\5.’ '1. J: ‘1”: I '7'"? {turr- This is to certify that the thesis entitled Some Discriminative Factors in Peer Acceptance Among Hale Juvenile Delinquents in a Training School Situation presented by warren.Garst Ballachey has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for i261:— degree in Sociology and Anthropology dZ/2% \Ks/ Major professor Date February 22: 1952 0-169 n 53:: 2 law ~».,;gg;53 1'. 1. . “ "l ' 'l‘. .. I l ‘3‘ I r ‘ J I 17‘: ‘ t t v" 1 A ’Ll ' I z 1 . I I SOHE DlSCRIHllATIVE FACTORS 1N PEEK ACCEPTANCE AMONG MALE JUVENILE DELINQUENTS IN A TRAIBING SCHOOL SITUATION by warren Gerst Ballaohey A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Sociology and Anthropology 1952 n ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to express his appreciation to all members of the Department of Sociology and Anthr0pology of Michigan State College, and especially to Dr. Charles R. Hoffer and Dr. Christopher Sewer for their cooperation and guidance. For their splendid cooperation which made this study possible, the writer is grateful to Mr. Robert‘w. Harrington of the Psychological Clinic of Boys Vocational School and to Mr. Robert w; Wiener, Superintendent of Boys vocational School. 30001.8 111 TABLE 0.!" CONTENTS I IntrOdUCtioneeeeeeeeeeeee II subJOOt.e e e e e e e e e o e e e e 0 III lethodology IV’ Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V’ Statistical Procedures. . . . . . . . VI Results and Interpretations . . . . . VII Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII Implications. . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix A. Sample Sociogram Appendix B, Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Appendix C , " I u Scale, Record Form I ' II Appendix D, Stanford Achievement Test - Intermediate hattery'D Appendix E, Mooney Problem.Check List Page 12 14 27 30 32 iv TABLES Page I IScoreeBasedUponneans................. 34 II T Scores uased Upon Proportions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 III means and Proportions of the Thirty-Three Factors. . . . . 36 SOME DISCRIMINATIVE FACEORS IN PEER ACCEPTANCE AMONG MALE JUVENILE DELU- QUENTS IN A TRAINING SCHOOL SITUATION INTRODUCTION A survey of the literature on juvenile delinquency reveals that a great many studies have been made for the purpose of differentiating between nor- mal and delinquent populations. There have been relatively few investiga- tions, however, which have attempted to identify those factors which differ- (1) entiate one type of delinquent from another. it is commonly recognised by all authorities in the field that delinquency is a legal term and does not (2) represent either a sociological or a psychological entity. Since delin- quents have been classified on a legal basis the practice has been to segre- gate then from so-called normals without regard to the specific social be- ‘ ‘ ' ' (3) havieery . the different ,.individuals classified as delinquent. (4) 1;.- fi. Sutherland says: “Criminal behavior is a part of human behavior, has much in con- Mn “When-criminal behavior, and must be explained within the same, general framework as any other‘human behavior.“ d.-\ W Any intelligent attempt to provide individual treatment for juvenile delinquents, whether in an institutional setting or not, must be based on an If adequate differential diagnosis. C k” ’ R. (I) Garrisonft. iffPsyéhElogLof Adolescence, Prentice-hall and Co., New I‘l'k' 1946e ’0’. 201 no i (2) Karpnan, Ben, "Crime and Adolescence", Mental hygiene, 1937, 21, p. 390. (S) Wiers, Paul, Economic Factors in uichigan Delinquency, Columbia University , Press, New York, 1914, p. 1. (4) Sutherland, E. 11., Principles of Criminology, J. B. Lippincott Co,, new tort, 19“], p. 3. 2 This thesis will be concerned with the study of one sociological char- acteristic of institutionalized male juvenile delinquents. This characteris- tic will be called peer-acceptance, by which is meant the extent to which an individual is chosen as being‘liked-best“ by his peers within the institution. The connotation of peer-acceptance in this study implies net leadership as outlined by'lrech and Crutohfield,(1)but rather sociological acceptance or nonpaeoeptaneo as it relates to the individual boy in the cottage setting. That this sort of differential diagnosis can be profitably applied within an institutional setting has been shown by the recent work of Katee and Harrington(2)on aggression. It is well known that many juvenile delinquents present varying behavior patterns which appear to be an effort to seek acceptance with their peers,\3) and thus it is felt that the value of this study lies in the possibility of identifying both the accepted and non-accepted individual and considering this variable in the individualised treatment program, that is, encouraging the individual who is predicted to be non-accepted to engage in activities which may increase his acceptance before the pattern of non-acceptance can beeone established in the institutionalised setting. Normally in the training school situation it is the first tine the adolescent has been divorced fron his fanily, and this physical separation leads to a great deal of emotional insecurity, both personal and social, for the newly admitted boys Social ac- ceptanee at Boys vocational School is nede.to a greater or lesser degree, ‘within a trying social setting for the individual. _.‘ (l) Kreoh, David, and Crutahfield, Richard 8., Theor and Problems of Social Ps cholog , McCrawhnill Book Co., new iork, 1948. p.p. II? ?.f. (2; Katee, Solis L., and narrington, Robert w., "Authority riguro Perspec- tive and Aggression in Delinquents“, Journal of uenetic Psychelo \in Press). {3) Jennings, nelen, Leadership and isolatlon, Longman uroen an Co., 1944, p.p. 143-163. 3 SUBJECTS The subjects involved in this study are male juvenile delinquents ranging in age fron twelve to seventeen years. For the purpose of this study, an in- dividual is delinquent if he has been committed to Boys Vocational School,k1) Lansing, nichigan. Approximately 350 boys of various races and religions make up the population of this institution. The average boy upon admittance to the Institution ranks at the upper limits of the dull-normal range of in- telligence, he is retarded approximately two years academically,‘2)he has usually experienced familial or social rejection to a greater or lesser ex- tent, he has been “processed" through.the juvenile division of the probate court and he enters the School under compulsion. if then, upon admittance, or shortly thereafter, a boy could receive individual treatment within the institutional setting based upon his needs it would enhance the possibility of his educational and social growth. if criteria could be established to differentiate between.accepted and non-accepted boys and this factor taken into oonsideration.in making assignments within the regular and extra curri- cular prograns, needs of the accepted and non-accepted boys could be met. The boys live in cottage-type units within.which the population range is ap- proxinatoly twenty to forty boys, and supervision is carried on seven days a week by a narried couple. within this cottage setting the boys have a varied pregranrinoluding work assignments, athletics on an.intra-nural basis, exten- sive hobbywwork programs and other group activities. It is primarily a closed (l) Operated under the jurisdiction of the State Dept. of Social welfare. \2) Taken from the boys vocational School Psychological Clinic's 1950 Annual RCFrto 4 social situation in nhich there are a tremendous number of inter-personal re- lationshipe. Except for daytime periods spent in school and/or on detail assignments the boys in any cottage live together as a group. It provides al- most the perfect setting within which to study social acceptance or non-accep- tance. Two sub-groups, the accepted and non-accepted, within the cottage-life situation were investigated in this study. The accepted group consists of twenty individuals who were selected as being “liked-best“ by their cottage mates for a period of three or more consecutive months. The second group consists of fifty-one individuals who were distinguished by the fact that for a period of three or more consecutive months they were never chosen as being “liked-best" by any one of their cottage mates. .In this way it is believed . w (1) that two different sub-groups were identified for, as Jersild states: FAnong the various methods that can be used to study children's acceptance of one another are a number of so-called 'sociometric techniquee'. These are relatively simple, and in many situations it is possible to apply them to obtain information that an investi- gator mdght put to practical use. In institutions where children spend all their time sociometric techniques have been used to find out whom the inmates would prefer as tablemates or as cottage mates, and the like. it is possible also to ask a variety of questions such as when the youngster wishes to play with, go to a picnic 'with, or when he would prefer to have as his best friend. "It is also possible to get negative information by asking young- sters to name persons whom they would not especially care to have as friends or as seat meates, or as study companions, and so on. This negative approach has not been used as commonly as the posi- tive approach since invidious information of this sort may be less reliable, and, in many circumstances, there will be children who will be embarrassed and reluctant to speak ill of their associates. Same negative information can be inferred from.the positive approach. ror example, if a child is not named by any one when children choose their seat mates it is quite evident that he is not especially popular.“ __k (A) Jersild, Arthur T., Child Psychology, Prentice-hall anc., New iork, 1950, p. 177. 6 METHODOLOGY During the time a boy is in boys vocational School, a complete in- dividual case history is prepared which coordinates both the previous socio- economic history’submitted by the Court and sociOIOgical and psychological data obtained during the boy's residence in the institution. rrom.January l, 1949, to December 31, 1949, the Psychological Clinic of boys vocational School gathered sociometric data on the acceptance of in- dividual boys within their cottages. Once each month every boy in the cottage was given a piece of paper and a pencil and asked tO'write down the names of the three boys in his cottage whom.he liked-best; the resulting data were then compiled in graphic form by the use of sociograms,(1)and by referring to these sociograns it was possible to determine the number of votes received by each individual in the cottage each month over a period of one year. it was also possible to determine the boys who received the most votes and those who re- eoived the least votes each month. making use of these sociograms, the two groups -- accepted and non-accepted -- were isolated, according to the cri- teria previously indicated. Complete sociological and psychological data were (2) made accessible to the writer. 0n the basis of sonney's study of popular . \3) and unpopular children, and Moreno and Jennings' work 'with over and under- chosen girls in a training school setting, it was felt that these two groups were isolated as far as acceptance and non-acceptance were concerned. (1) See Appendix.A (2) nonney, Merl E., I'Popular and unpopular Children, A Sociometric study" _§9ciomotry;Monographz,.uo. 9, beacon house, 1947, p. 1-10. (3) sucrose, e. L. and Jennings, nelen n., “Sociometric Control Studies of Grouping and Regrouping”, Sociometry Monographs, no. 7, neacon.flouse, 1947, ’0 5' fofo . I 6 PROCEDURE Each individual case history was investigated and the boy was classified in regard to the following thirty-three factors: Residence This information was gained from the transfer summary and/er Or an . or the Court papers. Those individuals who had been residents, Otis-r during their formative years prior to commitment, of Detroit and surrounding suburbs, Pontiac, Lansing, Jackson, Flint, luskegon, Grand Rapids, Saginaw, Bay City, Port huron, Kalamazoo, battle Creek and Ionia were classified as urban. All other individuals were classified as ”other“ .areas. The two groups, accepted and non-accepted, were compared on the basis of the proportion of each group coming from urban areas. rather Alive Information was obtained from the transfer summry and/or or Dace-sled Court papers and the two groups were compared as to the pro- portion of r'athers living. lather Alivo information was obtained from the transfer summary and/or er ~ Dee's-iced Court papers, and the two groups were compared as to the pro- portion of mothers living. Parents Information was obtained from the transfer summary and/er Divorced Court papers, psycholOgical and social service interview re- cordings. The two groups were again compared on the basis of the proportion of casis in which the parents were divorced. Parents Separation means that while the parents are not legally Sepalafid divorced, they no longer live together as man and wife in the same household. information on this point was obtained from the transfer summary and/or other records. The two groups were again compared on the basis of the proportion of their members whose parents were separated. 7 Father's The father's Occupation was categorized as skilled or other, Occupation based upon the census classification standards presented by (1) Landis. none of the subjects' father's occupations could be classified as professional. The two groups were then compared proportionately on this basis. Mother's From the same source of information, the proportion of cases Occupation in.which the mother was employed outside the home was obtained and the two groups compared. Father Statements of social workers, psych010gists or court workers Alcoholic were taken as the criterion of alcoholism in the rather. Ad- mittedly, this is not entirely defensible but it proved to be the only practi- cal method of classification of this factor. The proportions of the two groups whose fathers were classified as alcoholic, according to this definition, were then compared. Mother The procedure was the same in regard to this classification AIcoHoIic as employed in considering alcoholism in the father and the same limitations apply. Father's This information was not obtainable in all cases but when Education available the highest grade completed was taken as the level. Iumerical designations corresponding to the number of the grade from O to 16 were assigned and the means of the two groups compared. Mother's This information was not obtainable in all cases but when Education available the highest grade completed was taken as the level and the same procedure followed as in Father's Education. (1) Landis, Paul n., Papulation Problems,.American Book Co., 1943, Chap. XVII, pope 317 f.f. 8 Humber of The total number of siblings at the time of commitment SiEliggs was computed for each individual and the means of the two groups compared. This information was obtained from.the court records. Siblé¥g By sibling position is meant the serial position according as on to age. Again the means of the two groups were compared. This information was obtained from the court records. Famil¥ By this it is meant that one or more individuals in the imp Tron c mediate family in addition to the boy, had been involved in difficulty with the law even though not convicted. Again the mean number of such involvements was computed and the two groups compared. Legitimacy The proportion of each group which had been born out of BiFth wedlock was computed and the two groups compared on this basis. Foster The proportion of each group which had been placed in a 7.52." ' foster home one or more times was computed and a comparison made between the groups. Other information was obtained from.transfer summaries and/or Institutions court papers and the proportion of each group who had pre- viously been committed to other institutions was computed and a comparison made on this basis. 5‘2. The mean chronological age was found for each group and a comparison made. Height The mean height in inches was determined for each group and the two groups compared. weight The mean weight in pounds for each group was computed and the two groups compared. 9 Race Only two races were involved in these two groups. The two races involved were Negro and‘White and the groups were compared on the basis of the proportion of Negroes included in each. BVS in this school for boys all major discipline is decided Disci'fl'fnarl ‘lctdon upon and awarded by the Case Conference Committee, there- fore, the mean number of appearances before this committee was computed for each group and the two groups compared. lumber of ror each group the mean number of runaways was computed Funawazz and the groups compared on this basis. Activities it is possible for boys in this Institution to engage ha various extra-curricular activities such as: Boy Scouts, Hidl, BVS Players and Camera Club, etc. The two groups were compared as to the mean number of activities engaged in. Months at The mean length of time spent in the School before release B was computed for each group and the two groups compared. Only the current committment at the time of the sociometric measure was con- sidered. Times at The two groups were compared on the mean number of com- B mittments to says vocational School. This information was obtained from the master social service index card. lumber of The mean number of cottage changes for an reason was “we: assess y computed for each group and a comparison made. Number of The mean number of detail changes for any reason was com- vetEII Change: puted for each group and a comparison made. 10 Intelligence Each individual had been given an individually adminis- Quo en tered intelligence test by a competent psychologist using (1) (2) the Wechsler-Bellevue intelligence Scale, Form,I or 11. Grade At the time of admission to the Institution each individual Placement had been administered the Stanford Achievement Test, inter- (3) mediate Battery, various equivalent forms. The mean grade placement of each group was computed and the groups compared. Problems Each individual had been admdnistered the Iooney Problem Check (4) fist Check List and the mean number of problems indicated was compared. (5) Monthly in this training school each boy is given a letter grade Grades in each area of his program as well as an average grade; these grades range from U to‘A and are graded on the customary basis of 0 points for U, 1 point for D, 2 points for C, 3 points for B and 4 points for A. The mean average mark for each group was computed and the two groups compared. Present At the time this study was written the boys included an this A3355t53ht study were either on parole status or had been committed to an institution following their release from.Boys vocational School. This latter category includes those who had been recommitted to Boys vocational School. The proportion of each group which at this time was institutionalised was computed and the two groups compared. (1) See Appendix A (2) See Appendix B (3) See Appendix C (s) See Appendix D (6) 16 points for parole consideration, 20 points for release on parole, A is excellent, B is above average, C is average, D is below average and U is unsatisfactory. 11 As can be noted, the accepted and the non-accepted groups were some- tmmes compared on the basis of mean scores and sometimes compared on the basis of proportions. Table I lists those factors which were compared on the basis of mean scores and Table 11 lists those factors compared on the basis of proportion. 12 STAI‘IS‘i‘iCAL PROCEUUBES In each instance in which preliminary study revealed the possibility of significance of one of the thirty-three factors, the data was treated sta- tistically on the basis of mean scores or on a proportional basis; using the t ratio to test the significance between the means and the proportions. In other words the writer has attempted to determine if the thirty-three factors considered have any significance in terms of acceptance or non-acceptance for the two groups which have been isolated in this study. Appropriate graphs have been provided for each significant factor. For those factors compared on the basis of mean scores the following statistical formulaes were used: Mean equals the sun of I over II. M :_ 28/2" firsggrsogztig $3343.13? taint: ; {2 %v 'm squared), minus (the sum of Hz. Standard error of the mean equals stan- / dard deviation over the square root of I ’q 3 --- f .1“. 1e IN", ¥ Standard error of the difference betwoen f Jfimvm= Va? ‘1-61?‘ means equals the square root of the stan- dard error of mean 1 squared, plus the standard error of mean 2 squared. To test the significance of the difference between means, the t ratio was utilised. This is obtained by the formula: t - I“ l -/‘42 [1 minus [2 over standard error of the "' -———___. difference between means. 4"? The degrees of freedom to be utilised is found by the formula: 1 minus 2) with sixty-nine degrees of freedom a t or 1.999 is required for the dif- ference to be significant at the 5% level and a t of 2.659 is required for significance at the 1% level. 13 for those factors compared on a proportional basis the following formulaes were used: The standard error of a proportion equals the square root of p.q over l, where p 6—- m- equals the proportion of a sample having "’ T the characteristic under consideration and q equals 1 minus p. The standard error of the difference between preportions is obtained by the formula: The standard error of the difference of proportions equals the square root of the 7 ~ VI ’_ ‘1' standard error of proportion l squared plus fl“ - F. ‘I‘ 72. the standard error of proportion 2 squared. The t ratio to determine the significance of the difference between proportions is obtained by the formula: t equals pl minus p2 over the standard t _ P|__ P2 error of the difference of proportions " -—_.___. with degrees of freedom being determined Vjcflfl-fi. by the formula :1 minus 2. ' With sixty-nine degrees of freedom a t of 1.999 is required for the difference to be significant at the 5% level, and a t of 2.659 is required (1) for significance at the 1% level. (l) Guilford, J. P., Fundamental Statistics in Psycholo and Education, IcGraw-Rill Book Co., 1110., New York, T912 p.p. 156 f.f. — Hodgman, Charles D., hathematical Tables from handbook of Chemist? and Physics, Chemical Rubber Publishing Co., Cleveland, Ohio,“l , p. f.f. 14 RESULTS AND INTERPRETATlONS (1) It can be seen from Tables I and II that by means of the previously described statistical methods, eleven of the thirty-three factors considered revealed significant differences between the accepted and non-accepted groups. These differences are also presented graphically for the eleven factors which proved significant. BUB' When the tee groups are compared on the basis of appearance DIsoipl IEtion. before the discipline case conference, there is a difference in means of 2.60, this difference being statistically signi- ficant at the h% level of confidence with a t ratio of 2.85. This difference could have arisen by chance in only one out of a hundred similar samplings and indicates that the accepted group present fewer major disciplinary prob- lems than does the non-accepted group. See Graph I followings Accepted XXXXXXLXXXXXIX lean: 2.9 loneaccepted X1IIXXXXXXLLIAIXIIIXXIXXXXXX Ican: 5.5 (Means multiplied by 5) Thus accepted boys were involved in less difficulty which called for official case conference action such as runaways, obscene language, destruc- tion of property, fighting, stealing, etc. Jennings(2)found the under-chosen subjects in her study to show "quarrelsome and irritable behavior" five times as often as average subjects, while the over-chosen.subjects show only cna/ third as great incidence of such behavior as the average chosen subjects. Such behavior is evidenced by the data in this study and certainly does not lead to acceptance. (I, Eee Pages 34 and 35 respectively (2) Jennings, helen hall, headership and Isolation, Longmans, Green and Co., New York, 1943, p. 151. 15 Activities A comparison of the mean number of activities engaged in by these two groups reveals a difference of 1.24, resulting in a t ratio of 6.63 which is statistically significant of at least the 2% level and indicates that this large difference could have arisen by chance in only one out of a hundred samplings. See Graph II following: Accepted XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Mean: 1.45 Non-accepted xx Mean: 0.21 The activities factor shows the accepted group engaging in more extra curricular activities than the non-accepted. Acceptance within the School setting would seem to have a spreading effect: the accepted boy as judged by our criteria, feels freer to actively seek membership in extra-curricular activities. Months A comparison of the two groups on the basis of the duration a Efi§ of institutionalization revealed a difference of 4.94 months in favor of the accepted group. With a t ratio of 4.84 this difference is statistically significant at beyond the L% level. See Graph III following: Accepted IXXXXXXXXX Mean: 9.25 Non-accepted XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Mean: 14.2 This finding indicates that the accepted group remains in the institu- tion for a significantly shorter period than does the non-accepted. This was expected since longer residence results from.either running away, or ap- pearance before the Discipline Case Conference, and the Runaway Factor proved to be significant at the 5% level and the Discipline Case Conference at 1%. 16 Number of When the two groups are compared on the basis of their Detail Changes mean number of detail changes, there is a difference of 3.70 in favor of the accepted group with a t ratio of 3.62, which is signi- ficant at the 1% level of confidence. See Graph IV’following: Accepted xxxxx Mean: 4.80 Non-accepted IIXXXIXXX Mean: 8.50 The fact that the accepted group has almost fifty percent fewer changes in assignments than the non-accepted group indicates that there is a signi- ficant difference in this aspect of behavior in favor of the accepted group. The accepted group demonstrated the ability to make a smoother adjustment to their training assignments than the non-accepted. The non-accepted boy seems to have more transitory interests, is more easily discouraged and experiences difficulty in finding a detail assignment which for him is purposeful. Number of A comparison of the two groups on the basis of the mean W number of runaways reveals a difference of 1.6 in favor of the accepted group with a t ratio of 2.08. This is statistically significant at the 5% level of confidence. See Graph V'followings Accepted XXXXXXXXXX leans 1.1 Non-accepted LXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX loans 2.? The non-accepted group might be expected, because of at least passive rejection by their sociological environment, to have a higher incidence of withdrawal in the form of running away. The accepted group apparently has more satisfying personal relationships with a feeling of “belonging”, and is not subjected to group rejection as is the case with the non-accepted. 17 Problem. 'When the two groups are compared in regard to the mean number CFEEE—Eist of problems indicated on the Mooney Problem Check List, there is a difference of 18.80 in favor of the accepted group. This gives a t ratio of 2.46 which is statistically significant at beyond the 5% level of confidence and indicates that a difference this large could have arisen by chance less than five times out of a hundred. See Graph VI following: Accepted XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Mean: 24.60 Non-accepted Lee 'e eeee‘eee'eee e ee.eeeeeeee'e‘e e e'ee'eeeeee' Mean: 43.40 The fact that the nonraccepted group underlined (43.40) almost twice as many personal and social problems than did the accepted group (24.60), seems to indicate that the non-accepted group has more fears and real or imagined problems than does the accepted group. These projected problems for the non- accepted group reflect their inadequaces, relate to and perhaps help explain, some of the difficulties the non-accepted group has in the areas of cottage changes, activities, detail changes and runaways. Cottage When the two groups are compared in regard to the mean number Changes of cottage changes, there is a difference of .92 in favor of the accepted group with a t ratio of 3.28 which is significant at the 1% level. See Graph VII following: Accepted XXXXXX Mean: .55 Non-accepted XXXXXXXXXXXXIII. Mean: 1.4? Experience seemed to suggest that accepted boys should tend to remain fixated socially and not evidence as much movement between groups, since by virtue of their acceptance they are enjoying satisfactory inter-personal - 18 relationships. 0n the other hand, we might expect more social movement on the part of the non-accepted. This supposition is found to hold true; social acceptance apparently creates feelings of personal adequacy for the one group -- accepted, and acts as a stabilizing influence, while non-acceptance has the opposite effect upon the non-accepted group. Residence 'When the two groups are compared on the basis of residence, Urhan or Other there is a difference of .23 in favor of the accepted group with a t ratio of 2.87 which is significant at the 1% level of confidence. See Graph VIII following: Accepted XXXXXXXXXX Mean: .95 Non-accepted XXXXXXX Mean: .72 The fact that the accepted group had a significantly higher preportion of urban youth may be the result, in some part, of this environment for as (1) Burgess and Locke states Urban areas present a more conflicting, emotional sphere of action in which the individual is likely to be a member of secondary groups rather than primary groups. ~ (2) Also Landis states: Competition and adjustment are more difficult and yet at the same time in the complexities of an urban environment the individual develops more social selves because of his participation in groups which advocate different values. The urban youth considered in this study may have had opportunity for greater practice to develop the kind of large group adjustment social skills which may in part assist them.in adjusting to the institutional setting. (1) Burgess, Ernest‘W., and Locke, harvey J., The Family} American Book Co., New York, 1945, p. 119 f.f. (2) Landis, Paul H., Adolescence and Youth, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York and London, 19457' p.p. 1267-1277" 19 The boys in the study from other than urban areas, which includes small towns, villages and farm areas, are by comparison, ”subjected to different forms of social control and Operate in fewer, though for the most part, pri- mary groups".(1) According to Redfield,(2)'village and farm area cultures present a more stable group pattern, and in general, the culture maintains more consistent common standards, the family does not suffer as breakdown. horse and social customs are more strictly enforced.‘. Thus it would seem that the boy who comes from other than urban areas probably feels inadequate within the social situation which confronts him.in the cottage situation at Boys VOcational School because of the lack of participation in different social groups. roster Home From.Table 11 (page 35) it can be seen that 5% of the ac- iiperience cepted group had been placed in boarding homes while 68% of the non-accepted had such experiences. With a t ratio of 3.37 this dif- ference is statistically significant at beyond the 1% level of confidence. See Graph 11 following: Accepted memos: Mean: .95 Non-accepted XXIIIIX, Mean: .68 The most favorable circumstances for the development of a satisfactory parent-child relationship are those that may exist in the so-called normal home -- that is, one in which the household contains, without antagonimm, man and wife with their own children. A well-rounded social personality is (1) Landis, Paul H., Adolescence and Youth, chrawehill Book to., New York, 1945e pe llge (2) Redfield, Robert, The Folklore of Iucatan, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1946, p. 132 f.f. 20 (1) dependent to a great extent upon familial training and environment. (2) The Gluecks found that 69.t% of a sample of 654 juvenile delinquents (3) had lived in foster homes. As Bell points out: Children living under these conditions have fewer chances for adequate physical care, love, and coun- selling. The existence of intra-familial tensions and conflicts, which are also not unknown even in the normal home, affects the emotional security of the children. it would some, then, that the non-accepted group has suffered to a greater degree than the accepted from lack of parental control and social training. The non-accepted boy has greater insecurity in dealing with.new'social situa- tions such as Boys vocational School because he has lacked this early training and guidance. rord(4)also stresses this when he says: The foster home, which is classified as a form.of broken home, furnishes a higher proportion of de- linquents than do the child care institutions. The 691 subjects of sord's study were convicted delinquents in four insti- tutions in Pennsylvania. (1) Jersild, Arthur T., Child Psycholggz;, Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Xork, 1950, p.p. 584-585. (2) Glueck, Sheldon and Eleanor T., One Thousand Juvenile Delinquents, Harvard university Press, Cambridge, 1934, p. 92. (3) Bell, larjorie, "The Trouble in these Broken Homes", Nervous Child, 3, 53-58, 1943. (4) rord, C. A., "Institutional Rearing as a Factor in Delinquency“ , Pro- ceedings Fourth Conference Child Research Clinic, 40-45, 1938. - 21 ‘%;E%%¥b from Table II (page 35) it can be seen that only 15% of the ac- cepted group had one or more members of the family involved in difficulty with the law while 56% of the non-accepted group were characterized by this factor. With a t ratio of 3.72, this difference proves to be statis- tically significant at beyond the 1% level of confidence. See Graphix following: Accepted XXXLXXXLAXXLXXX Non-accepted xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxix Accepted Prop. .15 Non-Accepted Prop. .56 The factor Family Trouble was selected for study because of the condi- tioning'within the home and the effect it has on the child's personal and social growth. Children who mature through the formative years in a home en- vironment which is criminal and anti-social probably are not influenced as strongly in the direction of socially accepted behavior as those living in more benign familial environments. Significant corroboration of these find- ings is found in related research literature, particularly in studies by Stury,(1)the Gluecks(2) and Kvaraceus,(3)which show that delinquent families have a delinquency pattern continuing from childhood through adulthood. Stury found 33% of the fathers, 9% of the mothers and 36% of the siblings had been convicted of crime in his study of delinquent youth in a German institution. The Gluecks reveal that in 918 families there was an official criminal record (1) (Secondary Source) Stury, Richard, ”Die ausseren.Entwicklungsbedingungen junger Rechtsbrecher', Kriminalistische Abhandlungen, Ho. 32, 1938. (Primary Source) Sullenger, T omas ar , Social Detirminants in Juvenile Delinquency, John Wiley a Sons, Inc., New Iork, 1936. '(2)__Glhhhh, Sheldon and Eleanor T., One Thousand Juvenile Delinquents, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,‘l§34, p5h79. (3) Kvaraceus, William 0., Juvenile Delinquency and the School, World Book Co., New York, 1945, p. 77. 22 for parents or siblings in 532, or 57.9% of the cases. Kvaraceus' report on New Jersey Juvenile Court Cases revealed that more than 50% of other family members were in trouble. It is probable that in such homes there will be insufficient parental guidance or when there is guidance it will be (1) in the wrong direction. Symonds points out the basic insecurity and re- sulting behavior of poor parental guidance when he states: Because of neglect or misdirection which conflicts with society, the delinquent is likely to become re- bellious, hostile, jealous, attention-getting, annoying or hyper—active. Another type of reaction to the feeling of insecurity is a complex feeling of humiliation, leading to isolation and timidity. Race The Race factor revealed that 45% of the accepted group were Negroes while only 8% of the nonraccepted group were Negroes. With a t ratio of 3.08, this difference is statistically significant at be- yond the l% level of confidence. Accepted xakXk1x1AXXixaAiAAAIIAXXIIXIXIXXIXIXXXXXXXAXX Prop. .45 Non-accepted xxxxixix Prop. .08 Most students of racial prejudice(2)fee1 that prejudices, whether racial, religious etc., are learned and that patterns become more varied as the indi- vidual grows older. Horowits's(3)study demonstrates very well the increasing prejudice from.kindergarten through the 8th grade. The expected results for this factor would be that Negroes would be proportionately high in the non- accepted group and relatively low in the accepted group. This data reflects (l) Symonds, Percival M., The Psychology_of Parent-Child Relationships, D. Appleton-Century Inc., New York, 1939. (2) Krech, David, and Crutchfield, Richard S., Theories and Problems of Social Psychology. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1948, p.p. «L's f.f. ‘ (37: Horowiti, E: L., "The Development of Attitudes Toward the Negro", ARCH. PSYCHOL., 28, N0. 194. . 23 just the reverse. The opposite results of what was expected in this factor of the study are based upon selectivity within the Negro group. In other words, there may have been a tendency for colored boys to choose members of their own race and not such a tendency for white boys to choose their own race and exclude Negroes. This is not to imply that the Negro subjects were evidencing prejudice against their white cottage-mates, but that perhaps in such a closed social situation as cottage life presents, there was more ethno- centric feeling on the part of the Negro group. This supposition is given weight by the following: in one cottage for one month the pattern of selec- tion was broken down and it developed that out of a total of fifty-five choices, the percent of colored boys chosen by the total group equalled 38%: the per- cent of the total cottage population who were colored was 12.6%. rour colored boys were chosen twentybone times, three colored boye made nine choices, these three colored boys chose colored boys eight out of nine choices which resulted in 89% of the colored boys choosing members of their own race. A study of other cottages showed like results although the percentages'were somewhat lower. in view of these findings, it is doubtful as to how much weight can be ascribed to acceptance in connection with the race factor in the training school situation. There were several other factors of the thirty-three selected which, upon preliminary examination, seemed to merit statistical investigation. In each factor the resulting t score was not significant at either the 5% or 1% level, but they did demonstrate varying tendencies between the two sub-groups of the study. Examination of the data covering family breakdown within the two groups, that is, Parents Deceased, Divorced or Separated, revealed that the accepted 24 group has less total breakdown. Statistically the accepted group had 10% less death of either parent; 12% less divorce: but 12.5% more separation. The separations which may end in divorce would tend to decrease the differ- ence between the two groups on these two factors. Although eventual divorce is supposed, it cannot be factually stated. Divorce and separation resulted in t scores of 1.0 and 1.19; therefore, neither of these two factors is signi- ficantly differentiating. Several studies(1)show larger proportions of broken homes by death, divorce and separation than is the case with this sample. 1 The factor of rathers Occupation was broken down into two categories, skilled and other, because of the preponderance of unskilled in both groups, and the fact that statistically it would have been impossible to treat the data in a more refined manner. The two groups proportioned on this basis resulted in the accepted group having a somewhat lower proportion of fathers ‘with skilled jobs, .79, as compared to .85 for the non-accepted. The resul- ting t score of .73 shows no significant difference between the groups. The Fathers Occupation factor for the two groups approximates the findings of Sullenger,(2)who in his study of 110 delinquents, found that 85.4% of the father's occupations were unskilled, and 14.6% were equally divided between semi-skilled and skilled. It would appear that both groups in this study are essentially products of the same economic backgrounds, and for all purposes they have had similar economic advantages or disadvantages. (1) Hodjkiss, Margaret, ”The influence of Broken Homes and Working mothers”, Smith college Studies in Social'Work, march, 1933. Wnd Social Changg, Parrar and Rinehart and Co., New Iork, 1932, p. f‘ 5. (2) Sullenger, T. D., Social Determinants fin Juvenile Delinquency.‘ Douglas Printing 00., Omaha, lebraska, 1930, p. 43. A 25 The mothers were compared for the two groups in terms of being employed, and not as to job classification. It was assumed that supervision, or lack of it from the mother was more important than the type of employment. This assumption seems to be supported by current psychological thought concerning the importance of parent-child relationships. According to the statistical procedures utilized, the t ratio of .20 is not significant. The small pro- portion of employed mothers is in large part due to the economic situation at the time the data were gathered. According to Wiers}1)the urban areas of Michigan were experiencing a peak employment situation with the result that mothers were not seeking employment to supplement the family income. Approximately one in five mothers was employed in the two groups; this pro- portion varies from the Glueck study(2)of 937 families, of which 389 mothers, or 51.5%, supplemented the family income. Their study, done in the depression year 1934, gives weight to the economic factor discussed above. Alcoholism.of rathers when compared resulted in a t ratio of only .09, denoting no significant difference between the accepted and non-accepted groups. Large proportions of both groups, .79 for accepted and .78 for non- accepted, who were not considered to be alcoholic as based on reports from ' social workers, psychologists, court and probation workers, are at variance with other studies examined.(3) Alcoholism.on the part of the mother revealed a t ratio of .16 which is not significant. (1) fliers, Paul, Economic Factors in Michigan Delinquency, Columbia Uni- versity Press, new York,"19@4. (2) Glueck, Sheldon and Eleanor T., One Thousand Juvenile Delinquents, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1934, p. 71. (3) Channing, Alice, "Alcoholism.Among Parents of Juvenile Delinquents“, Social Service Review, 1:3, Sept., 1927. 26 The factor Present Adjustment disclosed that 25% of the accepted group and 39% of the non-accepted group are in other penal institutions or boys Vocational School; this spread of 14% results in a t ratio of 1.18, which is not significant. it does, however, demonstrate some evidence that the accepted boys have a slightly better chance than the non-accepted. Although the t ratio for the factor Other Institutions is only .83 and therefore not significant, it is interesting to note that 30% of the accepted boys had been in other institutions, while only 10% of the non-ac- cepted had other institutionalised training prior to their committment, to Boys Vocational School. One explanation of this percentage trend is that the accepted group, upon arrival at Boys vecational School, had more knowb ledge of institutional jargon, routine, methods of gaining favor, etc., than the non-accepted and therefore found assimilation and acceptance easier. The factor of Father's Education showed a very slight statistical dif- ference between the two groups; the mean difference of 1.02 yielding a t ratio of 1.14, which is not significant at either the 5% or 1% level. It is inferred that father's Schooling has approximately chance relationship when considering acceptance. Legitimacy of Birth, Mother's Education, Number of Siblings, Sibling Position, Age, Height, Weight, Times at Boys Vocational School, I.Q., Grade Placement and Monthly Grades revealed differences that were so small it was obvious they would not be discriminative factors in acceptance within the two sub-groups of this study. 27 ounoLUSIOBS This sociometric study of two sub-groups, accepted and non-accepted boys at boys vocational School, resulted in the following conclusions: 1. Differences among delinquents are as large for some socio- psychological factors as those which supposedly differentiate the delin- quent from.the non-delinquent. Individual differences in intelligence, height, weight, age and economic factors have no greater range and less statistical importance than social-psychological factors such as group participation (Activities), Other ramily members in Trouble, Cottage Changes, etc.‘1) 2. Significant differences between the two groups are centered around social situations; Disciplinary Action or social aggression, Number of Runaways or social retreat, Activities or social participation, Problem, check List or social and personal insecurity, Residence or social interac- tion and roster Home or sociological displacement. All these factors proved to be significant when measured by the statistical procedures utilized in this study at either the 5% or 1% level. 3. Race and Family Trouble are also closely allied to the social sphere of the individual's life, and the accepted and nonpaccepted are singularly differentiated in these areas of human interaction. boys at Boys vocational School, especially the non-accepted, appear to lack these social traits which are vital to establishing close personal relationships. instead they can be observed to demonstrate, within this Institution at least, per- sonality traits of introspection, fearfulness and/pr various attention- (1) See Tables I and 11 28 seeking behavior patterns. They have not yet learned the lessons of social compliance; that they cannot indiscriminately evidence the impulsiveness and desires that they have without getting into difficulty with society {cottage parents and other boys) or creating conflicts within themselves. This social immaturity is more marked in members of the non-accepted sub- group than in the accepted in this study. They have not yet fully learned that such behavior will result in retribution in one way or another. The non-accepted boys' immaturity and fearfulness is evidenced by his higher incidence of running away, disciplinary action, detail changes, cottage changes, etc. The real tragedy for these boys is that although they may sense and value their needs, they too often fail altogether to comprehend why they do not measure up to their group's standards. 4. .The writer thinks, that on the basis of his work with these delinquent youths in recreation, counselling and home life, that delinquent youth are not, as a group, significantly different from.non-delinquent youth in desires and objectives; their aspirations are just as vital and demand fulfillment as strongly as any adolescent. They differ, however, in the social acceptibility of their method of satisfying their needs or gaining their objectives. flit is felt that in dealing with these two sub-groups it is of vital importance that concern and work be directed toward investi- gating the social forces within the boy's life which have produced his indi- vidual behavior pattern, and not with custodial control to prevent further legally defined delinquent acts. Delinquent youth, particularly the nonsac- cepted sub-group, have feelings of irresponsibility, resentment and cruelty; they are more emotionally unstable and with their sudden changes in emotions and conduct they are difficult to work with successfully. There is often 29 wide divergence between their ambition and achievements because of a lack of self-confidence and self-assurance. Any approach to correct these asocial trends must include a plan whereby the social strivings of the in- dividual will be satisfied in a way that is compatible with the social standards of the group in which he is living. 30 IMPLICATiONS The results of this study indicate it is possible to differentiate among delinquents on the variable of peer acceptance. This would seem.to be an important first step towards an adequate differential diagnosis in dealing with delinquents. Since eleven out of the thirty-three factors considered differentiate the two groups, those findings would seem.to have several implications both in terms of practical application and further research. Only one major socio-psychological characteristic was used to differ- entiate the two sub-groups in this study, namely, acceptance among peers 'within the institution. The factors which discriminate along this dimen- sion may or may not prove discrindnating along other dimensions of behavior such as agreesiveness, neuroticism, treatibility, etc., and these relation- ships need to be investigated in order to make an adequate differential diagnosis. The fact that five of the eleven factors which differentiated the two groups deal with pro-institutional experiences seems to hold some promise of allowing us to predict at the time of institutionalization an individual's peer acceptance within the institution. This may enable us to institute appropriate treatment on this basis, e. g., in initial cottage assignment, detail (vocational) assignment, for intensive individual counselling and personal guidance and for developing pregrwms and opportunities for these individuals to practice and learn the social skills involved in group living. This obviously needs to be investigated more thoroughly. 31 Post-institutional treatment which would increase the peer acceptance of the non-accepted group might prove to be of value for the ultimate social adjustment of these individuals. This would seem to be a logical extension of the institutionalization although quite probably it would necessitate a revision in the philosophy of many people who expect a relatively brief period of institutionalization to bring about marked changes in the behavior of individuals. If this type of treatment were possible the effectiveness of the diagnostic efforts of the institution would be greatly increased. 32 BIBLIOGRAPHY Bell, Marjorie, The Trouble in these Broken Homes. Eervous Child, 3, 53-58, 1943. Bonney, Merl E. Popular and UnpOpular Children, A Sociometric Study. Sociometry MonOgraphs. No. 9, Beacon House, 1947. Channing, Alice, Alcoholism Among Parents of Juvenile Delinquents. Social Service Reviews 123, Sept., 1927. Elmer, H. C. Family Adjustment and Social Change. rarrar and Rinehart, Inc., New York. ‘1932. Ford, C. A. Institutional Rearing as a Factor in Delinquency. Proceedings Fourth Conference Child Research Clinic, (1938). 40-45. Garrison, Karl C. Psychology of Adolescence. Prentice-Hall, Inc., New York, 1946. Glueck, Sheldon and Eleanor, Juvenile Delinquents Grown Up. The Common- wealth Fund, New York, 1930. , One Thousand Juvenile Delinquents. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1934. —_ . Guilford, J. P. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education, McGraw- Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, 1942. Hodgman, Charles D. Mathematical Tables, Chemical Rubber Publishing Co., Cleveland, Ohio, 1911. Hodkiss, Margaret. The Influence of Broken Homes and working Mothers. Smith College Studies in Social work, March, 1933. Horowitz, E. L. The Development of Attitudes Toward the Negro. ARCH. PSYCHOL., 28, No. 194. Jennings, Helen Hall. Leadership and Isolation, Longman's Green and Co., New York, 1943. "' Jersild, Arthur T. Child Psychology, Prentice-Hall, Inc., New York, 1947. Karpman, Ben, Crime and Adolescence. Mental Hygiene, 21, 1937. Katee, Solis L., and Harrington, Robert'flk, Authority Figure Prospective and Aggression in Delinquents. Journal of Genetic Psychology, (In Press) 33 Krech, David and Crutchfield, Richard S., Theogy and Problems of Social Psychology, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., Now York, 1948. Kvaraceus,‘William.C. Juvenile Delinquency and the School. World Book Co., New York, 1945. Landis, Paul H. Population Problems, American Book Co., New York, 1943. Moreno, J. L. and Jennings, Helen H. Sociometric Control Studies of Grouping and Regrouping. ‘Sociometry_monographs, No. 7. Redfield, Robert, The Folk Culture of Yucatan, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1946. m Shaw, Clifford R., and McKay, Henry D. Juvenile Delinquengy and urban Areas, The university of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1942. Stury, Richard. Die ausseren Entwicklungsbedingungen junger Rechtsbrecher. Kriminalistische Abhandlungen, No. 32, 1938 (secondary source) Sullenger, Thomas Earl. Social Determinants in Juvenile Delinquency, John Wiley a Sons, Inc., New York, 1936. Sutherland, Edwin H. Principles of Criminology, J. B. Lippincott Co., Chicago, 1947. '1 Symonds, Percival h. The Psychology of Parent-Child Relationships, D. Apple- ton-Century inc., hew'York; 1939. ’ fliers, Paul, Economic Factors in Michigan Delinquency, Columbia University Press, New”Y3rk,31944. T Scores Based Upon means 34 TABLE I Factor N M SIGMA N M SIGMA DIFF. t 5% 1275. Father's Education 17 8.6 3.11 43 7.58 2.71 1.02 1.14 - - Mother's Education 16 7.5 ---- 42 7.90 ---- 0.40 ---- - - No. of Siblings 20 4.9 ---- 51 4.86 ---- 0.04 ---- - - Sibling Position 20 2.8 ---- 51 2.94 ~--- 0.14 ---- - - Age 20 15.0 ~--- 51 14.30 ---- 0.70 ---- - - Height 20 64.45 4.02 51 63.41 3.57 1.04 .99 - - Weight 20 124.7 22.01 51 116.20 24.46 8.5 1.44 - - No. of Disciplinary Actions 20 2.9 2.96 51 5.5 4.35 2.60 2.85 - as No. of Runaways 20 1.1 1.71 51 2.7 4.71 1.6 2.08 ea - Activities 20 1.45 1.21 51 0.21 0.53 1.24 6.63 - as Months at 878 20 9.25 2.73 51 14.2 5.76 4.94 4.84 - as Times at 878 20 1.75 ---- 51 1.72 ---- 0.03 ---- - - Detail Changes 20 4.80 3.53 51 8.50 4.37 3.70 3.62 - as I. Q. 20 88.70 13.11 51 86.0 13.85 2.70 0.79 - - Grade Placement 20 5.93 --- 49 5.0 ---- 0.93 ---- - - Problem.Check List 16 24.60 20.47 44 43.4 39.02 18.80 2.46 a: - Monthly Grades 19 28.57 27.03 49 32.0 13.45 3.43 0.49 - - Cottage Changes 20 .55 .92 51 1.47 1.36 .92 3.28 - *s v-n ”- .9 35 TABLE II -- T Scores Based Upon Preportions u - mH.H as. ammo. so. an. an memo. ma. mm. ow peoapssne< anemone . . ma.” He. ooao. es. mm. on ammo. mm. ma. on .Hnsona masses . - so.» an. eamo. us. so. an «and. me. me. om some n - mm. 0H. ammo. cm. cm. as «mod. on. oa. om nasapspapan tempo . u am.» am. ammo. an. me. an ammo. no. em. ow sass cosmos - - oo. oo. ammo. on. cm. as demo. OH. om. om apnam co souaapamoa . a on. Ho. ammo. so. as. on mmeo. no. em. om oaaonooaa tosses . s so. no. name. «a. ma. on ammo. nu. ma. on .«Hoao0H4 tosses . u om. No. memo. we. mm. on ammo. cm. om. on soapsasooo ..a.apos - - ”a. so. mane. ma. as. we memo. am. ma. ma soapsaeooo ..n.g»sa . . mH.H ma. muse. «a. . mm. as memo. mm. as. cm ecosasaow . - o.H an. ammo. H». mm. as ammo. on. om. on assesses . - ow. so. memo. ma. em. as oaeo. en. es. om osan< assess . - om. so. aweo. ed. mm. He came. on. om. om opan< soapsa «noes mm. New», on _ ammo» mo. mm. our, .oeoeeuom topmooestfloz topmoeo< as as .3. .23 We a a z “a a a a mono: 36 TABLE III MEANS AND PROPORTIONS OF THE THIRTYrTHBEE FACTORS Classification Accepted Non-accepted Residence Urban. e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 95 e e e e e e e e e e 72 Others 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 05 e e e e e e e e e e 28 Father Aliva e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 90 e e e e e e e e e e 86 I Deceasede e e e e e e e e e e e e 10 e e e e e e e e e e 14 M0£her Alive 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e 90 o e e e e e e e e e 84 l Deceased. e e e e e e e e e e e e 10 e e e e e e e e e e 16 Divorced e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 20 e e e e e e e e e e 32 Marriede e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 80 e e e e e e e e e e 68 Separated. e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 25 e e e e e e e e e e 12 Tagether e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 75 e e e e e e e e e e 88 Father's Occupation UhSkillede e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 79 e e e e e e e e e e 85 Skillede e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 21 e e e e e e e e e e 15 mother's Occupation HouBOWifo. e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 80 e e e e e e e e e e 82 Employed e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 20 e e e e e e e e 0 e 18 Father AIOOhOIiO e e e e e e e e e e e e 21 e e e e e e e e e e 22 NODQAIOOhOIiOe e e e e e e e e e e e e 79 e e e e e e e e e e 78 nathflr ‘100h0110 e e e e e e e e e e e e 05 e e e e e e e e e e 06 NOH9Al°°h011°e e 95 e e e e e e e e e e 94 Father's Education . . . Total Grades e e e e e e e e e e e e e 146 e e e e e e e e e e 325 He e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 17 e e e e e e e e e e 43 Mean e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 8e6 e e e e e e e e e e7e58 Mother's Education Total Grades e e e e e e e e e e e e e 121 e e e e e e e e e e 335 N. O C O C O C O . O O O O O O O O O O 16 C C C O O O C O O O 42 Mean e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 7e5 e e e e e e e e e e 7e9 No. of Siblings TOtal NOe e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 99 e e e e e e e e e e 248 Ne e e e e e e 20 e e e e e e e e e e 51 Mean e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 4e95e e e e e e e e e e4e86 37 TABLE III (Cont.) Classification Accepted Activities TOtal NOe AOtiVitiOSe e e e e e e e e e 29 e Ne e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 20 e Mean e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 1e45 e Months at 878 TOtfll NCO Months e e e e e e e e e e o 185 e N. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 20 0 Mean. e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 9e25 e Times at 375 Total No. Times . 35 . NOOOOOOOOOOOOO 000.0. 20 O Keane e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e1e75 e Cottage Changes Total No. Changes . . . . . . . . . . . 11 . N e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 20 e Mean. e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e0e55 e Detail Changes TOtal NOe Changes e e e e e e e e e e e 96 e N O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O 20 0 Mean. 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 4e8 e Ier TOtal IeQe'Be e177‘ e N e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 20 e “Cane e e e e e88e7 e Grade Placement Tom]. N00 Gradese e e e e e e e e e e 118073 e N e e e e e e e e e 20 e Mean. e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 5.93 e Problem.Check List Tatal NOe PrOblemBe e e e e e e e e N C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 394 e 16 . ”Cane e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 24e6 e Present Adjustment On ParOIO e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 84 e Other In3t1tution3e e e e e e e e e e 16 e monthly Grades TOtal NOe Grades. e e e e e e e e e N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 543 . l9 . 28.57 . “Bane e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e Non-accepted . 11 . 51 . 0.21 . 724 . . 51 . .14.2 e 88 . 51 .1.72 66 51 . 1.3 434 51 . 8.5 .4388 . 51 .86.0 .249.60 . 5.0 . .1913 . . 44 .43.4 . 39 .1571 . 49 .32.0 Classification Sibling Position Total No. Positions. N. O O O O O O O O 0 Mean 0 e e e e e Family Trouble In Trouble e e e Not in Trouble . Legitimacy of Birth Legitimate e e e Illegitimate e e Boarding Home O In Boarding Home . . Not in Boarding Home TABLE Other Institution. e e e e e Not in Other Institutions. Age Total No. Years. NO 0 O O O O O 0 Mean e e e e e e Height Total No. Inches HO O 0 O O O O 0 Mean e e e e e e 'Weight Total No. Pounds Ne e e e e e e e Mean e e e e e e Race White. . . . . . Colored. e e e e BVB Disciplinary Action Total No. Disciplines. N. O O O 0‘. O O O C 0 Mean e e e e e e Number of Runaways Total No. Ne 9 e e e e e e Mean e e e e e e III 38 (Continued) Accepted 55 . 20 . 2.75 . 15 . 85 . 90 . 10 . 05 . 95 . 30 . 7O . 300 . 20 . 15 . 1289 . 20 .124.7 . 2494 . 20 .124.7 . 55 . 45 . 59 . 20 O 2.9 . 23 . 20 . 1.1 Non-acceptmgfi . 150 . 51 . 2.94 . 56 . 44 . 9O . 10 . 32 . 68 . 20 . 80 . 733 . 51 . 14.3 . 3234 . 61 .116.2 . 5931 . 51 .116.2 . 92 . 08 . 280 . 51 . 5.5 . 141 . 51 O 2.7 Cottage : Vermont Hall Date: 6/5/49 By: R. Harrington APPENDIX A ._ 9 IVAN e- 7 now 0312 6 H""""' ' 5013 CHARLIE 001: ED 5 GEORGE FRED HOWARD ISADOR 4 ‘w-wcu—n, - - JOE EN 100 mm". EDGAR 3 PETER QUIGLEY ROGER 2 1 AL BILLOFARL UlCK T0“ APPENDIX B WECHSLER—BELLEVUE INTELLIGENCE SCALE RECORD FOR ADOLESCENTS AND ADULTS FOR“ NAMIL Asa sous; DATE OF EXAMA NO occura NAT BIRTHDATE GOLOR_____ PLACE OI= EXAM. EXAM. BY PREVIOUS EXAM. TABLE OF WEIGHTED SCORESf SUMMARY ‘ 3 MW SCORE '3 TEST R.S. WI'.S. 3. .2- :E INFORMATION - g .5 2 — g + 5 "5 g .2 s r a}: “I: .3 3 '2 .. COMPREHENSION ..§ *3 g 2 ‘g‘ 5. -_§ 5 .3 .513 s 1, m g: DISIT SPAN 2"" ~32 5 I? i =2 3 E ‘ ‘3 "g 3 '3 '53 ARITHMETIC In — a 05 > E '5 O 0 IE ‘ SIMILARITIES II 25 20 I4 2324 «.42 20+ 33+ Is IT 24 I9 I? I3 2l-22 39.40 20 3s 25 I7 (VOCAWRYI H I6 23 I: II. I2 20 3133 I9 3531 25 66-67 l6 VERBAL scones Is 2|-22 l7 II I9 ”-36 I: IS 3334 24 62-65 Is I4 20 I6 I; me 3234 I6-l7 l4 30-32 23 57-6l I4 P- ARRANGEMENT 13 I849 I5 I4 l0 l6 29-3! l8 I3 28-29 22 53-56 I! p. COMPLETION I2 I1 I4 9 I: 21.20 l4 I2 2541 20-2l 49.52 I2 , BLOCK DESIGN II I5-l6 l2-l3 I3 ’ l3-I4 25-26 I2-I3 23-24 I9 45-43 II Io l3-I4 II I: 3 I2 22.24 II II 2oz: III 4I-44 Io OBJECT ASSEMBLY 9 I2 Io II 1 II 20-2I “Io IO III-I9 I1‘ 37-40 9 DIGIT SYMBOL I IO-ll 9 940 IN? 9 9 l6-l7 I6 3336 s ' 7 9 3 I0 6 e IS-Ib 1.3 3 I345 l4~l5 29.32 1 PERFORMANCE 500R? 6 7-8 7 9 6 7 I244 6 7 ll-l2 l3 24-28 6 TOTAL SCORE 5 6 5-6 6-6 IO-II 6 840 I2 20-23 5 ‘Prcrefion is necessary If four or fix Verbal tests 4 4.5 4 g 4 4 7.9 4 5 5.1 IO-II |5.|9 4 are given or four Performance feds. 3 2-3 3 7 3 3 5-6 2-3 5 3-6 9 l2-l5 3 VERBAL SC ALE L0- 2 I z 6 I4 34 I 4 l-2 3 MI 2 I ' o I 2 o I-2 o 3 o 7 4-1 I PERFORM SCALE ”9*— o o s I o 2 as 0.3 0 FULL SCALE LQ. TCIInIcIons who wIsh to draw a ” unreliability of these subtesf scores l—L. TEST ANALYSIS AND OBSERVATIONS Osmrlah! I”. '34: PSYCHOLOGICAL CORPORATION. :22 fifth Avenue. New York II. N. Y. pachcghmph" on the above table may do so by connecting the approprlofe raw scores: however. one must recognize the reIoflve en ey are thus treated. INFORMATION Score (PRESIDENT) COMPREH‘ENSION BEORE THERMOMETER RUBBER ENVELOPE LONDON PINTS THEATER WEEKS ITALY JAPAN BAD COMPANY HEIGHT Eooqomeswn— PLANE TAXES BRAZIL I2 PARIS l3 HEART SHOES l4 HAMLET I5 POPULATION l6 WASHINGTON LAND IN CITY l7 POLE I8 EGYPT FOREST I9 H. FINN 20 VATICAN 2| KORAN LAWS 22 FAUST 23 H. CORPUS MARRIAGE 24 ETHNOLOGY 25 APOCRYPHA DEAF 3. DIGITS FORWARD 5. 3. 2 6.9.4 6.4.3.9 7.2.8.6 4.2.7.3.I 7.5.8.3.6 GII.9.4.7.3 3.9.2.4.8.7 S. 9. I. 7.4. 2.8 4. l. 7. 9. 3. 8.6 5. B. I. 9. 2. 6.4.7 3.8.2.9.5.l.7.4 2.7.5.8.6.2.5.6.4 7.I.3.9.4.2.5.6.B DIGITS BACKWARD 6. 2. 9 SIMILARITIES Score 3* ~30! .4» ORANGE— BANANA N . 6 .8. .3 5 3.9.4.|.B 7.2.4.8.5.6 B.I.2.9.3.6.5 4. 7. 3. 9. I.2.B 9. 4. 3. 7. 6. 2. 5.8 7.2.B.I.9.6.5.3 9‘ 9 9‘ 3.9000 COAT — DRESS DOG — LION WAGON — BICYCLE PAPER — RADIO AIR — WATER WOOD — ALCOHOL ARITHMETIC T RorW SC. 30" 60" w" I ma") EYE — EAR EGG — SEED POEM — STATUE PRAISE— PUNISHMENT FLY — TREE 7 5A. VOCABULARY APPLE DONKEY JOIN DIAMOND NUISANCE FU R CUSHION SHILLING ~ GAMBLE BACON NAIL CEDAR TINT ARMORY FABLE BRIM GUILLOTI NE PLURAL SECLUDE NITROGLYCERINE STANZA MICROSCOPE VESPER BELFRY RECEDE AFRICT ION PEWTER BALLAST CATACOMB SPANGLE ESPIONAGE IMMI NENT MANTIS HARA-KI RI CHATTEL DILATORY AMANUENSIS PROSELYTE MOIETY ASEPTIC FLOUT TRADUCE I TVLOL ‘1?! 2/I 'LII l II I I I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII. |L|€|9|17|S|II9IZILI£I8|I7l6|SI9IVILI€I8|Z|6IIISIZ9_ I I I I I"I I I I I I III IwITI I I ITIWH'I I I£IL|9I8I9I6III8IZILI8|9IRISI9IZILISI£I9ILIZI9I9I IIIIJ IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII IE|9|9III£IzI9IEIzI9IIIzI£IIIzIIIS 9I8I9IzIII£IIIz {LII IIIIIIIIE D :3 E E! I] a. 1531 'IOEWAS lIOIG °0I 5, PICTURE ARRANGEMENT 7, PICTURE COMPLETION T ORDER SC. I NOSE 9 HAND I HOUSE II') . 2 MUSTACHE I0 WATER 2 HOLD UP (I1 'I 3 EAR II ARM—IMAGE 3 ELEVATOR II') . 4 DIAMOND I2 TIE 4 FLIRT (2') 5 LEG I3 BASE THREAD 5 TAXI (2') 6 TAIL I4 EYEBROW 0 FISH (2') 1 STACKS Is SHADOW S KNOB 3. BLOCKS 9, OBJECT ASSEMBLY CARD T Ac. SC.” CARD T AC. SC. OBJECTS T PLACE SCORE I I75") "5 II50") MAN I2'I 2 I75") “0 ( I50" I PROFILE (3') 3 I75") “7 II95“) HAND (3') 4 (15") FOR CALCULATING DETERIORATION (see Measurement of Adult Intelligence, ChapIor VI) "HOLD" TESTS Score "DON'T HOLD" TESTS Scorer INFORMATION DIGIT SPAN '% OF LOSS (Demimmp) VOCABULARY ARITI-IMEnc .. .. .. ' .. .. .. P.COMPLETION BLOCK DESIGN HOLD ——'— DONT HOLD é+ HOLD #1,“ OBJECT ASSEMBLY DIGIT SYMBOL CORRECTI 0' I % LOSS J SUM SUM APPENDIX C WECHSLER-BELLEVUE INTELLIGENCE SCALE RECORD II FOR ADOLESCENTS AND ADULTS . . FORM I _NAME_' AGE EDuc- DATE OF EXAM- No 'occun . NAT ' BIRTHDATL COLOR—— PLACE OF EXAM. EXAM. BY PREVIOUS EXAM. I TABLE OF WEIGHTED SCORES} SUMMARY . . RAW scone 3 _ TEST R.s. wr.s. c .3 f§~ INFORMATION 0 * __ 5 '§ a 5 .. r E g a g ‘E E COMPREHENSION a: -= “’ 1: :3 g 2 o 0:3: '5 g g § § :3 .5 3 .3. g? .3? g 4g 2 7.5 DIGIT SPAN "’ : 3 2‘3" 3 5 5 E ‘3 -.-§ ‘8 2%” 3r ARITHMETIC - I . SIMILARITIES I1 ‘ I9-20 I7 2523 24 42.45 23.30 43.44 9093 I1 l6 29.30 I3 I6 24.25 22.23 40-4l 2l-22 40.42 21 3549 I6 VOCABULARY I5 21.23 I1 22.23 20-2l 33.39 l9-20 I5 3139 25 3034 I5 VERBAL SCORE I4 2525 I6 I5 2I 19 35.31 I3 3435 25 15.19 I4 4 I3 24 IS I4 I9-20 I143 3335 I541 I4 3l-33 23.24 10.14 I3 P’ ARRANGEMENT I2 2223 I4 I3 I545 3I-32 I5 I3 2330 2l-22 55-59 I2 I’- COMPLETION II 20-2l I3 I3 I541 I4 29.30 I344 ll-I2 2521 I940 5054 II BLOCK DESIGN ' I0 I9 l2 I2 I5 I243 21.23 II42 I0 2224 I3 55.59 I0 (OBJECT ASSEMBLY) 9 I143 I04I II l3-l4 II 24.25 I0 9 I9-2l I541 49.54 9 3 I545 9 II42 940 22.23 3.9 3 I543 “45.44.43 3 DIGIT SYMBOL 1 I344 3 I0 I0 1.3 mm 1 1 I345 I243 39.43 1 PERFORMANCE SCORE 5 I2 1 9 3.9 5 I149 5 5 I042 I04I 34.33 5 WTS'I' '0 5 I04I 5.5 1 5 I545 45 5 1.9 3.9 29-33 5 ' 4 3.9 4 3 5.5 4 I344 3 4 5-5 5.1 24.23 4 VERBA': SCALE 3 5.1 3 1 4 2 3 I042 2 3.4 4.5 l9-23 3 PERFORM. SCALE 2 I 5 2 6 2-3 I 8-9 3 l-2 3 l4-I8 2‘ , FULL SCALE I 3.4 I 04 5.1 0 2 0 2 943 I o 0-2 0 0-5 0.5 04 o 0.3 o ‘PRORATED. IF NECESSARY (See Manuel) I’CIInIcions who wish to draw a "psychoaroph" on the above table may do so b connectln the o o rIote row scores: however. one I‘l'l st ec nIze th I t! mellohltlty at these sobtest scores when they ore,thos treated. ' 9 "f p 0 f 09 0 rec ve EST ANALYSIS AND OBSERVATIONS / Copyright I947. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CORPORATION. 522 Fifth Avenue. New York II. N. Y. __ 47-I79 AS | INFORMATION 2, COMPREHENSION 5.... A EARS B FINGER I BOOK (WATCH) E STORE — SUGAR 2 HOUSE _ BRICK PEN I WATER—BOIL ' _DOZEN 3 TRAIN —YEAR 5 0.0.0. 5 COLOR— RUBIES ‘ CHAN" — “GEAR 7 FOURTH—JULY 3 I 9 U ——TON 5 FRIEND I0 ROMEO—JULIET II _ I2 STOMACH 5 CRIMINALS I AM I _MAN I4 _ I: OIL—FLOAT 1 CIVIL SERVICE I1 NE '8 3 CITIZEN I9 2I 9 COTTON — CLOTH I0 PROMISE 3. DIGITS FORWARD DIGITS BACKWARD 5. SIMILARITIES Score (3) 3. 3. 5 I2) 2. 5 I PLUM—PEACH 5. I. 2 5. 3 _.. I4) 3. 4. I. 1 I3) 5. 1. 4 2 BEER—WINE 5. I. 5. 3 2. 5. 9 __ I5) 3. 4. 2. 3. 9 I4) 7. 2. 9. 5 3 CAT— MOUSE 5.2.I.3.5 3.4.I.3 (6) 3. 8. 9. I. 7. 4 I5) 4. I. 5, 2, 1 4 PIANO — VIOLIN 1.9. 5.4. 3.3 9. 1. 3. 5.2 _ (1) 5. I. 1. 4. 2. 3. 3 I5) I. 5. 5. 2. 9. 3 5 PAPER — C0“- 9.3.5.2. I.. 5. 3 3. 5.1. I. 9. 4 (3) I. 5. 4. 5. 9. 1. 5. 3 I1) 3. 5. 9. 2. 3. 4. 2 " POUND "' YARD 2.9.1.5.3. I.5.4 4.5.1.9.2.3.I (9) 5.3. 3. 1. I. 2. 4. 5. 9 I8) 5. 9. I. 5. 3. 2. 5. 3 7 SC'SSORS "‘ COPPER “N 4.2. 5. 9. I. 1. 3. 3.5 3. I. 1. 9. 5.4. 3.2 #T- I 3 MOUNTAIN —- LAKE ‘ 9 FIRST — LAST 4, ARITH-METIC T RorW SC. T RorW SC. '0 5A” — WATER I “5") 5 I60") 2 US") 1 I60") II LIBERTY — JUSTICE 3 (l5") 8 (I20"I 4 I30") 9 I|20"I I2 49 — |2I 5 (30") I0 II20") V I -_~ A" I e- / L: l .72 5A. OONOUl-OWN BICYCLE KNIFE HAT APPLE DONKEY BOX BAD UMBRELLA BRAVE NUISANCE DIAMOND LETTER JOIN FUR CUSHION NAIL GAMBLE SPADE SHILLING FABLE SWORD NONSENSE HERO NITROGLYCERINE MICROSCOPE ESPIONAGE STANZA ‘ SECLUDE SPANGLE BELFRY RECEDE AFFLICTION BALLAST CATACOMB IMMINENT MAan HARA4