RElAfiONSHIP 0F LEAQER BEHAVIOR AND MEMBER
RESPONSE wmam AN ENSTITUTIONAL SETTING

Thesis for the Degree of M. &
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
MICHAEL JON PANEIT A
1972

r_ nm 5

 

LI“ “AR Y '5

Mich“ 1n State
University

 

fllllllllllLIHIIHllUllllllllllfllllllll{IUJIHIIHllllllilll

23 10382 2627

RELATIONSHIP OF LEADER BEHAVIOR AND MEMBER RESPONSE
WITHIN AN INSTITUTIONAL SETTING

BY

Michael Jon Panetta
A THESIS

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

MASTER OF SCIENCE

School of Criminal Justice

Wm [M1 07: @Wa

 

 

(chairman)
)[L/b // /t/d/I/:'{)1U‘g—"’_,
/:/fir (member)
‘1, ’79 x7 ’7‘,“ .- 1'
945—2111 {Z .‘w‘ c .I. g9: 46

 

if 7—

*? *7 (member)

ABSTRACT

RELATIONSHIP OF LEADER BEHAVIOR AND MEMBER RESPONSE

WITHIN AN AN INSTITUTIONAL SETTING

by
Michael Jon Panetta

Literature in the area of Juvenile Correct-
ions indicates a need for more adequate inform-
ation concerning staff-ward relationships. Re-
latively few studies have focused upon this area
of investigation.

This study is designed to determine whether
or not a member's (wards) response is a function
of/or related to the Leader (staff) Behavior
to which he is exposed within the institutional
setting.

Maxey Boys' Training School and Green Oaks
Center (Special treatment unit for boys unable
to function in an "Open" type of institution),
located at Whitmore Lake, Michigan, was selected
as the Juvenile Institution to be studied. The
reason for this selection was due to the evacuation

of the Lansing Boys' Training School and the

accessability to fully operant programs. Although
the reception center also serves camp operations
which are operant during the summer months, Maxey
is soon to become Michigan's sole surviving Boys'
Training School facility accommodating the entire
state 0

The hypotheses under investigation are:
(1) Leader Behavior (staff) has no effect on Member
(ward) response, thus, there will be no difference
between member reSponse no matter what the Leader
Behavior may be:
(2) If Leader Behavior is found to be Authoritarian,
Democratic, or Laissez-faire, the member response
will net be related to the Leader Behavior and
therefore, not consistent with Lippitt and White's
findings. I will use the null hypotheses and attempt
to reject it in accepting the alternate hypotheses.
Therefore, the premise under investigation is that
the Leader's (staff) method of relating (behavior-IV)
affects certain member (ward) behavior (behavior-UV)
in a predicted way (consistent with Lippitt and
White's findings).

The types of data collected were observed

behaviors and verbal reSponses of the institution's

staff and wards under consideration. Specific
categories of behavior derived from indices of
typologies developed by Lippitt and White were
utilized as a basis for observation and categor-
ization.

The results of the study indicate that the
null hypotheses can be rejected and the alternate
accepted since the findings suggest that an assoc-
iation between Leader Behavior (staff) and Member
Response (wards) exists. In essence, Child to
Leader and Child to Child Behavior seem to be
dependent upon the leadership style to which the
individual is exposed. The need for further in-
vestigation of the dynamics of Juvenile and staff
relationships within institutional settings is

evident and strongly recommended.

RELATIONSHIP OF LEADER BEHAVIOR AND MEMBER RESPONSE

WITHIN AN INSTITUTIONAL SETTING

BY
Michael Jon Panetta

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
School of Criminal Justice

1972

DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to my parents
MR. AND MRS. FRANK ANTHONY PANETTA
for their lifelong guidance,

encouragement and patience.

ii

ACKNOWLEIXS EMEN TS

I wish to express my appreciation to the follow-
ing people who assisted in the completion of this
thesis:

to Dr. Robert C. Trojanowicz, my Major Professor
and Committee Chairman, and the Committee, Dr. John
H. McNamara and Mr. Roger Steggerda for their guid-
ance and understanding;

to Mr. J.J. Powers, Chief Administrator of Maxey
Boys' Training School, Mr. James Evans, Program Dir-
ector of Maxey Boys' Training School and Mr. Robert
Gibson, Director of Green Oaks Maximum Security Center,
for their assistance and cooperation;

finally, heartfelt thanks goes to my loving wife,
Susan Marie, and my daughter, Mary Elizabeth, for
sacrificing many hours of family activity and for their

understanding.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter

I.

II.

III.

INTRODUCTIONOOOOOOOOI.OOOOOOOOOOODCOOO

The PrOblem...‘OOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.0...

Overview of the Study............

SiqnificanceOOOOOOI...0......0.0.0....

History and Theoretical Framework

Of the StudYOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.000...D

REVIEW OF THE LITERArPURE O O O O O O I O O O O O O .

LeaderShip StUdieSoooooooooooooooooooo

LeaderShip power.OOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Acguistion of Deviant Adaptations......

Literature that Indicates a Need for

the Study of Leader and Group Dynamkx;

METHODOLOGY.O...OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOIOIOCO

Setting.09.000.000.000...0.0.0.0...

DQqun.OI.OCOOOOOOOQOOOIOOOOOOOOO

Potentially Influencing Variables.....

Measurement......................

Specific Categories to be Observed..

iv

Page

18
18
19

20

25
32
34
3s
36
37

38

Chapter Page
Scoring Procedure....................... 40

Reliability and Validity................... 41
Sampling................................... 42
Statement of the Hypothesis................ 43
Researchability of the Hypothesis.......... 44
Significance............................... 44
IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA....................... 46
Comparison of Studies...................... 55
Supplement................................. 57

V. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER
RESEARCH................................ 60
Recommendation for Further Research........ 64

BIBLIOGRAPHY.00000000000000.00000000000000000000 65

lll'l‘lllllclllll

TABLE

II.

III.

IV.

LIST OF TABLES

Child to Leader Analysis.................

Calculations of Child to Leader

AnaIYSiSOCOCOOCOOOIOIOOOO.00.0.0.0...I...

Child to Child Analysis..................

Calculations of Child to Child

AnalySiSIO.0OOOOOIOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0000...

vi

PAGE

49

50

51

52

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE

1.

The Social Organization Between Staff

and Inmates Within an Institutional

SettinQOO00.000.00.000.00000000000000000

The Social Organization Between Staff

and Inmates Within an Institutional

SettinGOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0....'00....

Comparison of Behavior of Average

Authoritarian, Democratic, and

Laissez-faire Leader................

Four Patterns of Child to Leader

Relationship........................

Four Patterns of Child to Child

RelationShj-p00OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

vii

PAGE

13

14

15

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

At present youngsters adjudicated by courts
as delinquent can be given a suspended sentence,
placed in a detention home, probation, incarcerated
in a training school or placed in alternative pre-
vention proqrams that are available. "Most author-
ities agree a training school should be avoided
as much as possible and used only as a last resort
since it is actually an institution of confinement."1

2 and Thomas3 believe that the delinquent

Cohen
acts that a youth commits are a very small part
of his behavioral repertoire and that most of his

behavior is socially acceptable. It is their con-

 

1William Amos, Ed.D., "The Future of Juvenile

Institutions," Federal Prgbatign, (Washington, D.C.,
March, 1968) p. 41.

2Albert R. Cohen, Delinquent Boys: Culture of the

Gang, (Glencoe, 111., The Free Press, 1955) pp. 24-32.

3Edwin Thomas, "Role Problems of Offenders and
Workers in the Field of Corrections," pp. 164-172.

tention that by removing the youth from the expect-
ations of the community, you make him much more
susceptible to the pressures of his new environment,~
but warn that if the new environment supports non-
legitimate adaptations, the delinquent will have
difficulty resisting this life style, particularly
if his reference group and associations in the in-
stitution are oriented toward non-legitimate styles.
Unfortunately, the methods employed by institut-
ions in treating delinquents seems to be the re-
moval and holding of the offender in a setting which
is, in many ways, no different from the one from
which he came. In fact, "the ineffectiveness of
institutional programs is partly to blame for the
increasing frequency of delinquent activity in that
youngsters who return to their neighborhood from
institutions carry with them the added sophistication
of a one year graduate course in delinquency (man-
ipulation, conning, utilization of subcultural codes)
and thereby assume leadership and influence over

other youngsters in the area."

4William Amos, Ed. D., "The Future of Juvenile
Institutions," FeeralfiPrpbatjpn, (Washington. D.c.,
March, 1968) p. 41.

Perhaps the reason authorities in the field
of Juvenile Corrections oppose a training school
placement is because rehabilitation in such insti-
tutions has become nothing more than a myth. Re-
habilitation cannot be achieved as a by-product
of the present system which is obviously designed
for control and punishment. A new system should
be developed based on the knowledge of human be-
havior. ”If we have made progress in our knowledge
of human behavior and institutional programs for
young delinquents, the success of our treatment is

5 The community preoccupies itself

debatable.”
with the apprehension of the transgressor and after-
wards, loses interest. While society is satisfied
that the offender is being punished, it does not

care about the actual method of punishment. Evidence
of this is the fact that most Juvenile institutions
are usually inadequately staffed and the state of

California serves as a good example. Out of a

 

sRobert Pickett, mm: Origins of
Juvenile Reform in New York State, (Syracuse University
Press, Syracuse, 1969) p. 217.

total of California's 21,247 state staff members
employed in correctional institutions, only five
percent (1,154) are Psychiatrists, Psychologists,
Social Workers, etc.6
The Problem

For many years the study of delinquency and
criminality has focused its efforts almost entire-
ly on measuring and describing conduct levels* and
personality types. However, "the study of delinquency
must go beyond a merely descriptive level of con-
duct and personality analysis to discover the inter-
relationships and dynamics of elements that determine
conduct."7 Although this statement was made almost
a quarter of a century ago, it is still applicable
to the study of delinquency. For this reason I
have choosen as my area of investigation Leader

Behavior in an Institutional Setting. It is my

‘4‘.

6Gerald Wheeler and Harvey Inskeep, "Youth in the
Gauntlet," Federal Probation, (Washington, D.C., 1968)
p. 25.

*Conduct level is the level at which an individual
relates (physical, verbal, etc.); domineering, submiss-
ive, arrogant; passive, aggressive, defensive.

7Paul Tappen, Juyenileggglinggengy, (New York:
1949) p. 56.

hope that this study will provide a better under-
standing of the dynamics of conduct and the effects
of interrelationships on behavior.
912mm 5:391

The research problem is a descriptive study
in that it is a series of descriptive observations.
It seeks to identify the type of leadership that
is being used in training school facilities (spec-
ifically Maxey Boys' Training School) and the type
of behavioral response it is eliciting from wards.
While the causal hypothesis set forth by Lewin,
Lippitt and White in their study of Leader Behavior
will be tested, there is an added feature of the
institutional environment. The study is also
comparative in that it notes the contrast between
the behavior of wards in relating to different
leader types (Authoritarian, Democratic, and Laissez-
faire). In essence, the problem relates to role
dimensions of relationships and attempts to explain
the extent to which an individual's percepts and
expectations of another impose/or encroach upon
the recipicating individual's self-concept and

predispose him to behave in one way or another.

 

Figures 1 and 2, although greatly oversimp-

lified, serve as a visual representation of the

dimensions of the research problem.

Wmmmmmm

 

 

 

 

 

 

WWW

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1
----------1
The self- A
concept of The staff/ 43w
how he or leader Reciproca
should be- role Behavior
have, etc. and
Expectat-
ions
______ ___-J-
Figure 2
Author. : 2 Demo.
Oriented Oriented
Leader Leader
/ \_ .._
Author. Demo.
riented Oriented
-Youth- Youth

 

 

 

B

The in-
mates or
wards
role

 

 

The self-
concept of
how he
should be-
have and
individual
self-
percept

 

 

Oriented

Laissez. 1
Leader

7r

 

Laissez.
Oriented
Youth

 

Significance

By answering these questions it is felt that
a better understanding of the variables (dynamics)
involved in these relationships will emerge. From
this, a change in behavior techniques or other
strategies for improvement can be introduced. The
correctional setting is a unique situation in which
many variables, if identified, could be effectively
used in rehabilitative efforts. The problem of
identifying a leadership style within an institution-
al setting and measuring its corresponding effect
on member (wards) reactions relates to a critical
population which is increasing and is in need of
practical solutions which can only be deveIOped
after critical evaluation and review. The pro-
posed study will sharpen the definition of the con-
cepts and relationships identified in the Lippitt
and White Study, and provide an opportunity for a
fruitful' exploration with known techniques.

Previous research in the fields of Education,
Social Psychology and Educational Sociology have
sought to determine the variables involved in mot-

ivation and learning. Variables conducive to these

factors include biological, cultural, social, and
situational aspects which impinge upon the individual
and influence his in differing degrees. This study
relates to this research by attempting to identify
significant variables which ultimately influence
behavior and performance.

'1‘ a t t

The Theoretical Framework that this study can
be related to is the Levin, Lippitt and White study
on Leader Behavior and Member Reaction in Three
"Social Climates" in which Authoritarian, Democratic
and Laissez-faire leaders are used and member re-
action measured. Understanding the significance
of this study necessitates an understanding of the
Levin, Lippitt and White study. For this reason
I have included a brief summary of the Levin, Lippitt
and White study and findings.

Lippitt and White's investigation was carried
out in two different parts: an exploratory exper-
iment and a second, more extensive research. The
primary aim of the first study was to develop tech-
niques for creating and describing the ”social

(climate) atmosphere“ of children's clubs and for

quantitatively recording the effects of varied social
atmospheres upon group life and individual behavior.
Two degrees of control group life, labeled "democratic”
and ”authoritarian“ were used as the experimental
variables. One group was led in.a democratic manner,
the other in an autocratic style. In the first

study (experiment 1) the same leader met with two
clubs. Both groups had five members, ten years

of age. The behavior of the members and the leaders
was recorded by observers.8 The second study had

a number of purposes. The one most relevant to
this-study is to examine the effects upon individual
and group behavior of three variations in a secial
atmosphere, labeled ”democratic", “authoritarian“

and ”laissez-faire“. The actual meaning of the ad-
jectives used to label these social climates is
necessarily somewhat different from the meaning
attributed to them in political and economic dis-
cussions. The accompanying tabulation describes

briefly the chief characteristics of three treatment

 

8A fuller description of this experimental

plan for this investigation may be found in Lippitt,
R.. “An Experimental Study of the Affect of Democratic
and Authoritarian Group Atmospheres”, (University

of Iowa Studies and Child Care, 1940, 16) pp. 43-195.

10

variations to be implemented within this study.
Unlike Lippitt and White's second study9 (experiment
2), the behavior and style of the adult leaders

was not a controlled variable.

 

w-.—

9

Four adult leaders were trained to proficiency
in the three leadership treatments. Four, five-
member groups of ten year old boys were used. Ob-
servations of both the leaders and the boys were
observed.

11

Model of Leader Typologies10
Authoritarian* Democratic
1. All determin- ' 1. All policies

 

Laissez-faire
1. Complete free-

2.

4.

ation of policy
to the leader

Techniques and
activity steps
dictated by the
authority, one
at a time, so
that future

a matter of
group discus-
sion and decis-
ion , encouraged
and assisted by
the leader

Activity per-
spective gained
during discuss-
1011 ”r1“ 0
Steps to group
goal sketched,

dom for group/
individual
decision, with
a minimum of
leader parti-
cipation

2. Various mater-

ials supplied
by the leader,
who made it
clear that he
would supply

steps were al- and when tech- information
ways uncertain nical advice only when ask-
to a large de- was needed, the ed. He took

gree

The leader us-
ually dictated
the particular
work task and

work companion
of each.member

The dominator
tended to be
”personal” in
his praise and
criticism of
each members
work: remain-
ed aloof from
active group
participation
except when
demonstrating

4.

leader suggested
two or more al-
ternative pro-

cedures to choose

from

no other part
in work dis-
cussion

The members were 3. Complete non-

free to work with

whomever they
chose, and the

division of tasks

was left up to
the group

The leader was
"objective“ or
”fact-minded” in
his praise and
criticism, and
tried to be a
regular group
member in spirit
without doing too
much of the work

LL—L

participation
of the leader

Infrequent spon-
taneous comments
on member act-
ivity unless
questioned, and
no attempt to
praise or re-
gulate the
course of events

10Ralph White and Ronald Lippitt, ”Leader Behavior
and fiember Reaction in Three "Social Climates”,

Wise. p. 319.

12

The study was simply a "naturalistic” ob-
servation and evaluation of the behavior of the
leaders and the reactions of the boys. They were
also interviewed concerning their feelings about
the basic nature of the leadership behavior typic-
ally used by each leader type. (This report des-
cribes the behavior of the members when under the
direction of a leader using each of the variations).
Summary graphs of Lippitt and White's findings
(Figures 3-5) were used as a comparative frame of
reference from which observations and evaluations
(of what is presently being done within institutions)
were made. Figure 3 compares the behavior of average
Authoritarian, Democratic, and Laissez-faire
leaders. Leader Behavior is expressed in terms
of its percentage of the total observed behavior

per category by each of the three models.

pile/”fin! ' a._ 1.‘ .-.. V'fll . .
E" ,7 J. _. & Authontanan - Democratic

- Laissez-Faire

 

Orders

Disrupting
Commands

 

Nonconstructive
Criticism

 

 

Guiding
Suggestions

 

 

. ".‘-“:’.:-\£4§,.J.<t~§€fi” :‘:r i
Extending ‘” ' ‘W’W‘w‘ '
Knowledge

Stimulating -

Self-Guidance

  
  

Praise and
Approval

 

Jovial and
Confident

 

 

Matter of Fact

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PerCont

FIGURE 3. Comparison of behavior of average Author-
itarian, Democratic, and Laissez-faire leader.

 

1lRalph White and Ronald Lippitt, "Leader Behavior
and Member Reaction in Three "Social Climates",
Group Dynamics, (third edition, New York: Harper
and Row, PUbTiShers, 1968) p. 320.

 

13

Aggresive reaction _ React'on to d to I
to autocratic leader ' emocra | eader
— 3325;350:833, —Reaction to laissez-taire leader

14

 

Leader-Dependent
Actions

Critical Discontent

Aggressive

 

Demands For
Attention

Friendly. Contiding

 

“Group-Minded"
Suggestions

 

Asking Information

 

Out-of Club-Field
Conversation

   

 

 

 

Work-Minded
Conversation

Work Directions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

° 2° 4° 60 80 100 120
Behavior to Leader (Absolute Scale)

FIGURE 4. Four patterns of Child-to-Leader relationship.

 

1211311., p. 332.

140

1 5
Aggresive reaction to autocracy — Democratic

— Submissive reaction to autocracy _ Laissez — Faire

 

Critical Discontent

 

Aggressive

Demands For
Attention

 

Friendly, Confiding i

“Group-Minded"
Suggestions

Asking Information » ,.

 

Out~of Club-Field
Conversation '

 

Play-Minded
Conversation

 

 

 

 

 

work,Minded ‘1 u:~:x-;»:-.am~s amaze-Mfr *

Conversation “a." 15-:"f1;;i..-*:~*::fi",~‘lfieic.*“t " :.

 

“.14;‘iiugJ29:J-A_afl
i
". i d 7‘

' 'Y . e

Work Directions ~

 

 

 

o 100 200 300 400 500

Child-toChild Behavior (Absolute Scale)

FIGURE 5. Four patterns of Child-to-Child relationship.

 

13Ibid., p. 333

16

The more important results of Li ppi t't
and White's second study (experisent 2) is ex-
pressed in Figures 4 and 5, which represent, re-
spectively, the boys' behavior toward their leader
and toward each other. The chief differences worth
noting are (a) the large number of leader-dependent
actions in both reactions to autocracy; (b) the
large amounts of critical discontent and of aggressive
behavior in the aggressive reaction to autocracy:
(c) the frequency of ”friendly, confiding” conversation
and of group-minded suggestions in democracy; and
(d) the contrast between democracy and laissez-
fairs in work-minded conversation.

The following differences should also be noted:
(a) the large difference between the two reactions
to autocracy in amount of aggressive behavior, and
the intermediate position of democracy and laissez-
fairs in this respect; (b) the generally subdued
atmosphere in the submissive reaction to autocracy,
as shown by the small absolute totals of aggressive
behavior, attention demands, group-minded suggestions,
out-of-club-field conversation, and play-minded

remarks; (c) the small prOportion of group-minded

suggestions in both reactions to autocracy; and (d)
the small amount of play-minded conversation in
both reactions to autocracy, and the very large

amount in laissez-faire.

17

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The purpose of this chapter is to acquaint
the reader with literature pertinent to an under-
standing of the study of "Leader Behavior and Member
Reactions" within an Institutional Setting.

Leadership Studieg

The early work on Leadership by Lewin, Lippitt
and White1 provided evidence that the same group
of people will behave in markedly different ways
when operating under leaders who behave differently.

2 clas-

Ever since Lewin, Lippitt and White's
sical leadership study, investigators in this area
have concentrated on the important aspects or

clusters of leadership behaviors and attitudes.

 

1Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., and White, R., "An
Experimental Approach to the Study of Autocracy and
Democracy, Sociometry, 1938, I, pp. 292-300.

2Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., and White, R., "Pat-
terns of Aggression Behavior in Experimentally Created
”Social Climates", Joumal 9L§99i§i.£§xcb9.lggy. 1939,
pp. 271-299.

19

Fielder, in "Personality and Situational
Determinants of Leadership Effectiveness" states:
”Leadership or the process of influencing others
for the purpose of performing a shared task re-
quires to a greater or lesser extent that one
person direct, coordinate or motivate others in
the group in order to get the assigned task ac-
complished. In grossly, oversimplified terms,
the leader may use the power of his position to
enforce compliance or he may persuade and cajole
his members to do his bidding."3 It is possible
for a ”power grabber" to help a group achieve its
goals and it is also possible that when an individual's
major role is the possession of power, his behavior
will serve mainly his own needs without contribut-
ing to the groups locomotion or maintenence.

gmgrsm p as Pogg;

Kurt Lewin in fiiglg_ghgg;y_gg Social Science
describes power as being "the potential ability of

one person to get another to behave in a certain way.

 

3Fred B. Fielder, "Personality and Situational
Determinants of Leadership Effectiveness." [oup
Dygamigs, (third edition, New York: Harper and
Row Publishers, 1968) pp. 362-363.

20

When speaking of actualized power the concept
influence is used. Power is therefore, potential
influence. Thus, the definition of "leader“ means
that person who has relatively greater influence
potential in a relationship. Just as power is
something one possesses in degrees, leadership
also exists in degrees and depends upon the re-
lative power of the individual considered."4
Wawt A a ations
Delinquency, like the measles, seems to have
been regarded as a homogeneous something which
peOple have or have not, and it was thought suf-
ficient, therefore, to simply note that a person
is or is not delinquent.5 However, as Abraham
H. Maslow states in ngggg a Egyghglggy_gg_flgingi
"each person has an essential inner nature which is
instinctoid or hereditary. This nature is either
good or neutral, therefore, in the beginning there
can be no bad or delinquent nature as some peOple

tend to believe."

 

4Kurt Lewin, Field Ihggzy 9f Sggigl Science,
(New York: Harper, 1951).

SAlbert Cohen, Delinquent Boys: The Cuitugg

g: the Gang, (New York: 1955) p. 172.

6Abraham Maslow, nggzd a_E§ygh910gy_Qf_Bging,
(New York: 1962) pp. 26-68.

21

Deviant behavior is not simply the violation
of what the general populace has come to accept as
proper social behavior. Edwin H. Sutherland and
Donald R. Cressey, in the sixth edition of Erin-
ginlgs_gf_§;iminglggy, use the theory of "dif-
ferential association" to explain all types of
crime, and refer to the various parts of crimin-
ality as parts of the traditional learning process.
”Becoming a criminal involves the same learning
processes as becoming a banker, professor or fish-
erman. The content of the learning, not the process
itself determines whether or not an individual
becomes a criminal.”7 This relates to the study
by describing the acquisition of negative social ad-
aptations as a learned.rather than innate process,
dependent upon the nature or content of the indivi-
dual's exposure.

Behavior patterns may be said to be motivated
by a set of focal concerns which receive special
emphasis within a social structure. In this way

7

Edwin H. Sutherland and Donald R. Cressey,
Pringiples of Criminglggy, (sixth edition, Phila..
Lippincott, 1960) pp. 92-97.

22

the societal process or community enters as a
determining factor in the individual's thinking.
Because an individual's personality is comprised
of every experience he has been subjected to, be
it good or bad, the socialization process, the sub-
culture(s) in which he lives, the experiences he
has encountered in primary group relationships,
his associations, and his social class position,
therefore, play a major role in dictating to the
individual what is right and what is wrong for
him to do.

Man's attraction to others enables him to
find identities. By noting similarities between
himself and various individuals or groups, he is
able to resolve a considerable degree of ambiguity
as to "who he is", that is, what he means to him-
self as a person and what he means to others. One's
social group, thus, becomes one source of meaning
which serves as a frame of reference through which
the environment is viewed. Reference groups figure
into social learning by providing the individual
with a tool for decision making and, in many in-

stances, even deciding for the individual. Cart-

23

wright and Zander, in the third edition of grggp
Qyngmigg, carry Sutherland's idea one step further
and imply that the content is a by-product of the
process of social human organization, and relates to
this study by describing how one's social group
affiliations exert pressures upon behavior. "When-
ever a collection of people are exposed to the same
environment, they will be inclined to assume that
there is only one "correct" description of the
situation. If a person finds that he sees this en-
vironment differently from the others, he is faced
with a cognitive conflict: Should he believe his
own perceptions, or should he trust the views ex-
pressed by others? Although individuals reSpond
differently to this conflict, the demand for uni-
formity of opinion generated by such a situation
would seem to be ineVitable. It is clear that groups
can and often do apply pressures on their members

so as to bring about a uniformity of beliefs, attitudes,
values, and behavior. Membership in a group deter-
mines for an individual many of the things he will

I 8
see, hear, think about, learn and do."

 

~-*m-n- .- .—

8Cartwright, D., and Zander, A., grggphgynamigs,
(third edition, New York: Harper and Row Publishers,
1968) p. 139.

24

A similar line of reasoning was advanced by
Albert K. Cohen in Delingugnt_ggy§ to account for
the norms develOped by delinquent gangs of lower-
class boys. Cohen expands upon Cartwright and
Zander's assertion and notes that ”these' groups
arise because society's expectations in school
and work cannot be met by potential gang members.
Those sharing common feelings of frustration and
defeat provide support for one another by establish-
ing a code they can fulfill (characterized by Cohen
as non-utilitarian, malicious, and negativistic)
that is in opposition with the demands placed on
them by society."9 This relates to the study
by expressing the need for realistic expectations
based upon the accessability of legimate channels
of behavior for all people.

This is consistent with the theory of ”non-
legitimate socialization" enumerated by Edwin L.
Thomas in "Role Problems of Offenders and Workers

In the Field of Corrections." Thomas suggests that

__ 9 __
Albert K. Cohen. Delinquent Boys: Culture of

them. (Glencoe, 111., The Free Press, 1955)

ppe 24-320

25

offenders are socialized to be deviant, and cites
poor/or inadequate role models, (parents, peers,
etc.) identifications and associations as the
primary predisposing agent to the acquisition of
delinquent adaptations.

“The deviant act has been learned from

other similar offenders. It is consistant
with the norms of the deviant group, those
norms being defined typically in opposition
to those of legitimate society. The deviant
behaviors considered desirable by legit-
imate society: the role models, such as
peers, friends, or even parents either are
examples of deviant behavior or are other-
wise poor representatives of the role model
sanctioned by the legitimate world. The
career route readily available to such in-
dividuals make it easier to remain in deviant
positions than to enter and remain in non-
deviant categories. In brief, social learn-
ing has conspired to create a person for
whom the commission of various delinquent
acts is normal expected behavior.”

This is directly related to the study of Leader
Behavior in that it asserts that the behavior pat-
terns and examples of the role models to which an
individual is eXposed is a major determinant of his

behavior.

L t atu e t t I d' at s a N ed {9: the
Stgdy Qt Leader and 9:939 Dynamics

In ”The Schools and the Problems of Delinquency:

Research Studies and Findings." Bernice M. Moore

 

10Edwin Thomas, "Role Problems of Offenders and
Workers in the Field of Corrections,“ pp. 164-172.

26

substantiates Thomas' theory and describes the
need for positive role models and associations
with institutions while discussing the dis-
socializations within institutions social systems.

"The individual who is most susceptible
to negative influences is the less emot-
ionally stable, who has relatively few
positive relationships outside the walls.
For with no points of orientation to
serve as guidelines, the mind is free to
be directed by the positive or negative
pressures of the present environment.
Juveniles are particularly susceptible to
this influence and further delinquent
adaptation is a danger because they have
not yet develOped a relatively stable
social or personal identity. When the
informal and in some instances, the
formal normative system in the institution
is deviant and the paths to success are
through non-legitimate means, the in-
dividual, especially the "mean-achievgr,”
(re)learns a delinquent adaptation.'

1““ '

"—‘T‘fi’
r

Therefore, the superimposed expectations of friends,
peers, and authority figures, in general, are
the chief counter productive/or productive elements

in determining an individual's behavior.

‘ —
——

11
Bernice M. Moore, "The Schools and the Problems

of Delinquency: Research Studies and Findings," in
Ruth Shonle Cavan's _.e___1._gR ad'n __8 memoileQelinsusncy
(New York: Lippincott Co., 1964) pp. 182-190.

27

The Self-fulfilling Prophecy12 works in the
family and in society as well: expectations can
actually perpetuate and create antisocial behavior.

Two Chicago Psychiatrists, Adelaide Johnson

and S. A. Szurek first examined expectancy as a F

1“!

causal determinant of antisocial behavior in children

mun:

 

and concluded "parental expectations of a specific
behavior damages the child's "conscience" in a
corresponding specific area. In other words, a
child looses confidence in his ability to restrain
an impulse if his parents consistantly expect him
to act out that impulse."13

Conclusive evidence of expectations effects
on behavior and performance change was supplied by
Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson's "Pygmalion
Study". The study was a report on the effects of

teachers' expectations upon pupil performance and

 

12 An example of a Self-fulfilling Prophecy is
a favorable medical prognosis in a case of cancer
which caused the patient to move from despair to
hOpe and became a crucial part of his cure.

Herbert Kohl, "Great Expectations," here it's at,
(New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1970) PP.

13A. Johnson and S. A. Szurek, in Ruth Sholne
Cavan's Readings in nggnile Delinggengy, p. 144.

28

"the central propositionwz.that one person's prOphecy
of another‘s intellectual behavior and performance
can come to determine that other‘s intellectual
behavior and performance.“14
After getting the staff of a school in South
San Fransisco to cooperate with them by pretending
that they were conducting a scientific study of
the performance of certain students in the school
who were ”late bloomers,” (the ”late bloomers"
were selected randomly) the teachers' were then
told that some of their pupils had turned out to
be “late bloomers" and were about to "bloom".
“Jose, a Mexican-American boy had an IQ of
61 before he was labeled a "late bloomer". Less
than a year later he had gained 45 10 points, test-
ing at 106. Thus, he moved from being classified
as mentally retarded to above average. Another
child, Maria, moved from 88 to 128, i.e., from
"slow learner" to "gifted child" according to the
school's classification. These two results alone

are staggering, yet many similar, though less

L _

ll‘herbert Kohl , "G reat Expectati ons , “ flhgzg
It's At, (New York: Harper and Row Publishers,
1970) pp. 258-262.

29
dramatic advances occurred when the teachers'
expectations of the children changed.”15

Johnson, Szurek, Rosenthal and Jacobson's
findings add clarity to Thomas' assertion by
focusing in on a specific characteristic of role
model behavior, and relates to this study by
demonstrating the potential power and influence of
role models in producing behavior and performance
change.

The implecations underlying the themes pre-
sented is the fact that delinquent/or criminal
adaptations are not innate but by-products of
society's expectations learned through various
types of social exposure. Therefore, not only
can one's social group be said to serve, as a
frame of reference through which the environment
is viewed but adverse behavior can also be said
to be symptomatic of poor or inadequate social
conditions. Thus, man's degree of eXposure and
overall environmental situation is of utmost
importance in his (1) attitude formulation, (2)
value orientation, and (3) long and short range

goal formation.

__ A

15
Ibidgs pp. 258-262.

30

In "Organizational Control Structures in
Five Correctional Institutions“, Mayer Zald
cites that the roles and social relations among
staff members are largely dependent upon whether
the institution seeks to provide "treatment" or
"custody” for the inmates.

"The institution emphasizing treatment
employed numerous professional workers

who were given considerable autonomy to
provide therapy as they saw fit and to
work as a team in rehabilitating the young
offenders. In the institution oriented
toward custody, most of the power remained
with the superintendant who kept close
control over the actions of the staff and
who depended mainly upon non-professional
people to enforce his rules. The re-
lations between staff members and inmates
were also correspondingly diffeignt in

the two types of institutions.”

Institutional education, in itsiefforts to
(re)direct and (re)cultivate those social and
environmental conditions that have a tendancy to
precipitate deviant behavior is dependent upon
not only the delinquent's attitude, but also the
type of leader and peer group relationship to

which he is exposed within the institutional setting.

16
Mayer Zald, "Organizational Control Structures

in Five Correctional Institutions," Amenigan_ggg;ng1
2f_§ociology. pp. 305-345-

31

Therefore, the administrative orientation (treat-
ment or custody) determines the quality of the
individuals employed within the institution's
social system and is ultimately responsible for
effective/or ineffective rehabilitative efforts.
Zald's findings relate to the study by furnishing
points from which an evaluation of the administrative
orientation can be made. If it is found that there
is practically no mutual cooperative rehabilitative
efforts among staff members and a minimal level

of coordination between the various programs, the
administration can be said to be "custody-oriented".
Conversely, if the staff is collectively organized
in their rehabilitative efforts and have a high
level of coordination, the administration can be

said to be "treatment-oriented."

CHAPTER III ' i
METHODOLOGY [

The Department of Youth Services, a branch of
the states Departments of Social Services, was es-
tablished in 1967 through the guidance of Florida
state senator, Louis De la Parte. However, Michigan
has only had a formally organized Department of
Youth Services for little over two years, various
divisions of Michigan's Department of Youth Services
are responsible for all Juvenile and Youth Programs
(i.e., Halfway Houses, Training Schools, Forestry
Camps, Foster Homes, etc.) and therefore. are an
invaluable resource of Michigan's Juvenile Court
System. Although Juvenile Courts were organized
out of public concern to protect and rehabilitate
Juveniles, Judicial officials are dismayed at the

rate of recividism.

33

As william Amos notes in an article written
for Egggxa1_£;ghgtign entitled “The Future of
Juvenile Institutions”: ”In this country there
are over 400 public and private institutions serv-
ing approximately 65,000 boys and girls adjudicated

as delinquent.”1

This is only two percent of all
teenagers and does not include those who appear
before a representative of the court other than the
Judge and the large number who have had contact
with the police and have not been referred to the
court regardless of guilt or innocence, but who
are just as delinquent sociologically as youngsters
in institutions. ”It has been estimated that seventy
percent of youngsters between the ages of nine and
eighteen could legally be adjudicated as delinquent
if they were processed/or reported.”2

In order to make rehabilitation a reality

rather than mythological, an investigation of the

primary relationships encountered by the wards

 

lwilliam.Amos, Ed.D., ”The Future of Juvenile

Institutions.“ Esssrsl_2r9hstien. (washinqton. D-c-
MarCh, 1968) p. 41.

21bid., p. 41.

34

and the personality style of the staff/or leaders
to which the wards are subjected“ within the in-
stitutional setting is a paramount concern if ef-
fective rehabilitation is to be achieved as a by-
product of institutionalization, as it must, to
meet the ever increasing delinquent population in
this country.
fretting

Maxey Boys' Training School and Green Oaks
Center (special treatment unit for boys unable to
function in an ”Open" type of institution). located
at Whitmore Lake, Michigan, was selected as the
Juvenile Institution to be studied. The reason for
this selection was due to the evacuation of the
Lansing Boys' Training School and the accessability
to fully Operant programs. Although the reception
senter also serves camp Operations which are operant
during the summer months, Maxey is soon to become
Michigan's sole surviving Boys' Training School
facility accommodating the entire state.

Permission was obtained through a personal
telephone conversation between Maxey Boys' Training

School's Chief Administrator, Mr. J. J. Powers,

35
and myself on June 7, 1972. However, permission
was pending a formally written request which I
submitted to Mr. Powers on June 21, 1972. Con-
firmation of permission was granted via a telephone
conversation with the Program Director of Maxey
Boys' Training School, Mr. James Evans, who Mr.
Powers had appointed to schedule and conduct our
activity. Mr. Evans informed me that, unfortun-
ately, the observations were going to have to be
primarily of actitity programs due to the fact
that classes were not in session during the summer
months. However, it was my feeling that this would
not detract from the purpose of the study and would
provide ample Opportunity to observe leadership
styles and corresponding member reactions within
the institutional setting. Consequently three days
of observations were scheduled, two“ hours each day,
for July 26-28, 1972.

m
The design of the inquiry is as follows:
observations were made of two different situations
at a training school facility. Each situation

involved some activity or interaction that lasted

36

for two hours each day and three days of obser-
vations were made during the week of July 24, 1972.
Because the study called for the grouping of
diverse behavioral symptoms having varying psychol-
ogical meanings, three observers, all of whom had
previous training in Psychology and Sociology,
were familiarized with the behavior typologies and
clusters to be investigated within the study and
were used to score observations on the three different
areas of behavior: Leader Behavior, Behavior to
Leader and Child to Child Behavior. The observers
rotated in scoring the different behaviors so that
each area of behavior was scored by each observer in
both groups. This was done to insure that individual
biases or idiosycrasies of the observers were con-
stant and equally distributed. Influential variables
were controlled by using standardized scoring and
measurement procedures presented in the Lewin, Lip-
pitt and White Study.
Walnflminglariables
Potentially influencing variables which could
qualify and/or explain the posited relations be-
tween the independent and dependent variables are:
(l) the influence of the measurement process might

present factors that predetermine the outcome of the

37

study. That is, our indices may measure only those
categories which show a relationship and ignore
those that are contrary. (2) Situational factors
might be a primary cause for variation in leader
behavior and ward response. (3) The type of task
or function the group has as its goal or purpose
could affect leader behavior and ward response.
(4) The size of the group could affect leader behavior
and ward response. (5) The type of group composition
could affect the leader behavior and ward response
such as age, grade level, personality type, socio-
cultural factors, etc.
mgmegt

The types of data collected were the observed
behavior and verbal responses of superiors (staff)
and subordinates (wards). Specific categories
of Lippitt and White's indices for each of the three
specified areas of interest were utilized as a basis
for observation and categorization. The measurement
scales, variables and indices were developed and
used in Lippitt and White's research. The variables
relate to the indices defined in the ”Leader Typology"

given on page 1lof Chapter I.

38

S ' a 0b e d

Methods of gathering data were confined to
observations of the specific categories of the in-
dices. Interviews with leaders (staff) and members
(wards) aided in the analysis and interpretation
of the study. The accompanying definitions of the
specific categories is part of the Operational
design that was used as a criteria for scoring the
three different types of behavior.
Definitions of categories in scoring ngdg1_§ehayig;.

(1) Giving Orders- Direct orders or statements
in the imperative form. The
imposition of one human will
upon another.

(2) Non-Objective Criticism and Praise- Criticism
which was adverse and personal
in character and which did not
point objectively toward improve-
ment by suggesting a reason for
failure or a way of doing the
thing better.

(3) Disrupting Commands- Commands that cut across
an expressed wish or ongoing act-
ivity of a member of the group,
and substitute for it some wish
of the leader.

(4) Guiding Suggestions- Clarifying of alternatives
between which the boys themselves
are free to choose. Given course
of action which is related to
one of the boys' own purposes.

39

(5) Giving Information (Extending Knowledge)- Infor-
mation given in a way that there
is almost no chance of its
being a form of social in-
fluence or pressure, as com-
pared to either orders or guid-
ing'suggestions.

(6) Stimulation Self-direction- Leader serves as
a catalyst by releasing ener-
gies that already exist in the
group. Different techniques--
drawing out less articulate
members or simply listening.

(7) Praise and Approval- Leader attempts to extend
his assigned function Of teach-
ing a group procedure for set-
ting goals and means to teach-
ing of criteria and methods
for evaluating goals and means.

(8) Jovial and Confiding- It represents the purely
social aspect of the leader's
behavior and indicates the
Openness of communication which
develOps as a result of the
relationship created by the
leader's behavior.

(9) Matter of Fact- Incidental observation.

Definitions of ’categories in scoring fighaxigx,§9_hg:§gx.
and W121: -

(l) Leader-dependent Actions- Dependent remarks such
as: "Is this 0.K.? "Should
I write this or not?"

(2) Critical Discontent- Discontented remarks, crit-
icism.

(3) Aggressive- ”Scapegoating", aggressive reactions
and responses, threats, des-
truction of prOperty, etc.

40

(4) Demands for Attention- "Showing off"

(5) Friendly. Confiding- Friendly ascendance, or
agreeable and COOperative be-
havior. Joking remarks.

(6) "Group-minded" Suggestions- Mutual praise, sharing,
“we-minded". Use of common pro-
noun "I" vs "We”.

(7) Asking Information- Asking Information about play
activity and work tasks.

(8) Out-Of-club-field Conversation- General conversation
or rap sessions unrelated to the
task.

(9) Play-minded Conversation- Conversation pertaining
to play activity.

(10) Work-minded Conversation- Conversations directly
related to the task at hand.

(11) Work Directions- Directions geared toward task
completion.

5 ' P e
Ratings were performed according to the cate-
gories listed in each indice. Tally sheets were
used for the scoring process. Item numbers on the
sheets respectively represented each category of
the Specific area being investigated/or evaluated.
Leader Behavior (staff employees) was scored on nine
categories (points) while Behavior to Leader and
Child to Child Behavior (youths) was scored on ten.
The data was analyzed by coding and looking

for evidence in the scores that supported the expected

41

results. The observed frequencies for each of the
categories were tallied and then collasped into
one of the three typologies they most closely identified
with. A bi-variate contingency table was constructed
in order to compare the observed frequencies for
each of the three typologies with the expected freq-
uencies. The chi-squared analysis was applied to
the contingency table in order to test independence:
the expected cell frequencies were derived from the
data and were those we expected to obtain if the two
variables were independent of each other. The .05
factor was used as the accepted level of significance
and served as the criteria for comparing the ob-
served with the expected frequencies.
R ia t a Va ‘dit

The specific categories (behavior clusters)
observed within the content of this study listed on
pages seven to nine as previously stated, were de-
rived from Lewin, Lippitt and White's study on Leader
Behavior in Three "Social Climates“ and were agreed
upon by the three observers as being representative
of the three behavior variations to be investigated.

Agreement between the separate tabulations of
two observers making simultaneous observations of

each of the behavior clusters (specific categories)

42

for the same phenomena was utilized as a means

of establishing the validity and reliability of
the evaluations. Therefore, the data collected in
the study is reliable and valid to the extent that
the measuring instrument satisfactorily reflects
the characteristics it is intended to with a min-

imum Of distortion by other factors.

Signaling

The sampling procedure was impaired by the fact
that the experimental plan was designed for Objective
observation and evaluation of Leader Behavior and
Member Reaction of two groups within the institution-
al setting. Therefore, the conventional random/or
systematic sampling procedures were not utilized in
the selection of group members in order to maintain
the natural composition of the group and to preserve
spontaneity of expression. However, an assessment of
the sample population (age, race, sex, 1.0. level, etc.)
was investigated, and revealed that the selected sam-
ple did not differ appreciably in these character-
istics from the larger group or population. Thus,
it is a relatively safe assumption that the sample

is representative of the larger group.

43

a o t H t es'
In the Operational terms of the inquiry, the
independent variable will be the Leader's Behavior
and the dependent variable will be the ward's response.
Although leadership, as stated by Lewin is "the potent-
ial ability of one person to get another tO behave

2 for the purpose of this study,

in a certain way,"
the term ”leader“ will be exclusively applied to

the staff members within the institution. The null
hypothesis contains two statements (one indicates no
change and the other no direction): (1) Leader Be-
havior (IV) has no effect on ward response (DV) thus
there will be no difference between ward response no
matter what the leader behavior may be. The two vari-
ables are independent of each other and therefore,
unrelated. (2) If Leader Behavior is found to be
Authoritarian, Democratic, or Laissez-faire, the
reaponses of the wards will not be related to the
Leader Behavior and therefore, not be consistnat with
Lippitt and White's findings. I will use the null
hypothesis and attempt to reject it in accepting

the alternate hypothesis. Therefore, the premise

under investigation is that the Leader's method of

relating (behavior-IV) affects certain ward behavior

 

2Kurt Lewin, Field The9r1_in.Secial.§cience.
(New York: Harper, 1951).

 

llll'l'l‘l'

44

(ward behavior-DV) in a predicted way (consistent
with Lippitt and White's findings).
Resea a ' 't t H t e 's
The hypothesis is researchable because it meets
the following criteria: (1) Measurement techniques
are available. (2) Definition of concepts have
been made, the variables have been Specified, and

the key concepts have been amended to Operation-

 

al definitions for specificity. (3) Predictive
statement is made by the premise under investigation
(of interest) which infers that there is an exist-
ance of a causal relationship between the two var—
iables (Leader Behavior and Ward Reaction ReSponse)
which result in concomitant variation. (4) The
variables are independent of each other, both se-
matically and Operationally. (5) The independent
variable occurs prior in time to the dependent var-
iable. (6) The study is feasible and can be of
practical significance.
Significance

The significance of this hypothesis is that
if the null hypothesis is accepted it will raise
many interesting questions which could lead to the

discovery and isolation of some important inter-

45

vening variables. If the null hypothesis is re-
jected, it will give added weight to the Lippitt

and White findings. This study has practical value
in that it will offer the Leader and Administrator

a clearer view of what is happening throughout the
institution as well as within the classroom situation
and possibly offer them a means of changing reSponses
by manipulating techniques to Obtain desired re-

actions.

 

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

In this interpretation it is important to
remember that the null hypothesis is being test-
ed because of the accepted understanding in
statistics that the acceptance of a hypothesis
means only that it might be true while the reject-
ion of a hypothesis means it is false. The null
hypothesis contains two statements, one indicates
no change and the other, no direction:
(1) Leader behavior (IV) has no effect on ward
response (DV). thus, there will be no difference
between ward response no matter what the leader
behavior may be.
(2) If leader behavior is found to be Authoritarian,
Democratic or Laissez-faire, the responses of the
wards will not be related to the leader behavior
and therefore, not consistant with Lippitt and White's

findings.

47

The alternate hypothesis also contains two state-
ments:
(1) The Leader's method of relating (behavior-IV)
to the wards affects certain ward behavior (DV).
(2) Leader Behavior affects ward reSponse in
directions consistent with Lippitt and White's
findings.

In the first area, "Child to Leader Behavior"
wards were observed in two groups and scored on
ten categories enumerated on page 8 of Chapter III.
I have attempted to define the type of Child to Leader
Behavior expressed in the two groups by determining
which of the three types the Observed behavior is most
closely identified with. The observed behavior
of both groups were combined in each of the three
areas and the frequencies of behavior for each of
the categories were grouped into the Specific
typology they represented, A (Authoritarian), 9
(Democratic) and L (Laissez-faire). The data
was then charted into a bivariate contingency
table which served as a visual aid from which
comparisons could be made as to whether or not the

DV (X-axis) was, in fact, a function of the Iv

48

(Y-axis). CHI2 analysis was utilized in order to
test whether the variables were actually independent
of each other or associated.

The expected frequencies (BF) per cell were
Statistically compared with the observed frequencies
(GP) in order to test the independence/or associat-
iveness of the variables under consideration. The
Child to Leader Behavior analysis (Tables 1 and 2)
indicates that the L (Laissez-faire) column score
is 6.68 measured at four df with a x2 critical
value of 9.49, followed by the A (Authoritarian)
score, 2.699 and the 2 (Democratic) score, 1.578
as the three distinct values comprising the total
X2 sum of 10.948 for the matrix which is significant.
A,(Authoriatrian) Leader Behavior tended to produce
Child to Leader Behavior that was predominately
Autocratic and Democratic, while 2 (Democratic)
and 5 (Authoritarian) Child to Leader Behavior
comprises the major portions of the observed behavior
for the 2 (Democratic) Leader Behavior and L
(Laissez-fairs) Leader Behavior yielded predominately
L (Laissez-fiare) and 2 (Democratic) Child to

Leader reSponses. Therefore, the data seems to

suggest that Child to Leader Behavior is not in-

49

dependent of Leader Behavior. The total X2 sum

of the Child to Leader area is obviously above the
X2 critical value and could be used to reject the
null hypothesis that Leader Behavior and Child
(ward) RSSponse are independent of each other.
Table I presents the data accumulated on the re-
lationship between Child to Leader Behavior and
Leader Behavior and the X2 values for each of the

three columns.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1. Child to Leader Behavior
A D L
17 12 9
A 38
(13.0) (14.5) (10.4)
Leader 22 28 11
Behavior D 61
(20.8) (23.2) (16.8)
13 18 22
L 53
(18.1) (20.2) (14.6) 4
52 58 42 152

 

 

X = 2.699 1.578 ' 6.68

 

50

2 for the

Table 2 presents the calculation of X
data presented in Table 1.

Table 2.

Caiculatiog of X2 to; data_gf Table 1.

 

 

 

(0-812
0 E (0-3) (0-13)2 B
17 13.0 4.0 16.0 1.23
12 14.5 -2.5 6.25 .43
9 10.4 -1.4 1.96 .18
22 20.8 1.2 1.44 .069
28 23.2 4.8 23.04 .909
11 16.8 -5.8 33.64 2.80
13 18.1 -5.1 26.01 1.40
18 20.2 -2.2 4.84 .239
22 14.6 7.4 54.76 3.7
152 x2 = 10.948

c.v./X2 with 4 df = 9.49

The evidence implies that each of the three

Leader Behavior styles precipitates and possibly

even produces corresponding behavior on the part

of the children.

Thus, the findings are consist-

ent with Lippitt and White's and gives credence

to the assertion that behavior is transmitted from

leaders/or role models to members (wards).

[Ill‘llllllllllll

51

The second area, Child to Child Behavior, was
scored in the same manner as the other areas of
behavior Observed and had ten categories. The one
different category, "Play-minded Conversation,"
replaced the "Leader-dependent Acts" category of
the Child to Leader Behavior area. The X2 com-
ponents for the Child to Child Behavior area
(Tables 3 and 4) are as follows: Laissez-faire,

20.73; Democratic, 9.83: and Authoritarian, 1.08

with a total x2 sum of 31.64.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3 Child to Child Behavior
A D L
10 12 24
A 46
(13) (19) (14)
- 4
Leader 20 23 30
Behavior D 73
(20) (30) (23)
L 26 48 r 8 82
(23) (34) (25)
56 55 90 201

 

 

x2 = 1.08 9.83 20.73

 

llll'lll.‘[lll[ral![-i llilll'll!‘ ‘3‘!
Illllli ls.

52

Table 4 presents the calculation of X2 for
the data presented in Table 3.

Table 4.

c__lca 21.44.411.12“ mfimmmwll

 

 

 

0 B (0-3) (0-8)2 19:81}
10 13 -3 9 :69
12 19 -7 49 2.5
24 14 10 100 7.1
20 20 o 0 0
23 30 -7 49 1.63
30 23 7 49 2.13
26 23 3 9 .39
48 34 14 196 5.7

8 25 17 289 11.5

201 x2 = 31.64

C.V./X2 with 4 df = 9.49
The X2 sum is well over the 9.49 X2 critical
value, thus, the level of significance is question-
able, but as an indicator, it is helpful in raising
questions and inferring causes. One can infer from
the cell frequencies of the three areas that if

D (Democratic), the

Leader Behavior is found to be

Child to Leader reSponse will be Democratic

53

(consistant with the leader's behavior) and the
children will relate to each other in a Laissez-
faire manner. Therefore, the teacher's behavior
to the child effects the child's reSponse to his
peers.

Further speculation would be that the children
seem to have picked up the reference group of
the teacher and relate to him in a Democratic way
while breaking down some of his feelings of be-
longingness to his peer group which allows him
to relate to them in a Laissez-faire manner. In
this case the teacher, by being Democratic, allows
the child to experience an atmosphere which is
fair and predictable to which he reSpondS in an
individualistic way. Also, the child may have
a feeling Of more control over his own mind
(knowing the rules of the class) and thus, in
testing out first becomes more/or less assertive
with his own peers. However, the value in re-
lating to each other while the teacher, in demon-
strating Democratic behavior, sets up a different

expectation which is responded to by the children.

 

ll‘lllllllal"l|1l.ll.i [lull

54

The Child to Leader behavior was L (Laissez-
faire), followed by'é (Authoritarian) and 2 (Demo-
cratic). The Child to Child behavior was L (Laissez-
faire) followed by 2 (Democratic) and L (Author-
itarian) and seems to indicate that if the leader
falls between Democratic and Laissez-faire in his
behavior, the student response to the leader will
tend to be Authoritarian and to each other, Laissez-
faire. One could further ”Speculate that when
ambiguity exists in the leader's style, it will
be reflected in an unclear and unfixed role and
passed on to the children in his relationship
with them. TOO much‘uncertainity may make the
children anxious and dependent.’ This could cause
the child to view the leader in an Authoritarian
way, aSking questions and directions and never
moving on his own. etc. Another possibility is
that the children could easily attribute role
expectations formed outside the class to this
leader since he allowed them this freedom by not
having firmly established a more definitive leader-
ship style. The children would feel most com-

fortable relating to an adult as an authority figure

 

55

and depending on the supportiveness of the group
to delute the authority. This would explain the
Laissez-fiare Child to Child Behavior. However. it
seems that reality would break this relationship down
over a period of time unless it were strongly sup-
ported and maintained by institutional forces. If
this is the case, the teacher is in fact, being scape-
goated for institutional or social practices.

Considered in total, the null hypothesis can
be rejected since the CHI squared sums for each of
the areas investigated were Significant at the .05
level and apparently suggests that an association
between the variables considered exists. There-
fore, the alternate hypothesis can be accepted and
may be true.

Week ' es

The Lippitt and White Study used four groups
of ten year Old boys who met after school to
engage in hobby activities. Each group had five
members and were roughly equated on patterns of
interpersonal relationships, intellectual, physical.
and socio-economic status and personality charact-
eristics. Four adult leaders were trained to
proficiency in the three leadership treatments.

The leaders were shifted from club to club every

56

six weeks, each one changing his leadership Style
at the time of this transition. Thus, each club
experienced each of the leadership styles under
different leaders. All clubs met in the same place
and did the same activities with similar materials.
The training school study used two groups of four-
teen and fifteen year-old boys who met voluntarily
in a school classroom Situation. Group one was
ungraded and taught by Mrs. M. It consisted of

ten boys, four of whom were black. Group two was
directed by Mr. G. It consisted of eleven boys,
five of whom were black. Each of these groups were
also roughly equated on patterns of interpersonal
relationships, intellectual, physical, socio-
economic status, and personality characteristics.
Three observers were used to score observations

on the three different types Of behavior. The
greatest differences in these two studies are

(1) the extent of Observer training in the training

school study was not as intense as in the Lippitt

—_~

D. Cartwright and A. Zander, 9:992 Dynamics,
(New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1968).

S. Weinberg and . Schumaker. Statistigs:
Anintuitixsmmesh. (Second 34.. Calif.. Brooks/

Cole Publishers, 1969).

 

57

and White study, (2) the social climate in the
training school study, although voluntary, was
still institutionally based, (3) the group com-
positions differed consistently with the settings
each Study met in, and (4) the tasks performed by
the group in the studies differed greatly. All
of these factors could have had an effect on the
leader-member roles and reSponses.
Sgppiement

The comparable aSpects of the two groups
were not as numerous as one might expect. The
first group consisted of youths enrolled at
Maxey Boys' Training School and the second group
was comprised of "incorrigible youth” from Green
Oaks maximum security center. Both groups ex-
hibited similar patterns of behavior and expectations.
I was informed that tests had shown that none of
the youths were suffering from any organically-
based mental/Or physical damage. Therefore.
I assumed that the youths.were educatable and re-
habilitatable. However, several teachers who were
interviewed did not share this feeling. In fact,
One even implied that the majority of the youths'
mental capabilities were less than many mental

defectives. With the knowledge that negativistic

58

attitudes and expectations such as this are har-
bored by the staff of the institution, it is not
difficult to surmise why institutionalization has
failed to alter the juveniles'attitutes and ex-
pectations.

It would seem that the reason a youngster is
institutionalized in the first place is because
of his inability to function in a socially accept-
able manner on the outside. This, therefore,
implies that the problem of delinquency is a
social rather than a psychological problem, rooted
in the lack of positive experiences in relation-
Ships/Or with role models. Thus, the dynamics of
the role models/or leaders presently Operating with-
in an institutional setting must be of a positive
order if delinquent individuals are to be effect-
ively resocialized.

I agree with those who view dilinquency as
a social rather than psychological phenomenon.
The combination of Thomas' "non-legitimate social-
ization" theory with Cohen's and other Opportunity
theories seem to most cogently define the factors
which precipitate and maintain delinquency. If

we accept these theories as most central and crit-

59

ical to the explanation of delinquency, then our
primary concern should be the institution of
treatment programs directed at ameliorating these
conditions. It would seem that institutionalizing
delinquents in non-communities without the Structural
guidance and expectations of the community is
antipathetical to the effective treatment programs
that these theories imply. Thus, the placement
of socially maladjusted youths within an institution-
al setting will only momentarily succeed in fore-
stalling delinquent activity unless a familial
atmosphere is develOped that enhances/or imposes
upon the youth, the assumption of responsibility
and decision-making practices.

The inability of the delinquent to make
the right decision at the right time is his primary
deficit. Therefore, sound decision-making capabilities-
must be inculcated before lasting rehabilitation

can be achieved.

CHAPI‘ER V
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
Literature in the field of Corrections strongly
points to the need for more knowledge of the Criminal

Justice System's impact on adjudicated youth in

order to reduce deviant behavior and improve

institutions directed toward rehabilitation. In
this chapter, I would like to take this Opportunity
to offer a few Observations and comments about

the training school study and to make some recom-

mendations for further research.

It was hypothesized that:

(1) Leader Behavior has no effect on ward reSponse,
thus, there will be no difference between ward
reSponse no matter what the Leader Behavior may
be.

(2) If Leader Behavior is found to be Authoritarian,
Democratic, or Laissez-faire, the ward response
will not be related to the Leader Behavior and

therefore, not consistant with Lippitt and White's
findings.

61

The behavior Typology was threefold and con-
sisted of:1 i

(1) Authoritarian: All determination of policy by
the leader:

(2) Democratic: All policies a matter of group
discussion and decision, en-
couraged and assisted by the
leader:

(3) Laissez-faire: Complete freedom for group or
individual decision, with a min-
imum of leader participation.

The results of this study indicate that Child to

Leader and Child to Child behavior are dependent

upon the Leader Behavior to which the ward is sub-

jected. Therefore, one can conclude : (l) a strong
socialization process is in Operation within the
institution and (2) the nature of the socialization
process is determined by the leader (staff) Behavior
to which the ward is exposed within the institution-
al setting. Thus, the staff's attitude toward and
expectation of the juvenile are transmitted in such

a way that the .finrenile adjusts his behavior ac-

cordingly. Therefore, the develOpment of rehab-

ilitative relationships is dependent upon socially

acceptable role-model exposure within the institution-

-~~

 

1More detailed definitions can be found in Chapter
I on page 11.

v-1 m

62

a1 setting. From this, one could Speculate that
the rate of recividism that dismays juvenile
officials might be attributal to a negative institut-
ional orientation communicated via negative attitides
of the role models to which a juvenile is exposed.
In conclusion, the study has negated the null
hypotheses and has lent support to the alternate
hypotheses . The findings suggest that there is a
need for further investigationr in the area of juv-
enile and staff relationships within a juvenile in-
stitution. If an analogy can be drawn between the
ineffectiveness of an institution's rehabilitative
efforts and the learning of delinquent adaptations,
then Thomas' assertion that the acquisition of a
delinquent adaptation is due to the fact that ”...
role models to which an individual is exposed either
are examples of deviant behavior or are otherwise
poor representatives of the role model sanctioned
by the legitimate world," seems to imply that the
continuance of a delinquent adaptation after instit-
utionalization is due to the ineffectiveness of
the institution's personnel in presenting a catalyst

conducive to an acceptable social adaptation.

 

 

I‘ll: I ll

63

It is hoped that this Study will assist ad-
ministrators of juvenile institutions in: (l) struc-
turing effective treatment programs directed at
ameliorating the transmission and maintenance of
negative behaviors, expectations and values:

(2) recognizing that the effectiveness of in-
stitutional rehabilitative efforts hinges upon its
personnel's ability to (a) minimize the negative in-
fluences that tend to exist: (b) inculcate positive
social adaptations, values, goals, and expectations:
and (c) strenghten the juvenile's decision-making
capabilities in a positive way and prepare him for
the reSponsibilities he will ultimately be faced
with upon his release.

A method which could be employed by administrat-
Ors is the individualistic screening of the institution's
personnel as well as wards in order to:

(1) Determine the attitude and orientation of the
youths- and staff members:

(2) Determine the type of leadership that the youths‘
would be most receptive to: and

(3) Pair youths‘ of similar attitudes and orientations
with staff members who possess leadership qualities
that would most likely succeed in upgrading the

youths' behavior adaptations.

64

BWWW

The accompanying suggestions may be of value

to other researchers interested in similar studies

in the area of juvenile delinquency:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Further investigation of the relationship be-
tween Leader Behavior and Member ReSponse within
an institutional setting could be expanded and
performed on a larger scale, Since the sample
used in the present study was rather limited.
The present study could be expanded to include
factors which might determine the staff's
orientation and behavior.

The staff's behavior might be investigated in
its relationship to the effectiveness of

various treatment programs.

Investigating the background of a juvenile
sample might afford the researcher an opport-
unity tO compare member reSponse on the basis

of juveniles previous histOry.

The self-percepts of juveniles and Staff might
be investigated and studied from the standpoint
of its effect on attitude formulation and behavior

adaptation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Barker, Roger Garlock. Child Behavior and DeyeLOQ-u
ment. First Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Company, 1943.

Cartwright, D. and Zander, A. Ggoun Dynamics.
Third Edition. New York: Harper and Row
Publishing Company, 1968.

Cohen, Albert K. Delingnent Boys: Culture of thg
Gang. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1955.

Cressey, Donald R. and Sutherland, Edwin H. Prin-

ciples of Cgiminolggy. Sixth Edition. Phila-
delphia: Lippincott Company, 1960.

Farber, Maurice, French, John, Kalhorn, Joan, Lewin,
Kurt, and Meyers, Charles. Authorityland
Fgustratign. Iowa City, Iowa: Iowa Press, 1949.

Ferguson, George A. Statistigal Analysis in Psycholggy
ang Edugation. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1966.

Johnson, A. and Szurek, S. A. Readings in Juygnile
Delinquency, Ruth Shonle Gavan, Editor. Phila-
delphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1964.

Lewin, Kurt. Fieid Theory of Socia; Science. New
York: Harper and Row Publishing Company, 1951.

Lippitt. R. An Experimental Study of the Affect of

Demggzatic and Antnggitarian Group Atmgspheres.
University of Iowa Studies and Child Care, 1940.

Lippitt, R., White, R., and Lewin, K. Anmgxpgrimgntgl
Approach to the Study of Autgcgacy, Demggracy,
and Sogiomgtgy. 1938.

Maslow, Abraham. Towagd A Psychology Of Being.
Princeton New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand CO.. 1962.

66

Pickett, Robert. House ofyRefuge: Origins Of Juvenile
Reform in New York State. Syracuse: Syracuse
University Press, 1969.

Schumaker, and Weinberg, Kirson S. Statistics:
An Intuitive Apprgach. Second Edition. Calif-
ornia: Brooks/Cole Publishing CO., 1969.

Tappen, Paul W. Juvenile Delinquency. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1949.

Thomas, Edwin J. and Biddle, Bruce J. Role Theory:
Concepts and Research. New York: John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., 1966.

Agticles

Fielder, Fred E. "Personality and Situational
Determinants of Leadership Effectiveness,“
Group Dynamics. Third Edition. New York: Harper
and Row Publishing Company, 1968.

Kohl, Herbert. "Great Expectations," Where it's at.
New York: Harper and Row Publishing Company,
1970.

Lippitt, R. and White, R. "Leader Behavior and Mem-
ber Reaction in Three "Social Climates," Gygnp
Dynamicg. Third Edition. New York: Harper
and Row Publishing Company, 1968.

Moore, Bernice M. "The Schools and the Problems Of
Delinquency: Research Studies and Findings,"
Readings in Juvenile Delinquency, Ruth Shonle
Cavan, Editor. New York: Lippincott Company,

 

1964.
Periodicals
Amos, William, Ed. D. "The Future of Juvenile In-
stitutions," Fedeyal Pngbation. Washington,

 

D. C., March, 1968.

67

Inskeep, Harvey and Wheeler, Gerald. "Youth in the

Gauntlet," Fggggai ngnation. Washington, D.C.,
1968.

Lippitt, R., White, R., and Lewin, K. "Patterns
of Aggression Behavior in Experimentally Created

"Social Climates," Jgnnna; 9f Sggial Psyghgiggy.
1939.

Zald, Mayer. "Organizational Control Structures in
Five Correctional Institutions," .merioan

Journa; 9g Socioiggy. 30, 1965.

 

HICHIGQN STRTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES

31293183822627