ego (self) 2 9.5 2 u.1 h 5.7

 

Table XV is based on the assumption that the order

of listing is relevant; that is, those persons listed

first are more important to the adolescent than those

listed subsequently.6 A.majority of the students in the

college freshman sample (51% of the males, 66% of the

females, and 86% of the total sample) named their parents

or people their parents' age first in response to the

following item; Name those persons you feel are most

concerned about how well you obey the rules and regula-

tions of honesty. Only a small percentage named_pe0ple

 

6 The validity of this assumption is based on
interviews with a group of ten of the respondents.

Al.

though the generality of these findings is limited, the
researcher feels that this assumption is warranted.

-su-

Table XV: Number and percentage of college fresh-
men who named a person from one of the
following categories of significant
others first in response to "Name those
persons you feel are most concerned
about how well you obey the rules and
regulations of honesty."

Males Pbmales_ TQ§§1__
(n=21) (n=u9) (n-7o)

Significant Others No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent

 

 

 

Parents or People

Their Age 17 81.0 M3 87.8 60 65.7
People Their

Own Age 3 1h.3 S 10.2 o 11.h
Ego (Self) l h.d O 0.0 1 l.h
Unclassifiables

(society, God, Pet,

etc.) 0 0.0 l 2.0 1 l.h
Total 21 100.0 A9 100.0 70 100.0

their own age (1h% of the males, 10% of the females, and
11% of the total sample). Thus the data in Tables XIV
and XV support Hypothesis III; that is, the tables in—
dicate that this college freshman sample is more reapon-
sive to parents or to people their parentsI age than to
people the respondents' own age. '

The existing relationship can better be described
by replacing the categories utilized in Tables XIV and
XV with a set of more delineated categories. Table XVI
summarizes the number and percentage of students in the

freshman sample who named at least one person from the

-85-

following categories of significant others as being
concerned about how well they obey the rules of hon-
esty: parents, adult relatives, unrelated adults, age
level relatives, peers (unrelated), ego (self), and
unclassifiables. The data in this table indicate that
about 90% of the college freshman sample named both
parents when asked to name those persons most concerned
about how well they followed the rules and regulations
of honesty; approximately 97% named at least one parent.
Peers were the next most frequently named group with
57% of the sample mentioning at least one peer. Age
level relatives (30% of the sample named at least one)
and adults, other than parents (27% of the sample
named at least one adult relative, and 23% named at
least one unrelated adult) were named half as frequently
as were peers. In short, a rank ordering of the signi-
ficant others by frequency of listing would be as follows:
parents, peers, age level relatives, adult relatives,
and unrelated adults. In addition, Table XVI indicates
that females are mentioned as significant others more
often than are males; this is especially true for
non-relatives.

As a group, males tended to name fewer persons than
did females (see Table XVI). There seems to be no
difference in the percentage of females and in the per-

centage of males who named at least one parent (98% of

-86-

 

o.on Hm
«.HN an
o.mH nu
$.NN 0H
H.bH NH
«.HH 0

Hora @a
down on
«.HN «H
H.b¢ mo
ooo¢ no
b.n¢ be
«.H@ «o
3

ate
Jan!

bowm bu
«.NN AH
comm AH
n.0N an
«own ¢

n.¢d b

b.qn he
as... .:
m.eu ma
o.wo we
m.H® av
aomo ><
¢.mo we
a

3.73
[Haiti

o.¢H
o.¢d
m.o

mo¢H
n.1H
w.<

«.0
n.o
moo

Nona
bomm
~.n¢
homo

g
suns ‘

 

shy-oaoa.uo uoflsu can swap so» Hdon.sbnu ononu
vengeance undo: no sheave vquouuunuu- no uoaaouovuo uuaaodapu onv_-afiu cannon
one pound as noun: on:.oagauu unannonu a“ caucus». no oudpaoonon van moans:

N~t~t

HMM

dual

.8 :33 3
can...»
.3.

. 83.3“ H23 .3

.8 :8.” 3
cad-3h
.3.

5.93 c3355

and uCUOH ad

cad-3h

0H1:
unbavddom vdncd

one vudon ed
uvnludm Avon
Odd-3h
CHI:

«vacuum

gassed—Ea

“ku oanua

-87—

OoOOH Ob

 

98 3
a.“ q
3.“ 3
a.b< mm
H.bn em
34%
A215
Ila-flu

 

063 o... 98“ a
tan d «.3 n
H.< m u.a a
«.3 on 3.4 2
o.o¢ «u ¢.N< a
o.e« cm o.o~ o
a g
83: Sun:
a 131ml.

Ages—03 E 0.3.9

Haven.

13. .3" 538m .33
outfit-£25

€73 own
oac cocoa ed
cud-3h
0H1:

. Age-Hgv zoom

g

-88..

«.H

OoN

 

 

 

 

 

 

H H o.o o H38.
o6 o o.o m... o.o .ol , .18....
«.H H o.~ H 3. o .3.
8:338 .75 a:
3.. u H4 a o.o o . H38
mam « H.» u o6 o oils
o.o o 3. o 0.0 o .1:
53: 35.8:
92 w. u.» a «2.: n H38.
5...“ a Hé a 2. u .Haflu
n4 m H4 a a; H .1:
“Avoaunounpv .uoom
93 mm 5.8 3 98 pH Hats
«3 u o.« H as H 4H8 .33
«.H H o.~ H o6 o 35 .3.
e65 mm 92. an «.2. 0H 38.3 5.8
. ”vacuum
mug glam 3 Hanna-«Hug
AObuav Aasnav Aaunnv
macaw an. landfill

nonrandom no uneavufismou on. quash

one Arno so» Has:.:on anon. conuoouoo puon_ouu Hoou no» uncanon enema glaze
on uncommon ca aukuu sheave vauogudsmuu no ooauomoaao muaaoaapu on» no one
loan noauoa u mess: on: addsuu nuanuohu nu nus-esp. no oudvnoonom and non-:2

.HHbN CHAIR

 

 

OoOOH 0% OoOOH HN
OoN H 0.0 o
0.0 0 w.# H
3 34m
5.3 :95 ‘
Jada. aHfll

Acosndvnouv HHbN oaadh

H.909

A.opo .aom .eoc .huoHoomv
nonncnuaouuaosp

can
uuummmummqmduamudm

-90-

the females, and 95% of the males did so). However,
the male respondents named a smaller percentage of
peers (61% of the females named at least one peer,
while only h8% of the males did so), age level rela-
tives (35% of the females named at least one age level
relative, and 19% of the males did so), unrelated adults
(at least one unrelated adult was named by 27% of the
females and lu% of the males), and adult relatives

(35% of the female respondents named at least one adult
relative, but only 10% of the males did so). Further-
more, male respondents tended to name members of their
own sex less often than did the female respondents.
This was especially true for unrelated peers: M9% of
the females named a female peer, and hl% named a male
peer; conversely, A3% of the males named a female peer,
while only 29% named a male peer.

Table XVII summarizes the number and percentage of
students in the college freshman sample who named a
person from one of the following categories of signi-
ficant others first when asked question fifteenz7
parents, peers, unrelated adults, age level relatives,

ego, and unclassifiables.

 

7 Question fifteen is as follows:

15) Name those persons you feel are most concerned
how well you obey rules and regulations of honesty.
Name How is this person related to you?

-91-

a.» n
e.“ N
o.m N
m.bh Hm
m.e~ HH
c.0b mw
n.bH b
n.>H b
m.~H n
o.mo on
m.mo on
e.me mm
n.~m an
are

lanai

one o
org 0
or. o
o.ne “H
H.~e 0
«.mo nH
H.H~ q
e.Hm o
n.oH «
o.8H eH
HueoH eH
o.ooH eH
o.8H eH
grandam
8W3
a

 

sheave peeeHuHemHe Me eeHuewevee unfiaeafleu can we see.
menu necked one ended as venue eh: edqseu vueaonn ea emeaeeenem use noses: .HHHbu capia

n.<H m
n.¢ N
m.¢ N
N.ob 0H
n.¢H .n
«.Hb ma
n.<a m
v.4 H
n.4H n
m.o¢ ea
b.mm ma
n.00 ad
b.mc an
a
“Hens
gal

 

25 p.33 2

.quu

. .1:
.8338 H23 .3

and vowed ad
eduapm
one:

«oafluud vo9uH0HnD

eao aneeq a4

efiuaeh

can:
”erupufiem eased

and waded ed

unneuem even

efiuajh

0H1!
«caeenem

gag

-92-

 

 

o.mN OH mom...” n Mann b
n.~ H o.o o m.« H
TS eH «.5 o v.5 3
“.mn «H n.0n e o.o~ o
comm .«H w.Hn o H.wn o
mmummumuqmm muuammmuqum a. s _z
Aoeusv AeHusv _ AHutsv
dsn£r tuqmflaw uqdaflll

Avescdvaoov HHS 0.3.8.

18.. .9: is 5.3.3
Qfiifififiaddsg—

can

one and: a4
Ode-8h
0.72

H aggv Enoch

nugmnwmuuqHHHUAW

-93-

A vast majority of the students named both parents
first (76% of the males, 8h% of females, and 79% of
total sample); or they named at least one parent (81%
of the males, 8h% of the females, and 83% of the total
sample). Peers were the next most frequently mentioned
group; however, only 10% of the total sample (8% of the
females, and 1h% of the males) named a peer first. Two
persons named unrelated adults, and one named an age
level relative. Thus the data in Tables XVI and XVII
support the third hypothesis.

Table XVIII summarizes the number and percentage
of students in the pretest sample who named at least
one person from the following categories of significant
others as being concerned with how well the students
obey the rules of honesty.) The results are similar to
those reported in Table XVI for the college freshman
sample: a majority of the students named at least one
parent (95%), about half of the students named peers
(50%), and only a small percent named adult relatives
(18%), unrelated adult females (28%), and age level
relatives (8%). The major discrepancy between the data
reported for the pretest sample and the college sample

was the great percent of students in the pretest who

-9h-

named unrelated adult males.8 Never-the-less, the data
in Table XVIII support Hypothesis III.

In summary, Hypothesis III suggests that adoles-
cents are most responsive to their parents when dealing

with problems of honesty. The data of this study support

this contention.

 

8 This discrepancy can be accounted for. The
high school utilized for the second pretest of the
instrument was located in a predominate Catholic com»
munity. Most of the Catholic students had at one
time attended a Catholic School. Thus many of the
Catholic students in this group named their local
parish priests. However, this did not hold true for
the Catholic respondents in the college sample.

CHAPTER IV

CONCLUSION AND SUMRARY

SUMMARY

Throughout recorded history, scholars have sought
to explain and understand criminal and deviant behavior.l
Since the early nineteenth century, there has been a
long succession of criminological theories; most of
which have not stood the test of time. These theories
can be classified into three theoretical orientations:
biological and constitutional theories, psychological

theories, and sociological theories. Most of these

 

1 The concepts criminal behavior and deviant behavior
are not synonymous. Although.most criminal behavior is
considered to be deviant behavior, all deviant behavior
is not considered to be criminal. Hewever, theories of
deviant behavior should be applicable to criminal be-
havior. Furthermore, deviant behavior, as identified
in current sociological literature, is closely related
to the same span of behavior as that identified as crime
inal behavior. For example, one of the more popular text-
books dealing with deviant behavior includes the following
topics: drug addiction, crime, delinquency, alcoholism,
suicide, and mental disorders. (See Marshall Cinard,
Sociology 22 Deviant Behavior (New Yerk, 1963.) Another
example is Albert Cohen's article on deviant behavior in
which.he closely aligns-criminal behavior and deviant
behavior. (See Albert Cohen, "The Study of Social Disor-
ganization and Deviant Behavior," in Robert Merton,
Leonard Broom, and Leonard Cattrell, Sociology Today:
Problems and Prospects (New York, 1959) pp. h61-H8H.)

In addition, theories of deviant behavior and theories
of criminal behavior are based on the same basic assump-
tions. Consequently, this author categorizes these two
types of behavior into one.

 

 

-95-

-96-

theories are based on three premises: first, deviance
is the result of a.malfunctioning in the individual
and/or in the society; second, the deviant is the
critical variable for the analysis of deviant behavior;
and third, human behavior can be described in terms of
a behavioral continuum ranging from deviant behavior
through tolerated behavior to ideal behavior with the
largest prOportion of behavior falling between these
two extremes.

The first two assumptions have been questioned by
the developing perspective of the sociology of deviant
behavior as labeling. First, this perspective contends
that deviance is not a property inherent in behavior,
but that deviance is a property conferred upon these
behaviors by the social audiences through a process of
labeling. Consequently, the critical variable is the
social audience rather than the individual actor, since
it is the audience which eventually determines whether
or not any particular episode of behavior or any partic-
ular actor is labeled deviant. Second, this perspective
contends that deviance promotes the solidarity in the
social group by functioning as a boundary maintaining
force. Thus deviance need not be the result of a mal-
functioning in the individual and/or in the social group,

but it may be the result of a functioning social system.

 

-97-

Recent research hypothesized and emperically
demonstrated that human behavior can be placed on a
continuum ranging from strict adherence to criminal
codes to serious violations of that code; furthermore,
this research has demonstrated that most human behavior
falls between these two extremes. The traditional in—
terpretation of this continuum.is that it ranges from
deviant behavior through tolerated behavior to ideal
behavior; thus this interpretation gives rise to the
notion that the majority of the people are "law-abiding
law-breakers." Cavan has suggested an alternative
interpretation of this phenomena: as it seems doubtful
whether so much admiration is really accorded the
over-conforming group as most criminolists imply, Cavan's
behavioral continuum.ranges from.condemned underconforming
behavior through various decreasing degrees of dis-
approved behavior to normally conforming behavior and then
through increasing degrees of disapproved behavior to
overconforming behavior which is also condemned.

The purpose of this study is to empirically examine
the validity of the two alternative interpretations of
the behavioral continuum. Specifically, the study focuses
on three research hypotheses. First, the normally con-
forming segment of the late adolescent populatiOn reacts
unfavorably both to underconformity and to overconformity.
Second, the reactions of the normally conforming segment

of the late adolescent population to deviations varies

-98-

in severity according to the degree of either over-
conformity or underconformity. Third, adolescents
will tend to name parents as those most concerned
with their observance of the rules of honesty.

The data for this study were obtained from.a
questionnaire survey of all the single freshmen who
reported no prior legal involvement and who were under
twenty years of age enrolled in a large section of a
social problems class at Michigan State University.

The data consisted of demographic information, list

of significant others, degree of delinquency as measured
by Short and Nye's scale, and attitudinal reactions to
various degrees of overconformity - conformity -
underconformity. These data support the three hypotheses
given above, with one exception: the individuals used
in this sample did not react with the same severity to

over-conformity as they did to under-conformity.

LIMITATIONS 01:: CURRENT SEER!

The first limitation relates to the problem of
sampling. One difficulty is that of sample size. 197
students completed the questionnaire, but only those
70 students who were freshmen, who were single, who were
under 20 years of age, and who reported no prior con-
viction records were utilized for this study. This

sample size reduces the utility of certain statistical

-99-

modes of analysis, and reduces the practicality of
including a large number of control variables. A

small sample also increases the likelihood of chance
variation. Another difficulty is that of the gener-
ality of the findings based on the sample. That is,
the utilization of a college freshman sample limits

the applicability of the results to college-enrolled
populations. While criticism of the sampling procedure
and of the size of the sample might be justifiable,

we must not lose sight of the fact that the major con-
cern of this study was to empirically determine the
validity of alternative conceptions of the nature of
the behavioral continuum, Consequently, an increase

in sample size would not have increase either the pre-
cision or validity of the findings to the degree that
would warrant that increase even through such an in-
crease would have increased the types of statistical
analysis possible. Furthermore, although there are
differences between the college-enrolled pepulation and
the American population and other sub-pOpulations of the
American population, there is no empirical or theoretical
basis to assume that the conception of the type of be-
havioral continuum.would differ in this pepulation as
compared to other populations. In short, when the
sampling factor is considered with the factors of time,

expense, and the research purpose and design, the sample

-100-

size and sampling procedures utilized for this study
are best described as limitations of this study but
not as grave shortcomings of the study. However,
interpretations of the results of this study should
reflect the sampling limitations.

The second limitation relates to; the compatibility
of the samples utilized for the first two pretests and
the final sample. The instrument underwent a series of
testings before it was administered to the final sample.
The first two pretests utilized high school samples,
but a college freshman sample was utilized in the final
data gathering process. One might argue that the differ-
ences between the population of high school seniors and
the population of college freshmen are great enough to
destroy the usefulness of employing an instrument pre-
tested in a high school sample for a college sample.

But on the other hand, even though differences do exist
between the two populations, it is unlikely that these
differences are great enough to eliminate the possibility
of utilizing an instrument so tested. In order to as-
certain the applicibility of an instrument so tested for
a college freshman sample, the instrument underwent an
informal testing using a college sample before the final
draft was constructed. The instrument was then modified
to fit the college sample. Therefore, the degree of

incompatibility between the pretest samples and the final

-101-

sample seems to be a limitation of this research but
not a serious shortcoming.

Admittedly, the measures utilized are crude, the
techniques - mostly percentages and comparisons of
medians - are rudimentary, and therefore the results
are only approximate. At worst, the data do demonstrate
that the hypotheses are plausible; at best, the data
demonstrate that the hypotheses are valid and tenable.
But in either case, the data suggest that the assump-
tion of a behavioral continuum ranging from.deviant
behavior to ideal behavior, underlying much.of the
criminological theory and research is highly question-

able.

IMPLICATION AND SUGGESTIONS FOR NEEDED RESEARCH

The analysis of deviant behavior in terms of the
underconforming deviant-conformer- overconforming de-
viant continuum has several implications on the under-
standing of deviant behavior. Analysis in these terms
clarifies certain problems connected with the definition
of criminal behavior, with theoretical formulations of
deviant behavior, with research in the field of deviant
behavior, and with penology.

One implication of the analysis of deviant be-
havior in terms of Cavan's continuum is a need for the

clarification of the definition of criminal behavior.

-102-

A recurrent controversy rages over who should
sociologically be identified as criminal; that is,

what criteria should be employed to operationally
specify criminality. Some contend that any act which
by omission or commission runs counter to the criminal
law should be considered as criminal behavior. Others
argue that the criteria for criminality should be
arrests, convictions, or incarcerations.2 Short and Nye
contend that reported behavior should be used as the
bases for designating delinquency.3 The data from this
study would suggest that none of the above definitions
are apprOpriate from a sociological perspective. Not
everyone who violates the law is considered to be crim-
inal, not everyone who is arrested for violating the

law is labeled as criminal, and not everyone who is con-
victed for a criminal violation is thought to be criminal}L
In fact, the findings of this study indicate that in
order for an individual to be considered "normal", he

must be willing to circumvent the intent of the law and

 

2 For a complete discussion of the various defini-
tions of criminality, see Howard Becker, Outsiders:
Studies la the Sociology 93 Deviance (Newabr , 1963),
pp. I-I8; Albert’Cohen, Deviance and Social Control
(Englewood Cliffs, 1966), pp. 1-22; and Walter Reckless
(New York, 1961), pp. 17-29.

3 James Short and Ivan Nye, "Reported Behavior as
Criterion of Deviant Behavior," Social Problems, V
(Winter, 1957-58), 205-213.

C See Richard Schwartz and Jerome Skolnick, "Two
Studies in of Legal Sti a" in Howard Becker, The Other
Side: Perspectives 22. eviance (New Yerk, 196H), pp.I03-ll8.

 

-103-

on occasion Openly break the law. That is, the
normally conforming segment of a society considers
individuals who stringently observe the legal codes

to be deviant. Thus in order for a definition of
criminal behavior to be fruitful for sociological
analysis, it must take into account not only the epi-
sode of behavior, and the actor, but the social audience
as well. One definition which might be sociologically
relevant would be that, to paraphase Howard Becker,S
criminal behavior is that behavior which is labeled

as criminal behavior.

Another implication of the analysis of deviancy in
these terms is on the area of research and methodology.
Research studies of deviants sometimes compare under-
conformers (Areas A and B)6 with overconformers (Areas
F and G) ignoring the central area of modal behavior.
One such comparison is Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck's
much discussed study, Unraveling Juvenile Delinquengy.7
The Gluecks matched each of 500 correctional-school boys
with a boy of the same age, intelligence, and social

background, whose behavior was near-perfect. The control

 

5 Ibid,, p. 3.
6 See Chapter I, p. 10.

7 Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck, Unravelinnguvenile
Delinquency (Cambridge, 1950), pp. 22-39.

 

-10h-

boys were without police, court, or correctional-

school records. In fact,_7h% of the boys were without
any known delinquency of even a minor nature. As the
Gluecks had difficulty in finding 500 such overly good
boys, they eventually had to include a few boys guilty

of such misbehaviors as smoking in their early years,
hopping trucks, once or twice swiping much desired
articles from stores, crap shooting, sneaking into movies,
occasional truancy, being stubborn to their mothers, and

a very occasional occurrence of staying out late at night,
using vile language, drinking alcoholic beverages, and
running away from.home. Many of the delinquencies of
control boys were very trivial and had occurred when the
boys were seven or eight years old. Thus the Gluecks

were comparing boys from.areas A or B with boys from

areas F or G. However, the Gluecks conclude that, whereas
the delinquent or deviant boys tended to be active, ag-
gressive, impulsive, and rebellious, the control group of
"nondelinquent or non-deviant" boys tended to be neurotic,
fearful of failure or defeat, and submissive to authority.
They failed to note that their sampling procedure completely
ignored the majority of boys with normal conformity

(Area D), who live within the tolerance limits of the comp

munity. Consequently, the control group was fully as

deviant as the delinquent group, but in the Opposite di-
rection. An interpretation of the data reported by the

Glueck study should be made with this idea in mind. In

~105-

short, the current study suggests that, to be fruitful
criminological research.must take greater care in Oper-
ationally specificing the pOpulations under study. In
other words, studies should specify which pepulations
are being compared: a "normally conforming" population
with a "delinquent” or "criminal" pOpulation, or a "over-
conforming" population with a "delinquent” or "criminal"
population, or a "non-delinquent" or "non-criminal"
pOpulation with a "delinquent" or "criminal" population.
A third implication of the evaluation of the be-
havior continuum is on the expectations of behavior for
delinquents and criminals on probation or parole. Usually
probation or parole involves a number of stringent re-
strictions on the behavior of the probationer or parolee.
Such conditions as the following are typical: regular
school or work attendance, daily curfews, restrictions
on movement from.home community, and avoidance of
disreputable companions and places.8 The penalty for
violating this conditions is often commitment or recomp
mitment to a correctional institution. On the other hand,
strict observance of these requirements for parole or
probation is overconformity by the parolee or probationer's
standards; thus the requirements are virtually impossible

for the parolee or probationer to follow if he is to

 

For an enumeration of these requirements, see
Advisory Council of Judges of the National Probation and
Parole Association, Guides for Sentencing_(New Yerk,
1957); and Paul Tappan, Contemporary Correction (New York,

1951). pp. 3oh-397.

~106-

remain in the community and not be isolated from his
social groups. The result of this dilemme.is disregard
for the requirements and deception on the part of the
parolee or probationer. Probation and parole might more
often be successful if the probationer and parolee were
required to meet reasonably conforming standards.

A fourth.implication of the behavior continuum of
deviant underconformity-conformity-deviant overconformity
is on the theoretical formulations of crime and delinquency.
It is one of the major themesof this thesis that a theory
of delinquent-criminal behavior cannot be isolated from
a concern with the analysis of behavior that is defined
as socially acceptable or from a concern with the analysis
of behavior that is defined as overconforming deviance.
A.most important consequence of conceptualizing under-
conformity, conformity, and overconformity together is
the realization that these types of behavior are not
necessarily as different as one would tend to believe.

The difference perhaps lies only in the manner in which
society has chosen to define and treat certain aspects
of social action as deviant (underconformity or overcon-
formity) and other aspects as representing a commitment
to social norms and values. Furthermore, this behavior
continuum suggests that deviance is not an either or
affair, but is a matter of degree and is the result of
interpersonal interaction. Thus both deviance and con-

formity must be analyzed in terms of the dynamic

-107-

reciprocal relationship existing between the actors,
the rule makers, and the rule enforcers.

A fifth.implication of the findings of this research
is suggested needed research. This study focused on the
attitudinal responses to various degrees of undercon-
formity or overconformity. An assertion of this thesis
is that the behavioral reactions would correspond to the
attitudinal reactions. One suggestion for further re-
search is the examination of the behavioral reactions of
the normally conforming segment of the pOpulation to the
various degrees of either underconformity or overcon-
formity. Another suggestion for additional research is
the relation of social class and the behavioral continuum.
Chapter II suggested that each social class or other large
subcultural group has its own definition of what be-
havior falls into the area of tolerance, what is dis-
approved.mildly or seriously, and what is condemned.

The differences between the various social class defini-
tions of approved and disapproved behavior should be the

tOpic of further researches.

APPENDIX

RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

A Study of Social Rules and Regulations

WHAT THIS l§_ALL ABOUT

 

 

The youth of a community are, in.many respects, the
most important element of their society.

There is a great deal written and said about this
age group, but much of it is not based on facts.

This study is intended to supply important in-

formation about the behavior of young peOple with respect
to social rules and regulations.

INSTRUCTIONS

 

Most of the questions can be answered by circling
the number after the answer you choose.

In those cases where you are asked to write out
your answer, space is provided for you to do so.

REMEMBER
This is not a test. There are no right or wrong
answers (except a few questions about your age, class,
marital status, etc.)

Ybur experiences and attitudes are the facts of
this study.

Yen will not place your name on this questionnaire,
and no attempt will be made to identify you through

your answers.

Thank you for your co-operation.

—lO8-

-lO9-

1) Ybur class:

Freshman ------------- 1
Sephomore ------------- 2
Junior -------------- 3
Senior -------------- A
Other --------------- 5

If other, specify:

 

2) Your age at last birthday:

16 or less ------------ 1
l7 ---------------- 2
18 ---------------- 3
19 ---------------- u
20 ---------------- 5
21 ---------------- 6
22 ---------------- 7
23 ---------------- 8

If 2A or more, write in age:
3) Your sex:

Male -------------- - 1
Female -------------- 2

u) Marital status:

Single -------------- 1
Married -------------- 2
Divorced ------------- 3
Other --------------- u

If other, specify:

 

5) What is your religious affiliation?

 

Protestant ----------- - 1
If Protestant, indicate denomination:
Hbman Catholic ---------- 2
Greek Orthodox Catholic ------ 3
Jewish -------------- h
Other --------------- 5

If other, specify:

 

If your religious affiliation is different than
either of your parents, specify:

 

~110-

6) How often do you attend Church?

Once a week, or more often - - - - 1

Once or twice a month ------- 2
Less than once a month ------ 3
Almost never ----------- h

7) Your race:

Negro --------------- 1
White --------------- 2
Other --------------- 3

8) Where was your father born?

In this country ---------- 1
If other country, specify: -

 

9) Where was your mother born?

In this country ---------- 1
If other country, specify: -

 

10) Up to this point, where have you spent most of
your life?

On a farm ------------- 1
In a small town ---------- 2
In a city smaller than Lansing - - 3
In Lansing ------------

In another city about the size

of Lansing ------------ 5

In a city larger than Lansing- - - 6
In a very large city like Detroit- 7
In a suburb of a city ------- 8

11) Sometimes people talk about middle, lower, working,
or upper classes in the community, and say that
a family is in one or another of these classes.
Which one of the following "classes” would you
say your parents or the folks you live with,

belong to?

Working class ----------- 1
Lower class ------------ 2
Middle class ----------- 3

Upper class ------------ h

-111-

12) Who contributes most to the financial support of
your family?

YOur father ------------ 1
Your mother ------------ 2
YOur mother and father about

equally -------------- 3
YOur spouse ------------ M
Someone else ----------- 5

If someone else, specify who this person is:

 

a) How far did this person mentioned in 12 above
go in school? (Answer for father if both
father and mother contribute equally.)

No schooling ----------- 1
Some grade school --------- 2
Graduated from grade school- - - - 3
Some high school --------- u
Graduated from high school - - - - 5
Some college ----------- 6
Graduated from college ------ 7
Advanced graduate training - - - - 8
Don't know ------------ 9

b) What does this person do for a living? (Write
in the complete name or title of the occupation,
not the company he or she works for.)

 

 

c) Describe as accurately as possible what this
person makes or does on the job. (For example:
he supervises the work 1f 15 office clerks;
he teaches high school English; he sells from
door to door; etc.)

 

 

13)

114- )

15)

-ll2-
Have you ever had any contact with the police?
(Include being arrested, picked up, or warned.)

Yes ---------------- 1
No ---------------- 2

If yes, specify what contact and why:

 

 

Research has found that everyone is concerned about
the way others feel toward him. Some peoples'
opinions about you are very important to you, while
other peoples' opinions are not as important.

Below you are asked to list the names of those
people MOST IMPORTANT to you.

Name those peOple most important in your life.

Name How is this person related to you?

 

 

Name those persons you feel are most concerned about
how well you obey rules and regulations of honesty.

Name How is this person related to you?

 

 

-113-

FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS

Recent research has found that everyone breaks

rules and regulations during his lifetime. Some break
them regularly, others less often. Below are some
frequently broken. Circle those that you have broken
since beginning high school.

16)

17)

18)

19)

20)

21)

22)

23)

2h)

25)

26)

Driven a car without a driver's license or permit?
(Do not include driver training courses.) (1) very
often; (2) several times; (3) once or twice; (u) no.

Taken little thing (worth less than $2) that did
not belo to you? .(1) very often; (2) several
times; (3 once or twice; (A) no.

Bought or drank beer, wine, or liquor? (Include
drinkin at home.) (1) very often; (2) several
times; %3) once or twice; (u) no.

Skipped school without a legitimate excuse? (I)
very often; (2) several times; (3) once or twice;

(k) no.

Purposely damaged or destroyed.public property that
did not belong to you? (1) very often; (2) several
times; (3) once or twice; (A) no.

Defied your parents' authority (to their faces)?
(1) very often; (2)-several times; (3) once or
twice; (A) no.

Has sex relations with a person of the Opposite sex?
(1) very often; (2) several times; (3) once or
twice; (A) no.

"Run away from.home?" (1) very often; (2) several
times; (3) once or twice; (A) no.

Taken little things of medium.value (between $2 -
$50)? (1) very often; (2) several times; (3)
once or twice; (h) no.

Taken things of large value (worth more than $50)?
(1) very often; (2) several times; (3) once or
twice; (k) n0.

When asked, refused to join others in a game played
on private prOperty? (1) very often; (2) several
times; (3) once or twice; (k) no.

-11u-

27) When you knew that someone cheated on a test,
reported that cheating to the teacher? (1) ve
often; (2) several times; (3) once or twice; (A no.

28) Reported someone for taking a small item.not
belonging to them? (1) very often; (2) several
times; (3) once or twice; (A) no.

29) When given a chance, refused to join others in the
taking of fruit, vegetables, or flowers from other
peOple's prOperty? (1) very often; (2) several
times;_(3) once or twice; (k) no.

If the following people were students in your school
and/or residents in your dorm, how would you feel about
them?

30) Both Ed and Bill were seniors in their last term of
college. In order to graduate they had to pass
their examinations in all their classes. They
were both able to pass all the final examinations
except the one in a chemistry class. Ed asked no
one for help; on the other hand, Bill asked Glen
who sat next to him to give him some of the answers.
Joe saw Glen give Bill the answers, and reported
the cheating to the teacher.

HOw would you react to Ed's behavior? (1) strong
approval; (2) approval; (3) no Opinion; (k) dis-
approval; (5) strong disapproval.

approval; approval; (3) no Opinion; (k) dis-

How would you react to Bill's behavior? (1) strong
2
approval; (5) strong disapproval.

How would you react to Glen's behavior? (1) strong
approval; (2) approval; (3) no opinion; (h) dis-
approval; (5) strong disapproval.

react to JOe's behavior? (1) strong

How would you
approval; (2) approval; (3) no Opinion; (h) dis-
approval; (5) strong disapproval. ,

31) On a warm summer afternoon, Dick suggested that a
group of boys living in the same dorm go for a swim
in a private lake. As the boys were unable to Obtain
permission, neither George nor Sam would go. Sam
reported the group of boys to the caretaker. George
spent the afternoon in the library studying and did
not report Dick and the others to anyone else.

ou react to Dick's behavior? (1) strong
2) approval; (3) no opinion; (h) dis-
5) strong disapproval.

How would y
approval; (
approval; (

32)

33)

-115-

How would you react to George's behavior? (1)
strong approval; (2) approval; (3) no opinion;
(k) disapproval; (5) strong disapproval.

How would you react to Sam's behavior? (1) strong
approval; (2) approval; (3) no Opinion; (A) dis-
approval; (5) strong disapproval.

One evening, Dave suggested that a group of boys
from a dorm raid Mr. Smith's watermelon patch and
"steal" enough melons for the entire group. Jim

and Tom.would not go with the others to take the
melons, but they did ask Dave to bring back a

melon for them to eat. Carl would not go with the
group either, but he reported the group to Mr. Smith.

How would you react to Dave's behavior? (1) strong
approval; (2) approval; (3) no opinion; (h) dis-
approval; (5) strong disapproval.

How would you react to Tbm.and Jisz behavior? (1)
strong approval° (2) approval; (3)»no opinion; (h)
disapproval; (5) strong disapproval.

How would you react to Carl's behavior? (1) strong
approval; (2) approval; (3)-no Opinion; (h) dis-
approval; (5) strong disapproval.

Earl asked his roommates to Join him to break into

a local gas station where they could steal $100.
Bruce said that he would help Earl with the burglary.
Jack would not help Earl but would not report him
either; on the other hand, Pete refused to join the
two boys and reported than to the police.

How would you react to Pete's behavior? (1) strong
approval; (2) approval; (3) no Opinion; (k) dis-
approval; (5) strong disapproval.

How would you react to Earl's behavior? (1) strong
approval; (2) approval; (3) no Opinion;-(k) dis-
approval; (5) strong disapproval.

How would you react to Jack's behavior? (1) strong
approval; (2) approval; (3) no Opinion; (A) dis-
approval; (5) strong disapproval. _

How would you react to Bruce's behavior? (1) strong
approval; (2) approval; (3) no opinion; (h) dis-
approval; (5) strong disapproval.

3h )

-116-

One night, a group of five boys found a car with

the keys in the ignition. John suggested that they
"borrow" the car for a joy ride. Two of the boys
decided to go with him. Larry decided that stealing
an automobile was too serious for him so he would
not join them. Bob did not approve of taking the
car either, but he reported the theft to the police.

How would you react to John's behavior? (1) strong
approval; (2) approval; (3) no opinion; (h) dis-
approval; (5) strong disapproval.

How would you react to Bob's behavior? (1) strong
approval; (2) approval; (3) no opinion; (h) dis-
approval; (5) strong disapproval.
How would you react to Larry's behavior? (1) strong
approval; E2; approval; (3) no opinion; (k) dis-

5

approval; strong disapproval.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Advisory Council of Judges of the National Probation
and Parole Associatio. Guide for Sentencing. New
York: National Probation and Parole Association,

1957.

Barber, Bernard. Social Stratification. New Ybrk:
Harcourt, Brace, and Company, 1957.

 

Ebcker, Reward. The Other Side: Perspectives gggDeviance.
New York: The FreefiPress of Glencoe, 196M.

 

Becker, waard. Outsiders: Studies i2;the Sociology g;
Deviance. New YOrk: The Fgee Press of Glencoe, 1963.

 

Blalock, Herbert. Social Statistics. New YOrk: Me Graw-
Hill Book Company, Incorporated, 1960.

 

Bloch, Herbert and Frank Flynn. Delinquency. New YOrk:
Random.HOuse, 1956.

Bogardus, Emory. "Race Relations by Sexes," Sociology
and Social Research, XLIII (July-August, l9§9),

E39-UH1.

Bogardus, Emory. "Social Distance Changes in the United
States During the Past Thirty Years," Sociolo and
Social Research, XLIII(November-December, l9 ,

Iig-IESO

Bossard, James and Eleanor Boll. The Sociology 9£_Child
Development. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960.

 

Brookover, Wilbur, Jean Le Pere, Don Hamachek, Shailer
Thomas, and Edsel Erickson. "Improving Academic
Achievement Through Students' Self-Concept Enhance-
ment," EL.§L Office of Education Cooperative
Research Project #1636, (East Lansing, 1965).

 

Brookover, Wilbur, Don Hamachek, and Edsel Erickson,
"Relationship of Self-Concept to Achievement in
High School,I U, S. Office of Education COOperative

Research Project #2831, (East Lansing, 1966).

 

 

-117-

—llB-

Brookover, Wilbur, Ann Paterson, and Shailer Thomas.
”Self-Concept of Ability and School Achievement,"
U, S. Office of Education Cooperative Research

Project #SMS'TEast Lansing, 1962).

Caldwell, Robert. Criminology. New YOrk: Ronald Press
Company, 1965.

 

 

 

Gavan, Ruth Shone. Juvenile Delinquengy. New YOrk:
J. B. Lippincott Company, 1962.

 

Gavan, Ruth Shone. Readings in Juvenile Delinquency.
New York: J. B. ippincott COmpany, 196h.

Cavan, Ruth Shone. "The Concepts of Tolerance and
Contraculture as Applied to Delinquency,"
Sociological Quarterly, II (January, l96l),2h3-258.

Centers, Richard. The Psychology 2; Social Class.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, I9H9.

 

Clinard, Marshall. Sociology of Deviant Behavior. New
YOrk: Holt, Rinehart andIWinston, Incorporated,

1963.

Cloward, Richard and Lloyd Ohlin. Delinquency and 927
portunit . New YOrk: The Free Press, 1960.

 

 

 

Cohen, Albert. Delinquent BO 3. New York: International
Universities—Press, 19 .

 

Cohen, Albert. Deviance and Control. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-HaIl, Incorporated,“l966.

 

Coleman, James. The Adolescent Society. New YOrk: The
Free Press, 1962.

Elliott, Mabel and Frances Merrill. Social Disorganiza-
tion. New YOrk: Harper and Brothers Publishers,

1775".

ETikSOH, Kai. "Notes on the Sociology of Deviance,"
Social Problems, IX (Spring, 1962), 307-31h.

Faris Robert. Social Disorganization. New YOrk:
Ronald Press COmpany, 1953.

Glaser, Daniel. "Criminality Theories and Behavioral
Images," American Journal 92 Sociology, VXI (May,
1956): M304h50.

 

-119-

Glueck, Sheldon and Eleanor. Unravelinnguvenile
Delinquency. New YOrk: COmmonwealth, 1950.

 

 

Goffman, Erving. Stigga. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Incorporated, 1963.

Goode, William.and Paul Hatt. Methods ig Social Research.
New YOrk: Mo Graw-Hill Book Company, Incorporated,

1952.

Horrocks, JOhn. Psychology of Adolescence. Cambridge:
The Riverside Press, 195IL

 

 

 

Josselyn, Irene. The Adolescent and His WOrld. New
York: Family Service Association of America, 1952.

 

Kitsuse, John. "Societal Reactions to Deviant Behavior,"
Social Problems, IX (Winter, 1962), 2M7-257,

Lundberg, George A., Clarence Schrag, and Otto N, Larsen.
Sociology. New YOrk: Harper and Brothers, 1958.

 

Maddox, George and Bevode Me Call. Drinking Amo Teen-
Agers: a Sociological Interpretation of Alcohol
y§§_ig_ngigh SOhoOl. New Brunswick: IRutgers Center
of Alcohol Studies, 196h.

 

Matza, David. Delinquency and Drift. New YOrk: The Free
Press, 1965.

 

Merton, Robert. Social Theopy and Social Structure. New
YOrk: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1957.

Merton, Robert, Leonard Broom, Leonard Cottrell. Sociology
Toda : Problems and Prospects. New York: Harper
and wa, Publishers, 1959.

 

Murphy, Fred, Mary Shirley, and Helen Witmer. "The
Incidence of Hidden Delinquency," American Journal
2; Orthopsychiatry, XVI (October, 19h6), 6869696.

Neumeyer, Martin. Juvenile Delinquencylg Modern Sociepy.
New YOrk: Free Press, I961.

Porterfield, Austin. YOuth in Trouble. Fort Worth: Leo
Potishman Foundation, 19E6. .

Reckless, Walter. The Crime Problem. New YOrk: Appleton-
Century-Crofts, Incorporated, 1961.

 

Remmers, Herman and D. H. Radler. The American Teenagers.
Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1957.

-120-

Riley, Matilda. Sociological Research. New YOrk:
Harcourt, Brace, World, Incorporated, 1963.

 

Schur, Edwin. Crimes Without Victims. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: IPrentice4Hall, Incorporated, 1965.

 

Shaw, Clifford and Henry No Kay. Juvenile Delinquency
and Urban Areas. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, l9h2.

 

Shaw, Marvin and Jack wright. Scales for the Measure-
ment 9; Attitudes. New YOrk:—IMO Graw-HiIl Book
Company, 1967.

 

Short, James and Ivan Nye. "Extent of Unrecorded
Juvenile Delinquencies: Tentative Conclusions,"
Journal Of Criminal Law, IL (November-Lacember,

1958), 263-302.

Short, James and Ivan Nye. "Reported Behavior as a
Criterion of Deviant Behavior," Social Problems,
v (Winter, 1957-58), 208-213.

 

Short, James and Ivan Nye. "Scaling Delinquent Behavior,"
American Sociological Review, XXII (June, 1957),

326:3hl.

Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the
Behavioral Sciences. ‘New YOrk: IMO Graw-HIIl Book

Comp any, 1936 O

 

Stone, L. JOseph and Joseph Church. Childhood and
Adolescence. New York: Random Hause, 1957.

Sutherland, Edwin and Donald Cressey. Principles 2;
Criminology. New YOrk: J. B. Lippincott COmpany,
1960.

 

Sykes, Gresham. Crime and Sociepy. New YOrk: Random
House, 1966.

Taft, Donald. Criminology. New YOrk: The Mac Hillan
Company, 1956 o

 

Tappan, Paul. Contemporary Correction. New YOrk: MO
Graw-Hill Book Company, 1951.

Thrasher, Frederic. The Gang. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 19 6.

vedder, Clyde, Samual Koenig, and Robert Clark. Crimi-
nolo' . New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston,
I933.

~121-

Vold, George. Theoretical_Criminology. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1958.

Wallerstein, James and Clement Wyle. "Our Law-Abiding
Law-Breakers," National Probation, XXV (April,
19u7), 107-112.

 

Whyte, William. Street Corner Societ . Chicago:
University of Cfiicago Press, 19h3.

 

MIC T

 

III/1117M?) My) [It'll AIRMAN