. vi pl? inultonza 40.4‘- D t‘ 3 a 1 1‘1 1.. vi!»- 0 2' \l u _. . I. . . P 9" ~ a! in .. 3.... 1 I: . £13333. _ S”!. A $59.. ‘1 . n L1 n"."l’ib’ '1’ .Plou.i.0.frvvtt).ol n?! itl‘u 5.51:!» fit :a.’a!' .3.Dur:)ll¢.l..$ar\bn It!!! ‘11:? I. . {iiitrnz l. ‘ '0 It!!! (I 0! ll.» 0 is £313» Ill-4 I. . : §ur‘—1\tnp'0l€v. «51...; x ‘ .. .5. It... 13.3: $20.19.; vrdlrfi 19. . .3. hhuvi , . . » .11}? .1‘17. o‘iu i» .3 1 .. . . '7‘ I v I .97.... L013; 1 , . ‘ , . a. .Iivhisx . :75. ‘Ln'c.! v. . ’n‘ n: 1“ . hufi... W . . . j .lr~ a CIE‘SV— uvl“ ‘ n... t! . KL .I . X. . 941‘}! . . ryll. , n. I 1'... 0!; v V kll1lhllltfl 1500‘!" . Sui nu"; I p'lllt‘l“ is .721’1". “Dis-so. 4.11.35: y.:i!. p.12)... I\ .3}: . A .Out.|llv :1 .E. :|\ 11?. . . . .52.... . . . '2'qu » xi. 3 1‘ .1 .\ . w A Lit In“. I 3' 1 i. . .. at: ..I=I .\ .3. . . l...?l 3| 3:, r. (.XVIi 1 (1.0., .I It 1' .aliliv’Id‘ L. l .:1€w .551, ”-153.13 CHIGAN STETA 1111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111 31293 00897 3129 -~ 1111111111 This is to certify that the thesis entitled Personality Disorders of Prison Inmates , in Thailand, Using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory presented by Yossawan Boriboonthana has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M.S. degree in__C_rimin§_l Justice 7 Maj rprofes r DateW‘) 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution r l 1 LIBRARY Michigan State University o _,1 —7_. PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. .___________________—————————-1 DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE M1 ,________ :Lfog 11 / fife—1 J MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution acumen-9.1 _..7 l l 77‘.._..-___— PERSONALITY DISORDERS OF PRISON INMATES IN THAILAND, USING THE MINNESOTA.MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY By Yossawan Boriboonthana A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Criminal Justice 1992 ABSTRACT PERSONALITY DISORDERS OF PRISON INMATES IN THAILAND, USING THE MINNESOTA.MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY By Yossawan Boriboonthana The researcher's purposes in the research were to examine (a) the personality typology of Thai inmates; (b) the number of inmates who have personality disorders, as measured by the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-168; (c) the extent of personality disorders among Thai inmates; (d) the socio-demographic characteristics, criminal background, types of offense, and length of sentence and confinement of these inmates; and (e) the personal characteristics of inmates that are related to elevated scores on various scales of the MMPI. The survey research method was used in this study, which was conducted in two prisons in Bangkok, Thailand. The measurement instruments were a questionnaire and the Thai version of the MMPI-168. The results of the research showed that about 88% of prison inmates had personality disorders. They also showed a relationship between inmate socio—demographic and criminal attributes, such as gender, age, length of confinement, types of offense, and past conviction on the one hand, and scores on MMPI Scales 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 0 on the other hand. To All Prisoners iii ACKNOWLEDGMENT The author realizes that without the assistance, understanding, and cooperation from.many people, this study could not be done. First, the author would like to thank Dr. Rosy Ekpenyong for her impressive assistance. Her support and guidance is remarkable. Without her help, the study could not have been promptly completed. The author also would like to thank the thesis committee members, Dr. Charles Corley and Dr. Merry Morash, for understanding the problem and being always willing to help. The author extends special thanks to Mr. Wimol Taoklam for his assistance in the statistics. At last, the author would like to thank the officers in Bangkwang Central Prison and WOmen Correctional Institution for their cooperation during the data collection procedure. Also, the author sincerely appreciates all subjects in this study for their voluntary participation. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ............................................ vi CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION .................................. 1 Statement of Problem.n............................... 1 Organization of mental health services in the United States................................... 4 Organization of mental health services in Thailand........................................ 8 Purpose of the Study................................. 10 Research Questions................................... 11 Hypotheses........................................... 11 Outline of the Present Study......................... 12 CHAPTER 2 - THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ......................... 13 Personality Disorders................................ 13 Causes of Personality Disorders in Prison Inmates.... 15 Characteristics of inmates and personality disorders............................................ 20 Summary'.............................................. 23 CHAPTER 3 - LITERATURE REVIEW............................. 24 The Extent of Personality Disorders Among Prison Inmates in the United States and Thailand, ........... 25 Research in which the MMPI was used as a Classification System.a.............................. 31 Socio-Demographic and Criminal Characteristics Related to Personality Disorders Among Inmates....... 34 Summary'.............................................. 39 CHAPTER 4 - RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .......................... 40 Research Design...................................... 40 Study Setting........................................41 The Population and Sample............................41 Sampling Method...................................... 42 Hypotheses........................................... 42 variables............................................ 43 Independent variables........................... 43 Dependent variables............................. 44 Intervening variables........................... 44 Operational Definitions.............................. 44 Gender.......................................... 44 Age 44 Length of sentence.............................. 44 Length of confinement........ ......... .......... 45 Type of offense................................. 45 Past conviction................................. 45 Marital status.................................. 45 Status of sentence.............................. 46 Personality disorders........................... 46 Measurement Instruments.............................. 48 Questionnaire................................... 48 Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory- 168 (MMPI-168).................................. 49 Measurement scales ..... .............. ........... 50 vi Rules of classification of personality disorders with the MMPI-168..................... Reliability and validity of the MMPI............ Administration.................................. Scoring......................................... Interpretation.................................. Levels of Measurement........................... Data Collection Procedures........................... Data-analysis Procedures............................. The Limitations of the Research Methodology.~........ Summary.n............................................ CHAPTER 5 - DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS .................... Socio-demographic Background......................... Criminal History..................................... Personality Typology of Thai Prison Inmates.......... Hypothesis testing................................... Hypothesis 1.................................... Hypothesis 2.................................... Hypothesis 3.................................... Hypothesis 4.................................... Hypothesis 5.................................... Hypothesis 6.................................... Hypothesis 7.................................... Multiple Regression Analysis for Inmate Socio- Demographic and Criminal Characteristics and Scores on the MMPI Scales................................... Scale 1 ......... . ......... . ..................... vii 54 55 57 57 58 58 59 60 61 62 63 65 68 72 75 75 82 84 85 86 86 91 93 94 Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale 2......................................... 3......................................... 4......................................... 5......................................... 6......................................... 7......................................... 8......................................... 9......................................... oO...0......OOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0... sumryO...0.......00...0.00.00.00.00.0.0.0.0000...O. cmmRG-SUMYMDCONCLUSIONS.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOO sumry0.0.0.0....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0...0.... Interpretation of the Findings....................... The Limitations of the Present Study.n............... The Implication of the Findings...................... BIBLIOGRAPHY O...0......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. 97 100 102 104 106 108 110 112 114 119 121 121 125 135 135 138 APPENDIX A.- QUESTIONNAIRES IN THAI AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE...144 APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F AND THE UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN THE MMPI-168 IN THAI AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE.....155 THE ANSWER SHEET FOR THE MMPI.................171 THE MMPI PROFILE FOR.MALE AND FEMALE..........172 CONSENT FORM IN THAI AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE.....174 LETTERS FROM THE THAI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS SUBJECTS (UCRIHS)00.00.0000...0.0.0.0000...0......0.0.0....177 viii LIST OF TABLES Table 1: The MMPI Scales .................................. 65 Table 2: Socio-demographic Characteristics of Thai inmates ................................................... 66 Table 3: Criminal Background of Thai Inmates .............. 70 Personality Typology of Thai Prison Inmates ............... 72 Table 4: Mean T-scores on the MMPI Scales of Thai Inmates ................................................... 73 Table 5: number of Inmates who have Personality Disorders ................................................. 76 Table 6: Mean T-score on the MMPI scales of Personality Disordered Inmates ........................................ 77 Table 7: Code type of Personality Disordered Inmates ....r.79 Table 8: Number of Inmates in Clusters of Personality Disorders ................................................. 81 Table 9: Pearson Correlation Coefficient for Relationship Among Socio-Demographic and Criminal Characteristics and Scores on the Ten MMPI Scales..............................83 Table 10: One-way Analysis of Variance and 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Scores on the MMPI Scales Among Types of Offense .................................... 88 Table 11: The Full model of Multiple Regression Analysis for Inmate Socio-Demographic and Criminal Characteristics and Scores on Scale 1 ..................... 95 Table 12: The Final model of Multiple Regression Analysis for Inmate Socio—Demographic and Criminal Characteristics and Scores on Scale 1 ..................... 96 Table 13: The Full model of Multiple Regression Analysis for Inmate Socio_Demographic and Criminal Characteristics and Scores on Scale 2 ..................... 98 Table 14: The Final model of Multiple Regression Analysis for Inmate Socio-Demographic and Criminal Characteristics and Scores on Scale 2 ..................... 99 Table 15: The Full model of Multiple Regression Analysis for Inmate Socio-Demographic and Criminal Characteristics and Scores on Scale 3 ..................... 100 Table 16: The Final model of Multiple Regression Analysis for Inmate Socio-Demographic and Criminal Characteristics and Scores on Scale 3 ..................... 101 Table 17: The Full model of Multiple Regression Analysis for Inmate Socio-Demographic and Criminal Characteristics and Scores on Scale 4 ..................... 103 Table 18: The Full model of Multiple Regression Analysis for Inmate Socio-Demographic and Criminal Characteristics and Scores on Scale 5 ..................... 104 Table 19: The Final model of Multiple Regression Analysis for Inmate Socio-Demographic and Criminal Characteristics and Scores on Scale 5 ..................... 105 Table 20: The Full model of Multiple Regression Analysis for Inmate Socio-Demographic and Criminal Characteristics and Scores on Scale 6 ......... ........ .... 107 INTRODUCTION Statement of Problem For many years, scholars have studied the issue of mental health problems among prison inmates (Bach-y-Rita, 1981; Freeman, & Roesch, 1989; Guy, 1985; Leuchter, 1981; McCarty, & Morrissey, 1989; Megargee, 1979; Wiehn, 1982). Scholars have posited that mental health problems existed among inmates for many reasons. In some cases, mentally ill persons are imprisoned because there are not enough mental health institutions in which to care for them even if they are a danger to society (Freeman & Roesch, 1989). Additionally, the prison environment is known to create mental health problems or personality disorders in inmates. There is empirical evidence supporting the notion that imprisonment affects the mental health of inmates (Gibbs, 1987). The harsh environment, strict supervision, isolation, and interaction with other violent criminals adversely affect the mental health of inmates, and may cause serious psychiatric disturbances (Leuchter, 1981). Scholars have found that the adverse effects of imprisonment may take the form of personality disorders. Gunn, Maden, & Swinton (1991) found that 37% of sentenced 2 prisoners in England and wales had psychiatric disorders; of that number, 0.8% had organic disorders, 2% psychosis, 6% neurosis, 10% personality disorders, and 23% substance "misuse." Guy, Platt, Zwerling, & Bullock (1985) found that when 75% of individuals admitted to Philadelphia prisons were given the psychiatric diagnostic interview, 9% showed personality disorders. A Although these scholars have proposed that the prison environment brings about personality disorders in inmates (Bach-y-Rita, 1981; Gibbs, 1987, 1991; Leuchter, 1981; Sykes, 1958; Tanay, 1982), other scholars have pointed out the interplay between prison environment and inmates' personal characteristics in the development of personality disorders (Johnson, 1976; Toch, 1977). Supporters of the latter idea (Erickson, Luxenberg, Walbek, & Seely, 1987; Ingram, 1985; Flanagan, 1981; MacKenzie & Goodstein, 1985; Panton, 1977) have studied how such personal characteristics as race, age, recidivism, type of offense, and length of confinement affect the personality of inmates. They found that, although prison environment induces personality disorders in inmates, the nature and seriousness of such disorders vary according to the inmates' personal characteristics. In Thailand, similar studies have been conducted on personality disorders among prison inmates. Most of these studies have examined the relationship between inmates' personal characteristics and the development of personality disorders. In their study, Juntarak, Tasaniyom, Meksawat, & 3 Ratanachareon (1979) found disorders in personality, thought, and emotion among male inmates in a maximum security prison. The results of this study corroborated the findings of a 1973 research conducted by the same researchers. In that earlier study, Juntarak, et al. found significant differences between inmate and non-inmate population, in terms of antisocial and schizophrenic personalities. Consistent with the above findings, Jubjai (1980) found that 25.38% of inmate survey respondents manifested more psychological problems than physical problems. Also, in their study, Siripun, Thammakosit, Bampenphol, & Kowbunngam (1985) found personality differences among groups of inmates of different ages and different criminal histories. Their study lends further support to the notion that inmates' personal characteristics may predispose them to personality disorders during the period of confinement. Even though the empirical evidence regarding the incidence, extent, and seriousness of personality disorders among Thai inmates is scanty, the above findings strongly suggest that personality disorders exist among Thai inmates, and that they are related to the inmates' characteristics. However, the Thai department of corrections does not seem to be concerned about such disorders, or even about the various forms of mental health problems that affect Thai inmates. During her research at the Bang-Kwang Central Prison and the Klongprem Central Prison, two major Thai prisons, this researcher observed that no mental health services were 4 provided to inmates, although in 1963 the Thai department of corrections adopted the Standard.Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and the United Nations Related Recommendations to provide health service to inmates. Therefore, some solutions for mental health problem.of inmates in the United States and Thailand are reviewed in this chapter. Although in the United States mental health services are delivered in correctional settings, they have been found to be ineffective. In Thailand, there is no mental health service delivered in Thai correctional settings. Organization of mental health services in the United States Correctional departments in the United States attempt to alleviate the mental health problems of inmates by delivering mental health services to correctional institutions so that mentally ill inmates may be treated and protected from other inmates and from the stress of prison life. Maier and Miller (1987) reviewed five models of mental health service which include: 1. A centralized psychiatric prison This model removes mentally ill inmates from a punishment environment and places them in a treatment environment. It is an ideal device for protecting mentally ill inmates from other offenders and for protecting the community from dangerously disordered offenders. However, this model has some disadvantages. First, a psychiatric 5 prison cannot deal with all the mentally ill individuals within the prison system. Second, it is difficult to involve the families and friends of inmates in treatment because inmates are moved from the area where they live to the psychiatric prison. Finally, the regimes in large institutions are often inflexible. The emphasis on security often seems to preclude any innovative programs that might easily be experimented on smaller units. 2. Small psychiatric units attached go, or pppp of. major prisons Psychiatric units are attached to many major prisons, but the prison system still has the major responsibility for mentally ill inmates. Although its cost may be a drawback, this model has proven successful in coping with individuals in the prison system. The advantage of this model is that it can cope with many individuals within the prison system because it treats the severely disordered and also provides day-care or out-patient services for all inmates. 3. Regional forensic psychiatric centers These centers are under the control of the federal prison authorities. The advantage of this model is the presumed expertise that would be gained by having a large, comprehensive service-delivery agency capable of dealing with the problems of both prisons and mental hospitals. On the other hand, disadvantages arise from having to accommodate such a mixture of problem types and security levels. 5 prison cannot deal with all the mentally ill individuals within the prison system. Second, it is difficult to involve the families and friends of inmates in treatment because inmates are moved from the area where they live to the psychiatric prison. Finally, the regimes in large institutions are often inflexible. The emphasis on security often seems to preclude any innovative programs that might easily be experimented on smaller units. 2. Small psychiapric units attached to, or part of, major prisons Psychiatric units are attached to many major prisons, but the prison system.still has the major responsibility for mentally ill inmates. Although its cost may be a drawback, this model has proven successful in coping with individuals in the prison system. The advantage of this model is that it can cope with many individuals within the prison system because it treats the severely disordered and also provides day-care or out-patient services for all inmates. 3. Regional forensic psychiatric centers These centers are under the control of the federal prison authorities. The advantage of this model is the presumed expertise that would be gained by having a large, comprehensive service-delivery agency capable of dealing with the problems of both prisons and mental hospitals. On the other hand, disadvantages arise from having to accommodate such a mixture of problem.types and security levels. 6 4. Regional secure units in psychiatric hospitals This model involves building a number of regional medium security units within the confines of psychiatric hospitals. These units are designed to take only those inmates who have a good chance of treatment; thus, many inmates are excluded from the units. This model provides a limited solution to inmate mental health problems. 5. A centralized psychiatric security hospital This model has a large, secure institution within the mental health system to cater for the dangerously mentally ill. The disadvantages of this model are overcrowding and lack of effective treatment. The most effective model suggested by Maier and Miller (1987) is the small psychiatric unit attached to major prisons. This model has already been adopted in New York and north Carolina, but evaluations of the model in these prison systems are not available. Although the model employing small psychiatric units has not been assessed, many mental health service programs have been evaluated. Most of these programs are found to be ineffective. The widely discussed findings of Martinson (1974) indicated that when recidivism was used as the criterion for success, many counseling, treatment, and training programs were found to be ineffective. One reason given for the failure of treatment programs is inadequate treatment (Metzner, Fryer, & Usery, 1990). Inadequate treatment stems from lack of expertise, or shortage of 7 qualified personnel. The ratio of psychologists to offenders in state and federal prison systems in the United States and in Canadian regional and federal adult prisons surveyed by Otero was found to be 1:376 (Otero, McNally, & Powitzky, 1981). This is below the standards of the American Association for Correctional Psychology, which is 1:200-250 (Mobley, 1986). Another reason for inadequate treatment is the prison environment. The poor physical setting and hostile atmosphere do not encourage mental health personnel to work in prison settings, and are barriers to treatment (Eisenman, 1990; Mathias & Sindberg, 1985). In many instances, transfer to more congenial treatment settings is the only available treatment option. Transferring mentally ill inmates poses serious problems. Such transfers may be futile if the psychiatric hospitals are overcrowded and unable to render the much needed treatment. Overcrowding and the consequent use of a waiting list may delay the transfer of mentally ill inmates to psychiatric hospitals. Late transfer may also cause some inmates to be detained in hospitals beyond the expiration of their original prison sentences (Grounds, 1991). Psychiatric hospitals also have tight admission policies which impede the transfer of inmates. Offenders who seem to be untreatable or who pose a high security risk are likely to be rejected by psychiatric hospitals. High-risk offenders may be transferred back and forth between hospitals and prisons without receiving adequate treatment (Halleck, 1987). 8 neither correctional institutions nor psychiatric hospitals want troublesome mentally ill inmates, especially when both institutions are faced with overcrowding problem. One can conclude that, although some models of mental health services are adopted in correctional institutions, scholars have judged many mental health service programs in the United States to be ineffective (Martinson, 1985, Metzner, Fryer, & Usery, 1990). These writers have proposed that program ineffectiveness may be caused by inadequate treatment and problems of transferring mentally ill inmates as explained above. (Organization of mental health services in Thailand In preparation for this study, the researcher investigated some major prisons in Thailand, such as Bang- Kwang Central Prison and Klongprem.Central Prison. The researcher found that no mental health services are provided to inmates in these prisons. For the most part, mentally ill inmates who evidence serious problems, such as psychosis, are referred to outside mental hospitals because the prisons lack sufficient psychiatric personnel and facilities to treat them. Inmates receive treatment when their symptoms become obvious or are detected by part-time psychiatrists. Inmates who have other kinds of mental health problems, such as neuroses or personality disorders, do not receive treatment. However, there is an intervention that seem to affect inmates' mental health. It is the religious programs, which include moral training and meditation programs. Inmates can 9 attend these programs voluntarily. The objectives of these programs are to develop inmates' character and:moral values and to enhance prisoners' understanding of the meaning and value of religion (Thai Department of Corrections, 1988). Although this religious program is not intended to deal with mental health problems, it seems the program has some positive effect on inmates' mental health. Limsong (1962) reviewed corrections in Thailand and found that the moral training program could be compared to group therapy, group counseling, and individual counseling in the United States. Howard (1935) also noted that the religious experience can help individuals achieve greater harmony, and give them mental strength and happiness. Therefore, it is possible that the religious program.in Thai prisons affect the mental health of inmates and relieve some stress, although this result has not yet been proven. In Thailand, although there is some intervention (for example, the religious program which may help inmates relieve the pain of imprisonment), it cannot be assumed that inmates who have mental health problems receive sufficient treatment. On the contrary, correctional institutions in Thailand do not provide sufficient mental health services to inmates. While Thai inmates with serious mental illness are usually transferred to other psychiatric hospitals, those with mental health handicaps that are not serious enough to be diagnosed 10 as psychosis are not given treatment, even if such disorders may keep them from.participating in daily activities or rehabilitation programs. Puppppe of the Study Due to the reported incidence of personality disorders among Thai inmates, and the inadequacy of mental health services in Thai correctional institutions, this researcher undertook to study such disorders and to identify ways of alleviating them. The overall purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of personality disorders among male and female inmates in two prisons in Bangkok, Thailand. Personality disorders were measured using the Thai version of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-168 (MMPI-168). Specifically, this researcher sought to examine: 1. the personality typology of Thai inmates 2. the number of inmates who have personality disorders, as measured by the MMPI-168 3. the extent of personality disorders among Thai inmates 4. the socio—demographic characteristics, criminal background, types of offense, and length of sentence and confinement of Thai inmates 5. the socio-demographic and criminal characteristics of inmates that are related to elevated scores on various scales of the MMPI. 11 Researcp Qgestions The following questions were posed to guide the collection of data for this research: 1. What is the personality typology of Thai prison inmates? 2. How many Thai inmates have personality disorders, as measured by the MMPI-168? 3. What is the extent of personality disorders among Thai inmates? 4. What are the socio-demographic characteristics, criminal background, types of offense, and length of sentence and confinement of Thai inmates? ‘ 5. What socio—demographic and criminal characteristics of Thai inmates are related to their elevated scores on various scales of the MMPI-168? Hypptheses The tested hypotheses are as follows: 1. There will be inmates in Thai prisons who have personality disorders. 2. There will be a relationship between inmates' gender and their scores on each MMPI scale. 3. There will be a relationship between inmates' age and their scores on each MMPI scale. 4. There will be a relationship between inmates' length of confinement and their scores on each MMPI scale. 12 5. There will be a relationship between inmates' length of sentence and their scores on each MMPI scale. 6. There will be a relationship between inmates' type of offense and their scores on each MMPI scale. 7. There will be a relationship between inmates' past conviction and their scores on each MMPI scale. Outline of the Present Study The researcher presents the research problems, organization of mental health, and hypotheses in this chapter. In the next five chapters, the researcher's study and findings are presented. In Chapter Two, the researcher discusses concepts and theory relating to personality disorders. In Chapter Three, the researcher reviews studies relating to personality disorders among inmates. In Chapter Four and Chapter Five, the researcher presents the research methodology, the data analysis, and findings. Finally, in Chapter Six, the researcher summarizes the study and discusses the findings and their implications. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK The definition of personality disorders is discussed widely among psychologists (Morgan and Johnston, 1976; Tyrer, 1988). These scholars agree that personality disorders are not part of other mental disorders, such as psychosis and neurosis, and that they can be differentiated from other mental disorders. Some definitions of personality disorders are described in this chapter. Furthermore, the theory relating to personality disorders among inmates is discussed. Personality Disorders Although other psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia, paranoia, or depression, may appear with personality disorders, personality disorders are distinct from psychotic and neurotic disorders (Tyrer & Ferguson, 1988, p.7). Tyrer and Ferguson explained the difference between personality disorders and other mental disorders. They said that personality disorders are not the early stages of psychotic disorder, but are the pattern of abnormal behavior that persists from adolescence or early adult life throughout most of adult life. The difference between personality disorders and other mental disorders has also been identified by the American Psychiatric Association (APA, 13 14 1987). In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-III-Revised (DSM-III-R), the APA stated that personality disorders are a separate axis of diagnosis. various definitions of personality disorders abound. For example, the American Psychiatric Association (1987) defined personality disorders as “behaviors or traits that are characteristic of the person's recent (past year) and long-term.functioning since early adulthood. The constellation of behaviors or traits causes either significant impairment in social or occupational functioning or subjective distress" (p.335). Tyrer and Ferguson (1988) also defined personality disorders as “a persistent abnormality of personal and social functioning that is independent of mental integration" (p.11). Similarly, Morgan and Johnston (1976) posited that those suffering from.personality disorders “seem to fit in between those whom we classify as mentally healthy or mentally ill. These are persons whose adjustments to life are clearly not healthy ones because certain features of their behavior indicate serious inner problems, yet their ego functioning and reality testing remain intact and allow most of them to adapt socially" (pp. 115-116). The DSM-III-R seems to provide the clearest definition of personality disorders. Therefore, this definition and 15 classification will be used in the present research. The DSM-III-R (1987) classified personality disorders into three clusters: 1. Cluster.A includes paranoid, schizoid, and schizotypal personality disorders. People with these disorders often appear to be odd or eccentric. 2. Cluster B includes antisocial, borderline, histrionic, and narcissistic personality Disorders. People with these disorders often appear to be dramatic, emotional, or erratic. 3. Cluster C includes avoidant, dependent, obsessive- compulsive, and passive-aggressive personality disorders. People with these disorders often appear to be anxious or fearful. Finally, the category “personality disorders not otherwise specified" is used to denote other varieties of personality disorders or mixed conditions that do not qualify as any of the specific personality disorders described in the DSM . Causes of Personality Disorders in Prison Inmates Two explanations for personality disorders among inmates have been given. First, Freeman and Roesch (1989) proposed a person-centered explanation, which says that inmates have personality disorders before they enter prison. They noted that, besides mental health institutions, prison is the place where society keeps mentally ill patients. Some mentally ill 15 classification will be used in the present research. The DSM-III-R (1987) classified personality disorders into three clusters: 1. Cluster A includes paranoid, schizoid, and schizotypal personality disorders. People with these disorders often appear to be odd or eccentric. 2. Cluster B includes antisocial, borderline, histrionic, and narcissistic personality Disorders. People with these disorders often appear to be dramatic, emotional, or erratic. 3. Cluster C includes avoidant, dependent, obsessive- compulsive, and passive-aggressive personality disorders. People with these disorders often appear to be anxious or fearful. Finally, the category “personality disorders not otherwise specified" is used to denote other varieties of personality disorders or mixed conditions that do not qualify as any of the specific personality disorders described in the DSM . Causes of Personality Disorders in Prison Inmates Two explanations for personality disorders among inmates have been given. First, Freeman and Roesch (1989) proposed a person-centered explanation, which says that inmates have personality disorders before they enter prison. They noted that, besides mental health institutions, prison is the place where society keeps mentally ill patients. Some mentally ill 16 patients are imprisoned because either there are insufficient mental hospitals or because of the patients' bizarre and dangerous behavior. The second explanation for inmate personality disorders looks at the effect of prison environment on these individuals. From his study, Sykes (1958) concluded that the pain, frustration, and stress associated with imprisonment, as well as the poor physical conditions of the environment itself have adverse effects on inmates. He pointed out that imprisonment causes pain, frustration, and stress because it deprives inmates of their liberty and the ability to fulfill their needs. This deprivation threatens inmates' personality and psychology, and lasts long after confinement. According to Sykes, deprivation takes various forms, including: 1. The deprivation of libeppy Prison inmates are deprived of some rights and freedom. Inmates view their confinement as a rejection by society, and their inmate status as a stigma that isolates them.trom other members of society. They perceive this rejection as a threat to their self-concept. This perception may lead to socio- emotional maladaptation and subsequently to mental health problems. 2. The deprivation of goods and services Material possessions represent a person's worth in society. Although inmates can possess some goods and services during incarceration, that possession is controlled and is very limited in comparison to what it might have been 17 before. The loss of possessions represents the low level of the prisoners' worth and is harmful to their self-image. 3. The deprivation of heterosexual relationship The lack of heterosexual relationships can affect the sex role of inmates. According to Allen and Simonsen (1992), inmates resort to homosexual activities to fulfill their sexual desires. Inmates who participate involuntarily in homosexual activities develop guilt feelings that affect their self-image, self-concept, and personality. 4. The deprivation of autonomy. Inmates are subjected to rules and commands that control their behavior at all times. They lose their identification with the normal autonomy of an adult. The ensuing feeling of helplessness, weakness, and dependence causes their mental health to suffer. 5. The deprivation of security Inmates who are confined with other violent and aggressive individuals are prone to develop acute anxiety. They must cope with uncertainty and adapt themselves to be tough for survival. The anxiety about their security can cause stress, and the adaptation for survival may affect their personality. The findings from Sykes's (1958) study have been supported by several scholars (Bach-y-Rita, 1981; Gibbs, 1987, 1991; Leuchter, 1981; Tanay, 1982). Bach-y-Rita discussed the effect of isolation, stress, deprivation of stimuli, and lack of heterosexual relationships on inmates' 18 personality disorders. He stated that prisons place an enormous load on the personality of the healthy prisoner and also on that of the already deficient one. Inmates who have personality disorders may become worse, or their symptoms may stabilize. Meanwhile, some healthy inmates may become ill during incarceration. Bach-y-Rita (1981) explained that isolation in a maximumpsecurity prison may induce a state of agitation, disorganization, and belligerence among inmates, frequently culminating in their delusional and paranoid thinking. In addition, deprivation of environmental stimuli may cause hallucinations in normal inmates, and especially in those who score high on the Psychopathic Deviant Scale of the MMPI. Bach-y-Rita explained that aggressive inmates are stimulus seekers, for whom the deprivation of stimuli is so intolerable that they are likely to develop symptoms of mental disorder. Tanay (1982) also examined the pain caused by deprivation. He concluded that deprivation of liberty and its attendant helplessness are powerful psychic stresses. He also stated that inmates experience a sense of social isolation, dehumanization, and changed life condition, which can cause extreme psychological stress. Another scholar who supported Sykes's findings is Leuchter (1981). He proposed that acute and dramatic changes in an individual's living conditions are associated with the onset of serious mental illness. He believed that 19 imprisonment should be considered a "life crisis," which suddenly and traumatically severs individuals from their meaningful social ties. Moreover, imprisonment is the ultimate form.of downward social mobility, through which the prisoner becomes isolated from his or her previous social contracts, suffers a rapid and marked decline in social and economic status, and becomes totally dependent on the state for his or her day-to-day needs and welfare. Therefore, according to Leuchter, imprisonment is a life crisis that can precipitate serious mental illness. Gibbs (1987) studied the effects of exposure to the jail environment; his findings supported the contention made by the above-mentioned scholars. Gibbs studied 339 inmates from urban, suburban, and rural jails in New Jersey, using SCL90 (a psychological test measuring symptoms of psychopathology) to detect changes in psychopathological symptoms among inmates. Although the subjects in Gibbs's study were not selected randomly, the findings of the research were quite relevant. In his study, Gibbs found that imprisonment can heighten scores on the global severity index (G81) and many symptoms of psychopathology, such as depression, anxiety, and obsessiveness and compulsiveness. He noted that these symptoms increased greatly during the first 72 hours or less of incarceration, and then they stabilized or diminished after five days of confinement. Gibbs also found that, although inmates with a history of disorder had higher symptom scores for most dimensions than did normal inmates, 20 for some dimensions, the symptom scores of normal inmates showed a sharper increase than did those of inmates with a history of disorders. Finally, he concluded that jail can have considerable effects on symptom levels, and these effects were not restricted to those who were psychologically disordered. In conclusion, there are some inmates who enter prisons ‘with preexisting mental health problems while others develop mental health problems as a result of their incarceration. The prison environment has traumatic psycho-emotional effects on mentally ill and normal inmates alike. However, some inmates do not develop personality disorders even though they are exposed to the same prison environment as the disordered inmates. These inmates may adapt themselves well to the prison environment and may not develop any personality disorders. Some scholars have suggested that inmates' personal, socio-cultural and demographic characteristics are significant predictors of whether such inmates will develop personality disorders from their prison experience. Characteristics of inmates and pprsonality disorders Some inmates experience the prison environment and fail to adjust to it. Others are able to develop some coping mechanisms that help them adjust to the pain of prisonization. Some scholars have proposed that inmates' personal characteristics affect the extent to which they will experience the pain of imprisonment (JOhnson, 1976; Toch, . 21 1977). Johnson (1976) explained that cultural experience influences the effect of imprisonment on prisoners. He said that inmates from different ethnic and cultural groups have different prior experiences and thus will adapt to the prison environment differently. In his study, JOhnson (1976) interviewed Latin, black, and white inmates in new York State penal institutions to explore patterns of emotional breakdown as measured by self-destructive conducts. He found that white inmates were more vulnerable than Latin and black inmates. Also, he found that inmates who have psychological problems are those whose prior experience conflicts with the prison environment. For example, Latin inmates who had emotional breakdown in prison were those who viewed the prison environment as threats to their family ties. Meanwhile, white inmates perceived fear of peers and resentment over unstable personal relationships as the prison breakdown. Finally, black inmates had experience problems involving personal safety. Toch's (1977) perspective was similar to Johnson's, but he believed there is a transaction between individuals and their environment. Individuals have their own environment which they perceive and match with themselves. Each individual's perception of the environment is different. If the environment is perceived as undesirable or as mismatched to them, they will experience stress or painful survival during incarceration. 22 Toch's and JOhnson's perspectives can be applied to the effect of imprisonment on personality disorders. When inmates face the pain of imprisonment, they perceive the pain in different degrees. If the environment matches or does not conflict greatly with their own characteristics, they can cope with that environment. Conversely, inmates who perceive that the prison environment is so conflicting that it causes stress are likely to develop some personality disorders. In the present research, characteristics of inmates that are considered to interact with prison experience to produce personality disorders are age, gender, length of confinement and sentence, type of offense, and past conviction. These factors were chosen because researchers have found that they are related to personality disorders of inmates (Erickson, Luxenberg, walbek, & Seely, 1987; Flanagan, 1981; Ingram, 1985; Lundstrom, 1988; MacKenzie, 1987; MacKenzie & Goodstein, 1985; MacKenzie, Robinson, & Campbell, 1989; Panton, 1977). From the reviewed studies, some findings showed that older inmates adjusted well to prison environment but showed more emotional problems than younger inmates (Panton, 1976-77; Silverman & vega, 1990). .Also, the length of sentence and confinement was found to relate to inmate personality disorders because it was found that, at the early period of confinement, inmates who had long sentences showed higher stress than inmates who had short sentences. 23 s py Many scholars have proposed that inmates' mental health can be affected by prison environment, but a few scholars believe that inmates were mentally ill before they entered prisons. This concept is believed to explain the causes of personality disorders among inmates. Other scholars have also proposed that inmate characteristics can influence the development of personality disorders. This notion is supported by many studies which are reviewed in the next chapter. In this research, the explanation about the causes of personality disorders as well as the notion of the influence of inmate characteristics on the personality are the theoretical framework of the study. Some studies in the United States and Thailand have already explored inmate personality disorders. In the next chapter, the researcher reviews these studies and discusses their research methodology and findings. LITERATURE REVIEW Inmate mental health has interested many scholars from such field as criminology, psychology, and sociology. Scholars in the United States and Thailand have studied various issues about inmate mental health, using different standard psychological tests to measure mental health. They have focused on inmate mental health and the effect of inmate characteristics on mental health. Most findings from these studies show that some mental health disorders exist. In addition, there is evidence showing that inmates who have different characteristic backgrounds have different kinds of mental disorder. While some scholars have studied emotional disorder or inmate mental health, others have focused on inmate personality disorders. It is not surprising that in these studies, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) has been one of the tests used to measure personality. The MMPI is also the personality test used in many correctional settings (Dahlstrom, Welsh, & Dahlstrom, 1975). It is used not only to measure the personality of inmates for intake screening, but also to classify inmates for placement in different correctional settings (Megargee, 1977). Megargee and other researchers have studied the 24 25 classification of inmates based on MMPI scores, and have developed an MMPI-based classification system. This system is expected to be useful to the correctional department due to its complete and operational definition, although it is still in the process of development. Therefore, some research about this topic is reviewed in the second part of this study. At the end of the literature review chapter, research about inmate characteristics related to personality disorders among inmates is reviewed. These studies focus on different personal and criminal characteristics so the results of research are varied. Some personal characteristics that are studied include gender and age. Criminal characteristics include recidivism, type of offense, length of confinement, and length of sentence. The Extept of Personglity Disorders Among Prison Inmateg in the United States and Thailand. The study of inmate mental health in the United States focuses on various groups of inmates, and uses multiple measures. Walters, Scrapansky, & Marrlow (1986) studied groups of emotionally disturbed and general population of inmates in a maximumssecurity military prison. They used different measurement instruments, such as the Psychiatric Diagnostic Interview (PDI), the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), form.R of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, and measures of institutional adjustment. The 26 researchers were interested in determining if the general population of inmates differed from the emotionally-disturbed inmates, in terms of demographic characteristics, confinement offense, length of sentence, personality, psychiatric and criminal background, and institutional adjustment. They found that the emotionally-disturbed inmates were similar to the general population of inmates except that the emotionally-disturbed inmates had a higher divorce rate than the general inmate population. In terms of length of sentence, there was no significant difference, though the disturbed inmates were more frequently convicted of crime against persons, and less often convicted of drug offense than the general population. Additional findings showed that seriously disturbed inmates were readily identified by means of personality test (MMPI) and behavioral rating scale (BPRS). The scores on the MMPI scales of the disturbed inmates were all significantly different from those of other inmates, and the disturbed inmates scored higher on Scale F and all ten clinical scales than other inmates. The psychiatric backgrounds of both groups were significantly different, but they were not different in terms of the criminal backgrounds. Finally, walters, et al. (1986) found that seriously disturbed inmates had more difficulty adjusting behaviorally, emotionally, socially, and vocationally to the prison environment compared to non-disturbed inmates. 27 ,In a subsequent study, welters, Mann, Miller, Hemphill, and Chlumsky (1988) used both the PDI and MMPI to study three groups of emotionally disturbed criminal offenders housed respectively in state, federal, and military prison facilities. They found that the MMPI was significantly consistent in identifying emotional disorders across the three groups. There were significant differences on the F, 2 (Depression), 4 (Psychopathic Deviation), 6 (Paranoid), 7 (Psychasthenia), and 8 (Schizophrenia) scales, on which emotionally disturbed offenders scored higher than other inmates. Moreover, subjects in the three emotionally disturbed groups differed significantly in demographic background and diagnostic. It was found that emotionally disturbed offenders in the military prison were younger and had higher educational level than other emotionally disturbed offenders in the state and federal prisons. Disturbed state prisoners were also found to satisfy PDI criteria for schizophrenia more than other disturbed inmates in military and federal prisons, whereas disturbed military inmates displayed:more signs of a primary affective disorder on the PDI than other disturbed inmates. Finally, disturbed federal inmates were found to satisfy PDI criteria for antisocial personality more than other disturbed inmates in state and military prisons. Another study which used multiple measures to identify mental illness was conducted by Guy, Platt, Zwerling, and Bullock (1985). They used the Structured Clinical Interview 28 (SCI), MMPI, Quick Test of Intelligence and PDI to measure the mental health of the "nonsentenced" jail population (jail inmates who were admitted to the jail after arrest) in a city jail. Their results identified 34% of subjects as being disturbed according to the indices used in the study. From the MMPI alone, they found that the average scores of inmates peaked at Scale 8 (Sc), Scale 4 (Pd), and Scale 2 (D). This profile of the MMPI can be interpreted as paranoid personality. The findings of Guy, at al. (1985) were supported by the findings of Gunn, Maden, & Swinton (1991). Gunn, et al. (1991) studied male offenders from 16 prisons representing all prison types, security levels, and length of sentences. They had proposed to describe the prevalence of psychiatric disorder and the treatment needs of prisoners in England and Wales. The measure was the clinical interview conducted by psychiatrists. They found that 37% of the offenders had psychiatric disorders; of these 0.8% had organic disorders, 2% psychosis, 6% neurosis, 10% personality disorder, and 23% substance ”misuse" (Gunn, et al., 1991). The prevalence of psychiatric disorders among inmates was found to be nearly the same in this study as in the study of Guy, et al. (1985). The findings of this study showed that, among the disordered inmates, 3% required transfer to a hospital for psychiatric treatment, 5% required treatment in a therapeutic community setting, and 10% required further psychiatric assessment or treatment within prison. 29 From the studies discussed above, one conclusion can be drawn: the disturbed inmates are identifiable from the general inmate population by many psychiatric tests. When the MMPI was used, disturbed inmates were found to score high on Scales F, 2 (D), 4 (Pd), 6 (Pa), 7 (Pt), and 8 (Sc). According to the MMPI-168 codebook (Vincent, Castillo, Hauser, Zapata, Stuart, Cohn, & O'Shanick, 1984), a peak on these scales means antisocial and passive-aggressive personality disorders. Also, the study of walters, et al. (1986) and walters, et al. (1988) showed that some demographic characteristics of the disturbed inmates, such as marital status, were significantly different from those of the general inmate population. In Thailand, the prevalence of inmate personality disorders and the effect of personal characteristics on personality disorders have also been found by some criminologists and psychologists. The latter have used the Thai version of the MMPI because the MMPI has been available in Thailand for many years. Some of this research is described in the following pages. In 1979, Juntarak, Tasaniyom, Meksawat, and Ratanachareon used the MMPI to study inmate personality in a Thai maximum security prison. The authors proposed to investigate personality typology and personality disorders among inmates. They found that the average scores of inmates were high on Scales 1 (H8), 4 (Pd), 5 (Masculinity- Femininity), 6 (Pa), and 9 (Hypomania). The prevalent forms 30 of personality disorders were found to be mostly in the form of antisocial personality with the disorder of emotion and thought. Siripun, Thammakosit, Bampenphol, and Kowbunngam.(1985) also used the MMPI to study personality disorders among Thai inmates. They proposed to study personality differences of inmates whose criminal offenses and ages differed. Their subjects included male inmates from minimum, medium, and maximum.security prisons. They found significant differences on Scales 3 (Hysteria), 7 (Pt), and 9 (Ma), between the group of inmates who committed crime against person and the group of inmates who committed crime against property. TAlso, there were differences on some MMPI scales between groups of inmates of different ages, that is, older inmates scored higher than younger inmates on Scales 1 (Hypochondriasis), 3 (Hysteria), and 0 (Social-Introversion). Some findings from.Thai research are slightly different from findings in the United States research. For example, Thai offenders in the research by Juntarak, et al. (1979) did not show the peak on scales 2 (Depression) and 8 (Schizophrenia), which are scales found to be high in the United States research of Guy, et a1. (1985). However, the study of Juntarak, et al. (1979) is consistent with the study of Guy, et al. (1985) on Scale 4 (Pd). It seems that Thai researchers found personality disorders among Thai inmates based on the MMPI, although they do not report the number of inmates who have personality disorders. The results of the 31 study by Siripun, et al. (1985) also explain that this disorder might be affected by the characteristics of inmates, such as criminal offenses and age. In summary, researchers in the United States and Thailand have found that personality disorders of inmates can be identified by the elevation on the MMPI scales, and that some inmate personal characteristics ,such as, age and type of offense, can affect the elevation. The consistency of the elevation on the MMPI scales in these studies also proves the reliability and validity of the MMPI. Research in which the MMPI was used as a Classification System The MMPI has been extensively used not only to study personality disorders but also to classify inmates within the correctional system. The most prominent MMPI—based classification systemiwas developed by Megargee and his collaborators, in research conducted as early as 1967 (Meyer and Megargee, 1977). These researchers sought to develop a personality-type classification system that was not only comprehensive and operationally defined, but that was, most significantly, reliable and valid. Also, their mission was to come up with a classification scheme that was dynamic enough to reflect changes in an individual based on changes in the classification scheme. Finally, they sought to make it economical so that it can be applied to prison settings with minimal expense and personnel. 32 Between 1967 and 1972, the researchers studied samples of youthful offenders from the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) in Tallahassee, Florida, a medium.security prison. Their research can be described in three time periods. First, Meyer and Megargee (1977) investigated the initial development of the classification system. They proposed to determine whether 1) the MMPI profiles of youthful offenders fell into distinct groups or clusters, 2) such groups were reliable, and 3) it is possible for a clinician to reliably sort individual MMPI profiles into such groups. Subjects of this research were 385 youthful offenders from.the FCI. The results indicated that the MMPI profiles of youthful offenders did appear to fall into reliable, natural groupings, and that guidelines or rules could be formulated to classify the individuals into these groups. The groups in the present research were referred by the arbitrary alphabetic labels as Able, Baker, Charlie, Delta, Easy, Foxtrot, George, How, Item, and unclassified groups. The second research on the development of the MMPI-based criminal classification system was conducted by Megargee and Dorhout (1977). The purpose of the research was to operationally define groups in the system so that other clinicians, or a computer, can validly sort individual MMPI profiles. Megargee and Dorhout (1977) revised the rules to classify the profiles. They also developed a computer 33 program to assist in the classification. The result of this process was a set of rules that differed considerably in complexity and specificity from.the original Meyer-Megargee rules. The computer program.embodying these rules can classify profiles with 91% accuracy, using Megargee's independent classification as the criterion. The summarized rules for each group are available in the article. The last research in the program.was conducted by Megargee and Bohn (1977). This research was to determine whether the ten MMPI-defined groups differ significantly in other characteristics, such as inmate lifestyles, behavior, social history, and personality patterns. The measures investigating the ability, interest, achievement and personality were used on 1,164 inmates in the FCI. The researchers found that the ten groups differed significantly from one another on a broad array of collateral measures. The characteristics and implications for the treatment methods of the ten groups were also described in the article. wrobel, wrobel, and McIntosh (1988) studied the application of the MMPI-based classification system.in another population. They proposed to examine whether the Megargee typology could be applied to a population of psychiatric offenders housed in a state mental health facility. The related variables, for example age, race, marital status, commitment status, and length of psychiatric hospitalization, were also compared between groups. The materials used in the research were the computer program 34 developed by Megargee and Dorhout, the Shipley Intelligence Quotient estimate, the Beck Hopelessness Scale, the Buss- Durker Hostility Guilt Inventory, and data about diagnostic and psychometric data collected upon intake. In support of Megargee, wrobel, et al. (1988) found that all valid profiles were classifiable even among in—patient forensic psychiatry population. However, among three most prominent groups, Charlie, How, and Item, no significant differences existed for race, marital status, length of psychiatric hospitalization, or commitment status, except for the scores on the Beck Hopelessness Scale. It appears that the development of the MMPI-based classification system is successful, although its generalizability needs further study. Megargee and other researchers have shown that they can develop a system that is operationally defined, reliable, valid, dynamic, and economical. This development is expected to be useful in correctional institutions. Due to the proven strengths, reliability, and validity of this classification system, it was used by this researcher to study the personality typology of Thai inmates. Socio-Demographic and Criminal Characteristics Related to Personality Disorders Among Inmates. The present research focuses on both the prevalence of personality disorders among Thai inmates and the type of socio-demographic characteristics that are related to such 35 personality disorders. The researcher discusses this relationship in a later section of this paper. The focus is on such personal and criminal characteristics as age, gender, type of offense, length of sentence, and length of confinement. Due to the scarcity of research focusing specifically on personality disorders, research related to inmate mental health was also reviewed by this researcher. Particular attention was given to research in which the MMPI was used to study personality disorders or other mental handicaps. Panton (1976-77) used the MMPI to study the personality of older male inmates aged sixty and above, from.various correctional, diagnostic and reception centers. He found that older inmates presented more neurotic and less psychopathic responses than the general inmate population. Also, older inmates scored significantly higher on Scales 1 (He), 2 (D), 3 (Hy), and 0 (Si), and lower on Scales 4 (Pd) than the inmate population. The high on Scales 1, 2, 3, and 0 means that older inmates were anxious and self-centered. They were concerned with physical functioning and avoided responsibility. The low on Scale 4 showed that older inmates were less antisocial, hostile and acting out than shown in past behavior. This result is consistent with the study of Siripun, et al. (1985), in which they found that older inmates scored high on Scales 1 (H3), 3 (Hy), and 0 (Si). Silverman and Vega (1990) examined the relationship among age, race, gender, marital status, educational status, 36 and anxiety, anger, and curiosity. Although they did not study personality disorders, they studied some factors relating to personality. Subjects were both male and female inmates from.different security level prisons and of different ages. The measures were the State-Trait Personality Inventory, Anger Expression Scale, Institutional Stressor Scale, and Reaction to Institution Scale. They found a relationship between these demographic variables and the variables of anxiety, anger, and curiosity. For the age variable, the intensity of these emotions decreased as age increased. For the gender variable, males were more prone to direct their anger outward than were females. For the marital status variable, they found that single individuals scored higher on Anger-Out and lower on Anger-Control. For the education variable, they found that graduates showed scores indicating more maturity in dealing with feelings of anxiety and anger than nongraduates. Finally, the race variable showed no differences between Blacks and Whites in any dependent variables. Other characteristics that researchers have investigated are recidivism.and type of offense. Ingram, Marchioni, Hill, and Caraveo-Ramos (1985) studied the interactive effects of race, recidivism, and type of crime in adult male inmates, using both the Problem Solving Inventory and MMPI scales. They found that there were significant effects of race, recidivism, and type of offense on Scales F, L, and some special scales (i.e., Re and D0) of the MMPI. The 37 researchers found that black recidivists scored higher on Scale F than other inmates, but that black nonrecidivists scored higher on Scale L than other inmates. On Scale Re, black nonrecidivists scored higher than black recidivists. For white inmates, the result was the opposite. For Scale Do, both black and white nonrecidivists scored higher than recidivists. Ingram, et al. (1985) found that when the effect type of offense (violent VS. nonviolent) was separately examined, it was found to have a significant effect on Scale 4 (Psychopathic Deviation). This means that inmates who commit violent crimes scored significantly higher on Scale 4 than those who commit nonviolent crimes. Finally, they found that on the Problem Solving Inventory Scales, recidivists were more impulsive than nonrecidivists. MacKenzie and Goodstein (1985) studied the impact of long-term incarceration on patterns of inmate adjustment to prison among male inmates in medium.and maximum security prisons. They administered many short scales and questionnaires to measure the adjustment patterns as reflected in the areas of anxiety, depression, psychosomatic- type problems, and self-esteem. Long-term.offenders were defined as offenders who had been in prison for six or more years, or offenders who were required to serve at least six years of their sentence. They found that offenders serving long sentences, reported high level of stress, including the feeling of anxiety, depression, and psychosomatic illness at the early stage of confinement as well as lower self-esteem 38 and greater fear of other inmates. Meanwhile, inmates with shorter sentences showed less depressive emotion and fewer psychosomatic illnesses at the early stage of confinement than inmates who had longer sentences. The researchers noted that the early period of incarceration was stressful for inmates who had long sentences as they made the transition from the outside world to institutional life. we can conclude that some personal characteristics of inmates have different effects on the personality and mental health of inmates. Inmates who are older may adjust well to the prison environment since they show less aggressive behavior than younger inmates, but they are considered to be more anxious about their health and more self-centered since they show higher scores on the emotional problem. Length of sentence and duration of confinement also affect inmate mental health. Inmates with long sentences exhibit more mental problems than inmates with short sentences, at the early stage of confinement. Other characteristics, such as race, recidivism, and type of offense also have different effects on the personality of inmates. Black recidivists scored higher than white recidivists or black nonrecidivists on.the F scale. On the contrary, black nonrecidivists scored higher than other inmates on the L scale. Black nonrecidivists scored higher on the Re scale than black recidivists but white recidivists scored higher on this scale than white nonrecidivists. Both black and white nonrecidivists also scored higher on the Do scale than other 39 recidivists. For type of offense, it was found that inmates committing violent crimes scored higher on the Pd scale than inmates committing nonviolent crimes. §EEE§£Y This chapter reviewed studies related to inmate personality disorders. The researchers in these studies have found the MMPI to be a valid, reliable, and consistent measure of personality disorders. Some researchers also developed the MMPI classification system to classify inmates into specific personality groups. Finally, some researchers studied the effect of inmates' personal and criminal characteristics on scores on the MMPI scales, and found different effects of these characteristics on such scales. Due to the consistency of the results in these studies, it is expected that, in the present research the MMPI-168 will identify personality disorders among Thai inmates, and will show the relationship between scores on the MMPI scales and inmates' personal and criminal characteristics. In the next chapter, the research methodology is presented. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This researcher proposed to investigate: 1. the personality typology of Thai inmates 2. the number of inmates who have personality disorders, as measured by the MMPI-168 3. the extent of personality disorders among Thai inmates 4. the socio-demographic characteristics, criminal background, types of offense, and length of sentence and confinement of these inmates 5. the inmate socio-demographic characteristics including age and gender, and inmate criminal characteristics including length of sentence, length of confinement, types of offense, and past conviction, that are related to the elevated scores on various scales of the MMPI. Research Desigp The researcher proposed to examine and describe personality disorders among prison inmates in Thailand, and to investigate whether inmate socio—demographic characteristics are related to elevated scores on each MMPI scale. The survey design was selected as most appropriate for this study. The measurement instruments were a questionnaire and the Thai version of the MMPI-168. The 40 , 41 questionnaire instrument was used to gather information on inmate criminal and socio-demographic characteristics. The MMPI-168 was used to examine inmate personality disorders. Study Setting The present research was conducted at two maximum, security prisons in Thailand, i.e., Bang-Kwang Central Prison and the women Correctional Institution. Each prison confined inmates who had a minimum sentence of 30 years. Most inmates 'were transferred from.other local prisons around Thailand because Bang-Kwang Central Prison and women Correctional Institution are the only maximum security prisons in Thailand. The Population and Sppple The population for the study was the 5,000 inmates in each of the prisons in which the study was conducted. The sampling frame was the name list of inmates confined in these prisons. The study sample included 100 male maximumesecurity inmates in Bang-Kwang Central Prison and 100 female maximume security inmates in Wbmen Correctional Institution in Thailand. Inmates selected for the sample were those who were 18 years of age or older and were serving sentences of 30 or more years. 42 W Simple random sampling was used in this study. Each name on the lists of inmates in both prisons was assigned a number. One hundred subjects from.each prison were selected from these lists, using a computer program. Thus, the total sample included 200 inmates, that is, 100 males and 100 females. The sample members were selected at the beginning of June, 1992. Hyppphgses The following hypotheses were formulated for this study. 1. Hi: There will be inmates in Thai prisons who have personality disorders. 2. HA: There will be a relationship between inmates' gender and their scores on each MMPI scale. 3. HA: There will be a relationship between inmates' age and their scores on each MMPI scale. 4. HA: There will be a relationship between inmates' length of confinement and their scores on each MMPI scale. 5. By: There will be a relationship between inmates' length of sentence and their scores on each MMPI scale. 6. Hi: There will be a relationship between inmates' type of offense and their scores on each MMPI scale. 7. HA: There will be a relationship between inmates' past conviction and their scores on each MMPI scale. 43 Variables Indeppndent variables The independent variables in this research are socio— demographic characteristics and criminal characteristics. Socio-demographic characteristics include gender and age, while criminal characteristics include length of confinement, length of sentence, type of offense, and past conviction. The attributes for each of the independent variables are as follows: Variables Attributes Gender -Male -Female Age -Number of years Length of confinement -The number of years and months that inmates are confined in the present prison. Length of sentence -The number of years for which inmates were sentenced by the court for their current conviction Type of offense -Crime against person only -Crime against property only -Crime against person and property -Drug/alcohol offense -Others 44 Past conviction -Yes -have past conviction -No -have no past conviction pppgndgpt variables The dependent variables are the MMPI scales. These include only 10 clinical scales, i.e., Scale 1 (Hypochondriasis), Scale 2 (Depression), Scale 3 (Hysteria), Scale 4 (Psychopathic Deviation), Scale 5 (Masculinity- Femininity), Scale 6 (Paranoid), Scale 7 (Psychasthenia), Scale 8 (Schizophrenia), Scale 9 (Hypomania), and Scale 0 (Social-Introversion). Intervening variables The intervening variables are marital status and status of sentence Qpprational Definitions Gender -Male inmates in the Bang-Kwang Central Prison in Bangkok, Thailand. -Female inmates in the WOmen Correctional Institution in Bangkok, Thailand. Age Age of inmates, in years. Lengph of sentence Each inmate in this study serves a minimum of 30 years. The length of sentence means any sentence greater than 30 years. 45 Lengph of confinement The number of years inmates have spent in the present prison for the current conviction. Typp of offense 1. Crimes against person only --refers to murder, criminal assaults, and sex offense, i.e., rape with or without murder, prostitution, sexual harassment, and child molestation. 2. Crimes against property only --refers to burglary, theft, and robbery . 3. Crimes against person and property --refers to a combination of crime against person and crime against property as defined above. 4. Drug/alcohol offense --refers to sale of drug/alcohol, drug/alcohol addiction and delivery of drug/alcohol. 5. Others --refers to other offenses not specified above. Past conviction Inmates with any conviction for any offense before the present conviction are classified as 'having past conviction.’ Inmates whose present conviction is the first time are classified as 'no past conviction.’ Marital status Marital status refers to single, married, divorced/separated, or widowed status. 46 Status of sentence Status of sentence refers to 'between appeal' and 'final appeal'. Between appeal means inmates were appealing to a higher court, and their sentence is not final. Final appeal means inmates have already had final sentences which they did not appeal. Personality disorders The definition of personality disorders given in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-III-R (American Psychiatric Association, 1987) was used in this study. In this manual, personality disorders are defined as "behaviors or traits that are characteristic of the person's recent (past year) and long-term functioning since early adulthood. The constellation of behaviors or traits causes either significant impairment in social or occupational functioning or subjective distress" (p.335). In this study, personality disorders were measured using the MMPI-168. The measured disorders were then coded into different types and classified according to the DSM-III-R classification system because the MMPI-168 also uses this classification. The DSM-III-R classification is as follows: 1. Cluster A includes paranoid, schizoid, and Schizotypal personality disorders. People with these disorders often appear to be odd or eccentric. 47 2. Cluster B includes antisocial, borderline, histrionic, and narcissistic personality disorders. People with these disorders often appear to be dramatic, emotional, or erratic. 3. Cluster C includes avoidant, dependent, obsessive- compulsive, and passive-aggressive personality disorders. People with these disorders often appear to be anxious or fearful. Finally, the category "personality disorders not otherwise specified" is used to denote other specific personality disorders or mixed conditions that do not qualify as any of the specific personality disorders described in the DSM. After the MMPI-168 was administered, the scores in each scale were interpreted to arrive at a T-score. (The scoring and interpretation of the MMPI-168 will be explained in detail in the section on measurement instruments.). (A T- score of 80 was used as the threshold for determining the presence of personality disorders. Thus, inmates scoring 80 and above on any of the 10 scales was classified as having a personality disorder. Usually, a T-score of 70 is used as the threshold. However, this researcher decided to use a T- score of 80 after consulting with experts at a local college Department of Psychology. According to these experts a T- score of 80 can more accurately screen inmates than a T-score 48 of 70. It can also reduce the possibility of misclassification since inmates who have T-scores between 70 and 80 may not really show signs of personality disorders. It should be noted that the MMPI-168 is not intended as a diagnostic tool for personality disorders but as a tool for profiling inmates into personality types. In this study, inmates who are classified as having personality disorders are those inmates who have a tendency to have such disorders, and can be possibly classified into the same personality types as the patients who were used as subjects during the MMPI-168 construction. Measurpmpnt Instruments Measurement instruments were a questionnaire and the MMPI-168 in Thai language. The questionnaire was the instrument used to collect demographic and criminal data. The MMPI-168 was used to measure personality disorders among inmates. Qgpstionnaire The researcher developed a questionnaire to collect the following information on the subjects: 1. Demographic data Age Marital status Gender Past occupation Religion Educational level 2. Transfer information Name of past prison or institution 49 Type of past prison or institution Time spent at past prison or institution 3. Criminal record for the present conviction Type of offense Length of sentence Length of confinement number of conviction Status of sentence 4. Juvenile delinquency record number of conviction Types of offense Age at first conviction 5. Drug/alcohol history The time used Types of drug/alcohol used The frequency of the use 5. Self-assessment of need for mental health treatment Treatment for mental health problem Treatment for drug or alcohol problem Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventopy—168 (MMPI- léfll . The MMPI is a standardized inventory that is designed to elicit a wide range of self-descriptions from.each test subject. Also, it is designed to provide, in quantitative form, an evaluation of a subject's personality status and emotional adjustment (Dahlstrom,‘Welsh, & Dahlstrom, 1972). The standard MMPI includes 4 validity scales and 10 basic 50 clinical scales. The validity scales were developed to assist in recognizing invalid test records produced by uncooperative or deceptive subjects who have such attitudes toward test-taking. The clinical scales were developed to assist in identifying the type and severity of subjects' abnormal psychiatric conditions (Friedman, webb, & Lewak, 1989). In this research, the short form of the MMPI was used because the length of the full test and the time needed to administer it can impede subjects' willingness to participate. The short fonm that was used is the MMPI-168, in Thai language. The development and evaluation of the MMPI-168 are discussed in Faschingbauer and newmark (1978), Greene (1980), and Vincent, Castillo, Hauser, Zapata, Stuart, Cohn, & O'Shanick (1984). They found that the test had a high range of validity that correlated with the standard MMPI (.77 to .97), and that it was convenient to administer and score. The MMPI-168 uses the first 168 items in either the group booklet form.or Form R of the standard MMPI, so the standard booklet and scoring templates can be used. Measurement scales The MMPI-168 consists of 168 items. Subjects responded to the items by marking true or false on the answer sheet. The answers were scored and categorized according to 13 scales (The "cannot say score" is not used in the MMPI-168). When interpreting the MMPI-168, the scores were examined under 3 validity scales and 10 basic clinical scales. 51 -Validity scales were developed to assist in recognizing invalid test records produced by uncooperative or deceptive subjects with various test-taking attitudes (e.g., faking good or faking bad) (Friedman, webb, & Lewak, 1989). The validity scales are as follows: 1. Scale L--a T—score above 70 invalidates the profile. It shows that subjects tried to present themselves in a favorable light. . 2. Scale F--a raw score of more than 15 or a converted score of more than 26 invalidates the profile. Scale F is useful for indicating severity of maladjustment. Seriously or acutely disturbed individuals tend to obtain elevated scores on this scale (Friedman et al., 1989). 3. Scale K--a T-score above 70 invalidates the profile. The main function of the K scale is to improve the discriminating power of the clinical scales so that these clinical scales can differentiate between normal and criterion groups. High scores on this scale indicate a defensive posture and the refusal to admit having psychological problems. -Clinical scales were developed to assist in identifying the type and severity of abnormal psychiatric conditions. Usually, the MMPI clinical scales are referred by the following numbers and/or abbreviations: 1. Scale 1- Hypochondriasis (Hs). Scale 1 was developed to measure the number of bodily complaints claimed by an individual. 52 2. Scale 2 - Depression (D). Scale 2 measures symptomatic expression, which is a mood state typified by low morale, a feeling of hopelessness, and helplessness, general dissatisfaction, and sometimes preoccupation with death and suicide (Dahlstrom, et al., 1972). 3. Scale 3 - Hysteria (Hy). Scale 3 helps to identify subjects who have conversion hysteria symptoms. The subjects who have this syndrome have hysterical reactions to stress situations (Graham, 1977). They typically reveal denial of social anxiety, high need for affection, somatic complaints, and inhibition of aggression (Wewmark, 1979, p. 25). 4. Scale 4 - Psychopathic deviate (Pd). This scale was developed to measure the personality characteristics of amoral and asocial persons with psychopathic personality disorders. Items on this scale deal with general social maladjustment, absence of strongly pleasant experiences, and feeling of alienation from the group (Hewmark, 1979, p. 31) 5. Scale 5 - Masculinity-Femininity (Mf). It is unclear what this scale measures (Friedman, et al., 1989). It was stated that this scale was developed to identify the personality features that are related to the disorder of male sex role inversion, and the tendency toward masculinity or 53 femininity of interest toward the opposite sex. (Also, it can measure interests, vocational choices, aesthetic preference, and an activity-passivity dimension (Wewmark, 1979, p. 40). 6. Scale 6 - Paranoia (Pa). This scale was designed to identify subjects who have paranoid symptoms, such as feelings of persecution, grandiose self-concepts, suspiciousness, excessive sensitivity, and rigid opinions and attitudes (Graham, 1977). .7. Scale 7- Psychasthenia (Pt). Scale 7 was developed to measure a neurotic pattern called psychasthenia. Persons who are diagnosed as having psychasthenia have excessive self-doubts leading to difficulty in making choices, various fears, obsessive preoccupations, compulsive urges and acts, vague anxieties, and feelings of low self-confidence and insecurity (Friedman, et al., 1989). 8. Scale 8 - Schizophrenia (So). This scale was designed to identify subjects who are diagnosed as schizophrenic. Subjects with this disorder are characterized by disturbances of thinking, mood, and behavior. The disturbances can be shown in forms of social alienation, isolation, bizarre feeling, peculiar bodily dysfunction, and general dissatisfaction (Hewmark, 1979, p. 47). v 9. Scale 9 - Hypomania (Ma). Scale 9 identifies subjects who are diagnosed as having hypomanic symptoms. Hypomania is characterized by elevated mood, accelerated speech and motor activity, irritability, flights of ideas, and brief periods of depression. 54 10. Scale 0 - Social introversion (Si). Scale 0 was designed to evaluate an individual's degree of introversion- extroversion. This scale does not involve a psychiatric syndrome, but it deals mainly with social participation and interpersonal relationship (Mewmark, 1979, p. 50). Rples pf classification of personality disorders with the MMPI-168 1. The inmate profile that has at least one or more high- point codes is classified as personality disordered. In this study, high-point code means the clinical scale which has a T-score of 80 or above. The profile can be coded into three types: 1.1. Spike code type --only one scale has an elevated T-score of 80 or above. 1.2. Two-point code type --two out of the 10 clinical scales have T-scores of 80 or above and are higher than all other scales. . 1.3. Three-point code type --three clinical scales have T-scores of 80 or above and are higher than the other seven scales. 2. The invalid profile was eliminated and not interpreted because the researcher believed that it might cause the misinterpretation of the clinical scales. An invalid profile is one on which the L and K scales are elevated above a T-score of 70, or the F scale has a raw score above 15 or a converted raw score above 26. 55 It should be noted that the severity of personality disorders is related to the elevation of a T-score above 80. The higher the score, the greater the tendency for subjects to have personality disorders. Also, high-point codes show the different types of personality disorders. Bellaplllty gpd validity of the Mugl' -Reliability The MMPI test has been tested for reliability by a number of researchers. The internal consistency was tested by Dahlstrom, et al. (1975). They found that, in the basic MMPI scales, the component items failed to demonstrate a modest level of correlation with the other items, but that each separate item contributed useful information in assessing the general syndrome for which it had been selected. In terms of test—retest stability, most subjects were found to retain their same scale scores and relative group standing on most of the component scales in the basic MMPI profiles. This was true whether or not they were examined in a research setting or under various clinical conditions in psychiatric wards or clinics (Dahlstrom, et al., 1975) However, the short form of the MMPI has been found to be less reliable than the long form. When the Spearman-Brown formula was applied, the predicted Spearman-Brown reliability coefficients for the shortened MMPI scales were so low as to suggest that the shortened MMPI would be unworkable. Yet the 56 SpearmaneBrown estimates of reliability may overestimate reliability for some short forms (Faschingbauer & newmark., 1978). Although there are very few reports on the reliability of the MMPI-168, the length of the test (168 items) with the high correlation between the MMPI-168 and the standard MMPI (range from.0.96 to 0.78) supports the test's reliability (Faschingbauer & Rewmark, 1978). -Validity In the MMPI handbook, Dahlstrom et al. (1972) described the validity of the MMPI in two ways. First, validity was used to designate the property of a scale or instrument that legitimized the particular substantive psychological inferences that could be drawn from score values generated by appropriate administration of that scale. Second, validity scales were used to detect the appropriateness or the acceptability of any one administration of the test. The validity scales in the MMPI can detect the distortion of the responses that occurs when subjects minimize the presentation of their psychological problems or exaggerate their psychopathology. The validity of the MMPI-168 in the first meaning was tested by using external criterion beside the standard MMPI. Psychologists' diagnosis was used as the external criterion for measuring validity. It was found that there was no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy as a function of the type of MMPI used (Faschingbauer & Newmark, 1978). 57 Overall, the MMPI-168 seems to be equivalent to the standard MMPI in terms of both group and individual comparisons, and has validity independent of the standard instrument (Graham, 1977). The equivalent diagnostic accuracy of the MMPI-168 to the standard MMPI test makes the MMPI-168 useful in substituting for the standard test (Faschingbauer & Mewmark, 1978). In this research, the group booklet form.of the MMPI-168 was used because this form is available in Thai language. The MMPI-168 was self-administered. Subjects were asked to read the statements by themselves and decide whether these statements are true or false as applied to them. If there were subjects who could not read, this researcher read the statements to them. After reading each statement, subjects marked their answers on the answer sheets. In case they could not answer or no answer applied to them, they did not mark the answer sheet. However, subjects were encouraged to respond to as many statements as possible. Scoring After the tests were administered, the scoring templates for the standard MMPI were used to derive the MMPI-168 raw scores. The raw scores were converted to raw scores on the standard test by using the Raw Score Conversion Table (The table is in the MMPI-168 codebook of Vincent et a1, 1984). The converted scores were plotted above the point where each scale was located on the profile sheet. The K scores were 58 added to the raw scores by using the standard K corrections for the standard MMPI. The raw scores with K were plotted above scales where they were required in the profile sheet. The raw scores were converted to a T-score when they were plotted on the profile. lpterpretation If the T-score for the L and K scales was above 70 or the raw score for the F scale was above 15, the profile was considered invalid and not interpreted because the invalid profile showed the deviance of subjects in administering the test. If these profiles were valid, then their clinical scales were interpreted. The clinical scales that had a T- score of 80 or above were the primed code. The primed code of the clinical scales will be coded as the high-point code type. To code the high-point code type, the profile was read from left to right, and the high-point codes were listed. The code types can be one-, two—, or three-point code types. In case of the three-point code type, the second and third code types were to be within 10 points of one another, if not, they were interpreted as one-point code types. After coding the high-point code type, the scores were interpreted by referring to the MMPI-168 codebook. Levels of Measurement The variables in this research have different levels of measurement . 59 -Independent variables Independent variables have levels of measurement as follows: 1. NOminal measures. The variables that are in this level of measurement are gender, type of offense, and past conviction 2. Ratio measures. The variables that are in this level of measurement are age, length of confinement and length of sentence- -Dependent variable Personality disorder values were measured at the interval level. The T—score was converted from raw scores and had no absolute zero. Data Collection Procedures The researcher and research assistant (an undergraduate student majoring in criminology at a local university) collected the data in June and July, 1992 in two prisons in Thailand after receiving clearance to do so from.the Thai Department of Corrections. The following procedures were used in collecting the data: A group of ten subjects were brought to the interview room. In the WOmen Correctional Institution, the interview room was located in the library. In Bangkwang Central Prison, the interview room was located in the general store. The researcher briefly explained the consent form and distributed it to each respondent. Subjects who agreed to 60 participate read and signed the consent form before the instruments were administered. Where subjects could not read, the researcher read the consent form.to them and let them sign the form. The participating subjects were interviewed by the researcher or research assistant to collect their demographic data and information on their criminal records. Each interview took approximately 10 minutes. After the interview, the MMPI—168 test was administered. Subjects took the test individually; those who could not read or needed special assistance would have the instrument read to them by this researcher. The test administration took about 35 minutes. Thus, the total amount of time used for the data collection for each individual was 45 minutes. Overall, the data collection procedure took about 10 days. Data Analysis Procedures The frequency distribution, correlation analysis, one- way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and multiple regression analysis were used in analyzing the data gathered in this study. The frequency distribution was used to analyze inmates' demographic characteristics and criminal record, as well as the number of inmates who have personality disorders. The frequency distribution was also used to classify the personality disorders evidenced by the inmates, and to form a personality typology of the inmate sample. 61 The research hypotheses were tested using correlation analysis and ANOVA. Each variable was analyzed in relation to each scale on the MMPI. The T-score of subjects on each scale was a dependent variable. The independent variables were gender, age, length of confinement, length of sentence, type of offense, and past conviction. The relationship of independent variable to the scores on each MMPI scale was tested through correlation analysis, except type of offense which was tested with ANOVA. After every hypothesis was tested, the data were analyzed again with multiple regression. The relationship of every independent variable with each scale score was examined. The T-score of subjects on each scale was a criterion variable. The predictor variables were gender, age, length of confinement, length of sentence, type of offense, and past conviction. Gender, type of offense, and past-conviction were changed to dummy variables where appropriate. The .05 alpha level was the criterion for significance in all analyses. The Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) was used to analyze the data. The leltations of the Research Methodology Although the reliability and validity of the MMPI-168 have been tested by many researchers in the United States, no such test has been done among Thai inmate population. Also, the use of the MMPI-168 only may not have been adequate for measuring personality disorders. However, there are various 62 methodological strengths of this study. First, the researcher included both males and females in the sample, while most prior studies studied only male inmates. Second, the researcher analyzed multiple variables, i.e., inmates' socio-demographic characteristics and criminal background, using multiple regression analysis to see the effect of such variables on the development of personality disorders. §EEE§£Y The survey design was used to study personality disorders among Thai inmates. The measurement instruments were a questionnaire and the MMPI-168. The research sample was selected by simple random sampling from Bangkwang Central Prison and the Wbmen Correctional Institution. It included 100 males and 100 females. Hypotheses were set up to examine personality disorders among inmates, and the relationship between inmates' socio-demographic characteristics and personality disorders. The independent variables from the hypotheses are inmates' gender, age, length of confinement, length of sentence, type of offense, and past conviction. The dependent variables are the scores on ten MMPI scales. After data were collected, the frequency distribution, correlation analysis, one-way analysis of variance, and multiple regression analysis were used to analyze data. In the next chapter, the researcher presents the data analysis and findings. DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS The purpose of this chapter is to present the findings relating to the research questions, which are as follows: 1. What is the personality typology of Thai prison inmates? 2. How many Thai inmates have personality disorders, as measured by the MMPI-168? 3. What is the extent of personality disorders among Thai inmates? 4. What are the socio—demographic characteristics, criminal background, type of offense, and length of sentence and confinement of Thai inmates? 5. What socio-demographic and criminal characteristics of Thai inmates are related to their elevated scores on various scales of the MMPI-168? In order to respond to these research problems, statistical analyses including frequency distribution, correlation analysis, and analysis of variance were used to test the following hypotheses. 1. There will be inmates in Thai prisons who have personality disorders. 2. There will be a relationship between inmates' gender and their scores on each MMPI scale. 63 64 3. There will be a relationship between inmates' and their scores on each MMPI scale. 4. There will be a relationship between inmates' of confinement and their scores on each MMPI scale. 5. There will be a relationship between inmates' of sentence and their scores on each MMPI scale. 6. There will be a relationship between inmates' of offense and their scores on each MMPI scale. 7. There will be a relationship between inmates' conviction and their scores on each MMPI scale. age length length type past After testing the hypotheses, the researcher conducted further analysis by using multiple regression analysis to find a model which shows the best relationship between several socio-demographic characteristic variables and scores on each MMPI scale. MMPI scales are identified by a number, for example Scale 1 or Scale 3. Titles of all scales are also explained in Table 1. 65 T e : Th Scale Scale Abbreviation. Title 1 Es Hypochondriasis 2 D Depression 3 By Hysteria 4 Pd Psychopathic-Deviation 5 Mf Masculinity-Femininity 6 Pa Paranoid 7 Pt Psychasthenia 8 38c Schizophrenia 9 Ma Hypomania 0 Si Social-Introversion Before presenting the results of the hypothesis testing, the researcher will describe some socio-demographic data, criminal background and personality typology of Thai inmates in this research. Socio-dgmpgpaphic Background During the data collection procedure, seven inmates refused to participate. Of these four were males and three were females. Among these inmates, three refused because of their mental problem. After the inmates' profiles were coded, nine profiles were found to be invalid. Therefore, the total inmate sample in this research consisted of 184 inmates, of which 93 (51%) were males and 91 (49%) were females. The average age for both groups was about 38 years. The inmates' age range was from 21 to 67 years. The average 66 age for females (41 years) was higher than that for males (36 years). The inmates' socio-demographic data are shown in Table 2. Table 2: Socio-demographic Characteristics of Thai inmates Male Female Both Variable n % n % n % Age (Years) x 35.9 40.9 38.4 S 9.3 10.0 9.9 Religion'1 Buddhism. 87 94.6 79 86.8 166 90.7 Christianity 1 1.1 7 7.7 8 4.4 Islam 4 4.3 5 5.5 9 4.9 Total 92 100 91 100 183 100 Marital status Single 40 43.0 12 13.2 52 28.3 Married 36 38.7 30 33.0 66 35.9 Divorced or 15 16.1 26 28.6 41 22.3 separation Widowed 2 2.2 23 25.3 25 13.6 Total 93 100 91 100 184 100 Educational level Primary 57 61.3 55 60.4 112 60.9 school Junior high 19 20.4 11 12.1 30 16.3 school High school 6 6.5 9 9.9 15 8.2 Certifica- 6 6.5 11 12.1 17 9.2 tion 67 Bachelor 2 2.2 1 1.1 3 1.6 degree (Table 2 continued) Others 3 3.2 4 4.4 7 3.8 Total 93 100 91 100 184 100 Occupation Farming 32 34.4 16 17.6 48 26.1 Private 13 14.0 43 47.3 56 30.4 business Service 30 32.3 17 18.7 47 25.5 worker Government 12 12.9 8 8.8 20 10.9 officer Student 2 2.2 1 1.1 3 1.6 Housewife 0 0.0 6 6.6 6 3.3 Others 4 4.3 0 0.0 4 2.2 Total 93 100 91 100 184 100 ‘ number of missing values = 1. Table 2 shows that about 91% of inmates were Buddhists. About 43% of male inmates were single while 33% of female inmates were married. About 61% of all inmates had finished primary school, that is the equivalent of Grades 1 to 6 in the American educational system. Finally, about 34% of male inmates were farmers, and 47% of female inmates ran their own businesses, such as a grocery store and a stall, before confinement. In summary, Thai inmates in this research consist of almost equal numbers of males and females. Their average age was 38 years. Most were Buddhists. Most of them were 68 married and ran their own business before they were convicted. Their educational level was low since most of them finished only the primary school. Criminal Histopy Thai inmates' criminal history includes type of offense, length of sentence, length of confinement, status of sentence, and past conviction. Each variable is described briefly before the results are presented. 1. Type of offense--includes crime against person, crime against property, crime against person and property, and drug offense. Other offenses not specified in the research are included in ”Others.” After being interviewed, inmates who reported convictions for murder, criminal assaults, rape, child molestation, or sexual harassment were included in type one, crime against person. It should be noted that prostitution was not included in crime against person because there was no respondent reporting this offense. Inmates convicted of burglary, theft, or robbery were included in type two, crime against property. Inmates convicted of both crime against person and crime against property were included in type three, crime against person and property. Inmates convicted of drug sale, drug addiction, or drug delivery were included in type four, drug offense. Originally, the substance violation question in the questionnaire addressed both narcotic drugs and alcohol. Since no respondent reported alcohol-related conviction, and 69 since all the convictions were drug-related, this researcher dropped the alcohol offense variable. Finally, inmates convicted of other offenses not specified were included in type five, ”Others." 2. Length of sentence--refers to the final sentence issued by the court for the present conviction. The length of sentence reported in this research is not the reduced, sentence, though most Thai inmates' sentences are reduced on special occasions, for example the celebration of the King's and Queen's birthday. 3. Length of confinement--means the length of time inmates have so far spent in prison, from the time of their admission into the present prisons, Bangkwang Central Prison and the WOmen Correction Institution, to June, 1992. 4. Status of sentence--is divided into "between appeal" or "final appeal." Between appeal means inmates are appealing their sentences to a higher court and their sentence is not final. Final appeal means inmates have already received final sentencing from court and are not appealing. 5. Past conviction--refers to "no past conviction" or "having past conviction.” "No past conviction" means the current conviction is the first one ever. Having past' conviction means inmates have been convicted of previous offenses. Table 3 shows the results of the sample's criminal history. It shows that about 31% of inmates were convicted 70 of crime against person. About 5% of all inmates were convicted of crime against property. About 7% were convicted of crime against person and property. .Almost 53% of all inmates were convicted of drug offense. Only 4% of all inmates were convicted of other offenses, which were offenses relating to fraud in government affairs. About 56% of male inmates were convicted of crime against person while almost 80% of female inmates were convicted of drug offense. Table 3: Criminal Background of Thai Inmates Male Female Both Variables n % n % n % Types of offense9 Type 1 47 50.5 10 10.9 57 31.0 Type 2 9 9.7 l 1.1 10 5.4 Type 3 10 10.7 2 2.3 12 6.5 Type 4 25 26.9 73 80.2 98 53.3 Type 5 2 2.2 5 5.5 7 3.8 Total 93 100 91 100 184 100 Length of sentence (Years)b x 82.1 78.7 80.4 S 27.7 30.0 28.9 Length of confinement (Years) x 6.4 5.5 6.0 S 3.5 3.4 3.5 Status of sentence Between 4 4.3 11 12.1 15 8.2 appeal Final appeal 89 95.7 80 87.9 169 91.8 Total 93 100 91 100 184 100 71 (Table 3 continued) Past convictionc NO ‘ 83 89.2 89 97.8 172 93.5 Yes 10 10.8 2 2.2 12 6.5 Total 93 100 91 100 184 100 ‘ 'Type 1' refers to crime against person. 'Type 2' refers to crime against property. 'Type 3' refers to crime against person and property. 'Type 4' refers to drug offense. V 'Type 5' refers to others. bLife sentence is equal to 100 years. ‘3'NO" refers to inmates who reported no past conviction. "Yes" refers to inmates who reported having past convictions. Table 3 shows that the average sentence of the sample is approximately 80 years. Male inmates were sentenced to an average of 82 years while female inmates were sentenced to an average of 79 years. The average sentence is high because life sentence, valued at 100 years, was averaged with other sentences. In this research, about 67% of all inmates received life sentences. Table 3 continues showing that at the time of the research the sample had been confined for almost six years. Male and female inmates were confined for about the same period, that is six years. Table 3 also shows that about 8% of all inmates were still appealing sentences while about 92% 72 of inmates had received final sentences. About 96% of male inmates and 88% of female inmates had received final sentences. Finally, the result shows that about 94% of the sample reported that they had never been convicted. About _89% of male inmates and 98% of female inmates reported no past conviction. Briefly, Thai inmates in this study were mostly convicted of drug offenses with the average length of sentence being 80 years. Fer inmates in the prison the average length of confinement was six years. Most inmates had received final sentences. About 94% of inmates claimed they had never been convicted. The information of male and female sub-samples is available in Table 3. Personality Typplogy of Thai Prison Inmates Table 4 summarizes the average T-score of the inmates on 13 scales, of which Scales 1, F, K are validity scales and Scales 1 to 0 are clinical scales. A T-score below 70 on Scale L and K, and the converted raw scores on Scale F below 26 (or a T-score below 100) show that the sample's profiles were valid. Based on the MMPI-168 codebook (Vincent, et al., 1984, p.53), the general profile for this sample can be coded as 008 code type. This means that this sample has the peak on Scale 8. According to Newmark (1979), the peak on Scale 8 means: High 8 persons almost always feel alienated, misunderstood, and not a part of the general social 73 environment. They have fundamental and disturbing questions about their own identity, worth, and place in the world. They are confused about how one goes about the business of being a socialized human being. Many feel that they hopelessly lack something basic that is the key to successful relations with others. (p. 47) Table 4: Mean T—scores on the MMPI Scales of Thai Inmates Male Female Both (n = 93) (n = 91) (n = 184 Scale X S X S X 8 Scale L 58.5 7.6 59.2 7.2 59.2 7.4 Scale F 77.5' 10.4 75.3 10.9 76.4 10.7 Scale R 52.4 6.9 53.0 6.9 52.7 6.9 Scale 1 69.2 13.9 63.2 10.4 66.3 12.6 Scale 2 80.5 12.5 67.7 11.4 74.2 13.6 Scale 3 70.3 11.0 64.2 11.0 67.3 11.4 Scale 4 72.0 9.3 71.0 9.3 71.5 9.3 Scale 5 60.9 8.0 54.5 8.5 57.7 8.8 Scale 6 78.2 15.4 77.9 16.1 78.0 15.7 Scale 7 78.3 15.2 66.1 11.6 72.3 14.8 Scale 8 108.6 21.6 97.3 17.0 103.0 20.2 Scale 9 62.2 11.2 63.4 11.0 62.8 11.1 Scale 0 60.3 8.2 60.8 8.6 60.6 8.4 74 It is not surprising that the sample has scores that peak on Scale 8, because most inmates in this sample have personality disorder which is usually manifested by an elevation on Scale 8. In this research, the 008 code type was classified into Cluster c in the DSM-III-R classification. Cluster C refers to avoidant, dependent, obsessive-compulsive, and passive-aggressive personality disorders. People with these disorders often appear to be anxious or fearful. When the MMPI-based criminal classification system was applied, a group of Thai inmates was matched with Group How. In their article, Megargee and Bohn (1977) stated that: Group How was one of the lowest groups of all the measures of intellectual ability and educational achievement. The social development data showed a broad range of disturbance and pathology... The psychologists viewed How as one of the most aggressive groups, and one which, consistent with the Presentence Investigation Reports (PSI) and interview, was especially prone to have conflicts with authorities. Withdrawn, introverted, passive, and constricted, the men in Group How are likely to be isolated from their fellow inmates, who probably reject or avoid them as mental cases. (pp. 205-206) Overall, the sample appears to be anxious or fearful. The peak on Scale 8 also shows that the sample has 75 poor interpersonal relationship and disturbance of thinking. Finally, they are the disturbed and pathological group as described by the MMPI-based classification system. Hyppthesls testlpg Seven hypotheses were tested in this research. The first hypothesis explored the personality disorders within the surveyed sample. The next hypothesis examined the relationship among socio-demographic and criminal characteristics of the sample and scores on their MMPI ‘scales. The frequency distribution determined the number of inmates who have personality disorders and the extent of their personality disorders. The correlation coefficient and analysis of variance (ANOVA) analyzed the relationship between variables and scores on each MMPI scale. When dichotomous variables were analyzed, they were changed to dummy variables. For example, males were valued 1 and females were valued 0 in the gender variable, and having past conviction was valued 1 while having no past conviction was valued 0 in the past conviction variable. At last, the multiple regression analyzed the relationship between several variables and scores on each MMPI scale. The hypotheses and results are discussed below. Eypgthesis 1 Hi: There will be inmates in Thai prisons who have personality disorders. 76 The HA hypothesis was supported, which means that there were inmates in Thai prisons who had personality disorders. 1 In this research, personality disorders were examined with the MMPI-168 and a T-score above 80 on any MMPI scales. Table 5 shows that about 88% of the total sample manifested personality disorders. Of these 87 (54%) were males and 74 (46%) were females. This means that these subjects had a T- score above 80 on at least one MMPI scale, therefore belonging to the spike code type (See p. 55 above). Table 5: Number of Inmates who have Personality Disorders Male Female Both Personality g. % B % B % Disorders Yes 87 93.5 74 81.3 161 87.5 No 6 6.5 17 18.7 23 12.5 Total 93 100.0 91 100.0 184 100.0 Table 6 shows the mean T-score on the MMPI scale of subjects in the sample who had personality disorders. It shows that generally, the sample's profiles were valid 77 because T-scores on Scales L and K were below 70 and the converted raw scores of Scale F were below 26 (or a T-score of 100). Table 6: Mean T—score on the MMPI scales of Personality Disordered Inmates Male Female Both (n = 87) (n 8 74) (n = 161) Scale X S X S X 8 Scale L 58.3 7.7 59.4 7.2 58.8 7.5 Scale F 78.0 10.4 77.6 9.5 77.8 10.0 Scale R 52.4 7.0 52.1 6.7 52.3 6.9 Scale 1 70.5 13.2 64.5 10.7 67.8 12.5 Scale 2 81.8 11.9 69.4 11.3 76.1 13.1 Scale 3 71.2 10.8 65.4 11.0 68.6 11.2 Scale 4 73.0 8.6 73.0 8.5 73.0 8.5 ,Scale 5 60.9 8.1 55.7 8.2 58.5 8.5 Scale 6 79.6 14.5 81.7 15.2 80.6 14.8 Scale 7 80.1 14.0 68.1 11.1 74.6 14.0 Scale 8 111.4 19.1 102.8 13.5 107.4 17.3 Scale 9 63.0 10.9 64.6 10.9 63.8 10.9 Scale 0 60.5 8.3 61.6 8.5 61.0 8.4 was obs PIC aut ina 78 Among inmates who have personality disorders, the peak was on Scale 8 and 6, with the highest score being on Scale 8. Newmark (1979) interpreted peaks on Scale 6 and 8 by observing that: These patients are usually acutely schizophrenic or preschizophrenic, typically with paranoid delusions. Depression, emotional inappropriateness, overideation, and fears or phobias often are present. These people spend much time in daydreams, are shy and anxious, and keep others at a distance. They show difficulty in concentrating, and their thinking is often autistic. The content of their thoughts is almost always unusual and unconventional. Suspicion, distrust, and grandiosity are typical. Behaviorally, these patients are often unpredictable. (p. 44) It seems that peaks on Scale 8 and 6 among the sample's profiles show paranoid schizophrenia personality with autistic thinking, paranoid delusion, and emotional inappropriateness. After inmates' profiles were plotted, each of them was coded. Table 7 shows the sample's code types. The 002, 005, 006, and 008 code types are the one-point codes, which means that there is only one elevated scale in each profile. The 018, 027, 028, 038, 048, 068, and 078 code types are the two- point codes, which means that there are two elevated scales in the profile. The 123, 128, 138, 178, 268, 278, 368, 468, and 678 code types are the three-point codes, which means 79 that there are three elevated scales in the profile. The result shows that about 60% of all inmates were in the 008 code type, which means that most inmates' profile show elevation only on one scale, that is Scale 8 in this case. Table 7: Code typp of Personallty Disordered Inmates Male Female Both Code types n % n % n % 002 2 2.3 0 0.0 2 1.2 005 1 1.1 0 0.0 1 0.6 006 0 0.0 2 2.7 2 1.2 007 l 1.1 0 0.0 l 0.6 008 53 60.9 43 58.1 96 59.6 018 1 1.1 0 0.0 1 0.6 027 1 1.1 1 1.4 2 1.2 028 6 6.9 2 2.7 8 5.0 038 1 1.1 1 1.4 2 1.2 048 0 0.0 l 1.4 1 0.6 068 6 6.9 19 25.7 25 15.5 078 2 2.3 0 0.0 2 1.2 123 1 1.1 0 0.0 l 0.6 128 1 1.1 1 1.4 2 1.2 138 1 1.1 0 0.0 1 0.6 178 1 1.1 0 0.0 l 0.6 Total 87 100 74 100 161 100 80 These code types were classified into three clusters including Cluster A, Cluster B, and Cluster C. These clusters are from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental disorders (Third Edition-Revised) (DSM-III-R) classification. Each cluster can be briefly explained as follows: 1. Cluster A--refers to personality disorders which appear to be odd or eccentric, such as paranoid, schizoid, and schizotypal personality disorders. 2. Cluster B--refers to personality disorders which appear to be dramatic, emotional, or erratic, for example, antisocial, borderline, histrionic, and narcissistic personality disorders. 3. Cluster C--refers to personality disorders which appear to be anxious or fearful, for example, avoidant, dependent, obsessive-compulsive, and passive-aggressive personality disorders. Table 8 shows the number of inmates in each of the three clusters. After the code types were classified, inmates' code types were mostly in Cluster C (78.3%). Therefore, personality disorders among the sample appeared to be mostly of the type in Cluster C. Such disorders manifest themselves in the form.of avoidant, dependent, obsessive-compulsive, and passive-aggressive personality disorders, with tendency toward being anxious and fearful. 81 Table 8: Number of Inmates in Clusters of Personality plsorders Male Female - Both Cluster n % n % n % Cluster A 7 8.0 22 . 29.7 29 18.0 Cluster B 4 4.6 2 2.7 6 3.7 Cluster C 76 87.4 50 67.6 126 78.3 Total 87 100 74 100 161 100 When Megargee's MMPI-based classification developed by Megargee was applied, personality disorders among inmates were classified into Group How, which is described as the group with the lowest intellectual ability and educational achievement. Psychologists view group How as aggressive, withdrawn, introverted, passive, and constricted (Megargee and Bohn, 1977, pp. 205-206). Personality disorders in this sample can be described as the avoidant, dependent, obsessive-compulsive, and passive- aggressive personality disorders, which fall under Cluster C according to the DSM—III-R classification. The inmates' prOfile peaked on Scales 6 and 8, which showed autistic thinking, paranoid delusion, and emotional inappropriateness. Their classification on the MMPI-based classification system 82 is Group How, a group which shows disturbance, pathology, and poor adjustment and interpersonal relations. Hypgthesis 2 H5: There will be a relationship between inmates' gender and their scores on each MMPI scale. The HA hypothesis was supported. There was a statistically significant relationship between gender and scores on Scales 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8 , for Scale 1, r = 0.24, p < 0.01; for Scale 2, r = 0.48, p < 0.01; for Scale 3, r = 0.27, p < 0.05; for Scale 5, r = 0.36, p < .01; for Scale 7, r = .42, p < 0.01; for Scale 8, r = 0.28, p < 0.01. However, Table 9 shows that the relationship among scores on Scales 1, 3, 5, and 8 and inmates' gender were low, except scores on Scales 2 and 7 which moderately correlate with gender.1 1 The scale of the correlation coefficient is ranged from 0 (no relationship) to + or - 1.00 (a perfect relationship) (Hagan, 1989, p. 321). The interpretation of scale is as follows: Relationship 0.0 0.20 0.40 r 0.60 0.80 i 1.0 l l l l l 1 None Negligible Low Moderate High moderate High perfect 83 use oneehsmw oswnmononwmnwom moo moonmm 0: ans zsz momwom m zzmH momwo 0.05. The type of offense, especially crime against property, conspicuously increased scores on this scale (B = 6.7). This means that inmates who committed crime against property most frequently showed amoral and asocial personality. However, no significant relationship was found between these predictor variables and scores on Scale 4. 103 Table 17: ghe Full model of Multiple Regression Analysis for Inmate Socio-erpgraphic and Criminal Characteristics and Scores on Sca e 4 Predictor B SE B Beta t Sig t Variable Gender 0.2 1.7 0.0 0.1 0.91 Age -0.1 0.1 -0.1 -0.7 0.51 Length of 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.28 sentence Length of -0.2 0.2 -0.1 -0.7 0.51 confinement Crime against 6.7 3.3 0.2 2.0 0.05 property Crime against 4.6 2.9 0.1 1.6 0.12 person a property Drug offense 2.4 2.0 0.1 1.2 0.22 Past conviction 5.5 2.8 0.2 1.9 0.05 (COnstant) 69.9 3.9 18.1 0.00 Multiple R 0.25 R Square 0.06 Adjusted R Square 0.02 Standard error 9.12 Note. n = 184 *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 df = 8, 168 104 Seale 5 Table 18 shows that when all inmate socio-demographic and criminal characteristics predicted the elevation on Scale 5, the Multiple R was 0.37 (p < 0.01) and R? was 0.14. Table 18: The Full model of Multiple Regression Analysis for Inmate §ocio-Demographic and Crlglpal Characteristics and §cores on Scale 5 Predictor B SE B Beta t Sig t Variable Gender 6.1 1.6 0.4 3.9 0.00 Age 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.65 Length of -0.0 0.0 -0.1 -1.1 0.25 sentence confinement property person & property Drug offense -1.2 1.8 -0.1 -0.7 0.51 Past conviction -1.0 2.5 -0.0 -0.4 0.68 (Constant) 56.4 3.5 16.1 0.00 Multiple R 0.37** R Square 0.14 Adjusted R Square 0.10 Standard error 8.24 Note. n = 184 *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 df = 8, 168 105 Table 19 shows the final model with only gender significantly related to scale scores (Multiple R = 0.36, p < 0.01). The result shows that male inmates scored higher than female inmates on Scale 5 (B = 6.2). This also means that males were more likely to be passive and introversive, and were more likely to have homosexual interests than females. The variable gender can predict about 13% of variance of scores on this scale (R? = 0.13). Table 19: The Flpal ppgel pf Multiple Regression Analysis for Inmate Socio-peppgraphic and Criminal Characteristics and ScOres on Scale 5 Predictor B SE B Beta t Sig t Variable Gender 6.2 1.2 0.4 5.1 0.00 (Constant) 54.6 0.9 -0.2 62.3 0.00 Multiple R 0.36** R Square 0.13 Adjusted R Square 0.12 Standard error 8.13 Note. n = 184 *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 df = 1, 175 106 Scale 6 Table 20 shows that all predictor variables can predict about 4% of variance of scores on Scale 6 (R? = 0.4). The Multiple R for this model is 0.20. The type of offense variable, especially, crime against property, seems to elevate scale scores the most (B = 10.1). This means that inmates who committed crime against property were most likely to show paranoid symptom, such as hypersensitivity, rigid opinion, and paranoid ideation. However, no significant relationship was found between these predictor variables and scores on Scale 6. 107 Table 20: Tee Full model of Multiple Regression Analysis for lepete Socip-peppgraphlc and Criminal Characterietics and Seopes op Scale 6 Predictor E SE B Beta t Sig t variable Gender -1.8 3.0 -0.1 -0.6 0.54 Age 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.81 Length of 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.88 sentence Length of -0.2 0.4 -0.0 -0.5 0.65 confinement Crime against 10.1 5.7 0.2 1.8 0.08 PIOPGIPY Crime against 9.6 5.0" 0.2 1.9 0.06 person a property Drug offense 1.0 3.4 0.0 0.3 0.76 Past conviction 3.5 4.8 0.1 0.7 0.47 (Constant) 76.2 6.6 11.5 0.00 Multiple R 0.20 R Square 0.04 Adjusted R Square 1-0.01 Standard error 15.61 NOte. n = 184 *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 df II m s 168 108 Scale 7 Table 21 shows that the full model can predict about 22% of variance of scores on Scale 7 (R? = 0.22). The Multiple R is 0.47 (p < 0.01). Table 21: The Full model of Multiple Regression Analysis for Inmate Socio-Demographic and Criminal Characteristics and Scores on Scale 7 Predictor B SE B Beta t Sig t Variable Gender 14.1 2.5 0.5 5.6 0.00 Age 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.44 Length of 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.2 0.25 sentence Length of -0.5 0.3 -0.1 -1.6 0.12 confinement Crime against 11.0 4.8 0.2 2.3 0.03 Property Crime against 9.8 4.3 0.17 2.3 0.02 person a property Drug offense 5.3 2.9 0.2 1.9 0.07 Past conviction -0.1 4.1 -8.5 -0.0 0.99 (Constant) 56.9 5.7 10.0 0.00 Multiple R 0.47** R Square 0.22 .Adjusted R Square 0.19 Standard error 13.34 Note. n = 184 *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 df = 8, 168 109 However, a significant relationship was found only between inmates' gender and scores on Scale 7 (Multiple R = 0.41, p < 0.01). Table 22 shows that the relationship between gender and scale scores was positive (B = 12), which means that male inmates were more obsessive and insecure than female inmates. This model can predict about 17% of variance of scores on this scale (R? = 0.17). Table 22: The Final Model of Multiple Regression Analysis for Inmate Socio-Demographic ang Criminal Characteristics and Scores on Scale 7 Predictor B SE B Beta t Sig t Variable Gender 12.0 2.0 0.4 5.9 0.00 (Constant) 66.2 1.5 45.3 0.00 Multiple R 0.41** R Square 0.17 Adjusted R Square 0.16 Standard error 13.53 NOte. n = 184 *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 df = 1, 175 Scale 8 Table 23 shows that all predictor variables can predict 110 about 12% of variance of scores on this scale (R? = 0.12). The Multiple R is 0.34 (p < 0.01). Table 23: The Full model of Multiple Regression Analysis for Inmate Seeio-Demographic and Criminal Characteristics and Scopes on Scale 8 Predictor B SE B Beta t Sig t Variable Gender 8.9 3.6 0.2 2.5 0.02 Age -0.0 0.2 -0.0 -0.1 0.89 Length of 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.40 sentence Length of -0.1 0.5 -0.0 -0.2 0.86 confinement Crime against 16.4 7.0 0.2 2.4 0.02 property Crime against 8.9 6.2 0.1 1.4 0.15 person a property Drug offense 3.6 4.1 0.1 0.9 0.39 Past conviction 11.5 5.9 0.2 1.9 0.06 (Constant) 92.1 8.2 11.3 0.00 Multiple R 0.34** R Square 0.12 Adjusted R Square 0.07 Standard error 19.22 liege; n = 184 *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 df = 8, 168 111 As shown in Table 24, the backward listing procedure resulted in the final model with only gender significantly related to scores on Scale 8 (Multiple R = 0.26, p < 0.01). About 7% of the variance of scores on Scale 8 is predicted by gender (R? = 0.07). The relationship between inmates' gender and scale scores is positive. It means that males showed bizarre feeling, social alienation, and peculiar bodily dysfunction more frequently than females. Table 24: The Final Model of Multiple Regression Analysis for Inmate Socio-Demographic and Criminal Characteristics and Scores on Scale 8 Predictor B SE B Beta t Sig t Variable Gender 10.2 2.9 0.3 3.5 0.00 (Constant) 98.0 2.1 46.9 0.00 Multiple R 0.26** R Square 0.07 Adjusted R Square 0.06 Standard error 19.36 NOte. n = 184 *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 df = 1, 175 112 Sea e 9 Table 25 shows that all predictor variables can predict about 7% of variance of scores on Scale 9 (R? = 0.07). The Multiple R is 0.27. Table 25: The Epll model of Multiple Regression Analysis for Inmate Socio-Demographic and Criminal Characteristics and Scores on Scale 9 Predictor B SE B Beta t Sig t Variable Gender -5.6 2.1 -0.3 -2.7 0.01 Age 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.87 Length of 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.68 sentence , Length of 0.3 0.3 0.1 1.1 0.27 confinement Crime against 1.5 4.0 0.0 0.4 0.70 prOperty Crime against 5.8 3.6 0.1 1.6 0.11 person a property Drug offense -4.5 2.4 -0.2 -1.9 0.06 Past conviction 4.1 3.4 0.1 1.2 0.23 (Constant) 64.0 4.7 13.7 0.00 Multiple R 0.27 R Square 0.07 Adjusted R Square 0.03 Standard error 10.99 Note. n = 184 *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 df = 8, 168 113 Although the full model did not show any significant relationship (p = 0.12), a significant relationship was found in the final model (p < 0.05) after the backward listing procedure was applied. Table 26 shows that gender and type of offense significantly related to scores on Scale 9 (Multiple R = 0.23, p < 0.05). It should be noted that crime against person cannot be found in Table 26 because it was a reference which was valued 0 in the dummy variable. .Also, although crime against property and crime against person and property did not significantly relate to scale scores, they were included in the final model, because they are attributes of the type of offense variable. About 6% of variance of scores on Scale 9 is predictable by these predictor variables (R? = 0.06). The relationship between predictor variables and scores is negative. This means that male inmates who committed drug offense were less hyperactive and energetic than other female inmates and male inmates who committed other offenses. Table 26 also shows that inmates' gender had the most significant effect on scale scores (B = -4.8). 114 zeple 2g: Ihe Final mpgel of Multiple Regression Analysis for lpeete Seelezbemographlc and Cplelpal Chepacterietics and Scores on Scale 9 Predictor B SE B Beta 1 t Sig t Variable I Gender -4.8 2.0 -0.2 -2.4 0.02 Crime against 0.0 3.8 2.8 0.0 1.00 property 1 Crime against 5.4 3.5 0.1 1.5 0.13 person a property Drug offense -4.2 2.2 -0.2 -2.0 0.05 (Constant) 67.3 2.2 0.0 30.5 0.00 Multiple R 0.23* R Square 0.06 Adjusted R Square 0.03 Standard error 10.97 NOte. n = 184 *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 df = 4, 172 Scale 0 Table 27 shows that all predictor variables can predict about 5% of variance of scores on Scale 0 (R? = 0.05). The Multiple R is 0.22. 115 Table 27: The Full epgel of Multiple Regression Analysis for Inmate Socio-Demogpaphic and Criminal Characteristics and Scores on Scale 0 Predictor B SE B Beta t Sig t Variable Gender 1.7 1.6 0.1 1.1 0.28 Age 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.6 0.10 Length of —0.0 0.0 -0.1 -1.2 0.24 sentence Length of -0.1 0.2 -0.0 -0.4 0.69 confinement Crime against -2.0 3.0 -0.1 -0.7 0.51 property Crime against 1.9 2.7 0.1 0.7 0.49 person a property Drug offense 1.9 1.8 0.1 1.1 0.28 Past conviction 0.9 2.6 0.0 0.4 0.73 (Constant) 56.4 3.5 16.0 0.00 Multiple R 0.22 R Square 0.05 Adjusted R Square 0.00 Standard error 8.31 1.1% n = 184 *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 df = 168 116 Table 28 shows the final model with only age significantly related to scores on this scale (Multiple R = 0.16, p < 0.05). About 3% of variance of scores on Scale 0 was predicted by the predictor variable (R? = 0.03). Inmates' age has a positive relationship with scale scores (B = 0.1), which means that older inmates were more withdrawn and anxious in their contact with people than younger inmates. Table 28: The Final Model of Multiple Regression Analysis for lppete Socio-Demographlc apd Criminal Chapacteristics and Scores on Scale 0 Predictor B SE B Beta t Sig t Variable Age 0.1 0.1 0.2 2.1 0.04 (Constant) 55.5 2.5 22.6 0.00 Multiple R 0.16* R Square 0.03 Adjusted R Square 0.02 Standard error 8.25 Note. n = 184 *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 df = 1, 175 117 In summary, the multiple regression analysis found a best fitting model for each MMPI scale. It shows a stronger relationship among several socio-demographic and criminal variables and scale scores than a relationship between a single variable and scale scores. However, the model does not have high predictability since the R2 of each model is low. The multiple regression analysis also found a relationship in Scales 9 and 0, but these relationships were not found in the correlation analysis. The result shows that when inmates' gender and type of offense are analyzed together, they related to scores on Scale 9. The relationship can be interpreted to mean that male inmates who committed drug offense were less hyperactive and less energetic than other female inmates and male inmates who committed other offenses. The multiple regression analysis also shows a relationship between age and scores on Scale 0, which could not be found in the correlation analysis. The relationship shows that older inmates were more withdrawn and anxious in their contact with people than younger inmates. Ultimately, the best model or set of predictor variables for Scales 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 0 can be summarized as follows: Scale 1 A set of predictor variables for this scale was gender, length of confinement, and type of offense. The relationship between predictor variables and scale scores was that male 118 inmates who committed crime against person and property and had a longer length of confinement showed more concern about body function and malfunction morefrequently than other males or females who committed other offenses and had shorter confinement time. §cale g The final model showed that only gender was a predictor variable for this scale. It showed that male inmates felt depressed, helpless, and hopeless more frequently than female inmates. Scale 3 A set of predictor variables for this scale was gender, age, and length of confinement. It was found that male inmates who were younger and had a longer length of confinement expressed the need of affection and body complaint more frequently than other inmates. Scale 4 No significant relationship was found among socio- demographic and criminal characteristics and scores on Scale 4. Scale 5 It was found that only inmates' gender related to scores on this scale. The result showed that male inmates were more passive and introversive, and developed homosexual interest more frequently than female inmates. 119 Scale 6 It was shown that no significant relationship was found between the predictor variables and scores on Scale 6. §cale 7 Inmates' gender is the only predictor variable for this scale. The result shows that male inmates were more obsessive and insecure than female inmates. 1 Scale 8 Inmates' gender is also a predictor variable for this scale. The result shows that males showed bizarre feeling, social alienation, and peculiar bodily dysfunction more frequently than female inmates. ‘ Scale 9 The predictor variables for this scale are gender and type of offense. The result shows that male inmates who committed drug offense were less hyperactive and less energetic than female inmates. Scale 0 The result shows that age is related to scores on Scale 0. It was found that older inmates were more withdrawn and anxious in their contact with people than younger inmates. Summagy In this chapter, the researcher presented the data analysis and findings. The major finding is that about 88% of all inmates have personality disorders. They fall within the anxious and fearful, specially, avoidant, dependent, 120 obsessive-compulsive, and passive-aggressive personality disorder category. Other findings also show a relationship among inmates' gender, age, length of confinement, type of offense, and past conviction, and scores on the 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 0 scales. Some findings in this research are consistent with other researchers' findings. However, some findings are different. Therefore, the next chapter discusses the research findings. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS §2EE§£Y From the reviewed studies relating to personality disorders, the researcher found that many prior researchers used the MMPI to measure personality and generally arrived at consistent findings. These prior researchers found personality disorders among inmates. .Also, many researchers uniformly found that there is a relationship among inmates' demographic characteristics, criminal history, and the development of personality disorders. In Thailand, some studies have been conducted on inmate personality disorders. Some of these studies focused on personality typology, while others focused on personality differences among inmates based on differential criminal background and age. All studies found that inmates' personality was different from that of the general population, and that this difference could be attributed to differences in socio-demographic characteristics and criminal history. Such studies are, however, few in number. Therefore, the researcher proposed to use the MMPI-168 to examine personality disorders among Thai inmates, and the relationship among inmates' socio-demographic characteristics, criminal history, and elevated scores on each MMPI scale. The researcher studied inmates at two Thai 121 122 prisons and attempted to determine the number of inmates who have personality disorders as well as the extent of personality disorders. Research hypotheses were also set up to test the relationship among inmates' socio-demographic and criminal characteristics and their scores on each MMPI scale. They are as follows: 1. There will be inmates in Thai prisons who have personality disorders. 2. There will be a relationship between inmates' gender and their scores on each MMPI scale. 1 3. There will be a relationship between inmates' age and their scores on each MMPI scale. 4. There will be a relationship between inmates' length of confinement and their scores on each MMPI scale. 5. There will be a relationship between inmates' length of sentence and their scores on each MMPI scale. 6. There will be a relationship between inmates' type of offense and their scores on each MMPI scale. 7. There will be a relationship between inmates' past conviction and their scores on each MMPI scale. The researcher used the survey design with a questionnaire and the MMPI-168 as the measurement instruments. The sample of inmates was selected by simple random sampling from.Bangkwang Central Prison and the WOmen Correctional Institution. This included 100 males and 100 females. 123 After data were collected, the frequency distribution, correlation analysis, one-way analysis of variance, and multiple regression analysis were used to analyze the data. The results from the data analysis show that about 88% of the sample manifested personality disorders of the avoidant, dependent, obsessive-compulsive, and passive-aggressive, anxious, and fearful personality type. Other findings also show a relationship among inmates' gender, age, length of confinement, type of offense, and past conviction, and scores on Scales 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 0. Table 29 shows a summary of the results of this research. Table 29: Seppepy of the Research Findings Research question Finding Inmates' socio-demographic characteristics: Age 38.4 years (X) Religion Most inmates were Buddhists. Marital status Most inmates were married. Educational level Most inmates finished primary school. Occupation Most inmates had their own private business. Inmates' criminal history: Type of offense Most inmates committed drug offense. Length of confinement 6 years (X) (Table 29 continued) Length of sentence Status of sentence Past conviction 124 80 years (X) Most inmates had final sentence. Most inmates did not have past conviction. Personality typology of Thai inmates Peaks on Scale 8 or in Cluster C No. of personality disordered inmates The extent of personality disorders 88% of the sample Peaks on Scales 6 and 8 Relationship among inmates' socio-demographic and criminal characteristics and scores on each MMPI scale: Gender Age Length of sentence Length of confinement Type of offense Past conviction Positively relating to scores on Scales 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8 Negatively relating to scores on Scales 1, 2, and 3 No significant relationship Positively relating to scores on Scales 1 and 3 Relating to scores on Scales 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8 Positively relating to scores on Scale 8. 125 The results of the research show some significant findings that are similar to other researchers' findings. Yet, there are some differences. Therefore, the interpretation of the findings will be discussed. The chapter will conclude with a presentation of the limitations of this study and the implications of the findings. Inteppretation of the Findings In this study, inmates' personality typology peaked at Scale 8, which has been described as being characterized by social alienation, bizarre feeling, and isolation. Dahlstrom, Welsh, & Dahlstrom (1972, p. 280) noted in the MMPI handbook that the peak on Scale 8 was likely to be found in prison inmates. This result is also consistent with that of Guy, Platt, Zwerling, & Bullock (1985), which also showed that inmates' average scores were highest on Scale 8. On the contrary, Juntarak, et al. (1979) found the peak on Scales 1, 4, 5, 6, and 9. The major finding about the prevalence of personality disorders in this research was that about 88% of Thai inmates have personality disorders. This number seems to be larger than the number found by other researchers. Guy, at al. (1985) found that about 34% of the jail inmates studied manifested psychiatric disturbance. Also, Gunn, Maden, & Swinton (1991) found that approximately 37% of the male 126 prisoners studied had psychiatric disorders, and of these 10% had personality disorders. On the contrary, Juntarak, et al. (1979) and Siripun, et al. (1985) did not find such a result. The large number of personality disordered inmates in this research may be attributed to differences in characteristics, such as age, marital status, length of sentence, and length of confinement. In this study, the 1 average length of confinement was six years and the average ' length of sentence was 80 years. The average age of the sample was 38 years. About 40% of them were married. L Characteristically, many of those who were married were also in the younger age bracket. Also, at the time of this study, this group had been confided for a relatively short period of their sentence. The combination between their young age, the fact of being married and their short confinement time may explain the large number of personality disordered inmates encountered in this study. Many researchers have reported that the incidence of personality disorders is very high among newly-confined inmates. Certainly, the harshness of the prison environment, the feeling of social rejection, ostracism, and de- personalization, and the de-humanizing experience associated with prison life are hard realities that inflict deep emotional trauma on the newly-confined inmate. There is reason to believe that such emotional trauma will be most acute among young and married inmates with long prison sentence, but who are at the early stage of their sentence. 127 The above analysis appears to be most compelling in explaining the large number of personality disordered inmates in this study, especially when one interprets these findings in their proper cultural context. In the Thai culture, criminal convictions and sentence cast indelible social stigma not only on the offender but also on his or her nuclear and extended families. So, not only is the Thai 1 inmate emotionally traumatized by the harsh reality of prison life. This individual also feels a deep sense of guilt for the embarrassment and shame that he or she has caused on the L family. For the male inmate, the trauma and guilt are even more pronounced than for the female inmate, in a society where the male is still held as the source of sustenance for the family. If then follows that the young and married male inmate who has been recently confined will manifest very severe personality disorders. Net only does he find prison life hard to adjust to, but he feels guilty of embarrassing the family, and of abandoning his responsibilities as a son, husband and father. This fact may help explain the higher incidence of observed personality disorders among subjects in this study than in most previous studies. It may also help explain variance in the type of relationship between inmates' socio—demographic characteristics and the elevation on each MMPI scale. walter, Mann, Miller, Hemphill, and Chlumsky (1985) found that their subjects had higher scores on Scales F, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8 than the general inmate population. 128 High scores on Scales 6 and 8 characterize paranoid schizophrenic personality. The same results were obtained in this study. However, no other Thai research made similar findings. When the results of the relationship of inmates' characteristics and the elevated scores on each MMPI scale were compared with the results from.0ther research, a relationship was found to exist but the type of relationship was different. Panton (1976-77) found a positive relationship between inmates' age and scores on Scales 1, 2, 3, and 0, which are scales measuring body complaint, depression, and social participation. Conversely, the result in this research shows that inmates' age negatively relates to scores on Scales 1, 2, and 3. The reason for the difference in findings may be the different age distribution in the respective samples. Inmates' age in this research ranged from 21 to 67 years, that is an average of 38 years. In Panton's research, the sample was sixty years and above (n = 120). Thus, in this research, the sample was younger than Panton's. Silverman and vega (1990) found that inmates who are young have more difficulty adjusting themselves to prison life than older inmates who know how to do their time in prisons. They also found that as age increased, the intensity of expression of anger and curiosity decreased. The older inmates seemed to avoid involvement with the prison world which they may perceive as dangerous, and they control . 1-.“ 129 their anger feeling better than younger inmates. Contrarily, younger inmates expressed their anger feeling and did not know how to deal with the dangers of prison life. In other words, younger inmates cannot adjust well to the prison environment, and the problem of adjustment might result in elevated scores on the MMPI. Another divergent finding concerns the relationship between length of sentence and scale scores. It was expected that inmates with long sentences would display severe personality disorders. This relationship was not found. A plausible explanation may reside in inmates' expectation of reduced sentences usually given either on special occasions (King's or Queen's birthday) or for good behavior. Inmates who have final sentences and have excellent report on their conduct can have reduced sentences for good behavior. Their sentence can normally be reduced by 50% of the original sentence (Thai Department of Corrections, 1991). Thus, the length of official sentence issued by the court might not affect inmates' personality disorders as long as they are certain that they can be released before the designated time. Therefore, this may explain why a relationship between the length of sentence which was issued by the court and scale scores could not be found. Also, contrary to findings from other studies, a significant relationship was found among gender, length of confinement, types of offense, past conviction and elevated scores on the MMPI. It was found that male inmates scored 130 higher on Scales 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8 than female inmates. This means that male inmates were more frequently concerned about body complaint, felt more acute sense of hopelessness, helplessness, and were more insecure than female inmates. The disorders among male inmates may have resulted from.the fear of other inmates. Most males in this study committed crime against persons, that is, mostly murder. Therefore, there were many violent and aggressive inmates who were confined together. These violent inmates can cause dangerous assault or battery on other inmates. Inmates might feel that they cannot protect themselves and, therefore, become anxious about their security and personal safety. The violent situation might not be found in female prison because most of them.eommitted non-violent crime, that is, drug offense. The finding of the relationship between length of confinement and scale scores showed that inmates who had longer period of confinement scored higher on Scales 1 and 3 than inmates who had shorter period of confinement. It means that inmates who had long confinements showed concern for body complaint and need for affection and support. Their concern for body complaint and need for affection and support may be attributed to the increasing sense of isolation, weakness, anxiety about health, fear of assault from other inmates and loss of self-confidence. The findings also revealed that inmates who committed drug offense showed less somatic and sex role disorders, less depression, anxiety, and self-confidence problems than 0 I“ 2" 4““. 131 inmates who committed other offenses. These findings are consistent with those of walters, et al. (1986) and of Ingram, et al. (1985). The reason that inmates who convicted of drug offense showed less disorders than other inmates might be that less stigma is attached to drug offense than to other crimes. Drug offenders are believed to commit this crime for economic reasons, unlike the perceived heinous nature of other offenses. The relationship between past conviction and scores on Scale 8 showed that inmates who had past conviction showed bizarre feeling, peculiar bodily dysfunction, and social alienation more frequently than inmates who did not have past conviction. It may be surmised that inmates with past conviction perceive themselves and are perceived by society as inherently bad. Thus, they feel ashamed and realize that society does not accept recidivists. These inmates have social stigma which isolate them.from society. Moreover, their past prison experience was a lesson in brutality which they would prefer not to experience again. These factor may cause these recidivists to react with intense personality disorders. Although these findings were significant, some findings were inconsistent with findings from other studies. The reason for the inconsistency might be the difference in the measurement procedure. While the MMPI-168 was used to measure personality disorders in this study, the other studies used different measures, such as the Problem Solving 132 Inventory, the State-Trait Personality Inventory, and Anger Expression Scale. Also, some studies used only male inmates and studied the effect of several variables on the development of personality disorders. This study used both male and female inmates and studied multiple variables some of which were different from.0ther researchers' variables. Despite the inconsistencies, this study made a unique contribution concerning inmates' gender. It found that gender was a significant variable which most frequently related to scores on the MMPI scales the most. The findings showed that gender related to many scales, that is Scales 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8. Even when multiple variables were analyzed together to find the relationship with scale scores, it was found that only gender related to some scale scores, i.e., Scales 2, 5, 7, and 8. Although gender seems to be a significant variable, very few studies used gender as an independent variable. Overall, inmates' socio-demographic characteristics in this research are similar to those of inmates in the research of Juntarak, Tasaniyom, Meksawat, & Ratanachareon (1979) and Siripun, Thammakosit, Bampenphol, & Kowbunngam.(1985). In terms of religion and educational level, most Thai inmates in these research were Buddhist and had finished primary school. Yet, the average age of inmates, 38 years, in this research is higher than inmates' age in other research, which ranged 133 from 21 to 30 years. Inmates' occupation is also different. Inmates in this research ran their own business while inmates in other research were farmers before their confinement. However, it should be pointed that inmates in Juntarak's and Siripun's research were males, whereas inmates in this research were both males and females. When only male inmates in this research were examined, their average age was 36 years. Almost 95% of them were Buddhist. About 43% of them. were single and had 61% finished primary school. Approximately 34% of them.were farmers. It seems that male inmates in this study were not much different from those in the studies of Juntarak, et al. (1979) and Siripun, et al. (1985). Inmates' criminal history in this research is also similar to that of inmates in Juntarak's and Siripun's research when only male inmates are compared. However, in their studies, Juntarak and Siripun included inmates who received the death sentences while this researcher did not include them. Inmates with the death sentence might show more severe personality disorders than other inmates. It should be noted that the sample in this study had an average length of confinement of six years while their length of sentence was normally 80 years. Inmates confinement period may be shorter than their sentences because many of them received reduced sentences, and were released before the designated time. 134 This study also used multiple regression to determine the effect of multiple variables on MMPI scales. Preliminary results suggested that variables, such as socio-demographic characteristics and criminal history, could elevate scores on some MMPI scales but not on others. For example, Scales 1, 3, and 9 showed such elevation, while Scales 4 and 6 were not significantly affected by any variable. It was suspected that the lack of relationship among Scales 4 and 6 and the independent variables could be due to the absence of intervening variables, such as inmate marital status and status of sentence. Similarly, it was believed that other scales might be affected by these intervening variables. Therefore, the researcher did further multiple regression analysis by entering these intervening variables into the full model for each scale. The findings showed that marital status and status of sentence have no significant relationship with any scale either independently or in conjunction with other variables. In conclusion, the findings in this research are identical to those from research conducted in the United States, when the extent of personality disorders among inmates is compared. Also, the sample in this study showed peaks on Scales 6 and 8, which refers to paranoid schizophrenic personality with the symptoms of depression, delusion, and phobias, just like in the study of walter, et al. (1988). The peak on Scale 8, which has been described as being withdrawn and autistic, was found in the average T- 135 scores of inmates in this study. This finding was similar to the study of Guy, at al. (1985). Although the present research findings are not completely consistent with all other research findings, they show some significant results which call for further inquiry in future research. The Limitations of the Present Study As mentioned in Chapter 4, the use of a single measure of personality disorders, and particularly, the use of the short form.of the MMPI is a recognized limitation in this study. It is surmised that the use of multiple measures would have allowed a better understanding of the nature of personality dysfunction among these inmates than has been observed with the short form of the MMPI. Also, it is believed that the analysis of other variables, such as inmate juvenile delinquency history, education, and so forth, would have helped explain the observed variance in this sample's personality disorders. Time and budget constraints led this researcher to limit the scope and breadth of this study. It is hoped that future research endeavors will be undertaken to enhance the scope of this study. The Ieplication of the Findings The strengths of the present study and the implications of the findings are varied. First, the inclusion of both male and female inmates in the sample has provided a gender- based understanding of personality disorders among inmates. 136 Prior research mostly concentrated on male inmates thus losing the wealth of information resulting from gender-based comparison. Second, the use of multiple regression statistics has allowed a good understanding of how and to what extent each MMPI scale is affected by various extraneous variables. In addition to the above methodological strengths, 1 generally the findings of this research carry important policy implications. The findings of the research are expected to provide information about personality disorders L among inmates at the two correctional institutions in Thailand. This information will assist in considering the delivery of mental health services to prison inmates. Specifically, the findings can be used in developing mental health programs that are suitable to the needs of inmates. By mental health services, this author does not intend medical treatment. Instead, the author hopes that inmates will be given program like counseling, mentoring, religious instructions, and support groups to relieve their frustration during the early period of confinement and to assist inmates who have problems of adjustment. Also, the findings regarding how gender, age, length of sentence, length of confinement, type of offense, and past conviction relate to personality disorders will assist in the future prevention of such disorders. Finally, correctional institutions can use these findings in classifying inmates and in designing prOgrams to fit their individual handicaps and needs. If 137 inmates have particular characteristics relating to personality disorders, they could be observed by prison personnel so that those disorders can be detected and treated before they become very severe. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and etatistlcal manual of pentel disorders, 3rd ed., revised. Washington, DC: Author. Allen, B. E. & Simonsen, C. E. (1992). Coprections in America : An lntroduction. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Babbie, E. (1989). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: wadsworth. Dahlstrom, W. G. & welsh, G.S. (1960). An MMPI handbook: A geide to use in clinical practice and research. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Dahlstrom, W. G., Welsh, G .S., & Dahlstrom, L. E. (1972). An MMPl handbook v. 1: Clinical inteppretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Dahlstrom, W. G., welsh, G.S., & Dahlstrom, L.E. (1975). ep MMPI hand book V. 2: Research applications. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Department of Corrections. (1979). Brief information of Klongprem.Central Prison. Bangkok: Department of Corrections Press. Department of Corrections. (1981). Standard minimum.rules for the treatment of inmates and related recommendations. Bangkok: Department of Corrections Press. Department of Corrections. (1984). Brief information of Bang-Rwang Central Prison. Bangkok: Bang-Kwang Central Prison. Department of Corrections. (1988). Annual Repprt 1986. Bangkok: Department of Corrections Press. Department of Corrections. (1991). Annual Repert 1989. Bangkok: Department of Corrections Press. 138 I ” :“Sfifiiv .- . AILA- ‘ I h ‘ 139 Durham, J. (1988). The gravely inadequate definition of a "mentally ill person" in the mental health act (New South wales) 1983. Australian and New Zealand JOurnal of Ps chiat , 2;, 43-68. Eisenman, R. (1990). Six problems of a prison psychologist: .A personal account. Psycholpgical Reperts, g1 755-761. Erickson,‘W.D., Luxenberg, M. G., walbek, N. H., & Seely, R. K. (1987). Frequency of MMPI two-point code types among sex offenders. JOurnal of Consulting and Clinlcal Psycholpgy, §§(4), 566-570. Faschingbauer, T. R. & Newmark, C. S. (1978). Short forms of the MMPI. Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company. Flanagan, T. J. (1981). Dealing with long-term confinement: Adaptive strategies and perspectives among long-term prisoners. Criminal Justice and Behavior, §(2), 201- 222. Freeman, R. J. & Roesch, R. (1989). Mental disorder and the criminal justice system: A review. International JOurnal of Law and Ps chiat , lg, 105-115. Friedman, A. F., webb, J. T., & Lewak, R. (1989). Psycholggical assessment with the MMPI. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gibbs, J. J. (1987). Symptoms of psychopathology among jail inmates: The effects of exposure to the jail environment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12(3): 288- 310. Graham, J. R. (1977). The MMPI : A practical gpide. New York: Oxford University Press. Greene, R. L. (1980). The MMPI : An inperpretive manual. New York: Grune & Stratton. Grounds, A. (1991). The transfer of sentenced inmates to hospital 1960-1983. British Journal of Criminology, Gunn, J., Maden, A., & Swinton, M. (1991). Treatment needs of prisoners with psychiatric disorders. BMJ, 303(6798), 338-341. Guy, E., Platt, J. J., Zwerling, I., & Bullock, S. (1985). Mental health status of inmates in an urban jail. Criminal Justice and Behavior, l;(l), 29-53. 140 Hagan, F. E. (1989). Research methods in criminal justice and criminolpgy. New York: Macmillan. Halleck, S. L. (1987). The mentally disordered offender. washington DC.: American Psychiatric Press. Howard, F. E. (1935). Mental health. New York: Harper & Brothers. Ingram, J. C., Marchioni, P., Hill, G., Caraveo-Ramos, E., and McNeil, B. (1985). Recidivism, perceived problems solving abilities, MMPI characteristics, and violence: A.study of black and white incarcerated male adult offenders. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 21(3): 431. Jahoda, M. (1963). Mental health In A. Deutsch (Ed.), The epeyclopegle of mental health (pp. 1067-1079). New York: F. watts. Johnson, R. (1976). Culture and crisis in confinement. Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company. Jubjai, S. (1980). Social work for offenders. Unpublished master's Thesis. Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand. Juntarak, K. , Tasaniyom, T. , Meksawat, R. , & Ratanachareon, S. (1979). The survey of personality of inmates in Bang-Kwang Central Prison by MMPI. Report presented in Mental Health Conference, Bangkok, Thailand. Kachigan, S. K. (1986). Statistical analysis. New York: Radius Press. Kiel, R. A. (1981). Mental health for the convicted offender. Corrections Today, 2;, 24-27. Leuchter, A. F. (1981). The responsibilities of the state for the prevention and treatment of mental illness among inmates. JOurnal of Forensic Sciences, ;§(1), 134-141. Limsong, S. (1962). Corrections in Thailand : A copparative study of corrections in Thailand with selected correctional programs in the United States. Unpublished master's thesis. Michigan State University, Lansing, Michigan. Lombardo, L. X. (1985). Mental health work in prisons and jails. Criminal Justice and Behavior, l;(1), 17—28. 141 Lundstrom, F. (1988). The affective responses of women prisoners to two discrepant penal systems. Criminal gustlce and Behavior, l§(4), 411-432. Mackenzie, D. L. (1987). Age and adjustment to prison: Interactions with attitudes and anxiety. Criminal Juspice and Behavior, lg(4), 427-447. Mackenzie, D. L. & Goodstein, L. (1985). Long-term incarceration impacts and characteristics of long-term offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, l;(4), 395- 414. Mackenzie, D. L., Robinson, J. W., & Campbell, C. S. (1989). Long-term incarceration of female offenders: Prison adjustment and coping. C ' ' a1 Justice and Behavior, l§(2), 223-238. Maier, G. J. 5 Miller, R. D. (1987). Medals of mental health service delivery to correctional institutions. Journal of Forensic Sciences, ;;(1), 225-232. Martinson, R. (1974). What works?; Question and answers about prison reform. Public Interest, ee, 22-54. Mathias, R. E. (1985). Psychotherapy in correctional settings. JOurnal of Offender Therapy & Coeparative Megargee, E. I. & Bohn, M. J. (1977). Empirically determined characteristics of the ten types. gplplpel Justice and Behavior, 5(2), 149-209. Megargee, E. I. & Bohn, M. J. (1979). Classifying criminal offenders. Beverly Hills: Sage. Megargee, E. I. 5 Dorhout, B. (1977). Revision and refinement of the classification rules. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 5(2), 125-148. Metzner, J. L., Fryer, G. E., & Usery, D. (1990). Prison mental health services: Results of a national survey of standards, resources, administrative structure, and litigation. JOurnal of Forensic Sciences, §§(2), 433- 438. Meyer, J. & Megargee, E. I. (1977). Initial development of the system. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1(2), 115- 124. Mobley, M. J. (1986). Mental health services inmates in need. Corrections Today, ge, 12-14. 142 Morgan, A. J. & JOhnston, M. X. (1976). Mental health a mental illness. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company. Newmark, c. S.. (1979). MMPI: clinical ang research trends. new York: Praeger Publishers. Otero, R. F., McNally, D., & Powitzky, R. (1981). Mental health services in adult correctional systems. Corrections Teda , 5;, 8-10,12,14,18. Panton, J. H. (1977). Personality characteristics of aged ! inmates within a state prison population. Offender Rehabilitation, 1. 203-208 . '2 Pesetsky, F. J. & Rabin, A. I. (1978). Diagnostic Procedures in the Criminal Justice System. In B. B. welman (Ed.), Clinical diagposis of mental disorders. New York : Plenum Press. 1 Siripun, k., Thammakosit, V, Bampenphol, k., & kowbunngam, S. (1985). The study of personality of Thai inmates. Journal of Clinical Psychology, l§(1), 9—27. Steadman, H. J., Monahan, J., Duffee, B, Hartstone, E., 8 Robbins, P.C. (1984). The impact of state mental hospital deinstitutionalization on United States prison populations, 1968-1978. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminolpgy, 1§(2), 474-490. Steadman, H. J., McCarty, & Morrissey, J. P. (1989). The mentally ill in jail: planning for essential services. New York: The Guilford Press. Sykes, G. M. (1958). The society of captives. New Jersey: ' Princeton University Press. Tanay, E. (1982). Psychiatry and the prison system. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 21(2), 385-392. Toch, H. (1977). Living in prison. New York: The Free Press. Tyrer, P. (1988). Personality disorders: Diagnosis, management, and course. Boston: wright. Vincent, k. R., Castillo, L. M., Hauser, R. I., Zapata, J. A., Stuart, B. J., Cohn, C. k., & O'Shanick, G. J. (1984). MMPI-168 codebook. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing. 143 walters, G. D., Scrapansky, T .A., & Marrlow, G. A. (1986). The emotionally disturbed military criminal offender. Cprlnal Justice and Behavior, l2(3), 261-285. walters, G. D., Mann, M. F., Miller, M. P., Hemphill, L. L., & Chlumsky, M.L. (1988). Emotional disorder among offenders: Inter- and intrasetting- comparisons. Criminal Justice and Behavior l§(4), 433-453. Wiehn, J. (1982). Mentally ill offenders. In R. Johnson and H. Toch (Eds.), The peins of leprisonment. (pp. 221- 237). Beverly Hills: Sage. Wilson, D. G. & Vito, G. F. (1988). Long-term.inmates: Special needs and management considerations. Federal P obati n, Sept., 21-26. Wheeler, C. A. & Megargee, E. I. (1970). Normative data for 678 federal youthful offenders on 79 MMPI scales. FCI Research Re rt, 2(4), 1-22. Wrobel, N. H., wrobel, T .A., & McIntosh, J. w. (1988). Application of the Megargee MMPI Typology to a forensic psychiatric population. Criminal Justice and Behavior, l§(2), 247-254. 0 Q.— -! APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRES IN THAI AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE gyuaiuniuiunruiurudflfihilnt 53h”: fifiunwuinfiusfinwu u§7fivifiusrnian11niatnuwu [¢q flufiaqifitfi —— ‘ {mi 'n'imtr'iun‘nauuaté'iiat 1m: njnfi 1 iaganjtfifiuuszuwns 1._afiq ' ‘ fl * z. 018 t 1 8&1 [ ] 3. awau1,: who [ ] niai l 1 58818 t l 8119 l 1 5n n [ 1 1U505:U iii t J 4. anfiunjwnnsausa : tan [ ] aufia [ 1 “fin/aunfiuaé [ ] 3 U iuuuufiu l 1 5. 0118081 : u. 1 - 6 850 u. 1 - 7 [ 'l I M. 1-3 use an. 1 - 3 l 1 ‘ . N. 4-61158 ”91.4-5 [ ] 001. via 018. . t ] uiqmwni f ’ [ fl] 5u n l 1 V‘lU‘iflieu 6. 018w (naun155041n8)»: inunsnssu ‘ ~ [ ] qsfiaéuufifi _ ' l ] 41115511051115 50511191510) [ ] {aswunws [ J v a unanufi l ] 144 145 uufifiu [ l in '1 l J 105053u 11333 1 1 ' a: u u 4 111.9111 2 USERnUSUUUlSUHQfi 1 . ' r 1. iifiuinum‘il'mamufifiwia1gaua‘fiudaunatmag‘tu:iam‘mia‘m ‘3 l J tfiti [ ] r fin 1018 ifiutufinwnfi 3‘ a it": :11? 1. him 2. 5:8: rm {1 131811 3'. 110911101 5101111051150 1’11)an . i hash 3 Uszihnfisfiattnu l. 2. fiamfisgfiuumé’fianm : mamsu [ 1 (91011151117111an 1 170) manila [ n‘mua'imsnsaufifi [ ] U a ( anmvw [ ] 0 u ( anmw‘tumur wu [ 1 U 02111 I 1 c 4 11mm [ ] zi‘imr‘m'zmi 1111171 mummy [ 1 tavmmwfinuat 34 11111111 [ J 51: '1 _ t 1 nusassq nwunnfiwfinufiifitinugfi? 8 1171110131111iausiiifinfi'imnnnfimnmqw'im __fi 1 161011 ' a f ‘ an'naumn‘wunmu : ‘szn‘mans'iiu ] mama [ ] 0- av U V msé’anntastuifiu: 05111150 . [ 1 146 . 1-5a1'wfl '6-1091'3 If! qméau mimi qn'i'u 'fiQufi ' ' H H H H. . H H H H H. O [1. m1 [111:]! an [1 t1 ‘E'I -t1 [1 t nszfiau I I E I I I E I I I E xa1xfiu ["1 E 1 . t I E 1 I 1 [ 1mm. '1 II it 1‘ [ 1 l E 1 “t. 1 [ Laufimz‘m [.1- I 1 r 1 I 1 E 1 I mm : t-I ' [ I E 1 E 1 [.1 E W51 E-I‘ [1 [1 :1 [I c Sun ['1 [I [1 [1 [:1 r -TUiatz ‘— 2. rhumaLamLawfiafiafiqfiutm'muozfim‘i‘uu{ami'uimfia‘uh '18 [ 1 mini [ 1 51 1&18 Ewutufifa 3 K‘ 65 1i fiusauanufimua:a‘uaun€\fifl5'fiuamzfiaéfiutéaua“:(mania 'finnfi1 1 $3) ‘Ufiauaaafitawéauazfiqfiulnflfiflf w‘u1ua€hfi1{ I! u a 3 a u f o l-saw /u 6-109m/u qnéau qnaumu qmu firm [I [I [I [IEJII au [1 [1 [I [][][1 mafia“ (I [I [1 [ltltl tats-fin [I [1 [1 [I [.1 E} “"2““ [I [1 [1 [][][I tau-firm [1 [1 £1 [1 [1 [I ins-isms [1 [I [1 [I {J'LI ma’w [1 [1(IIIEIEI 31M [1 [1 r1£1£1t1 TUfiQfisq uga v 548.: .4. 3. JQQUHNHWHflfiflqlfihfifiuiaafiuu33113ZQDIU 0 15 [ 1 v1uwe [ 1 147 aégfiaai [ Mac 33:41:: [ 1 ngcfiéfiamnni'u [ 1 g1gfi_g usz€fiuavafiqu1nssuxfinuaztvwauu " 1. fifiutnugnéqiufianfiufinua:ausutanua:tafiuuuu§aifi 16 [-1 léflfi ; 1 z. 65 1§_39:5fifiwuqnfiiiufianwufihuazausu 94$ 0 D ' 3. uuaumiamnfim‘mumum: :nmssu‘ [ (nau‘l‘fimnn'h 1 273) . uszqfifis I 1 mwms‘vmcnfifi [ ] 5hn§n§ [ I 5hn§u1utananfiu [ 1 ufiu [ I fiufiu E 1 uwau§n1fiu1¢twfififia ngnuwa ' E 1 tflflflfitawfiauazfiqfiutnfi- [ } 91 on W [ 1 infiafiz n c 9 4. n1una1qxn I?xfiagnaaunnanwunnuazaufiunsqusn? u fljflfi“§_ UzzfifinwsLawuwlawfiauaefiqfiutuw I. fifiulaufiififitawfiauéafiqfiulufivfianéaafidfiafiduuwét§ag§“51fiu%aifi?‘ ad [ 1 Ifiafi { 1 53 1§3§ 55u1un*n“n1ufi 2 55 11 1Ufiauannfinua:a“u1ua€§fiflgfiaunwa§fiteaua‘fi (nunIfi ufinniw 1 53) ' '0' 3 v fifianavunlanfiauazaqfiutuwnwu a‘unuasqnfiu v u a v u a a :4 ( u l—Sflzq/U G-loasz/U qntmau unauawu nniu 148 5‘1 ‘u'nis fi'm‘mfi mnfi 6 ' v o . . . v 55 1i_1usauanuuauazw~uaun€§fi1€ fluflhgfih (nauxfihwnnufi 1 no) MW tum 1-58‘5311/{1 G-IOB‘iI/{I V‘Imaau 1311." "am: 71031 fimh [ 1 r 1 r 1 [ 1 I 1 [ 1 "an ['1- [1:] [][J_[] nszv‘mu [1 [1 [J [1. I] [1‘ umfiu [1 [1 [I [][][1 1mm 11 [1 [1 (1:11] tdufimfiu [1 [1 [1 [IIJ'IJ' afissslna [ I: [ ] I 1 [ I [ J [ 1 ma”: ['1 [1 [1 [1-[111 3m [ 1 I J [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 TUSR‘SH‘I g3flfi_§ nwsusz1fiutfisafiba1fiufibqn1s€h81qunfiu§un1wfia 1. fififluL§aua“figufiu§nws€nquun1wfia fi1u421§u%nwsu%aifi 16 1 1 xfiwf 1 2. fififiutéaun‘fin11€huwnfisfiau11awfiauazfiu§htufi fiwuazflfib%nwsu%5ifi 1f 1 1 . " 1&1? 1 1 149 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR INTERVIEWING PRISONERS ON PERSONALITY DISORDERS-PRISONERS RESEARCH INSTRUCTION : Interviewer asks these questions and fills out or checks (J ) the answers that apply to prisoners in the space or [ ] block. SECTION ; Demographic data 1. Age years 2. Male [ ] Female [ ] 3. Religion : Buddhism. [ ] Christianity [ ] Islam [ ] Hindu [ 1 Others [ ] please specify___ None [ l 4. Marital status : Single [ ] Married [ ] Divorced/Separated [ ] Widowed [ ] 5. Education : Prathom.1-6 or Prathom 1-7 [ ] Matayom 1-3 or M.S. 1-3 [ ] Matayom 4-6 or M.S. 4-5 [ ] Certificate [ ] Bachelor degree [ ] Others [ ] please specify U F _——~ ~—.x...:‘T.r.ra :‘m—‘fa—w‘m — - 150 6. Occupation: Farming [ ] (Prior to confinement) Private business [ ] Service worker [ ] Government official [ ] Student [ ] Housewife [ ] Others [ ] please specify None [ ] SECTION 2 Transfer information 1. were you in other prisons/institutions before coming to this prison? Yes [ ] No [ ] If no, go to Section 3. If yes, a. Where b. For how long years months c. What type of prison/institution SECTION 3 Criminal record 1. Types of offense for the present conviction: (check all that applies) Murder [ ] Criminal assaults [ ] Vandalism [ ] Theft [ ] Robbery [ ] Rape [ ] Prostitution [ ] 2. 3. 151 Drug/alcohol offense[ ] Others [ ] please specify For how many years have you been sentenced?_____years Of the number of years of sentence how many have you served in this prison? years months What is the status of your sentence? Appeal _____Final sentence This conviction is : First time [ ] Second time [ ] Third time [ 1 Fourth time or more [ ] SECTION 4 Juvenile criminal record 1. 2. 3. Have you ever been sent to a juvenile institution? Yes [ 1 No [ 1 If yes, how many times were you in a juvenile institution? Types of offense for all convictions: Murder [ 1 Criminal assaults [ ] Vandalism. [ ] Theft [ ] Robbery [ ] Rape [ ] Prostitution [ ] Drug/alcohol offense [ ] 152 Others [ ] please specify 4. How old were you when you were first sent to a juvenile institution? vears old SECTION 5 Drug/alcohol history 1. Have you ever used any type of drug or alcohol before coming this prison? Yes [ 1 No [ If no, go to question 2. If yes, indicate which of the following you have used before coming to this prison and the number of times used. Type of druglalcohol used Number of times used 1-5 6-10 Every Every Every times times month week day Marijuana [ ] I l [ J [ ] [ ] [ ] Opium [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Heroin [ ] [ l [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Cocaine I ] [ l [ ] [ 1 [ ] [ ] Amphetamine[ ] [ ] [ ] [ l [ ] [ ] AlC°h01 [ ] [ ] [ ] [ l [ l [ 1 Others [ J [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] please specify 153 2. Have you ever used drug or alcohol since you have been in this prison? Yes [ ] No [ ] If no, go to question 3. If yes, indicate which of the following you have used and the number of times used. of alcohol used Number of times used 1-5 6-10 Every Every Every times times month week day lyear lyear Marijuana I ] I l I l I l I ] I ] Opium, I ] I ] I ] I ] I ] I ] Heroin I l I ] I J I ] I ] I ] Cocaine I l I ] I 1 I J I ] I ] Amphetamine[ ] I ] I ] I ] I ] I ] AlCOhOI I ] I l I ] I ] I l I ] Others I ] I ] I ] I l I l I ] please specify 3. Do you use drug or alcohol at the present time? Yes[] No[] If no, go to Section 6. If yes, indicate which of the following you are using and the number of times used. Type of druglalcohol used Number of times used 1-5 6-10 Every Every Every times times month week day /year /year Marijuana I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 [ 1 154 Opium. I l I l I ] I ] I ] I ] Heroin I l I l I l I l I 1 I ] Cocaine I ] I l I ] I ] I J I ] Amphetaminel ] I l I ] I l I 1 I ] Alcohol I l I l I ] I l I ] I ] Others I l I l I l I l I l I ] please specify SECTION 6 Self-assessment of need for mental health treatment 1. WOuld you use mental health service in prisons if it was available? Yes [ ] No [ ] 2. WOuld you use drug or alcohol treatment in prison if it was available? Yes [ ] No [ ] APPENDIX B THE MMPI-168 IN THAI AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE uuunaaauunfinnwn MMPI ( t t c A: a J ‘Iflfl : flWfifl 0‘15 uasnu, Ph.D. as: I? 515%” Immua, M.D. Translated from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and printed by permission. Copyright 1943, renewed 1970 by the University of Minnesota. Published by The Psychological Corporation. All rights reserved. 4’ A a 4:. Ian : La-Or Pongpanich M.Ed. (Psycho.) 8:00 wasnnuu n.u.,a.u. (an1n91) Department of Psychiatry uuunfiatau Pramongkut Klao Hospital SW.WS:MIQOIfl51 Rajvidhi Rd., Phya Thai nuu31555 ww11n Bangkok 10400,Thailand nthnwn oodoo Ufizlnnlnu James N. Butcher Ph.D. Iaufi ISu gusto; Ph.D. Department of Psychology uwun3n5nu1 University of Minnesota ”“13n815h fiufiIflafi Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 fiufi811U§fl uaififiufiinfiw casts USA anifiaxu§n1 155 156 njmnaéwufinaunija:Iaiunnfi: uuunaaaufius:naufiauaawufibnuwu dwuuéazibnuju nazfihfiuiaij lfiuaqjuaivuiaIfluwnI5u1fiufinnwu njuaxfibvn‘uaéavuuwuafinauuavfiwuav Innszajunnnaunnjuflaé gfinaéfiiuavnszajuafinaunuaawnjvfijuéjv unnia anwuiasfiun11ua§v uiaéauujntfiunfijuaivfifiI5uafiufidn1u Ifitiuufiufin“nv lufiavijvszuiqufinun1 T ($56 a nwvfijuéji) uwnifiniwulnlfitfiunqjua§v uialnlfiuaiwuaivlaua n fijtfiuufibfihnju Ii:iuufiufiafiaqfludoviquzuijv Ifiuun1r (e50 b unvfifiuéjv) unnjganajuialnI5u1fibfinn1uu§an1ulnn31u ‘ . . n1ufiavnfilagaquujuiunszajvn*nau fifiaéwvnjfinnln$aquu1u lunfiznjun”naufiqnfiaq T II n ,. \/ ()0. \3n. .30 I a A ‘ u o a I I a njmwa*nihj njuazfisqifihijusaluuaaqn1n1utav uaeiuuaauuavnnnauajqii njnnjuajujsnazufintfiuvlfi n1sn“nniavuujunnnauaoiuns:antennau njuazfiavufiflaij fiauauuavunas D u U . a d U 6 II 0 uanawunsqrunauuaflunszw1un“nau "*uniaquufiuunnuifiwun uaetnuIfiansau uwnnju fibqnwsaztufiuun“nau njmjaua“mau15uaanifiuun n U aunnfilfliavuu1ufin n fluuuunaaaUIauu fiusna51551 njun1fiazfiavwv1swuflfinnnauu1qaéwo éann q 5an11u IUnuuunmaau uaennin 157 I I! aujn*nn§aqujuia n Wuaualauu 6b. Q)”. o o ' 0 ' ( auuauunsawslfiuanu19§avuuasn31n 0 I ‘ I aunwuafiu1315buwvlasaasaa ‘ II It“: I I. u ”‘0' I a Inaunntuj aunuuuauannuu uazgan1nnnuauauthwuvwa noon 6 ul aunaawauaawnn‘uwutuuussmwsnufiavaua d ”U... IauIsunIun*nuauaquu o I u ofJu QNUDUHWNUWHQWUWHQNBNNNIflflfiflUBWqunfisfl fiauaz:finuavfiuéulfiavua{fiaunaanlaaw 55ausea‘fihuaI5h15u1u5595I5nrnfi5hauIaaéléau iuawujsnn‘u1u15IEBUInj n fiufitnu gtufiaufiuazffinaangufihfiaIfiaunaaataaja auI31a15aenu181ut51I9911ufihnaIautaI unzigflhtfiutnéaquuzqunwv u§ataau ijazisaztfiflgu Shannfiuu€043u51uaaua1uw%aIéaofinéu Sun“N1unjuifin11utn€IIm%vmod1qu1n SufibvIfiutfiauaefléhuicujnnijéu UIIthfihfiafiqéqfitaItfiunjjfiazgnfiv fiuufiflaijfihIfiiufiq51fiqfisssuajn55a aoufiulfiutan fiauaIfihufiunufi intnéaufifinnjlfivIfiUfibInn Isaihn“n1uflufl Susanna215€unjsuanLéjfijua:tfiuatfiunjséjufin tfiuIfiuunnafi I:n‘nfiaufiajjuHWIufijflunfisIju 55nn1qmnfluaqiutfiufifi1wafla unvagIfiufihIn155aeufiaanawnfijuujn uwvtiaj fihtfiuISRfiaafiuu$eafifii IqiufijLawsuaz¥auifianjvfin1uqu51IaI1n15 Sugnfiunjufiavifianguifiuaz01I383 gtufiauinfiIHSIgjflafiu Shouwnazzfiufiniav u I I 4 ad a. a d. I a J u I. d.) AIIIIII'WIW l Bummnanmz NIJUI AU ‘1'!” IQWYMUIWI‘H IJQ TWIMM'NDUWQHW TWO 1:) (:0. do. Eh. (I). .14. dd. (‘3. do. (14. a’a‘. 670. 4'6). Cb. (In. 158 IzgnaIIMI u1~aum5m1m5§fi1m51mamfiu Iflau1Inunrfiu5n1ngnfibI infanIIQISIznauauaIInfijnnnfi 5vlfiutfluvufih55 n 1U ihgnsunuufiduifinufiuflun:In1801u155Unjfiazuaju n néh uwvaéhfihgfinDUIna:gaaunaju1u iufiui'junn 1H I‘m inuuijfintfiunwsuwnfiaan‘naififiaujfi aéfibnjstuaéIIIaaéqufiq U a l' I .5 311431115: HMWSWR’WHBUW‘I fiNflfi‘i‘iflflWflfll uuamnn .5u50101710150Ufl80fil131 EnsuIQEIQfi uazaanfiufiafiu fins:Uszawn11ua*n§au1nnijfi SuInéanazfiIIafiuqunjnuaI5h 5u1dInvfin11uafiu1nflaI5uufiuwnfinfisun1IInfluaqfih naufifinfiqlfiuuuulfiuRII fifiIIIInjnfivnfiutfiuufaqfiunjsfihuiuu uwanéqiuffinauwnasnufifiIvaI Snavjnarfihuazfiunajqqu1nniwazn“5qsuflnxfiaunaant181 SufiduquoIIN fiunjnuéavaqufiaufiiuInajujfinasejiafldnafiqfln n INSjsiuinfi Sniafiaenfinzis afiaun€1vavfiu1nuauq1u55nlfiannn n13uauuav5h1fiafi*uauauaegnsunIu IfiaunaantiajfigIufiauiwfisuxuaIfiuU1n€111U51 Suifigaaajusiqaaaataaj nfisfihfiuuavfihfini1fiIQUIfiu fiflnwfiasnéhuiaéaunijfih fiififfinIfiuguIUfidfihfidfiuuwfihfiIavIfifiajInquuih 11a155Na§fiunu5u n Suffinfiqiaflafi15fiu3Inuanuszuajnujn n astfiunjsfigu fijlfiantannomNIUIUIfiauéhuun unInéh5mmjmuaqfiuaanajnéwqiuiu qunjwnjvnjuuaqfinfi:ufiaufihuavlgauvauiuéiuujn Suzfianna:taunjutfiauéuuisolguu u§anu5€5nu51nifiwufiutfiutInjuju vanqwn ijtvaqeujymfiuiufiau a. u i! ( J I a a $153 a WIHSUHTJZ inb'fl‘ifl‘mtxlvfin‘?31913114915 III]: '1 M1 IIGUIN II'IIIBQ UHF-1513331; ((0. Ge. db. (in. ((91. dd. «‘3. (in. aid. afar. 6'0. Ge. (It). den. 158 azgnav1nu 1m umfimwmfigfi'm tiwasam ‘fiu tflflUfiwaun*fib5h1dgnfibv Suffiniwnasqzaauauaq1U51nfinfi %vtfiulfiuwufihfifi n 1U 5hgnsun1ufiuu1§nufiuflunz:w1zawuwsfiflawfiazuawu q n§§ unwaéQ5h§§nauwnazgaaunawufiu 5hfiu¥wuqn h-o fiu ibuuiwfihlfiunwsuwnfiazn*naflfi3auwfi aéfibnfiskuaéfivflaaéwqufiq u a 0' n 4". “WIN: NMWSWQWE’UHWQ ”flflfisiflfl'ma! uUar-unn _5ufiawn151atfiauaaaat1aw fiwnufififianfi uaxaaufibfinfiu aha:Uszawa11ua“n§au1nni15 5u1flénuazfihuafiugunwwuaufih ihifitnufinwfiuafiUWnflatfiuufihwnfinfisuantwfluavfih naufifihfiktfiuugulfiuafiu fifi1vtuawufi¢fifiuuSuugavfiunwsfihufiuu uwunéqSuffinavwnazqufifiqvaq Suouwnazfiquaefiunawq§uu1nnifiazn“3v3u1alfiaunaaflt7&1 ifififiuquOQSu 5Un1£u§avoqtéaufiiu1fiawuwfina:onfiqfldéafiqflm n lwswziuififi 3nflwfifizn“nzifi nfiaun€1uav5u1fiuauv1ufi5utfiannfi nwsuauuaqfiuiflafl“uauauazgnsunau tfiaunaaat1awfi§tufiauiwfisucuavfifluafl¥111ufifi fiuifivanawua§qaaaatuaw nfisfihfiuuaifiufiniwfitn81§u fiunwfiazn§§w§aéauni15§ fifiu§5n¥bu3u1ufififi§fidguuwfiufi1681fifia1tnqufiih taawfifianfiunuSu n Suffinfivuaflafiififiuéuuuanuszuawnufin n aztfiunwsagu finWfifintannomu191ULfiaufi§uua unqn§§3mmwmuav5fiaanw1né1q5u1u qunwwnwvnwuuavfinfitufiaufihuaqlfiauvaeiuéauuwn Sulfianfia:tfiufinunfiauéauisqtguu u§awu§ffinuéiflifiwufiutfiutdawuwu uonawn i1:vfiqzuwgmfiu5ufiau a. u i) t d n d .4 1‘15"": ‘1 NH‘SUWTJ’: finm‘isnmfi’mnwmmuum mar. '1 7% “82130 mum U14fl‘733CS1-1 If. (1. db. (n. (d. (ES 30. bb.'_ ('50 . 159 nuéuuufinfifihffihuaufiu U I ‘ a. I: aunnuasIuInugnfiun1ufifiua1nwstaunufifianu§au111 a'dduu aI'o ' bIdzé a: flflufllUulflfl QflQflNflT?‘lfiflufl19511lfifliQ10fl11NU78W0fl1Ufl asquu1n§auwnn11uu o C a. I: I: Do autUununusun11aa A . d A . gnavqnaa1eIUuiunwua“nfiuwunna111§hfivnfiauw . 0 I I uauasqnaufibwsua“awqwnnuu1qnun1u§bzIsuwnnawau u I! a I: A 6' u auiuafiuunussmfisnfisfluuuvfiawqun1u 5mmfiufi’m‘w‘iufifinwfiwgnfim fihfihq:fanafiwufihifidauuavéwunwuuawuufivébugutufiaufiaeis1éa1ufih u§atufiau 6 ‘ tuuxnuu 5h1d§nqwu4vufinIfiu1fihseuunwsibdwuuavafin5 I! . . I I . I uwwasqautawfiafianuawflnavufiv1Ut§au q aunsznqnufiu fl nuanuwuaanufiunaau u 6 6 u o a u nauauluulan ausnnauavau u 63 c'. v t’ d u u . I I ‘3 auluuaouav am1usanusau fl aiau %qnu5uuav1utuu 5H0?wfinuwfififiufinfiwnqvifilfiw fl fibfigtufiaunufiufi U 6 I C 6.0 autnauazIMIQthunmuna fiuflfinawuauflqnwuunflfiUnutwfltfiuafiufiu SutnanUIéuuamfiaufiw u A a u a a a. n An ' é a 3 aunaafi auaauufinvnlnunqwuasvInu1nunfinu1vn¥1u :fianaztsun§hvn11utuuan 6 I d ”d. tuufia uaznawuuautuaaawngau 5h§nawuévuwnawnwsuaafiboqn b-m in “gadauniwfih u 6 u 4'! auruaganaa‘nwauuuv u I I a. 6 a I 6 A u I d 6.0 auusfifinufiaguau fl maztuuéfimq (n§afiwnwutuu§fimv) au1utnutaufiataunau ‘ 9 a qugumv ': In DC uwvnsvaufian1nfis 0 ”4 u 6 . auganIHSWIUuauuuwn Sutwfintwfiuéanwsdwuugav£5815U$h n finé fl 0 u 5’ auuauunu$awu5¥aunsav 5n1fi€§nazxfiauflaiwu n ‘II My «45’ uwansqauuauufiwunuam) I firms r-n 160 infiniwfiuaawnazn‘nwutfiuéfifihgflw iufifiuufiflunws1fih5§15bé1wéwu fl flasfiawufiIauflqua:awuwsnazn*nwuufihfiaefi1anfiafiazus:ana11ua‘ng? IguagihffinlufiaufihiwfiufibwnwsaxunIfinaawuuihfiunwsfiazu$zaunuwua“u§91u§3n 1nu1va§§ uavflgfiaufidaawnusuaeqwnwfiuuwn[“50lfiu aunszfikfihauwnaafibfibv n§au1uufiu,gw fl finauéu1fifiuse1uufiafiu€hfiu liu savtfiw éu tfiufih fiuudflaiw fiunwaaafiutgafihflufidnaq a 6 I! QWHTHQ: IUNHWU’WUWJH‘N on O . do 6434:. laufanagtauaaw auntuuaenuaw fibiafifibnwsnnlfiuqfihaéfiquwn fiqznfinfihuéuuuwnfihflwiw fi1tav§aaawua§q uwenéuuwvafifia 5uu5h3hUszfiunfiv 5u1fiiwa:1sfiwfinfiazuuanfiafiu 5uauwnazxfiuu1kuwuwa Sufinfiwnuéwuuwnvafinun1%051towa215Ufizawn11uAfil§a Sun“n:1iuawuaéwqfifiuzfiuflanwunfiu (gnufiauiwfiuqztfiuflqflunawaévuawuaéwq unnniwu§oflavn$vniwnu3u fl) 5u1u§nlfiauqn5uwsz 5h":tawefibnufluasaun§duaqiufibuuwn u1in§§5hflnfi1ufibvnwfiadfiqjuusqin:"“0:Winfiqafiwqflfitfinfiha51uu1nLgu uazn“nfihu3uuseua1n1q 5hlgafluléav1annszfifiafigfi 5huau1ukuuw é uaszuSu q $13u1ufidunafiuaqnauwulwfinunfiu iuwufiwuwfifinawuuiuawuquufinquns:345u1fiawufisnazfih§u1atfifldfibfimuwfih n 15 5n:gadwéfifivnasazfifiasnfiwnfivunnuwntfiw n fihébwu n1séa§fiu1na“uwnfiqauav5u fianwsfiafifiufidtav 5h§fimu1lanfibuugaififitauéaawnwsnfiwu:fianszqn U I I a. . A x U U augmafiauq:1uuuuamaaqfitnnuunuau c‘u a II all-9 c. G g . flul1a1nnu€an1unavau18 auganugwuvanuuannfiq «flouaaontuawfi5u§finInfiaufiufiwiun“n:1suwuaéwqSan néan“fiqfi51§wugawnswu “ élufiudauifinqvauwu .ebo. one. ebb. an». end. and. sub. 6h“. ohfi. our. 6mm. 9mm. emd. omd. 161 gtufiauihaaffinauavfivtagua uasufiuagntfiaunaant1a1 numv nuuam'w a‘mamfiaégumn was: 13.": Suffinamm: "11451 finwfi'ufi'wufi'ufi tuwua§av ufifiuazfiWIuwnfignfiaI nuqunufiaafi uaznu1uwu$bfiafih 5u1fitavn”nz1sfia1ufitfiufihaswuIfioflfitfinn11uaulfihfiunwsnssnfifihfih fiaua§§fiéhuui1fiha“ufiuazfibqfiunswuflufiqfifiufiaiwgnfihi iufiaiwnuuuwun1sazflifikfihflfinsznfinfi fiaunévfifiuffiniwauaqavtn§uatnfiau9nfiuufiusau n 333: ifitgaiwauawuu51aztfinflud Inafiéfihawqtfiufiu Shaef5naqnau1ufibn1sufiwifin§annufihwngu é1u1udaué1uu1naz§aihfi tfiavawnnfiaiwqagnfihifi aaufifihfihagfiu1sqt§uu qun§§5hgnéwfidt{fiwuawawsfifiudtfiava1nfi¢u1911uuszwnfi nfisvauavfihunfilufiauaéwv«nu (Wfilg11UM%8511U ihtau uaz1fi§13uvuuuufi§) twawfiagfifiu uwfiuwnfiufifizawuwsuaqiuIfitgvu€auInflautiafifiShaanéhnu Suléaiwiunfifivgnwwquuufiufin . gunfiaufiuazfiniwuawuwsn uazmafiuwaawatfiwfiunugu a sou q fiufiu fihtgaiwfiunfifihgnéuawu auéauuwnazflffifinwsfiéauiwva31fiqfisfisu xfiaaz1fiuause1uufiu%afiaifitu§uuu1nni1 fiazgmtfiu fihfinafiuéqnfintfiuufifin:twwzawuwsaflwvufinfilfiua Suuaunfisuanvaeas Sufiwfinsfi€ufiauaufiuauwutfionéauuaufiu n1?xaux30a1fin“nfi5uanflanfidu§an“n55h1fiauwu flaun§§fi5h1da1uwsnIfififiqiwn“nfl5h311n65uazugausau1nmafiatfiu 5u1fi.nvawl38$»§01000nuwtfiutaaa fiuififinnfivwatfiudfibnwsfinIfiaisn fiuuaua:anaen15u§au§nfiu€1fiflufiwu SulaunuéaunsenfilfiuafihfldfiuuszwnfinwuLwfififinunfi unvnékniwufinvovfiuuéutéwniwa“qw A! g ' 6’ .- I U I d- I I I J G. G I; U nwauawufiinti1mn1wuumfi15WflUTHnovQWUluu unsuHQQWWIMMWRSthun1Uu1U10 d 06¢. “3E: I 66 I1. eda‘. ado. 66b. 66m. 666. 666. Mb. ed 6‘) . 06107. 162 735149: m Taufid1u ShavfibifinuSuafiaazflInquaa:Isfiiaut€haééan1snfifiéafihfiuu11§q uwIaéwI 5h:gaiwfifiaflufiwuvaofihtfiufififiguuufiufiIfiw fl fibasaun€duaqauéauufinfifihffih n153w1053a155u§0n13qé151né11n*nfi5ha:IfiaufiaaéwojuuSI uwvnéI5h§5nswafibfiw€haz5bvnfifihnfiwufidIawu§a1fifinfi5fiaswuéaau3uuwInu 5uuaun“nwuws a o 0' I 0 91181158 MB‘UEVI au gnn‘munnn l flflflflfl‘N "WHEEIUHUGTW 1 {48811178 Imam qnnasau n fidfih 3 u I 0 I d f A UN 11‘»! auffin'nm léN 181N117: 18111438 15' I 883151 '1 Au 6 6 u I I I I; I II I A I I I . naunamuumn auswag‘lunquuamunmwmm:agfi'mnuamqaumluuufiu‘lmw aatflukuau%auwu§1u SuoufinlfiunuWfi uwunéQdbauwnq:éfiunuuwvaufiuunWSundau dufiaInTSIEuHWIfiovzfivnunnfiIGUI uazfiunzfifiunufiawwuqutaufiwfiu1fi1fifiav@331 Iuwwnfiéwv n fifiaqnws ShfihazgmlfivuawufiIuawuafl1I1u I“$1:5u1flawuwsnaafiafiuWQWfitgaguodwvtfiuqna fiuuunnd1nannufiun13finuu1uan“uuzu“u%a£h5hu1:fluziawfifiun*fihn*nwufiafifiw U1Iafiwv akinuIfiu€huwa§afihfinuseq*fih SuauwnqzuuzuwnniwfifiuufifluInufinwsIéu uwvnunfifiku181ufiazwwvuwfiufiu éuuufinnaunawvfiufiua:Ififiuau1n9U51nafinnuwufiafisunau szuiwa u-m fling? iuffinquauwvfitfiaunaawxua1 5u1fi.auI§u1snfia36uu%aisnau5h 5u1fi51uguu§auanav fiuawufiiuIdafififiun“nz1suawu n aéwquazflutaawéau15u1fi€iwfifitaq 15n“n:13aqiu SuffiniwélIaqfinngnnqinuimuiflfiawxnqflaa fl .1 2.‘ U I J u {LINEN TEN 7U 1 M.) L PM. air. show 638. ebb. ob». out. obi. ebb. ab». ab“. 163 5u1fia1uwsn151fla1ufivfi5hé1u153Ifiwfitnu an woo “a Ia'éouu 1uv1nuavau aquIHagannuwnnafinIUuagfluuaguu 9 a1uuufisucuaIauu1Iafiqffinéaugu 0 «In I I ll 00 u ‘ 0 au€5n1nsa1ut1a1nunuu1launanauwIIaau1aawnnuau uazauq*uuuqefithausu Iu‘o 3 annuluuasvawuuu UI‘. ‘ au1utuu08151 5huaufinufiuaed1ulfiuafibt€avqwufi5hnfia§ n In: I: 0 vow-II “a II auuauganauafinmuwvaut“sweuun‘nuauganafia1laInuaawuafinm SuffinnfidfiulaawfifihuaIaI1uawnfi§I 5n1fi§§nfi§aaflaéanwsfinufiunsaun§huav5hfififiu1Ifiuafihnouuwv fla:15u1qaéwIfi1dgnfibI1u1auaI5h 164 M‘IITINESOTA MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY” SR. Hathaway and ].C. McKinley Uruup Form to! ”II-INN 1y {1‘} [P f” d d d 3 VT"? 3‘. 935 S :‘VE S‘—C .5: J x C ~ cvgrg MN: I}??? 165 00 NOT OPEN UNTIL TOLD TO 00 so. MINNESOTA MULTIPHASI PERSONALITY INVENTORY. S.R. Hathaway and LC. McKinley I l I This inventory consists of numbered statements. gum“ 5mm Read each statement and decide whether it is true 0! answer me: as applied to you or false as applied to you. ‘°"'°“Y mm”- You are to mark your answers on the answer sheet A C CD you have. Look at the example of the answer sheet _ shown at the right. It a statement is true or mostly e G) . true. as applied to you. blacken the circle marked 1'. (See A at the right.) It a statement is talse or not usually true. as applied to you. blacken the circle marked F. (See 8 at the right.) It a statement does not apply to you or it it is something that you don’t know about. make no mark on the answer sheet. But try to give a response to every statement. Remember to give your own opinion of yourself. In marking your answers on the answer sheet. be sure that the number at the statement agrees with the number on the answer sheet. Make your marks heavy and black. Erase completely any answer you wish to change. Do not make any marks on this booklet. Remember. try to respond to every statement. Now open the booklet and go ahead. 166 DO NOT MAKE ANY MARKS ON‘THIS BOOKLET. 9°!» 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 21. I like mechanics magazines. l have a good appetite.‘ I wake up fresh and rested most mornings. I think I would like the work of a librarian. I am easily awakened by noise. I like to read newspaper articles on crime. My hands and feet are usually warm enough. My daily life is full of things that keep me interested. . l am about as able to work as I ever was. There seems to be a lump in my throat much of the time. A person should try to understand his dreams and be guided by or take warning from them. I enjoy detective or mystery stories. I work under a great deal of tension. I have diarrhea once a month or more. Once in a while I think of things too bad to talk about. I am sure I get a raw deal from life. My father was a good man. I am very seldom troubled by constipation. When I take a new job. I like to be tipped off on who should be gotten next to. . My sex life is satisfactory. At times I have very much wanted to leave home. 23. 25. 26. 27. 23. 29. 30. 31. 32. 35. 36. 37. 39. . At times I have fits of laughing and crying that I cannot control. I am troubled by attacks of nausea and vomiting. . No one seems to understand me. I would like to be a singer. I feel that it is certainly best to keep my mouth shut when I‘m in trouble. Evil spirits possess me at times. When someone does me a wrong I feel I should pay him back it I can. just for the principle of the thing. I am bothered by acid stomach several times a week. At times I feel like swearing. l have nightmares every few nights. I find it hard to keep my mind on a task or job. . . l have had very peculiar and strange experi- 90688. . I have a cough most of the time. If people had not had it in for me I would have been mush more successful. I seldom worry about my health. I have never been in trouble because of my sex behavior. . . During one period when l was a youngster l engaged in petty thievery. At times I feel like smashing things. . Most any' time I would rather sit and day- dream than to do anything else. Go on to next cage 167 41. l have had periods of days. weeks. or months 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. when l cOulon't take care of things because I couldn't “get going.” My family does not like the work I have Chosen (or the work l intend to choose for my life work). ' My sleep is fitful and disturbed. Much of the time my head seems to hurt all over. I do not always tell the truth. My judgment is better than it ever was. Once a week or oftener I feel suddenly hOt all over. without apparent cause. ‘ . When I am with people I am bothered by hearing very queer things. It would be better it almost all laws were thrown away. My soul sometimes leaves my body. lam in juSt as good physical health as most of my friends. I prefer to pass by scnool friends. or people I know but have not seen for a long time. unless they speak to me first. A minister can cure disease by praying and putting his hand on your head. . I am liked by most people who know me. I am almost never bothered by pains over the heart or in my chest. As a youngster l was suspended from school one or more times for cutting up. I am a good mixer. Everything is turning out just like the proph- ets of the Bible said it would. I have often had to take orders from someone who did not know as much as I did. 60. 61. 62. 65. 67. 68. 69. 71. .- 72. 73. 74. I do not read every editorial in the news- paper every day. l have not lived the right kind of life. Parts of my body often nave feelings like burning. tingling. crawling. or like “going to sleep." . l have had no difficulty in starting or holding my bowel movement. . I sometimes keep on at a thing until others lose their patience with me. I loved my father. . I see things Of animals Of peeple around me that others GO 001 see. I wish I could be as happy as others seem to be. I hardly ever feel pain in the back of the neck. I am very strongly attracted by members of my own sex. . I used to like drop-the-handkerchief. I think a great many people exaggerate their misfortunes in order to gain the sympathy and help of others. . I am troubled by discomfort in the pit of my Stomach every few days or oftener. I am an important person. I have often wished I were a girl. (Or if you '. are a girl) I have never been sorry that I am a .75. 7e. 77. 7a. 79: 80. girl. I get angry sometimes. Most of the time I feel blue. lenjoy reading love stories. I like poetry. My feelings are not easily hurt. I semetimes tease animals. Go on to next page 81. 82. 85. '86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 92. 93. . 94. 95. 97. 98. 99. 100. 168 I think I would like the kind of work a forest ranger does. tam easily downed in an argument. Any man who is able and willing to work hard has a gooa chance of succeeding. These days I find it hard not to give up hope at amounting to something. Sometimes I am strongly attracted by the personal articles of others such as shoes. gloves. etc.. so that I want to handle or steal them though I have no use for them. I am certainly lacking in self-confidence. I would like to be a florist. I usually feel that life. is worth while. It takes a lot of argument to convince most people of the truth. Once in a while I put off until tomorrow what I Ought to do today. . I do not mind being made fun of. I would like to be a nurse. I think most people would lie to get ahead. I do many things which I regret afterwards (I regret things more or more often than Others seem tol. I go to'church almost every week. . l have very few quarrels with members of my family. At times I have a strong urge to do some- thing harmful or shocking. I believe in the second coming of Christ. I like to go to parties and other affairs where there is lots of loud fun. I have met problems so full of possibilities that l have been unable to make up my mind about them. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. I believe women ought to have as much sexual freedom as men. My hardest battles are with myself. I have little or no trouble with my muscles twitching or jumping. I don't seem to care what happens to me. Sometimes when I am not feeling well I am cross. Much of the time I feel as if I have done something wrong or evil. I am happy most of the time. There seems to be a fullness in my head or nose most of the time. Some people are so bossy that I feel like doing the opposite of what they request. even though I know they are right. Someone has it in for me. I have never done anything dangerous for the thrill of it. I frequently find it necessary to stand up for what I think is right. I believe in law enforcement. Often I feel as if there were a tight band about my head. I beliew in a life hereafter. I enjoy a race or game better when I bet on it. Most people are honest chiefly through fear of being caught. ~ In school I was sometimes sent to the principal for cutting up. My speech is the same as always (not faster or slower. or slurring; no hoarseness). My table manners are not quite as good at home as when I am out in company. Go on to next oage tat- £122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 169 I believe I am being plotted against. I seem to be about as capable and smart as most others around me. I believe I am being followed. Most people will use somewhat unfair means to gain profit or an advantage rather than to lose it. I have a great deal of stomach trouble. I like dramatics. I know who is responsible for most of my troubles. The sight of blood neither frightens me nor makes me Sick. Often I can‘t understand why I have been so cross and grouchy. l have never vomited blood or coughed up bl00d. I do nOt worry about catcning diseases. I like collecting flowers or growing house plants. I have never indulged in any unusual sex pracuces. At times my thoughts have raced ahead faster than I could speak them. If I caiild get into a movie without paying and be sure I was not seen I would probably do it. I commonly wonder what hidden reason another person may have for doing some- thing nice for me. ~ I believe that my home life is as pleasant as that of most people I know. Criticism or scolding hurts me terribly. Sometimes I feel as if I must injure either myself or someone else. I I like to COOK. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. ° 157. 158. 159. 1 60. My conduct is largely controlled by the customs of those about me. I certainly feel useless at times. When I was a child. I belonged to a crowd or gang that tried to stick together through thick and thin. I would like to be a soldier. At times I feel like picking a fist fight with someone. I have the wanderlust and am never happy unless I am roaming or traveling about. I have often lost out on things because I couldn't make up my mind soon enough. It makes me impatient to have people ask my advice or otherwise interrupt me when I am working on something important. I used to keep a diary. I would rather win than lose in a game. Someone has been trying to poison me. Most nights I go to sleep without th0ughts or ideas bothering me. During the past few years I have been well most of the time. I have never had a fit or convulsion. I am neither gaining nor losing weight. I have had periods in which I carried on activities without knowing later what I had been doing. ' I feel that l have often been punished without cause. I cry easily. I cannot understand what I read as well as I used to. l have-never felt better in my life than I do now. Go on. to nextbage 161. 162. 163. 164 165. 166. 167. 168. 170 The top of my head sometimes feels tender. I resent having anyone take me in so cleverly that l have had to admit that it was one on me. I do not tire quickly. I like to study and read about things that I am working at. I like to know some important people be- cause it makes me feel important. I am afraid when I look down from a high place. It wouldn't make me nervous if any mem- bers of my family get into trouble with the law. There is something wrong with my mind. APPENDIX C THE ANSWER SHEET FOR THE MMPI <>§<> (iéfi ‘fi ()gt) ()é() ()é() <3§§<> (;§<) ~<> . L ()§() <>§<> “Eu (ygt) <3§é<> <>£ ()EC) (Sgt) (it) <)§§g<> (SEC) <>g<> ()ét) <>§<> fi§§<> ()gt) <)§§é<> ()£<> <)§()' <>§§<> ()gt) (gt) ()st) 4. 1 ()§() ()§() ()§() ()at) ()ft) (iéfi <£<> ()ét) ()at) ()§<) (it) Nantes Answer 9w" for use with the (iéfi ()st) (fit) (fit) lI-li- IIIII IIII. 171 It‘ll- APPENDIX D MMPI PROFILES FOR MALE AND FEMALE l‘. . 5:. . .Iua._.yl. ‘ II n as. Seem to: II 3er 3 I. u I III III! II. If Ilio.eun)- a a a 8.2 .b b .3. .u I. a w .3. o d. L ._. . _ .i. _ . c . . n O 8 8 08 u o . .. I. I H, I I. n N — 0 . Gum I P. I . . I ”I,” — . O u 8 8. 8 8 8 8. m . O s 8 e 8 8 8 e I Q In I H: I 8’“ I 8 8 8’ 8. e n . . I a .. .s It . n I u I . u. I. m: . n u. e e e 8 8.. 8 8.. 8 8 8 H . g I.” III 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8'“ o I .. q I . .8 a I H... I I e... I u D ’ 8e .8 8 8 8 8 8 fl 8 8 0 e8 . s 8 h ”I e In . l I . I... I! I! I: I I up. . .- n I e 8 O 8 O 8 8 e U 8 O. n u 8m "IR n “.8 In. I n ”8 II I I “a. “A I. to. uln- . .- n. e e 8‘ 8 8 8° 8 8 e O I: H I 8‘ e 8 8. e 09 e n n 88" e 8 e e 8 8‘ e I 8 8.. 8 I I P‘ II I8“ 0 8 8 8 8 8 8 80 . 8 82 H I II I e 8‘ I 8‘ 8 8 la 8 8 8a .0 . s 8 I. . I II I I . I. I I I I I ".8 o: . u e80 8 I 8 I e 8 8 e H 83 3 H "H n a I I: I88 H IOf8' “loan-'8.“ I. n I .8 e e e e 8 8 8 8. e 8 O 8’. e ‘In H e ”g 80. e H “8 08‘ 8 8 H‘ 0 8 0'. ”I: .. .. n... . . H . -I . . . . H ... m s n. '8 I.“ e 8 I 8 8 I 8 8 e 8 8.. HI' 0' ‘ O 8 8 8 8 8‘ 8 e I I 8“ 8 I I 8 8 8 8“ H a...“ a.” 8 . .0 I... to I I In I: u: 8 O 8 8 O a H O 8 8 I 89 8' 8 8 H Iva .8 e 8 I 8 8 "I3 e 8‘ H 8 H 8 8 8 ”9 8 8 H a.” Is I: I . . . Is. I it I 8' 8‘ be I O 8 0 8 8 u e e 8 8° 8 8 8‘ I... . I . In . .8 I I I t8. .3 . u u Us . - . no... I I.» I I I. I “I.- -I . . . -s . . " “who: eat .I . . I ”8 ”3 I II ”Ire: lull -.. H -I . . . . 202 w a; 1e:e.u$..li 5:2” .033: a... H I: . I n .0 Mn... ear. I denies—um . . I i 8.. 92.8 I t e I u e . ‘01.... 0.00 “Om-a-JUUO 8.3m:- 9.0-Own .. 80.32 ens-Exes— »..cEAU _ use ruins-oz .: Sign use: 3032:; 3:0d0u3m bib—3:32 20.35:: 2:“ .50:an 260 1:0 e305 172 173 .3 vat-wow Inl I u 1:8 :3» Ion @ .vaw in . II I I p I I I r. a - It: thix.IJ 3:: R I ”SE B a MIR 3 I. a I. 3.: II to 8 III .. 1 I a Q I} I m9 I l uh I. I: I I I I I8 8 8 . 8 8‘ 8 8: 8.. 8 8 8 u u I I I I - I I I... I no I a. n us I. .II . I . I I u . Is I . 8 H n I I I I In I.“ 8 8 8 I I In 89 I. I. I ”I: I I . I I I: S I. “a . I II I I n I I III. I. I .3 .2 II n 8“ I II: I 8 8 8 I 8 8 la a.“ II II n . - u -I I. H u H . -I I... I I 8 I I la 8 8 I II I I I I I Ian I I 08 I“ I3 I 8 I. no. n It I I I I I I I I: I -8 S H .8 ‘. g H L- . . .l . . . . 8 I R'II. II I I II I Ialll“!H “I. PW? u .IC I I I I. Im— II I I I I . Io: ” I . n I: I I I I I: .Ic .I ‘IH I“ II. I I I 8‘ I I I I I I 98 c. u u I . u . I . It I . .9 H 9d h . u I I I I in I I I -8. IA- m "lo I: .L- no. I “8 I n u I I8 . to II I I Ian I I I I8 u to m-.. . . u . - II ”I . H I. 8.” I . I . I I I I3 I now u ..$ .9 .8 I - . I “In .K I: H I Ia. I It I Hun I a. 8'! .. III: II3 III-n IO U I... II [8. .2.” - H I. .. - .8 . us -8. .8 I... - I . 352 97m . H “9 . I H -I - . mdofiwh a: I. In. . I o: vacuum ~02. .52 a: 8.... . Ia. I¢< 3m: 28 untuuavu is Mill... IMImquIngu Isuzu p. .1 5.8 .x n Ki... . a I I f.» a. I v I . . 2.. I. .I s p GIBOQQUUO IIIIIIIIII . .Icfin— 3.23m 0.08... 523.4“ .31:qu .31..“50 I. mcu hasIvEOI .c 3.35 :52 52:02; 320—393;“ 039.333: 233339 9; m .toEan :OU vac 2:9.”— APPENDIX E CONSENT FORMS IN THAI AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE I 5 must»: anufifiaifigudzuaaétfiafinuw{fiazfiufiqw1qun1u3nuaoéfiaaTnv éauauaaawufifiaqetfiu flsaTanfilun1111auuutgaafiuawuu?n1151u§1nwu1ut€au€115 nunaiauiaua«inu1uu1ufiiaigudéfiuaawnaiasiqhaofiwutao fiwufifinéfiqa1finauéw n1315%?aanaauuqnuauaaufiaawnanufifia€15qnLfiaTnagfiwuauifignaaTannafifinwsInq go éu finuifinéfiaaiauiau?a1fii13501uawufiiai éaéwaauuaafiwuqu1fifi11ifi1uqnaoTnuuaaqz 1i:fiuuadafianstuuaafiwun?aaa1uxuaafi1u1ut€3u€15 iauéauauaun113535a31fi1i1u n17§qwsmw1nq étgaafiufiqunaqaaa . nwnfiwufiuaauiiaawuiuuia1uowu358. finnzu1fi?unw153n13$ainfin351u§agins nae as15§uunuaaun1u MMPI—158 fiwuqufiwuuunaaauifiaanutau uuunnaauiLfiunwsnauuuunw gnu?a§n TdsnnauéwnwuqniauwnfiwufiaanwsaawnfiaaLufiaiunwsdwuu?atflaungmwuanawn uaaawufiaaLufiaawninaiaéi Suaataawiunwsfianwufiuaufiwuuunnaau dzzawm 45 1% lusauiwaineifin3ianaa Tinawuiuatwfianwufifiwuiaonwx iaganaafiwuauqntfiu¥nvanatfiuaawufiuaéna§nqu uaauavaan1135aqa1finé1751ofiu QinTnaiagalnq fifiwafiofiafiqufi uadwaq WunwsfiunwvfiuaanWSfiwuuunnaauazqnfinuwuau 113uqunaTfinéwaiwaficfiwuu?a§1n iagaganunquqnLfiu?nvwaéwafiuaua81fitflfltuaudéin uanawnfin3581uowu35ai fiwuawuwsnuafl«H1133uaauiunwsiaufian§a€15Tnaaaéalufiwfiuaanafini "iwuL515n§fiqu1fifianwaduaunsanuuunnaau MMPI-168 i inun5wn11ufiiwuaawu§53 : d u u A uquqntnusnvana7nnunan" ‘ ‘ 174 175 CONSENT FORM The purpose of this research is to investigate mental health problems among prisoners. The results of the research are expected to be useful for planning mental health services program in correctional institutions in the future. Your participation in the research is on voluntary basis. You are free not to answer some or all of the questions. You are even free to stop and withdraw from this study at any time without penalty. You are free to participate, and whether you participate or not, it will not result any kind of penalty or affect your activity or your status in this prison. Also, the results of the research ‘will not be used to make any judgement about you individually. If you want to participate in the research, you will be interviewed with the questionnaire and administered the MMPI- 168 test, which is the true/false test. This procedure will take approximately 45 minutes. If you have any questions or need assistance, the researcher will be available during the administration of the test. The results of the research will be kept anonymous and confidential. You will not be asked your name or any identification during the interview or administration of the test. The results of the interview and test will be studied and reported without identifying you or any other persons 176 participating in this research. All data will be kept confidential and will not be used by anyone except the researcher. You will indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by signing this consent form. "I voluntarily agree to be interviewed and fill out the MMPI-168 test. I know that the results of the interview and test will be kept in strictest confidentially." Signature APPENDIX F LETTERS FROM THE THAI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND THE UCRIHS STUDENTS’ DEPARTMENT ROYAL THAI EMBASSY 1906-23rd ST., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20008 111. 0705/ 2677 3L TEL. (202)667—6063 (202)667-6006 (202)667-9113 FAX (202)365-7239 17 Lurfiuu 2535 L500 nwsLfiunnanéuU1:LnfllnuLfia11u11uiaqafinunfiwui an o l a I tTUu QNUNQufl uvyzmsun 51064 ufiafiavaanfiuaafiufi 12 fiufinu 2535 nwuufiafiofififiofio vaoufifit ' finuwfiuufi flu . nunnanauflz:LnflanLfiosausdufiaya Q U U. ’I G U ‘l I 0.“. wsfi1mnua1 aunnlunnu1nun1¢naufl1=LnflanLna11u11uvaya i a finunfiwufi ficudfiufi 15 Luufiuu - 15 n1na1nu 2535 laulfiiufifiliéfiulunfi1 Launnq finlnuansLniaafiulu—nfiu finiiénufl1zahLfiauszuifioa§1uU1zLnfl uaz I U I d' v I nnlunfiuou fl nfiuuantnmn . 4 J QOL1Uflu1LWOfl10U Ufifi 177 gm. (unuasnnw afiafi) éfiaufiugnufinfisfinun fisfiunfisunufiuinvfinfisfinuq 178 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY OFFICE OF VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 488261046 AND DEAN Of HIE GRADUATE SCHOOL May 5, 1992 Yossawan Boriboonthana 1401 I Spartan Village East Lansing, MI 48823 RE: THE STUDY OF MENTAL ILLNESS OF PRISONERS IN THAILAND, IRE #92-143 Dear Ms. Boriboonthana: UCRIHS' review of the above referenced project has now been completed. I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of'the human subjects appear to be adequately protected and the Committee, therefore, approved this project at its meeting on May 4, 1992. 1 You are reminded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. If you plan to continue this project beyond one year, please make provisions for obtaining appropriate UCRIHS approval one month prior to May 4, 1993. This may be acccomplished by writing UCRIHS to stipulate that: The human subjects protocol is the same as in previous studies. There have been no ill effects suffered by the subjects. There have been no complaints by the subjects or their representatives. There has not been a change in the research environment nor new information which would indicate greater risk to human subjects than that assumed when the protocol was initially reviewed and approved. waQH There will be a maximum of four renewals possible. If you wish to continue a project beyond that time, it must again be submitted for complete review. Any changes in procedures involving human subjects must be reviewed by the UCRIHS prior to initiation of the change. UCRIHS must also be notified promptly of any problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human subjects during the course of the work. Thank.you for bringing this project to our attention. If*we can be of any future help, please do not hesitate to let us know. Sincerely, Ph.D\.\., Chair, University Committgg,dn Research ~“Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) DEW/pjm cc: Dr. Rosie Ekpengyong-Rowan \I\('n..n Unrmuu'r len l'.‘1.ul’()P/Iur.'unl!\ Infiillullun dam 0905/ 2156 ' neusnufihm nuuuunq! 1 I nhunuaulnq ahtnntfiau sunfihuunqi 11000 ‘ u 53 8 aqua» 2 5 a - . - v . - Leno unaqqnnsmnnnnnstnumnqaluLfinuennanuuwouanvuasnmwunnunfiv f - ‘ LSuu u.fl.ufl5hfl u1u1muu1 ' q a a. anon: uflvfinw avaun 29 wqunnnu 2535 r r I 0 . anunfihfinfianvfiu u.fi.u«5hn uausmuufi untiuunu{3u1a1uaunn V J V ‘ . ' v U . neusnnmmm ImuaaqqnatnnnnnnsLnu11u11nueqn ewnunInuluLfiauennanuu1uuanv I r v“ . unrfimnfinnunfiu uuuasdsrunm 400 an InunnsfiuafiumueznnsluunInsnnuuunnaau ' J .- - ' o ’ J - " Q1UWNLBV Luannanunuwunlunamatsau N1 .v1nq ulnuuvzfluvIMHIH dqztnnlnu (Personality Disorders of Prison Inmates in Thailand) us: I o _ '0 -~ 9 n g v v II 5 gfiaunaaumnnungseuuau 11m a nu Lu1n1n111nuuaqnweeufihaau uu . a v a v u I l nausnnnmnuansmnume BunaqqnnIn u.fl.ufl1un ufiusmaufi “fl: ,. -u - , u ' “V v e asunonu 11M 4 flu InnnnnnsLnumaqaefingmauquuLfiaunfinanuununonuua: a J . v c u v v r“ o qlv I v ' fihmfinfiunmeln LuamnnnsfianLasassuusauuna malnwnaefinufifluue nunn1u11unmm ' O J U ' I efiuau 2 Ian Lwasou11u11Lfludsquuumnufinfinnsnald. neufinunanufibfia 4 (11131132153 1111mm) “-1 THIPUIWIZHUTTWTHTTHWW I afivfinsufifinnmn naufimflfinnn Ins 591~551n IHTJ\U A”: fifl'fi "1111111111111