M]lillfllfllflflmllflW"MIMI!
Michigan 5m
Univcmty

 

Mg
UN
3

:21? O

9W

71999

ovmuz nuns ARE 25¢ PER DAY _
PER 1m

Return to book drop to remOve
this checkout from your record.

 

 

AGGRESSION AND ANXIETY AS ASSESSED

IN INCARCERATED OFFENDERS

by

LARRY KENNARD LEWIS

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1979

ABSTRACT

AGGRESSION AND ANXIETY AS ASSESSED
IN INCARCERATED OFFENDERS

BY

LARRY KENNARD LEWIS

The present study focused upon two groups of violent offenders whom
society fears the most-~murderers and rapists.

~Thirty residents of the State Prison of Southern Michigan were di-
vided into three categories--Murderers, Rapists and Non-Person Offen-
ders. Each resident was administered a battery of tests consisting of
the Hand Test, Buss-Durkee Inventory, and the MMPI. The assessment de-
vices attempted to ascertain each subjects level of aggression, degree
of anxiety and possible extent of hostility towards women. The findings
failed to support the hypotheses that: a) murderers and rapists would
manifest more hostility than non-person offenders, b) rapists would ex-
press more hostility toward women, and c) murderers and rapists would
exhibit more anxiety than non-person offenders.

One unexpected finding of the study revealed a tendency for normals
to be significantly more verbally expressive of negative affect (hos-
tility and irritability) than incarcerated individuals. The situational
effects of imprisonment may have been important factors in producing

these findings.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

...if you can trust yourself when all mem doubt
you but make allowances for their doubting too...

This thesis is dedicated first and foremost to my Lord and Saviour
whose presence in my life made this undertaking possible. The thesis
also is dedicated to my father and mother, Lawrence and Heneree, and my
little brother, Ronald. Truly it was the support of my family and friends
which inspired me to continue when, at times, it would have appeared
that success was not within my reach.

Hearty thanks are extended to Drs. Albert Rabin (my chairperson)
and Fred Pesetsky - these two men gave extensively and unselfishly of
their time and talent as they supervised this research study. Special
acknowledgment must be extended to Dr. Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi who gra-
ciously substituted for another committee member who had left on sab-
batical.

I wish also to thank my typists Audrey Hill and Sharon Baisden whose
tireless fingers churned out proposals and rough drafts, and whose prod-
dings kept the Experimentor task-oriented. Finally, I just have to
"tip my hat" to the staff of the prison's Psychiatric Services Unit all
of whom offered words of encouragement and sound advice.

The author appreciates the Department of Corrections, Warden Charles
Anderson and his staff, the Residents of the prison, and Lou Marshall

for the parts they played in the completion of this thesis.

ii

TABLE OF

LIST OF TABLES .
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION .
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Aggression .
Murder .
Rape .
Summary
11. HYPOTHESIS .
III. METHODOLOGY
Subjects .
Procedure
Materials . . .
Treatment of the Data
IV. RESULTS
V. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Hypothesis I
Hypothesis II .
Hypothesis III

Additional Findings

Limitations of the Study .

VI. SUMMARY

BIBLIOGRAPHY .

APPENDIX .

CONTENTS

Page

iv

17
17
19
20
23
24
29
29
31
32

33
38

40
42

4S

TABLE

II.

III.

IV.

VI.

VII.

VIII.

IX.

XI.

XII.

XIII.

XIV.

XV.

LIST OF TABLES

Descriptive Data for each Inmate Group . . . . . . . . .
ANOVA--Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ANOVA--Time Served . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ANOVA--Acting Out Ratio . . .

ANOVA--Tota1 Aggression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ANOVA--Total Aggression Minus Experimental Scale . . .

ANOVA--Aggression Toward Women . . . . . . . .

ANOV --Maladjustment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ANOVA-Pathology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ANOVA--Anxiety Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ANOVA--Internalization Ratio .

I_Va1ues for Group Comparison of Irrirability Scores . .

T_Values for Group Comparison of Verbal Hostility Scores .

X2 Value for MMPI Scores About 70 .

Medians for Hand Test Scoring Variables for Inmate
Groups and Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio Police Department

iv

PAGE

18

. 19

. 19

. 24

25

. 25

. 26

26

27

. 28

. 28

33

. 34

. 36

. 37

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The Federal Bureau of Investigation crime "clocks" for 1976
(Uniform Crime Reports, 1976) indicated that every three seconds there
was one crime index offense being committed. There was one violent
crime being committed every 32 seconds with one murder every 28 minutes,
one forcible rape every nine minutes, one robbery every 75 seconds and
one aggravated assault every 64 seconds. When viewing property crimes,
there was a burglary occurring every 10 seconds, one larceny-theft
every five seconds and one motor vehicle theft every 33 seconds, all
which resulted in a property crime taking place every three seconds.
Turning from time clocks to numerical tallies, the FBI (Uniform Crime
Reports, 1976) recorded for the year 1976, an estimated 18,780 murders
(including non~neg1igent manslaughter); 56,730 rapes; 490,850 aggra-
vated assaults; 420,210 robberies; 3,089,800 burglaries; 6,270,800
larceny-thefts; and 957,600 motor vehicle thefts.

In the state of Michigan alone there were in 1976, 6,596 individ-
uals remanded to facilities operated by the state's Department of Cor-
rections (Dimensions, 1976). It is obvious from these statistics
that crime remains a major problem plaguing American society, and as
such, must command the attention of the nation's social scientists.

Pesetsky and Rabin (1978) emphasized the necessity of sound,
accurate, diagnostic procedures in the psychological assessment of

1

2

those persons entering the criminal justice system as clients. Such
planning, these authors felt, would allow for better placement of
people within the system and further it would aid in the development
of programs that could best meet the recipient's needs. From personal
observation, this writer has noted the increased attention being paid
to the violent offender. This observation is especially salient when
the issue of parole eligibility is raised; where there is public fear
of a repetition of the violent offender's aggressive activities. Per-
haps with increased understanding of the dynamics of aggression in
relation to criminality, social scientists can assist the criminal
justice system in its handling of the violent offender. The present
study is one attempt to garner additional insight into the role of
aggression as displayed by two groups of criminal offenders — murders

and rapists.

Review of the Literature

 

There have been numerous articles and books written on the topic
of aggression (Singer, 1971; Banduar 8 Walter, 1959; Buss, 1971;
Megargee 8 Nebzues, 1971) - too many to cite. In this section what
has been attempted is the development of a basic conceptual scheme
reflective of this author's use of the term aggression.

Buss (1971) delineated three types of agressive behavior which
he labeled: physical-verbal, active—passive, and direct-indirect.
These three categories then yielded via their interaction, eight cat-

egories presented below (Buss, 1971, p. 8).

Varieties of Human Agression

 

 

 

 

Active Passive
Direct Indirect Direct Indirect
Physical Punching Practical Obstructing Refusing
the vic- joke sit-in to per-
tim booby trap form a neces-
sary task
Verbal Insulting Malicious Refusing to Refusing
the vic- gossip speak consent,
tim vocal or
written

 

All eight types of aggression share one common feature and that is:
"one individual delivers noxious stimuli to another." While this
statement may appear to be an adequate definition of aggression, it
fails to address the issue of intent. That is, one may deliver noxious
stimuli by chance (e.g. accidents) or one may try to deliver a noxious
stimulus and fail (e.g. swing at someone and miss). Now, in the first
instance aggression really hasn't occurred although noxious conse-
quences have - while in the second situation, no noxious stimuli were
experienced, although a definite aggressive action was taken. Con-
sequently, Buss (1971) states, "aggression may be defined in terms of
the attempt to deliver noxious stimuli, regardless of whether it is
successful (p. 10)."

Tow classes of aggression are distinguished by Buss (1961) - angry
and instrumental. Angry aggression may be viewed as the response to
anger-arousing stimuli (insults, physical attack, etc.) which has as

its goal the injury of the victim. Instrumental aggression has as its

4

goal the acquisition of some reinforcer (money, status, etc.) and is
precipitated by competition or the desire to have that which is pos-
sessed by another. With angry aggression, anger is the predominant
emotion giving rise to the response while with instrumental aggression
emotion is not a major factor which initiates action, only a desire to
obtain a reinforcer.

Megargee and Menzies (1971) emphasize that despite the diversity
among theories of aggression, there is a general concensus that three
major variables contribute to the strength of an aggressive response.

First, one must consider instigation to aggression which is the motiva-

 

tion for aggression that is present. Second, taboos or inhibitions

 

against aggression have to be taken into consideration for they can
serve as blockages to the overt expression of aggression. Finally,

it is necessary to take into account, situational factors which promote

 

or discourage aggressive behaviors.
In summarizing their theorizing about the strength of aggressive
responses, Megargee and Menzies (1971) deve10ped a series of equations,

the first being as follows:

PJ-T-l:(AT-I + Sa) ‘ (lJ-T-l + Si)

where P = response strength, J = aggressive act, T-l = a particular
target, AT—l = instigation to aggress against target T-l, S3 = situa-

tional factors facilitating aggressive behaviors, 1 = sum of in-

J-T-l
hibitions or taboos against aggression, and S1 = situational factors
inhibiting overt aggression. Consequently, the strength of an aggres-

sive action directed against a particular target, equals the sum of the

motivation for aggression coupled with facilitating situational factors,

5
minus the sum of inhibitors of aggression coupled with situational
factors discouraging aggression. It follows then that for an aggres-

sive act to occur, the fellowing must occur:

PJ'T-l > O

and that,

AT-l * 83 > 1J-T-1 I Si

where the sum of factors encouraging aggression must outweigh the
sum of factors negating aggression. Finally, for an aggressive act
to occur against a particular target, it must successfully compete
against alternative response modalities. This is represented by the

equation:

J°T-2,3...N

or

J°T-l > K,L...N°T-l
or

PK,L...N°T-2,3...N

where P = same aggression but directed at another object,
J°T-2,3...N
PK,L...N-T—l = alternate responses to original target, and
PK,L...N°T-2,3...N = all other p0551b1e responses directed at all
other possible targets.
Contemplating the analysis of Megargee and Menzies, it is appar-
ent that many variables must be surveyed if one wishes to understand

the aggressive potential of any individual.

6
It is not always necessary to view aggression as something which

is negative fbr often its expression can be of positive benefit for the
individual. Bach and Goldberg (1974) were very concerned about the
unwillingness of society and its inhabitants to recognize the need
for healthy expressions of aggression.

Agression and its various expressions are a source

of great fear. To most people aggressiveness is

synonymous with unprovoked, senseless, and hurtful

hostility. This horrific definition of the term,

which we believe is a distortion of a potentially

constructive process, has embedded itself rather

firmly in the consciousness of most people...Ag-

gressive energy, as we see it, can add a vital

dimension to the process of living. That is, it

can, when expressed constructively, intensify the

depth and authenticity of personal and interperson-

a1 relationships and experiences (pp. 83-84).
According to Bach and Goldberg, when aggressive interactions are
blocked in relationships, this repression results in dishonest, dis-
torted encounters between the parties involved. Eventually these
repressed aggressive feelings emerge in less direct but oftentimes
pathological forms as seen in some instances of: a) passive-
aggressive behaviors; b) depression; c) obsessions; d) compulsions;
e) anxiety; f) neurasthenia; g) paranoia; h) sexual dysfunctions;
i) suicide; and j) psyhcosis. The authors (Bach and Goldberg) high-
lighted the fact that many mass murderers were often described in very
favorable, positive terms. These "nice killers" epitomize that which

can occur in some individuals when their dams break and the repressed

flood of aggressive feelings pours forth.

Murder

Perkins (1946) provides a solid foundation for the legal under-
standing of homicide and one of its subgroups - murders. In his
article, Perkins cites numerous law references and the reader is re-
ferred to this work for a more in—depth understanding of the topic of
homicide.

"Homicide is the killing of a human being by another human being."
Criminal law recognizes two basic classes homicide: l) innocent hom-
icide, and 2) criminal homicide.

Essentially, innocent homicide is a homicide that does not involve
criminal guilt. Innocent homicide itself is divided into two categor-
ies: 1) justifiable and 2) excusable. Justifiable homicide involves
killing that is authorized or commanded by the state, such as in exe-
cutions or killings that are an act of war and that are within the
rules of war. A homicide is excusable if it is neither commanded nor
authorized by the state and does not entail criminal guilt. Examples
of excusable homicide are certain killings done in self-defense, or
killings resulting from unfortunate accidents not involving criminal
negligence or unlawful activity.

Criminal homicide includes those homicides which are not lawfully
justifiable or excusable. Generally, criminal homicide has two cate-
gories: l) murder and 2) manslaughter.

"Murder is homicide committed with malice aforethought (Perkins,
1946, p. 397)." In describing the term malice aforethought, Perkins
chose the following explanation: "Malice aforethought is an unjusti-

fiable, inexcusable and unmitigated man-endanger-state—of—mind (p.409)."

8

In other words, a killing is considered murder if it is not excusable
or justifiable and results from actions where intent was to kill, of
where actions were done in complete disregard of the danger to human
life. Manslaughter is a catch-all category covering those homicides
which are neither murder nor innocent homicide. In most instances,
manslaughter is of two kinds, voluntary and involuntary. A

In his study of homicide, Tanay (1969), on the basis of evidence
gathered from clinical cases, attempted a characterization of the
homicidal perpetrator. The author noted that, in his population,
there was better than a 7 to 1 male to female ratio and that the
majority of offenders were between the ages of 20 and 40. Severe
corporal punishment was present in the up-bringing of 67 percent of
the cases. Interestingly enough, 84 percent of the sample had no
prior record of arrest and/or conviction. Only 11 percent of the
cases had any history of psyhciatric contact and only 15 percent of
offenders were ranked as members of the higher occupational status.

In surveying the homicidal situation, Tanay (1969) discovered
that a characteristic feature prior to the act was an altered state
of consciousness in the perpetrator - a state for which he used the
term "dissociative reaction." Generally, at the time of the clinical
interview, the vast majority of the individuals evidenced no signs of
gross phychopathology and were viewed as functioning on a "well—
integrated level." However, 70 percent of the sample described ex-
periences of a dissociated nature occurring around the time of the
crime, such as memory impairment and perceptual disturbance. In
classifying the superegoes of the offenders, 68 percent of the popula-

tion had superegoes which were categorized as "severe."

9

Tanay (1969) on the basis of his observations found that he could
separate his sample into three groups: 1) dissociative homicide, 2)
psychotic homicide, and 3) ego-syntonic homicide. The author also
noted the deleterious effect middle-class prohibitions against the
expression of aggression coupled with violent child-rearing practices
has upon the superego. Here the superego becomes "a cruel and punitive
master, intolerant of any overt expressions of aggression (p. 1257)."

Reinfbrcing the idea that repressed aggression contributes to hom-
icidal behaviors, is the work of MacDonald (1963) who observed that dif-
ficulty in the expression of hostility was a prominent feature in his
population of patients who were hospitalized as a result of their hom-
icidal threats. MacDonald also noted that from his clinical experience,
"a history of great parental brutality, extreme maternal seduction, or
the triad of childhood firesetting, cruelty to animals and enuresis are

unfavorable prognostic factors in those who threaten homicide (p. 130)."

Rape

Testimony: I am 73 years old and I was raped
when I was 67. A young fellow followed me into
the elevator of my apartment building. He was
wearing a green uniform. He asked me if I know
the apartment number of a certain tenant but I
told him that name was unfamiliar to me. I said,
"Oh, are you the man from United Parcels? I'm
expecting a package that hasn't arrived." He
asked me my name and apartment number and told me
he'd go down and check in the truck. A few min-
utes later my doorbell rang. I looked through
the peephole and there was the young man with a
package. Of course I opened the door right away.
He shoved me against the wall and started hitting
my head...I told him I didn't have any money
hidden, just what was in my pocketbook. He didn't
seem to believe me. He told me to get on the bed.
He pulled off my underthings and then he tore
into me (Brownmiller, 1975, p. 347).

10

The result of numerous research and/or clinical experiences has
been the emergence of various typologies of rapists (Guttmacher and
Weihofen, 1952; Gebhard, et.a1., 1965; Howell, 1972; and Cohen, et.a1.,
1971). Howell (1972) delineated two categories of rapists. In the
first group the author placed those men suffering from problems with
impotence. These men develop feelings of inferiority and sexual in-
adequacy which they perceive as being attributable to female domination.
They combat this feeling of domination by subjugating the feared female
perpetrator with an act of forceful degradation in which the female now
becomes the weakened, frightened character. Rape, with the second group,
was described as a generalized assault wherein the victim could be any-
one and was representative of the original object of the attacker's
anger. The attacker was depicted as an antisocially oriented man whose
feelings of rejection prompted him to vent his wrath and exaggerated
humiliation against the first available female. Howell failed to indi-
cate why such an individual chose rape as opposed to other forms of
assault.

Cohen et.al. (1971) observed that the act of rape contained both
sexual and aggressive features. Depending on the dynamics involved,
either the sexual or aggressive aims were the predominant motivating
factors. In some instances the sexual aim is in service to a dominant
aggressive aim; in other instances, the aggressive aim is secondary to
a more important sexual aim; and in some instances there is a mixture
of the two aims giving rise to what the author termed "sexual sadism."
Following is a brief summary of Cohen, et.al.'s clinical descriptions

of three categories of rapists.

11

Rape-Aggressive Aim

 

This sub-type of rapist utilizes the sexual attack to humiliate
and defile his victim. There is clearly a savage intent that can be
seen in the brutality present and in the various forms of sexually mut-
ilating behaviors (tearing, biting, etc. of the genitals or breast,
violent insertion of objects in the anus, and so forth). The emotional
state of the attacker is anger and the women are objects of displacement

fer his rage. Always the females are total strangers.

Rape-Sexual Aim

 

In this category, sexual desires/wishes are the prime motivators
and excessive aggression is lacking. Most attacks of this type take
place in isolated, out of doors areas. If the victim should resists too
vigorously, this rapist will more than likely flee, but if she should
submit passively from fear, then the rape will occur without any addi-
tional force. The victim here is always a stranger, however, it is one
that has been identified and stalked. As opposed to an impulsive act,
the rape is a scene that has been lived and rehearsed numerous times in

the offender's fantasy life.

Rape-Sex-Aggression Diffusion

 

There is in this third pattern of rape the necessity of aggression
as a stimulus for sexual arousal. Usually, the resistance of the victim
is encoruaged to bring about sexual excitation that otherwise would be
lacking. Aggression generally is absent after completion of the sexual
act and the affect of anger does not manifest itself in this form of
rape. The sadistic aspects of this rapist's psyche is projected onto

the victim and her struggles are consequently viewed as indications of

12
her own sexual arousal. Men in this category are similar in many ways
to the psyhcopathic personality.

One interesting study compared the sex offenses of Black versus
White offenders (Kirk, 1975). The author discovered that Black offen-
ders tended to: a) select proportionally more adult victims; b) engage
most often in vaginal intercourse; and c) aggress against a female vic-
tim. On the other hand, whites tended to: a) select younger victims;
b) participate in less "conventional" sexual acts; and c) were involved
in a higher proportion of homosexual offenses. It is worth noting that
the statistical differences between Black and Whites disappeared when

social class, as a variable, was controlled.

Assessment of Aggression in Murderers and Rapists

 

McKie (1971) utilized the TAT (Thematic Apperception Test) in com-
paring the fantasy levels of anger, fear, overt aggression, and modes
of coping in murderers versus non-violent offenders. Some of the au-
thor's major findings were: a) the fantasy theme of murderers contained
less anger than non-murderers; b) the fantasy themes of murderers con-
tained less fear than non-murderers; and c) the fantasy themes of non-
murderers contained more overt aggression behaviors. Surprisingly
enough, McKie's results showed that non-murderers in their fantasy
themes showed more signs of hostility and aggression and that they were
more at east in the handling of their fantasies; on the other hand,
murderers tended to demonstrate the presence of a repressive mechanism
where aggressive thoughts, fears, and hostilities were inhibited.

Beit-Hallahmi (1970) divided his prison sample into three groups:

I) inmates with a history of violent crimes and a record of institutional

l3
midconduct, 2) inmates With a history of violent crimes but no record
of institutional misconduct and 3) inmates with no history of violent
crimes or institutional misconduct. The author was interested in com-
paring the levels of aggressive and sexual fantasies within his sample.
The only significant finding in this study was that the frequency of
aggressive fantasies was positively correlated with the frequency of
sexual fantasies. Outside of this finding, no other comparative anal-
ysis reached statistical significance.

An investigation of rapists utilizing the Rorschach was done by
Freeman (1975). A group of incarcerated rapists was compared with a
control group of "normals" from normative Rorschach data. The data re-
vealed that the rapists when compared to the normals manifested more
hostility, deprivation of contact and impulsivity. Rapists in compar-
ison with the inmate population differed only on indices of deprivation
and impulsivity with rapists scoring higher on both.

Stone (1956) introduced his TAT Aggressive Content Scale which he
hoped would objectively score hostile-aggressive responses on the TAT.
In his study he utilized three groups of Army prisoners. The first group
was considered low assaultive and was comprised of men confined for
charges of AWOL or desertion under combat conditions with no previous
offenses in their history. Group 2 consisted of men who also had de-
serted or gone AWOL in combat but who additionally had a prior record
of at least two previous "non-aggressive" offenses. This second group
was characterized as medium aggressive. The third group was labeled
as most aggressive and contained men who Were remanded to prison for
murder or assault with intent to murder. Analysis of the experimental

data revealed, as hypothesized, that group 3 (assaultive) men exhibited

14
the greatest amount of aggressive content in comparison to groups 1 and

2 (non-assaultives).

Summary

Murder and rape are both crimes whose enactment reflects the de-
structive release of aggressive energies which are generated by numerous
motivational factors. Yet, all persons have aggressive feelings but all
persons are not motivated to criminally injure others in their expres-
sion of such feelings. Consequently, a better understanding of aggres-
sion and its relation to criminality is needed if society ever hopes
to reduce the alarming number of persons entering into its penal system
and reduce the recidivism rate of those who are released from said
system. The present research project is an effort to investigate the
level of aggression in incarcerated criminal offenders while also at-
tempting to identify factors which may determine the degree of aggres-

sion expressed and its focus of that expression.

CHAPTER II

HYPOTHESES

The present research project was designed to investigate three

major hypotheses.

1. Level of Aggression

 

H1: (a) Rapists and murderers score higher on
measures of aggression in comparison with those
individuals remanded for non-person crimes.

(b) There is no significant difference in
the scores of rapists and murderers on the afore-
said measures.

Rape and murder are crimes of violence which share a common object
of attack-~another human being. Given the strong social sanctions
against illegal violence directed toward another person, it is postul—
ated that stronger motivations are needed to overcome this inhibition
than is needed to overcome inhibitions which do not involve direct ag-
gression against another. Consequently, rapists and murderers share a
need for person-directed aggression that surpasses that of non-person

crime.

2. Aggression Towards Women

 

H2: Rapists more so than other criminal groups
demonstrate a greater amount of hostility toward

15

16
women on measures designed to assess ag-
gressive attitudes relative to women.

Rather than assume that the objects and modes of aggression are
random choices, the position is adopted that aggressive behavior is
motivated, formed and directed by the needs of the perpetrator. There-
fore, rapists (of women) should display a greater degree of hostility
toward members of the female gender since it was these persons which

were chosen as the objects of their attack.

3. Managment of Anxiety

 

H3: Rapists and murderers manifest more anxiety
than individuals incarcerated for non-person crimes.
If murder and rape are crimes which reflect a great release of hos-
tility, then that pent-up aggression should generate more anxiety than

crimes whose sanctions allow for easier and consequently more frequent

releases of tension.

SUBJECTS

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Subjects (S) were residents (inmates) of the State Prison of

Southern Michigan selected on the basis of three criterion. First,

residents were considered only if they were incarcerated for current

offenses of murder, rape or victimless crimes. 0n the basis of their

offenses, residents were then placed into one of three groups:

1.

Murderers (M) - Residents in this group had been
convicted of either Murder First Degree, Murder
Second Degree or Manslaughter (cases of Negligent
homicide were not included).

Rapists (R) - Residents comprising this group were
sentenced for crimes of Rape, Criminal Sexual Conduct
First Degree, Criminal Sexual Conduct Second Degree,
or Criminal Sexual Conduct Third Degree (See Appendix
for more detailed description of "Criminal Sexual
Conduct"). Only residents with females as victims
were utilized.

Non-Person Offenders (NPO) — Included in this group
were residents whose crimes did not involve direct
physical aggression (or the threat thereof) against
another human being such as Breaking and Entering,

17

18
Larceny, Unlawful Possession and Violation of
Drug Laws.

After it was determined that a resident could fit into one of the
designated groups, a search of his institutional testing file was con-
ducted to determine if he possessed a scored MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory) Profile. Those individuals whose profiles ap-
peared to be valid (subjective determination on the part of the Exper-
imenter) were then sent a letter (See Appendix) requesting their par-
ticipation in the research project while offering them one dollar for
their efforts. Persons responding favorably to the inquiry were then
subsequently tested and consequently were included in the study.

There was a total of 30 subjects in the study with 10 subjects in
each of the three categories of offenders. Tables I, II, and III pro-
vide demographic data-~Age and Time Served--for the three groups. There
were no significant differences between categories in respect to the

aforementioned measures.

TABLE I

DESCRIPTIVE DATA FOR EACH
INMATE GROUP

 

 

Age Time Served
Groups N
Mean SD Mean SD
Group M (Murder) 10 28.7 4.14 19.7 6.90
Group R (Rape) 10 33.6 7.76 15.6 8.93

Group NPO (Non-Person) 10 29.3 7.44 15.6 8.86

 

19

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE II
ANOVA--AGE
Source SS df ms F p
Total 1471.47 29 -- -- --
Between groups 142.87 2 71.43 1.45 p>.05
Within groups 1328.60 27 49.20 -- —-
TABLE III
ANOVA--TIME SERVED
Source SS df ms F p
Total 2172.97 29 -- -- --
Between groups 112.07 2 56.03 .73 p>.05
Within groups 2060.90 27 76.32 -- --

 

PROCEDURE

Each S qualified for inclusion in the study was seen for indivi-

ual testing by the E,
project was explained as follows:

"Good day. This is a study being conducted to
compare and constrast the psychological make-ups
of different groups of offenders. The tests you
will be taking will give me some idea of your per-
sonality and I will be comparing your scores to
those of other residents. Hopefully, such compar-
isons will result in some leads as to better under-
stainding residents and planning effective programs
for them."

Before testing began, the basic purpose of the

All Ss were provided the opportunity to ask questions after which testing

began.

Two assessment devices were administered—-the Hand Test (Bricklin,

20

Piotrowski, and Wagner, 1962) and the Modified Buss-Durkee Inventory
(Buss and Durkee, 1957). The Hand Test, due to its being a quick and
easily understood measure, was administered first. Following the Hand
Test, each §_was given a copy of the Modified Buss-Durkee Inventory, an
answer sheet and a pencil with which he could complete the measure.
Upon completion of the inventory, the testing session was ended and each
§_signed and dated a release of information form while also receiving a
$1.00 token for their efforts. Further questions concerning the project
were entertained by the E_after which §s were free to go.

MMPI data for computation of an Anxiety Index (AI) and Internali-
zation Ratio (IR) was.retrieved from the testing files maintained in the
Reception and Guidance Center. Scoring of all test data was done by the

E_due to practical considerations.

MATERIALS

Hand Test. The Hand Test (Bricklin, Piotrowski and Wagner, 1962)
is an assessment device, utilizing as a stimulus hands in various posi-
tions depicted on a card approximately three by five inches in size.
Ten testing cards (See Appendix) are used and on nine of them, a hand
is drawn in an ambiguous pose. The subject is required to tell the
tester his impressions of what the hand is doing in the card. The
tenth testing card is blank and the respondent is requested to imagine
a hand whose actions he must then describe.

Past studies (Wagner and Hawkins, 1964; Wagner and Medvedeff, 1963;
and Brodsky and Brodsky, 1967) have found the Hand Test to be a success-
ful device in distinguishing assaultive from nonassaultive populations.

Although having several formal and informal scoring categories, the

21
present study utilized three of the summary scores--Acting Out Ratio
(AOR), Maladjustment Score and Pathology--as provided by Wagner (1977)

in the Hand Test Manual and also included on the test's "Scoring Summary

 

Sheet" (See Appendix).

The AOR is a ratio of the sum of responses indicating more social-
ized interpersonal trends to the sum of responses suggesting less so-
cialized interpersonal tendencies. In interpreting the AOR, the greater
the less socialized responses exceed the socialized responses, the
greater the chance of witnessing overt, antisocial behaviors. Compari-
son of AOR scores permitted the E-to observe if any of the inmate groups
being studied had a greater tencency to act—out.

The Maladjustment score (MAL) is considered to be a good indicator of
a neurotic process and is the sum of those responses indicating the de-
gree to which an individual feels incapable of coping with his environ-
ment because of internal weaknesses (tension, inadequacy, apprehension)
and/or external prohibition. Pathology (PATH) is a score which provides
a "quick and dirty" approximation of the amount of psychopathology pres-
ent in an individual and is representative of those responses which
suggest both neurotic and psychotic processes. The higher the score,
the more one should become concerned about the presence of a debili-
tating mental disorder. Both MAL and PATH were used in the present
study as a crude means of assessing the mental health of the groups
under scrutine.

Modified Buss-Durkee Inventory. Buss and Durkee (1957) developed

 

an inventory designed to assess the global concept of hostility as well
as sub-classes of this concept. Out of an original item pool of 105

items, their inventory consists of 75 items derived rationally and

22

settled upon empirically. The inventory has eight scales which corre-
spond to the author's sub-classes of hostility (See Appendix). All the
items are worded so as to be answered True or False and the sub-scales
can be compiled to yield a "total hostility" score. Essentially two
factors are present in the inventory—-one factor assesses the attitud—
inal (emotional) component of hostility, while the other factor is con-
cerned with the motor (aggressive behaviors) component of hostility.

In the present study, §_developed an ad hoc sub-scale consisting
of 30 items reflecting aggressive feelings and/or behaviors about or
toward women. The scale, entitled "Aggression Toward Women," had face
validity and the items were interspersed among the items of the origi-
nal Buss—Durkee. Three measures from the scale were utilized in the
project, a Total Hostility score with the ad hoc scale, a Total Hostil-
ity score minus the ad hoc scale, and the score of the ad hoc, Aggres-
sion Towards Women, scale. I

Welsh Anxiety Index. Welsh (1952) was concerned about the lack of

 

an objective measure assessing anxiety. In response to this void, Welsh
studied the attempts other researchers had made at deriving an anxiety
measure from the MMPI scales (Modlin, 1947; Ruesch, 1945; and Gough,
1946). Building upon their efforts, Welsh (1952) developed the fol-
lowing fermula:

Hs + D + Hy

Anxiety Index (AI) = 1 + (D + Pt) - (Hs + Hy)
3

 

Along with the Anxiety Index, Welsh (1952) also developed what he called
the "internalization ratio (IR)." This ratio reflected the sum of the
complaint, mood and feeling scales as divided by the three behavior/

character disorder scales. The formula is.

23

H5 + D + Pt
IR =

 

Hy + Pd + Ma

In a normal population, one would expect an IR of 1.00

Subjects who tend to have many somatic
symptoms and subjective feelings of
stress--who internalize their diffi-
culties--can be expected to obtain values
above 1.00. Those who tend to act out
and "externalize" their conflicts will
obtain a ratio below 1.00 (Welsh, 1952).

The AI and IR scores were computed as indicators of the anxiety levels
and acting-out proclivity present in each of the inmate populations
being studied.

Treatment of the Data. For each of the experimental variables a

 

Simple Randomized Analysis of Variance (Bruning and Kintz, 1968) was

performed.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

The present study focused upon three categories of inmates--Rapists,
Murderers and Non-Person Offenders. Three major hypotheses were tested
and in reporting the results each hypothesis has been listed with its

appropriate analysis.

Hypgthesis I

 

The first hypothesis was concerned with the amount of hostility/
aggression that would be expressed by the three inmate groups. It was
hypothesized that while Rapists and Murderers would not differ from one
another in their expression of hostility, both would differ signifi-

cantly from the Non—Person Offender group.

TABLE IV

ANOVA--ACTING OUT OF RATIO

 

 

Source SS df ms F p
Total 119.37 29 -- -- --
Between groups 1.67 2 1.67 .19 p>.05
Within groups 117.70 27 117.70 -— --

 

One measure of overt hostility utilized in the study was the Acting-
Out Ratio (AOR) of the Hand Test. As Table IV reveals, there was not
any significant difference between the groups on this measure.

24

25
Two other measures assessing overt hostility were the two total
scores on the Modified Buss-Durkee Inventory, that is, with and without
the experimental scale (Hostility Toward Women). Tables V and VI indi-

cate that neither measure yielded a significant difference between

 

 

 

 

 

groups.
TABLE V
ANOVA--TOTAL AGGRESSION
Source SS df ms F p
Total 4388.97 29 -- -- --
Between groups 294.87 2 147.43 .97 p>.05
Within groups 4094.10 27 151.63 -- --
TABLE VI
ANOVA--TOTAL AGGRESSION MINUS
EXPERIMENTAL SCALE
Source SS df ms F p
Total 3684.8 29 -- -- --
Between groups 155.4 2 77.70 .59 p>.05
Within groups 3529.4 27 130.71 -- --

 

Hypothesis II

 

The second hypothesis stated that Rapists would demonstrate a
greater amount of hostility directed toward women than either Murderers

or Non-Person Offenders.

26

TABLE VII

ANOVA--AGGRESSION TOWARD WOMEN

 

 

Source SS df ms F p
Total 339.87 29 -- -- --
Between groups 14.87 2 7.43 .61 p>.05
Within groups 325.00 27 12.03 -- --

 

The experimental scale--Aggression Towards Women—~located in the
Modified Buss—Durkee Inventory was utilized for the analysis of Hypoth—
esis 11. As Table VII above illustrates, there was no significant dif-

ference between groups on their expression of hostility towards women.

Hypothesis III

 

The third hypothesis postulated that both Rapists and Murderers

would manifest more anxiety than Non-Person Offenders.

TABLE VIII

ANOVA--MALADJUSTMENT

 

 

Source SS df ms F p
Total 105.47 29 -- -- --
Between groups 9.87 2 4.93 1.39 p>.05

Within groups 95.60 27 3.54 -— --

 

27

TABLE IX

ANOVA--PATHOLOGY

 

 

Source SS df ms F p

Total 259.2 29 -- -- --
Between groups 2.4 2 1.20 .12 p>.05

Within groups 256.8 27 9.51 -- --

 

The Hand Test yields two related measures--Ma1adjustment and Path-
ology--which provides a "quick and dirty" estimation of the amount of
anxiety and degree of psychopathology present in an individual. The
Pathology (Path) score is, in part, composed of an individual's Malad—
justment (Mal) score. While Mal is primarily an indicator of neurotic
trends, the Path score also includes indication of more serious mental
disturbances. Tables VIII and IX show that there was no significant
differences between groups on the amount of anxiety/degree of psycho-
pathology as measured by the Hand Test.

Two other related measures of anxiety—-Anxiety Index (AI) and In-
ternalization Ratio (IR)--are reported in Tables X and XI below; both
measures were taken from the MMPI data. It was noted by Welsh (1952)
that IR scores closely fellowed AI scores, where high AIs would also
have IRs greater than 1.00. Neither measure, Al or IR, produced a sig-

nificant difference between groups (See Tables X and XI).

28

TABLE X

ANOVA--ANXIETY INDEX

 

 

 

 

 

Source SS df ms F p
Total 1283.60 29 -- -- --
Between groups 44.51 2 22.75 .49 p>.05
Within groups 1238.09 27 45.85 -- --
TABLE XI
ANOVA--INTERNALIZATION RATIO
Source SS df ms F p
Total .52 29 -- -- --
Between groups .09 2 .0450 2.83 p>.01
Within groups .43 27 .0159 -- --

 

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Hypothesis 1. The first hypothesis predicted that Murderers and

 

Rapists, while not differing from one another with respect to aggres-
sion, would exhibit more measured aggression than offenders incarcerated
for victimless crimes. On all the measures utilized, neither Murderers
nor Rapists expressed significantly more aggression than perpetrators of
offenses where a victim was not physically assaulted. Of note was the
fact that in keeping with the hypothesis, Murderers and Rapists did not
differ significantly from each other in respect to expressions of hos-
tility.

The results were not totally surprising, for, in fact, they were in
keeping with studies conducted by Megargee (Megargee and Mendolsohn,
1962, 1963; Megargee, 1964; and Megargee, 1966b) who, at first, was con-
tinually unsuccessful in finding or developing a measure that would dis-
criminate assaultive from nonassaultive criminal populations. Finally,
the author decided to investigate the manner in which a person's assaul-
tive potential was being assessed. Examination led the author to de-
velop his typology of "Overcontrolled" and "Undercontrolled" types--

...the Overcontrolled violent person...has
considerably more inhibitions against ag-

gression than the Undercontrolled person...
the Chronically Overcontrolled person, be-
cause of the extreme amount of instigation

to aggression required to overcome his high

29

30
inhibitions, would be likely to engage almost
exclusively in extreme acts of violence...the
Undercontrolled type on the other hand would be
capable of a full range of aggressive responses...
(Megargee, 1971.

With his typology, Megargee theorized that "an extremely violent
group should be measured as being more controlled and less violent, as
a group, than would groups of moderately aggressive or nonviolent crim-
inals." His rationale was that the extremely violent group would be
composed of both Overcontrolled and Undercontrolled types while the
other groups would contain only the Undercontrolled type. It was ex-
pected that the Overcontrolled type would only engage in extreme acts
of violence as a result of the enormous amount of instigation that would
be necessary to overcome his inhibitions; on the other hand, Undercon—
trolled types, because of the minimal provocation needed, could be ex-
pected to be involved in a wider range of activities with varying de-
grees of violence. Consequently, the presence of Overcontrolled indi-
viduals would effectively alter the mean of the extremely violent group
relative to the moderately and non-violent group whereby they would
appear less aggressive and more controlled. Now, if the Overcontrolled
type did not exist, then the extremely violent group, being composed
of those individuals identified as most violent, should appear most
aggressive and least controlled without the dampening factor of the
Overcontrolled type. Megargee's (1966b) research gave strong support
to his notion of an Overcontrolled type where the author's results
showed an extremely assaultive population as least aggressive and most

cooperative and controlled than a group of moderately assaultive sub-

jects.

31

Perhaps, then it might have been more fruitful in the present re-
search to abandon the notion of viewing an inmate's crime as a direct
indicator of his aggressive nature. It may very well be that irrespec-
tive of the specific offense, some criminal's behaviors are due to poor
impulse control, such as the psychopath, while other criminals' behav-
iors are representative of an explosive break in a rigid, very well-
controlled personality structure. If this were so, one could postul-
ate that a man convicted of murder might be much less aggressive overall
than someone convicted of larceny from a building and instead of working
on better impulse control in therapy with such an individual, it would
be more productive to encourage greater and more varied emotive expres-
sions.

The failure for measures of aggressiveness in this study to suc-
cessfully distinguish any of the three inmate groups suggests that:
a) All inmates are equally aggressive regardless of their crimes, b)
Traditional practices of categorizing and comparing inmate groups on ag—
gressiveness as a function of the crime they committed may actually be
overlooking much more salient delineation factors, or c) The experimen-
tal measures failed to accurately discriminate between the sample popul-
ations.

Hypothesis II. It was postulated in the second hypothesis that

 

Rapists, more than Murderers or Non-Person Offenders, would exhibit a
greater amount of aggression towards women. The experimental scale
testing this hypothesis failed to yield any significant differences
between groups in their expression of hostility focused upon women. If

valid, this finding could have several implications.

32

One possibility is that most incarcerated individuals harbor a hos-
tility for women, and therefore, would attack a female given the proper
set of circumstances. Another explanation might be that the central
issue in rape may not be a need to aggress against women as it is "a
need to aggress." Aggression may be one way of outwardly establishing
one's "masculinity" when internally one feels weak and inadequate (su-
periority as a defense against inferiority). Women are easy targets of
aggression for men not only because of biological differences, but also
because of the difficulty in prosecuting a rape case in the present
judicial system. Thereby, a man needing to prove himself would find
that perpetration of violence against women via rape is an easily ac-
cessible avenue.

Hypothesis III. The third hypothesis investigated the degree of

 

anxiety present in the groups being studied whereby it was felt that
murderers and rapists whose crimes reflected a great release of bound
aggression should be individuals who were more "uptight" than those per-
sons given to frequent, less damaging releases of aggression. Once again
the data failed to yield a significant difference between the groups
measured.

One explanation of this lack of significance is that most criminals
engage in a wide range of illegal activities and that if given a long
enough time span, there would be no crime that would not have been com-
mitted. In other words, criminals have basically similar characterolog-
ical structures and only fortuitous circumstances, i.e. luck, prevents
the commission of certain activities. However, a more plausible explan-
ation fer the lack of significant difference might very well be the fact

that testing fer anxiety took place after the crime which allowed its

33
release. Had it been possible to test the murderers before they killed,
one might have found an extremely anxious individual. Therefbre, ob-
taining a truly representative level of anxiety after the crime becomes
akin to assessing an individual's sex drive using only measurements at-
tained immediately after orgasm.

Additional Findiggg. Buss and Durkee (1957), in reporting the de-

 

velopmetn of their Inventory, provided normative data obtained from a
group of 85 college men and 88 college women. Perusal of their data
revealed two instances where there was quite a disparity between the
means of the college males on the sub-scales and those of the inmate
population taken as a whole. The first instance involved the sub-scale
labeled "Irritability," while the second instance involved the "Verbal"
hostility sub-scale.

Irritability as a sub-class of hostility was defined by the scales
authors as "a readiness to explode wiht negative affect at the slightest
provocation." The mean score for the inmate population was 5.94 while
the mean of the college population was 3.6. The "t? test of signifi-
cance was performed yielding a £_of 4.2864 which was significant at the

.01 level (see Table XII).

TABLE XII

I_VALUES FOR GROUP COMPARISON
OF IRRITABILITY SCORES

 

Groups N Mean 8.0. t df p

 

Inmates 30 3.60 2.25 4.2864 113 p<.01

College Males 85 5.94 2.65 -- —— --

 

34

Irritability included such qualities as a "quick temper, grouchiness,
exasperation and rudeness." What the data seems to suggest is that
college males are much more likely to express negative feelings in this
less threatening manner, while inmates, in comparison, are more inclined
to suppress such feelings. In part, this may be a function of the envir-
onments each group functions within whereby prison promotes the suppres-
sion of negative affect while college campuses allegedly expouse freedom
of expression. Still, the possibility remains that the significant dif-
ference bespeaks a characterological difference between the inmate and
college groups wherein the college population utilized a greater array
of methods of "letting off steam" while the inmates allow the pressure
to build.

In keeping with the above finding, a significant difference was
found in comparing the two groups on the Verbal hostility sub-scale

(see Table XIII).

TABLE XIII

I VALUES FOR GROUP COMPARISON
OF VERBAL HOSTILITY SCORES

 

 

Groups N Mean S.D. t df p
Inmates 30 5.86 2.38 3.0858 113 p<.01
College Males 85 7.61 2.74 -- -- --

 

Verbal hostility was described in the following manner by Buss and
Durkee (1957):

"...negative affect expressing in both the
style and content of speech. Style includes
arguing, shouting, and screaming; content

35

includes threats, curses, and being over-
critical.

Once again it appears that the college males allow themselves a greater
freedom of expression while the inmates appear to be suppressing their
hostil feelings.

The aforementioned significant findings support the notion that
criminal offenders may be more tightly constricted in their behavioral
patterns than "normal" individuals. Consequently, whereas normals find
numerous ways to express feelings, the criminal offender keeps his emo-
tions bound within. Eventually, circumstances engender a bread in the
offender's defensive structure and antisocial behaviors occur.

Having the MMPI scores at his disposal, §_decided to compare the
three inmate groups on the number of scaled scores they had above 70.
One indication of psychopathology on the MMPI is the presence of any
score above a T score of 70; therefore, significant differences between
the groups in respect to the total number of scores above 70 would in-
dicate differences in the degree of pathology present in each group. A
chi-square analysis (Bruning and Kintx, 1968) failed to produce any sig-
nificant results (see Table XIV) which was in keeping with prior anal-
ysis where there were no statistical differences between groups in rela-

tion to the amount of measurable psychopathology.

36

 

 

TABLE XIV
X2 VALUE FOR MMPI SCORES

ABOVE 7O

2
Groups N X df p

Murderers 10 1.094 2 p>.05

Rapists 10 -- -- --
Non-Person 10 -- -- --

 

One final qualitative analysis compared the median scores for the
prison population on the various subscales of the Hand Test with the
scores of an Ohio Police Department (Wagner, 1977). Table XV below pro-

vides a comparison of those scores.

37

TABLE XV

MEDIANS FOR HAND TEST SCORING VARIABLES FOR
INMATE GROUPS AND CUYAHOGA FALLS, OHIO POLICE DEPARTMENT

 

 

GROUPS
Variable Murderers Rapists Non-Person *Police
(N-lO) (N-lO) (N-lO) (N-54)
AFF 2.500 2.160 2.100 1.50
DEP 0.214 0.000 0.125 0.00
COM 1.000 0.833 1.160 1.03
EXH 0.833 0.214 0.125 0.00
DIR 0.833 1.500 1.500 2.30
A66 1.000 0.750 0.900 0.94
INT 7.000 6.500 5.333 6.88
ACQ 0.333 0.125 0.125 0.00
ACT 3.500 3.500 3.833 2.61
PAS 0.333 0.500 0.050 0.55
ENV 4.833 4.500 4.833 3.71
TEN 0.750 0.500 0.750 0.98
CRIP 1.700 0.500 0.500 0.00
FEAR 0.050 0.125 0.214 0.00
MAL 2.300 1.500 1.500 1.74
DES 0.125 0.214 0.125 0.00
FAIL 0.000 0.000 0.050 0.00
BIX 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00
WITH 0.125 0.214 0.214 0.00

*-
Mean Age = 35.1, S.D. - 8.6

Of note, is the fact that overall there appears to be no major dif-
ference between the inmates' scores and those of the police. It is in-
teresting, however, that murderers tend to be less "directive" than
police (see DIR category) while also feeling more inferior (see CRIP
category), appearing more neurotic (see MAL category), and expressing a
greater need for pleasurable relationships with others (see AFF cate—

gory). These observations suggest that murderers may be insecure

38
individuals who combat their feelings of inferiority by a display of ex-
tremely aggressive behaviors. Perhaps through these behaviors they
frighten others away, whereby, no person can get close enough to them to
see how scared they are themselves on the inside. Also, the violent act
can be one method the murderer has of convincing himself that he is not

as emasculated as he inwardly fears.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The present study has several limitations which may have profoundly
affected the results. Foremost is the problems inherent with the util-
ization of incarcerated individuals. First is the fact that criminal
records and sentences reflect only those crimes of which an individual
has been apprehended and/or convicted--these records are not always in-
dicative of the true extent of the offender's criminality. As a result,
an individual in the category of Non-Person Offender may have committed
numerous murders and rapes of which there is no knowledge and vice versa.
Another problem with an inmate population is the issue of Social Desir-
ability complicated by the offender's distrust of institutional person-
nel. These factors can result in the individual trying to present him-
self as healthy and socially conforming as possible despite reasurrances
by the Examiner that individual test results are confidential and will
not effect their chances of parole. Finally institutionalization by
its very nature oftentimes artificially produces certain results.

Another limitation of the study was the fact that finer discrimin-
ations were not made when categorizing the inmate population. For ex-
ample, no distinction was made between persons incarcerated for felony

murder (those committed while in the process of engaging in another

39
criminal activity, e.g. killing someone in a robbery) and those who
killed in an act of passion. Distinctions also were not made between
rapists who attacked adult females and those who molested children (even
though all in the rapists group had attacked females). Race, socioeco-
nomic status and prior incarcerations were other variables which were
not controlled.

One other major limitation of the study is imbedded in the diffi-
culty in ascertaining whether one's assessment devices are actually
valid indices of the variable(s) being measured. The Buss-Durkee
Inventory was utilized despite limited normative data, and the effect
of the inclusion of the experimental sub-scale is uncertain. The ex-
perimental sub-scale (Hostility Towards Women) had only face validity
and as of yet has not been subjected to more rigorous validation pro-
cedures. The Anxiety Index and Internalization Ratio measures derived
from the MMPI data are both subject to criticisms challenging the val-
idity of the MMPI as an assessment tool. The present study represented
this author's first use of the Hand Test thereby increasing the possi-
bility of scoring inaccuracies.

A final drawback of the study was its small subject pool. Besides
increasing the number of offenders in each category, it could have been
informative if a group of "normals" had been included in the experimen-

tal design.

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY

As crime continues to steadily increase and as our nation's prisons
continue to swell, greater interest in the area of Forensic Psychology/
Psychiatry can be expected. Despite many rehabilitative programs in and
after imprisonment, the criminal offender continues to engage in anti-
social behaviors much to the dismay of Judicial and Correctional em-
ployees. Perhaps of greatest concern are those individuals whose crimes
involve the direct aggression against the members of society.

The present study focused upon murderers, rapists and non-person
offenders in an attempt to investigate some of the psychological dynam-
ics which contrasted the groups. The data suggested that murderers,
rapists and non-person offenders do not differ in: a) their amount of
and potential for aggression, b) the amount of intrapsychic anxiety, and
c) the amount of hostility directed toward women. An additional finding
in the analysis indicated that differences may exist between criminal
offenders and normals in their readiness to express feelings as offenders
have more of a tendency to suppress verbal expression of negative emo-
tion.

One conclusion that may be gained from the research is that crimi-
nal offenders, despite their particular offense, are a fairly homogenous
group in terms of psychological functioning. The differences in their
crimes then are more a function of fortunate/unfortunate circumstances

4O

41

than a function of distinct differences in their dynamic make-ups. The
conclusion formed by this author is one which emphasizes that perhaps
the present categorization of offenders on the basis of their crimes is
too limiting and, as a consequence, significant variables are being
overlooked. Future research might find it productive to view the of-
fender in terms of Overcontrolled and Undercontrolled personality types.
Also, further research in comparing normals and criminal offenders in
their ability to gradually release aggression is needed. It is worth
noting that Berman (1971) in his research studying the characteristics
of Correctional Officers discovered that both officers and inmates had
similar personality profiles. The author in attempting to explain why
one group acted out and the other had not, surmised that the officers
had developed gradual methods of releasing their aggression.

Lastly, the social psychologist may venture to examine how the
effect of cultural allowances for freedom of expression is related to
the degree and particular types of criminality engaged in by various

racial and socioeconomic groupings.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bibliography

Bach, G. R. and Goldberg, H. Creative Aggression. New York: Aron
Books, 1974.

 

Bandura, A. and Walters, R. H. Adolescent Agggession. New York:
Ronald Press, 1959.

 

Beit-Hallahmi, B. "Aggressive and sexual fantasies in violent and non-
violent prison inmates." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1970.

Berman, A. ”MMPI characteristics of correctional officers." Paper
presented to the Eastern Psychological Association, New York City,
April 16, 1971.

Bricklin, B., Piotrowski, A., and Wagner, E. E. "The Hand Test: with
special reference to the prediction of overt behavior." In Harrower,
M. (Ed.) American Lecture Series in Psychology. Springfield:
Charles C. Thomas, 1962.

 

Brodsky, S. L. and Brodsky, A. M. "Hand Test indicators of antisocial
behavior. Journal of Projective Technigues and Personality As-
sessment, 1967, 31, 36-39.

 

Brownmiller, S. Against Our Will. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1975.

 

Bruning, J. L. and Kintz, B. L. Computational Handbook of Statistics.
Glenview: Scott, Foresman and Co., 1968.

 

Buss, A. The Psychology of Aggression. New York: Wiley, 1961.

 

Buss, A. H. "Aggression pays." In Singer, J. L. (Ed.), The Control of
Aggression and Violence. New York: Academic Press, 1971.

 

 

 

Buss, A. G. and Durkee, A. "An inventory for assessing different kinds
of hostility." Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1957, 21, 343-
348.

Cohen, M. L., Garofalo, R., Boucher, R., and Seghorn, T. "The psychol-
ogy of rapists." Seminars in Psychiatry, 1971 (Aug), Vol. 3(3),
307-327.

 

Dimensions, Report of the Michigan Department of Corrections, 1976.

 

42

43

Freeman, A. "A study of rapists by means of the Rorschach." Unpub-
lished Master's Thesis, Michigan State University, 1975.

Gebhard, P., Gagnon, J., Pomeroy, W., and Christenson, C. Sex Of-
fenders. New York: Harper and Row, 1965.

Guttmacher, M. and Weihofen, H. Psychiatry and the Law. New York:
Norton, 1952.

 

Howell, L. "Clinical and research impressions regarding murder and
sexually perverse crimes." Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics,
1972/73, Vol. 21(1-6), 156-159.

 

Kirk, S. A. "The sex offenses of blacks and whites." Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 1975 (May), Vol. 4(3), 295-302.

 

 

MacDonald, J. M. "The threat to kill." American Journal of Psychiatry,
120:2 (August, 1963), 125-130.

 

McKie, R. "A clinical study: relationships of anger and fear to ag-
gression, in murderers and in non-violent offenders." Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971.

Megargee, E. I. and Menzies, E. "The assessment and dynamics of aggres-
sion." In McReynolds, P. (Ed.), Advances in Psychological Asses-
sment. California: Science and Behavior Book, Inc., 1971.

 

Perkins, R. M. "The law of homicide." Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology, 36:412-427 (Mar-Apr., 1946).

 

 

Pesetsky, F. and Rabin, A. 1. "Diagnostic procedures in the criminal
justice system." In Wolman, B. (Ed.), Clinical Diggposis of Mental

 

Disorders. New York: Plenum (in press).

Singer, J. L. (Ed.) The Control of Aggression and Violence. New York:
Academic Press, 1971.

 

Stone, H. "The TAT aggressive content scale." Journal of Projective
Techniques, 1956, 20, 445-452.

 

 

Tanay, E. "Psychiatric study of homicide." American Journal of Psy-
chiatry, 125:9 (March, 1969), 1252-1257.

 

Uniform Crime Reports for the United States, Federal Bureau of Investi-
gation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., 1976.

 

Wagner, E. E. The Hand Test: Manual. Los Angeles: Western Psycholog-
ical Services, 1977.

 

Wagner, E. E. and Hawkins, R. "Differentiation of assaultive delin-
quents with the Hand Test." Journal of Projective Techniques and
Personality Assessment, 1964, 28, 363-365.

 

 

44

Wagner, E. E. and Medvedeff, E. "Differentiation of aggressive behavior
of institutionalized schizophrenics with the Hand Test." Journal
of Projective Technigues, 1963, 1, 111-113.

 

Welsh, G. S. "An anxiety index and an internalization ratio for the
MMPI." Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1952, 16, 65-72.

 

APPENDIX

--Description of Criminal Sexual
Conduct Statutes

--Letter to Subjects

--Explanation of Buss-Durkee Scales

--Copy of Modified Buss-Durkee
Inventory with identification
of ad-hoc scale items

--Hand Test Stimulus Cards

--Hand Test Scoring Summary Sheet

--Exp1anation of Major Hand Test
Categories

45

Act No. 266
- Public Acts at 1974
Approved by Governor
Aug )2. 1974

STATE OF MICHIGAN
77TH LEGISLATURE
REGULAR SESSION OF 1974

Introduced by Senators Byker. Faust. 7aagman. "art. Lodge. Bowman. Toepp. Novalr. Pursell.
flaweclti, Mach, McCauley. Zollar. O'Brien. Cartwright. Iloeyclii. Davis. Bouvvsma. Brown. DeCrow.
Ioclrml. Richardson. Ballenger. Fason. Cooper, MeColloudi. DeMaso. Pittenger. Bishop and
Flem'mg

ENROLLED SENATE BILL No. 1207

AN ACT to amend Act No. 328 oi the Public Acts oi lB'll. entitled ”An act to revise. consolidate. codiiy
and add to the statutes relating to crimes; to deiine crimes and prescribe the lties therefor; to provide
ior the competency oi esidence at the trial of persons accused oi criuu-s to us ide immunity irom
prosecution ior certain witnesses appearing at such trials. and to repeal fihin acts and parts oi acts
inconsistent with or contravening any oi the prosisions at this act. as ame'nde d. b1 ing set tions 73). l to
750.5% oi the ( .ompiled Laws oi l9? 0 by adding sections 5%. 52))». 53k. Saki. 520v. 53W. 52):. 5%.
5% 5%). 5%)): and 520i; and to repeal ctrtain arts and parts oi acts.

The People 0! the State of Michigan enact:

Section l. Act No 32") oi the Public Acts oi l93l as amended. being settions 750.1 to 750.56") oi the
Compiled Lasss oi 1970 is amended by adding sections 55h. 520b,.520c.521k1. 520e.5mi.52)g.5mh.
5201. 5%. 520): and 520) to read as iollows:

Sec. 520a. As used in sections 520.. to 52X";
(3) "Actor" means a Pt rson accuser) oi criminal se xu. ll («induct
(b) lntimau parts includes the primary genital area. groin. inner thigh, buttock. or breast oi a bum‘an

being.

(cl' Mentally deiective" means that a person suiiers irum a mental disease or deiect which renders that
person temporarily or permanently incapable oi appraising the nature oi his or her conduct.

(d) "Mentally incapacitated" means that a person is rendered temporarily incapable oi appraising or
controll'mg his or her conduct due to the influence of a narcotic. anesthetic, or other substance-

administered to that person without his or her consent. or due to any other act committed upon that
person without his or her consent.

(e) "Physically helpless" means that a person is unconscious. asleep. or lot any other reason is physically
unable to communicate miwillingness to an act.

(i) 'Personal injury” means bodily injury. disfigurement mental anguish. chronic pain. pregnancy.
disease. or loss or hnpairment oi a sexual or reproductive organ.

(97)

46

till "Sexual c'"ontact includes the intentional touching oi the victim's or actor's intimate parts or the
MN iitioiial touc hing oi tho t lothuig cos ering the "nine -diate area oi the v'ictiin s or ac tor s intimate parts. ii
that intentional tomhing can reasonahls be construed as being ior the purpose oi sexual arousal or
gratiiication.

(h) "Sexual penetration" means sexual intercourse. cunnilingus. iellatio. anal intercourse. or any other
intrusion. however slight. oi any part oi a person's body or oi any object into the genital or anal openings
oi another person's body. but emission oi semen is not reipi'oed.

(i) "Victim” means the person alleging to have been subjected to criminal sexual conduct.

Sec. 520),. (l) A person is guilty' oi criminal sexual conduct in the iirst degree ii he or she engages in
sexual penetration with another person and ii any oi the iollowing circumstances exists:

(a) That other person is under l3 years oi age.

(b) The other person is at least l3 but less than l6 years oi age and the actor is a member oi the same
household as the victim. the actor is related to the victim by blood or aiiinity to the iourth degree to the
s ictim. or the actor is in a position oi authority over the sictim and used this authority to coerce the victim
to submit,

(c) Sexual penetration oct‘urs under circumstances involving the commission oi any other ielony.

(d) The actor is aided or abetted by l or more other persons and either oi the iollowing circumstances
t‘xists:

(i) 11... “my knows or has reason to know that the victim is mentally dciectivc. mentally incapacitated
or physicallv helpless

(ii) lhe actor uses force or coercion to accomplish the sexual penetration. tone or coercion includes
but is not limited to any oi the circumstances Iiste d in subdivision (i) (i) to (v).

(c) lhc actor is armed with a su apoii or any article used or iashioned in a manner to lead the victim to
reasonably belies c it to be a weapon.

(l) The actor causes personal'iniury to the victim and iorce or coercion is used to accomplish sexual
jw-netration. Foice or coercion includes hill is not limited to any oi the iollowing circumstances:

(i) “hen the actor overcomes the victim through the actual application oi physical iorcc or physical
sioleiicc

(ii) \\ hen the actor cot-ices the victim to submit by threatening to use iorce or violence on the victim.
and the victim lN‘ltt‘\t'\ that the actor has the present ability to execute these threats.

(iii) “hen the actor coerces the victim to submit by threatening to retaliate in the iuture against the
victim, or any other person. and the victim believes that the actor has the ability to execute this threat. As
used in this .subdisision. "to retaliate" includes threats oi physical punishment. kidnapping. or extortion.

(iv) When the actor engages in the medical treatment or examination oi the victim in a manner or ior
purposes which are medically recognized as unethical or unacceptable.

(v) When the actor. through concealment or by the element oi surprise. is able to overcome the victim.

(g) The actor causes personal injury to the sictiiii. and the actor knows or has reason to know that the
victim is mentally deicctive. mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless.

(2) Criminal sexual conduct in the iirst degree is a ielony punishable by imprisonment in the state
prison ior liie or ior any term oi years.

Sec. 52m. (l) A person is guilty oi criminal sexual conduct in the second degree ii the person engages
in sexual contact with another person and ii any oi the iollowing circumstances exists: '
(a) That other person is under )3 years oi age.

(b) 'l hat other person is at least )3 but less than it) years oi age and the actor is a member oi the same'
household as the victim. or is related by blood or aiiinity to the iourth degree to the victim, or is hi a
position oi authority over the victim and the actor used this authority to coerce the victim to submit.

(c) Sexual contact occurs under circumstances involving the commission oi any other ielony.

(d) The actor is aided or abetted by l or more other persons and either oi the iollowing circumstances
exists:

(i) 'l he actor knows or has reason to know that the victim is mentally deiective. mentally incapacitated
or phv sit ally helpless.

47

(ii) The actor uses iorce or coercion to accomplish the sexual contact. Force or coercion includes but is
not limited to any oi the circumstances listed in sections 520!» (I) (i) (i) to (v).

(e) The actor is armed with a weapon. or any article used or iashioned in a manner to lead a person to
reasimably believe it to be a weapon.

(i) The actor causes personal injury to the victim and iorce or coercion is used to accomplish the sexual
contact. Force or coercion includes but is not limited to any oi the circumstances listed in section Mb (I)
(i) (i) to (V)-

(g) The actor causes personal injury to the victim and the actor lmows or has reason to lmow that the
victim is mentally dciective. mentally incapacitated. or physically helpless.

(2) Criminal sexual conduct in the second degree is a ielony punishable by imprisonment ior not more
than l5 years.

See. 5W. (l) A person is guilty oi criminal sexual conduct in the third degree ii the person engages 'ai
sexual penetration with another person and ii any oi the iollowing circumstances exists:

(a) That other person is at least 13 years oi age and under lil years oi age.

(b) Force or coercion is used to accomplish the sexual penetration. Force or coercion includes but is not
limited toany oi the circumstances listed in section 5% (l) (i) (i) to (v).

(c) The actor knows or has reason to lmow that the victim is mentally deiective. mentally incapacitated.
or physically helpless.

(2) Criminal sexual conduct in the third degree is a ielony punishable by imprisonment ior not more
than 15 years.

Sec. 51». (l) a person is guilty oi criminal sexual conduct in the iourth degree ii he or she engages in
sexual contact with another person and ii either oi the iollowing circumstances exists:

(a) Force or coercion is used to accomplish the sexual contact. iorce or coercion includes but is not
limited to any oi the circumstances listed in section 52:», (l) (i) (i) to (iv)

(b) The actor knows or has reason to lmow that the victim is mentally deiectiv.e mentally incapacitated.
or physically helpless.

(2) ( Iriminal sexual conduct in the iourth degree is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment ior not
more than 2 years. or by a iine oi not more than 35mm. or both. '

Sec. 5”. (I) li a person is convicted oi a second or subsequent oiiense under section 5%. 51k. or
W. the sentence imposed under those sections ior the second or subsequent oiiense shall provide ior a
mandatory minimum sentence oi at least 5 years.

(2) For purposes oi this section. an oiiense is considered a second or subsequent oiiense ii. prior to
conviction oi the second or subsequent oi iense. the actor has at any time been convicted under section _
5%. saw. or 5% or under any similar statute oi the United States or any state ior a criminal sexual

' oiiense including rape. carnal knowledge. indecent liberties. gross indecency. or an attempt to commit
such an oiiense.

Sec. wig. (1) Assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct involving sexual penetration shall
be a ielony punishable by imprisonment ior not more than H) years.

(2) Assault with 'aitent to commit criminal sexual conduct in the second degree is a ielony punishable by
imprisonment ior not more than 5 years.

Sec. sans. The testimony oi a victim need not be corroborated in prosecutions under sections 5% to
5mg.
h

Sec. 520i. A victim need not resist the actor in prosecution under sections 52m: to 520..

Sec. ”ii. (i) Evidence oi speciiic instances oi the victim's sexual conduct. opinion evidence oi the
victim's sexual conduct. and reputation evidence oi the victim's sexual conduct shall not be admitted
under sections was to 520. unless and only to the extent that the judge iinds that the iollow'mg proposed
evidence is material to a iact. at but b the case and that its inflammatory or preiudicial nature does not
outwdgh its probativevalae

(a) Evidence oi the victini's past sexual conduct with the actor.

(2) Evidence oi speciiic instances oi sexual activity mowing the source or origin oi semen. pregnancy.
or iaease.

48

(2) If the defendant proposes to offer evidence described in subsection (I) (a) or (b). the defendant
within l0 days after the arraignment on the information shall file a written motion and offer of proof. The
court may order an in camera hearing to determine whether the proposed evidence is admissible under
subsection (I). If new information is disroured during the course of the trial that may make the esidence
described in subsection (1) (a) or (b) admissible. the judge may order an in camera hearing to determine
whether the proposal evidence is admissible under subsection (l).

sex. was. Upon the request of the counsel or the victim or actor in a prosecution under sections .52") to
520.; the magistrate before whom any pi rson is brought on a charge of having committed an offense
under sections 5% to Sfllg shall order that the names of the victim and actor and details of the alleged
offense be suppressed until such time as the actor is arraigned on the information. the charge is dismissed
or the case is otherwise concluded. whichever occurs first.

Sec amt. A person does not commit sexual assault under this act if the victim is his or her legal
spouse. unless the couple are living apart and one of them has filed for separate maintenance or divorce.

Section 2. All proceedings pending and all rights and liabilities existing. acquired. or incurred at the
time this amendatory act takes effect are saved and may be consummated according to the law in force
when they are commenced. This amendatory act shall not be construed to affect any prosecution pending
or begs-I before the effective date of this amendatory act

Section 3. Sections 5. 3.13. 3”. 339. 340. 341. 342 and 520 of Act No. 3% of the Public Acts of I931.
being sections 750.5 750 313. 750.35. 750.1». 750. 340. 750. 341. 750. 342 and 750. 520 of the Com siled
Laws of 1970. and section 82 of chapter 7 of Act No. I75 of the Public Acts of l927. heing section 767. 2 of
the Compiled Laws of 1970. are repealed.

Section 4. This amendatory act shall take effect November!. 1074.

 

Sen ary o the Senate.

$773.4.

Clerhofthellouseofllepeeseltadsm.

Approved -_

 

Governor.

49

51A?! OF MICHIGAN

3

new . Mill eon-nos
CORRECTIONS WI 6 N.

”b.3333: ' oer-smear or CORRICTIONI

...me L. Waters. M. 0.. Vice Chairman '
A“, c. 8.00“ State Prison of Southern mdiioan

i-uhfl' Cotton. Ph.D. 4” W W."
«mu. is. C rana PERRY JOHNSON. Director Jackson. chltlaltt 4020‘

August. lb. 1978

Dear Sir:

You have been selected to participate in a research project contacted by
Larry Davis and Dr. Wed Pesetsky. This research has the approval of the
Department of Corrections and Harden Anderson. Your participation in the
project is entirely voluntary but if you should choose to participate you
uil‘. receive a $1.00 tokcn‘for your efforts. Participation should take
approximately «0 minutes of your time and you will be called out within the
m-xt three seeks. \vhettier or not you are interested in this project, please
.,-neck the appropriate oox below and return this letter imdiataly to:

Larry Lewis, Psychologist
Psychiatric Services Unit
3 North Infirmary

Thank you for your time and consideration.

 

Psychologist
Psychiatric Services [hit

Yes. I am interested in participating.

1"

No, I am not interested in participating.

NAME: NUMBER: - LOCK

 

50

Explanation of Buss-Durkee Inventory Scales

Assault - physical violence against others. This includes getting
into fights with others but not destroying objects.

Indirect Hostility - both roundabout and undirected aggression.
Roundabout behavior like malicious gossip or practical jokes is indir-
ect in the sense that the hated person is not attacked directly but by
devious means. Undirected aggression, such as temper trantrums and
slamming doors, consists of a discharge of negative affect against no
one in particular; it is a diffuse rage reaction that has no direction.

 

Irritability - a readiness to explode with negative affect at the
slightest provocation. This includes quick temper, grouchiness, exas-
peration, and rudeness.

 

Negativism - oppositional behavior, usually directed against author-
ity. This involves a refusal to cooperate that may vary from passive
noncompliance to open rebellion against rules or conventions.

Resentment - jealousy and hatred of others. This refers to a
feeling of anger at the world over real or fantasied mistreatment.

 

Suspicion - projection of hostility onto others. This varies from
merely being distrustful and wary of people to beliefs that others are
being derogatory or are planning harm.

Verbal Hostility - negative affect expressed in both the style
and content of speech. Style included arguing, shouting and screaming;
content includes threats, curses, and being overcritical.

 

Guilt - self explanatory. (Buss G Durkee, 1957, p. 343).

 

TRUE -

FALSE

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

51

Modified Buss-Durkee Inventory

 

I seldom strike back, even if someone hits me first.
I sometimes spread gossip about people I don't like.

Sometimes I have an uncontrollable urge to harm a
woman.

Unless somebody asks me in a nice way, I won't do what
they want.

I lose my temper easily but get over it quickly.

I don't seem to get what's coming to me.

On at least one occasion, a girlfriend has made me so
mad that I broke or threw something away that belonged

to her.

I know that people tend to talk about me behind by
back.

When I disapprove of my friends' behavior, I let them
know it.

Women sometimes bother me by just being around.

The few times I have cheated, I have suffered unbear-
able feelings of remorse.

You have to figure out what women really want.
Once in a while I cannot control my urge to harm others.
I never get mad enough to throw things.

I hardly ever did what my mother wanted.
Sometimes peOple bother me just by being around.
Women have been my greatest downfall.

When someone makes a rule I don't like I am tempted
to break it.

The women in my family could be trusted.
Other people always seem to get the breaks.

You can never trust a woman.

 

22.

23.

24.

25.
26.
27.
28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.
39.

40.

41.

42.

52

I tend to be on my guard with people who are some-
what more friendly than I expected.

I often find myself disagreeing with people.

I sometimes have bad thoughts which make me feel
ashamed of myself.

I have cussed out many a lady in my day.

I can think of no good reason for ever hitting anyone.
When I am angry, I sometimes sulk.

Rarely have women lied to me.

When someone is bossy, I do the opposite of what he
asks.

There are some things I have done to women that I feel
terrible about.

I am irritated a great deal more than people are aware
of.

I don't know any people that I downright hate.
I secretly wanted to hurt my mother.

There are a number of people who seem to dislike me
very much.

I can't help getting into arguments when people disa-
gree with me.

People who shirk on the job must feel very guilty.

When I get mad at a lady I may not speak to her for a
couple of days.

If somebody hits me first, I let him have it.
When I am mad, I sometimes slam doors.

Once I stole something from my mother because she had
made me so mad.

I am always patient with others.

Occasionally when I am mad at someone I will give him
the "silent treatment."

 

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

SO.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

53

When I look back on what's happened to me, I can't
help feeling midly resentful.

Very rarely do women make me angry.
Men are easier to get along with than women.

There are a number of people who seem to be jealous
of me.

I demand that people respect my rights.
It depresses me that I did not do more for my parents.
Whoever insults me or my family is asking for a fight.
I never play practical jokes.

It doesn't bother me to go out of my way to please a
lady.

It makes my blood boil to have somebody make fun of
me.

When people are bossy, I take my time just to show
them.

Almost every week I see someone I dislike.

I sometimes have the feeling that others are laughing
at me.

Even when my anger is aroused, I don't use "strong
language.”

I am concerned about being forgiven for my sins.

People who continually pester you are asking for a
punch in the nose.

I avoid doing what most women want as a matter of
pride.

I sometimes pout when I don't get my own way.
My mother mistreated me when I was younger.

If somebody annoys me, I am apt to tell him what I
think of him.

Women have it made.

I often feel like a powder keg ready to explode.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

54

Although I don't show it, I am sometimes eaten up with
jealousy.

My motto is "Never trust strangers."
When people yell at me, I yell back.
I do many things that make me feel remorseful afterward.
Most of the time I get treated fairly by women.

When I really lose my temper, I am capable of slapping
someone.

Since the age of ten, I have never had a temper tan-
trum.

When I get mad, I say nasty things.
I sometimes carry a chip on my shoulder.

If I let people see the way I feel, I'd be considered
a hard person to get along with.

Women are always plotting against men.

I commonly wonder what hidden reason another person
may have for doing something nice for me.

I could not put someone in his place, even if he needed
it.

Failure gives me a feeling of remorse.
I don't argue with women too often.
I get into fights about as often as the next person.

I can remember being so angry that I picked up the
nearest thing and broke it.

I often make threats I don't really mean to carry out.

There are very few instances I can remember yelling at
my mother.

I can't help being a little rude to people I don't
like.

At times I feel I get a raw deal out of life.

I used to think that most people told the truth but
now I know otherwise.

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

93.

94.

95.

96.

97.

98.

99.

100.

101.

102.

103.

104.

105.

55

I generally cover up my poor opinion of others.

Women sometimes have made me so angry that I have ser-
iously hurt them.

When I do wrong, my conscience punishes me severely.

If I have to resort to physical violence to defend my
rights, I will.

I regret very few things I have done to women.

If someone doesn't treat me right, I don't let it
annoy me.

I have no enemies who really wish to harm me.
When arguing, I tend to raise my voice.

When a woman makes me angry it is easier to take it
out on something else.

I often feel that I have not lived the right kind of
life.

I enjoy being around women most of the time.

I have known people who pushed me so far that we came
to blows.

I don't let a lot of unimportant things irritate me.
I have threatened my mother several times.

I seldom feel that people are trying to anger or in-
sult me.

Lately, I have been kind of grouchy.

I would rather concede a point than get into an ar-
gument about it.

I sometimes show my anger by banging on the table.

It is easy for women to provoke you to strike them.

56

Modified Buss-Durkee Inventory

 

The following items represent the experimental scale measuring

aggression toward women:

3, 7, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19, 21, 25, 28. 30, 33, 37, 40, 44, 45, 51,

59, 61, 63, 69, 75, 83, 88, 91, 95, 97, 100, 105.

HAND TEST STIMULUS CARDS

PLEASE NOTE:

Copyrighted materials in this document
have not been filmed at the request of
the author. They are available for
consultation, however, in the author's
university library.

These consist of pages:

57’ 57

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unmlm
international

300 N. ZEEB RD, ANN ARBOR, Mi 48106 (313) 761-4700

 

 

 

 

57

 

 

 

58

i 8

 

... _..- ._... w” -m..—— --.---—.--.—.. ... ... - .

 

/0

59

The Hand Test

SUMMARY SHEET
by Edwin e. Wagner. Ph. D.
MIT

  
 
    
   

 

WESTERN PSYCi-iOlOCiCAI. m
rueusrrtro mo orsmwroas

., 12031 wusmae aouuvuo

" lOS mucus. camoama suns

MANSON WESTERN CORPORATION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DATE
NAME SEL ABE JACK
ADDRESS
OCCUPATION DIAGNOSIS
APP I ACO= TIN I DIS I R I
DIP I ACT I CRIP I PAIL I AIRT I
CO“ I PAS I run I Ill I M I
EXN I 2 ENV I run. I ZMTN I PATN I
Dill '
A66 I Ill ICINT: ZENVr EMU ZMTN I_____:__;_r_r
2 ii" ' AOR I (APP + DIP 4» COMMON + AGG- :
QUALITATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE MAM:
CASE HISTORY AND DIAGNOSTIC DATL
EXAMINER
oepyuere o rm by man mm m
WIIOA ”hhmhflflmmmmdwm-
' Air agree m. m in on

18340070.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

60
DESCRIPTION OF MAJOR HAND TEST SCORING CATEGORIES*

Affection, AFF: Interpersonal responses involving an interchange
or bestowment of pleasure, affection or friendly feeling.

Dependence, DEP: Interpersonal responses involving an expressed
dependence or need for soccer from another person.

 

Communication, COM: Interpersonal responses involving a presenta-
tion or exchange of information.

 

Exhibition, EXH: Interpersonal responses which involve displaying
or exhibiting oneself in order to obtain approval from others
or to stress some special noteworthy characteristic of the hand.

 

Direction, DIR: Interpersonal responses involving influencing the
activities of, dominating, or directing others.

Aggression, AGG: Interpersonal responses involving the giving of
pain, hostility, or aggression.

Acquisition, ACQ: Environmental responses involving an attempt to
acquire or obtain a goal or object. The movement is ongoing and
the goal is as yet unobtained and, to some extent, still in doubt.

 

Active, ACT: Environmental responses involving an action or at-
titude designed to constructively manipulate, attain, or alter
an object or goal. ACT responses are distinguished from ACQ re-
sponses in that the object or goal has been, or will be, accom-
plished and the issue is therefore not in doubt.

 

Passive, PAS: Environmental responses involving an attitude of rest
and or relaxation in relation to the force of gravity, and a de-
liberate and appropriate withdrawal of energy from the hand.

Tension, TEN: Energy is being exerted but nothing or little is ac-
complished. A feeling of anxiety, tension or malaise is present.

Crippled, CRIP: Hand is crippled, sore, dead, disfigured, sick, in-
jured or incapacitated.

Fear, FEAR: Responses in which the hand is threatened with pain,
injury, incapacitation, or death.

Description, DES: Subject can do no more than acknowledge the
presence of the hand with perhaps a few accompanying inconse-
quential descriptive details or feeling tones.

Bizarre, BIZ: A response predicted on hallucinatory content, de-
lusional ideation or other peculiar, pathological thinking. The
response partially or completely ignores the drawn contours of

61

the hand and/or incorporates bizarre, idiosyncratic, or morbid
content.

15. Failure, FAIL: Subject can give no scorable response whatsoever to
a particular card.

*Taken from Hand Test Manual (Wagner, 1977), pp. 5-6.

 

"Ililiilllll‘llI'll“