RELATEONSH§PS OF THE MMNESOTA MULWPHASEC PERSGNALETY iWENTOR‘.’ MD THE BEPGLQR V PSYCEGLOGiCAL {WENT-0W T0 EACH OWER END T3 ia‘QQARCEi-ZATED HEROEN MEETS ‘ B'issertatéon $0: the Degree of Ph. D. MESH-SAN STATE UNIVERSITY HOWARD HEGHTOWER ! 3973 I III M LIBRARY 10191 312‘ Michigs :1 State University NIT I This 15 to cepflfy that the - . - .5 "'i ‘ thesis entitled I ' RELATIONSHIPS OF THE MINNESOTA NULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY AND THE BIPOLAR PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY TO EACH OTHER AND TO INCARCERATED'HEROIN ADDICTS presented by James Howard Hightower has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for V _Eh..D.__ degree in _Co.unsel_lng, ' Personnel Services an Educa- tional Psychology r e_ “ '4 I 3 -. '3 2' ‘ /¢1//; 4 C ’1’! ({ 131/1: / May/professor‘ Dafig October 19, [923 . .r 0-7639 .rJ .- \4.In q .. .¢ ,. p 1., .. 3.. w n4 .. m. .V 4‘ 1'11 © 1974 JAME S HOWARD HI GHTOWER ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ABSTRACT RELATIONSHIPS OF THE MINNESOTA MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY AND THE BIPOLAR PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY TO EACH OTHER AND TO INCARCERATED HEROIN ADDICTS BY J. Howard Hightower I Statement of the Problem A great deal is already known regarding human body chemistry and the pharmacology of most drugs, and undoubtedly our knowledge in such areas will steadily increasef/JUnfor- tunately, we still know little or nothing about the var- iables or factors which lead individuals to choose one drug over another, to be able to use/abuse a drug or leave it alone, or to escape the circle of drug dependency. Overtly, it appears practical to say, from an analy- sis of our ancestry, that drugs affecting the mind will long be with us. It would be a rare drug which does not exact some payment in adverse effects in return for its rewards. Considerable disagreement is evident in the litera- ture regarding the nature or structure of personality pat- terns (profiles) associated with drug addiction, and reported data and their utility are limited in SCOpe and generalizability. J. Howard Hightower Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to examine what rela- tionships exist between the scales of the Minnesota Multi- phasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and the scales of the Bipolar Psychological Inventory (BPI), tested on an incarcer- ated heroin addicted and non-heroin addicted population, and to ascertain which instrument would reveal more numerous and more highly significant correlations of personality characteristics to heroin addiction. A second purpose was to review, examine, and compare the effectiveness of the BPI and the MMPI scales, individually and to each other, in assessing characteristics of incarcerated heroin addicts and non-addicts. A third purpose was that of exploring psycho- logical dimensions and other areas that led to the develop— ment of the BPI. The present study examines and delineates the most frequent personality deviations found among incarcerated heroin addicts and non-addicts in terms of diagnostic profiles obtained on both inventories (BPI and MMPI). Composite profiles of the experimental group and the control group, and the racial categories are compared and discussed. Methodologyy Procedure To screen incarcerated heroin addicts from incar- cerated non-heroin addicts, the control group, specific precautions were taken. The population studied consisted I J. Howard Hightower I of an experimental group--incarcerated heroin addicts-- and a control group--incarcerated non-addicts--of 35 inmates per.group, randomly selected. All inmates were housed in the Ingham County Jail at Mason, Michigan, and were initially screened by the Intake-Referral Coordinator of the Ingham County Jail Inmate Rehabilitation Program (ICJIRP), and re-screened by the Drug Abuse Treatment Program staff to determine further the evidence of drug use/abuse. The records of all inmates tested were carefully reviewed, and known addicts vs. known non-addicts were dichotomized into the experimental and the control groups. Further, each inmate was interviewed who was included in either of the two final groups. Each inmate was carefully questioned about his drug history with the assurance that the informa- tion would be held in confidence. The Multi-Checkinngystem controlled for confound- ing variables such as drug use/abuse, duration of addiction, previous exposure to therapy and psychological testing, history and/or presence of psychosis, and physical addiction to heroin. The MMPI and the BPI were originally administered to 89 inmates. However, the study‘s Multi-Checking-System, implemented in order to assure authenticity of results, deleted all but 75 inmates. Five of the remaining 75 inmates were eliminated for other reasons. The inmates in both groups were administered the group form of the MMPI and the BPI—A. Generally, the tests J. Howard Hightower I were given in a group setting; eight individual subjects were tested individually. Design and Analysis Examination of individual scales of the MMPI and the BPI was performed, along with their overall patterning in terms of the interrelations among the scales. The means, standard deviations, and significance levels comparing each scale on the MMPI and the BPI for the experimental and the control group were plotted and analyzed. An analysis of the data accompanies a restatement of the hypotheses and assumptions under investigation. The MMPI and BPI profiles for all groups and intercorrelational matrices between the two instruments were presented and discussed, along with the demographic variables (race, education, and age). An analysis of variance was performed for each of the 15 variables of the BPI, the 14 variables of the MMPI, and the 3 demographic variables. This total of 32 analy- ses of variance was performed and presented in tables to ascertain statistical differences between incarcerated heroin addict inmates and incarcerated non—heroin addict inmates for each of the variables. J. Howard Hightower I Conclusions The MMPI Comparative Summary for BothfSamples The MMPI comparative summary for both samples was different only in marginal degrees. An examination of the comparative summary contained in Figure 2.4 reveals similar profile patterns in overall configuration. Elevations on scales 4, 8, and 9 dominate both the incarcerated heroin addict and the incarcerated non-addict profiles. Generally, both groups fell within the normal limits on the validity scales, L, F, and K. However, both samples were elevated on the F scale, though not beyond a T Sc of 70. Both groups were also elevated beyond a T Sc of 70 with K corrections on the Psychopathic Deviate of Pd scale, with differences being only in a marginal degree of eleva- tion. Other scale elevations beyond a T Sc of 70 with K corrections were the Hypomania or MA scale, and the Schizo- phrenia or Sc Scale: Pd-Ma Combined Persons with this profile pattern show clear manifestations of psychopathic behavior, the hypo- mania seemingly energizing or activating the pattern related to . . . Pd scale. That is, these people tend to be over-active and impulsive, irresponsible and untrustworthy, shallow and superficial in their rela- tionships. To satisfy their own desires and ambitions, they may expend great amounts of energy and efforts, but they find it difficult to stick to duties and responsibilities imposed by others (Dahlstrom and Welsh, 1960). The SchiZOphrenia or Sc scale was the least ele- vated on the profiles beyond a T Sc of 70 with K corrections J. Howard Hightower I of the two samples (with the exception of a marginally higher elevation in degree only, on the non-heroin addicts profile) and appears to add to the psychopathology of both samples. The Sc scale suggests a union with the total profile, and the marked similarity between the incarcerated heroin addict and the non-addict profiles further supports the belief that personality characteristics do not materially change following addiction, even though the procurement, use, and effects of drugs necessarily demand changes in the individual‘s daily activities. Further supportive evidence obtained from the analy- sis of variance on all 14 variables of the MMPI for each of the two groups indicated no significant differences on any of the MMPI variables between the two groups at the .05 level of confidence. The BPI Comparative Summary for Both Samples Figure 3.4 revealed that basically, both samples fell within the normal limits on the Invalid-Valid, and the Lie-Honest scales. Noted elevations on the Hostility-Kindness scale suggested hostility, aggressiveness, verbal assert- iveness, intolerance, violence, and vengefulness. Although marginal differences were noted between the two groups on the scales of the BPI, the Dependence-Self-Sufficiency scale was the only one significant at the .05 level of confidence. However, this finding was not significant when evaluated with the instrument's previously set pathological J. Howard Hightower I demarcation line (beyond the eightieth percentile or below the twentieth percentile). The analysis of variance on the remaining 14 scales of the BPI revealed no other dif- ferences between the mean scores of the experimental group and the control group, despite an elevation on the BPI's Hostility-Kindness scale beyond the pathological demarca- tion line by the experimental group. Demographic Variables The analysis of variance on the first two demo- graphic variables, age and education, revealed that both variables were significant beyond the .05 level of confi- dence, between the two groups. The analysis of variance results revealed no significant differences at the .05 level of confidence among racial categories (Blacks, Whites, and Mexicans). Since sample size is a very important component in interpreting results, caution is indicated with the racial profiles. Generally, an n of 30 is required to satisfactorily acknowledge the F test as meaningful. How- ever, since no differences were found between the two groups on the BPI (with the exception of scale 7--although not elevated at or beyond the pathological demarcation level, the eightieth percentile) and the MMPI, the researcher plotted the mean scores for further examination by future researchers. Again, caution is indicated since only one of the racial categories meets adequate sample size, J. Howard Hightower I combined with other limitations (Whites--39, Blacks--23, and Mexicans--8). Discussion An analysis of the present data indicates a large number of meaningful Bipolar Psychological Inventory corre- lations with the scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Per- sonality Inventory. This is suggestive of proximity and consistency in attempting to measure similar psychological traits or psychological scale dimensions. From the results, the findings suggest that the MMPI combined with the BPI represent complementary, thera- peutic, and diagnostic tools for a large variety of psycho- logical uses. Results also indicate these tests' further importance in evaluating pOpulations "unlimited"--in particular, the "sociopathic“-labeled groups. Although an analysis of numerous research results suggests that there are measurable personality differences between incarcerated heroin addicts and heroin addicts not incarcerated with respect to the incidence and extent of sociOpathy, incarceration appears to be at least one of the multiple confounding variables that precludes a dichotomy between the incarcerated heroin addict and the incarcerated person who is not an addict. The incarcerated non-heroin addict sample is pre- sented in Chapter IV in Table 9.1 via a matrix of inter- correlations within the MMPI variables and within the BPI J. Howard Hightower I variables. The intercorrelations of variables and their possible predictability of each other are considered one measure of internal consistency, which is a form of relia- bility. Both the BPI and the MMPI appear to possess this chatacteristic or strength. RELATIONSHIPS OF THE MINNESOTA MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY AND THE BIPOLAR PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY TO EACH OTHER AND TO INCARCERATED HEROIN ADDICTS BY waHoward Hightower I A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling, Personnel Services, and Educational Psychology 1973 COpyright by JAMES HOWARD HI GHTOWER 1973 DEDICATION Dedicated to my wife, Marie, to James II and Terrance, and to the true unification of brotherhood. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am deeply indebted to many people for helping me complete this dissertation; the first honors are hereby bestowed upon my lovely wife and family. I also wish to recognize and pay tribute to the following professors, for their encouragement, assistance, and direction given during the doctoral program and on the dissertation. To these professors I give my deepest appreciation and gratitude: Dr. John E. Jordan, my dissertation chairman, who served in the capacity of an expert, a scholar, a very good friend, and, on occasion, a therapist. His constant flow of assistance guided me throughout the research, from its devel- 0pmental stages through its completion; Dr. Alex Cade, doctoral committee member, who not only gave encouragement in all aspects of this dissertation, but helped in my quest for truth and a better understanding of the human race; Dr. Thomas Gunnings, member of the doctoral com- mittee, who would not let my energy output dwindle when confronted with impasses. His analysis of certain person- alities helped in surmounting such impasses, without which this dissertation would never have been completed; iii Dr. James Costar, doctoral committee member, the epitome of promptness, who gave freely of his time in reviewing the dissertation, offered insight and encourage- ment during tiring times, and ameliorated the quality of the dissertation in its final form. Also, I would like to express my deep appreciation to my fellow professionals: Mr. Kenneth Preadmore, Sheriff of Ingham County, and his staff, who were paramount in the administration and gathering of the data; Mr. Michael Bellah, the research assistant, who willingly devoted countless hours in verifying the authen- ticity of the population, and in the completion of the data; Dr. 0. Keith Pauley, the jail physician, who pro- vided medical verifications and laboratory analyses, unending understanding of human behavior(s), and creative suggestions in providing additional validity impetus to the Multi- Screening-Process; Dr. J. J. Gallagher, Director of the Drug Abuse Treatment Program, and his staff, for their involvement in cross validating the authenticity of the study. I would also like to mention a partial list of friends whose encouragements and associations helped make my stay in Michigan an enjoyable interaction: Mr Nathaniel Taylor, Sr., Mr John Aycock, Dr. J. J. Gallagher, Mr. Michael Bellah, Dr. John E. Jordan, Mr. David Riddle, Mr. Bob Finks, Mr. Bill Jacobs, Mrs. Margaret Jacobs, iv Mr. Joe Graves, Mr. Dennis Sykes, Mr. Charles Holliman, Mr. Manuel Castillo, Mr. Sol Adams, Mr. Herschel Roper, Mr. Bahman Dadgostar, Mr. Ed NygreH, Mrs. Betty Held, Mrs. Sara Lackey, Mr. Gordon Locatis, Mr. Freeman Beasley, Mr. Larry Smyth, Mr. Bob Olsen, Dr. 0. Keith Pauley, Mr. Fred Lowe, Mrs. Janet Metzelaar, Sgt. B. J. Southwell, Sgt. Dale Wardwell, Officers Richard Smith and Archie Nason, Mr. Jim Franks, and the list continues . . . . And finally, without the continuous assistance and insight from my mother, Mrs. Blanch Hightower Floyd, this study would not have been possible. LIST OF LIST OF LIST OF Chapter I. II. III. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLES I O O O O O O O O O O FIGURES O O O O I O O O O O O APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . Extent of Drug Abuse . . Purpose of the Study . . . Justification for the Study PhilOSOphical Summary . . . Definitions . . . . . . . . Organization of the Thesis REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN OF THE Instruments . . . . . . . . An Overview of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory . . Introduction and Test Development Description of the MMPI Scales Validity Scales . . . Reliability and Validity of the MMPI An Overview of the Bipolar Psychological Inventory . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . Rationale . . . . . . . . Description of the Scales Administration and Scoring Form A and Form B . . . . Profile Forms . . . . . . Reliability . . . . . . . Population . . . . . . . . Identification of the Population (March, 1971- -March, 1973) . . . vi STUDY Page ix xii xiii 12 13 18 19 21 22 42 42 43 43 46 53 56 59 59 59 60 63 64 64 65 66 66 Chapter IV. V. WRAT and Revised Beta Examinations--l972 Identification of Population and Program Changes (January, 1973 to March, 1973) . . . . . . Selected Population . Sample . . . . . . . Procedure . . . . . . . Research Hypotheses . Analysis of the Data ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . . . . Organization of the Analysis of the Data Total Inmate MMPI Profile . . Clinical Description . . . Heroin Addict MMPI Profile . Clinical Description . . Non-Addict MMPI Profile . . Clinical Description . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . MMPI Comparative Summary for Bot 5 Clinical Description . . . Supportive Research Conclusion Total Inmate BPI Profile . . Clinical Description . . . . Incarcerated Heroin Addict BPI Pro Clinical Description . . . . . Incarcerated Non-Addict BPI Profile Clinical Description . . . . . . BPI Comparative Summary for Both Samples Clinical Description . . . . . . . . . Scale Correlations (MMPI and BPI) . . . . BPI and MMPI Intercorrelations . . . . Intercorrelations Between BPI Scales and the MMPI Scales for the Combined Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Intercorrelational Matrix Comparison of the BPI and the MMPI Scales . . . . . . Interpretations of the Analysis of Variance Tables on the 32 Variables . . Analysis of Variable 32; Race (Demographic Data) . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00030.00... 0 l-hoooomooooooo ile gauge... '6 oooof—loooooo (D 00000000010000... SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . Summary . . . . . Purpose . . . . Instrumentation Procedure . . . vii Page 67 104 112 113 125 130 132 132 132 133 134 Chapter Page Design and Analysis . . . . . . . . . 135 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 Findings and Discussion . . . . . . . 136 MMPI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 O O O O 139 Both Samples . . . . . . . O O O O O 144 The BPI Comparative Summary for Recommendations . . . . . . . . . APPENDICES I O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 146 BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O 226 viii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Mean MMPI T-Scores for Various Samples of Post-AddiCtS O I O I O O I O O O O O O O O O 28 2. Percentage of Patients Diagnosed Schizophrenic or Normal by the Sc Scale, Using a Cutoff Score of 70, Where 50 Per Cent Are Actually SchiZOphrenic and 50 Per Cent Are Actually Normal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 3. Ingham County Jail Inmate Rehabilitation Program's Quarterly Statistical Report (March, 1972-December, 1972) . . . . . . . . 69 4. Ingham County Jail Inmate Rehabilitation Program's Quarterly Statistical Report (January, 1973-March, 1973) . . . . . . . . . 70 5. Total Inmate Sample MMPI Results . . . . . . . 79 6. Inmate Sample BPI Results . . . . . . . . . . . 95 7. Total Inmate Sample Intercorrelation Matrix of the MMPI and BPI Variables (70) . . . . . 105 BPI ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SERIES 8.1 Analysis of Variable One; Invalid-Valid . . . . 113 8.2 Analysis of Variable Two; Lie-Honest . . . . . 113 8.3 Analysis of Variable Three; Defensive-Open . . 114 8.4 Analysis of Variable Four; Psychic Pain- Psychic Comfort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 8.5 Analysis of Variable Five; Depression- Optimism O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 114 8.6 Analysis of Variable Six; Self Degradation- Self Esteem O O O O O C O O O O O O I O O O O 115 8.7 Analysis of Variable Seven; Dependence- Self Sufficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 ix Table 8.8 8.9 8.10 8.11 8.12 8.13 8.14 8.15 Analysis of Variable Eight; Unmotivated- AChieVing O I O O O O O C O O O O O O O 0 Analysis of Variable Nine; Social Withdrawal- Gregariousness . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis Family Analysis Sexual Analysis Social Analysis of Variable Ten; Family Discord- Hamony O O I I O O O O O O O O O of Variable 11; Sexual Immaturity- Maturity O I O O O O O O O O C O O of Variable 12; Social Deviancy- Confomity O O O O O O O O O O O O of Variable 13; Impulsiveness- Self contrOl O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Analysis Analysis of Variable l4; Hostility-Kindness of Variable 15; Insensitivity- Empa thy O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O MMPI ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SERIES Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis of Variable 16; ? Cannot Say . . . of Variable 17; L-Lie . . . . . . of Variable 18; F . . . . . . . . of Variable 19; K . . . . . . . . of Variable 20: Hs . . . . . . . . of Variable 21; D . . . . . . . . of Variable 22; Hy . . . . . . . . of Variable 23; Pd . . . . . . . . of Variable 24; Mf . . . . . . . . of Variable 25; Pa . . . . . . . . of Variable 26; Pt . . . . . . . . of Variable 27; Sc . . . . . . . . Page 116 117 117 117 118 118 118 119 119 120 120 120 121 121 121 122 122 122 123 123 Table 9.13 9.14 10.1 10.2 11. 12. 13.1 13.2 14. Analysis of Variable 28; Ma . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Variable 29; Si . . . . . . . . . . DEMOGRAPHIC DATA SERIES Analysis of Variable 30; Age . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Variable 31; Education . . . . . . Inmate Racial Categories Sample MMPI Results . Inmate Racial Categories Sample BPI Results . . INTERCORRELATION MATRICES (MMPI & BPI) Incarcerated Non-Heroin Addict Intercorrelation of the MMPI Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . Incarcerated Non-Heroin Addict Intercorrelation of the BPI Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequencies and Percentages of the Total Sample on the 32 Variables . . . . . . . . . xi Page 123 124 124 125 127 129 143 143 155 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Composite Profiles Produced by Addicts When Classified as Conduct Disorders, Drug Addict, Within Sub-Grouping PsychOpathic, Neurotic, and Schizoid . . . 25 2. Narcotic Addiction Profiles--Ma1es and Females . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 MMPI SERIES 3.1 Total Incarcerated Inmate Sample Mean Profile 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 80 3.2 Incarcerated Heroin Addict Mean Profile . . 85 3.3 Incarcerated Non-Addict Mean Profile . . . . 87 3.4 Comparison of Incarcerated Heroin Addict Mean Sample Profile and Incarcerated Non-Heroin Addict Mean Profile . . . . . . 89 BPI SERIES 4.1 Total Incarcerated Inmate Sample Mean Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 4.2 Incarcerated Heroin Addict Mean Profile . . 98 4.3 Incarcerated Non-Addict Mean Profile . . . . 100 4.4 Comparison of Incarcerated Heroin Addict Mean Sample Profile and Incarcerated Non- Heroin Addict Mean Profile . . . . . . . . 102 MMPI AND BPI RACIAL SERIES 5.1 MMPI Racial Categories Profile . . . . . . . 126 5.2 BPI Racial Categories Profile . . . . . . . 128 xii LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. GLOSSARY O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 147 B. FREQUENCIES AND PERCENTAGES OF THE TOTAL TOTAL SAMPLE ON THE 32 VARIABLES . . . . . 154 C. FREQUENCIES AND PERCENTAGES OF THE INCARCERATED HEROIN ADDICTS ON THE 32 VARIABLES O O I O O O I O C O O O I O O 164 D. FREQUENCIES AND PERCENTAGES OF THE INCARCERATED NON-ADDICTS ON THE 32 VARIABLES I O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O 0 17 l E. INTERCORRELATIONAL MATRIX FOR THE TOTAL INCARCERATED INMATE SAMPLE (PRODUCT’MOMENT) o o o o o o o o o o o o o 178 F. INTERCORRELATIONAL MATRIX FOR THE HEROIN ADDICT SAMPLE ON THE 32 VARIABLES (PRODUCT-MOMENT) o o o o o o o o o o o o o 180 G. INTERCORRELATIONAL MATRIX FOR THE NON- HEROIN ADDICT SAMPLE ON THE 32 VARIABLES (PRODUCT-MOMENT) . . . . . . . . 182 H. RANDOM SELECTIONS FROM THE INCARCERATED HEROIN ADDICT SAMPLE (10 INDIVIDUAL PROFILES FOR THE MMPI AND THE BPI) . . . . 184 I. RANDOM SELECTIONS FROM THE INCARCERATED NON-HEROIN ADDICT SAMPLE (10 INDIVIDUAL PROFILES FOR THE MMPI AND THE BPI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 xiii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The growing trend of drug use and abuse is one of the major challenges facing society today. Everyday we use, or someone close to us uses, some kind of drug; and we are, in reality, surrounded by suggestions to use even more drugs in our daily lives. With the rapid growth and accelerating production in technology of pharmacology, drug producers are finding new drugs faster than ever before. Concomi- tantly, hard-sell advertising pressures us and our doctors to use more drugs. Unknown maladies are being engendered through media campaigns to justify greater drug use. Normal states are now being called diseases to increase drug sales. Doctors, whose patients expect a ready, effortless remedy for every nervous or physical complaint, are now forced to prescribe more drugs. Often these new drugs are relatively untested, and frequently are more dangerous than the ailment. The success in creating such a consumer market can be mea- sured by the inability of the manufacturers and suppliers to safely or legally supply the demands of the new, vora- cious market. Drugs are everywhere. They are part of everyone's daily life (Smith and Smith, 1971). 1 Addiction to the opiates is an ancient world problem. People, attitudes, motivations and drugs themselves have changed, but the use of substances has been with us forever. Heroin appears to be the most addictive of the drugs derived from Opium. The use of this syn- thetic drug by the medical profession has been outlawed for some years. In recent years, however, the illicit use of heroin has been increased substantially accord- ing to some estimates. It is difficult to tell the magnitude of heroin addiction in the United States but there is evidence that in some communities it is substantially greater than has been previously real— ized (Byrd and Byrd, 1972). We know a great deal already about the chemistry and human parmacology of most drugs, and our knowledge in such areas will continue to increase. Unfortunately, we still know little or nothing about individual factors and consequences surrounding drug use: Why do people choose one drug over another? Why do some use drugs excessively and others infrequently? How does someone escape the burden of drug dependency? It seems feasible, from what we know of history, that drugs affecting the mind will long be with us. How- ever, it would be a unique drug that did not exact some price in adverse effects in return for its benefits. We must try, as best we can, to consider the price that must be paid for each of our "social“ drugs. Only when we have carefully evaluated those consequences can society decide wisely the question of which drugs to accept, and which to reject. The "rational Vein," that Americans live in a drug- oriented society, has become an accepted fact. That drug ,'.pv abuse knows no age limit or socio-economic boundary has been established. Drug abuse has become so common in America that it is affecting the American way of life and under- mining basic social institutions. The religious institu- tions, the family, and the institutions of learning have been threatened. Rural as well as metropolitan areas are asking for assistance in attacking the problem. The overwhelming number of our young people attempt to meet the drug use/abuse problems of an affluent society in stable, well—balanced ways, and while drug use/abuse may never be eliminated entirely, it is possible that bet- ter education and improved communication with coordinated efforts may result in a diminished problem. No longer can the onus of correction of the prob- lem of drug use/abuse be placed on the federal government, at which level the difficulties of problem-area delineation become insurmountable. One basic problem area is in the construct of a human society and its relationships to the individual. To deal adequately with the individual, his family, and his reference group system, the greatest input must be directed from a program capable of individualizing its efforts. Such an approach may be best defined as coming from the local community. Any community or region (i.e., Lansing, Michigan) that is confronted with a heroin usage problem has multiple associated difficulties. Only a "coordinated' community program is likely to be successful in efforts to reduce or eliminate the problem. A fundamental question may never by answered: “Can society change, or protect, the personal- ity characteristics of the individual who potentially may become a narcotic addict?“ Certainly, it is the vieWpoint of a stability—seeking society that the effort must be made (Byrd and Byrd, 1972). Statement of the Problem No one knows for certain just how extensive the use/abuse of heroin is in the United States, but most authorities, as well as addicts themselves, contend that addiction to heroin has grown tremendously in the past 15 years and that its use/abuse is greater than suspected. The following review of current research data reveals that evidence obtained from: (a) studies relating to addiction; (b) hospital admissions; (c) probation reports; (d) police reports and records; (e) local, state, and federal drug commissions; (f) death rates of heroin users; and (9) other sources does support the conclusion that the use/abuse of heroin has increased in the United States, even though the users/abusers of the drug currently remain a small minority of the total population. Extent of Drug Abuse International efforts to curb the non-medical uses of Opium, its derivatives, and more recently, synthetic Opiods, began with the Hague International Opium Convention of 1912, which was followed by the Geneva Convention of 1925 and subsequent conventions and protocols in 1931, 1936, and 1948. These international agreements, monitored by various bodies, provided for limitation of production, importation, and exportation of opium, coca leaves, and cannabis pro- ducts, and control of the manufacture, sale, and dispensa- tion of Opiods with significant physical dependence- producing properties. The various international bodies include the Permanent Central Opium Board, the Drug Super- visory Body, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of the United Nations Economic and Social Council, and the Expert Com- mittee on Addiction-Producing Drugs of the United States (Nicholson, 1972). In 1956, the first congressionally approved nationwide study of narcotic addition in the United States revealed that, in the judgment of the investigators, this country had more narcotic addicts, both in number and per- centage, than any other nation in the Western world. In Detroit alone, heroin addicts spend more than $16 million a year for the drug, most of the money being obtained through constant criminal activities. In 1969, a special publication of the Detroit Free Press estimated the number of heroin addicts there to be 100,000. Bullington, et a1. (1969) challenged the 1969 offi- cial statistics reported on heroin addiction in New York City. The study suggested that the accuracy and value of Official statistics on heroin addiction had been received with skepticism in some quarters. Major discrepancies between official estimates and those of non-official groups were found in the Federal Bureau of Narcotics records of 32,000 addicts in New York City, when compared to the esti- mate of 100,000 addicts in New York found by the New York City Addiction Service in 1968. This study concluded that some heroin addicts who use the drug intensively for pro- longed periods may never be known to the police, and that many middle-aged and medical addicts may avoid detection. The investigators stated there is a need for a more intensive effort to achieve a reliable census of heroin addicts. If one even cautiously accepts the reported sta- tistics regarding the number and type of drug users/abusers, then he should also accept the alleged "cost per addict" to the public, including both those addicts apprehended and those not apprehended by law enforcement agencies. Accord- ing to the 1970 Comprehensive Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Plan of Michigan, one heroin addict on the street costs a city $10,500 annually. Should the addict be arrested, an additional estimated $16,800 in jail, legal, and court costs is introduced for a total of $27,300 per year per addict. Cushman (1971), in his study of criminal activities of 81 heroin addicts attending the Methadone Maintenance Clinic at St. Luke's Hospital Center in New York, reported that the primary sources of funds for obtaining heroin were usually multiple in number, and included the following: welfare, selling drugs, stealing, work, prostitution, family, pimping, begging, gifts, forgery on checks, going into debt, pickpocketing, purse snatching, and use of sav- ings. In an examination of the costs of heroin addiction as related to loss in human resources, in terms of time spent in incarceration and cost to society, Cushman found that the number of days spent in jail by the 81 addicts during one year before methadone was 1,931. No time was spent in jail after the addicts began to be treated with methadone. The 81 addicts also spent 346 days in detention prior to methadone treatment. An estimate of the cost to society of these 81 heroin addicts prior to the beginning of methadone treat- ment was calculated from information gained from the addicts and the known costs of materials stolen, services rendered, and so on. During the previous year, the 81 addicts had raised $887,800 from selling drugs, stealing, prostitution, forging checks, and pimping. The retail market value of stolen goods was estimated to be $721,000 for the single year. Other costs to society included approximately $23,800 for welfare, $67,260 for detoxification treatment of the 81 addicts in a hospital, $12,000 for treatment of other drug-related illnesses, $28,230 for costs of keeping the addicts in jail, $4,150 expenses for days in detention, and $900 for expenses involved in arrests of the addicts. The average daily cost of heroin for the group was $34.85, with a daily range from $0 to $150. If we keep in mind the statistics of the costs involved in this one-year study, with its small number of heroin addicts (81), it is clear that, for the nation as a whole, drug addiction constitutes a fantastic financial burden. The Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs ranked Michigan fifth in the United States for opiate drug arrests in 1968. In 1969, the state of Michigan arrests for possession of narcotics and dangerous drugs were up 110 per cent over 1968. Arrests for selling were up 48 per cent, with a 79.5 per cent increase in heroin cases. In summary, an increase of 98 per cent in arrests of persons under 21 years of age, and 111 per cent of persons over 21, indicates Michigan's increase in total arrests in 1969. An analysis of the Lansing area (Central Records-- Ingham County Jail, Mason, Michigan) revealed that in 1969, 222 arrests were made for sale of narcotics. The jail records also indicated that the arrest results dichoto- mized by sex amounted to 972 males and 121 females. Per- sons arrested in the age bracket 17 to 21 totaled 603. Of those arrested for possession, sale, or use, 490 were over 21. The Michigan State Police further estimated that approximately one-third of all the narcotics arrests in the state Of Michigan take place in the Lansing area. Again, according to available statistics, it is clear that the financial cost of the drug "problem" will not soon abate. Instead, with an increase in arrests and subsequent incarceration, the costs can only continue to increase. Heroin has both subjective and physiological effects on humans, some of which can be predicted with reasonable certainty. Chemical studies of the structures of morphine and heroin have resulted in identification of certain bio- logical effects of these drugs that are not well known to physicians. Chemical changes induced by enzymes in the body may lead to unpredictable results in terms Of accel- erated or diminished biological activities for any particu- lar person or addict. In general, the research indicates that the metabolic influence of the opiates, including morphine and heroin, is well known to physicians. Smith, et_al. (1962) observed in their study entitled "Objective Evidence of Mental Effects of Heroin, Morphine, and Placebo in Normal Subjects" that, since most persons who are not addicted to Opiates report being mentally clouded after receiving narcotics, it should be expected that Opiates would impair performance on objective tests of perception, memory, learning, and reasoning. Their study reported that heroin and morphine both caused 10 significant impairment of mental performance, with definite evidence Of mental impairment. The reduction Of mental efficiency was primarily one Of speed. Mental functioning was damaged earlier and to a greater extent by heroin than by morphine, even though the amount Of morphine given was 2.5 times greater than the amount Of heroin injected. Significant mental impairment was shown as early as 40 min- utes after injection of heroin, and as late as 5 hours and 40 minutes after administration of morphine. The above biological considerations indicate an additional barometer of the seriousness of the drug problem in the Lansing community: the increase in reported cases Of hepatitis. The Ingham County Health Department has eXpressed concern about the rapid rise in instances Of hepatitis. Three times as many cases were reported in 1970 as compared to 1969, with the highest frequency among per- sons 17 to 23 years Of age. Dr. Dean Tribby, at that time acting Public Health Director for Ingham County, stated that approximately 50 per cent Of the hepatitis cases are due to serum hepatitis following drug experimentation. A total of 53 cases Of hepatitis were reported the first 10 weeks of 1970, compared with 18 in 1969 and 7 in 1968. The Lansing State Journal, on May 6, 1973, quoted Dr. Tribby, presently the Deputy Director of the Ingham County Health Department: “Hapatitis has infected almost twice as many persons this year as last year in Ingham 11 County and its victims are younger." The article went on to report that Dr. Tribby said the age peak for the disease previously had been among the age group 20 to 22, but had drOpped to the 18 to 20 age group. Infectious hepatitis accounted for most of the 105 cases of diseases reported in Ingham County during the first 17 weeks of this year. This compares with 55 cases in a comparable period last year. According to Dr. Tribby, serum hepatitis has declined, which could mean youngsters are backing off from using needles in drug experimentation. This contrasts with three years ago, when the big upward swing in "hippie" hepatitis was fourfold, mainly attributed to drug use. State figures show 1,313 hepatitis cases for this year, against 1,553 last year in the same period. We have always expected our drugs to maintain, ameliorate, or restore our health. These are the reasons we see our doctors for "patent" medicines we expect to relieve minor symptoms and pain. Over-the-counter drugs have become medical first aid. Increasing use of tranquil- izing drugs, mood elevators, and mood depressants has made us eXpect relief from all uncomfortable nervous states-- even if they are normal. Instead of dealing with our minor mental health problems, we expect a simple, effortless, chemical solution. We now regard our emotions as control- lable at will. We turn on, turn up, turn down, and tune out. We believe that life's problems and the feelings that go 12 with them will somehow yield to Yankee ingenuity. "This belief alone has increased all levels Of drug use." To reach these improbable goals Of effortless living and prob- lem solving, we eXperiment at great personal risk. When drugs enter the area of social, political, and other non- medical uses, they enter their most dangerous phase of use. Drugs used for other than religious or medicinal purposes Often become recreational and associated with pleasure. This type of association causes us to ignore the known hazards, because we fail to see the chemical as a "drug." Those who play this game of drug roulette gamble their lives daily. Our great American dream seems to be "Better Living Through Body Chemistry“ (Smith and Smith, 1972). Purpose Of the Study The purpose of the present study was to examine what relationships exist between the scales Of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and the scales of the Bipolar Psychological Inventory (BPI), tested on an incarcerated heroin addicted/non-heroin addicted population; and to ascertain which instrument would reveal more numer- ous and more highly significant correlations Of personality characteristics to heroin addiction. The study attempted to seek answers to the following questions: 1. Do the herion addicted person's profiles differ meaningfully from the non-heroin addicted person's profiles? 13 2. Does the heroin addicted person demonstrate per- sonality characteristics (profiles) which are unique or consistent with his population, as measured by the MMPI and the BPI? 3. Is there supportive evidence (profiles) to sug- gest that there is an "addiction—prone“ per- sonality? ‘7 4. If there is an "addiction-prone" personality, Id.- *' what characteristics (profiles) will delineate it; what is this personality like? Gerard and Kornetsky (1954) found that among adoles- cent addicts, 47 per cent were either overt or borderline schizophrenic. Smart and Fejer (1969) Observed mixtures of persons with conduct disorders and schizophrenia in their sample, in which 96 per cent Of the chronic drug users had unusual MMPIs. Gendreau and Gendreau (1954), however, found no significant differences on the MMPI between heroin addicts and non-addicts. Justification for the Study The late President Kennedy once stated that, "There is no area in which there is so much mystery, so much misunderstanding and so many differences of opinion as in the area Of narcotics" (Wakefield, 1963). This statement by the late President reflects the thinking Of legal, medical, and religious authorities who have had to contend with the problem of drug addiction and 14 who are aware Of the inadequacy Of our efforts toward pre- vention and cure (Wakefield, 1963). What kind Of person is the heroin addict? DO the seeds of his destruction lie within his own personality or should the fault of his deterioration be disseminated to his family constellation and to society? Generalizations, speculations, and contentions con- cerning the heroin—addicted population have heretofore been conflicting, ambiguous, and inconclusive. Byrd and Byrd (1972) stated that, in general, heroin addicts have a high representation in terms of general maladjustment, parental neglect, quarrels among parents, and delinquency. Often heroin addiction appears to be in part a sociological prob- lem, but also a personal problem that reflects the problem Of an inadequate personality. That the family background may be faulty (regardless Of its social status and promi- nence) must be an area of consideration; however, the prob- lems Of the addict may stem not from his family alone, but perhaps more vitally from his own personal deficiencies and peer group associations. Fenichel (1945) considered that the same urges that govern other pathological impulses are Operative in addicts-- the need to get something that is not merely sexual satis- faction but also security and assurance of self-assertion, and as such essential to the person‘s very existence. Addicts represent the most clear-cut type Of "impulsives." In other words, addicts are persons who have a dispo- sition to react to the effects of alcohol, morphine, or other 15 drugs in a specific way, namely, in such a way that they try to use these effects to satisfy the archaic oral long- ing which is sexual longing, a need for security, and a need for the maintenance Of self-esteem simultaneously (Rado and Sandor, 1926-1933). Thus the origin and the nature of the addiction are not determined by the chemical effect of the drug but by the psychological structure of the patient (Glover, 1931-1932). Olds (1954) implanted small electrodes into the pleasure center Of the brain of laboratory rats. Then he placed a little switch in the cage and thereby gave the experi- mental animal itself the means Of transferring a weak electric current which stimulated the pleasure center, and gave an intensely pleasurable sensation. Once the rat had experienced these pleasurable sensations it "abandoned itself to vice" of continually treading on the switch to repeat them. The males ignored their females, forgot tO eat, drink, and sleep, and indulged themselves until they fell down exhausted or dead. Even in insects a somewhat similar phenomenon may be provoked and has been used to advantage in exterminating noxious insects. The scent given Off by the female is synthe- sized in large quantities and sprayed out over the infested area. The male insects then copulated with blades of grass, pieces of gravel, and debris that had acquiredtflmaseducing scent, and in competition with this multitude, the female Of the species does not stand a chance of being impregnated. In drug addiction there is a similar mechanism, a "short circuit“ that occurs in the biological system, and the normal pleasure-pain principle no longer functions. Analysis of drug addicts shows that genital primacy tends to collapse in those persons whose genital pri- macy always has been unstable. In analysis, all kinds Of pregenital wishes and conflicts may reveal them- selves in a confusing manner. The final stages are more instructive than the confusing pictures that appear during the process. The eventual "amorphous tension“ actually resembles the very earliest stage in libidinal develOpment, before there was any 16 organization at all, namely, the oral and cutaneous tendencies are manifest in those cases where the drug is taken by mouth or by hypodermic injection; the syringe, it is true, may also have a genital symbolic quality; the pleasure, nevertheless, is secured through the skin and is a passive-receptive one. More important than any erogenous pleasure in drug elation, however, is the extraordinary elevation in self-esteem. During the drug elation erotic narcissistic satisfaction visibly coincide again. And this is the decisive point (Fenichel, 1945). The high cost of addiction, if nothing else, has led Officials throughout the country to recognize the need for new policies to provide a solution to the problem. This growing recognition Of the need for change, which was sig- nificantly brought to public attention by the joint AMA-ABA: report, was most importantly marked by the White House Con- ference on Narcotics and Drug Abuse held in September Of 1962. Addressing 400 authorities from the fields Of law enforcement, correction, medicine, sociology, and education who assembled in Washington for the two-week conference, President Kennedy asked for direct guidance from them to form a positive basis for much more constructive action by all members attending the conference. In 1956, the Federal Narcotics Bureau reported there were an estimated 60,000 addicts in the United States, and in 1962 this figure was still being cited as the Official total addict population, despite the fact that the problem seemed to be increasing. A report, made several years ago by the Attorney General of California, estimated there were 52,000 addicted persons in that state alone. Estimates of 17 the addict population of New York range from 25,000 to 50,000. As Dr. Isidore Chein, one of the leading authori- ties On narcotics addiction, told the White House Conference: "We desperately need someone who can count to start counting." The only source Of national figures on "hard narcotic" addiction is from data compiled in a reporting system of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. This "system" rd . ‘M'o depends on voluntary reports and is acknowledged to represent ‘T underestimates. Most information in this system depends on reports from law enforcement agencies, and is admittedly inadequate (Richards and Elanore, 1970). The question is posed that, even if we were to assume a correct estimate of heroin addicts in the United States, what then? We will be confronted with the bare facts: The existing programs that "treat" this population do so with marked deficiencies, and with high recidivism rates. A review Of the literature suggests there is a grow- ing consensus that multiple reasons exist to explain why people start using/abusing drugs. However, no profound "causal" pattern Of drug use/abuse is known, and no outcome measure has been very "predictive." For the purpose of this study, the writer assumes that heroin addiction is sympto- matic Of a unique personality (profile) composing an impulsive- compulsive heterogeneous group on which little verifiable knowledge is known. By personal experience and problem evaluation, heroin is the most severe, exorbitant, perilous, and deleterious 18 drug used and abused in our society to date, and must be investigated independently Of all other drugs that are used/ abused. Philosophical Summary Drug use/abuse has emerged as a problem Of cata- clysmic proportions. The recent emergence in prominence of the negative consequences and effects of drugs on the col- lective conscience Of America is still only the "tip of the iceberg." We have a long way to go in more accurately delineating the sc0pe Of the problem. What we have really said is that individuals in this society, at all levels, are compelled to accept drugs initially as a realistic alterna- tive tO the cathartic elements (anxiety-inducing, fear- provoking stimuli) existing in their milieu, acting to destroy the will of those individuals to cope rationally with their most pressing dilemmas. In fact, nothing has been said about the individual at all! The current trend among administrators, researchers, psychologists, counselors, and social scientists is to "conglomeratize" the individual into a "meaningful perspective." It is indeed unfortunate that in this labeling and categorizing process people from widely varying strata Of society, all with their own unique needs, become lost in the race run by their "helpers" to statis- tically dehumanize them. No longer will an individual, once exposed to the releasing world Of drugs, be cured by the "Great White Father" in Washington. Any meaningful 19 change in the existing situation will come from efforts within that drug user/drug addict's immediate milieu--the local community. And within the local milieu, the change will come from those individuals who are the milieu, who know and are the direct reference group of an individual. We can no longer consciously or unconsciously inhibit the scope of our ideas to the confines Of any par- ticular discipline or academic structure. As such, we are faced with two tasks. Initially, the task is to make our- selves understood, and by doing so, to increase the store of knowledge and the concomitant potential for changing the milieu of the potential drug user/abuser by eliminating the need for a drug alternative. Our second task is to begin tO individualize the scope Of the problem. We must find out why an individual is led to such an alternative. Is it indeed his immediate milieu? Is this potentiality for the drug alternative revealed in the personality characteris- tics Of an individual? Is there an "addiction-prone person— ality? If so, what is this personality like? And the list goes on and on. Above all, we must begin to deal with the "individual“ and the multidimensional facets of his per- sonality, if the drug use/abuse battle is ever to end in victory. Definitions Hinsie and Campbell (1970) defined addiction as a strong dependency, both physiologic and emotional, upon alcohol or some other drug. True addiction Is 20 characterized by the appearance of an abstinence syn- drome of organic origin when the drug is withdrawn. It appears that in the addicted person the presence in the body of the addicting drug becomes necessary to maintain normal cellular functions, and when the drug is with- drawn, distortion Of physiological processes ensues and abstinence symptoms are provoked. An addict is a person who, whatever the apparent reason, has become physically and emotionally dependent upon a drug, substance or com- pound, so that he must maintain a certain level Of intake of that substance Often. In addiction, the craving for the substance has a compulsive, over-powering quality, and there is Often the tendency to use the substance in ever-increasing amounts. Addiction is considered to be a state of periodic or chronic intoxication, produced by the repeated consumption of a natural or synthetic drug. Addiction means different things to different peoPle. It has been defined by the World Health Organization as a state of periodic or chronic intoxication produced by the repeated consumption Of a drug (natural or synthetic). Its characteristics include: (a) an over- powering desire Or need (compulsion) to continue taking the drug and to Obtain it by any means; (b) a tendency to increase the dose; (c) a psychic (psychological) and generally a physical dependence on the effects Of the drug; and (d) detrimental effect on the individual and On society (McNeil, 1972). The term "OpiOd" refers to any compound, natural or synthetic, with morphine-like properties. As used in paragraph two, the term psychological depen- dence means that the individual perceives the effects of the drug as being necessary to an Optimal date of well being. Physical dependengy_means that the indi- vidual's body requires the presence Of the drug in order to function normally. If the drug is not present the person will undergo an abstinence or withdrawal syndrome that is characteristic for each drug class. For example, withdrawal from alcohol is different from withdrawal from heroin. Another word used in conjunction with addiction is the word tolerance. Tolerance simply means that after a period of time the individual's body learns to tolerate the presence of more and more drug with the result that the effect Of a certain dose of a drug will become less. We might reword the last phrase to 21 say that after tolerance develops it will take more drug to develop the same response. Thus, with drugs that produce tolerance there is a tendency to increase the dose to overcome the tolerance effect. Part Of the effect of tolerance can be explained on the basis that the body becomes more efficient in breaking drugs down to inactive chemicals after a period Of time. However, most tolerance that develOps is simply an adaptive mech- anism of the brain cells. That is, the brain "learns" to function normally in the presence of a depressant drug. This Observation also explains the withdrawal syndrome. When the drug is removed the brain now hyper- reacts and withdrawal is the result of the hyperactivity Of the central nervous system (McNeil, 1972). Organization Of the Thesis Chapter I served as an introduction to the thesis. It delineated the purpose of the study, statement of the problem, extent of drug abuse, Object of the study, justi- fication for the study, and philOSOphical summary. Also included within this first chapter was a brief description Of the hypotheses, listed as questions to be tested. An extensive review Of literature in the area of personality inventories and their relationship to heroin addiction, and to this study, comprises Chapter II. The general meth- odology and the design of the study are discussed in Chapter III. The data and results are analyzed in Chapter IV, while Chapter V includes summary material, recommenda- tions for further research, and conclusions of the study. A glossary of specific terms Often used by the heroin- addicted population is presented in Appendix A. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Perhaps the single most accurate word to describe heroin addiction is "deadly." For, above and beyond the crime and waste Of human potential associated with heroin addiction, the stark fact is that many heroin addicts die young (91st Congress, 2d Session, House Report NO. al-1818, 1971). In an effort to deal with the problem Of narcotic abuse, there has been an increase in research on the addicted patient. Studies have been carried out on the social back- ground Of such patients (Willis, 1969), on their personality characteristics (Lombardi, O'Brein and Isele, 1968; Hill, Hoertzen and Glaser, 1968; Gallagher, 1973), on their atti- tudes (Nicholson, 1972), and the effects of various kinds Of treatment such as methadone maintenance and group ther- apy (Dole, Nyswander and Warner, 1968; Blachly, Pepper, Scott and Baganz, 1961). But although the drug addiction problem has received increasing attention within the past few years, particularly in urban centers, little has been devel- oped tO aid in the early identification of the addict. Clinicians who treat addicts have lacked the conceptual tools for integrating personality, behavioral change, and social environmental dimensions in a single evaluation model. 22 23 While several psychometric scales have been devel- oped for describing addict types (Hill, Haertzen and Glaser, 1960; Monroe, Miller and Lyle, 1960-63), no standardized techniques are available to measure adequately the natural habitats and personalities Of drug addicts. Most investigations on the identification Of basic personality patterns have been theoretical and based on limited case studies. Often a close resemblance has been found between patterns of behavior in the alcoholic and the addict (Belleville, 1956; Staton, 1956). Today, most people accept the fact that addiction cannot be categorized merely as a medical or as a criminal problem. The general assump- tion is that the addict suffers a personality weakness (Wakefield, 1963). And although we commonly speak of drug addiction as a disease, it is more properly a symptom of a disease which is deep-rooted in social and economic condi- tions that tend to create dissatisfaction, unhappiness, conflict, tension, and strife in the minds and souls of, human beings. When the fundamental emotional stability and equilibrium of an individual are not equal to these milieu stresses, some persons consciously or unconsciously seek the psychological or chemical means which may be available for a measure Of relief (Maurer and Vogel, 1967). Gerard and Kornestsky (1954) found that more than half of their addict 55 suffered from either character disorders or inadequate personalities. Hill, Haertzen, and 24 Glaser (1960) found that the Psychopathic Deviate or Pd scale Of the MMPI was most frequently elevated by their 89. Olson (1964) reported that almost all of his adult addicts undergoing treatment had a diagnosis of sociOpathic personality disturbance. Hill, Haertzen and Glaser (1960) included in their study former narcotic addicts who were undergoing rehabili- tative therapy at the Public Health Hospital at Lexington, Kentucky (1951-52). The inventory was administered to 270 male, former narcotic addicts. They were tested approximately 4-8 weeks following admission and recovery from the ill- ness which follows withdrawal of opiates. The patients were not deteriorated or overtly psychotic. Twenty-one protocols were discarded because of questionable valid- ity as indicated by the validity scales, leaving the following groups: (a) 200 subjects who were chosen by selecting consecutive admissions from the hospital pOp- ulation. This sample was composed of 70 voluntary patients and 130 prisoners who were serving sentences Of from 1-10 years (since no significant differences were found between these groups on response to the MMPI the data was combined). The mean age was 30.6 years. (b) The second group was composed of 49 Negro and White subjects under 21 years of age who were treated in a separate "teenage“ unit Of the hospital. Composite profiles were constructed for these two groups as well as separately for the Negro and White subjects of the main group of 200. For these profiles lack of definite racial information reduced the Negro group to 70 and the White group to 88; mean ages were 25.6 and 37.4 years respectively. As will be shown below, hospitalized narcotic drug addicts differ widely on other scales, but in general produce an elevated Pd scale. This mean elevation Of 70 for all subgroups (except for the very few normals) reported upon here is not due to the scale containing many items concerned with the use of alcohol or other drugs, or with delinquent behavior--only three of 50 are such items. The scale differentiates well between “normals" and psychopathic deviates as defined by McKinley and Hathaway (1956), but it does not differentiate between addicts. NO terminology has been 25 devised that distinguishes in fairly definite manner between different groups of individuals who are psychOpathic deviates as indicated by the MMPI. The nomenclature of the American Psychiatric Association also appears inadequate for classifying and describ- ing such individuals, especially drug addicts. 80 70 60 T-SCORE 50 40 A \\ L F K Hs D Hy Pd Mf PO Pt Sc Mc CONDUCT DISORDERS PsychOpathic Group -.—.- Neurotic Group - - - Schizoid Group Source: Hill, Haertzen and Glaser, 1960. Reprinted with the permission of the author(s), Haertzen, 1973. Figure l.--Composite profiles produced by addicts when classified as conduct disorders. Drug addict, Wlth the sub- groupings psychopathic, neurotic, and SChiZOld. 26 Thus "Conduct Disorder," as employed by Meehl (1956), which implies variation in the direction of psycho- pathy is suggested as a generic term. The groups that were studied here might then be categorized as "Conduct Disorder, Drug Addict," with one of the qualifying sub- headings "Psychopathic," "Neurotic," or "Schizoid." Thus, in an attempt to distinguish possible differences within the general hospitalized addict population the 200 profiles were analyzed by high point coding. The nine clinical scales were numbered from 1 to 9, as recommended by Hathaway, and each individual record was classified into four subgroups: 1. Normal Group. Profiles which did not show more than one scale above 65 or more than two between 60 and 65, with none higher than 65. 2. Conduct Disorder, PsychOpathic Group. The basic psychopathic group here was composed of profiles showing high point codes Of either 4-9, or 9-4 (4, Pd; 9, Ma); in addition, for reasons discussed later, profiles showing high point codes Of 4-2, 2-4 were subsumed separately under this subgrouping. 3. Conduct Disorders, Neurotic Group. Profiles having the two highest points in the "Neurotic" triad (1, Hs; 2, D; 3, Hy); with the addition of 7 (Pt) when it was elevated with one of these three, 4 being disregarded. 4. Conduct Disorder, Schizoid Group. Profiles having the two highest points in the "Psychotic" triad (6, Pa; 8, Sc; 9, Ma) with the addition of 7 (Pt) when it was elevated with one of these three, 4 being disregarded. The correction factor (K) was employed, and the Anxiety index was calculated (Welsh, 1952). The Mf (Masculinity- Femininity) scale was not used in the determination of high points. Attempts were made to indicate some Of the behavioral characteristics of the psychopathic and neu- rotic groups; some Of the formulations are speculative and some are derived from previous clinical and experi- mental work. Except for a small number of individuals it was found that all groups and subgroups of this study produced abnormal composite profiles and that one deviation they possessed in common was a T-score of 70 on the Psycho- pathic deviate scale. The adolescent subjects produced as deviant profile as did the adult addicts. Using Conduct Disorder as the generic grouping and classifying profiles according to two high-point codes as, (a) Neu- rotic, (b) Psychopathic, or (c) Schizoid resulted in differentiable, abnormal composite profiles. The present data and ancillary evidence provided the basis for several conclusions: (a) Personality 27 characteristics Of narcotic addicts are either asso- ciated with psychopathy or are predominantly psycho- pathic in nature, although they may include many Of the classical psychoneurotic and psychotic features. (b) As indicated by the MMPI, personality character- istics of hospitalized adolescent addicts do not differ appreciably from those Of adult addicts. (c) This simi- larity and the similarity between adolescent addicts and non-addict delinquents suggests that psychopathology has considerable significance in the etiology of addiction. In a study conducted by Olson (1964), the 83 were adult addicts treated at the Patton (California) State Hospital (males), and the California Institution for Women. at Frontera (females). None Of the 83 were suffering from withdrawal symptons at the time of testing, nor were they overtly psychotic or deteriorated. Almost all Of the Ss had a diagnosis Of sociOpathic personality disturbance, and all were addicted to heroin, except for seven males who were addicted to other medically obtainable drugs. Slightly less than half of the Ss were Of Mexican-American origin. The males scored higher than the females on the K scale and lower on the Pa scale (Figure 2). Hill, et a1. (1962) provided evidence that social deviance is a common personality factor in alcoholics and prisoners as well as in heroin addicts. Using factor- analytic techniques, these authors found a marked similarity among MMPI profile patterns for these groups and demonstrated that elevation on Scale 4 was characteristically high. They suggested that, except for the behavior which is peculiarly determined by the particular addiction or criminal activity, no personality characteristics other than social deviance 28 .mmsouo Ham How om can we cmmzumn mm3 mamomlm Ones em. mm mm mm mm mm Hm mm mm mm om om mm om OHQOHMHMMEHOGD mm. mm Hm ms mo mm mm on mm mm pm we we om OAONHSOm oo.a mm vm hm Hm mm mm on we we mm mm mm Hm OADOHOOZ mm. mm mm vm em om mm mm vm mm mm mm mm we Av.m «~.vv :1. Ti: 1 .1- l. (l: OflnummO£O>mm om. we on em om av mm on mm mm om mm mm 5v Av.m «m.vv Oanucmosommm "mmcflmsoum HOOHOmflO DOSOGOU o.HH m.ma H.HH m.m v.m w.m m.m m.m m.oa H.m o.m m.m om mm. mm mm on hm mm mm mm vm mm em mm pm we oumoz waspm o.oa m.HH m.m N.m m.HH m.HH v.oa m.ma v.ma m.h m.h m.m ow em. mm um um mm em mm an hm em mm Hm mm we Opwsz paspd om. mm mw mm mm mm mm mm mm mm vm Hm om om mDOAOOD mmmcmma Hm. mm we mm mm mm mm on mm Hm mm mm mm om muuappm paupd EH 2 ms um um mm m2 2 mm a mm m A q m.muoappmlumom mo mmamficm msOHum> How mOHOOmIB Hmzz cmmzll.a mange 29 90 , 9o 80 -- so 70 i A 70 m / H l 33,) 60 ' \ 5° 5‘. ‘\ A \ so / ‘ \ so 40 4o L F K HsD HdeMfPaPtScMaSi Male Addicts (N=60, Mean age=29, Mean IQ= approximately 90) ------ Female Addicts (N=60, Mean age=28, Mean IQ= approximately 96) Figure 2.--Narcotic addiction profiles--males and females. are associated with alcoholism, narcotic addiction, or criminality. To test for specificity of social deviance within the addiction, Hill gt_gl. (1962) attempted to locate a non- addicted control group Of socioeconomic status comparable to the addicted group. They selected a representative sample 30 Of incarcerated criminals, recognizing there might be a con- siderable degree of "overlapping" but assuming that the chief mode Of adaptation is indicated by the referring complaint. Although their investigators de-emphasized the problem of overlap, regular testing of an inmate population revealed that as many as one-fourth Of the prisoners may have been addicts. Of 108 completing psychological evaluation for a five-month period, 24 were found to be known heroin addicts with two years or more of usage. It is therefore possible that sample contamination in this study contributed to the trend toward similarity between groups, while obscuring dif- ferences. Sutker (1971) conducted a study which examined mea- surable personality differences between carefully selected samples Of 40 heroin addicts and 40 non-addict prisoners. Composite MMPI profiles were compared for statistical dif- ferences between groups, and individual MMPI profiles were .classified using a system of differential diagnosis reported by Meehl in 1956. Results suggested there are measurable personality differences between heroin addicts and non- addict prisoners, especially with respect to the incidence and extent of sociopathy. The two samples did not differ from each other in terms Of age, educational level, intel- lectual level, or chronicity Of antisocial behaviors as indicated by time served in prison. 31 Sutker found: Although heroin addicts and prisoners evidenced a number of common personality characteristics reflected by simi- lar composite profile configurations, significant MMPI differences and results Of the prOfile classification have interesting implications which are in keeping with reports of other investigations. For example, signifi- cant elevations On MMPI Scales 4, 2, and 7 were found by Gilbert and Lombardi (1967), who also reported a low percentage Of normal MMPI profiles among young male nar- cotic addicts and a high percentage of profiles reflect- ing sociOpathy. Heroin addicts reported more neurotic symptoms than did nonaddict prisoners. They indicated more depression, pessimism, anxiety, and concern for bodily ailments. Higher elevations on these scales cannot be attributed to a tendency to endorse deviant items more frequently, as indicated by similar scores on the F scale for the two groups. Preoccupation with physical complaints and concern for bodily functioning are likely the result Of an addiction which has to be maintained under the pres- sures Of legal surveillance and the constant threat Of drug deprivation. An addict probably experiences a repeating cycle Of psychological and physical changes from the satisfaction and relative absence of anxiety associated with drug injection, followed by a build-up Of tension and activity concomitant with his search to acquire and find a place to shoot the drug, and then again the familiar relief associated with fixing. Thus it might be hypothesized that anxiety is a recurring state in many unincarcerated addicts, present regardless of personality type and resulting from the legal and physiological pressures of an illegal addiction. Viewed in this way, it is possible that anxiety would decrease in many addicts during incarcerated periods. Most interesting is the striking exaggeration Of Scale 4 in the mean addict profile. Scale 4 is the peak elevation for addicts and exceeds the mean on Scale 4 for nonaddicts by 10 T scores. This suggests that addicts have at least a tendency to be more socially deviant than nonaddict prisoners. Whether their socio- pathy is a function of years of manipulating, stealing, and conniving to acquire daily illicit drugs and to escape detection, or a precipitating factor in their becoming heroin dependent, is a problem for research. Although Hill et a1. (1962) reported no significant difference between prisoners and narcotic addicts on Scale 4, personality differences were likely obscured by the presence of a significant number of addicts in their prison sample. 32 Comparison of unincarcerated heroin addicts and prisoners with no history of heroin addiction on the Cavior He scale showed a significant difference in the predicted direction. However, the cut-off score of 36 for identification of addicts suggested by Cavior et al., is 1 point higher than the mean for the Louisiana adaict group. In that only the addict group seemed to differ significantly from Cavior data, it is possible that the difference is a function of the incarceration variable. Addicts in the present study were at the time of investigation "street" addicts, although as a group they did not differ from the incarcerated Ss in terms of time served in a state or local prison. It is also possible that geography is producing significant differences between the two groups of addicts. Clearly, such find- ings point to the possibility of differentiating addicts from nonaddicts using such a scale; however, the problem of overlapping items and similarity between groups is indeed a difficult one to overcome. Classification of MMPI profiles for addict and non- addict groups showed that at least one-half of the addict sample can be described diagnostically as socially deviant or sociOpathic, while only 30% of the nonaddict prisoners met the criteria for this category. Few "normal“ individuals were found within the heroin- addicted sample, while 42% of prisoners were classified as normal. Twenty-three percent of both addicts and prisoners were classified as psychotic, and the per- centage of purely neurotic individuals was surprisingly low in both groups. Even though addicts scored higher than nonaddicts on the neurotic triad, in the overall classification, only 15% were classified as neurotic. This would indicate that although there was evident in the addict group a greater tendency toward social noncon- formity and rejection of traditional values and restric- tions, at least some of these sociOpathic individuals were also experiencing depression and anxiety (Sutker, 1971). The diagnostic concept of “sociopathyu has provoked arguments and interest since the behaviors usually assumed under this rubric were early delineated by Prichard (1837) as "moral insanity.“ Although there are some who character- ize the label as a "wastebasket" category (Pennington, 1954; White, 1956), research using heroin addicts (Astin, 1959; Gilbert and Lombardi, 1967; Olsen, 1964) supports the 33 contention that these are a group of traits, described as sociOpathic and reflected by significantly elevated Psycho- pathic Deviate Scale (Pd or 4) scores on the MMPI, which are found with significantly greater frequency in narcotic addicts. Specifically, Austin (1959) reported a mean Pd T score of 75 for drug addicts at the United States Public Health Service Hospital, Lexington, Kentucky. Gilbert and Lombardi (1967) confirmed this general character disorder syndrome and recommended early identifica- tion of the addict as a means of decreasing addiction. In their study, a comparison was made of the personality char- acteristics, as measured by the MMPI, of 45 male narcotic addicts and 45 non-addicted males of similar socioeconomic levels. Although some maladjustment existed in both groups, results suggest deep-seated and widespread pathology among the addicts. Outstanding are the addict's psychopathic traits, his depression, tension, insecurity, feelings of inadequacy, and his difficulty in forming warm and lasting interpersonal relationships. Most addicts seem to be suffer- ing from a basic character disorder, although many also have associated psychoneurotic or psychotic traits. These find- ings, in general, are in agreement with those of other investigators. Dr. P. O. Wolff of the World Health Organization once said: "It is scarcely a paradox to say that the best way to be cured of addiction is not to become an addict, and 34 the best weapon against addiction is the possession of a normal psyche." This places the emphasis on psychiatry and mental hygiene for the elimination of the addiction-prone individual from our pOpulation. Lombardi, O'Brien and Isele (1968) assumed there were personality traits common to drug addicts, and attempted empirically to derive a scale to aid in the identification of such a syndrome. The MMPI was used, since it is a commonly used clinical instrument and contains a large pool which seemed likely to yield demonstrable differences between addicts and non-addicts. Further, the MMPI has met with varying degrees of success in identifying other clinical syndromes. MMPI records were originally obtained on 75 experimental SS (addicts) and 75 control Ss (non-addicts). An item analysis of MMPI responses of the drug addicts and the matched control group was performed. Cross-validation procedures were used. The results identified 19 items which significantly differentiated the two groups. The similarities between the alcoholic and the drug addict are reflected in the item overlap with existing MMPI scales on alcoholism. Eight of the 125 items contained in Hampton's (1954) Alcoholism (AL) scale were found signifi- cant in this study. Of the 59 items in Holmes' (1960) Alcoholism (AM) scale, seven items correspond with items identified in this study. There is also a six-item overlap with the 57-item Heroin (He) scale (Cavior, Kurtzberg and 35 Lipton, 1967), but this study did not use cross-validation procedures. The addict items tend to be derived principally from the psychopathic deviate (Pd) (seven items) and depression (D) (eight items) scales of the MMPI, corresponding closely to the clinical picture of gross feelings of inadequacy coupled with a basic character disorder or inadequate personality (Gilbert, g£_al., 1967). In light of the above, it would appear that this scale would/could adequately contribute to a useful purpose if, coupled with other diagnostic informa- tion, responses to these items could be used in an early identification of the addict-prone personality. While research evidence further suggests that habitual and prolonged use of opiates, barbiturates, tran- quilizers, stimulants, and hallucinogens is associated with manifest psychopathology (McAree, Steffenhagen and Zheu-lin, 1969; Smart and Fejer, 1964), there is some disagreement about whether there is an "addiction-prone" personality (Smart and Jones, 1970), and if so, what this personality is like. Smart and Feijer (1969) observed mixtures of per— sons with conduct disorders and schizophrenia in their sample, in which 96 per cent of the chronic drug users had unusual MMPIS. Pescor (1943) reported that 88.1 per cent of 1,036 hospitalized adult drug addicts studied were psychOpathic or sociOpathic, 6.3 per cent were neurotic, and 5.6 per cent psychotic. Gendreau and Gendreau (1970), 36 however, found no significant differences on the MMPI between heroin addicts and non-addicts. Greaves (1971) administered the MMPI to 20 adoles— cents and post-adolescents (ages 14 to 24 years) who had used multiple drugs to the point of requiring hospitalization. All the 85 had at least three MMPI scales with a T score of over 70, and they all had an elevation of scale 2 or 4 among the three highest scales; 80 per cent showed initial combina- tion of 2-8-X; 40 per cent showed some initial combination of 2-4—8. The histories of the 55 suggested that these per- sonality traits had existed prior to the onset of drug use. In comparing the MMPI profiles of a reference group of 161 non-hospitalized adolescents collected by another researcher at a local high school, the elevations on scales 2, 4, and 8 were significant. When compared by age with a matched sample of 14 hospitalized non-drug—using adolescents, how- ever, no differences between the drug users and non-users could be found. Greaves' findings were consistent with other find- ings (Gerard and Kornetsky, 1954; Smart and Fejer, 1969), and suggested that incipient psychosis, especially so-called "pseudopsychOpathic" schiZOphrenia, may often be implicated in adolescent drug-use cases that are severe enough to require hospitalization. The consistent elevations on scales 2 and 4 also supported Edwards, Bloom and Cohen‘s (1969) hypothesis that chronic drug users are persons who have 37 difficulty dealing with their aggressive feelings. The inability of the MMPI to distinguish between drug users and non-users in this sample suggests, however, there are other factors more relevant to chronic drug abuse than those tapped by the MMPI. Holloran (1972) did a study comparing an adolescent drug-abusing group to an adolescent non-abusing group from the middle and upper classes to determine personality char- acteristics which distinguished the two groups. An effort was made to describe the personality characteristics of adolescent drug abusers. The study also compared female and male abusers to determine if sexual differences were significant. The author was particularly interested in any elevation on the Hysteria, Psychopathic Deviate, Schizophrenia, Hypomania, and Social Introversion Scales of the MMPI. This study was descriptive in nature; T scores from the selected scales provided the data that were analyzed. A two-way analysis of variance was used in determining the significant differences between the two groups. No significant differences were found between ado- lescent drug abusers and non-abusers on the Hysteria and Social Introversion Scales. On the T scores from the Psychopathic Deviate, Schizophrenia, and Hypomania Scales, a significant difference at the .01 level of confidence was found between abusers and non-abusers. In each instance, the mean scores of the abusers were above the T score of 70 38 on the MMPI profile. This suggested certain personality characteristics which distinguished drug abusers from non- abusers. They found no significant difference between female and male abusers on any of the special scales. Holloran's study concluded that certain personality characteristics differ, and therefore distinguished the drug abuser from the non-abuser. The abusers were more nonconformists, tended to reject social conventions, and lacked the ability to form satisfactory emotional relation- ships. They were generally characterized as impulsive, unpredictable, unstable in moods, restless, and easily distractible. They also lacked the ability to anticipate the consequences of their behavior. No significant differ— ence was found between male and female abusers on the MMPI scales used. According to Sheppard, Ricea, Fracchia, Rosenberg and Merlis (1972), there is theoretical significance and clinical utility for develOping a personality measure pre- dictive of a propensity toward heroin addiction. It can be theorized that drug abusers represent one instance of a personality that is vulnerable to addicting agents; that is, there is a similar underlying personality structure that gives rise to addiction. They then hypothesized (a) there would be no differences on such a scale between alcoholics and heroin addicts, and (b) heroin abusers and addicts would score higher on such a scale than non-heroin addicts or abusers. 39 The purpose of their investigation was to cross- validate and extend the use of the heroin-addiction (He) scale while gathering data that might also reflect on the variety of the hypothesis of an addiction—prone personality. Basically, the study measured the ability of the "He" scale to differentiate a second, larger sample of male heroin addicts from the normative samples. Secondly, it deter- 1 mined the ability of the scale to discriminate between samples of male alcoholics and heroin addicts. 4 These authors administered the MMPI and other psychometric tests to 274 male heroin addicts committed to Central Islip State Hospital (CISH). To ensure validity, only volunteers were used. The alcoholic Ss were from a sample of 111 male veterans admitted to Fort Meade (South Dakota) Alcoholic Treatment Unit. All were alcoholics by confirmation, but were not undergoing withdrawal or acute alcoholism at the time of testing. The second sample con- sisted of 117 male alcoholics newly admitted to Rusk State Hospital (Texas), representing a continuum of drinking behavior ranging from moderate to heavy drinkers. On the basis of the data presented, the following conclusions were drawn. The "He" scale discriminates heroin addicts from alcoholics in samples treated at psychiatric installations. Regardless of reasons underlying the "He" scale, alcoholics and heroin addicts differ in intensity, with the heroin addicts scoring significantly higher. 40 The study that is the most pertinent and most closely related to this dissertation was done by Pryor (1971). Pryor's study was designed to determine the value of the Bipolar Psychological Inventory (BPI) for identify- ing the psychological characteristics of incarcerated crim- inals, and to determine what relationships existed between the scales of the MMPI and the scales of the BPI. Both tests were administered to four different groups: (a) a primary inmate sample consisting of 49 inmates who had a juvenile history and fell into the top 50 per cent of all tested inmates on number of arrests by police, (b) a secondary inmate sample consisting of 26 inmates who had no juvenile history and fell into the bottom 50 per cent of all tested inmates, (c) an inmate group consisting of 48 inmates who failed to meet the criteria for either pri— mary or secondary classification, and (d) a group of 53 students who were enrolled in elementary classes at the University of Utah during fall and winter terms of 1970-71 (Pryor, 1971). Point-biserial correlations were computed between the incarceration variable and the scale of both the MMPI and the BPI. Pearson Product-Moment Correlations were com- puted between the scales of the two instruments' dimensions for the combined samples in an attempt to determiqf the con— current validity of the BPI. 41 The results of Pryor's study showed that the BPI revealed more numerous and more highly significant correla- tions with incarcerated inmates than did the MMPI. The BPI also proved more effective in dividing a heterogeneous prison pOpulation into more homogenous groups than did the MMPI. Correlations between the two inventories suggest possible, future uses as diagnostic and therapeutic instru- ments. Much research is still required before the full usefulness and effectiveness of the BPI will be known. As has been said, most of us live with similar ten- sions and usually adjust to them; however, the addict, potential addict, or drug abuser does not or cannot make the adjustment. He therefore uses drugs in an effort to achieve "normalcy,' to make up the difference between what he has and what he needs to live with himself and others. A very small number of addicts are basically normal people, addicted accidently by medical prescriptions. A somewhat greater number of addicts seem to be essentially normal individuals, inadvertently addicted because of social- ization with addicted friends or a pusher. Treatment for the emotionally normal, accidental addict may be quite easy, requiring only an initial treatment without relapse, and without the necessity of retreatment which is character- istic of the chronic addict. The chronic addict, hypoth- esized as an addiction-prone personality, the type that makes up the preponderance of addiction, is the one on which this writer will concentrate his efforts in this dissertation. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN OF THE STUDY The purpose of this chapter is to delineate a step- by-step narrative of the methodology involved in this study. It includes a description of each instrument used in the study, and how the population for the study was determined. The procedure used in the study is discussed, and the method used for statistical analysis is summarized. Instruments This study employed two instruments-—The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and the Bipolar Psychological Inventory (BPI). Personality factors which both instruments assessed included: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) Hypochondriasis--HS Depression--D Hysteria--Hy Psychopathic Deviate—-Pd Masculinity-Femininity-—Mf Paranoia--Pa Psychasthenic--Pt Schizophrenia--Sc Hypomania--Ma Social Introversion--Si alidity Scales Cannot Say Lie Validity Correction N'stjuJm~qoxunbLDnJH 42 43 Bipolar Psychological Inventory (BPI) Valid........................Invalid Honest...........................Lie Open.......................Defensive Psychic Comfort.........Psychic Pain Optimism..................Depression Self-Esteem.........Self—Degradation Self—Sufficiency..........Dependence Achieving................Unmotivated Gregariousness.....Social Withdrawal Family Harmony........Family Discord Sexual Maturity....Sexua1 Immaturity Social Conformity....Social Deviency Self-Control...........Impulsiveness Kindness...................Hostility 15. Empathy................Insensitivity mummwai-J FJH FJOxo O O O O huh) 0 An Overview of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Introduction and Test DevelOpment The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, usually abbreviated MMPI, is a personality questionnaire consisting of 550 statements concerning feeling behavior, social attitudes, and explicit symptoms of psychopathology. The testee must answer each question T (true), F (false), or ? (cannot say), and his answer sheet is then scored by various keys that have been standardized on different diag- nostic groups and personality types. The MMPI was originally constructed by a psychiatrist, J. C. McKinley, and a psy— chologist, Starke Hathaway (Hinsie and Campbell, 1970). . The MMPI appeared in the early 1940's as a new kind of psychometric tool for those professionally concerned with the assessment of personality. The MMPI was developed to 414 Basic Variable List by IBM Card and Column - J. H. Hightower _ VariabTés Score-Range Column Card l."ValidlInva11d 00-25 ll-40 ’l 2. Honest-Lie 00-25 ll-40 l 3. Open-Defensive 00-25 ll-40 l 4. Psychic Comfort-Psychic Pain 00-25 ll-40 l 5. Optimism-Depressive 00-25 ll-40 l m 6. Self Esteem-Self Degradation 00-25 11-40 1 :2 7. Self Sufficiency-Dependence 00-25 ll-40 l 5; 8. Achieving-Unmotivated 00-25 ll-40 l 9. Gregariousness-Social Withdrawal 00-25 ll-40 l a: lo. Family Harmony-Family Discord 00-25 ll-4O l °° ll. Sexual Maturity-Sexual Immaturity 00-25 ll-40 l 12. Social Conformity-Social Deviancy 00-25 ll-40 1 13. Self Control-Impulsiveness 00-25 ll-40 l l4. Kindness-Hostility 00-25 ll-40 l 15. Em athy-Insensitivity 00-25 ll-40 l l6. Cannot Say 00-99 43-70 T Validity l7. L Lie 00-99 43-70 l Scales l8. F 00-99 43-70 l 19. K 00-99 43-70 l 20. HS (1) 00-99 43-70 TI' 2l. 0 (2) 00-99 43-70 l 8 22. Hy (3) 00-99 43-70 1 73 23. Pd (4) 00-99 43-70 l 8 24. Mf (5) 00-99 43-70 1 .. 25. Pa (6) 00-99 43-70 1 e 26. Pt (7) oo-99 43-70 1 ’- 27. Sc (8) 00-99 43-70 1 28. Ma (9) 00-99 43-70 l 29. $1 (0) 00-99 43-70 l Demo- 30. Age 0 l7-44 73-74 1 graphic 3l. Educatéon C 07-17 75-76 1 Data 32. Race 04-06 77-78 l Identity 33. Groups 3’ ..-._..QIIOZ 4‘ 5 I a Grou s b A e Ol Incarcerated Heroin Addicts _IReported per se) 02 Incarcerated Non-Addicts C Education 07, 08. 09. lo. and ll represents actual grade levels 12 high school graduate/ or equivalency l3 one yr of college 14 two yrs of college/ or A.A., etc. l5 three yrs of college 16 8.5., B.A., etc. l7 one yr graduate school l8 M.A., M.S.. etc. d Race 04 Black 05 White 06 Mexican 45 "assay those traits that are commonly characteristic of disabling psychological abnormality" (Anastasi, 1961). When first published, the MMPI provided scores on nine scales. Each of these scales consisted of items that differentiated between a specified clinical group and a normal control group of approximately 700 persons. The latter were all visitors at the University of Minnesota Hospitals, and represented a fairly adequate cross section of the Minnesota pOpulation of both sexes between the ages Of 16 and 55. The scales_were thus developed empirically by criterion keying of items (the act or process of devel- Oping a test‘s scoring key empirically, through noting characteristic differences in answers made by different groups of individuals), with the criterion being traditional psychiatric diagnosis. Explicitly, the MMPI covers with impressive thoroughness a variety of information that a clinician—counselor seeks to ascertain when delineating the behavior and adjustment of an individual (Anastasi, 1961). In its regular administration, the MMPI presently yields 14 scales, including the nine original clinical scales, the Si Scale, and the four validating scales. The reference groups included 700 normal controls who were visitors to the University of Minnesota Hospital, and 800 psychiatric patients. Having selected the items by the above-defined empirical procedure, "standard“ or "T" scores for each scale were derived from the average and the standard hrs‘ 46 deviation of its raw score distribution in the control pop- ulation. The raw score average of each scale is converted to a "T“ score of 50, and its standard deviation to the "T" score of 70. Any "T" score of 70 or higher, falling two standard deviations or more above the mean, is generally taken as the cutoff point for the identification of patho- logical deviations. All scores above a "T" score of 70 are considered to be within the normal range (Pope and Scott, 1967) . Description of the MMPI Scales (POpe and Scott, 1967; Carkhuff, 1965; Good and Brantner, 1961) Scale 1 (Hypochondriasis--Hs).--This scale assesses the amount of abnormal or excessive concern with bodily functions. In general, subjects who obtain a high score on the first scale are preoccupied with bodily complaints of a vague nature and with no organic basis. The following are some of the scale items when marked False: "I have had no difficulty in starting or holding my bowel movement," "I hardly ever feel pain in the back of the neck," and "I do not often notice my ears ringing or buzzing." Others, marked True, include: "I am bothered by stomach acid sev- eral times a week," "The top of my head sometimes feels tender,“ and "I feel weak all over much of the time." Scale 2 (Depression—-D).--This scale appraises a tendency to be chronically depressed, to feel useless and 47 unable to face the future. This is the most frequently elevated scale among psychiatric patients, for some depres- sive mood is an omnipresent occurrence in most forms of mal- adjustment. Since depression comes in a variety of forms, and with varieties of intensity and degree of severity, it is necessary to determine the profile context for an elevation in this scale before specifying the type of depressive syn- drome. Scale items marked False include: "At times I am all full of energy,“ "At times I feel like smashing things," and "I have never felt better in my life than I do now." One of those marked True is: “I am easily awakened by noise." Scale 3 (Hysteria-—Hy).--This scale was first vali- dated against a group of conversion hysteria patients, whose symptoms included paralysis, intestinal complaints, and functional caridac symptomatology. Its content falls into two areas, one dealing with somatic symptoms and the other with social behavior (Dahlstrom, 1960). The somatic items tend to have a more specific reference, rather than vaguely alluding to general body parts as in Scale 1. The following items when marked True are examples: "Much of the time my head seems to hurt all over" and "I frequently notice that my hand shakes when I try to do something." The social beha- vior items generally deny any sort of problem, inadequacy, or socially undesirable impulses toward others. They appear to represent a general repressiveness and denial of unacceptable personality traits. When scored False, the following two 48 items are illustrative: "I think a great many people exag- gerate their misfortunes in order to gain the sympathy and help of others," and I'The sight of blood neither frightens me nor makes me sick." Scale 4 (Psychopathic Deviate--Pd).--This scale was based upon a group who showed absence of deep emotional response, inability to profit from experience, and disregard for social pressures and the regard of others. Their most frequent digressions from the social mores are lying, steal- ing, drug or alcohol addiction, and sexual immorality. Indi— viduals in this group differ from some criminal types in their inability to profit from experience and in that they seem to commit asocial acts with little thought of possible profit to themselves or of shunning discovery (Hathaway and McKinley, 1951). Items in this scale describe family dis- cord, gross maladjustment in many areas, and rebelliousness against authority. The items marked False include the following: "I liked school," and “My relatives are nearly all in sympathy with me." Others selected from those marked True are: "I have used alcohol excessively," and “My way of doing things is apt to be misunderstood by others." Scale 5 (Masculinity-Femininity--Mf).--Scale 5 was constructed to represent the interests and personality features associated with male sexual inversion. Actual overt homo- sexuality was not characteristic of all the men comprising the 49 criterion group, but rather a pervasive femininity of atti- tude and interest. The item content for this scale includes the following: work and hobbies, social activities, religious preference, family relationships, worries and personal sen- sitivities and fears. Items in this scale also reflect both femininity of interest and sexual anxiety. Some of the items scored False include: "My feelings are easily hurt" and "I have never indulged in any unusual sex practices." Among the True items are the following: "I have often wished I were a girl," and "I am very strongly attracted by members of my own sex.“ Scale 6 (Paranoia--Pa).--The qualities evaluated by this scale are suspiciousness, feelings of being picked on or persecuted, and oversensitivity. The item content for this scale includes: admission of psychological frailty or fragility, denial items or generalizations which the paranoid personality answers in the unexpected direction, and psychotic items including delusional material. The criterion group for Scale 6 was composed of subjects who were suspicious, prone to delusions of per- secution, and to a grandiose sort of egotism (Hathaway and McKinley, 1951). Among the False items are: "I have no enemies who really wish to harm me," and "I am more sensi- tive than most other people are." The True items include: "Evil spirits possess me at times,“ and “I believe I am being followed." 50 Scale 7 (Psychasthenic--Pt).--The term "psychasthenic" is no longer universally utilized. It designates . . . psychiatric patients who are troubled by phobias or compulsive behavior. The compulsive behavior may be either explicit, as expressed by excessive hand- washing, vacillation, or other ineffectual activity, or implicit, as in the inability to escape useless thinking or obsessive ideas. The phobia includes all types of unreasonable fear of things or situations as well as overreaction to more reasonable stimuli (Hathaway and McKinley, 1951). Scale 7 item content illustrates low self-confidence, anxiety and dread, immobilization, undue sensitivity, and moodiness. While Scale 3 (Hysteria--Hy) tends to deny inadequacies and assume an over-optimistic demeanor, the individual who scores high on Scale 7, by contrast, ruminates about his own guilt, anxiety, and weaknesses. The items scored False on this scale include: "I almost never dream," "I seldom worry about my health," and "Most nights I go to sleep without thoughts or ideas bothering me." Those scored True include: "I feel anxiety about something or someone almost all the time,“ "I usually have to stop and think before I act even in trifling matters," and “Bad words, often terrible words, come into my mind and I cannot get rid of them." Scale 8 (Schizophrenia--Sc).--This scale is based upon a group of patients characterized by bizarre and unusual thought or behavior, and a subjective life tending to be dichotomized from the world of reality. Many of the items reflect bizarre mentation, social alienation, feelings of persecution included in the classic description of 51 schizophrenia, and peculiarities of perception. There are also items which are part of the basic syndrome. The scale includes one of the largest subsets of items dealing with sexual matters, as well as items dealing with difficulties in concentration and impulse cOntrol (Dahlstrom, 1960). The following items are scored False in this scale: “I seem to make friends about as quickly as others do,“ "My speech is the same as always (not faster or slower, or slurring; no hoarseness),“ and "I have never been paralyzed or had any unusual weakness of any of my muscles." Those marked True include: “I hear strange things when I am alone," "I believe I am a condemned person," and "I don't seem to care what happens to me." Scale 9 (Hypomania--Ma).--This scale elevated a ten- dency to be overactive both bodily and mentally, with a tendency to skip around rapidly from one thing to another. This scale has reference to the kind of elevated mood found in manic patients. Three basic traits found in this type of .patient are reflected in the scales: overactivity, emotional excitement, and flight or "push" of ideas. While some of the scale items reflect the hyperactivity, excitement, and flight of ideas of the hypomanic patient, others eXpress certain family relationship attitudes; the remainder allude to a preoccupation with somatic concerns. The following are some of the items scored False: "I have never done anything dangerous for the thrill of it," "It makes me 52 uncomfortable to put on a stunt at a party even when others are doing the same sort of thing," and "I am afraid when I look down from a high place." Those marked True include: “I am an important person," "When I get bored I like to stir up some excitement,“ and “Something exciting will almost always pull me out of it when I am feeling low." Scalego (Social Introversion--Si).--This late addi- tion to the basic scales used in the standard profile chart differs from the others, in its validation against a non- psychiatric criterion group. It was devised to distin- guish college women who were socially isolated from those who were socially active. Men were not used in the stan— dardization groups because the scale was developed during World War II and it was felt that the men available consti- tuted a biased sample. Scale items describe discomfort in social situations, and a variety of sensitivities, worries, and insecurities. Generally, Si assesses the tendency to withdraw from social contact with others, and has found its greatest use with college counseling center populations. However, it is noted that the "a priori" and judgmental basis for selecting items has raised many doubts among researchers regarding its dependability. Although this scale has dubious dependability and has not been factor analyzed, introversion-extroversion has been a major dimension dis- cerned in factor analyses of the complete MMPI. 53 Among the items scored False are: “I like to go to parties and other affairs where there is lots of loud fun," "I do not mind being made fun of,“ and "I am not unusually self-conscious." Those scored True include: “At parties I am more likely to Sit by myself or with one other person than join in with the crowd," "I wish I could be as happy as others seem to be," and “I have often felt that strang- ers were looking at me critically." Validity Scales (L, F1 K1 and ?) A special feature of the MMPI is its utilization of four so-called validity scales. These scales are not tech- nically concerned with validity, but, in effect, represent checks on carelessness, malingering, operation of special response sets and test—taking attitudes, and misunderstand— ings. If distortion of response is present, the validity scales report its degree and type. The validating scales follow: ? (Cannot Say).--The first of the validity scales is known as the "Cannot Say“ scale. The ? score is the number of items that the subject did not answer on the group form, or the number of items placed in the "Cannot Say" category on the card form of the MMPI. Unanswered items indicate the individual is hesitant to answer or cannot or will not answer. The number of unanswered items can be viewed as largely dependent upon 54 the subject's “response set,“ and concomitantly acts as a depressant on the deviations on other scales when "?" is a high number. L (Lie): There are 15 items in the L scale, all descriptive of trivial and nearly universal faults, which most people are willing to admit without exorbitant defen- siveness. The item content attempts to measure aggressive feelings, "bad thoughts," temptations, lack of control or conformity, and generally the minimal kinds of foibles most peOple tend to have. It is seen, then, that L assesses falsi— fication by the individual's attempt to place self in a more socially acceptable light. High L indicates greater and higher deviations on the clinical scales (which are ?) than may otherwise be evident. Some examples of items in this scale are the follow- ing, scored False: II.Txdo not always tell the truth," "I do not like everyone I know," "Once in a while I put off until tomorrow what I ought to do today," and "Sometimes at elections I vote for men about whom I know very little." §.--The K scale was designed to ameliorate the predictive validity of some of the original scales (McKinley and Hathaway, 1956). An important facet of the K scale is that, in addition to its use as an index of validity, it 55 has also been adapted as a statistical corrector for some of the other clinical scales. K scale items include personal inadequacies, ten- dencies toward mental disorders, self-control, and criticism of others. Typical characteristics discerned include cyni- cism, euphoria, hospitalization, shyness, hostility, family dissension, and worry. 4 When the following items are answered as False, they are included in the K scale: "At times I feel like swearing," "I frequently find myself worrying about something," and “It makes me impatient to have people ask my advice or other- wise interrupt me when I am working on something important." §.--The F scale represents an attitude quite antithet- ical to that denoted by the L and K scales. Instead of expressing a tendency to minimize, deny, or evade the admis- sion of pathology, it represents its exaggeration. The F scale entails 64 items that are rarely answered in the scaled direction. Item content reflects peculiar thoughts, apathy and lack of interest, denial of social and familial ties, and attitudes toward religion and law. In general, F assesses whether the inventory was taken and scored correctly, while high F usually indicates carelessness or inability to comprehend on the part of the testee or errors in recording or scoring on the part of the testor. 56 Some of the items in this scale scored False are: “I am liked by most people who know me," "My sex life is satisfactory," and “My father was a good man.“ Others marked True include: “It would be better if almost all laws were thrown away," "I commonly hear voices without knowing where they come from,“ and "Sometimes I‘m strongly attracted by the personal articles of others such as shoes, gloves, etc., so that I want to handle or steal them, though I have no use for them." Reliability and Validity '6? the MMPI The following section reports reliability and validity information for the Minnesota Multiphasic Person- ality Inventory: Anastasi (1961) stated that the effectiveness of any profile analysis is weakened by chance in the scores on which it is based. If individual scale scores are unreliable and highly intercorrelated, many of the inter-score differences that determine the profile code may have resulted from chance. Re-test reliabilities on normal and abnormal adult samples reported in the manual range from the .50 to the low .90. The interval between retest varied from a few days to over a year. Hathaway (1956) reported that on the K-corrected Sc scale approximately 60 per cent of schizophrenic patients in the psychiatric cross-validation group attained a "T" score of 70 or higher, whereas only 2 per cent of the normal cross-validation subjects scored in this range. Simple calculation (Meehl and Rosen, 1955) will show that be label- ing all patients schiZOphrenic who score 70 or more on the 57 MMPI will result in 79 per cent of all patients being cor— rectly diagnosed. The calculation is shown in Table 2. Table 2.--Percentage of patients diagnosed schizophrenic or normal by the Sc scale, using a cutoff score of 70, where 50 per cent are actually schizophrenic and 50 per cent are actually normal. Actually u u . Actual 1y T Score Schizo- Total phrenic Normal 70 or more (diagnosed a schizOphrenic) 30 1 31 Below 70 (diagnosed normal) 20 49a 69 Total 50 50 100 aCorrectly diagnosed. Rosen (1953) included in his study male (non- active duty) patients admitted for the first time to the psychiatric section of the Minneapolis VA Hospital during an eight-week period. Retesting was accomplished within two to seven days until 40 test-retest cases were obtained. The first test was given between 0-12 days after admission, but usually within three days. Twenty-two of the Ss had an IQ equivalent of 110 or above. Thirteen of the 85 had never been married. There were 25 with a primary diagnosis of neurosis (mainly anxiety reaction or depressive reaction), and 11 were diagnosed psychotic. The retest was higher than 58 the original test on the K scale, and lower on the Pa scale (and on the K-uncorrected Ps, Pt, and So scales). Test-retest correlations ranged from .55 to .88. Retest Stability.-—Hathaway and Monachesi (1963) reported that their Ss were drawn from 12 schools which were representative of the state of Minnesota as far as possible with respect to economic and geographic areas. Subjects were tested in the ninth grade and again in the twelfth grade (test-retest interval of approximately three years). All Ss included in the study had valid profiles (L less than 10, F less than 16) on both the original test and the retest. Retest for the boys was higher than on the original test on the K, Hy, Pd, and Mf scales and lower on the L, F, D, Pa, Pt, Sc, Ma, and Si scales. For the girls the retest was higher than the original test on the K, Hs, and Hy scales and lower on the L, F, Mf, Pa, Pt, Sc, Ma, and Si scales. A review of the literature reported considerable evidence suggesting, in general, that the greater the num- ber and magnitude of deviate scores on the MMPI, the more likely it is that the individual is severely disturbed. However, related publications and the MMPI test manual now caution against literal interpretations of the clinical scales: i.e., we cannot assume that a high score on the Sc scale indicates the presence of schizophrenia. Other psy- chotic groups show high elevation on this scale, and 59 schizophrenics often score high on other scales. It is partly to prevent possible misinterpretations of scores on single scales that the code numbers 0-9 have been substi- tuted for the scale name in later publications of the MMPI. An Overview of the Bipolar Tngchological Inventory Introduction As the BPI is relatively new and its use and familiarity are limited, this writer feels it necessary to quote the manual on Instructions, Administration, and Scoring to insure a thorough understanding (Howell, Payne, and Roe, 1972). The Bipolar Psychological Inventory is designed for use with both normal and clinical populations--recognizing the fact that it is difficult to clearly differentiate between the two groups. Further, it is obvious that all normal individuals are not alike and neither are all abnormal individuals alike. Any psychological evaluation is a process of assessing these individual differences. The primary purpose of this inventory is to provide a fairly comprehensive personality assess- ment instrument that has utility in institutions, clinics, educational settings, industry, private work, or in any situation where personality functioning is of interest. The "Bipolar" nature of the test gives emphasis to both the positive and negative aspects of personality. The constructive potentials as well as the pathological areas of functioning are important if something beyond diagnosis is desired. In this test personality functioning has been conceptualized in broad and hOpefully relevant terms. This conceptualizing is reflected in the dimensions chosen (p. 3). Rationale The word "Bipolar“ has reference to the bipolar nature of the personality dimensions. For example, if a person 60 has the potential of being honest, he also has the potential Of being dishonest. Or if depression is measured, then the opposite of depression, OptimiSm or positive affect, can also be identified. A concern for describing healthy as well as unhealthy states led to the identification of the polar ends of each dimen- sion. - ~ ' The choice of dimensions was based on the following considerations. Originating in a correctional setting, it was natural to focus on dimensions of particular interest in dealing with the criminal offender. A need to differentiate between inmates dictated, to some extent, the factors. For example, the MMPI has pro- duced elevated Pd scales with most inmates; but mean- ingful differentiations between inmates have not been apparent in most cases. Relevance and breadth were desired. Therefore, the dimensions found in the neu- roses and personality disorders seemed relevant--not only for correctional inmates but for most clientele encountered in many institutions and in most clinics. Experience suggested additional dimensions as meaning- ful in terms of day to day work where recommendations, diagnoses, change indicators, predictions, prognoses, and accurate descriptions were required (p. 3). Description of the Scales Opposing Ends of the Scale Meaning of Score Invalid-Valid High Score. Gross confusion (psy- (10 items) chosis, brain damage, retardat'on), inability to read, random marking of the answer sheet without reading the items, uncooperative, practical joker, or defiant individual. Low Score. Accurate reading of items and following of instructions. Lie-Honest High Score. Dishonest in test (13 items) taking, exaggerates positive traits, minimizes deficiencies. Low Score. Meticulously honest, tendency to exaggerate weaknesses. Defensive-Open (22 items) Psychic Pain-Psychic Comfort (21 items) Depression-Optimism (22 items) Self-Degradation- Self-Esteem (22 items) Dependence- Self-Sufficiency (20 items) Unmotivated-Achieving (20 items) 61 High Score. Defensive, doesn't like to reveal self or personal problems, keeps feelings to self, resists pro- fessional help, guarded, does not solicit feedback. Low Score. Open, accepts help, re- veals problems freely, solicits pro- fessional help. High Score. Psychic pain, emotional, behavioral and physical symptoms of anxiety, dissatisfaction, nervous, tense. Low Score. Comfort, contentment, relaxed, calm, satisfied, unconcerned, controlled. High Score. Depression, fearful of future, regret of the past, feeling of impending doom, suicidal, failure experiences, unhappy. Low Score. Happiness, Optimism, suc- cessful, satisfaction, cheerful, energetic. High Score. Self-degradation, self- critical, inferiority feelings, dis- satisfaction with self, self- depreciating, poor self-image, low ego strength, intropunitive. Low Score. Self-esteem, secure, self- satisfied, confident, self-assured, high self-regard. High Score. Dependent, inadequate, meek, gullible, follower, acquies- cing, submissive, deferent. Low Score. Self-sufficient, inde- pendent, assertive, confident, leader, self-directing. High Score. Unmotivated, under- achiever, lazy, procrastinator, unassuming, slothful, irresponsible. Low Score. Achievement oriented, competitive, aggressive, untiring, recognition seeking, academically oriented, successful, hard working, accomplished. Social Withdrawal- Gregariousness (20 items) Family Discord— Family Harmony (22 items) Sexual Immaturity- Sexual Maturity (Form A Only) (24 items) Problem Index, High- Problem Index, Low (Form B Only) (25 items) Social.Deviancy- Social Conformity (21 items) Impulsiveness- Self-COntrol (22 items) 62 High Score. Social withdrawal, loner, solitary, avoids interaction and confrontation, schizoid, social avoidance, introverted. Low Score. Gregarious, sociable, seeks companionship, outgoing, extrovertive, affiliative. High Score. Family discord, hatred, mutual rejection, dissension, and interpersonal conflict. Low Score. Family harmony, close- ness, pride, love, acceptance, and unity. High Score. Sexual immaturity, deviant tendencies, sexual anxieties, promiscuity, sexual guilt. Low Score. Heterosexual maturity, adequacy and satisfaction, and sex- ual control. ' High Score. Possibly severe prob— lems with multiple symptoms-- psychotic reactions are possible. Dissatisfaction high. Many areas to explore in interview. See individual items endorsed on scoring key. Low Score. Few problems in areas sampled by test. High Score. Social deviancy, anti- social, criminal behavior, societal conflict, anti-establishment, irre- sponsible, psychopathic, law break- ing, rebellious. Low Score. Social conformity, law abiding, ethical, socially sensitive, conforming, pro—social attitude. High Score. Impulsivity, joy seek- ing, narcissistic, uncontrolled, moody, erratic, changeable, un- reliable. Low Score. Self-control, consistent, dependable, reliable, persistent, planful, stable. 63 Hostility-Kindness High Score. Hostility, anger, chal- (20 items) lenging, aggressiveness, verbally assertive, "eye-for-eye" attitude, threatening, intolerant, violent, vengeful. Low Score. Friendliness, easy going, accepting, kind, forgiving, COOper- ative, peaceful. Insensitivity-Empathy High Score. Cruel, insensitive, (20 items) morbid, punitive, calloused, sadistic. LOw Score. Empathic, concerned, sensitive to others, kind, consid- erate, sympathetic. Administration and Scoring The Bipolar Psychological Inventory is self- administering. The 300 items are printed in a reusable booklet. There is a single answer sheet for both hand scoring and machine scoring developed especially for this test. The directions for taking the test are printed on the front of the booklet and may be read aloud to a group or read individually. The answer sheet format requires a simple TRUE or FALSE response. Since the machine scoring may be desired, it is recommended that appropriate soft lead (No. 2) pencils always be used. Subjects should be instructed to fill out the answer sheet completely as indicated. The time for taking the test varies between 30 and 60 minutes depending on the subject' 5 intellect, reading ability, and willingness to cooperate. Urging the sub— ject to respond quickly but accurately is often helpful. The test may be taken under a variety of conditions without serious loss of accuracy. The exceptions seem to be where subjects can't read, when they obtain help in completing the test, or when they perceive that certain results are needed to avoid a problem or to obtain some advantage. The first two scales indicate the reliability of the subject's answers. The examiner's rapport with the sub- ject is also a factor in Obtaining accurate results. Hand Scoring There are 15 hand-scoring keys. The Bipolar Psycho- logical Inventory can be scored easily and quickly. Each bipolar scale has a separate key which yields a raw score of the number of items keyed in the pathological direc- tion. Thus the higher the score the more pathological the subject is on the dimension being measured. Each 64 key stencil fits exactly over the answer sheet, and the number of items marked are counted and entered through the scoring notch at the tOp of the key and on the answer sheet. The answer sheet has 15 key stencils.‘ The raw scores on the answer sheet boxes are then transferred directly to the profile sheet at the place provided at the bottom of the form. Machine Scoring The same answer sheet is used for both hand and machine scoring. The dimensions can be scored by machine and profiled giving both raw scores and percentiles for each dimension. In addition, the scoring services pro- vided by Psychological Research Associates give a written printout description of the subject for those dimensions reaching either above the 80th percentile or below the 20th percentile. The main advantages in machine scoring are (1) time saving, (2) accuracy, (3) printout descrip- tion, (4) ease of handling large numbers, and (5) build- ing your own norms. The answer sheets are the machine-scoring type and are processed by the OpScan system. Form A and Form B The difference between Form A and B involves two scales. FIRST, the Sexual Maturity-Sexual Immaturity scale is included in Form A but not in Form B. The main reason for excluding this scale is the frequent objections which clients, parents, industry, or public schools have in making this type of personal inquiry of individuals. Thus Form B avoids this problem by eliminating the scale. SECONDLY, the new scale in Form B, introduced in place of the sex-related items, is the Problem Index scale. The content of this scale might be thought of as interview items which need to be viewed individually since it is multi-dimensional rather than representing a single dimen- sion. For example, this scale provides an excellent basis for inquiry into a variety of problem areas includ— ing education, finances, work, and personal problems related to strange or psychotic-like eXperiences. It is recommended that Form B be utilized in col- leges, public schools, industry, or any other setting where questions of sexual behavior and feelings may lead to problems. Also, information provided by the Problem Index is desired, then Form B should be used. Profile Forms Two different profile forms are presently available with the Inventory. This is necessary because of the 65 different norms in each population. (1) Prison males--Norms were constructed from the responses of 431 Utah State Prison inmates. (Female prisoners were insufficient in number at this time to provide reliable norms.) (2) University males and females-—Norms were con- structed from the responses of 712 students from three different universities. The raw score is entered on the profile sheet for each dimension. By referring to the right or left of the sheet the corresponding percentile can be located. In constructing the test, the authors reviewed a large number of personality scales and assessed these scales in terms of the felt needs of institutions, clinics, and private practitioners. From a large number of dimensions that seemed appropriate, 13 bipolar dimen— sions were selected, tapping a variety of emotional and character dimensions. Following this, a large number of items was written that appeared related logically to each dimension. From this pool of items, an initial battery of over 700 items was tentatively selected. These items were submitted to a group of psychologists (including the authors) who, by consensus, eliminated items that seemed ambiguous, too lengthy, or were questionable in their content validity. This reduced the test to 438 items. The test was then given to subjects from universities, prisons, and state hospitals. Each item was compared with its total dimen- sion score to obtain the item-dimension validity (minimum significance of .05). Those items having the highest validity were retained with approximately equal numbers of affect items and behavioral items being kept. This reduced the test to the desired 300 items. Significant differences in the test scales were demonstrated between college populations and institutional groups. Therefore, separate norms have been constructed. Face and content validity have been assured by careful test construction procedures. Construct validity has been confirmed in certain instances, and research is continuing on the individual scales. Predictive and concurrent validity are also being explored. Reliability Test-retest reliability coefficients have been estab- lished on 117 university subjects. The mean reliability of the subscales is .84. 66 Test-Retest Reliability Coefficients (r12) Dimensions 7 r12 Lie-HoneSt o o o o o o o o o o o o 9 o o o o o o o o o 83 Defensive-Open . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82 Psychic Pain-Psychic Comfort . . . . . . . . . . . . .90 Depression-Optimism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85 Self-Degradation-Self-EsteemO . . . . . . . . . L . . .79 Dependence-Self— Sufficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81 Unmotivated-Achieving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67 Social Withdrawal-Gregariousness . . . . . . . . . . .90 Family Discord-Family Harmony . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 Sexual Immaturity-Sexual Maturity . . . . . . . . . . .84 Social Deviency—Social Conformity . . . . . . . . . . .90 ImPUISiveness-Self-ContrOl o o o o o o o o o o o o o .085 Hostility-Kindness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86 Insensitivity-Empathy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81 No reliabilities were determined for the Validity scale because the variability was so small. The Problem Index scale is thought of as being a clinical inter- viewing scale with potential problem areas being high- lighted. Therefore, no reliability was established on this scale either. Population Identification of the Population (March, 1971- March, 1973) Based on the total statistics for 1972-1973 gathered by intake screening, the average inmate is 21 or under, male, single and either black or white. He has been arrested at least once before and has problems with drug abuse; most with heroin, alcohol or downers. He was most likely not employed immediately prior to the arrest leading to his current incarceration and is awaiting trial. He has seen no military experience and has not completed high school. He has what can be labeled an average IQ and can generally perform arithmetic at a seventh grade level. He lives in the city of Lansing, has no clear goals of what to do upon release from the Ingham County Jail, except, "get a job and get high" (Bellah, 1972-73). 67 WRAT and Revised Beta Examinations--1972l Wide Range Achievement Tests (WRAT) Sub-Tests: Total Sub-Tests Administered Reading .' 224 Spelling ‘ i 189 Arithmetic i 228 Reading Test Mean = 9.2 (Grade Levels) Range = 1.6 to 16.2 Spelling Test Mean = 7.4 Range = 1.6 to 16.7 Arithmetic Test Mean = 7.4 Range = 2.4 to 16.3 WRAT Grade Level Distribution by Sub-Test Kinder to 6.0 6.1-12.0 12.1-16.7 Reading 47 112 65 Spelling 84 77 28 Arithmetic 94 105 29 Revised Beta Examination and Data Total Administered=87 Range=68 to 123 Mode=105/Mean=99/Median=100 Identification of POpulation and Program Changes (January, 1973 to March, 1973T During the first quarterly period of 1973 continued program expansion has necessitated a further defini- tion of role and responsibility. The greatest change has been the adoption of a quarantine system of intake 1Taken from the Ingham County Jail Inmate Rehabilita— tion Program's Examination Report--l972. 68 procedure. All newly incarcerated, unsentenced inmates, are now placed in a "quarantine" dorm where the initial intake interview and testing is administered.‘ From data acquired at intake the individual is assigned to a spe- cific floor best suited to his needs. A goal of this "indexing" process is to eventually place the individual into a specific dormitory setting within the structure of the floor. This further step would allow for the development of small, residential type therapeutic com- munities based on similarities of problem area; educa- tional level of proficiency, age, physical stature, etc. (Ingham County Jail Rehabilitation Program's Intake Referral Coordinator's Report, 1973; see also Table 4). Selected Population The population for this study consisted of inmates at the Ingham County Jail at Mason, Michigan. The homogeneity of the population of this study was considered in determin- ing size. From an intuitive point of view, it can be demon- strated that this pOpulation is homogeneous on the attributes which are under investigation (see Identification of the Population, Table 3 and Table 4). Generalizability has been delimited in both size and scope for this particular study. However, since an explicit pOpulation description is included, it is projected that the reader will be in a position of generalizing the results of this study to another similar (relevant in attributes) population. Sample The sample consisted of 70 inmates-—35 in the experi— mental group and 35 in the control group. The sample pos- sessed the following characteristics; both groups were identical, except for conditions four and five. 69 Table 3.--Ingham County Jail Inmate Rehabilitation Program's Quarterly Statistical Report (March, l972-December, 1972). lat Qtr.a 2nd Qtr. 3rd Qtr. 4th Qtr. Total Percent I. TYPES OF REFERRALS Education 37 112 65 78 293 44 Drug 26 67 47 71 211 32 Alcohol b S 4 4 8 21 3 V.R.S. (Direct) 2 5 3 3 l3 2 Psychological 5 10 6 6 27 4 Physician 9 10 6 10 35 5 Placement ll 18 8 14 51 8 Y.D.C.c 0 4 0 10 14 -- Religious 0 0 l l 2 -- II. EDUCATION College 9 17 10 6 42 10.5 High School Diploma 12 31 12 15 70 17.5 6.8.0. 1 15 6 7 29 7.0 No High School Diploma or 6.8.0. 35 93 63 69 260 65.0 III. PREVIOUS ARRESTS Yes 44 121 68 68 301 75.1 No 13 35 23 29 100 24.9 IV. MARITAL STATUS Single 30 90 58 56 234 58.4 Married 21 40 15 20 96 23.9 Divorced 5 17 11 11 44 10.9 Separated 2 9 6 3 20 5.0 Common Law -- -- -- 7 7 1.8 V. RACE Black 21 85 33 36 175 43.6 White 29 65 53 52 199 49.6 Chicano 6 5 4 8 23 5.7 Indian 1 1 1 l 4 1.1 VI. AGE We: 21 26 82 46 53 207 51.6 21 8 Over 31 74 45 44 194 48.4 VII. EMPLOYED Yes 22 63 43 43 171 42.6 No 40 116 68 81 305 76.1 VIII. KILITRRI SER ICE Yes 17 40 23 16 96 23.9 No 40 ' 116 68 81 305 76.1 lietxa: Veterans 8 11 7 4 30 -- I\ 53:; ET;T-S Sentence: 15 S 11 25 56 -- Insencenced 42 141 80 72 335 83.5 \ 33$ Kale 54 150 87 85 376 93.8 Ferale 3 6 4 12 25 6.2 XI. 3:: FLFZRPED 6 20 13 O 39 -- I w o (’1 O I P = Tocational Rehabilitation Services = Scots Development Corporation = General Educational Diploma f. '1’." 1 Li ..' ' F? U 'U '1 70 Table 4.--Ingham County Jail Inmate Rehabilitation Program‘s Quarterly Statistical Report (January, 1973-March, 1973).a ‘Quarterly Quarterly Total Percentages I. TYPE: Education 63 42.0 Drug 48 32.0 Alcohol 6 4.0 Vocational Rehab. Services 6 4.0 Physician 0 0.0 Youth DevelOpment Corporation 15 10.0 No Referral 2 1.3 Psychological 10 6.7 II. SEX: Male 68 90.1' Female 7 9.9 III. RACE: Black 28 37.3 White 43 57.4 Mexican 3 4.0 Indian 1 1.3 IV. AGE: 21 and under 32 , 42.7 Over 21 43 57.3 V. EMPLOYMENT: Yes 26 34.7 No 49 65.3 VI. EDUCATION: College 8 10.7 High School Diploma 14 18.7 G.E.D. 5 6.6 Nothing 48 64.0 VII. ARMED SERVICE: Veteran 9 12.1 Vietnam Veteran 3 3.9 Non-Veteran 63 84.0 71 Table 4.--Continued. Quarterly Quarterly ‘Total Percentages VIII. PREVIOUS ARRESTS: Yes ' 65 > 86.7 No 10 13.3 IX. JAIL STATUS: Unsentenced 57 ' 76.0 Sentenced 18 24.0 X. MARITAL STATUS: Single 37 49.3 Married 20 26.7 Separated 4 4.2 Divorced 7 9.9 Common Law 7 9.9 XI. DRUG INVOLVEMENT: Primarily Alcohol 9 12.1 Primarily Heroin 28 37.3 Primarily Other Drugs 19 25.3 No reported drug involvement 19 25.3 XII. REFERRAL PRIORITIES: #1 31 ' 41.3 #2 9 12.1 #3 19 25.3 #4 3 4.0 #5 3 4.0 Not referred to education 10 13.3 aThe inmate population has generally stabilized at a lower daily count than at this same time last year. A slight shift in racial complexion of the jail has occurred from young Blacks to young Whites, but the data are incom- plete to establish trends, Egg gs. Experimental Group Incarcerated male inmates at Ingham County Jail at Mason, Michigan. No history of psychosis present. Limited exposure to ther- apy and psychological testing. Physical addiction to heroin. Addiction of more than eight months. 72 ' Control Group Incarcerated male inmates at Ingham County Jail at Mason, Michigan. No history of psychosis present. Limited exposure to ther- apy and psychological testing. No history of physical addiction to heroin or any other drug. No history of addiction whatsoever. The sample was obtained via the following procedures: All inmates at the Ingham County Jail at Mason, Michigan, were screened by the Intake-Referral Coordinator of the Ingham County Jail Inmate Rehabilitation Program, and re- screened by the Drug Abuse Treatment staff, to determine the evidence of drug use/abuse. Inmates for the experimental group were selected on the following basis: 1. drug-related charges. as "buyers-users." Inmates who have been incarcerated on previous Reports from known pushers, who have had inmates Inmates who have been identified by the attend- ing physician as having drug-related problems. Inmates referred to the Drug Abuse Treatment Program staff via the ICJIRP's Intake-Referral Coordinator. 73 5. Inmates' self-reports that were substantiated or verified by other professional agencies. 6. Observable physical symptoms of inmates entering the "abstinency syndrome“: signs also included evidence of needletracks or septum perforations. Procedure Inmates for this study possessed the basic character- istics listed above. To screen incarcerated heroin addicts from incarcerated non—heroin addicts (the control group), specific precautions were taken. The population studied consisted of an experimental group--incarcerated heroin addicts--and a control group--incarcerated non-heroin addicts. There were 35 inmates per group, randomly selected. All inmates were housed in the Ingham County Jail at Mason, Mich- igan. They were initially screened by the Intake-Referral Coordinator, and were re-screened by the Drug Abuse Treatment staff, to determine further the evidence of drug use/abuse. The records of all inmates tested were carefully reviewed; known addicts and known non-addicts were dichotomized into the two groups. Further, each inmate included in either of the two final groups was interviewed. Each inmate was care— fully questioned about his drug history, with the assurance that the information would be held in confidence. 74 The Multi-Checking-System1 controlled for confounding variables such as drug use/abuse, duration of addiction, pre- vious exposure to therapy and psychological testing, history and/or presence of psychosis, and physical addiction to heroin. The MMPI and the BPI originally were administered to 89 inmates. However, the study's Multi—Checking-System, implemented to assure authenticity of results, deleted all but 75 inmates. Five of these inmates were eliminated for other reasons. The inmates in both groups were administered the group form of the MMPI and the BPI-A. Generally, the tests were given in a group setting; eight addicts/non-addicts were tested individually. The purpose of the study was to determine what rela- tionships exist between the scales of the MMPI and the BPI tested on an incarcerated heroin addicted/non-heroin addicted population, and to ascertain which instrument would reveal more numerous and more highly significant correlations of personality characteristics to heroin addiction. A second purpose was to review and examine and compare the effective- ness of the BPI and the MMPI scales, individually and to each other, in assessing characteristics of incarcerated heroin 1Operationally defined by Mr. Bellah, Dr. Gallagher, Dr. Pauley, and the writer. 75 addicts/non-addicts, exploring psychological dimensions and other areas that led to the develOpment of the BPI. The present study examines and delineates the most frequent personality deviations found among incarcerated heroin addicts/non-addicts in terms of diagnostic profiles obtained on both inventories (BPI and MMPI). Composite profiles of the experimental group and the control group, along with the racial categories, are compared and dis- cussed. Research Hypotheses To answer the primary questions toward which this study was directed, the following research hypotheses were tested: Hypothesis 1: Heroin addicted persons will demonstrate personality characteristics (profiles) which are unique or consistent within their pOpu- lation as measured by the MMPI and the BPI. Hypothesis 2: Significant differences will be found in per- formance (profiles) as measured by the depen- dent variables. Hypothesis 3: Significant relationships will exist between the BPI scales and the scales of the MMPI. Assumptions Assumption 1: There is a heroin addiction profile, with explicit characteristics that will be des- cribed by the MMPI and BPI scales (profiles). Assumption 2: Personality scales and characteristics, as measured by the dependent variables, have a potential relationship to heroin addiction. 76 Assumption 3: A correlational relationship will exist between the dependent variables (profiles) and addiction to heroin. Assumption 4: The BPI will reveal more numerous and more highly significant correlations with non—heroin incarcerated inmates than will the MMPI. Analysis of the Data The 6500 CDC computer at the Michigan State University computer center was used to process the data and perform the statistical analysis. Standard computer programs were used to handle the following analyses: Typically, the MMPI (or the BPI) is analyzed in a clin- ical situation by examining the individual scales and their overall patterning in terms of the interrelations among the scales (Hathaway and Briggs, 1957). The means, standard devi- ations, and significance levels comparing each scale on the MMPI and the BPI for the experimental and the control group can be found in Chapter IV. . To test for differences between the mean scores of the experimental group and mean scores of the control group, an analysis of variance between the means of each variable in the experiment was performed. This analysis of variance was performed on all 15 variables of the BPI, and the 14 variables of the MMPI for each of the two groups. Also computed for both groups were intercorrelations between the scales of the MMPI, the BPI, and the demographic data. The .05 level of significance was established as the critical level for accepting or rejecting differences. I CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA The purpose of this study was to investigate the rela- tionships of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and the Bipolar Psychological Inventory (BPI) to each other and to incarcerated heroin addicts among two principal groups: incarcerated heroin addicts and incarcerated non- addicts. This chapter presents the statistical analysis of the data in order to examine the hypotheses stated in Chap- ter III. Additional findings and implications for future research are discussed in Chapter V. To implement this study, two groups were selected: the experimental group--incarcerated inmates addicted to heroin for a time period of at least eight months or more-- and the control group--incarcerated inmates with no history of addiction whatsoever. (Review the selected population, p. 69, the sample and the screening process, pp. 70-73, for a detailed description of the pOpulation.) Organization of the Analysis of the Data The MMPI profiles for the total inmate pOpulation, heroin addict inmates, and non-addict inmates are presented first. Presented second are the prefiles of the BPI for all 77 78 groups. Presented third are the relationships of the scales of the BPI to the scales of the MMPI. The fourth step in the organization of the analysis of the data exam- ines the differences between the mean scores of the experi- mental group and mean scores of the control group, via an analysis of variance between the means of each variable in the experiment. This analysis of variance was per- formed on all 15 variables of the BPI, and the 14 variables of the MMPI for each of the two groups. The .05 level of significance was established as the critical area for accepting or rejecting differences. ‘Hypothesis 1: Heroin addicted persons will demonstrate personality characteristics (profiles) which are unique or consistent within their population as measured by the MMPI and the BPI. Hypothesis 2: Significant differences will be found in performance (profiles) as measured by the dependent variables. ' Assumption 1: There is a heroin addiction profile, with explicit characteristics that will be des— cribed by the MMPI and BPI scales (profiles). Total Inmate MMPI Profile Profile (498) Assigned Variable Number 23 28 27 T Sc above 70-sca1es 4 9 8 Mean T Sc with K added 75.029 72.943 71.329 The mean scores, assigned variable numbers, number of subjects, and standard deviations on the scales of the MMPI for the total inmate sample are presented in Table 5 and Figure 3.1. I 79 .mc0fluomuuoo M cues om 9m omh.m www.mm mm moe.m omo.am mm .mmm.m mmo.am ca em an maa.ma mm~.oa mm ~mH.¢H oom.ma mm ama.afl mam.~h on 62 mm Hom.ma mma.oa mm aae.ma Haa.ma mm mom.ea amm.aa oa om RN maa.ma ooo.mm mm ~ma.va Ham.me mm mmo.ma www.mm ca um 6m m~6.~H «Ha.¢6 mm eom.aa oom.mm mm maa.ma am~.mm on mm mm omo.aa amo.om mm omm.a amm.oo mm mmm.m ame.om on as «N oom.~a Haa.ma mm mae.aa www.ma mm Hm~.~H mmo.ma as am mm oa~.ma 4Ha.oo mm amm.HH Haa.am mm HH4.~H meo.oo on mm mm mma.ma amm.~m mm Hmo.HH Ham.am mm oaa.ma eam.mm on a an mma.~a amm.mm mm maa.ma mma.om mm mma.ma Ham.mm on ma om m-.m amo.om mm Hae.m ooo.om mm oa~.m amo.om as s ma m-.~H oom.am mm omm.ma www.mo mm mmm.ma mem.ae as a we ama.6 mme.a4 mm mea.m oom.ae mm mmv.6 «Ha.ma on a ha oom.~a mmo.m mm a-.oa «Ha.v mm mmv.afl Hao.m on a me am 3 Z Gm Z Z Om 2 Z OHQOHHMNV muonucmunoz m¥0fl©6¢.GHOHmm mamamm GDMEGH Hmuoa m.muanmmu Has: madEMm mamas“ Hmuoeuu.m magma 80 Profile and Case Summary The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Starke R. Hathaway and I. Charnley McKinley Scorer'e Initials I 2 3 " 5 . . 1 . 9 n rot #4910:qu Fork 7 L F K H:'.$K D Hy PthK Ml Pa Pl th Scth MthK Si TcuTr Addltlunfilsroie'» 120-. - , - - _ -m : - .5.- - - - - 2 us -: ‘ ' 3 I 30_ 55': - :- us : Male - - - - 55- : nwé 5‘ ' ”i “j - ' - ; éno I ' ' _ _ 50- - - _ 40— : 106-: ' ‘0‘. I - I - 50- - ’ I- '05 3 ' - e- - - - : ”f : ' loo— - - 4o— - zs- - _ 7:00 30- 45- - . 95 - ’ ' : ' . 45; I 35' 70? :— 95 _ 35- 40- _ - - . :s- - : 3 - ' - ' _, . ‘ _ 65': 1 90—. - . ' ' - ' : 79° 5 : 35-. ‘0‘. ' ° I I 60-2 E 85 —. 25- - 35- _ 20- ‘0‘. ‘0 _ z .- 85 - 30- - - 3o- - - - - 30- - . ' ' _ ' , 55-: : “If 130-— - - _ - - - : 7w ' '5' ' .: : 120- - - . 75 . - 25_ I .- 7S lln- _: 70 llll“ I0 I'E—VU . _é 90- “. : , L. 80— .- 5" : 60‘ : .55 -_ 50’ - :- 55 40- - I —— —_ - - _ _ .. 0'0.— _ 50 _ 30 - _ - 20_ - - _ 7S 2 so )0- 15- - - - - 15- 20- - - 45 _ - - ; : - 20_ _ 15 .. 20": 2'45 ‘0“- ‘ - Z ' 15.. 15.. 5- - - 15-3 5—40 I ‘0‘ - : : ' 0— 5‘ ' ' ' ‘ 15" _ __~ ‘_ 35.; ‘ S- lO— - - 2 Z 15" - IO- '0 - : 35 w : - - - )0- :3 - - - 5:03-30 I— ' 0" ' - 0" - _ - : : 25 '2 10 ’ ’ 7 25 : ’ _ 10" ’ : zn—Z 0- - ' 5' 220 n.‘ ——o TotTc L F K H. .5: D My Pd'.~lK M5 Fa Pt-IK fk'lK-TA'; .2K 5. TetTc I 2 3 4 s e 7 a 9 Raw 8core_ ._ _ __ _ _ __.. _ ._ _ __ _ __ __ ....._ .— K to be added __ _ __ _ ..._. ._ .— Raw Score with X __ __ ._ _ ._ _. _ \ 1 Copyright 1948 by The Psychological Corporation. All rights reserved as stated in the manual and Catalog. —— The Psychological Corporation. 304 East 45th Street. New York. N. Y. l00|7 Printed in U.S.A. 70-2515 Figure 3.1.--Total incarcerated inmate samp 1e mean profile. 81 Clinical Description Generally, the first four scales are all within normal limits. However, there is an elevation on the F scale (T Sc mean of 67.943) which, according to Pope and Scott (1967), represents exaggeration; Gilberstadt and Duker (1965) considered it indicative of either confused thinking or self-depreciation. Lanyon (1968) wrote: The Norms given for the F scale were set too high. The 70 T-score level should be represented by a raw score of 16, rather than 13 as indicated on the pro- file sheet. Essentially, a high F score indicates an atypical or deviant set of responses. There are a number of purely technical reasons for such an occurrence: random responding by the subject, inade- quate intelligence or education, lack of familiarity with the English language, inadequate vision, or a cler- ical error in scoring. These possibilities, which are usually responsible for a raw score greater than 16, should always be considered first. A second kind of reason for a high F score is a deliberate effort by the subject to present himself in an unfavorable light, or to convey the impression that he is emotionally dis- turbed. It is often difficult to distinguish between a person whose high F score represents simple malinger- ing and a patient who is in fact disturbed but is exag- gerating his disturbance as a "cry for help." The third reason for a high F score is that the deviance reflected in the score is representative of deviance in the subject. Thus, the F score is one general indicator of the amount of psychopathology a patient possesses. Nonconforming behavior in normal subjects is reflected by a slightly elevated F score. The only scales of the MMPI for the total inmate sample elevated above a T score value (with appropriate K added) of 70 were: (4). The Psychopathic Deviate or Pd Scale.--The person scoring high on the Pd scale has been described by Gilberstadt and Duker (1965) as moody, partial, social, 82 frivolous, and lacking in self-control. Pope and Scott (1967) indicated that high Pd scores suggest persons "whose main difficulty lies in their absence of deep emotional response; their inability to profit from experience, and their disregard of social mores.“ Elevated scores on the Pd scale, according to Lanyon (1968), suggest nonconformity and a rejection of average or normal social conventions. Prison and delinquent groups, as expected from the derivation of the scale, show marked elevations. Finally, Pope and Scott (1967), Carkhuff (1965), and Good and Brantner (1961) indicated this scale was based upon a group who showed absence of deep emotional response, inability to profit from experience, and disregard for social pressures and the regard for others. Their most fre- quent digressions from the social mores are lying, steal- ing, drug or alcohol addiction, and sexual immorality. Individuals in this group differ from some criminal types in that they are unable to profit from experience and seem to commit asocial acts with little thought of possible profit to themselves or of shunning discovery (Hathaway and McKinley, 1951). (9). The Hypomania or the Ma Scale.--Generally, the Ma scale measures the personality factor characteristic of individuals with profound hyperproductivity in thought and action. The hypomaniacal subject can be viewed as usually I 83 getting into trouble because of undertaking too many things. He is enthusiastic and active, but he may clash with other people through his attempts to reform social practice. High-scoring patients on the Ma scale are hyper- active, impulsive, unpredictable, elated but unstable in mood, restless, overoptimistic, and easily distractible (Lanyon, 1968). Pope and Scott (1967) stated that since the criterion group was characterized by symptomatology somewhat milder than that found in the cases traditionally diagnosed as manic-depressive, the term "hypomania" was used. They described three baSic traits in this type of patient, which are reflected in the scale: overactivity, emotional excite- ment, and flight or push of ideas. Persons scoring high on the Ma scale are, according to Hathaway and McKinley (1965), delineated as being “unstable in moods, evidencing excitement, and exhibiting flights of ideas." (8). The SchizoPhrenia or Sc scale.--Since schizo- phrenia is a ubiquitous diagnosis in mental illness and scale 8 Sc was develOped to aid in recognition of the syndrome (Hathaway and Monachesi, 1963), elevations should be interpreted with caution. With a slight elevation above a T Sc of 70 (actual T Sc score of 71.329), interpretations in this case also must be made with caution. 84 This scale has been reported as being based upon a group of patients characterized by bizarre and unusual thought or behavior, and a subjective life with tendencies of being divorced from the world of reality. High scores tend to indicate responses similar to this group. Hathaway and Monachesi (1963) stated that persons who are not mentally ill score high on scale 8 So, to sug- gest a "lone wolf,“ bizarre, faulty orientation to the social world. Persons of both sociopathic and schizophrenic character types are clinically known to have difficulty in adapting to the usual controls and demands of society. .Finally, one could speculate that the schizophrenic component in the personality of incarcerated inmates can be expected to be associated with more enduring and incon- gruent behavior. Heroin Addict MMPI Profile Profile (498) Assigned Variable Number 23 28 27 T Sc above 70-sca1es 4 9 8 Mean T Sc with K added 76.286 75.600 72.171 Table 5, integrated with Figure 3.2, delineates the mean scores, number of subjects, standard deviations, and assigned variable numbers. Clinical Description The most profound feature of this profile are elevations on the Pd, Ma, and Sc scales. The MMPI profile Q 85 Profile and Case Summary The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Starke R. Hathaway and I. Charnley McKinley Scerer's Initials I 2 - 8 4 5 6 7 I 9 0 For 3mm MTC 7 L F K HILSK D Hy Pdh4K Ml Pa Pt th SCHK MOLZK St TorTc AddmomtScata I 120—; - - - - _ —lm : ' ‘5’ ' - ' - I - - C O O a- 0 HS " ' ' - llS . - w- - . 5 male 35:. : 50‘: ‘5- - I 55.: I ll0—_- - - - ‘ ' - _-llO : - ' _ 50- - _ 40- : nos-I I ‘0', , , j - so- - ’ :- nos 3 ‘ - «s- - - - : 5°“. : = lm—_ _ - 4n— - zs- _ _ I-Ioo I 30- - - ' III ' ' : 35; 70'. I 95 -_ _ ' ' _ _ 45"- _ : .- 5 - - 35 40.. - - ‘5 - - - Z ' - ‘ - . ° _ 65: ; 33‘: - - ’ ‘ - ' : 3'” E. I - 3“I w- I - I I ”if 35 '2 - : .' 95 3 30" - .' : ao-Z m— - - Z - : I—so : lS- - - 3 : ' m- ' ' - -. : II : - 25" I 2.75 ' “0- ' —: : I m- .. -I I 65 I m” , I 2.65 so-; 7°“ - : j—eo : 50“ I 3 55 {— 50- I ' :_ 55 : ‘0- 5-" : —.- -_ o - - - -—-—:_-— C...- so : 30 - _ - - _ 20- _ _ _ 25: : 5° —— I l0- l5- - - - - ; - l0- l5“ ‘ 20‘- __ - ' 45 I - 0— . - _ _ - : _ 20- _ l5 - 20-5 :- 45 3 I - — I Is- - s- I I 3 -' 40- - - _ - - - _ - - - lS- 740 - - w- '5- - - — - 3 : o— s- ' - - - ls- - - 35 ‘3 _ s- lO- ' - 3 I 15- - IO- '0'} 3’ 35 w : - - - lo-I‘ ;::—-—:—:—:_5-Eo?m _ ' 0' - ‘ - 0‘ - - - : : 25 _. . t0 - :_ 25 : - _ '0‘ : mé °‘ - ' 5’ 9m 0-5 '-o TorTc ? L F K Hs'.5l( D Hy Pd‘.4K M! Pa Pt'lK SC'IK M0’.2K S: TorTc I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 Raw Score with I __ _ __ _ _ __ _ Copyright 1948 by The Psychological Corporation. All rights reserved as stated in the manual and Catalog. —— The Psychological Corporation. 304 East 45th Street. New York. N. Y. 10017 Printed in USA. 70-2515 Figure 3.2.--Incarcerated heroin addict mean profile. 86 for this group observed in Table 5 and Figure 3.2 visually indicates an almost identical profile to that of the total inmate sample. The elevations on the Pd, Ma, and So scales are the only significant deviations (above a T Sc with K correction), and they are limited only to degrees of elevation. Non-Addict MMPI Profile Profile (489) Assigned Variable Number 23 27 28 T Sc above 70-sca1es 4 8 9 Mean T Sc with K added 73.771 70.486 70.286 An outline of the non—addict MMPI profile can be observed by way of Table 5 and Figure 3.3. Clinical Description The non-addict MMPI profile for this group, as viewed via Table 5 and Figure 3.3, is not noticeably dif- ferent from that of either the total inmate sample or the heroin addict sample, except in degrees of elevations. The only marginally significant differences are lower T Sc with K correction, on the Pd, Ma, and Sc scales. Summary As shown above, incarcerated inmate addicts are slightly higher on other scales, but in general produced elevations on Pd, Ma, and Sc scales. This mean elevation of 70 (Sc with K corrections) presented is probably not due 87 Profile and Case Summary The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Starke R. Hathaway and I . Charnley McKinley Scorer's initials ._...__...._ __ I 2 I a I‘ 5 6 7 II 9 0 rm "u;o"i;z:r TorTc 7 L 1‘ K HsnSK D Hy Pdt.4l( Ml Pa Pt 01K Sc‘lK Ma'.2K St Tml'r ArJ'imcnnlS‘ol-r; 120-. - _ - - . _—120 r _ ‘5- . - - ~ -. inf ' ' : j w_ “j - ens : Male - - ' - - : 110-5 35' I 50': ‘5: - I - : I—no ; - - - - 50— ~ _ _ 40- ; 105-E I ‘0‘. I _ j - so- - ' 5105 : ' - .5- - - - : 5°? : ' lm~ - _ ' 40" ° 25'- _ _ 71m 30- 45— . ' ‘ I ' I I 3 35- 7°”. 95 " 35_ ' ' - _ 45‘- 45- f :" 95 - 40.. . - - - . - ‘ - _ ‘ _ 65: ; Kl- ‘ _ _ ' . ‘ : rm I : III IOII I ' I I 50'? I as - 30_ 25- _ 35_ . - _ 20- 40-: 40_ 30_ I :- as 30‘ ‘ - ' ' , ' , 55- : eo-_ 130— - - _ - ~ - _ - _ _ _ _-80 - 15- - 35- . - - 79 L ”0‘ I ' : I : 30-I- 30- I I 35-: I - IOII— I- 7 2s- - ; 35- 3; 5 1m- 2‘. . .. I .. sn- 40‘. : In”) "‘ 80" .- 65 . 7 ._ : SOII 0 is 7'50 w— - . <0- I 55 -_- I 1' 55 40- ~ I fi——30—— : ‘ - - _ 20._ —.—-_750:-:—w * 10‘- 15" ~ - IO- 15- 20- 45 _ ‘ H.. - . . ’ - ‘ 20— _ 15" 20— :_ ‘5 ‘0‘ I ‘ - - ‘ III 15; I_ - - lS— '—40 _ I I0- - Z n- «- - - I5— 15 _ ‘ - _ - - : - - - ' 10". :' 35 5— 10 - - - - 15 - - lO— - Z ‘30... - ‘ lO— ‘0:—. _ - v K --:_30 — 0- - o— , - - 1 — - - 25 ‘_ _ 0 ‘ - 25 , _ lO- . : 217—: 0‘ - I I 5' _'—20 TorTr: I' L II 1: lie-.SK (.1 liy Pd‘.4K Mi Pa Pt'itI Sc‘lK MaxilK f, ToriI'. I 2 :t 4 s 6 7 a 9 0 Raw Score__ _ __ _ _ .._ __ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ .._ —. K to be added __ __ .._ __ __ _ __ Raw Score with K __ .._ .._ .._ __ .._. _.... K I Copyright 1948 by The Psychological Corporation. I All rights reserved as stated in the manual and Catalog. —- The Psychological Corporation, 304 East 45th Street, New York, N. Y. lOOl7 Printed in USA. 70-2515 Figure 3.3.--Incarcerated non-addict mean profile. 88 to the scale containing many items concerned with the use of drugs, or with socially unacceptable behavior, since only 3 of 50 are such items. McKinley and Hathaway (1951) stated that the scale differentiates well between "normals“ and psychopathic deviates, but it does not differentiate between addicts and others. MMPI Comparative Summary for Both Samples Profile (498) Heroin Addict Assigned Variable Number 23 28 27 T Sc above 70-sca1es 4 9 8 Mean T Sc with K correction 76.286 75.600 72.171 Profile (489) Non-Addict Assigned Variable Number ’ 23 27 28 T Sc above 70-sca1es 4 8 9 Mean T Sc with K correction 73.771 70.486 70.286 The mean profiles are charted individually in Figure 3.4. Clinical Description Generally, both the heroin and non-heroin addict samples are within the normal limits on the validity scales, L, F, and K. However, there are elevations on the F scale, which are believed to be related to self-depreciation and deflated feelings of selféesteem, and according to Gilberstadt and Duker (1965) are indicative of either confused thinking or self-depreciation. C 89 The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Starke R. Hathaway and I. Charnley McKinley For 3:... ' 1:! : Al‘dt'lOIUXI .‘I- rm ‘ Scorer's lnitia1s__..__.____ I 2 » 3 4 s 6 ‘7 a 9 n 1‘orTv ’ L r i: lls'.SK D Hy NMK Mt Pa Pt clK scent MthK St r~_-._‘.r._l 120-: - _ - - _-120 t ‘5‘ ‘ - : a Male 3..- - .._- .. - 55- z 110-: I _ _ ' —|10 ; - so— _ 4o- ; 105-E 407 _ I - so- - ' g 10:. : 45- - - ' ”f - 3 loo-7 - - 40- 25— - - _—Iuo - 30" - 45- - - 35- 7(1- I 95 - 35_ - I II 95 w% 59% mi n— 23% : 30“ _' : Btl—I l3n— - - I I Lao I 15.. I I . - 120- '21 '5 2' 75; : T75 :10"- ' 20- -: : ’0 H6- gfi'm 90- '. . t-b " 80- : 1" 65 . ., _ 35_ I 60": IO m— 50- 55 — 40- 2th- \ll ”- — Addict Sample Copyright 1948 by The Psyc'holoaical Corporation. All righls renewed as stated in the manual and Catalog. The iISYt'IlOIk'fi‘iIOI Corporation. 304 East 45th Street. New York. N. Y. 100l7 20 - I - 45 - _ _ 20“ IS - 20: p45 40-; y -- ”I: 15; 5- 15{ 1—40 IO- - _ 0— s— - ~ ~ lS- . - J5 _. ~ _ - - _ - _ _ ' 10f :- 35 ~ 5 l0 - _ 15 _ m_ : _ __-—_—-——-—— — -'_ ,_____‘ 30 ‘ 10" 0 _ _ _ 5‘: : 30 n— — o- - _ , - 10.. . - 25 -_ ' :' 25 - m— - 204. OII I 5_ ~20 fi—I ..0 TmT-t 7 L T k 11 '.SK D My Pd'.4l( M.‘ Po Pt' 1K 8': - ”C M) '.?.K I: TOfTr- l 2 3 4 s 6 7 a 9 u Raw Score _ _ __ .._ __ _ __ ._ _ _. .._. _ __ _. __ _ Raw Score with K __ _ .._... __ _ _. __ x ------ Non-Addict Sample Figure 3.4.--Comparison of incarcerated heroin addict mean sample profile and incarcerated non-heroin addict mean profile. 90 High F scores are sometimes described as follows: 1. May suggest a basic indecisiveness as to the applicability and significance of the items. 2. Other scales are probably invalid either because the subject was unable to understand the items, or he answered carelessly, or because extensive scoring or recording mistakes were made. 3. T Sc in the high 70's often reflects defen- siveness. Both samples were elevated beyond a T So of 70 with K corrections on the psychopathic deviate or Pd scales (with differences being only in degree of elevations). Pryor (1971) stated that: The Pd scale was originally constructed in a prison population (Hathaway and McKinley, 1944), and is the most consistent of the MMPI scales in differentiating inmates from other groups. According to Drake and Getting (1959), persons scoring high on the Pd scale typically have a history of delinquency and appear to be uncontrolled by the ordinary mores of society. They also tend to have a fairly high level of intel- ligence and present a superficially appealing per- sonality (pp. 43-44). Elevations on the Pd scale suggest nonconformity and a rejection of average social conventions. Prison and delinquent groups, as expected from the derivation of the scale, show marked elevations. Peak scores on the psycho- pathic deviate scale can often be interpreted similarly. The scale was developed to reflect the concept of "psycho- pathic deviancy," which refers to people who are unable to form satisfactory emotional relationships or appreciate the 91 feelings of others and who cannot anticipate the conse- quences of their own actions or behaviors. They continually engage in antisocial and self-defeating behavior, in spite of adequate intelligence and opportunity (Lanyon, 1968). Other scale elevations beyond a T Sc of 70 (with K corrections) were the Hypomania or Ma scale and the Schizo- phrenia or Sc scale. Hypomania or Ma scale elevation com- bined with the Psychopathic Deviate or Pd (with high scores) are described by Dahlstrom and Welsh (1960): Persons with this profile pattern show clear manifes- tations of psychOpathic behavior, the hypomania seem- ingly energizing or activating the pattern related to . . . Pd scale. That is, these people tend to be overactive and impulsive, irresponsible and untrust- worthy, shallow and superficial in their relationships. To satisfy their own desires and ambitions, they may expend great amounts of energy and effort, but they find it difficult to stick to duties and responsibilities imposed by others (p. 192). The SchiZOphrenia or Sc scale was the least ele- vated on the profiles of the two samples (with the exception of a marginal higher elevation--in degree only--on the Sc scale of the non-addict profile), and appears to add to the psychOpathology of both samples. The Sc scale suggests a union with the total profile, and the extreme similarity between the heroin addict and the non-addict (incarcerated) further supports the belief that personality characteris— tics do not materially change following addiction, even though the procurement, use, and effects of drugs necessarily demand changes in the individual's daily activities. 92 An analysis of Figure 3.4 adequately shows that no significant differences are noted between the profiles of the incarcerated heroin addict and the incarcerated non- addict. (Further proof can.be examined when the writer presents the results of the analysis of variance performed on differences between mean scores of the experimental group and mean scores of the control group on each variable in the study.) Supportive Research Conclusions While research evidence suggests that habitual and prolonged use of the opiates, barbiturates, tranquil- izers, stimulants, and hallucinogens is associated with manifest psychopathology (McAree and Zheutlin, 1969: Smart and Fejer, 1969; and Smart and Jones, 1970), there is some disagreement as to whether there is an "addiction prone" personality (Smart and Jones, 1970), and if so, what this personality is like. Pescore (1943) reported that 88.1% of 1036 hospitalized adult drug addicts studied were psychopathic or socio- pathic, 6.3% were neurotic, and 5.6% psychotic. Gerard and Kornestsky (1954) found, however, that among ado- lescent addicts, 47% were either overt or borderline schiZOphrenic. Smart and Fejer (1969) observed mix- tures of persons with conduct disorders and schizo- phrenia in their sample in which 96% of the chronic drug users had unusual MMPS's. Gendreau and Gendreau (1970), however! found no significant differences on the MMPI between heroin addicts and non-addicts. These data are consistent with others‘ findings (Gerard and Kornetsky, 1954), and (Smart and Fejer, 1969) and suggest incipient psychosis, especially so—called "pseudopsychOpathic" schiZOphrenia, may often be implicated in adolescent drug-use cases severe enough to require hospitalization. The inabil- ity of the MMPI to distinguish between drug users and non-users in this sample suggests! however, that there are other parameters relevant to chronicdrug abuse than those tapped by the MMPI (Greaves, 1971). Hill, et al. (1962) provided evidence that social deviance is a common personality factor in alcoholics and 93 prisoners, as well as in heroin addicts. Using factor- analytic techniques, these authors found a marked similar- ity among MMPI profile patterns for these groups and demonstrated that elevation on scale 4 was characteristically high. They suggested that, except for the behavior which is peculiarly determined by the particular addiction or crimi- nal activity, no personality characteristics other than social deviance are associated with alcoholism, narcotic addiction! or criminality. While some researchers report validating evidence delineating the ability of the MMPI to dichotomize between addict-inmates and non-addict inmates, it appears that no unitary concept or concepts exist. Further, variations in profile(s) configurations associated with specific eleva- tions on scale 4 (along with other scales; i.e. 2, 4, 7, 8, and 9) indicate there may be different behavioral manifes- tations of sociopathy, criminal activity per g2, and incarceration. Greater refinements of concepts relating to sociopathy or sociopathological samples used in research must be instrumented in future research studies. Finally, while several psychometric scales have been developed for describing addict type (Hill, Haertzen and Glasser, 1960; Monroe, Miller and Lyer, 1960-63), there are no standardized techniques available for ade- quately measuring the natural habitats and personality of drug addicts; and until such instruments are develOped, results are merely speculations. 94 Total Inmate BPI Profile Profile (14) Assigned Variable Number 14 Scores above the 80th percentile or below the 14 (80th + percentile) 20th percentile-scales Mean score 8.157 The mean scores, assigned variable numbers, number of subjects, and standard deviations on the scales of the BPI for the total inmate sample are presented in Table 6 and Figure 4.1. Clinical Description Pathology is reflected at the higher end of the scales. Scoring high on several dimensions usually indicates multiple problems. Even one high score may be indicative of serious difficulty. When most scales are elevated near or above the 80th percentile, the individual is usually quite disturbed or indirectly asking for help and is likely to manifest his problems in other ways as well. On the other hand, when scores are low and there is no elevation on the Validity and Lie scales, it suggests that the individual is most likely normal (Howell, Payne and Roe, 1972). 14 - Hostility-Kindness HIGH SCORES: Hostility, anger, (20 items) challenging, aggressiveness, verbally assertive, “eye-for-eye" attitude, threatening, intoler- ant, violent, vengeful. LOW SCORES: Friendliness, easy going, accepting, kind, forgiving, cooperative, peaceful. 95 .mouoom 3mmn Nem.~ mmo.o mm oma.~ «Ne.» mm mav.m em~.m ox snumaemuaue>euamcmmcH ma ho~.e mem.e mm oms.m Hem.m mm Hmo.e hmH.m op mmmcecflxtmueafiumom «a mmo.v mve.m mm map.e oom.m mm onm.e Hem.m on Houucoo mammummmcm>nmasasH ma om~.m www.ma mm mam.m www.ma mm emm.m www.ma on wuusuoucoo Hmfloomtsocmu>mo Hmnoom NH oom.m 5mm.m mm ema.v Hea.m mm Hmn.m «Ho.m op suuusumz HmsxmmusunussmssH Hmaxmm an va¢.m mmo.oa mm mao.m mea.m mm vn~.m vaa.m on access: sansmmtcuoomuo saasmm ca vvm.m mm~.m mm mha.m ooe.e mm mmv.e mvm.m on mmwcmaouummmuotamsmuoauuz «muoom a mmv.~ mmv.m mm omm.~ mm~.m mm sum.” 5mm.» on mca>mflnoctcmum>fluoscs m ~qm.m mum.m mm meo.v Hem.m mm mmm.m oov.m on mocmaoauusm mammumocmncmamo e o-.¢ oo~.m mm meo.m mmo.m mm mem.m «Hm.m op assume mammuconomcmuomo mamm o Hoe.e «Hm.m mm mma.v Hen.m mm ~mm.e mvm.m on smnsflua0im>flmmmuama m ~H¢.¢ mqa.oa mm mem.¢ m¢H.a mm sew.q mvm.m on uuoosoo ounommmucnma ogsosmm e mma.m mmw.p mm mum.m eme.m mm svm.m Heo.m on ammonm>umcmuma m mas.~ «Hm.a mm omm.m hmo.q mm som.~ mma.v ow ummcomumflu m mm5.o mqm.o mm eme.o mvH.o mm nem.o mv~.o on on~m>uonam>cH S am 2 2 am 2 2 am 2 z muoflppatcoz monocom :aonmm onEnm munEcH Hmuoa manmflum> 6 .muasmou Ham OHQEMm mucEcHII.o manna 96 BIPOLAR PSYCHOI._.OG!CAL INVENTORY OFFENDER NORMS ~—- FORM A MALE Name No. Age Date” A k V \ “‘8 3" Q9 ‘9‘. 4‘? 0: s 5 a, Q? '1‘ 03? g 3 57 t ' a 6' k \k \ é * L 4“ f Q ’y O y g u. 0 \ 6' y ‘k g‘ e ‘g' cf ” ° .§' 6' e' 3 ¢' .y 9 :9 5 1| .g'v Q fl 5} Q? 5 4" g a) 3‘ 4'? 6} d” b #4. .~ ° 3' <5" ‘1 6" 4’ o e 4' «3' e 3 .29 3' -—13—- —— —2I——zo——Ie——I|—zt-—— —Ie—zo—zz—zo-——|4 tOt mo}: u '9 ii :4 w m a: m u m to ,3 ’ ‘ to " '7 " " .3 Is 2° :2 .. :4 l2 ., 9° 3! '0 :4 to I! '3 '2 n I. u t? It to so "“ "a" —Is— — """ "—"Is Io— no— : .. .. '= '2 . z: . '- i '4 H H '4 '5 D g ' ° u M u m H u ' “ u so '— I: —'°_|o_ —'2_I3— _ _ _ — 3° l2 9 9 ” l2 7 .3 O 7 I2 l2 9 ‘0 u '3 t2 7 TO -—— ~—— -—— -—-H-—-.——- -—- -—— ——— ——— -—— -—— 70 I II o 9 IO so ——- —- ___w___ -—- ——- ——- -—- -—- -—- —- so IO 9 to s 7 7 ° 5 4 5 H 5 so —- — — —— —- 7 —-—, —— — —— — .— so 9 a s 4 e s 7 4 s ‘ . 6 s 5 5 4 9 so : ---- --—7—- ~— —-— —- ——-- -._. -— —s—— ——-4-—- ~— so I 3 3 4 3 4 ' 4 s 9 s s 5 3 s 20 ? -—- --——- —- — —— ---3—‘—— -- —- — —- —— — 20 I 2 2 4 i 5 4 4 2 3 Z 7 2 3 so i ——-,—_-.——-3——-3-——.-——z-—-3-——z-—— ——- -——:——-:-—- -—— IO t I - o 1 _,_° I__(.__,,.._o___.¢,__o.___o__o__._o_o__o__o.._._¢ 0 Q A § \ 3 O A Q “~ t It 0" Q * s e .w s s .3: s it if 0* .~ 3 ,5 4;» .3 Av 3' o i 3 A {a 4, é o * ..v to o A g‘,’ \o s 3’ $ 4‘ «° o g ¢ ' 9 0‘ of" v“ 49 f " 5? Q P "' § 3' g J 8 ¢’ ' ° 5 (L ‘3’ Q9 .t b v Q .L k c ‘- “' Y 03 e v a. ‘0 o q o ‘9 o “’ 0: out» -. 2% . ..‘Lr-Hiif ijg'D-‘I'WTL-J-flt’L93)IL.‘3‘7’),‘/-/-"1T('-L*/‘/ 12.1r'(}/..-.//j;j I5 7 Luz-W - . .—- - 4 - - «1.1;. W. .-_ “ --_- -._.-. .-.__....._L_:...__.'.. ”.._—L- -.... __t. .._ .._1 _. i V A. ‘ ,. . ." L,’ .' "4 t ‘) . L! . I" S:- kI . (L', 6" 2 - t7- 8 é- . “nut-:31: ‘9"; 9;..t r . 7:03:54.” News’s); Figure 4.1.--Total incarcerated inmate sample mean profile. 97 Incarcerated Heroin Addict‘BPI Profile Profile (14) Assigned Variable Number 14 Scores above the 80th percentile or below the . 14 (80th + percentile) 20th percentile-scales Mean score 8.971 Figure 4.2 and Table 6 allow the reader to examine the mean scores, assigned variable numbers, number of sub- jects, and standard deviations on the scales of the Bipolar Psychological Inventory for the incarcerated heroin addict profile. Clinical Description The most outstanding elevated scale on the BPI is the Hostility-Kindness, or assigned variable number 14. This elevated scale is the only significant deviation (above the 80th percentile), and this is restricted to the degree of elevation. However, a slightly high elevation is noticeable on the Social Deviancy-Social Conformity, or 13th scale, which is interpreted by Howell, Payne and Roe (1972), when viewed with the total inmate BPI profile, as presented below: 13 - Social Deviancy-Social Conformity (22 items) - HIGH SCORES: Social deviancy, antisocial, criminal behavior, societal conflict, anti- ' establishment, irresponsible, psychopathic, law breaking, rebellious. 98 BIPOLAR PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY OFFENDER NORMS -- FORM A MALE Nam e No. Age Date 4“ e" ‘ 1 g 0 0.? o8 :3 *0 I? A e x u. o e a» .3 w k «' 9' f 5' v“ 5‘ s‘” 3 4 9* s 9‘ f .3 a: e x s“ S 0) Q k ‘K V a v 6 . 4' ., 45 4" 3 4" ° '7 4‘" 4" f 4” 4“ 47:: ”"s‘ s 3' a” 3' 4' A" «I? «r I." .. s ~19 s " '00 ' u n Ht n Is to '3 I4 I. i: 13 .3 no I? ,7 I. I4 to to '3 I. I! I. t. I! It I '0 I4 I4 I: '3 '2 I7 I. II I7 II '0 so -—-’ w w) w“"n"‘n‘_"f—‘14 I7 '5 u w ’0 I4 " II It '4 " ’ I: o . ' .3 M Is to '5 '5 ' " I4 5° ‘" I3 |2_ '°_ IO '2 I3 '3 — '0 I2 ' 7 I2 I2 ’ H 7 . II II 4 s to , so -— —-.° '° — -— —-.—9 —-'z 60 9 7 5 '0 Q 7 1 5 H 5 so —---——9 ———-——-—- -——,————-————50 II 4 s 4 . 7 5 4 5 4 5 7 5 so -—3-—-7——‘——-‘—— —-— —— -—-— ———“-—-s-—-—9——4—— —— so 4 6 5 s 3 4 3 o s 3 4 __ _ __ _ __ 4 .._ .._... 5 ‘ ‘ 2 3 Z 7 t 3 t0 ; -—-,-——.——-,-—- ——--——:-——:-—— 4-——3-—- -—— I0 3 I I I 5 3 E s 2 o I __ __ , —-—-o-——o .._o ——o ___.o __o _&o__*o__:_3 _”o_*o o O ’5 é \ 3 § ‘\ ° 1‘ o .9 4." 4° 0“ s" a? 8‘“ 3 at" 3 s g t 4" 4* A o ‘3 g* c 4‘ o .$' § 3’ 5’ <> 6' .§ § * o 6‘ "' 4“ .0 4° 3 * 0*“ ° 9 "' 9 J} g? 9' v v 0 6. 1‘ (u q, \ a? V to ., « .: 3 ~ .v x: c v Q i“ O Q, é! 9’ Q 4, LP”) ‘?§1'.-.-:”‘1T°I.I+5 Ea-m inc-n 315.97: (5257,. 7.455181.) 314.17! (3.89159661‘ 7.9714141" gjhrgb,c, 1:, r 1 t. 31 3' 1;. 7, 3, L» 13 v. t L (gorwrrght ”3"? Ps‘y':'-n':«.r.;-.‘<'. Res." "ct“ ASS - i-V’WLS Figure 4.2.--Incarcerated heroin addict mean profile. 99 LOW SCORES: Social conformity, law abiding, ethical, socially sensitive, conforming, pro- social attitude. Incarcerated Non-Addict BPI Profile Profile (14) Assigned Variable Number 14 Scores above the 80th percentile or below the None (scale 14 was the highest 20th percentile-scales elevation) Mean score 7.343 Figure 4.3 and Table 6 allow the reader to examine the plotted mean scores, assigned variable numbers, stan- dard deviations, and number of subjects. Clinical Description The non-addict profile, as seen from Figure 4.3 and Table 6, fell well within the normal range on all of the BPI's validity scales (Invalid-Valid, and Lie-Honest), as well as on all other psychological dimensions. The non-addict sample profile did not produce any significant elevations on a single scale of the BPI (pathological demarcation line, beyond the 80th percentile or below the 20th percentile). Elevations were noted on the BPI Psychic Pain- Psychic Comfort, Self Degradation-Self Esteem, Dependence- Self Sufficiency, Social Withdrawal-Gregariousness, and Family Discord-Family Harmony scales. Again, none of these elevations were at or beyond pathological levels. 100 OFFENDER NORMS - FORM A MALE No. BIPOLAR PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY Nome l4 I! t . .9’ .._... ——-2I —zo-—Io-—-I I: Ti to I' . N I. III |3_ -___I 3 V “.._—— \ -— IQ—ZO— ZZ—ZO— I‘ I9 I. I7 I. I5 I2 5 I! l5 IS I M I4 II to .._... .._... 3° 4' $00 3 90 4O '7 I ”a I} I I , ‘/' ~- ‘ I KL I/i .fL — A..- I b I L... I___I- (~«771 tin—”ff. “q, ¥ it I ’l \a I \. Il'i:~-s l rm no It... 949'»; :2 ‘: r’s. Figure 4.3.--Incarcerated non-addict mean profile. ‘.II—Ilo¢" ’1 J lOl BPI Comparative Summary for'Both Samples Figure 4.4 contains the plotted mean scores for examining the differences between the two samples. Profile (14) Ol-Incarcerated Heroin Addicts Assigned Var- iable Number 14 Scores above the 80th percentile or below the 14 20th percentile-scales Mean score 8.971 SD 3.730 Clinical Description Profile (14 highest elevation) 02-Incarcerated Non- Addicts Assigned Var- iable Number 14 . Scores above the 80th percentile or below the 20th percentile-scales None Mean score 7.343 SD 4.207 Basically, both samples fell within the normal limits on the Invalid-Valid and the Lie—Honest scales. Elevations on the Hostility-Kindness scale suggest hostility, aggres- siveness, verbal assertiveness, vengefulness. intolerance, violence, and Although marginal differences can be viewed between the two samples on the scales of the Bipolar Psychological Inventory, the Dependence-Self Sufficiency scale was the only one significant at the .05 level of confidence. However, this finding is not significant when evaluated with the instrument's prior set pathological demarcation line--beyond the 80th percentile or below the 20th percentile. The analysis of variance on the remaining 14 scales of the BPI revealed no other differences between the mean scores of the experimental group and the control group, rs '5 J" é -1E3 on';’-:—I—:I-11:‘r;:f! I) [7.1,]..Ili 31'37m713-1'i-qTZ-Z-IZE’. AirL'YL‘ .4114 43:17 "lie ‘ ,/'7! [‘2' (LL: (1'. L’.“ E-(7./l d. .2: ‘ __-_. .E; ..J-f.‘-...'.'.’°_-'.‘ 4,4313 L; ' I; "- -1L:7'1‘:L£I¥LL Lib W? ’1‘ j_:_‘£- Qzl- It 15L EX) 7 4.44;); 1.713 7.35/3 L-.( § ~- — ~ . ' 3 _ '1 f. , If I’ . '3. ‘I‘ 5 ( . ' . r . L .’. ‘I l..- I '1 . ‘I - '7. a" (RI-'7. ' .zh. ‘3' 3 .1‘". 312.. He rum : -~5_ mew-«5 . Addict Sample " . 102 BIPOLAR PSYCHOLOGSCAL INVENTORY OFFENDER NORMS ~-— FORM A MALE Non-Addict Sample Figure 4.4.--Comparison of incarcerated heroin addict mean sample profile and incarcerated non-heroin addict mean profile. 103 despite an elevation on the BPI Hostility-Kindness scale beyond the pathological demarcation line by the experimen- tal group. Scale Correlations (MMPI and BPI) One purpose of this section is to examine how the variables of the MMPI relate to variables on the BPI for the pOpulation under investigation. The basic principle :behind all relationship studies tends to follow from John Stuart Mills' canon of concomitant variation (Sax, 1968): Whatever phenomenon varies in any manner whenever another phenomenon varies in some particular manner, is either a cause or an effect of that phenomenon, or is connected with it through some fact of causa- tion (Mill, 1930, p. 263). Hypothesis 3: Significant relationships will exist between the BPI scales and the scales of the MMPI. Assumption 2: Personality scales and characteristics, as measured by the dependent variables, have a potential relationship to heroin addiction. Assumption 3: A correlational relationship will exist between the dependent variables and addic- tion to heroin. Assumption 4: The BPI will reveal more numerous and more highly significant correlations with incar- cerated non-addicts than will the MMPI. BPI and MMPI Intercorrelations This section presents the significant correlations between the scales of the BPI and those of the MMPI for the combined sample. Appendices E through G present the inter- correlations, both significant and non-significant, between § 104 the scales of the BPI and those of the MMPI. Also included in this section are: the heroin addict-inmate matrix of intercorrelation of the MMPI-BPI variables, and the non- addict inmate matrix of intercorrelation of the BPI-MMPI variables. Intercorrelations Between BPI Scales and the MMPI Scales for the Combined Samples (1) Invalid-Valid Scale.--Presented in Table 7 are the intercorrelations between 14 scales of the MMPI and 15 scales of the BPI. No correlations are noted between the BPI Invalid-Valid scale and any scale of the MMPI. Accord- ing to Pryor (1971): The Invalid-Valid Scale was constructed merely to identify individuals who might not be reading the items or who were answering in a random manner. There is no scale on the MMPI which measures exactly the same characteristic, but high scores on the E scale (T 80) suggest random responses (Drake and Getting, 1965). (2) Lie-Honest Scale.--The Lie-Honest scale of the BPI correlated positively with the L scale of the MMPI (p<.Ol). A correlational level of .308 (p<.01) was obtained between the BPI L scale and the K scale of the. MMPI. Other significant, though negative, correlations with the BPI L scale and the MMPI scales are: The F (r=-.247, p<.05), and the Mf (r=-.247, p<.05). Both of the scales claimed to assess the degree to which subjects are answering in a perfectionistic Il()5 Ho.vmac mo.va. I- ..oo«. .osw. II II II II II II II I»¢~.I ..omm. .mm~.I II ma II ..msm. ..amc. .Hmm. .en~. II .omm. II II II ..ooq.- ..Nmm. ..vmv.I II VA ..mNM. ..Hem. ..vsv. ..eom. ..moo. II II II II II ..oao.I ..omm. ..smm.I II ma II ..vmv. .mmm. II II II II II .mw~.I II ..oam.I ..anm. ..nmv.I II NH .Imov. II ..msv. ..mmm. ..mom. ..Nov. II II II II ..oov.I ..mmm. .Hm~.I II AH «chm. comm. «amvw. ll cvmm. camam. cahmm. II II II II «somv. II II OH ..cov. II ..mam. II IsmN. II II II II II .Hh~.I ..mmm. II II a Iow~. II .vmm. II Inmm. II II II II II II .snm. II II m ..mmv. II .Imom. ..mmv. ..mmm. II .mnm. Insm. ..msm. .vmm. I.¢¢M.I IAmN. II II A ..oom. II .Ismm. ..smm. I.¢~w. II ..mmm. ..mov. ..msv. ..vov. ..mme.I ..osv. II II o ..aom. II ..mmm. ..moo. ..mmo. II ..mmm. ..mnm. ..oam. ..emm. ..mov.I ..mam. II II m .Isom. II ..Hmv. ..omm. ..mmm. II ..omm. ..Nom. ..mem. ..mmm. I.moo.I ..omv. II II v II II II II II .om~.I II II II II II II II II M II II II II II .nv~.I II II II II ..mom. .sv~.I ..vmm. II ~ II II II II II II II II II II II II II II A «m m: um on mm a: cm >: o m: x u a N am mN em mm mm vm mm «N am ON ma m4 ea ea wwwmow Eflilfl HIP-dun“! mmqéum HAZE .Aonv mmanmflum> Ham pcm Max: mnu mo xfluumE coducamuuoouwucA Ill'u'; Idalflfllli'lu n Hfinfl. nlIfll'Hlluu «IV-Illii Il‘ mHmEcm oucEcfl amuOrII.h manna 106 manner. The negative correlation between the F Scale of the MMPI and the BPI L Scale is eXpected in that the BPI Lie Scale attempts to measure the socially desirable direction of responses and the MMPI F Scale attempts to assess the socially undesirable direction responses (Pryor, 1971). (3) Defensive-Open.--The only correlation noted between the BPI Defensive-Open scale and the MMPI scales (at the p<.05 or .01 level of significance) was on the Mf scale (r— -- 236, p<. 05). (4) Psychic Pain-Psychic Comfortl.--Table 7 visually indicates that the Psychic Pain-Psychic Comfort scale of the BPI correlated significantly and positively with the F, Hs, D. Hy, Pd, Pa, Pt, Sc, and Si scales of the MMPI at the p .01 level of confidence, and significantly negatively cor— related with the K scale (r=-.605, p<.Ol). From the total number of significant correlations (10), it appears that these two instruments-scales are measuring the same (or partially the same) psychological traits or dimensions. (5) Depression-Optimisml.--An examination of Table 7 indicates that the Depression-Optimism scale of the BPI was significantly positively correlated with the F, Hs, D, Hy, Pd, Pa, Pt, Sc, and Si scales of the MMPI, and significantly negatively correlated with the K scale (r: —- 463, p<. 01). lHighest number of intercorrelations between the two instruments-scales (#10). 107 The BPI Depression-Optimism scale and the MMPI Paranoia or Pa scale engendered the highest of all inter- correlations between the MMPI and the BPI scales (r=.625, p<.01). (6) Self Degradation-Self Esteeml.-—The Self Degradation-Self Esteem scale, as viewed from Table 7, correlated significantly and positively with the F, Hs, D, Hy, Pd, Pa, Pt, Sc, and Si scales of the MMPI. Further analysis of Table 7 depicts a significantly negative cor- relation with the MMPI K scale (r=-.438, p<.01). This scale (6-BPI and Pa-MMPI) produced the second highest of all intercorrelations between the MMPI and the BPI scales (r=.624, p<.01). Payne (1971) described this scale as attempting to assess, along with self-degradation, "the self critical, inferiority feelings, dissatisfaction with self, self depreciation, poor self-image, and the ego-strength of the individual." From the total number of significant correlations (10), it appears that these two instruments-scales are measuring the same (or partially the same) psychological dimensions or traits. lHighest number of intercorrelations between the two instruments-scales (#10). ' 108 (7) Dependence-Self Sufficiencyl.--From Table 7, it can be seen that the Dependence-Self Sufficiency scale of the BPI is correlated significantly and positively with nine scales of the MMPI: F, Hs, D, Hy, Pd, Pa, Pt, Sc, and Si. Also significantly but negatively correlated is the K scale of the MMPI (r=-.344, p<.01). (8) Unmotivated-Achieving.--Table 7 presents the correlations between the BPI Unmotivated-Achieving scale and the scales of the MMPI. The results show that the Unmotivated-Achieving scale is correlated positively and significantly with the F, Pa, Sc, and Si scales of the MMPI. No other correlations were noted at the .05 or the .01 level of confidence. (9) Social Withdrawal-Gregariousness.—-Observation via Table 7 reveals that the Social Withdrawal-Gregariousness scale of the BPI is correlated significantly with the F, Pa, Sc, and Si scales of the MMPI, and correlated significantly but negatively with the K scale (r=-.27l, p<.05). The Si scale of the MMPI was developed after the others. Item content of the Si scale includes: sensitivi- ties, insecurities and worries, denial of impulses, uneasi- ness in social situations, and social participation. Generally, high scores tend to indicate withdrawn tendencies, lHighest number of intercorrelations between the two instruments-scales (#10). 109 aloofness, and anxiousness in interactions with peOple. Scores above 70 Sc on occasion may identify schizoid factors. Payne (1970) delineated this scale (BPI Social Withdrawal-Gregariousness) as follows: The individual scoring high on the scale is “characterized as a loner who avoids interaction and confrontation. He would therefore be classified as introverted and would likely be schizoid." High score coding of the Si scale is found among persons showing introvertive characteristics, especially shyness,w social insecurity, and social withdrawal (Drake and Getting, 1965). The high correlation noted between the BPI Social Withdrawal-Gregariousness scale and the MMPI Si scale (r=.496, p .01) suggests that these two scales are attempt- ing to measure the same traits or psychological dimensions. (10) Family Discord—Family;Harmony.--Table 7 des- cribes the correlations between the BPI Family Discord- Family Harmony scale and the scales of the MMPI. Significant positive correlations between the BPI Family Discord-Family Harmony scale and the MMPI scales were: F, Pd, Mf, Pa, Sc, Ma, and Si. No negative correlations were noted at the .05 or the .01 level of confidence. (11) Sexual Immaturity—Sexual Maturity.--The Sexual Immaturity-Sexual Maturity scale of the BPI 110 correlations with the scales of the MMPI can be Viewed from Table 7. Significant positive correlations follow: F, Mf, Pa, Pt, Sc, and Si. Significant but negative correlations with the BPI scale under discussion were the L and K scales of the MMPI (r=-.251, p<.05 and r=-.406, p<.01, respec— tively). (12) Social Deviancy-Social Conformity.-—This scale's correlations with the MMPI scales can be seen from Table 7 to correlate positively and significantly with the MMPI F, Sc, and Ma scales, and to correlate negatively but significantly with the L, K, and D scales of the MMPI (r=-.437, p<.Ol; r=-.3l6, p<.01: and r=-.265, p<.05, respectively). (13) Impulsiveness-Self Control.--Table 7 shows that the BPI Impulsiveness-Self Control scale correlates posi- tively and significantly with the F, Pa, Pt, Sc, Ma, and Si scales of the MMPI, and significantly but negatively with the L and K scales (r=-.357, p<.01 and r=-.610, p<.Ol, respectively. (14) Hostility-Kindness.--Table 7 reveals that the correlations between the BPI Hostility-Kindness scale are positive and significant with the F, Pd, Pa, Pt, Sc, and Ma scales of the MMPI. It also correlates negatively but significantly with the MMPI L and K scales (r=-.434, p<.Ol and r=-.460, p<.01, respectively). 111 (15) Insensitivity-Empathy.--The BPI Insensitivity- Empathy scale and the scales of the MMPI are presented in Table 7. Significant positive correlations between the scales under discussion follow: F, Sc, and Ma. Also noted in Table 7 are significant but negative correlations with the L and K scales of the MMPI. Description of the BPI Insensitivity-Empathy Scale.-- HIGH SCORE: Cruel, insensitive, morbid, punitive, calloused, sadistic. LOW SCORE: Empathy, concern, sensitive to others, kind, considerate, sympathetic. Significantly_positive correlations between the BPI Insensitivity-Empathy or 15 scale and the scales of the MMPI.-- F r=. 386, p<. 01: The F Scale of the MMPI represents an attitude quite antithetical to that denoted by the L and K Scales. Instead of expressing a tendency to minimize, deny, or evade, the admission of pathology, it represents its exaggeration. Sc r=. 270, p<. 05: The Sc Scale is based upon a group of patients characterized by bizarre and unusual thought or behavior, and a subjective life tending to be dichot- omized from the world of reality. Many of the items reflect the bizarre mentation, the social alienation, the feelings of persecution included in the classic description of schiZOphrenia, and the peculiarities of perception. Ma r=. 469, p<. 01: This scale elevated, implies a ten- dency to be overactive both bodily and mentally, with a tendency to skip around rapidly from one thing to another. This scale has reference to the kind of ele- vated mood found in manic patients. Three basic traits found in this type of patient are reflected in the scales; overactivity, emotional excitement, and flight or "push" of ideas. While some of the scale items reflect the hyperactivity, excitement, and flight of ideas of the hypomanic patient, others express certain 112 family relationship attitudes; and the remainder allude to a preoccupation with somatic concerns. Significantly but negatively correlated with the BPI Insensitivity-Empathy or 15 scale and the scales of the MMPI.-- L r=-.233, p<.05: There are 15 items in the L Scale, all descriptive of trivial and nearly universal faults, which most people are willing to admit without exor- bitant defensiveness. The item content attempts to measure aggressive feel- ings, “bad thought,“ temptations and lack of control or conformity. Generally: minimal kinds of foibles most people tend to have. It is seen then, that L assesses falsification by the individual's attempt to place self in a more socially acceptable light. High L indicates greater and higher deviations on the clinical scales (which are ?) than may otherwise be evident. K r=-.298, p<.05: The K Scale was designed to ameliorate the predictive validity of some of the original scales (McKinley and Hathaway, 1956). An important facet of the K Scale is that in addition to its use as an index of validity, it has also been adapted as a statistical corrector for some of the other clinical scales. K Scale items include personal inadequacies, ten- dencies toward mental disorders, self-control and criticism of others. Typical characteristics discerned include cynicism, euphoria, hospitalization, shyness, hestility, family dissension and worry. Intercorrelational Matrix Comparison of the BPI and the MMPI Scales Correlations for both the incarcerated heroin addict sample and the non-addict sample, along with the demographic data, variable 30--age, variable 3l--education, and vari- able 32--racia1 categories can be examined and analyzed in Appendices E, F, and G. If the reader analyzes the intercorrelational matrices in Appendices E through G, he will become appre- ciative of the internal consistency of each of the personality 113 I scales, to each other and to their individual scales, in their attempt to dichotomize the specific groups under investigation. Interpretations of the Analysis of Variance Tables on the 32 Variables Although only one scale of the BPI was significant beyond the .05 level, all of the results of the remaining variables are presented to permit examination of implied assumptions with defined meanings. Table 8.l.--Analysis of Variable One; Invalid-Valid (BPI) Source of Sum of Mean Signifi- ' def. F Variance Squares Square cance Regression (about mean) 3.15369860 3 1.05123287 2.6978 0.053 Error 25.71772997 66 0.38966258 Total (about mean) 28.87142857 69 Table 8.2.--Analysis of Variable Two; Lie-Honest (BPI). Source of Sum of d f Mean F Signifi— Variance Squares ' ' Square cance Regression (about mean) 15.98062032 3 5.32687344 0.8439 0.475 Error 416.60509396 66 6.31219839 Total (about mean) 432.58571428 69 114 Table 8.3.--Analysis of Variable Three; Defensive-Open (BPI). Source of Sum of f Mean F Signifi- Variance Squares ' ' Square cance Regression (about mean) 39.54703617 3 13.18234539 1.0519 0.376 Error 827.09582096 66 12.53175486 Total (about mean) 866.64285713 69 Table 8.4.--Analysis of Variable Four; Psychic Pain-Psychic Comfort (BPI). Source of Sum of d f Mean F Signifi- Variance Squares ' ’ Square Icance Regression (about mean) 55.38831779 3 l8.46277260 0.8505 0.471 Error 1432.68311077 66 21.70731986 Total (about mean) 1488.07142857 69 Table 8.5.--Analysis of Variable Five; Depression—Optimism (BPI). Source of Sum of d f Mean F Signifi- Variance Squares ‘ ‘ Square cance Regression (about mean) 42.45441571 3 14.15147190 0.7638 0.518 Error 1222.81701285 66 18.52753050 Total (about mean) 1265.27142856 69 115 Table 8.6.--Analysis of Variable Six; Self Degradation- Self Esteem (BPI). I Source of Sum of d f Mean F Signifi- Variance Squares ' ' Square cance Regression (about mean) 28.83895365 3 9.61298455 0.7013 0.555 Error 904.64676063 66 13.70676910 Total (about mean) 933.48571427 69 Table 8.7.--Analysis of Variable Seven; Dependence-Self Sufficiency (BPI). Source of Sum of Mean Signifi- . d.f. F Variance Squares Square cance Regression (about mean) 123.79060336 3 41.26353445 3.0159 0.036* Error 903.00939663 66 13.68196056 Total (about mean) 1026.79999998 69 *P<.05 Table 8.7 displays the data and the analysis for variable seven of the Bipolar Psychological Inventory: Dependence-Self Sufficiency. The difference between the two groups is significant beyond the .05 level, although not significant at the BPI's previously set pathological demarcation level: 116 Pathology is reflected at the highest end of the scale. Scoring high on several dimensions usually indicates multiple problems. Even one high score may be indicative of serious difficulty. When most scales are elevated near or above the 80th percentile, the individual is usually quite disturbed or indirectly asking for help and is likely to manifest his problems in other ways as well (Howell, Payne and Roe, 1972). Further examination of differences between the means and the standard deviations of both groups suggests that such differences are not totally a result of means and standard deviations alone, but possibly of item content: Incarcerated Heroin Addicts Mean 8.971 SD 3.730 Incarcerated Non-Heroin Addicts Mean 7.343 SD 4.203 Table 8.8.--Analysis of Variable Eight; Unmotivated- Achieving (BPI). Source of Sum of Mean Signifi- . d.f. F Var1ance Squares Square cance Regression (about mean) 27.65340187 3 9.21780062 1.4896 0.225 Error 408.41802670 66 6.18815192 Total (about mean) 436.07142857 69 117 Table 8.9.-—Analysis of Variable Nine; Social Withdrawal- Gregariousness (BPI). Source of Sum of d f Mean F Signifi- Variance Squares ' ' Square cance Regression (about mean) 64.68055320 3 21.56018440 1.0853 0.362 Error 1311.09087536 66 19.86501326 Total (about mean) 1375.77142856 69 Table 8.10.--Analysis of Variable Ten; Family Discord-Family Harmony (BPI). Source of Sum of d f Mean F Signifi- Variance Squares ‘ ' Square cance Regression (about mean) 145.36897343 3 48.45632448 1.8031 0.155 Error 1773.71674085 66 26.87449607 Total (about mean) 1919.08571428 69 Table 8.ll.--Analysis of Variable 11; Sexual Immaturity- Sexual Maturity ( BPI). Source of Sum of d f Mean F Signifi- Variance Squares ' ' Square cance Regression I (about mean) 22.79394871 3 7.59798290 0.5289 0.664 Error 948.19176558 66 14.36654190 Total (about mean) 970.98571427 69 118 Table 8.12.--Analysis of Variable 12; Social Deviancy-Social Conformity (BPI). Source of Sum of d f Mean F Signifi- Variance Squares '.' Square cance Regression 4‘ (about mean) 64.48855800 3 21.49618600 2.0196 0.120 Error 702.49715628 66 10.64389631 Total (about mean) 766.98371427 69 Table 8.13.-—Analysis of Variable 13; Impulsiveness-Self Control (BPI). Source of Sum of d f Mean F Signifi- Variance Squares ' ’ Square cance Regression (about mean) 30.43630422 3 10.14543474 0.5203 0.670 Error 1287.00655290 66 19.50009929 Total (about mean) 1317.44285712 69 Table 8.14.--Analysis of Variable 14; Hostility-Kindness (BPI). Source of Sum of d f Mean F Signifi- Variance Squares ' ' Square cance Regression (about mean) 92.45750671 3 30.81916890 1.9771 0.126 Error 1028.81392184 66 15.58808973 Total (about mean) 1121.27142856 69 119 Table 8.15.-—Analysis of Variable 15; Insensitivty-Empathy (BPI). Source of Sum of d f Mean Signifi- Variance .Squares ‘ ' Square cance Regression (about mean) 7.47380246 ‘ 3 2.49126749 0.4153 0.743 Error 395.89762611 66 5.99844888 Total ‘ (about mean) 403.37142856 69 Again, although none of the scales of the MMPI were significant beyond the .05 level, all of the results are presented to permit examination of implied assumptions with defined meanings. Table 9.l.--Analysis of Variable 16; ? Cannot Say (MMPI). Source of Sum of Mean Signifi- o d.f. F Var1ance Squares Square cance Regression (about mean) 64.79926169 3 21.59975390 0.1591 0.923 Error 8959.84359527 66 135.75520599 Total (about mean) 9024.64285707 69 120 Table 9.2.--Ana1ysis of Variable l7; L-Lie (MMPI). Source of Sum of d f Mean F Signifi- Variance Squares ' ° Square cance Regression (about mean) 235.14971033 3 78.38323678 1.9382 0.132 Error 2669.13600391 66 40.44145461 Total (about mean) 2904.28571427 69 Table 9.3.--Ana1ysis of Variable 18; F (MMPI). Source of Sum of d f Mean F Signifi- Variance Squares ° ' Square cance Regression (about mean) 66.68933164 3 22.22977721 0.1298 0.942 Error 11305.08209682 66 172.28912268 Total (about mean) 11371.77142835 69 Table 9.4.—-Analysis of Variable 19; K (MMPI). Source of Sum of d f Mean F Signifi- Variance Squares ° ' Square cance Regression (about mean) 7.58318850 3 2.52772950 0.0352 0.991 Error 4734.35966861 66 71.73272225 Total (about mean) 4741.94285703 69 121 Table 9.5.-—Analysis of Variable 20; Hs (MMPI). Source of Sum of d f Mean F Signifi- Variance Squares ’ ' Square cance Regression (about mean) 468.67821817 3 156.22607272 0.7974 0.500 Error 12930.46463895 66 195.91613089 Total (about mean) 13399.14285707 69 Table 9.6.--Analysis of Variable 21; D (MMPI). Source of Sum of Mean Signifi- . d.f. F Var1ance Squares Square cance Regression (about mean) 262.61303871 3 87.53767957 0.4936 0.688 Error 11704.47267556 66 177.34049508 Total (about mean) 11967.08571410 69 Table 9.7.--Ana1ysis of Variable 22; Hy (MMPI). Source of Sum of Mean Signifi- o d.f. F Var1ance Squares Square cance Regression (about mean) 559.88230889 3 186.62743630 1.2233 0.308 Error 10068.98911953 66 152.56044121 Total (about mean) 10628.87142849 69 122 Table 9.8.--Analysis of Variable 23; Pd (MMPI). Source of Sum of d f Mean F Signifi- Variance Squares ’ ' Square cance Regression (about mean) 162.77408860 3 54.25802953 0.3496 0.790 Error 10243.16876841 66 155.19952679 Total (about mean) 10405.94285703 69 Table 9.9.--Analysis of Variable 24; Mf (MMPI). Source of Sum of d f Mean F Signifi— Variance Squares ' ' Square cance Regression (about mean) 62.77672036 3 20.92557345 0.2225 0.880 Error 6206.59470820 66 94.03931376 Total (about mean) 6269.37142849 69 Table 9.10.--Analysis of Variable 25; Pa (MMPI). Source of Sum of Mean Signifi- O d.f. F Var1ance Squares Square cance Regression (about mean) 193.94759079 3 64.64919693 0.4240 0.736 Error 10063.42383766 66 152.47611875 Total (about mean) 10257.37142849 69 123 Table 9.ll.--Analysis of Variable 26; Pt (MMPI). Source of Sum of d f Mean F Signifi- Variance Squares ' ' Square cance Regression (about mean) 271.20893387 3 90.40297796 0.5160 0.673 Error 11563.07678032 66 175.19813304 Total (about mean) 11834.28571415 69 Table 9.12.--Analysis of Variable 27; Sc (MMPI). Source of Sum of Mean Signifi- 0 d O f O F Var1ance Squares Square cance Regression (about mean) 140.66417267 3 46.88805756 0.2122 0.888 Error 14582.77868438 66 220.95119219 Total (about mean) 14723.44285703 69 Table 9.13.--Analysis of Variable 28; Ma (MMPI). Source of Sum of Mean Signifi- U d O f. F Var1ance Squares Square . cance Regression (about mean) 707.27798147 3 235.75932716 1.7589 0.164 Error 8846.49344707 66 134.03777950 Total (about mean) 9553.77142835 69 124 Table 9.14.--Analysis of Variable 29; Si (MMPI). Source of Sum of d f Mean F Signifi- Variance Squares ' ’ Square cance Regression (about mean) 90.50522467 3 30.16840822 0.4047 0.750 Error 4920.58048952 66 74.55424984 Total (about mean) 5011.08571422 69 Table 10.1 presents the analysis of the data between the two groups on age. This variable is significant beyond the .05 level of confidence. Ho: As a person matures he impregnates specific posi- tive and negative responses and reacts to certain situations in set expected stereotyped age patterns. Table 10.l.--Ana1ysis of Variable 30; Age (demographic data). Source of Sum of Mean Signifi- . d.f. F Var1ance Squares Square cance Regression (about mean) 197.02693585 3 65.67564528 2.8720 0.043* Error 1509.25877842 66 22.86755725 Total (about mean) 1706.28571427 69 *P<.05 125 Table 10.2.--Analysis of Variable 31; Education (demographic data). Source of Sum of d f Mean F Signifi- Variance Squares ' ' Square cance Regression (about mean) 50.03818355 3 16.67939452 2.9285 0.040* Error 375.90467358 66 5.69552536 Total (about mean) 425.94285714 69 *p<.05 Analysis of Variable 32; Race (Demographic Data) The analysis of variance results revealed no signifi- cant differences at the .05 level of confidence among racial categories (Black, White, and Mexican). The actual sig- nificance level was 0.852. Since sample size is a very important component in interpreting results, caution is indicated with the racial profiles that follow. Generally, a n of 30 is required to satisfactorily acknowledge the F test as meaningful. How- ever, since no differences were found between the two groups on the BPI and the MMPI (with the exception of scale seven-- although not elevated at the pathological demarcation level at or beyond the 80th percentile), the researcher plotted the mean scores for further examination by the reader. Again, caution is indicated, since only one of the racial categories met adequate sample size, combined with other limitations: White-39, Black-23, Mexican-8. 126 The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Starke R. Hathaway and I . Charnley McKinley Scorer's Initials. l 2 - a 4 s 6 7 a 9 0 WWW, TorTc 7 L K HsMSK o Hy Pdux Ml Pa Punk ScHK Mah2K 8. MT.- Addttzmvxlfstx‘u 120': - _ - — _ —120 ' - 45- _ - _ ns -: ' ' 3 I 30_ 55’ - 9 us : Ma e as_‘ : so.“ ,5- _ - ”T 2 no ‘ _ _ - - . —-no _ ' ' _ - 50— ' .. . 40— . 105% ' ‘07 I _ : - so— - ’ ;- ms '- ' - .._ - - - : 5°‘ : ; lm-_— - _ ‘ ‘0'. - 25- _ _ 7100 30" - - _ 45-. - . : 35:- 701 E 95 -_ - _ - - _ - 45—- __ : _- 95 ,_ _ 35 ‘0_ - 4s _ _ . I ' - ' - — ' - 65': : 9°”- ' ' : 79° ? - I I we? “f “i w- m- E?“ ’ . ' . 55': : 80— - ’ : 79° - I ' wéE ’5 ': 35- 4 ; :- 75 O - #4' -‘ 45.: . - . - ‘ we 3 {-5 " I. 30- : :- 65 : s—: z 60": ‘ - _—60 - - - 20- : 55 _. 25_ 25" : _- 55 so-j—ao— —- ——-— --75 _-;—so —— . 20— I i 45 20_ _ :5 . 20—5 :- 45 40': - - 15,—: 2—40 35—} — ,5; '5: ‘ '0-: .- 35 - ' ‘ _ - _ _ 10" : . .. -n - - _ .._ , —n—— 30 : _ _ _ 10- IU _ - St : 30 0— - o— - - I — - - 25 ‘_‘ - 0 ' :- 25 _ '0' ' : —- - - R— - 20— 0 - ' -20 o—' °_0 TorTc -. L K HS'éK D Hy Pd m M5 Pa [minke-Irma.“ ,3. l'orTc 2 3 4 s 6 7 a 9 0 Raw Score with K __ __ _. _. .._ _ _ \ll 04 Black . Copyright 1948 by The Psychological Corporation. All rights reserved as stated in the manual and Cilnluq. 05 White 0_..___ The Psychological Corporation, 304 East 45th Street, New York. N. Y. lOO|7 Figure 5.l.--MMPI racial categories profile. 06 Mexican ***** 127 .mGOHuomuuoo M nuHB om 9m mmm.m mnm.~m m moo.m mme.mm mm Nam.s esa.om mm Hm mm mmH.HH msm.as m Hom.ma Hmm.as mm soo.aa Hmm.mn mm as mm smm.ha oom.es m mam.ea mmm.an mm ome.ma ssm.oa mm om mm mmo.ma mmm.os m ~mm.ma Hew.em mm emm.oa Nmm.ew mm pm mm mom.ea omn.mo m mma.ma ooo.mm mm mnm.oa oma.em mm mm mm ~ea.m ooo.aw m sso.oa msm.oo mm mmo.m mme.mm mm as «N mm~.~H mam.ss m mo~.va mmo.ms mm Hmm.m aam.en mm em mm ¢~H.HH oom.eo m mae.ea Hmm.am mm mmm.n whe.om mm mm mm Hee.~H mem.mm m smn.va mo~.mo mm Hmm.oa mam.om mm a Hm oHo.HH omm.mo m sea.ma ooo.om mm omo.oa osm.wm mm mm om mum.oa mmm.om m emm.m ema.om mm mm~.s aow.me mm m as mmm.ma oom.hm m Hmo.ma moa.mm mm emm.aa smm.sm mm m we «mo.e omm.me m om~.h soo.om mm sam.e as~.oe mm q as msm.m mam.m m mam.ma wme.m mm omm.m oem.e mm m ma am 2 2 am 2 2 am 2 z manmflum> mHmEmm mumEcH cmoflxmz mHmEmm mqucH mwflnz M mHQEmm ouoEcH xomam u - .mpaammu HAZE mHmEmm mmfluommwmo acflomn omeaHII.HH magma 128 BIPOLAR PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY OFFENDER NORMS -— FORM A MALE Age No. Name &k\ “m Axéhéwuam N w N W M We W. N m 0 héxflnluflw O O 7 [7% 4 3 IOAxs L I & r§a _ Ax¢+7 _ _ _ _ _ :3 thy mennw A. 4 5 4 3 2 IO .._. _ _ _ a ._ _ _ _ _..... a... s .w Avast. sunwn MN. M B R H JV 9 1. 4 5 4 3 2 IO v0 .. k“ s: a... _ _ _ r _ _ _ _ _ _ .a a??? beam" M m... u A." n w 9 O 7 6 5 30¢ 53%» s o v. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .. é... 00 056 0% “M at.” O I 7 4 3 2 l O v70 Q” A56. D” .._ _ _ :5, _ _ _ _ _ _s. v 3? .T v 5.3655 «awn-hum um “fit“ 6 5 4 3 z I Oxéos- v96.» 3. _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ .3 ob doamwunmuumnmfi F. L c 5 4 3 aloha. v35 & b 8503: _ _ _ _ _ .l _ _ _ _ 309% w unnumn" m 9 I V! 4 3 2 oo Jyé fi_ _ _ _ in + _ _ _ _r Q\\‘ ow 3R OWNER” m 9 *1 6 5 3 2 IO 37:0 I Abéhx :L _ _ _ a; _ _ _ mm nun w 93 1 . 4 3 z I 03 ”.3 3§¢ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ hflflr .# e IfJuaowumwu n .. _--_ _ _ _ _ feflnm NM". 9|. «56 _ _ _ _ _ .00 "WMHMB u bszHmw. O 7 s. _ . _ _ _ a: so. I O “O x m w w m N"- I «am Copynon11972 Psycmugatca Rese arch Assamates ***** 06 Mexican 05 White 0----- 04 Black Figure 5.2.--BPI racial categories profile. 129 .mwuoom 3mmm omm.m omh.m wmm.~ mna.m mm mmv.~ mmm.m mm haumaEmuwuH>HuHmammaH ma vom.~ mmm.> mmm.m hmv.h mm mam.v mbv.m mm mmmcocflxnmuflaflumom «a mmv.¢ mnm.oa mmm.v who.oa mm vam.e mmh.m mm Houuaou mamm Immmam>flmaamEH ma mmm.m mnm.ma mnm.m mam.ma mm mho.m ooo.va mm wuHEHOMaou Hmfloom I>OCMH>mQ Hmfloom NH ovm.m mnm.m mom.m mmm.m mm onm.m vom.m mm muflnapmz Hmoxmm ImpflnsumEEH Hmsxmm Ha mmm.¢ mam.m mmm.m ~m~.oa mm mom.e Hmm.n mm scoaumr saasmm louoomflo maflamm oa vhh.m mnm.n omo.m emm.m am vmm.m vom.m mm mmmamaoflummmuu Iam3muonuflz Hmfloom m oo~.~ mam.~ sme.~ Heo.m mm ~om.~ mmm.m mm mcfl>mflromncwum>flrosao m mee.m om~.m mom.m Hmo.s mm emm.m mmm.e mm sormfloflumsm mamm Imocmpcmmmo n HNH.¢ mnm.m oma.¢ vma.m mm mmm.m wwa.m mm Emmumm mamm ICOHpmpmummo mamm o Nmm.m ooo.oa Nom.v Hmm.m mm vmm.~ mmn.> mm EmHEHuQOIm>Hmmmumwo m mmm.m mma.oa mmh.v Hmm.oa mm mnm.m mnv.m mm pH0mEou aflcommm Icflmm aflzowmm v vwo.m mma.h oeh.m «vh.h mm mom.m hmm.m mm amm0um>flmammmo m Nm~.~ omm.m vow.~ moa.e mm Hmv.m nmm.m mm ummcomlmflq m mam.o mmm.o mah.o mmm.o mm mmm.o wmo.o mm UHHM>IUHHM>CH H am 2 am 2 2 am 2 z mHmEMm mumEcH amoflxmz mamamm mumEaH muflnz mamamm mmeaH xomam manmflum> M .muaammn Ham mHmSMm mmfluommhmo HMflomH mumaaHII.mH magma 130 Summary The analysis of data in Chapter IV presented the hypotheses under investigation; the MMPI profiles for the total inmates, the heroin addict inmates, and the non-addict inmates; and all the profiles of the BPI groups. Tentative interpretations were noted. The relationships between the 15 scales of the BPI and the 14 scales of the MMPI were also presented and discussed via intercorrelational matrices (Product-Moment). The fourth step in the organization of the analysis or the data presented and examined the differ- ences between the mean scores of the experimental group and the control group. This analysis was performed on all 15 variables of the BPI and the 14 variables of the MMPI for each of the two groups. The .05 level of significance was established as the critical area for accepting or reject- ing differences. Finally, since no differences were found between the two groups on the MMPI and the BPI (with the exception of scale seven—-although not elevated at the pathological level, beyond the 80th percentile), an analysis of vari~ ance was performed on the demographic data--variables 30- Age, 31-Education, and 32-Race. ‘ The analysis of variance results for the racial categories (Black, White, and Mexican) were found not sig- nificant at the .05 level of confidence. 131 Table 10.1 presented the analysis of the data between the two groups on the demographic variable--age. The groups were found to be significantly different beyond the .05 level. Finally, Table 10.2 presented the analysis of the data between the two groups on the demographic variable-- education. The groups were found to be significantly dif- ferent beyond the .05 level. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The cause of addiction is not drugs but human weak- ness. Addiction usually is a symptom of a personality maladjustment rather than a disease in its own right. The psychiatric conditions which underlie drug addic- tion are chiefly the neuroses and the character dis- orders. . . . They (neurotic patients) include nervous, tense individuals with a great deal of anxiety and many somatic complaints; compulsive neurotics; persons with conversion hysteria--strange paralyses, anesthesias, etc. Individuals with character disorders were for- merly termed psychopaths. Usually they are irrespon- sible, selfish, immature, thrill-seeking individuals who are constantly in trouble--the type of person who acts first and thinks afterwards. The majority of addicts do not fall clearly into either the neurotic or character disorder groups but have characteristics of both classes (Isbell, Public Health Service Publication No. 94, 1951). This final chapter is devoted to a summary of the study, a discussion of conclusions drawn from the data and their analyses, and concludes with recommendations and implications for future research. Summary Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine what rela- tionships exist between the scales of the Minnesota Multi- phasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and the scales of the Bipolar Psychological Inventory (BPI), tested on an incar- cerated heroin addicted/non-heroin addicted population, and 132 133 to ascertain which instrument would reveal more numerous and more highly significant correlations of personality characteristics to heroin addiction. A second purpose was to review and examine the effectiveness of the BPI and the MMPI scales, individually and to each other, in assessing characteristics of incarcerated heroin addicts and non- addicts. A third purpose was that of- exploring psychological dimensions and other areas that led to the development of the BPI. The overview of the 15 scales of the BPI and the 14 scales of the MMPI, reliability and validity of the scales, administration procedures for each inventory, and scoring methods, along with the review of literature, served as introductory material for discussion of both instruments. The present study was the first research (known to the researcher) performed to date, comparing the 14 scales of the MMPI with the 15 scales of the BPI on an incarcerated heroin addict/non—addict population. Instrumentation The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and the Bipolar Psychological Inventory (BPI) were used in this study. Personality factors which both instru- ments attempt to assess include: 134 Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) Hypochondriasis--Hs Depression-~D Hysteria--Hy Psychopathic Deviate--Pd Masculinity-Femininity--Mf Paranoia--Pa Psychasthenic--Pt Schizophrenia--Sc Hypomania--Ma Social Introversion--Si lidity Scales Cannot Say Lie Validity Correction Ntdtt-ugoxoooqmmaszI-J o O o. o o 000 o Bipolar Psychological Inventory (BPI) Invalid...........................Valid Lie..............................Honest Defensive..........................Open Psychic Pain............Psychic Comfort Depression.....................Optimism Self Degradation............Se1f Esteem Dependence.............Self Sufficiency . Unmotivated...................Achieving 9. Social Withdrawa1........Gregariousness 10. Family Discord...........Family Harmony 11. Sexual Immaturity.......Sexual Maturity 12. Social Deviancy...,...Social Conformity 13. Impulsiveness..............Se1f Control 14. Hostility......................Kindness 15. Insensitivity...................Empathy mqu'IIbLUNH .. CC... Procedure To screen incarcerated heroin addicts from incarcer- ated non-addicts, the control group, specific precautions were taken. All inmates at the Ingham County Jail at Mason, Michigan, were initially screened by the Intake-Referral Coordinator of the Ingham County Jail Inmate Rehabilitation Program (ICJIRP), and re-screened by the Drug Abuse Treatment 135 Staff, to determine the evidence of drug use/abuse. The records of all inmates tested were carefully reviewed; known addicts and known non-addicts were dichotomized into the experimental and the control groups. Further, each inmate who was included in either of the two final groups was interviewed. Each inmate was carefully questioned regarding his drug history, with the assurance that the information obtained would be held in confidence. The Multiple-Checking-System controlled for confound- ing variables such as drug use/abuse, duration of addiction, previous exposure to therapy and psychological testing, history and/or presence of psychosis, and physical addiction to heroin. (See pp. 72-73 for a detailed summary of the screening process;) The MMPI and the BPI were administered originally to 89 inmates. However, the study‘s‘Multiple-Checking System, implemented to assure authenticity of results, deleted all but 75 inmates. Five of these inmates were eliminated for other reasons. The inmates in both groups were administered the group form of the MMPI and the BPI--Form A. Generally, the tests were completed in a group setting; eight addicts/ non-addicts, however, were tested individually. Design and Analysis Examination of individual scales of the MMPI and the BPI was performed, along with their overall patterning 136 in terms of the interrelations among the scales. The means, standard deviations, and significance levels comparing each soale on the MMPI and the BPI for the experimental and the control group were plotted and analyzed. An analysis of the data presented the hypotheses and assumptions under investigation, and the MMPI and BPI pro- files for all groups. Intercorrelational matrices between the two instruments were presented and discussed, along with the demographic variables. An analysis of variance was performed for each of the 15 variables of the BPI, the 14 variables of the MMPI, and the 3 variables of the demographic data. This total of 32 analyses of variance was performed and presented in tables to ascertain statistically significant differences between incarcerated heroin addict inmates and incarcerated non-heroin addict inmates for each of the variables. Conclusions Findings and Discussion The following results of the study are outlined according to previously stated hypotheses and assumptions: Special Note: Special attention was directed toward the inmates' reading and comprehension levels. According to The Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test and The Wide Range Achievement Test results, the inmates scored well beyond the seventh grade reading and comprehension levels. 137 Hypothesis 1: Heroin addicted persons will demonstrate personality characteristics (profiles) which are unique or consistent within their population as measured by the MMPI and the BPI. Hypothesis 2: Significant differences will be found in performance (profiles) as measured by the dependent variables. Assumption 1: There is a heroin addiction profile, with explicit characteristics that will be des- cribed by the MMPI and the BPI (profiles). MMPI The research results tend to agree with Hill, gE_gl. (1962), in that social deviance is a common personality factor in alcoholics, prisoners, and heroin addicts. They suggested that except for the behavior which is peculiarly determined by the particular addiction or criminal activity, no personality characteristic other than social deviance is associated with alcoholism, narcotic addiction, or crimi- nality. Further analysis of the present data suggested that scales Ma and Sc of the MMPI are also associated with narcotic addiction and/or criminality. The incarcerated heroin addicted persons demon- strated personality characteristics (profiles) which were consistent within their population as well as with the incarcerated non-heroin addicted persons. The MMPI comparative summary for both samples was different only in marginal degrees. An examination of the comparative summary illustrated in Figure 3.4 reveals 138 similar profile patterns in overall configuration, eleva- tions on scales 4, 8, and 9, dominate both the heroin addicts and the non-addicts profiles. Generally, both groups fell within the normal limits on the validity scales, L, F, and K. However, both samples were elevated on the F scale, which is believed to be related to self-depreciation and deflated feelings of self—esteem, and according to Gilberstadt and Duker (1965) is indicative of either confused thinking or self- depreciation. Both samples were also elevated beyond a T Sc of 70 with K corrections on the Psychopathic Deviate or Pd scale (with differences being only in degree of elevations). According to Drake and Oetting (1959), persons scoring high on the Pd scale typically have a history of delin- quency and appear to be uncontrolled by the ordinary mores of society. They also tend to have a fairly high level of intelligence and present a superficially appealing personality (pp. 43-44). Other scale elevations beyond a T So of 70 with K corrections were the Hypomania or Ma scale, and the Schizo- phrenia or Sc scale: (Pd-Ma Combined) Persons with this profile pattern show clear mani- festations of psychopathic behavior, the hypomania seemingly energizing or activating the pattern related to . . . 3g scale. That is, these people tend to be overactive and impulsive, irresponsible and untrust- worthy, shallow and superficial in their relationships. To satisfy their own desires and ambitions, they may expend great amounts of energy and effort, but they find it difficult to stick to duties and responsibili- ties imposed by others (Dahlstrom and Welsh, 1960). 139 This Schizophrenia or Sc scale was the least ele- vated on the profiles beyond a T Sc of 70 with K correc- tions, for the two samples (with the exception of a mar- ginally higher elevation, in degree only, on the non-addict profile), and appears to add to the psychopathology of both samples. The Sc scale suggests a union with the total pro- file, and the marked similarity between the incarcerated heroin addict and the non—addict profile further supports the belief that personality characteristics do not materially change following addiction, even though the procurement, use, and effects of drugs necessarily demand changes in the individual's daily activities. Further supportive evidence obtained in the analysis of variance on all 14 variables of the MMPI for each of the two groups indicated no significant differences were found on any of the MMPI variables between the two groups at the .05 level of confidence. The BPI Comparative Summary For Both Samples Figure 4.4 reveals that both samples fell within the normal limits on the Invalid-Valid and the Lie-Honest scales. Noted elevations on the Hostility-Kindness scale suggested hostility, aggressiveness, verbal assertiveness, intolerance, violence, and vengefulness. Although mar- ginal differences were noted between the two groups on the scales of the BPI, the Dependence-Self Sufficiency scale 140 was the only one significant at the .05 level of confidence. However, this finding was not significant when evaluated with the instruments‘ previously set pathological demarca- tion line (beyond the 80th percentile or below the 20th percentile). The analysis of variance on the remaining 14 scales of the BPI revealed no other differences between the mean scores of the experimental group and the control group, despite an elevation on the BPI Hostility-Kindness scale beyond the pathological demarcation line by the experimental group. Hypothesis 3: Significant relationships will exist between the BPI scales and the scales of the MMPI. Assumption 2: Personality scales and characteristics, as measured by the dependent variables, have a potential relationship to heroin addiction. Assumption 3: A correlational relationship will exist between the dependent variables and addiction to heroin. Assumption 4: The BPI will reveal more numerous and more highly significant correlations with incar- cerated non-heroin addicts than will the MMPI. Pryor (1971) initiated the first research attempt to assess the validity of the BPI. Because of the exploratory nature of his study, formal hypotheses were not listed. However, one of his implied hypotheses at this time was "there would be significant relationships between the BPI scales and the scales of the MMPI." His findings were supportive of his implied hypothesis. 141 The analysis of variance on the first two demo- graphic variables--age and education-~revealed that both variables were significant beyond the .05 level of confi- dence, between the two groups. The analysis of variance results revealed no significant differences at the .05 level of confidence among racial categories (Black, White, and Mexican). The actual significance level at the .05 level of confidence was 0.852. Since sample size is a very important component in interpreting results, caution is indicated with the racial profiles. Generally, a n of 30 is required to satisfactorily acknowledge the F test as meaningful. However, since no differences were found between the two groups on the BPI and the MMPI (with the exception of scale 7--although not ele- vated at or beyond the pathological demarcation level, the 80th percentile), the researcher plotted the mean scores for further examination by the reader. Again, caution is indicated, since only one of the racial categories met adequate sample size, combined with other limitations: Whites-39, Blacks-23, and Mexicans-8. An analysis of the present data indicates a large number of Bipolar Psychological Inventory correlations with the scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inven- tory, suggestive of proximity in attempting to measure similar psychological traits or psychological scale dimen— sions. 142 Significant positive and negative correlations can be examined and analyzed via Table 7. Personality scales and characteristics as measured by the dependent variables did in fact have a relationshipyto heroin addiction. A correlational relationship did exist between the variables (dependentliand addic- tion to heroin. The BPI and the MMPI both revealed numerous and highly significant correlations with incarcerated non-heroin addicts. Bothiinstru- ments were in close proximity in terms of number of correlations; therefbre to dichoto- mize the two would result, again, in only marginal differences. From the results discussed above, the findings suggest that the MMPI and the BPI, in combination, represent complementary therapeutic and diagnostic tools for a large variety of psychological uSes. Results also indicate their further importance in evaluating populations "unlimited,“ particularly the "sociopathic" labeled groups. Although an analysis of numerous research results suggested there are measurable personality differences between incarcerated and non-incarcerated heroin addicts with respect to the incidence and extent of sociopathy, incarceration appears to be at least one of the multiple confounding variables that precludes a dichotomy between the incarcerated heroin addict and incarcerated persons who are not addicts. In Tables 13.1 and 13.2 the incarcerated non-heroin addict sample is presented via a matrix of intercorrelations 1.4I3 do.v&cc mo.v&a II ma «12... #4 acmafi. cc_?v. M cumnn. aaomm. «scam. m4 II II «mam. «ahmv. 4a II II II II .wmm. OH II II cmmm. semm. «comm. csmhv. m IJ II II «Nvm. m II II II II II II II cuamv. 5 II comm. ammm. II II II caomv. II «chmm. o II II avGM. II II II «abom. II camhm. asamw. m II II ca¢HQI II II II «Nov. II ccvmw. athmm. gamma. v II «Nov. II II II II II II cvav. comm. m II II II II II II II II II awmm.l II amMMII m II II II II II II II II II II II II II II I a n~ ca ma NH AH OH m m h w m v m w .mwanmfium> Ham wnu wo :oflumamuuooumucfl uoflopm CHOuocIco: caucuwoucocHII.~.m~ wanes so.va.. mo.va. II mm uamm.l mm II II 5N camdm. II «tomb. om II II cammm. sawmv. mm II II II II II em II II «swam. cuomm. cahmh. mm «chm. II smmm. asmam. ccamv. II uaomm. NN usOMo. «amom.l «mmm. «show. II II comm. ua¢N®. «N caOmm. II crane. «savm. «came. II scmmv. «swam. csw¢w. ON cahoo.l II uaom.l ma «mom. camov. asomh. asmmv. «cmow. II samom. II II II «comm.l ma II II «Ohm.l II II II II II II II acmmm. CNa¢.I ha II II II II II II II II II II II II II II or mm mm hm mm mm vN mm mm 4N ON ma m4 ha ca .mwanmfium> Has: onu uo coflumHouuooumucfl uoficom adenocIcoc otuouoouzucaII.«.m~ oases 144 between the MMPI/MMPI variables and the BPI/BPI variables, respectively. The intercorrelation of variables and their possible predictability of each other is considered one measure of internalconsistency, which is one form of reli- ability. Both the BPI and the MMPI appear to possess this characteristic or strength. Recommendations The need for investigations into the effectiveness of various diagnostic and therapeutic experiences remains practically unlimited. Further studies involving the BPI and the MMPI in clinical experiences may serve to determine their actual potential as predicting agents with specific groups. Further reliability and validity studies should be conducted for all scales of the BPI, possibly compared with the MMPI and other psychologically related instruments, in furthering the attempt to assess the reliability and valid- tiy of the BPI scales. One interesting study might include a comparison between Jordan's Attitude Toward Drug Users Scales and the scales of the BPI or the MMPI. This study could possibly reflect the importance of positive or negative attitude- responses, and their influence on the scales of the BPI or the MMPI (Jordan, Kaples, Maclean, and Nicholson, 1971). Replication of this study should be repeated at the Ingham County Jail, hospitals, residential treatment centers, 145 and other therapeutic communities to ascertain whether the same results of personality variable comparisons will engender the same results. Since age and educational factors influence results on the MMPI and the BPI, further investigations of these factors should be considered. Further investigations examining alleged measurable personality differences between larger, though carefully selected samples of incarcerated and non-incarcerated heroin addicts may lend some credence to the BPI's further consid- eration as a reliable psychological inventory. The need for longitudinal and cross-sectional studies is indicated, to ascertain the consistency of specific pro- files across developmental periods. Finally, no diagnostic or therapeutic instrument is of any value unless it assists in the psycho-rehabilitation process. "Unless the BPI profiles can be utilized to help direct therapy and rehabilitation little has been gained by its construction" (Pryor, 1971). APPENDICES 146 APPENDIX A GLOSSARY 147 Abb. Ace Acid Acid drOpper Acid head Action Artillery Away Back-up *Bo gard *Bold APPENDIX A GLOSSARY An abcess which forms at the site of Injection on needle addicts. largerly as a result of impure drugs or unsterile needles, or works. A swollen, inflamed area in body tissues. A one-year sentence. Also bullet. "He laid an ace on me for that score." (LSD - 25) Lysergic acid diethylamine, an omnipotent psychomimetic drug, engendered synthetically, which duplicates in a highly concentrated form the same hallucinogenic agent found in peyote. mescaline and psilocybin. It appears on the contraband market in the form of liquid in ampules and sugar lumps on which a drop of the concentrated drug has been deposited, or Sometimes in powder form. ' An acid head. One who uses LSD. An acid dropper. One who uses LSD. The selling of drugs (narcotics): Anything per- taining to illegal/criminal activities. The works/outfit used to inject drugs hypodermically, that is, sometimes, a medicine dropper fitted with a hollow needle. Locked up in jail.4 Incarcerated. To allow the blood to return into the glass/works (dropper or glass syringe) during a vein shot. Selfishly holding on to something usually shared. "Bogarding a joint" - not passing the joint freely when smoking with peers, friends and etc.. Literally a descriptive word for someone who is adventure- some, forth-right. Also the word is used to delineate anything that stands out in a positive way to the per- ceiver/speaker. "Those strides are sure bold, man." 148 149 Boss A good or wonderful choice. *Bummer Mood/emotional depressing event. "How, getting busted was a real bummer." *Busted Getting caught. Usually for illegal activities. Busted gotbe arrested, put away, downed, nailed, or knocked u . *Box Record player or stereo set. Buzzer gagggosexual; a prison guard, or an enforcement officer's *Cop Acquire. "Let;s go cop some reefer' - To buy drugs. Cop To obtain. To try to steal or rob. *Cop an attitude A sudden emotional reaction to a specific or generalized stimulus. "I was getting along good with the dude until I rapped about his mother and then the dude cops an attitude. Meaning: The person became upset at the nature of the comments and then became defensive to the point that he had a negative, or hostile response set. *Cop out Plead guilty in court. Cop out To plead guilty. Generally used by all underworld people and many law enforcement officers. *Deal Sell drugs (push). *Deep Used to delineate a person or event that is either introspective or complicated. *Dig it To understand. "Can you dt; it," or be interested in the current happenings. Ding marihuana. *00 An amount of heroin in a single high. "Did you get your do?" Do popper A needle addict. *Dope Dope *Dry run *Far out *Fire-up Flash Flashback *Getting down Gap *Head Heist *Hip/hep *Hitting a vein Home *Homey *Honkie * Horn *Hot shot 150 A term describing heroin to a junkie or jail inmate; and marijuana to pot heads and middle class/college pot smokers. Narcotics. A cancelled court appearance after an accuSed individual has been taken to court from jail. Good, groovy. To shoot up heroin. Mainlining. Euphoria following injection of narcotics. A recurrence of some of the features of the LSD state days or months after the last dose. It can be invoked by physical or psychological stress, or by medications such as antihistamines, or by marihuana. Getting serious or to the main issue. "This chick and I quit jiving and got down to it." To yawn and drool (salivate). The female genitalia. Marijuana smoker To rob or steal. To life someone's stash (narcotics). Replaced "cool" in colloquial expression. o.k. or "in.” Meaning Mainlining. The vein into which drugs are injected (favorite spots). A friend. Usually people from the same geographical area or town. Generally refers to a negatively perceived white person. To sniff (snort) cocaine or heroin. Also blow. Injection of pure heroin which is usually fatal. Hot shot *Jack/man/dude *Jam *Jive I *Jive II *Joint Joint *Joy poppin Joy popper *Key 1 *Key II *Kites Later Miss Emma Nailed On ice *Peckerwood 151 An deadly. poison, such ascyanide,(deium)' and. other poison concealed in narcotics to kill troublesome addicts, or to delete/remove an informer. An individual addressed in greeting or discussion. Music. Heroin. Style of behavior used usually to impress others or to can in some fashion. "He's just jive" - meaning: "He's" is generally a phony or he is superficial. Marijuana cigarette The complete works/outfit with which to take drugs . hypodermically, in contrast to a regulation hypo- dermic syringe. (see artillery). A reference to getting high by a non-addict. A person, (not a confirmed addict) who takes an occasional injection of drugs/narcotics. Sometimes joy popping is the beginning of a permanent addiction. Short for turnkey or guard. Short for kilo: Rarely found sales unit of marijuana. Informal jail correspondence: Notes, or letters. Never mind. A laconic phrase meaning meaning "forget it." Morphine. Busted, arrested, or jailed. In jail, incarcerated, or a police stakeout in in the vicinity. Exceptionally derogatory adjective describing a white man, a honkey, etc.. *Quads *Quinne *Rap partner *Reds Red devil *Ride out *Rip off/rip Roach Rush *Partner (running) *Shit *Shooting up *Skating Shoot gravy *Skin poppin *Snitch *Snortin *Spike *Squares 152 Methaquaalone/barbituate in current popular street use. I Commonly used substance with a bitter taste: Used to cut pure heroin. Jail slang for people in on the same criminal charge togeather. Downers/barbiturates A Seconal capsule. Also called Red Bird. Found guilty at court and given a ride to an institution by the authorities. To steal. The end of a marijuana cigarette. The first exciting euphoria from injecting opiates. See flash. Junkies who shoot-up togeather. Heroin or various drugs. The term used is in- quiring about: "You got any shit, man?" Mainlining. Jail slang for the active avoidance of responsibility. To reheat a boot shot when a vein is missed and reinjecting the mixture of blood, water and the drug(s). Subcutaneous drug injection; Informer. (See tooting) Syringe, or needle. Jail slang for a pack of cigarettes. *Strides Tabs *That's bad *The world *Tootin *Two-days & a wake-up Twisted Uffi or uhffi *Vibes/Viberations Viper *walk out Works *works Yen Zonked 153 Slacks/pants. 5 mg methedrine tablets. Jive for "That's good." Outside of an institution. Injesting heroin by sniffing the powder into the system via the nostrils. Refers to the amount of time left on an inmate's sentence. In this case being two days left on the sentence and release the following morning at 8:00 A.M.. Under the influence of narcotics. Morphine. Rare (New York City and Detroit areas). Negative or positive impressions derived from subjective interpretation of affection display or iconic expressions. A "feeling" one has toward another as to the credibility or motivation." "Don't deal any shit to that dude, he gives me bad vibes." A grass/marijuana smoker. Released at court. Instruments for administering drugs/narcotics hy- podermically. Apparatus used in shooting up heroin. A crave for drugS/narcotics, even though the user/abuser is no longer using at the time. Under the influence of drugs/narcotics. *Collective (pooled) definition. of terms, as used by heroin addicts incarcerated in the Ingham County Jail in Mason, Michigan, January, l97l— March, 1973. APPENDIX B FREQUENCIES AND PERCENTAGES OF THE TOTAL SAMPLE ON THE 32 VARIABLES 154 .155 c~.n me.F m— NF pn.m up.n ow.m mp m¢.p— mm.e mp ¢—.~ ¢~.n ep ep.n om.~ mp mm.¢ Pn.m NF mm.~ um.m FF mm.v .mmdfleaurma . mmpucosamra museum mommpcwurma mmwocmacmra moroum mmmmpcmurma mmwucmaumra museum .e wpamwsw> mm me.F up .m mm.¢F op me.~ p mp om.wp m h me.p mp v—.n om.m ep Fu.m mm.~ m— um.m Pn.m up mN.¢ m¢.P_ PF m~.¢ mommucourma mmmucmacmra moroom mommucmurma mmpucmzcmra moroum .m opnmwgm> as m .u _n.m e u Pn.m e 0 mm.- m oo.o~ cw w mm.mp m m om.mp m¢.p op mm.- «muaucwurma mmpucmacmra museum mommucwurma morocwsamra moroum .~ asst; me.~ e ow.m N N mm.- P mommpcmurma mmmucmscmra moroum .p opnmwgw> .mmpnmwro> mm ecu co mFasmm _muou on» mo mommucmurma new mmwocmzcmraII.eF m—nme m xHozmam< .156 mw.m pp Fn.m oo.o~ m~.¢_ op m ep.n ¢F.NF oo.op m¢.~m m~.¢ om.~ Iww.m N— m¢.P mamaucmorma mmwocmsamga moroum mommucmurma mmpucmzamra maroon .m mpammgm> mN.¢ op mm.w oo.o— m~.¢ mm.NP m¢.PF m¢.F mp mm.~ mm.m e— mm.NF m¢.~ mp mm.w eF.n m up «F.m ow.~ FF m¢._ mmmepcwuroa mwwucmzcmru moroom mommpcmurma mmwucwzcmra maroom .a mxssrzs mm.m op eF.n pn.m oo.op nm.@ e mm.mp m¢.~ mp mm.mp m¢.~ P mp mm.¢r op m ow.~ ep ¢—.n m¢._ NF P~.m mm.e pp m¢.F momapcmurma mmwocmscmra moroum mommpcworma mmwocmzomra maroom .m opnmwgm> e~.n p— um.w op me.pp m m m¢.~ P «N nm.m m w m¢.p p my mw.mp m n me.~ p up mm.¢ m m mm.m mp mN.¢ m m mm.~ mp mm.m m w m~.¢ «F mm.¢ m m mm.m mp mm.¢ m N ¢F.n Np me.p _ P mmmmucmorma mmwucmzcmra moroum mommucmurma mmwocmscmra moroom rm mzrars> .um==_p=oo--.ep m_sme 157 m¢.FP op nm.m m— mv.—p e— Fn.mp Pp mp ow.N op mm.N mv.~ 0N mN.¢ pn.m mp wp.n ¢_.n up ww.N mamaucmuroa mmwucmzamra moroum mommucmurma mmpucmacmru moroum .NF m—nmwgw> mm.N pp m¢.~ op mm.m _N.m mN.¢ mm.wp om.NP m m m¢.P mF oo.oP m¢.F F mp oo.o~ n m mm.N ep mm.N— om.N NF mN.¢ monogamorma mmwocmacmra museum mommucmurwa mmwucmscmra moroum .FF o—nm?sm> ow.N Pp mw.N op m¢.~ pN nm.m om.N ON mm.w mm.N mp pn.m mw.N mp m¢.FF m¢.P F up m¢.FF m m me.p mp ow.N «9.5 mp m¢.~ _n.m mp _n.m ¢P.n NP Pm.m mmmeucourma mmwucmscmra maroom mmmapcmorma mmwucmaomra moroum .op opnmwgm> Fm.m Np Fn.m pp ep.n op oo.o~ n m mm.m m w m¢.F 0N mm.m m n mv._ mp oo.op N o mm.N m— um.m m m mN.¢ up mv.Pp m a m¢.F m~ mN.¢ m m mm.N mp _N.m v N mommpcmurma mmwucmscmra moroum mommucmurma mmmucmzcmra moroum .m anawrm> .umacwpcoUII.¢p opnmh 158 me.F m¢.F me.F me.F me.F me.F mommpcmurma F F F F F F mwFucmscmsa mm Nm we on mF NF museum me.F me.F me.F mN.e mN.e mw.N FF.m ow.N mm.w me.FN eF.Nm mommpcmurma F F F m m N e N a mF Gm mmFuemsemru eF OF N F m m a m N F o moroum .mF anmFrm> m¢.F mummpcmorma F mmFocmacmra mF moroom mN.e mN.e mN.¢ me.FF me.FN eF.NF mm.NF oo.oF Fn.m Fn.m me.F mammacmurma m m m m mF NF a F e e F mmFucmzamru FF oF o m N m m e m N F museum .mF anaFrm> me.F m¢.F me.F me.F m¢.F mN.e me.FF eF.F momaucmurma F F F F F m m m mmFucmscmra mF NF NF mF eF mF NF FF moroom FF.m oo.oF FF.m Fm.m mN.eF eF.N FF.m eF.F mm.N me.F me.F mommucmurma e F e c oF m e m N F F mmFucmzcwra oF m m N m m e m N F o museum .eF anaFra> me.F m¢.F me.F m¢.F mm.N me.F eF.N mw.NF eF.N mmmmpcmorma F F F F N F m m m mmFocmsamra ON 3 NF NF 0F 2 «F mF NF 8.88 mm.m mN.e Nm.w eF.N Nm.m me.FF FF.m me.F mm.N mm.N me.F mommpcmurma o m m m m m e F N N F mmFucmscmra FF oF m m N m m m N F o moroum .mF anmFso> .saaereou--.eF mFssF NF.F GN.N me.F NF.F me.F we.F me.F aN.e aN.e me.F GN.N mamchmurma F N F F F F F m N F N mmFucmsemra as as ea mm mm NN om mF NF Fe me museum oo.oF Fm.m Fm.N eF.FF FF.m FF.m aN.eF me.F QN.N me.F mmasscmuraa F a o NF e e oF F N F mmFuemseara No am Fm em Nm as Fe as Fe em maroom .ON mFsaFrFF 0N.N me.F me.F FF.m me.F FF.m FF.m FF.m FF.F maasbcmurma N F F e F F e e m maFucmscmru oF so so No Fe am Fm mm mm maroum oo.oF FF.m oo.oF FF.m oo.oF Fm.N FF.m mN.e me.F me.F mammscmarma F F F e F o s N F F mmFucwscmru Fm as we we we Ne oe mm mm Fm maroom .aF mFseFFFF m SN 2. F 2.. F SN 2. F masseuse N F F N F mmFocmscmi ma Na Na om mm maroom me.F me.F FF.F NF.F ms.F sN.N me.F oo.oF Fm.m me.FF mmaabcmurma F F m F F N F F o N mmFucmsemru am we NN om NF oF NF 0F we so maroom aN.F Fm.N oo.oF mN.e me.F FF.m 0N.N mN.N NF.F me.F massbcmurma N o F N F e N N F F mmFueasemrF so No om mm mm mm om we as as maroom .NF mFseFrs> NF.F FF.m mN.N oo.oF FF.m oo.ON 00.0N 0N.NN me.FF mmmebcaurma F e N F e FF FF 0F N mmFucascmru so me om mm mm cm we as ea maroum .FF anmFFFS .umscheou--.eF ansF .160 Ne.F me.F NF.F mN.e NN.N eF.F m¢.FF oo.oF me.FF FF.m mmmmucmorma F F N N N N N F N N NNFNNNNNNrN mm om mm mm mm Fm mF NF , NF FF NmFoum mN.e FF.N NN.N m¢.F eF.F NN.N me.F m¢.F NN.F me.F Nomapcmorma m e N F m N F F F F NmFucmscmFN mm FN em NN om Fm mm om Ne me Notoum .NN mFNNFFN> m¢.F NN.N Ne.F Nmmmpcmorma F N F NmFocwzcmFN mm .Fm FN Nmroum Ne.F NN.N N¢.F NN.N N¢.F Ne.F me.FF FF.N NN.N FN.N Nomaucmurma F N F N F F N N N N NNFNNNNNNNN mm NN om NF NF NN NN em NN oN maroom eF.F . NN.NF Fm.N FF.N FF.N mN.e FF.N NN.F NN.F N¢.F NNNNFNNNFNN m m N e e m e F F F NmFucmzcmrN mm Nm mm Fm me Fe Ne Ne Ne NN Nmroum .NN NFNNFFN> NN.F NN.F NN.F Nameucmurma F F F NmFocmscmra mm mm FN maroom mN.e NN.F NF.F mN.e FF.N NN.¢ Ne.F FN.N NF.F FN.N Nmmmpcmorwa N F N N N N F N N N NNFNNNNNNFN em om FF NF NF OF NN NN NN ON Nmroum mN.e oo.oF FF.m NF.F FF.m NN.N NN.F NN.F NN.N me.F Nomeucmorwa N F e m e N F F N F NmFocmsawrN mm mm mm Fm me me we Fe on em museum ,.FN anmFLm> .NmseFFNNN--.NF NFNNF 161. NN.N NF.F NF.F NF.F NNNNNFNNNNN N F F F NmFocwacmFm NN FN FN NN NarouN NF.F NN.F NN.N NN.F FF.F NN.F NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.NF NNNNFNNNNNN F N N N N N N N N N NNFNNNFNNFN NN FN NF FF NF NF FF NN NN FN NNroNN NN.F NN.F FN.N FN.N NN.F FF.F NN.N NN.N NN.N NF.F NNNNFNNNFNN N N N N N N N N N F NNFNFNFFNFN NN NN NN NN FN NN NN NF FF NF NarouN .NN NFNNFFNF NF.F NF.F NN.N. NN.NF NN.N NN.F FN.N NN.F NNNNNNNNFNN F F N F N N N N NNFNNNFFNNN NN FN NN NN NF NF NF NF NNNNNN NN.NF FF.F FF.F FF.F NF.FF NF.FF NN.F NN.N NF.F NF.F NNNNFFNNNNN F N N N N N N N F F NNFNNNFFNNN FN NN NN NN NN NN NN FF FF FF NNFNUN .NN NFNNFNNF NN.N NF.F NF.F NF.F FF.N NN.N FN.N NN.F FF.N NN.F NNNNFNNNFNN N F F F F N N N F N NNFNNNFFNFN FN NF NF FF NF FF NN FN NN NN NNroNN FF.F NN.NF FN.N FN.N FF.F NF.F FN.N NN.F NF.F NF.F NNNNFNNNFNN N N N N N F N N F F NNFNNNFFNNN FN NN FN NN NN FN NF FF NF FN NNLNNN .FN NFNFFLNF NN.F NF.F NF.F NNNFFNNNLNN N F F NmFocmzcmFN mm Fm mm NmFoum NNFNFFNNN .NN NFNNFLNF .NNFNFFNNN--.FF NFNNF NF.F m¢.F mv.F mN.¢ NN.N NN.N mN.¢ NF.F mommucoormm F F F N N N N F NNFFNNFFNFN FF NN NN NN FN NN NN FN NaroFN NN.N NN.F NN.N NN.F FF.N NN.F NN.F FF.F FF.F FF.N NNNNNNNNINN N N N N F N N N N F NNFFNNFFFFN NN NN NN NN FN NN NN FN NF FF NNNNFN FF.N NF.F NN.N NN.NF NN.N NN.N NF.F NF.F NF.F NF.F NNNFFNNFNNN F F N F N N F F F F NNFNNNFFNLN NF NF FF NF NF NF NN NN FN NN NarouN .mN anmFFN> 162 FF.m om.N FF.F FF.F mN.¢ NN.N m¢.FF oo.oF mommacootma e N m m m N N F NmFucmscmFN mm Fm mm mm mm Fm NF NF moroom FF.F FF.F NF.FF NN.F FN.N NN.F NF.F NF.F NF.F m¢.F NommpcmoFma m w m m m N F F F F NmFocmscmFN oF ma mm mm om mm mm mm om NF mmroum .wN mFaNFFm> Fm.w m¢.F mv.F m¢.F mN.v m¢.F m¢.F mN.¢ Nmmmpcmoroa N F F F N F F N NNFNNNFFNFN NN FN NN NN NN NN FN NN NNNNFN FF.N NN.N NN.N FF.F FF.N NN.N NF.F NN.NF NN.N NN.F NFNNFNNNNNN F N N N F N F F N N NNFNNNFFFNN NN NF NF FF NF FF NN FN NN NN NNNFNN NN.F FF.N FF.N NF.F NN.F NN.N NF.F NF.F NF.F NF.F NNNFFNNFNNN N F F F N N F F F F NNFNNNFFNFN FN NN FN NN NN FN NN NF NF FF NNNFNN .FN anmFFm> .FNFNFNFFN--.FF NFNFF 163 NF.FF FF.NN NN.NN Nwmmpcmorma N am mN NmFocmscmFN N N F NwFoum .Nm NFNNFFN> NN.N NN.N FF.F NN.N NN.F NN.NN NF.FF FF.NF NN.FF NN.NF FF.N Nmmmucmorma N N N N m NF N FF oF F F NmFocmzcmFN FF NF NF FF NF NF FF OF N N F NmFoum .FN NFNNFFN> NF.F NF.F NN.N FF.N NF.F NF.F NN.F NNNNchoFNa F F N F F F N NNFNNNFFFNN FF Fm Nm om NN NN FN NmFoom NN.F FF.F FF.N FF.F FN.N FF.N FF.FF FF.N FN.N NF.FF Nmmmucmorwa N N F N N F NF F N N NNFUNNFFNLN NN NN FN NN NN FN ON NF NF FF Nwroum .om anmFFN> .FNFNFNNFN--.FF NFNFF APPENDIX C FREQUENCIES AND PERCENTAGES OF THE INCARCERATED HEROIN ADDICTS ON THE 32 VARIABLES 164 HEROIN ADDICTS ON THE 32 VARIABLES APPENDIX C FREQUENCIES AND PERCENTAGES OF THE INCARCERATED HIGHTONER srunv EOF ENCOUNTERED FDR OBSERVATION VARIABLE 1 FREu PERCENT OOOOOCOOOO VARIABLE 2 FPEO PERCENT 0000.10... VARIABLE 3 FRED PERCENT FRED PERCENT OOOOOD'OOO VARIABLE 4 PRIO PERCENT FREQ PERCENT 0.0.390... VARIABLE 5 FREQ PERCENT FRED PERCENT nettlecoao VARIABLE 6 FRGO PERCENT FREQ PERCENT tfififlit'fiti O 32 91.43 2.86 11 8.57 2.86 13 2.86 2.86 12 11.43 2.86 16 2.86 UT 14.29 15 2.86 ' 4 11.43 1‘ 2.86 3 a 14.29 36 9,57 1655 r c: ADD 22:56 2:86 15 1 2.86 14:29 8.57 17 2:36 11843 6:; ICT .1 11.43 19 2.86 32 a: “m; 17.14 VARIABLES 7 B 1 4 2'86. 1‘0‘3 8 9 5 2 14029 5.71 10 11 3 2 8.57 5.71 9 10 2 4 5.71 11.43 8 9 3 3 8.57 8.57 11 8.57 166 VARIABLE 7 0 1 2 6 4 5 6 8 9 11 FRED 1 3 a 4 2 3 5 b 3 2 PERCENT 2.86 8.57 11.43 11.43 5.71 4.57 14.20 14.29 8.57 5.71 12 14 18 FRED 1 1 I PERCENT 2.86 2.86 2.86 000.490... VARIABLE 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1o 11 FREQ 2 2 7 5 4 2 6 3 1 2 PERCENT 5.71 5.71 2‘.oc 14.29 11.43 5.71 17.14 8.57 2.86 5.71 12 FRED 1 PERCENT 2.86 099.060... VARIABLE 9 2 4 5 b 7 8 9 1b 11 12 FRED 3 3 4 4 5 4 3 4 2 1 PERCENT 8.57 “.57 11.43 11.43 11329 11.43 8.57 11.43 5.71 2.86 13 16 FRED 1 1 PERcevT 2.86 7.86 00610000.. VARIABLE 10 1 2 3 b 6 7 8 9 10 11 FREQ 3 2 I 5 5 2 2 4 2 1 PERCENT 8.57 5.71 2.36 14.29 14.29 9.71 5.71 11.43 5.71 2.86 12 13 15 17 ea 21 FRED 2 2 1 I 1 1 PERCENT 5.71 5.71 2.86 2.66 2.36 9.86 OOOOOQQQto VARIAdLE 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 1n FREQ 2 4 ‘ i ‘3 7 1 1 2 1 PERCENT 5.71 11.43 8.57 11.43 14.29 2 .0: 2.86 2.86 5.71 2.86 11 32 18 19 FREQ 2 1 1 1 pERcauI 5.71 2.66 2.86 ’.H6 00.04.0004 VARIAdLE 12 7 a 13 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 FRED 3 1 I 2 4 6 4 2 4 4 PERCENT - 8.57 2.36 2.16 i./1 11.43 17.14 11.43 5.71 11.43 11.43 la 23 FRED 3 1 PERCENT 8.57 2.96 0.000.000. VARIABLE 13 FREQ PERCENT FRFO PERCENT 0&0009Cttg VARIABLE 14 FREQ PERCENT rneo PERCEdT 0.00.00... VARItBLE 15 FREQ PERCENT ..fittfifiit. VARIABLE 16 FREQ PERCENT FREQ PERCENT Ottiottttg VARIABLE 17 FREQ PERCERT 00......Qt VARIABLE 18 FREQ PERCENT raeo PERCENT 0000...... 2.66 40 11.43 22.86 44 11 31.43 46 23.00 167 50 17.14 17:14 53 2:86 60 11.43 27.00 11.43 19 2.86 14.29 17.14 2086 66 8'57 99 5.71 10 8.57 11 8.57 10 2.36 68 5.71 11 11.43 12 14.29 70 2.86 VARIABLE 19 FRED PERCENT FRED PERCENT 60066.6... VARIABLE 20 FRED PERCENT FREQ PERCENT 00......00 VARIABLE 21 FRED PERCENT FREQ PERCENT 0.0.0.0... VARIABLE 22 FREQ PERCENT FRED PERCENT ..O'tfifiiit VARIABLE 23 FREQ PERCENT FREQ PERCE”T 60.6.66... 31 2.86 55 2.86 34 2.86 75 8.57 38 2.86 62 2 3.71 40 1 2.86 99 2 9.71 47 a 17.14 . 1658 42 2 5.71 61 1 2.86 64 2.66 46 4 11843 70 1 2386 54 6 17314 14.29 46 6.57 .3: 60 4 11.43 49 2 9171 ’9 0057 68 11643 ’6 1,01‘ 66 .986 79 14v?9 5: 4 11.43 6. 4 18.63 6! {4.29 56 2.06 81 2.66 72 2 54,1 VARIABLE 24 FREQ PERCENT ruse PERCENT ..fitdfifiiifi VARIABLE 26 F950 PERCENT FREQ PERCEVT .......'.. VARIABLE 26 FREQ PERCENT FREQ PERCENT 0.0.00.000 VARIABLE 27 FREQ PERCENT FQEQ PERCENT 0......009 VARIA3LE 28 FREU PERCENT FREQ PERCENT 0....tfttt VARIABLE 29 FREQ PERCENT FREQ PERCENT 47 2.86 69 4 11.43 U1 \1 H 49 2 5.71 71 14.29 51 2.8“ 73 8.5T 1139 11.93 05 11.43 17.14 55 8.57 59 14:25 57 17.14 62 11.43 54 2.86 70 5.71 59 4 11.43 65 11.43 73 11.43 61 4 11.43 ’8 8.57 5.71 78 14.29 49 2.86 63 2.86 63 2.86 70 5.71 60 5.71 97 2.96 67 5.71 97 2.66 81 5.71 2.06 11.43 0.000.000. VARIABLE 30 FRED PERCENT FREQ PERCENT ..OOOQfifitfi VARIABLE 31 FRED PERCENT ..O..t...i VARIABLE 32 PRBO PERCENT 0.09.90... 34.29 TOTAL OBSERVATIONS USED: 35 1370 21 22 23 24 25 26 2 4 3 g 4 2 5.!1 11.43 5.57 5.71 11.43 5.71 1o 11 12 13 $4 3 3 1o 2 2 8.97 8.57 23.57 5.71 5.71 27 3 8.57 APPENDIX D FREQUENCIES AND PERCENTAGES OF THE INCARCERATED NON-ADDICTS ON THE 32 VARIABLES l7l APPENDIX D FREQUENCIES AND PERCENTAGES OF THE INCARCERATED HIQHTONER STUDY EOF ENCOUNTERED FOR OBSERVATION VARIRBLE FREQ PERCENT tittilitio VARIABLE FREQ PERCENT FREQ PERCENT OOOOQOOIO. VARIABLE FREQ PERCENT FREQ PERCENT Oifiiflfiifififi VARIABLE FREQ PERCENT FREQ PERCENT 0.0.0.0... VARIABLE FREQ PERCENT FREQ PERCENT 00.0060... VARIABLE FREQ PERCENT FREQ PERCENT i...’*'..t 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 26 75.29 2.86 10 2.86 A) 8.57 14 5.71 8.57 13 2.86 4 11.43 11 5.71 1 22.86 6.57 11.43 16 5.71 5.71 36 P C c I I NON-ADDICTS 3 4 5 3 6 5 8.57 17.14 14.29 5 6 7 3 3 5 8.57 8.57 14.29 7 a a 3 1 3 R.57 2.86 1.57 17 18 19 1 2 1 ?.66 5.71 2.86 5 7 8 2 5 4 ‘./1 14.29 11043 16 22 2 1 5.11 2.86 4 5 5 3 5 4 8.97 14.29 11.43 16 1 ?.“6 172 NON-ADDICTS ON THE 32 VARIABLES 32 14.2'9 10 IN 5.71 17.14 VARIABLES 7 3'57 11v‘3 11 11.43 2.86 I 2.I6 1a 5.71 11 5 14.29 VARIABLE 7 FREQ PERCENT FREQ PERCENT .00....iit VARIABLE 8 FREQ PERCENT 00......tt VARIABLE 9 FREQ PERCENT FREQ PERCENT Oitttttto. VARIABLE 1O FREQ PERCENT FREQ PERCENT tfifitt...** VARIABLE 11 FREQ PERCENT FREQ PERCENT Oiiflttiifit VARIABLE 12 FREQ PERCENT FREQ PERCENT 00......tt 5.71 13 2.86 2.86 13 5.71 2.86 14 C. 5.71 5.71 16 11.43 14.539 N O \‘3 0‘ I4 14.29 ?2.86 11.4‘ 5.71 1% 2.86 173 1‘.29 11.43 22.86 11.43 4.57 1’o14 11 11.43 8 4 11.43 11.43 11.43 6.57 13 14.29 10 8.57 10 2.85 11 2.06 11.43 14 11.43 12 11.43 11 5.71 12 8.57 15 11.43 VARIABLE 13 FREQ PERCENT FREQ PERCENT 0.0.6.0040 VARIABLE 14 FREQ PERCENT FREQ PERCENT OOQOIQOOOC VARIABLE 15 FREQ PERCENT FREQ PERCENT 0.0.0.9... VARIABLE 16 FREQ PERCENT FREQ PERCENT ..OOOOOOQQ VARIABLE 17 FREQ PERCENT OOQOOOOQQQ VARIABLE 18 FRED PERCEMY 2.86 14 11.43 2.86 10 2 5.71 1 8.86 11 5.71 13 37.14 48 2.86 40 4 11.43 44 2.86 h) 2.86 15 2.86 8.57 16 2.83 5.71 12 8.57 11.43 174 11.43 5C 11.43 2:86 17 2.86 14.29 11.43 18 2.86 17.14 5.71 56 11.43 14.29 8 22.86 11 2 5.71 5171 14 2'86 63 5.71 62 2'86 12 2 5.71 2.86 19 2.86 68 1 2.86 64 1 2.86 13 8 22.86 10 2.86 66 5 14.29 FREQ PERCENT 9.4.6.0... VARIABLE 19 FREQ PERCENT FREQ PERCENT 06.0085... VARIABLE 20 FREQ PERCENT FREQ PERCENT 0.0.0.0... VARIABLE 21 FREQ PERCENT FREQ PERCENT 6.0.0.0... VARIABLE 22 FREQ PERCENT FREQ PERCENT 00.0.96... VARIABLE 23 FREQ PERCENT FREQ PERCENT 00.00.0966 11.43 36 2.56 99 9.71 41 2.86 67 2.86 73 1 2.55 42 11.43 64 2.86 47 11.43 at 2.86 1375 82 3 8.87 ‘4 14,29 66 2.06 86 1 2.86 48 11:43 76 2.86 '8 5351 54 17614 98 2.86 53 11.43 64 5.71 92 2.86 51 3 8.57 57 3 8.57 58 11.43 58 5’71 59 8.57 58 5.71 89 2086 68 4 11943 69 8.57 55 3 .a.s7 62 3 8.57 68 2 5.71 99 2.86 64 8.57 71 4 11.43 99 2.86 65 2 5.71 63 1 2.86 65 11.43 74 8.57 VARIABLE 24 FREQ PERCENT FREQ PERCENT ..O....... VARIABLE 25 FREQ PERCENT FREQ PERCENT ......8... VARIABLE 26 FREQ PERCENT FREQ PERCENT .......... VARIABLE 27 FREQ PERCENT FREQ PERCENT FREQ PERCEVT .......... VARIABLE 28 FREO PERCENT FREQ PERCENT .O........ JI76 49 11.43 53 8.57 74 2.86 53 14.29 11.43 56 1.57 31 2.86 60 11.43 59 14.29 84 5.71 Q1 2.56 65 2.86 60 2.86 63 2.86 88 2086 65 11943 63 5.71 67 14.29 62 2.86 91 2.86 68 8.57 65 11.43 64 6 17.14 67 14.29 VARIABLE 29 FREQ PERCENT FREQ PERCENT FREQ PERCENT .......... VARIABLE so rneo PERCENT FREQ PERCENT 0000060000 VARIABLE 31 FRBQ PERCENT 00006.0000 VARIIILE 32 FREQ PERCENT 0000000000 37 2.86 52 2.86 66 1 2.86 17 20.00 28 2.86 38 69 1 2.86 18 6 17.14 30 2.86 77.14 TOTAL OBSERVATIONS USED- 40 2.8’ 54 2.86 71 2.86 1377 42 20 17,14 22,86 43 21 5.71 11 14.29 45 12 17.14 46 is 2.86 47 2 5.71 62 5.71 84 9:71 15 14429 44 6 11.43 63 1 2.56 16 8.71 51 64 1 2.86 26 1 2.86 17 2 5.71 APPENDIX E INTERCORRELATIONAL MATRIX FOR THE TOTAL INCARCERATED INMATE SAMPLE (PRODUCT-MOMENT) 178 APPENDIX E INTERCORRELATIONAL MATRIX FOR THE TOTAL Ill .1 "I ll '8. ’1 INCARCERATED INMATE SAMPLE (PRODUCT-MOMENT) .. . . ..4 .v..: .nin.u NH. 00:. .' an“ Run-.01"- .‘,IA‘ b.‘h “..l‘ ..I‘ T) ‘ afln . I .Is 1.8J' I '3 8.). 8.. ' .UI ..aU 'I A DJ! 4.4” '.u' .u‘ ., . ‘ n a.” I 3.)“ ..o‘ a.“ ;.H' -:.-" 4,4" ., .l . ..n .u‘ a." ..I. .. 4,"; v, I' ’6 ..H' ."t I. $.05. 1,!" . _u . _ -,. a” .311 ..u' 4.4” .‘ .' ~ 7' ’6 ar'. .4" ..’:v ' I h)?! -a.u“ 'I 4,". ..‘u 4 4'0 0." 4,"! ’l , . =0” wig" . .-4 '7 ..-n -.,:' . r' as‘ 4."! 3..” 4.10 «.100 an! 4,!" ., ’ -, .. y. 0 y 1. v. . I" 'r- 3.43 3.!“ SJ“ 3.110 lJRC I lot IJH -;,a;' ,no .z'lu ~ ,1.” -;,:-v on”. 4,3" 02,805 «.ou -| V: I. H “I u '0 '4 '4 an» ..ua :,- .."- '1'” '.’to run 2.". I.” - -:.\." . n' .. ., I," 1,”. » 'v."' .Q . '3 ' .1 ' :x- . n 4,464 ‘8 2.1.4 .lill' u- «.404 "1' ‘ - II VI n ..X" ..‘lP 4 "9 {.141 1.7'8 I. " - , - . I 9.4” L10: 4.81' 4.10. 4,|8‘ 44.1“ 00.10. . . ' a v ‘5 M v. u . , c 4' In» mu: unu a»! a.vu LI" 411" ~ . v|. .23. 6.1“ =.8'7 “In. 4.214 5.”. 4.”.1 ‘6..0' T ,' -, 3 v». v n *4 v1: 40 u . '. I .-- 4.9:: {.755 4.4“ 4.7" {.011 4." 4.14" 4,904 . ._, . , . _.,. ,go. 3...: 4.!" ..UI 'IO’I '\ , A ; ‘6 1“ 1:. n i. V . " ' MB" Ll} (.ll‘ 4."! 4.07! ' .n 0 ~ .‘~ ‘ . '3 . -. ' .‘l' - e. - r v. . 1 4" .'. ‘ \- - ,n- ‘ 2 5. . .. \ 4 _‘pa ' J" - . ‘ .1 ' I ‘J g n g. V' - |_I .- .H' 1.”: -4,1I¢ ., . . .' It .. “.7- ‘p' Ir 1.1 L’l! :."|" 0.‘I‘ LIA! ., II! .N- . iv a...” .3“ -.u~ 2.141 «Au ”,1” I .’ Q 1 I 1| 1| .- I]: r In .1-‘ t ”‘ ’.‘11 r do I...“ 8.0" 0.". .A- 3 ... ..1 I 7.. n ..a 4 u... ‘ n04 ' .5. 4 'll 3 "- ‘1 4.. H ‘0 A. 1. DA- A: w ' -|' 31.); ”any... 1:!“ A- «ua III-I .. . » Lu! -|,a\1 -: an" 4,101 .1 a!” ~l . . 4,: .~ '0 70 '9 ’l 'l 4 '4 ‘0 I.888 n,I’I |,\u 0.!“ Lu! 4.“! 9.": 4,!" L?” ".1” 4.3.4 -.-:.na i. 3.3" an" 5.9" .2130 8.1" -I .._:u 'I 'n ”I ' 'l 'l 'A ’l '8 8 u.:" ..w ..m mm mm enu mm or) ‘ mu 1."! M" 4.4“ .1'.(7 . 8.8.. 5,1" 4.1). 8,718 2‘8’0 3‘86' ..IIQ C,l ‘ ',l5 ’5‘, I l v v , - u. v v. ! 08,184 . . v v n .7 3.0. ..H. Lu: Luv Lu. :3“ 1.”! “In LI" (.901 0,10! 0.”. III" ul 1: no 1' u. u n. u 'u N u. n u- n u- “ .u .4 u- n no u "0 l' "I II "I ll '4' n ”" 179 APPENDIX F INTERCORRELATIONAL MATRIX FOR THE HEROIN ADDICT SAMPLE ON THE 32 VARIABLES (PRODUCT-MOMENT) 180 APPENDIX F INTERCORRELATIONAL MATRIX FOR THE HEROIN ADDICT SAMPLE ON THE 32 VARIABLES i '0. I van O Ill 0 III I ‘. '0. 0 II. ’ '0'. 0 ll. 0 0|. I. III II III |I II. II It. .0 000 ll '0. |O It. |' III |I so. go it! II II. 1| '0. I) run ll '01 )0 all 'r 1.1 1‘ '0. (0 won 1; II.) 1.. 1‘ col 3‘ u- ‘- vcl 1: Ian u III I- ll! 1‘ .na ;1 10¢ I' ll. 1‘ CO! I' 1A. :- ltl II 1.0 J: ii. ’3 vol [I (PRODUCT-MOMENT) II! ' a V 9 9 .0 U 0 3' ma vm' ' 'P' I o mm: 0mm» mu 9 cm on. gum non .‘I:u:ll.05¢0 'o|.. ' ..t't. -o. l: |.l|l l.l:‘ O.'O' ol.’ ' I. l.ll’ l.a' I.U|' ~I.'IO .0 0.0I' I.IOI l.l” C l.l l.| I. 0... ll I: I. I! I. OI mu m a ..u- um o.m mu 0.“. mu -I.l¢0 'I.|l' I.|I' n.lol .tll o.|ot o.|.:. 0.0! I. ll lo I. I.'II I 0:! |.lov I.Io I. 0| o.llo 0.001 0.: 1 ’5.0.. n.1t‘ ’. O .l . ‘.|" 'G.ld‘ -I.Do‘ a.IO\ u,| D I l! O.|!! I.I|l I.I|d I.'I' *.Il0 DI 0.0! ID . O. 0 I. OI ..nlv I.ool ..I‘I "‘||’ ~ 0| 6 II O l.'-' ..Il‘ o.ll' 0.:00 ‘ Il' -'.£l' .I:' ,s" I‘li. 0.00' I.|ll .l00 O. : I,ll I! ‘- a I! II D. II :0 O O I.‘II ..‘n' I.9!' l."' O.‘l’ 0.00. I... 0. 5| I.IAI I. 0' 1,!5‘ -l.‘1- I'- '-.I" o.|bl .0.100 I, l,|l' 0,100 0,010 |,Iot . 00.06. u. -u «t “ no I l. )0 '9 t. O 0.0!! ..-0‘ ..ooc 4.4!. t.|II 0.001 u.‘cc ..90: 0 0...! [.00] 0.3.! l.q|0 I. 0| 1.... .1 - . "l' .9..oc |,rso -I.|tl ..uol 0,090 .0,|ol ..‘l|! .._!c. ...'t. 0.... II “ 09 II II at I Do ‘9 v: i! I. x" l.‘|l |.‘l' n.1" I.OOO l.'b‘ 0.01! OIIIO I.|l| 0.009 I.‘ ' 0.0'C I O. I. -I.|l' o:.|0‘ I.Icl fi § I I ..III ,.l|l I... -I,ll' _J.y ll 7| i.||l o.I| . -t,uoc .9 II II I. |.|I. ..Ovv ..|7I a...‘ ..:¢‘ ',y‘. , . . I‘1ll 0,010 -¢,II‘ I.)IO ,Ill 0 I 0.... \n " \I t! n! I. OI ! I, II '0 .0 I.\In . I! 4.17' d.‘l' 4.1!. o 00' n.lvo I.'IO I.'oc a.'l l..al o. a l.’|l 0.00. :.'x‘ ‘..0' ..al‘ .190 0.... -I,oo’ ID 'i 'I I -I.l.| 0.110 -o.ooo I.|!¢ a! I0 :0 ' 9 :0 I.II’ I.OII ..ota I.ovo n.000 a.voc n o'l I. OI Q, in 0: ~ I! 5.!!' ..‘I' ..O' I.lll ~O.ll. 0.1!. O.IIO t.ll. || II ‘s It I. I. I ) ‘ o.-n» .. .t 1.-|l 0.0!! I.-ol 0.0. u.lal I.I| 0. IO .3_03' -..." ,||‘ «.1!‘ .|OI I.|’O , I,l|' 0,030 . I v. '1 1‘ I, )I I I I. ..‘l’ " .."' 0.‘l 0,13. l.'. .0... l.l9’ I.o=‘ .:-' ..In‘ .IO’ 'I.II' I.| ' nl‘i I|I|I I. s I! I) )9 I it o. \ . o' :.:q- n.1-o n.'0' =.‘- a.v't |.a0l =.I- - I‘I ..:|‘ 'Il'! , ., . -- - .-: o.nov l‘ ‘1' ,.\\ .,I‘I tu ~g I. . . " I.‘a 0.!!! ' Ed - . . ,." I.|.| I. w I, ,. Q 4‘ I‘ . ’I ll)“. ._ pg. ,Iu .I10 I, n I .I ‘I I1." ;.' . _ 4' I,)|l '1 'I '9 . .,‘ 1 'I. IIIQO . .. .. . I,I|1 w \ Q) 2 'u- ‘1 I‘lI‘ . I: vl,eOI s '5 3. l' l'fiv. -'-ot :,a;\ :.o.1 I_.’I n,"| v . . . -_|,. -'“'c .'.,)n u lot -.I’t- -OII|O v. Is A\ I) I) ‘) r, ' ,‘l o.'o) ',:e~ 1...! 3.1;: c_.’l n.000 .. , 1 , , A I An .1. - In. I ..§ u ..4 v ..i |w you " vol 1’ 10! g- .c- 1. II' I! . ‘ ~ . .‘. - 4" g ..‘In-,-. n‘.v.'| 'I'. 1' -.-n~I tin-III'.--\ ,1} do I . .1 _ . I l -r a* l" \ .IQ ,.r q cl ‘ I ‘ "' .‘t . . to . _’: . , .. 1‘ e . . l‘ . ' $ 5 ‘3 Io a 1 '1 Q ' ‘ ‘~ > 1" .’I. ‘. 5‘ '.‘ll A .Q I, 'n i . a . . ‘\ - ‘Pt Il‘ .Iut l.l:l e‘ico I, V‘ ,_..n 1,}.- .Il' n.000 :9 I! :.:-~ o,V¢t v). I' .-(10I .I'9u0 I: 25 I) :.00' :.i'! o.'0 I.vx0 9.009 a.t;| .:_et| |.|Il -‘.|O. ’.|3. .. you 3,109 .0'109 o',¢; ‘) J- r V I9 I I " !9 : ... ;.'vo I.)lo |.l¢q I.'oo I..Il .,9-\ I.“l I! .|Iu l.:I| L.)'. c.)!‘ 3.1!. -|.IOI |.\0- -v ‘1 D» I . ‘Q ‘9 )v $ |.'Io 2,-0' n.1n‘ l,|ll I.)|‘ c.01I t.-J III _I Inc 1' I‘I |- v‘. A- It. I. II. 1| III (1 [0| (I 1:. 1‘ III I. you 10 Ill l‘ .0. I. :51 II II! D. 181 APPENDIX G INTERCORRELATIONAL MATRIX FOR THE NON-HEROIN ADDICT SAMPLE ON THE 32 VARIABLES (PRODUCT-MOMENT) 182 APPENDIX G INTERCORRELATIONAL MATRIX FOR THE NON-HEROIN ADDICT SAMPLE ON THE 32 VARIABLES (PRODUCT-MOMENT) . . . .'g'c‘,‘l§| nun." man-I1.“ «our Iv.“ 5'0“on l.. ' ‘ HI I u. a u. I I "I D In 9 u. 4 0|. 9 H. H -|,I‘o . _v- . . co . y ‘ I |_ cf.“| .._... H 'w 'I '\ ‘9 I. I 0.300 I I. -‘~o« ;.~o‘ ..nlc o.tax n.t0\ O.'0 “I U ’I."' . _,1. .NN. ,_ru ”I" I_|N can! hill '1 '1 ‘I W I. l. l a.vu . v‘ ..‘u ”'0‘ ..H' h'" ..fll a." '0' I) .3;' ~ .5! ,..I: .00“ ,..II I.|a! ‘I-JI’ ‘» '\ ‘I '9 ‘0 II Ln, .‘lv‘ ’."‘ OJI' hu‘ 0"" I.‘I '0' I, "-.|I’ - ."' ”I. A" '. I. Q I I 3’ I.'l' .r' .3) h". o.‘. I" It - f)! . _-n . 'UJI '.l|l ..[ll I.I|I . ‘ us D. Iv ‘I ‘ !.‘l3 . V s. 0 -.c0 ..llo l.IO' a.vO- 1.'|| HI ;‘ ' ..o- . ..I .: H!" ..Al 1.: 'w" Luv 3.110 a...' mu ‘. 1 W ‘0 9 n n H H ..vv- . —' ...1~ .-" ,,... l."‘ ..III ‘.‘l| l.'ll -."‘ 0.0. H. gs -'.--' - . ' .-A ,I" ..-" a.u' e..l'. 4.“! hr.) -u."' H!" 'l.||l '1, 0. '0‘." -. ~ ", '9 I u n I) I I: II || z! ' I .-\; 1.1. ..IM f,"‘ ..u' \.‘n L“! 1.!” L)“ :J.‘ “on o. ”I 1‘ ' .-l- . V‘ - J“ ' .u' -0.u’ h.)- -|.x“ -I.ul 0..“ .I u‘ a, .9 I. I n I -.‘u ~,n' an: 4,": nu. In 0.!" Lu! ' II01‘ ‘ 1“ 4 . ,gi‘ . I ., I.‘l .- '.. |Q 'rgu ‘ ‘. I .w" . ‘ ., ..'-- . .= .‘t N0 :2 . ll’ ~ . A .H‘ 4.)" OJ.’ mu ‘ Q ‘0 II « ..oU .1‘ ..H- [An 1,". no“ n0 In ‘5' - . I - an “a" In": an." «.001 «an n I 'I ‘ '1 h ‘3 .u ’ : pal ..‘t- ).u' 1.”: c,‘|’ I ’ III 2 ;.- - - _d' -:,u: hut ..a)- --_In 4,”: up." -I.u' 0.1" l ‘ l‘ u M .‘D ‘I l \l ‘) I? ' ... II " HH- ..nlu I."- 5."- ‘ LN! {.l'l : I.I‘l “no -u .* - u. - . I H‘ :3“ mm 0.)" min” Lu- ""1 .- , | a a J H I, J. =.'1' ..‘ ..‘0' HI" I,”‘ 9.“! -."‘ 4.I” l. ‘ u- I _ . LIO' -€_|I‘ 0.001 I, n l."' ."' 1.”! on" .u )‘ - ~ . . | -1.IOI 3.1" IJM “no: N ‘9 IQ ) I ‘ 9‘ :- .I" 0...! l.'l‘ Ou'. n.v'l on n - >14- . , - hr“ 5.1.0 1‘1.) .1“ 9.". .. n u, 3. u - ‘ ..11' mm nun .IQ .‘ - 0.. I‘ ' ... 4‘. . 1,!0- I.HI «nu v, Q. 4.11! mu 1 '3.‘l‘ v in ‘ V) IAN :.M‘ ”.11 a," no! . ”LI Lu' '. V,‘ -:_:;t .V ”a ".N‘ «'11 1, .‘ .._ I. I3 I) 3| 3,)“ a an {tr 5 o,- a,'u £.I.' h.” nu! , ”u , ,u .— .. .u .- .4 A" .. ,‘ . ..Il.‘ i ‘) I ‘v 'p I1 I. e h: . 'u' ‘,-1' ,h 1,.“ - .u I...‘ . . . ~ -. - u- n- - A. v .A- ;v 4‘. H .A. .. u- 1‘ no Id In 10 1 ' . ~ ' /.--..v\ u' u. .'v In. ".‘1 ' "'n>l"‘ . ,. . OI. |' - n u. )- 'I . -- In H - ' I n .n u - ,“I u\ .w‘ I. u v' «u \. 0‘ L‘- -H : u- --,‘.‘ .I -‘ q ,. I- 4 . |- “w .u r ‘ n ‘ r 5'. n . :p , :.-'- n.‘ ." I r . o — n. l' - 1 - , . .I.‘ . I u n‘ _“ ..“ no I‘ ‘ n" , ,y‘ - _x- ..P ”'3 . ‘1 9.“! '. ‘b ‘I h I I n . - a. . u‘ on Min u) 9.I" ”a 1‘ - ..r Jo. I, ‘3 4 vi: 9.". "A In I] .glg A \I I! . e.‘l - n- l' .I- 5.“: ~ h ..‘I 0.0“ n. ,. - my $.10, -u.uo D.l" «.011 0.9“ n n w ‘9 | h , u nu! 0 Ho L'n I.‘l‘ I In u. u - ‘x’ .1" 137'. v.1" . I 19 I: '9 . “I 0.1” LI" 0.” , u. u . 5,0" u‘.|3| -.n' ‘. -. o! n 37 h I) |) .g' £.ID. an“ :An 1.“! “,Il- an I: -‘ 7- - . - »,--' .‘u‘ ..:|| 3‘!“ “n23 -Ln‘ nll- --.u: . u. u 1’ n u I! n I) I9 .. I". “I" .'.. 3.0;! an.‘ ..ulc ;.\4 ..DVI |_\u| uh u -- i .r; . vu ,Ju ..I- -a. nu- .I.u: an" -I.a" -c.1" '- ‘ 'I J! H an IT 3» I n h [I ' “' :- -.H' of" ..II‘ .I.'I' I.‘U :.’II J.‘CO Ln. L!“ !.'I' 1..“ on" u, _- .- 1' .1-1- 'I- ;! [II u '1' u ”I [I In 3) run [I u- 1' 7|. 1. u. l' '0. .0 ut- II '0. 4| Ill 3' 1,12' 183 APPENDIX H RANDOM SELECTIONS FROM THE INCARCERATED HEROIN ADDICT SAMPLE (10 INDIVIDUAL PROFILES FOR THE MMPI AND THE BPI) 184 1135 MB __H-1 ~ ALE " T 523:5 MINNESOTA MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY ; SC RE SCORE . mg” mm "BU? “0'5? By Starke R. Hathaway, Ph. D. and J. Charnlay McKinley, 04.0. K K K K T SCORE PROFILE — Plomd week K 7: m 1 ? . . : ? .20. .. .30. .. .00. .. .50. .. .00. .. .70. .. .00. .. .90. .. 300.. . J‘O.. . J20 ,fi . . . m 1 £ 1 L l - - L ) l F :1 . F ..20. . . .30. . . .40. . . .50. . . .50. . . .70. . . .ao. . . .90. . . .100. . . .no. . . .120 c 7 14 K ' ' l : K ‘ O O I O I t O C O 0 O ‘ [ 471 In In ? fig“ . 1 . . 5:. ' . . . .20. . . .30. . . .00. . . .50. . . .so. . . .70. . . .00. . . .90. . . .100. . . .no. . . .120_.__. 2 . . . 2 ' r 21 D l D J I O C Q C I. I I U C O .2 9 , Hy 1 . H7 .20. .. .30. .. .ao. .. .50. .. .00. .. .70. .. .00. .. .90. .. 400.. . J10.. . J20 4 . . . [67[ 2A r ? Pf‘ 1 . qt 1 1f 5 M, ‘ Ml . .20. . . .30. . . .40. . . .50. . . .50. . . .70. . . .ao. . . .90. . . .100. . . .no. . . .120 ., . ° F. ' 1 : p.‘ 7 . . a . g . . . . T . . . . Q . . u a .0 . . . . . . . . . g. . . a . . . - a . g - - . . Q a n o . O n - . r O ' 52 2‘ "’1 H .P‘L ’ '1 ' .P‘.K a .20. . . .30. . . .40. . . .50. . . .50. . . .70. . . .00. . . .90. . . J00. . ..110. . . 320 '7 I 1 I I s .Q 19 l 1 3 .S‘CK . . . ”CK ° . . . . g . . . . t . . . . g . . . . .- . . . . o o u - O. . . a O 0 0 n . o o u a . . o a u a 0 u . u . . o 60 21 ‘G 1* Ni. : : 1 : .fit ... .20.. . .10....Ao.. . .50. .. .so. .. .70. . . .00. . . .90. . . .100. . . .no. . . J10 ‘ 0 . . . 4.7 2} Si . 1 . . Si A R E: Lb Ca 0y Do R0 _ Pr 50 Cu “8 RAW scone—p 7 )7 «9 F13 H 13 19 11 26 31 ll . TSGNE‘—.-ab =3 5“ I 6 47 43 62 R0 49 69 *3 63 “I!” RI Ito-.0 {.0 Low V CAUOALHV DtPr~OI~cv oounuuct 50C‘AL PILJUCICI. ‘EU(|AL copulaoL 'AC'OI 'ACYOI STRENGTH .ACK PAIR RKCDPKNSIBILITV SYA-.~S -9-TIE»Y VIENC StLF AS ~ELL-.DJU§TED 0ND SFLF-DELIu-T. -< E~JAT TENSE AND DESTLESS. -I HFPE‘IDENT UR MILDLY NO-CONFOHMIST. -I'JCLINES TOwAP" ESTHETIC INTEfiESTS. .E.’ I6 3 jg; -«ILDLY DEDHEbSEW 04 PtSSYNISTIC. §§g _nas suppxpygwt CAPACITY con nuGANIZI G ~0Hn Ah} ”F'SflwflL LIFE. §:‘i -HE.§;-’FCTS (‘PINIOI‘S 0F ”THEPS «ITHQQJT kxmufi qu-gng;,-'fy. EEG -FE» snmnTvc COMPLAINTS. LITTLF Comcruw 03007 9|-ILY HEALTH- g5: -HAS CAPACITY T0 MAINTAIN AUEQUAIE SOCIAL "I‘LATld‘SfilPS. Ezél -hnb L CGMRINATION UF pRACTICAL AND TTEUREYICAL INTKHESTS. 3 if; 3 51.3 Age .2. on (L- 2 3?; O :- L) g: .4 E) 4 ..t .‘J.’,"u¢~:’?n-.-.§ i;: z {‘3 f if? The Psychological Corporation MMPI Reporting Service a: $3.); 304 East 45th Street m uU New York, N. Y. 10017 0" 186 BIPOLAR PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY OFFENDER NORMS — FORM A MALE N0 H-1 MB Nam. £3 0". ‘3 a? a" la _fl-fl ‘— :7 :0 g Q s; u i S v" %m § 3r IO M I? ‘0 n IO "” —l5 I? 1. l7 l5 l4 M v v FDILIKLQIBJ 37fl41t0111311l1 l 1313J Copynght 1972 Psychologucal Research Associates icon! .1 NAWAL COM'UYII SYSTIMs— MOI Won 76‘! SR Miuaopaiu.Min«. In "0- "NC 187 ER _11-2 MALE ‘ 1 mmgg: MINNESOTA MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY - 553:6 $0335 “OUT. "05?. By Starka R. Hathaway, PIT. D. and J. Charnley McKinley, ALD. K K K K T SCORE PROFILE — Plonod we». K 1 ? I I : ? .. . .20. . . .30. '7' .00. . . .50. . . .00. . . .70. . . .00. . . .00. . . .100. . . .110. . . .120 A0 A L 1 I 1 I L 60 7' F : : 1 : s . . . .zo. . . .30. . . .00. . . .00. . . .00. . . .70. . . .00. . . .00. . . .100. . . .110. . . .120._.. as 15 x g g 1 g x [ 571 10 SS 0' 5'" I 1 1 I 3*;‘ 2' ....20....)0....00....00....00....70....00....oo....100....110....120 K2 «3 22 0 ‘ ’ l E D 55 zq’Ny Z : 1 2 Hf ....zo. . . .30. . . .00. . . .00. . . .00. . . .70. . . .00. . . .00. . . .100. . . .110. . . .120 [ 79] 31 7A 25‘Pfi‘ I I I 1 .fif ‘3 22’.“ i m .. . .20... .10.. . .00. . ..00. . . .00. . ..70. . . .00. . . .00. . . .100. . . .110... .120 . a? 9‘ P0 I 21 I Pa. SOL 2T Si 12’:; : : 1 'z' ' ' ' 31' ‘ _. ....20....00....00....0'o....00....70....00....00....100....110....120_—LJ1 51 26 :7 11 30 3 : 1 I 31' 631 22 61 19,55‘ 3 : 1 : .fif o. ....20....30....00....00....00....7'0....0o....So....1oo....11o....12°'0. ' ‘1 211 5‘ E 31 E 5‘ A R E b c. 31 00 R0 P: 5. C11 U9 RAR SCORE—p R 92 T 113 11 L115 1T 1 13 275 26 12 [ | TSCORE .. AR 63 A 16 ‘53 | 4‘ 53 55 5? 55 53 A5 [ ] (”gm nun-noun noun-Ann 00cm. ntwom SOCTAL coat-0L 00 (00 LOW PACTOI 'ACYO. STRING?” IKI Fh' ”QUERY STATUI -SONEHHAT TENSE AND RESTLESS. -TENDS TO GIVE SOCIALLY APPROVED ANSNERS REGARDING SELF-CONTROL AND a..0RAL VALUES. . -SOMENHAT REBELLIOUS 0R NONCONFORMIST. AVOIDS CLOSE PERSONAL TIES. DISSATISFIED HITH FAMILY OR SOCIAL LIFE. -MILDLY DEPRESSED 0R PESSTMISTIC. -HAS SUFFICIENT CAPACITY FOR ORGANIZING HORN AND PERSONAL LIFE. -NUMRER OF PHYSICAL SYMPTOMS AND CONCERN AgOUT BODILY FUNCTIONS FAIRLY TYPICAL FOR MEDICAL PATIENTS. -HAS A COMBINATION OF PRACTICAL AND THEORETICAL INTERESTS. -NOHMAL MALE INTEREST PATTERN FOR HORKo HOBBIES. ETC. -RESPEcTS OPINIONS OF OTHERS NITHOUT UNDUE SENSITIVITY. oHAS CAPACITY To MAINTAIN ADEQUATE SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS. anc Iain. U mvounl 0' TO.) by The 1. ”000‘ lo: M Mun-auto Mon-25M 'uwaofiu 1'3"“:- uo-nd I970,- 195 ; The Psychological Corpomtion MAP! Reporting Service 304 East 45th Street New York, N. Y. 102317 lap-timed II Cm. " 188 BIPOLAR PSYCHOLOGICAL. INVENTORY OFFENDER NORMS — FORM A MALE 00I0_ Ago N0. H-Z ER NOMO~ ..se00mm w u n w u m w m m o *Snun 0 0 0 0 0 00$! ........_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.... 030:0. noun». 0 7 s a a 109099 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3:: arsunmnuaa u m u n 0 . 3:100... c A53 ¢vi»...O-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 300‘ Ave: nun.» u n .1. n 0 0 Tossot’o v- ‘03:. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ «to... O80” .vhflMflH SI 7 O 6 S l OAK VYO .._. ......._._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3.... 63 aznumm u...“ m o 7 s . s 1 0.: 3.... SUV _ _ _ _ _ _ _ OOOVOA o. cannunuukum . 7 . .. .7.». vs... $0913_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ afoot. On... uwuun w 0 3209.: auto _ _ _ _ _ . ..nfiHficomINun m 0 ._ _ _ _s ._.10..resov 53.}.— _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6&5? )9 NM “mum 3. 7 2 I Obhk «Jun ......________ _.... Oat ”WNW-Nun H w 9 D 7 4 32003} on. [.._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 5. “nu ma u n m 7 0 a z 0.8 ;§_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3: #nnuwuu u u m 0 7 a .31.... .0... ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ vflflb. .7. I 4 2 l 0.5. .._ _ _ .45; _ _ _ _ _1. A8! I I 03.8 mm a m m m m m w m m . LORI SI #1 Id 05141412le IN LIEU] r Copynght 1972 Psychologncal 800mb Assocmlos 189 Rn H-3 “LE 71 r m 5C5“ 523:5 MINNESOTA MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY - 553?: fig? “SJ?- ”35?’ By Stark. R. Hathaway, PIT. D. and]. Charnley McKinloy, M.D. K K K K T SCORE PROFILE — mama With K 71 7I ? . I ? I10: .20. .. .30.. ..00... .30. . ..so. . ..70.. . .00... .00.. ..100. . . .Ho. .. .120 z A a L ' l ' L 7 1? F 1 F ....20. . . .30. . . .00. . . .30. . . .60. . . .70. . . .00. . . .90. . . .100. . . .110. . . .120 Av 19 K : : I : K I 54’ 13 47 1'5; 1 : l : NJ 2 x----2O....30....‘O....sb....OO....7b....IO....90....100....ITO....IZO.32. RT 17 P I l ' D n; 7?: H7 1 MY3 4 . . . .20. . . .30. . . ..0. . . .5'0. . . .60. . . .70. . . .00. . . .00. . . .100. . . .110... .120 [76[ 3o 70 2? 5%. : : : I ,q{ s - . . . g . . . . o . . . . o u . . a o . . . . o . . . o‘ . . . g o o o o 5 a; 23 MI . . l . m . .. .20. . . .30.. . .00. ...|0. . . .00. . ..70... .00....30. .. .100.. . .110....120 R0 11' Pa I I 1 ' Po° 7 . . . . g . . . . t . . . . o . . . . .0 . . . . 0.0 . . - o o o O o .__,I 60 28 4.9 9 ,7: - . 1 Pt‘ . ....20. . . .30... .40....50. . . .so. .. .70... .00.. . .90. . . .100. ...110... .120.— 69l 32 R: 13 3i 3 : 1: 31' 9 . . . . o . . . .t ......... 3:. . . . o . . . . o o ......... o u o ___4 05 23 ‘1 10 PL. - - 1 fl°° 0' ....2o....30....Ao....50....so....70....00....90....100....110....I20 ."o as 21 Si 1 1 O 5‘ A R E: .0 C0 32 30 R0 Pr 5' _ C0 NB RAY: SCORE—u- 6 9 . ‘7 I 1.3 7 LII3 II‘ 15 I 3 _ 23 I T sCORE —.. 1.? S7 5‘ LIO 65 I 43 «8 3T L43 8 4 j 'lle SICO‘OD [6° L0" (”“777 ot’IWKNCV “ " SKILL "(NOICI SOCI‘L CONT-0L 'ACVO. 'AC'OI O'CINOTN I“. .A. IIWSCILWV STATUS Sc.“ by NATIONAI. COM'UTEI STSIEMS— “OI Wan 7ND SI. Miaaoopoh.Mum. loan POO-ION: law-49:04 I. . 'anooabn lava-Gov]. queuul O LA-MIOROIO. I967 by Th0 . mot-vol Ia. Iha Muanomto Mum I303 c «~04 W70; 495‘. C) Copynghl I96 -sowstAT REBELLIOUS OR NONCONFORMIST. AvoInS CLOSE PERSONAL TIES. DISSATISFIED WITH FAMILY OR SOCIAL LIFE. -TENDS TOHARD ABSTRACT INTERESTS SUCH AS SCIENCE. PHILOSPHY AND RELIGTONO -PRORARLY ENERGETIC AND ENTHUSIASTIC. VARIEn INTERESTS. -HAS SUFFICIENT CAPACITY FOR ORGANIZIIO WORK AND PERSONAL LIFE. -SENSITIVE. ALIVE TO OPINIONS 0F OTHERS. -NOHMAL MALE INTEREST PATTERN FOR NORK. HORRIES. ETc. -NUMRER OF PHYSICAL SYMPTOMS AND coNcERN ABOUT uUDILY FUNCTIONS FAIRIY TYPICAL FOR MEDICAL PATIENTS. -VIENS LIFE UITH AVERAGE MIXTURE 0F OPTIMISM AND PESSIMISM. -HAS CAPACITY TD MAINTAIN ADEQUATE SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS. The Psychological COI'pOTalion MW! Reporting Service 304 East 45th Street New York, N. Y. 10017 190 BIPOLAR PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY OFFENDER NORMS — FORM A MALE 00M Ago___ .NO H-3 RD Mono- é? .1 4‘” a." If_‘§—-"‘_' .3 s 3' I00 g—n— I fill. 3"?8“ I4 I. u .. I4 I. I. to '3 I3 I. u '2 m 1r—'m—‘n_" I. I4 II I7 '0 I. I. 04 I4 LOLELILLiLbI‘llaIIOIRIIflbIIEIIIIsILI C Copyright 1972 Psychological Research Associates Scand by NATIONAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS- “0| Wen 76mSI..Mm1-wopoh3,an. Ion-n 'lO- ‘02C 1191 GH __ H-4 ALE ,1 TR .5: SCI," .23: MINNESOTA MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY ~ 553: 5‘57": “OUT. WCIIET. 37 Starke R. Hathaway, PIT. D. and]. Charnley McKinley, M.D. K K K K T SCORE PROFILE —- Plotted WITH K ‘71 7 ? . . ? E 20. ..30.. .00....30....so....70. .30....90....100....110....120 % ~ F 3 1 2 F ..2o....30_ .40....50....so. .70....00....30....100...110. .120 . .7 K 1 ' 1 ' K I TSI 21 T I ‘Ht 1 I Z I HE 'SK . . . . 5x .20....30.....o....so....so. .70....00....90. ..100.. no. .120 7 L , "2 D ' ' I ‘ D - w n ’H. I Hfi w.-20....30....00....50.. 00....70....oo....90....100....11o.. .120 A I . . . I GRITIJR r. Pd. . . . I Pd ‘.4K , ‘ _ ‘.4r '7 :L’AI : : 1 : MI ....2o....30....Ao....50... 60. 70. ..00....90. .100 ..110....I20 '. p “R. : : 1 ; P. 58 77 k I ’ Pt I I 1 : PI’ A K . , . '| 8' .20. .30....00....so....so. 70. ..00....90.. .100. ..110....Izo__K_ ‘3 2° ‘ 1’ c ' ' 1 I s.‘ In , '1'! o O O, C t O 0. O I O C O _T 60 2] LL- ] ‘MOV . . 1 Mo 0 0‘ ..2o....30.. .Ao....50....so. .70....00....90....Ioo. ..110.. NO"): 1.1. 1.} SI . ' ' Si A R Es Lb CO 01 Do R0 P7 _ SI Cn 5H RAwSCORE—o. 1' 11.. In. 16 12 '2 I: 17 _ _ '3': 11. T “DRE —¢- '" 27 93 78 55 5' :1I b? Iigl I “0 7I I 50 'IQ‘LT {\[CCND [$0 LOW ' CAUOALIT' DEOENDENCY DCUINANCI: 9OC‘AL FIEJUO'CR EOCIAL I CONTIOL PACTON FAcTol SYHIIGYH IACI DAD: ' IISPOTSIQILITY STATUI -F “FLWIZFS BwT FAILS To SRO NEAL CUNCFJN QHOUT SW'ATIC gYHpTOMS DEPRESSrun n) A»X1FTY CUISPICHU“SLY ABSENT SELF-CFMTEPEH n 0 DEMANDING "EVER/‘51 T o In. calm . A "we‘ve. 3:19:12'1 k II in. 1907 1., "Ir U..." ”Ill-ll OI 1‘ ’6 -a manual Io. mc Mann-gum M1, . . .I: .newodl970.195l: Icpvodvced C opytnght ‘9 -S FEELT‘OS 5.».T TENSE ANn RESTLESS. -HIHJLY HEAELLIUUS AND NO CONFHHMIST- U PEUMLE- “‘LL”“ \.n qu,LTIF§. pnna FAMILY “ND SoclnL RELATII‘STI”50 _TF, 9 anA30 AqSToncr INTERESTS SUCH as ScTENC'. UNILOSPHY ANU “FIT Tn'lo SUFFICIENT CAPACITY POP ORGANIYI 6 PF SUNAL LIFE. ~I«LLI'FS TCRAHD ESTHEIIC INTERESTS. -IL:JFCTS HUINIUNS 0F ITHERS uIIHoHT 'NFJE SEASIIIIITY, -FAWHIALY SPCIALLY HUTGOI‘G ANO GDFGA‘IUUS. NUQK ANH .IIle The Psychological Corporation MMPI Reporting Service Im4flnhfim8mat New York. N. Y. 1(1)]7 192 BIPOLAR PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY OFFENDER NORMS — FORM A MALE Date Age- NO. GH H-4 O *exnlmMmID O T O .3 e IOAeA Ass V 3. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3. 9Q 3&0"qu I 5 4 S 1 IO QQ: 99.: .3. _ _ _ _ _ _ a... .50! 32an WE H u m H D D I T O 8 low .3; _ __ __.... Rs 0 3?: ooemnm u. n u n 3 4 70330; 4000 x 30 _ _ _ _ _ _ «e 56 DEVON“ nu ’0 7 _ 0 .7 O 3 I 0A OO vvo ..._____ _ __..... .. V V\.' . "V $3 finwflnflfl DRUM 0. TE 4 3 Z l 0.. 3* ..._______ __........ vVOOeumDTNMuuHmO a 7 O 5 .3 EIO 333v ......_--_ ______ __...._... . O #inwuuu m D I 7 e S 4 200 Green ..i_________ _....... O 0‘ .._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3.. )9 #NM flflnw SI 7 O O O 2 I 03w efiv Q b .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ a. . [kl 2 I «NV §€ 2nuwuu..- m 3 7 c 3 4 320$ a \ 35c _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 35¢ eflnwwnu .1. um 0 0 T 0 432026 £06.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .0008 #WWNNMN P. H w 0 I O O 03I§ SOLO _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . wsveube 0 T 0 3 3 2 1 0A9 . . _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ _ .9. \V's— _ E R I . °\v’ b ..m n m m u m w w m. m . IDHI‘TIGISI31LUIIH5IZIIBILI7ISI 1‘ Copynght 1972 PsychologIcaI Research Assocaates Send by NA'MAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS— “OI Wen MIDI SIC TIM-4300.053, Mina. Fm PRO-WIC leondecad I 1133 au__ H-S MALE .. 5.3.4.53; MINNESOTA MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY ~ 55.2??‘(1335 “DUI" “85!?“ By Starke R. Hathaway, Ph. D. and J. Charnley McKinley, “.0. K K K K T SCORE PROFILE —— 9'0"“! WW" K i ? : : : ? ‘ ....20....3'0....40....30....00....7'0....00....30....100....110....120 an 1 L . : I : : L m g? R F I 3 1 I F . . . .20. . . .30. . . .40. . . .30. . . .30. . . .70. . . .00. . . .90. . ..100. . ..110. . ..120 SI 13 K E I E K I "I In .. 1' It. 1 1 3 3 £1.11 2 ' - - -- 20. . . .30. . . .40. . . .30. . . .00. . . .70. . . .00. . . .30. . . .100. . ..110. . ..120 63 22 0 Z 2 l I o as l‘3HY I 1 I I H; ‘ . . .. zo. . . .30. . . .40. . . .50. . . .00. . . .70. . . .30. . . .30. . . 300. . . J10. . . 120...... . . . I IPOI 23 “P 1“ 5%. : : 1 : .RL .9 19" MI I 1 Z 2 ms . . . . .20. . . .30. . . .40 .. . .30 .. . .00. . . .70. . . .30. . . .30. . . 100. . ..110. . . J10_———-d 53 9 Pa 2 :1 1 P.‘ SJ, 26 :0 13’:; I : l : 31’ . . .20. . . .30. . . .40. . . .30. . . .00. . . .70. . . .30. . . .30. . . .100. . ..110. . . J20 .1 ‘3 “I ‘9 “PR ...r......r‘ ........ 1‘11 9 . . . 9 6 23 ‘. 20 .“O . . l . M0 1 o '2“ . .. .20. .. .30. .. .40. .. .50. .. .30. .. .70. .. .00. .. .00. . . 100.. . JIO.. . 120 "2'; A R _ E. L3 c. D 0. R. S. C. VB _ PT RAVSCORE—‘- 12 . 10 I 7 S 22 . II3 1:3 I19] 3" I 111 I I T SCORE —p- ‘0 43 ‘3] 41 ‘9 3 “5 33 I 63 I ‘3 I ‘3I L I -SOMEHHAT TENSE AND RESTLESS. -MILDLY DEPRESSED OR PESSIMISTIC. -TENDS TOWARD ABSTRACT INTERESTS SUCH AS SCIENCE, RHILOSPHY AND RELIGION- jg -IN0EPEN0ENT 0R MILDLY NONCONFDRMIST. gg -HAS SUFFICIENT CAPACITY FOR ORGANIZING NORK AND PERSONAL LIFE. -: -RESPEcTS OPINIONS OF OTHERS NITHOUT UNDUE SENSITIVITY. aFEW SOMATIC COMPLAINTS. LITTLE CONCERN ABOUT BODILY HEALTH. -NORMAL HALE INTEREST PATTERN FOR WORK! HOBBIES. ETC. -TOUGH MINDFDO ~PRORABLY SOCIALLY OUTGOING AND GREGARIOUS. . fol-4! _'a In by The Unuauul 011. hoI-c The a manual ‘01 Mon-nun M moored ION; "5‘. 25 1967 The Psychological Corporation Mm Reporting Service IMEhM4flh$nfl NmNYukPlY.lan7 Cannflv I“... . FT 1 9 4 OFFENDER NORMS — FORM A MALE BIPOLAR PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY -_.NO aw __ H-S A0m4 Lksvx _ k QQQQ i ..f #0! _ 8.. 0 A” f s ._o— ll %m if ‘f 00 1013mm «flaTslzlelflaH/zrq 11‘!ij I‘ COpyn‘ghI 1972 Psychological Research Assooates 3:0“ by NA""NAL COM'UTEI SYSTEMS- “0‘ WOII 76TH SI. anoapohl.M-MI. loom "O-IOIC lapooduc cd I 1195 DB__H-6 «ALE - TI . T “3.5523; MINNESOTA MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY - 55355 551336 ”SJ? '35? By Sunk. R. um...» HI. 0. ..u. Chm“, mm", II.D. ,0 K K K K T SCORE PROFILE —— Plonod WHII K 1 T : : : ? E ....20....3b....40....sb....00....7'0....00....00....I00....Ho....vzo 5, .....-..............;.........;....o....ou........o ..... -———4 ,1; q E i I l i F .._.zo....S'o....40....S'o....00....7b....00....90....I00....110....I20 «9 n . z 12 2 I ‘ ......... o.............-o...-.--. I -..9.........0.-... ‘ H ' ' ' H L521 1? Q? ‘ .I. : :l : .& 2 ...2o....so....40....50....00....70....|0....00....100....II0....I20 7 3C- 1; D I 1 I I D J ...-........-...c-..:........ g. -......o.-404.00440 ..... 3 [‘9 1‘ H1 . 1.. Hy ‘ ....2o....Jb....40....sb....60....7b....IO....90....‘00....1T0....120 . . . ‘ L6T[ 26 TP 22 r2“ 2 I l : ’R‘dx s nun...n-4...ooo.naan..-.-0.Ioao..-oo . ......... ....-.....Q 5 c9 2‘ MI . . l . a. . ....20....3‘0....40....s'o....oo....v'o....00....90....100....no....120 . .fi 7 P. : 1: : p.“ 7 F-I...--.tn...Q....'........4....................--o.o..0_ bdl ZR fidI 17 .fL . . 1 . :2' I ....zo....30....40....sb....so....1'0....ao....So....Ioo....IIo....I20 . . . I 51 26 :‘7 I; 3“ : 1 '51:! 9 .-..04...T........-t..........l...non-..Q.....o...o.....____49 B6 3] :1. 2° ”2.x I 1 'Mzox o ...20....30....Ao....§0....60....70....80....90....IOO....HO....‘3° ' o 41 12 Si 2 1 2 '. SI ...-.n..c.oanl.ooul. OOOOOOOOOOOOOO .Acol. OOOOOOOOO . IIIII .—1 RAW SCORE-lb 7 SCORE —O- FLI 0M0: . analolo. FAI 'ouonohvl luv I967 by The Um'auitl ol 0 manual lo: The anaulo Mum Non: .onawtd 1970, 1951, Copynghl I94.- EI Lb 3y DO R0 PT A R Co 5' a 8 44 8 13 29 lb 1‘ 19 ?2 31 3 H1» I-«bflbsj .5ij .71 3 Is. aoI «I-‘rs F} Itlsv [CON (60 LOW (“any OIKNOINCV DOMI~ANCE SOCIAL FIEJUOICI OOCIAL CW'IOL VICTOR 'ACYO‘ ITRCIGYH OA‘I RA. “WSHILITY SYAYUI -EXDANSIVE. IMPULSIVE. DISTRACTIBLE AND UNPREDICTARLE. PROBABLE GHT OF IDEAS AND HYPERACTIVITY. CONSIDER PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION. .INDEPENDENT 0R MILDLY NONCONFORMIST. -I-IAS SUFFICIENT CAPACITY FOR ORGANIZING NORK AND PERSONAL LIFE. -INCLINES TOT-ART) ESTHETIC INTERESTS. -NAS A COMBINATION OF PRACTICAL AND THEORETICAL INTERESTS. -NUMRER OF PHYSICAL SYMPTOMS AND CONCERN ABOUT BODILY FUNcTIONs RIY TYoICAL FOR MEDICAL PATIENTS. -RESPECTS OPINIONS OF OTHERS NTTHOUT UNDUE SENSITIVITY. -PRORARLY SnCIALLY OUTGOING AND GREGANIOUS. -CHEEPFUL AND OPTINISTIC. The Psychological Corporation MWI Reporting Service 304 East 45Lh Street New York, N. Y. 1CD]? 196 BIPOLAR PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY OFFENDER NORMS — FORM A MALE NO H-6 DB Name. 20— IO-—‘-IO l4 l3 3 ISO-“fl_“ "'- IT I0 I? I6 O V um if ‘y IOO g—B— I5 I! __ I1— II IO _' _l5 l3 I! 90 ' Copynqht 1972 PsychoIogIcal Research ASSOCIa'es Ste-ed IT, NATION}! CI‘NH‘I Tlx SVSYKMS— “OI wen 76». $I_.\‘.nncopol..,Mm-I. loom Flo-103C 197 TJ _.H-7 ALE ,1 . .33; MINNESOTA MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY ; 55,3251??? vng- wolgg- 8y Starke R. Hathaway, Ph. D. and 1. Chem" McKinley, «.0. K K K K T SCORE PROFILE —— PIoMod WIIh K ,1 I‘, ? 2 ? E ...20....30. .40....56....Eo....vb. .00.. .90....100....1TO....I20 (21 "I; :3 L I Z l L m r. '5 F l 1 I F .20.. 3b. ..40... 5'0. .50.. .70....eo.. .90....I00.. no. .120 5.) J 2 K i ' 1 3 K L 5‘] 13 I. lul Tl: 1 . Hs' 2 ' ..2o....30. .40....5'0. 60. .7'0. .00....90....I00... no. .120“: l I I“ o . l: : D- l A D '3 HY : : 1 . “,3 I .20. . . .30. .40... So. .60 .7b. . . .00. .90. . . .100. no. .120 . I 3.5»! ; : I: RH .20....30. .40....5’o.. .50 70. .00.. .90....Ioo....IIo....|20 '4‘. Po 2 .‘ Po 7 I .0 I 'O . ~ O 0‘ O O . C O y Sb 2% ar 1 g . . T . RI 8 .20.. .3'0.. .40. .50. ..60. 7'0. ..ao. .90. . . .I00.. I10. Tao—L. 59 27 I Q 2.. .5.“ ‘ 1 i .55.! RR 3? ‘ 2. Ff ' I I l .N. 0 "‘ ..2o....a'0....Io.. s'o....so... 7‘0. .40. ..90. ..T00. no. .120 '2" 'v. ‘r‘ Si : l : : SI A R E. Lb c. Dy Do R. R. 5. Ch M5 RAWSCORE—b - | '7 R9 11 9 ‘ 11 1O 1... 7 25 [ ‘I; 1‘. L I T SCORE _.. I kid 6? ‘57 49 41 6? 3 . 3 I E“ SW [ j FII‘.Y «(Lone ow CACOALIH Dl’tuotncv DOMINANC r, 50C In. - F‘RLJUDICK {SOCIAL CO~TIOL -E'wn'STvE. IMPULSIVF. UTRTQACTIHLF A 0 UN”QEDICTA§LE. PROdAHLE FLTG r .. l'1AS TAU AYPERAcTIvTTY. CONSIHF= PSYrHIATIIC cVALUATION. -S».F~whl JEHELLIUUS 04 NJNCONFUDMIST. AVUIOS chan PERSONAL TIES. nI~RxTISF1FO NITH FAAILY OR SWCIAL L'FE. fig -I-nanuLY Rr'SITIvE ANN I EALTSTIC RITA HIRN EST ETIC. CULTURAL 29:: Ill?" ' Tl‘hl'l( I'IT:r‘t-ST§O ;A _Tu Ne TH“A‘F QnQTQOCT INTERESTS SUCH A: SCIENCE. N‘ILHSPHY AND :2 DEL] 3‘0 0 £2 -4. J: -J :IF F’HYCIICAL SYf-'PT EMS A' I) CIM‘ICEJ -. AIILI‘lIT i‘lLY FUNCTIONS Efi‘ FAT. . rYnTLAL F.w wEvlan “ATTE”TS. 2:: -r‘." QhFFl’JE‘IT CAPACIIY ”N nk!{5fs'\.‘17l -L~ 'v'U-"i 11"“ .3; SONAL LIFE. f: -m- SUFCT‘S nothlnns IF .ITHFUS -.ITTrI()IIT :nmut ARE-NS; TT‘JTTY. 2L; -h‘IL-«Q LIFE ~1T—. AIM-1.45%? ~IXTII4‘E fIF ”MTV-IS" AN DENSIMISH. E: ..L’v" -‘ '30 LY ‘\ I(:1“|-:-Y ’[IrL‘FI Itw uI‘II‘ l':v“‘ {an I ‘IJS. 32: The Psychological Corporation MMPI Reporting Service a; 304 East 45th Street New York, N. Y. 1C0}? 198 HPOLAR PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY OFFENDER NORHSHFORH A HALF NO. TJ H-7 KN mm 5...... $3.1m w w m w w w m. m 0 *Ixflfludl I I 7 ..I I I 8043 A: v wt _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3% tfib. 09‘ H I I 7 I I I 3 I IOQQ .. _ _ _ _ _ _ out if: A?! OsuflMWMBHBM H D I I .4! I I SIIOVO & e .. _ _ _ _ _ so. ‘07.. out -I I. M B R H D I I 7 Issnuzt"O ivy... s . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . 0.6 9&3». b4 II I I 7 s A 5 I I 0 .60 v' 090 llll _ AAsQQ 00~ 9 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ s. v 0 $38: a. aumtmm an n 1 o s 4 s z I 0.31335» .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ o Ocaflflunflufllnm I 7 I 5 I 3 I0? .460? .5. so: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ a... F “mun“ w I I 3 380.! tasks 1.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .. 3kg QQHMBRH W 9 O 5 I 3 I l 436' s _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ a... *NM “RUM II 7 I I 3 l 00 ##fi g... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.... If- 2: .. a - o .8. *3 ".Inll.nln| | ..l . . 7 . 5 szo.~\ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ s. «O I‘Iflflw MN” OI. w 7 I I IIZO«€ f _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J .6 O A! III. I n H W I I 7 I 5 III QR! _..._._ _______..... wsvnubI I 7 I .4 .I- z I GAO ...._ _ _ _ _ _L\w_ _ 7.. .' ' OV’I h ..m u m m w .o. a w m m 0 13612014. [LIL] I I i 2. i q T I Ioljltwiwnto I, CopynghI’O’C PsychologIcal Reseavch Assoc-ates .1529 ’- BA ”-8 MALE ‘71 . ngggg MINNESOTA MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY ~ 5:97:61??? "BU? WOO? By Starke R. Hathaway, Ph. D. and J. Charnley McKinley, M.D. n * K K K T SCORE PROFILE —___. aned th R m , ? ? g 20. .3'o,...Ao....Sr'>....So....70....eo....90....Ioo,...no....tzo 3, .‘ L ' 'I I ' L m 1‘ F : ' F .20.. 3b. .40....5‘0. ..so....Tb....ao.. .90....Ioo....IIo. .I20 I K '. Z 1 i K [ :O I: ..‘H. : ' I ' HR ’9K . . . ‘SK :0 30. .IO. .50.. .60....70....80....90....‘00....HO....‘2(. 2 . . . -’ "I D . . 1 . D J D O. . a I? Q .- I . . ......... . ‘v I- HY 1. . HY zo. .3'0....Ao....56....60....1b....oo.. .90....Ioo... IIo. ..I20 I . . . I 791 31 I ,1 P¢ . . . I Pf tax _ , , may I I .u5 MI ' ' ' “I” .20. . . .36. . . .IO. . . .s'o. . . .60. . . .TO. . . .oo. . . .90. . . .Ioo. . . .IIo. . . .‘20 ‘7 I 0 PC I . 1 . P0 66 31 ‘-' [2’ Pt ' I 1 ‘ Pt, 'I . . -III a K 20. .30....‘0....50....so....70. .eo....90...,Ioo....no....'20 . . . . 9 Q9 27 ‘J C . 1 . Sc IK - . . 'Ix 9 . . . 73 EA . (.9 .M‘a' .1 Ma "" .20....36....ao....sb.. .50....7O....eo. .90.. .Ioo....Ho. .‘20 U. 0 . . . 0 t» SI . l . SI P; St -‘.Inntapolu_ Khan. foam '.0- IOJC MAL COM'UTEI SVSYEMS- ut-I Wen 76m SI. ,- Scond by N" RAW SCORE—IF T SCORE —O- .1550; I'ALVO. \VIhlI-OGYN IACIO 'Al- -9 711-7 IS Adnfit E“!\TI' .. I I CIILCES .IIII -FE\TLF9§ a. PDLJ..LF RHCERFICIAL GAIETY AN' 5% -SF cIrIVE. Ell; -I'IIL'ILY id E’s Cm CI- r. ;? -Ir..S TO' :6" PFLI'H)’. :3! a: :.:~ .7». }fl IINI'V- 3. Eh ~P¢“HLRLY QOCIALLY a: EFJ‘ LL 2? 2? EE :3 HWEWEII I. I MWWHPI CAUOALIH OIPDOOINCV 90s.- I~A~Cl uF A40 CONCEQNED UNABLE I” u IIPULSIVE. DOLIUOICK Sven“. It 590-. IOILIYV AHUUT ASUCTAL ATTIT CONTQHL THEN. SCATTEREO GREGARIOUSJESS. ALIVE T0 OPINIONS OF ()THF 35. CEPHESSEH 0H PESSTMISTIC. ,‘LIJHrLY vnRE THAN avtaARE Nuvdfin 0F DHYSTCAL CIMDLAIMTS, uwflur HOUILY FUwCTIUNS ANO PHYSICflc Ion AfiSTRACT INIEWESTS SUCH AS bCIFNCc. WEIR T”. -1 NJ I'FS TIIVARI‘ ESTHEIIC IlliTEQESrS. QUT‘JUI IS AN I GHFISA I'NIS. The Psychological Corporation MMPI Reporting Service 304 East 45th Street New York, N. Y. lEDl? (ONYIOL IHIFRESTS AN) ”‘65 AND ENLHBIESo SOME o-ILOSPHY AND 200 BIPOLAR PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY OFFENDER NORMS — FORM A MALE Age NO H-8 BA Namo. l0 Q IO 2 aeauf o G .33. A 9 hfitffi O... ;v .«v «be.» on «v w.» ;v «O is 6.O 0 ngxo .N‘O L ”C k 990* H] T JIL Aim 1 I IRE}: I P§yChOKXflca|R889dHT‘ASSfmnfleS [DISIIH (oIIt I 4 'E Copynght1972 - IUIC ‘ 9qu ’9L. "$~ :4 PLIQP Inst! l .u! II, NAIIONAI C09: Sit. JJ __ H-9 2()1. “ALF I mmggg MINNESOTA MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY 553? $5355 “8%" “'55:" By Sunk. R. Hathaway, Ph. 0. andJ. Charnley mum", aw. K K K K 1’ SCORE PROFILE -——— Planad VIII-I K ? : ? .20. . . .Jb. . . .co. . . .sb. . . .eo. . . .TO. . . .ao. . . .90. . ..Ioo. . . Ito. . ..Izo . L ' :I ; L ” .v I F 3 I 1 F .2Q. . . .ab. .co. . 5b. .60. .7b. . . .30. .90. . ..Ioo. . ..IIo. .Izo ‘ ’.- K ' "I I K I 541 IR 'Hs : 2 I ‘ H3 ' 9x . . - ' 3" 2 .. zo. . . .30 .a0. . .so. .so. . . .70. . .oo. . . .90. .I00. IIo. .I20 2 r O ' I : D J 0 .- . O t o O O. O O O O . Hy . . 1 Hy .20. .. 3b. . .ao. .. .sb. .60. .TO. . .ao. .. .90. .. J00. .. AIo.. . J20 . 4 . . . [ 7a] to T Pd. . . 1 ‘ nan , , nan I O. ' O O O .- 0 O O O . 5 . ..5MI . l . NT 20. 3‘0. .ao.. .so. . . .60 .76. . . ..o. 90 . .100. no .120 I I . Pa - I l : Pa. 7 I O O O O .- O O O O . , a” 2‘ o .‘: . l ‘PI'K . . . .zo. . . .3b. .40. . .sb. . .oo. . . .Tb. . .oo. .90 . .. .Ioo. . ..IIo. Izo._____. u . . . T A7 31 I? c I Sc .IK l . 'tK 9 O O O O O O. O I I O O . 71 PA 9: M9 . l “° "R ....zo. . . .3‘0. . . .co. . . .sb. . . .60. ..7'0. . . .ao. . . .90. . . .Ioo. . . .IIo. . . 320 "“0 O . . . 91 Si . .1 5| . - o . « . . o . . . . a I . . g Q . . . . o . . . . u - - - a C u n - . o - . . . . . . . - o . . . . o _J. E. Lb co Dy 0° R. P. Cn NH RAW SCORE» 7 SCORE nml Ina lhl ' '930 “'1'. 1‘ I. ;,.th 1‘? -\- P -'T »FatLLIHUH UH N‘NCUWFHHMIST. dvUTnS CLIKE REHSONAL .Y;c ,; \“Ilsrlgi ern FaNILY on enclnL LIFF. _, .ILrRS q q T-uhLQIVP. CchTF4Fn INTERESTS AN 5 ‘WGIESo I“ It -”~-«FT*1AI %AIhIY nN GHFAAHIUUS ESS. ~I 4 T ~u-r AaST'uCI IN‘FPESTS SUCh AS SCIFNCH. U-thSPHY gnu LFLT ~‘, . -5 “'IVI. \LIV‘ l‘ “”1NIOLS WP UTNF“S. -i II “S Tw'uei LSIIF‘IC I‘TFHESTSo .. '- -‘ ""V\I'.'AI_ ST PT"? LI -" C()’~IC'_—3" ..unIIT ~ «‘12 Y FUIICTIONS + I ~ ~;-L E 'F-ICHL I-.-ITIE.\.TS. . ”nwrrIIY T” rLI-Tulq nnfnvnrfi SH“IAL ”FLATI' Q 195. _, III“: 11’- u»°',Jl\'i'r_ IKTJ [- IIF II-"I.'.:1K‘4 Ah Ju‘SIV'IS‘AO - K-JFIPIgII FLUHCIIV .flu Infidgr71 q -u;( but P"5JHfiL LIFE. A R E I, » ‘ 'l V [L D Kw ll '5?) [1’ 2| lH ll [ a I I Hfl /._ i ‘O CAunAUrv IJl Dl' nothv oouINANCK '5’)(IA.. PIEAIDICI' «orIAL couvnoL '60 LOW SV.(N67N .ACI PAIN The Psychological Corporation MMPI Reporting Service 304 East 45th Street NEW York. N. Y. 10017 202 BIPOLAR PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY OFFENDER NORHS--FORH A HALE NO. H-9 JJ Nam. LKN um As~sfl§%m ” w m w w w w m .0! 0 fisflflfl O O 7 I 5 4 3 30.4% A? A? .._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _... «3.. 3mm I04. I T O s 4 3 2 IO...» h. .3 ad: °§\.¢ 64:; 02.3mm” man u .I. u w 9 o c S 4 T ov O S _ _ _ _ A. A 00 be); $90.. no . 3 z I n 9 I T I 530 «v 3! I I I I I 3.6 0.. vv «e .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .. cSCOH mwmwm.fluu 9.. 7 .0 5 I 0 As 5306 P6 \st Q 3‘ _ _ _ _ _ _ #3 O 0Q .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ s v' '\\ O Oonmmnn 45Inm9 a 7 o 4 S RIO? .336 be .1 #0!» ”00" up. nmuuu m o a a 20.. £49 3.. one . ox .._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .. 3!; uOnquu m s I S 3 IO; v 3.? 0ka¢” O.I 1.1-n” w a. I s: 3 2 I nu II II k f: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _...... K s! yJumnmm_um u m .. a 7 4 s 3203» N; ___________... «1 O Icaflnmwuu m um 1 o azox £0 .6 .._ _ _ _ _ I... :.n_III_u u u m o u 7 o .ai.aua~ yfic 4O 4 ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Snub. 7 I 4 z I 0‘9 9‘ — _ _ — _ _ _ _!\x it I Ox! .K .I Av .0 nv cam w w m w s w w z I o Illllifl V TZII3IHI T ~II 7.1+? I6 I l -‘i TH LQI ‘LII‘II I COpynghI‘UT. Psychological R€‘~EJ!( II Acuicaatus no - ‘02C ’0'" {HI ol.‘_ MIA". \ sIcoIII a, NAIIONA' COMPUIER svsuvn‘, 4w! wIII 76".“. u..." 2()3 DM _ H-IO “LE . 5'23: MINNESOTA MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY $5ng a??? ‘81}: wciITJrrh 57 Starke R. Hathaway, PIT. D. and J. Charnley McKinley, “.0. K K K K T SCORE PROFILE —— Plotted With K T ? I I I ? . .. .2o. .. .ab. .. .40. .. .sb. .. .so. .. .Tb. .. .ao. .. .so. .. JOO.. . 310.. . J20_____E§ a. r L 1 I : : L m L F . . . . . iii: . . . . . F ..20. ...3b....40....5.0....60....70....ao....90....IOO....HO....120 . I: K I 1 ' K F S91 l: ‘1‘ Ms . . . . a . . . . o . . . . a . . . . . . . . i. . . . . g . . . . o . . . . a . . . . o . . . . o . . . . a H.‘ l M. - . .20. ...3'o. . ..4o. . . .so.. ..so. .. .7'0. . . .oo... .90....100... .IIO....Izo ls: ’ )2 D . . 1 . o _ ‘73 Hy I O I i O O O I O O . Hy] .zo. . . .ab. . . .40. . . .5'0. . . .60.. . .Tb. . . .30.. . .90. ...IOO....IIo... .Izo I [ 761% -, )r Pd. . . . 1 IAK _ ‘ , 0.4K O O O O O D O I O O C . O 5 ;,’MI 1 : I : MI 20 3O 40 so so. . 7'0 .00 so 100 no 120 6 /6 Pa 1 Pa . . - . . i . . . o . , . . o . I . . o . . . I 9 > . - I ; I - ¢ 0 . 4 - 4 O - I 4 . O I u I 4 O n n n 4 O ‘ 7 . . . 7 ‘54 3” . I "7 P, . . 1 . P. ‘IK . , _ 91K - -20. . . .30. . . .40 . . . .50. . . .60. . . .70. . . .80. . . .90 . . . .IOO. . . .110. . . 310—71 . , U . . . 74 3: a: I» Sc . . . ] Sc II K . ' ‘ . .‘K O O I O O O C C I C O —+ . o . . . q 70 8: '3- F? . ' 1 .O1 "" .20....3b....ao....s'o....eo....7'o....ao....90....Ioo....IIo...J2°' O . . . 0 , SI 1 Si ......... . . . . . 3 . . . . g . . . - a . I . . Q l . I - I . . . . o . n a . g . a O O —. A R E: Lb CO Dy 00 R0 Pr St C0 '8 RAwSCORE—p v I - I a“. l" 12 2" 1“ l“ 16 18 29 5 Tsame .._ IP *1 *2 55 5A R? 3 58 51 SP 52 run-v “cu-In I;.'\‘- Lon (AODALIYV Ol’thlNE v oovmnacr. -'-.O(IAL "(JUDICE AOCIAL CONTROL IA(_ToIl I'AL'DR -.Tk(Ngrn nun Bum ntabmymlurv fiYAYus _c FA,‘T Thwfi? Ayn DESYLESS. -5 . -~T h.hdLLIUU§ on NJNCUNFUWMIST- QVUIDS CL”5‘ PERSON‘L ltit. II r wIIH F““ILY 0“ SHCIAL LIFE. .. .-..LI RHIEPHIT FCCEATJICS SECLUSIvE awn NITRV°A~No ”ANY Ir mm. ;; -I»-.I~IY <‘JSITIVE a». I PALISTIC vIT“ HIGH ESTHETIC. CULTURAL j: n.. ll“l’ I Tr~tSTS. -L'7 _‘-'~',..’ VIII‘HI‘J. ,IQ'IEJLY A C SFLF’CDITlCBL. , -—I It. I} IIr_'I-‘~ tDSE‘ W” RtSSIl"ISTlCO :5 -I , LI Augtavgn [I INF MILIA” SuCIuL SITUATI”-So 9. quIII ‘;_:i -." "I.IVF. uLIWF T" ”VINIOIIS IJF (,THEJS. j; -.I..erv .IL I‘A- AVrHA-E nwvnru OF PHYSICAL CFVPLAINTS. SOME :& (I F ~ ‘=' Ii"‘Il.Y FU'CTIIHS AND PNYSICAL fiEALTHo fie P :_ The Psychological Corporation MMPI Reporting Service (i: ; 304 East 45th Street ° '-’ New York, N. Y. 10017 204 BIPOLAR PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY OFFENDER NORMS - FORM A MALE _ NO. ON H-IO Nam.-. ‘ at h .I nu Axéhton m N W N W M w W 2 nlv O Ufi§xfl “H W O 7 C 5 4 3 I 0..“ L A ks v s. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .3 «.th 9”“ 0|.” w 7 O 3 4 3 2 I O a. 9 £3... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 99$ .40.: *s“”“" IO.” I4. .17. u H m ’ O s 4 3 2.0 v0 A E I v. _ _ _ _ _ _ s... k\* \00 . 0 3&7. ”ml M u m H m 9 O 7 6 5304A}? «NV.» Qx O v. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I §* 00 0.00 wk WM R H 9 O 7 O 5 2 I 0 A v?0 .30 stO O” O 3S _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ #3 ivodé Va um WWW m an H m 9 a 7 5 4 3 2 I 0 Le vvofiw I. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ o... u, v Y '00 *A v a, I” .7 N M H. m H m 9 7 6 5 4 3 2 I O is QIWK 2 I'll ‘ . “3* Y.‘ Q. . e _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ a 3 k0! _ _ OQY b mm a u n m 9 7 4 3 2 O o .640 $0 . _ 5 4w 3‘ 360 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ saw #3 on u n. p. .I. m s r s 4 s z I o A if _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ :5 V «ha ha...“ m w m H w 9 I O 3 2 I 0 O a Q says” _ _ _ _ _ — _ _ _ bur” Nb“ b {'00 O 4 3 2 I «NV 3' N m I MI I I I m 9 O 7 5 4 3 2 03a. 9. Q \# Ea _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A 0 «.4 fl W M w M H. m. H a. 7 O 5 4 3 2 0 «O O; Oct 3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ o «a o o 06 NH .4. w M u D. H 9 a 7 c 5 4 3 I .v $9.; ‘0 as . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Junm O a 7 c 4 3 2 I O «a at 3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0. V A O .l O I O O O O O 0 % w w w m 6 5 4 3 2 I 0 WW L; J It HI fir 2 I , T 7.,-. I i [Q I I , O l d , Comvlqh' IH.‘ pSvChoIIIQIcnI Rem. ‘ , I ;\-,~ I WHO‘S APPENDIX I RANDOM SELECTIONS FROM THE INCARCERATED NON-HEROIN ADDICT SAMPLE (10 INDIVIDUAL PROFILES FOR THE MMPI AND THE BPI) 205 no- IOZC K‘Jnn. ‘01-. COA'PUTII “wuss- no! Won 76m 5v, N‘unncn; elm 3;!)«(3 by NAHONI-l 206 CT _ NH -T ALE film 533;: 5:3; MINNESOTA MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY mm mm a]? “35% By Starke R. Hathaway, Ph. D. and J. Cbomlay McKinley, “.0. " K K K T SCORE PROFILE -— Plonod um. K ? j ; 7 ..zo.. 3'0. .40....56....60....7b‘. .00....90. .100. no. ..I20 ’I L I. 1 I L m ICI .‘ F O: O 0: it 0 t I I O O C T .20... To. 40... so. .so....1‘o....w.. .90....Ioo....ITo....Izo—. K I l I I K L“QI 1‘ 7‘ H. I. ....... i: ? C O O . H.‘ non . . . mu 2 .20... 30. .50. ..30....00. .70....IO....90....IOO....HO....110—i I D '. 21 i D -4 .3 Hy '1. 1 "7" ‘ ....2o....ao. .ao. .so. ..oo.. .Tb....oo....oo....Ioo... no. ..110 [ val 9O 2:. Pd. I I Z l N ‘.4K . . . 44x .7 5 M5 :1 ' 'H‘s ..2o. 3o. .40....s'o....oo....1'o....oo....9o....Ioo....IIo. 110— I. I 1. Pa ' ' 1 I Pa. u 33 n". ' : I. I ° 3., . .20.. 3'0. .40. .sb....eo. 7'0. ..oo. .90. ..Ioo....IIo. .12 m 61 2% K“ c : l : Sc 01K - . _ “K 70 7:; 1, , 4"Ma' : ' I “.9 o '2" .20....3o....ao....so....so....7o. ..oo. .90....100....HO. 3206.1: u. 56 I ' 1 ' SI° A R E. Lb Ca 0 Da R. P. So Cn U8 RAw SCORE—p ' ‘ U6 37 “I 1‘; 2‘ E 15 j 1'5 73 T SCORE —.. ..7 3'4 4'3 W8 W 36 4 F3 44 75 43 '12-'73. 31:33: aunt-2" “KL-07““ (AuOALTYv OWYITOMI-Auckxainvm :TO‘CYIS; coon-0L -Inr HAVE DIIOI’ VLF-CONCEPT. PROBABLY dUULn LIKE TO DISCUSS EH.T'.NHL 9»HHLFM5. -SnrvvunT HcHELLIOUS 09 NONCONFURMIST. AvOIDS CLOSE PERSONAL TIFQ. III“~§‘IV[SFIL'II WITH FANULY OD SOCIAL LIFE. _gijl -Pm" L-‘ILY F ‘ENGETIC ANN E 'THUSIASTICo VARIEI‘ INTERESTS. :" -:,t~\|11'vf. 4LIVF TII OPINTONS OF "THE”SO ;i —fHI 3. I3. P. C. VB 9 RAY: SCORE-> ?1 4 4o 11; 14 E!“ II5 II II5 2? 32 15 T SCORE ... 61 A7 43 (2 IS :3 60 6 52 . J1 2 HIST SECOND [.60 LOW (”km DINWCNCY DONNA“! SOCIAL ”(JUDICI. SOCIAL CONTROL 'ACYOI IACTOI IYICMYN IACI 'AI RIMS-ILITV IYATUI -SOMENHAT TENSE AND BESTLESS. . -TENDS TO GIVE SOCIALLY APPROVED ANSHERS REGARDING SELF-CONTROL AND MORAL VALUES. -SOMEVNAT RcatLLIOUS OR NONCONFORHIST. AVOIDS CLOSE PERSONAL TIES. DISSATISFIED NITH FAMILY 0R SOCIAL LIFE. .SENsxTIVE. ALIVE TO OPINIONS OF OTHERS. -TENDS TOHAoD ABSTRACT INTERESTS SUCH As SCIENCE. PHILOSPHY AND RELIGION. -PROBABLY RESERVED IN UNFAMILIAR SOCIAL SITUATIONS. -MILDLY DEPRESSED OR PESSTMISTIC. -INCLINES TouARo ESTHETIC INTERESTS. oNUMgER OF PHYSICAL SYMPTOMS AND CONCERN AROUT BODILY FUNcTIONS FAIRLY TYPICAL FOR MEDICAL PATIENTS. -HAs surrchENT CAPACITY FOR ORGANIZING HORK AND pEPSONAL LIFE. -TOUGH MINDED. Mémuooo. *. Ufll'.l|l..1_ 0' MIHIIIOO Molt-flan: 'euonoh! lino-lax. I; as |“7 by E E E. a? II 1 I I? ‘- :2 The Psychological Caporation WI Reporting Service 10 xMEanANERna NmeflLN.Y.1an7 209 M. ’ BIPOLAR PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY OFFENDER NORMS — FORM A MALE NH -2 PH No Name Aks .m o o A\~\~.* m w w n w m w w z I o *3“ .IaH GI O l O S S l 0:. «v AK Q S. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .. k 99% 90* IMH M O O O 5 4 2 I O a.» Q! .’ a. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ as... .63: vraLunr-nmw M u .I. u m 9 3 :IO vat . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ... «A v: 0 fisav. 00» N" m w M n n. N n 9 I O 5 30 AA 5.va . _ _ e Ova... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ eoo vv 0% wt 94 2| O I 7 C 3 I O A 00 0 II II « ... _______..... S _ _ . v3.6 0! um . In an n m 9 T S 4 z I 05.0 are» .5 _ _ _ _ .. ... v... v! _ _ _ _ _ A 00”I..7.Numu H ... . 7 O 3 I I0 3*? Ohk 2| II I ##§ k ...... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ o & Q? b mm m m H m a. a. 4 O a)! «wee .... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .s A. >0? 3:? baconunmn m S a 3 2 IO}: .. _ L _ _ _ _ S o 0‘ «v — _ _ _ Qfié # O O H a H. w 9 I 7 2 I O Q h. (v . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . v 3‘ ’&fl 0 M MN «I. R H m 9 8 7 G 4 3 2 0.9 ha. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ... AR use o Leann“ mmw,m mm 8 432026 .... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .... )0 0‘ «co in .0. II. M B P. m S I 7 5 A 3 I :06 éOAhQ ~\v Q I o k~‘ _ _ _ _ _ . .. va§ 0 m m I o MHIILI’II'SJBLISI I ijfltsmlslfl’u . Copyngm 1972 PsychologIcaI Research Assooates $2.04 by NATIONAL COMFUTII SYSTEMS- “OI Won 76101 M. MIM”IA.M.MI. Foam NO-I02C Ronda-d In.“ ”to manual lo. The Mmflwoo Mumacuc Pauoaohn I Co'ynfil 19‘). Iona—OJ I970; I9SI, 210 3° _. N" '3 MALE T “5.51.33; MINNESOTA MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY 1* 553:6 I'C'CI'SE ‘D'J'I' '35? 57 Storka R. Hathaway, PIT. D. and J. Chomon McKinley, M.D. K K R R T SCORE PROFILE __ Pm... VIIIII K A I ’ ' ? E ....20....3'0....A0....Sb....00 ...7'0....00.. .90. no. no. ..120 ,2. A3 R L 1 I I ' L ” hf, 7 F I I l I F 20. 3'0. .0. 3'0. .0. 1'0. ..0. .90. .100. no. .I20 :9 11 K I I 1 I K I 52 12 .1 3‘y: : :1 : If 2 ' n 20. 3'0. .0. 3'0. 00. 1'0. 00. 00. .I00. I10. Izo__._'"_. S. 19I ° 3 3 1 f 0 AA 24"" I I 1 : H? . .zo. . . .3'0. . ..0. ..b .00. 7'0. .00 00. .100. no. . .120 4' 69[ 21 5‘ 20 :23: ' 1 Qfidx 7. 33’»I I : 1 u“ ..20.. 3'0. ...0. . . ..'0. . . ..0 7'0. .0. ..0 .100. no. ”120...... SR 10' P. E ' 1 3 P.‘ so 23I .5 ’4'; : I : 5;" | . . . .20. . . .1'0. . . .Ao. . . .0'0. . . .30. 7'0. 00. .90 .100. II0. ..120..___;. 57 26 «9 q .31.“ Z 1 I ‘3‘.“ , ..... .............. .... . 9 73 26 1,, 23 .AIa . . .1 Mo L 0 "" ...20....30.....0....sb....so....7'o. 00. so. ..IOO....IIO. “120%. '13 23 5‘ j 1 3 1 5‘ A R E. I ' c. or 0. R. P. S! c. H8 RAVI SCORE—h I 20 55 III! 6 R 18 21 8 Z 30 1° T SCORE —> 16 S9 67 H1 33 37 52 43 TI 3 41 7:530; £333: "fiat". .“L'OI:A.. cmm ovum-In IIWINAICLg’IO-L'LMHIJUDICI ”5:33: CONT-OI. "we. .‘ anclooo. I957 by The UI'IIVOIII'z OI -TENDS TO GIVE SOCIALLY APPROVED ANSRERS REGARDING SELF-CONTROL ANn MORAL VALUES. -PRoaAaLY SENSITIVE AND IDEALISTIC NITH HIGH ESTHETIC. CULTURAL AND ARTISTIC INTERESTS. -RESTLESS AND IHPULSIVE. SCATTERED INTERESTS AND ENERGIES. PROBARLE SUPERFICIAL GAIETY AND OREGARIOUSNESS. -SDNENHAT REBELLIOUS 0R NONCONFORHIST. AVOIOS CLOSE PERSONAL TIES. DISSATISFIED VITH FAMILY OR SOCIAL LIFE. -HAS A COMBINATION OF PRACTICAL AND THEORETICAL INTERESTS. .VIEHS LIFE HITH AVERAGE MIXTURE OF OPTIMISM AND PESSINISM. -RESPECTS OPINIONS 0F OTHERS RITHOUT UNDUE SENSITIVITY. -NUHRER OF RHYSICAL SYMPTOMS AND CONCERN ABOUT BODILY FUNCTIONS FAIRLY TYPICAL FOR MEDICAL PATIENTS. -HAS SUFFICIENT CAPACITY FOR ORGANIZING NORK AND PERSONAL LIFE. -HAS CAPACITY To NAINTAIN ADEQUATE SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS. The Psychological Corporation MIPI Reporting Service 304 East 45th Street New York. N. Y. 10017 ’ 2 l 1 MALE OFFENDER NORMS -— FORM A .._NO NH -3 I4 I! II 0 IS l3 l2— ZO—ID—m— IQ l3 I! I3___ '0— I. I. I5 I4 I2 I5 4 I3__ _ Ia""'fl"_u ‘— I: I: I7 I. I5 I4 T IOBIfl I'D _L LT If IO _L I .I '1“; 7 L1. L15 If U Copyngm 19‘.‘ 9 —- — II —— O —— P‘~vr‘f‘o'ocum| Reapers» A- . T l2 7 BIPOLAR PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY 80 Name II I0 _g_ D —-—_-—_ 9O 00 TO 60 50 40 3cm“ by NAIIUNAL LUM'UHI SYSTEMS- “0! w." Ion- SI- M.nn.a..oI-.,an. Tom PRO-IOJC 212 RD _ NH .4 “LE 7. T I... 5C5“ 5'33: MINNESOTA MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY If. 553:6 25")? '81}? wo'I'I'I' 37 Starke R. Hathaway, PIT. D. and]. CITamIey McKinley, ALD. 2, K K K K T SCORE PROFILE _— PIOIIed WIIh K “h - 7 ‘ ? . D 20. so ...0....Sb....00....70....ao....90....Ioo....IIo. ..Izo E. I- __ L ' l ‘ L "I I \ F 1 F .20....ab.....0....5'0....So....70... ao....90.. .Ioo. ..II0....I20 7 )1 K ' ' I K ‘ . - . . . . . . . g‘ . . . . g . . . . o. I . . 0 O O O O O ‘I [ SZI l? "f“ . .] - II:" 2 ....2o....3'0.....0....s'o....00....70....00....90....Ioo. no. .120 7 :2 I, D . .1 . D J - . . . o . . . . g. . . . . g . . . . t . . . . Q . .- 0 O O 0 j 7}; Hy . . 1 HY ....0....'.....0....'....So....'....0....00....Ioo........Izo ? a ‘ Pd 2 30 S0 70 0 I10 _flpd‘ O. S ‘T 1“ ...; l we! L ;n’MI 1 1: : Ar ....zo....3'o....Ao ...5'0 .50....TO....00....00....100. ..IIo....120 O . . . (.7 7 Pa . 1 p.‘ 7 ......... T. . . . o . . . . f . . . Q g g o . ......... 7 52 24 ‘4 I f: . .1 £2 . 20 3'0 .Ao 5'0 .50. . . .7'0. . . .00. . . .90.. .100 no. .120 . . B 55 as n ’ . ‘ '5‘ 91'. . IK 9 u . . . . o . . . t . . . 9 . . . . T . . . . o . . . - o. . . . . o ......... c ......... 9 68 2A . In If. ; 3 1: .fifl ' ..20....30.....o....so....so....70....00....90....Ioo. IIo. .120 o. a 1‘ ST ' I ' ' SI A R E. Lb c. o, O. R. P. SI C. VB RAw SCORE—> - 11 . 5', 11 I. 7 IR 24 [ A 28 20 I V T scone —> n .0 61 51 A0 3'. '59 59 [ 43 73 3» [ 38 'll'fiY «co-.0 TOO Low CAUDALITV Otl’tuotucv DOMINAIOCE SOCIAL "EJUO|CE sotIAL coon-0L "C-‘C. I‘ACTOI 5"ENGYN I“l “A. IIWRQILITY LTA' " A! solo. -._'1_' Iflvcfi’o Pcuonuhll I OI than URI'L'I'H TENN... I067 E, Th0 Ike. MIncIe Lam MOI! Cop...th I941, Ianewed I970 I95I. Cayman“ Iva-n 9N0 mongol IoI CIQC‘ AMO Fat-3' -TEIns TO AINIMIZE OR SMOOTH OVER FAULTS IN SELF. -1$TAICESO -TFan TO GIVE SOCIALLY APPROVED ANSNERS REGARDING *ELF-CONTROL nPAL VALUES. -pqunaLY ENENGETIC AND ENTHUSIASTIC. -IquPFNUEvT OR MILDLY NONCONFOHIIST. -HAS A COMRINATION OF PRACTICAL AND T“EDQETICAL IATERESTS. -vIqu LIFF NITA AVERAGE ‘IXTURE 0F OPTIMISW AND PFSSIMISW. -NN urn or DHYSICAL SYwPTwMS AND CONCERN AROUT 6”PILY FUNCTIONS v TYPICAL F09 MEDICAL PATIENTS. -HAS SUFFICIENT CAPACITY FOR ORGANIZI G NOFK ANA aENSJNAL LIFE. -hHHIAL MALE INTEREST PATTERN FUR RORK. HURRIES. FTC. -RFKOEtTS OPINIONS OF OTHPRS WITHOUT UdnUE SENSITIVITY. -FNIRAPLY SOCIALLY HUTGOING AND GREGA'IOUS. FuMILY AND VARIFO INIEQFSTS. The Psychological Corporation MMPI Reporting Service 304 East 45th Street New York, N. Y. 1CD]? 213 BIPOLAR PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY OFFENDER NORMS — FORM A MALE NH -4 RD Name..- .OaIa Age __N0. fill] ....N u. 7’ AA \V\ — I A .... .9. mm ...H o . I § ...... _ .1 A0 3 S i Q I ...... u L .3 .0 Z RY. ”mm a I C Us? _ Iv Otoo...‘ «WM .1 o v .«vx’? — _ *V¢°* Q a“ 9 VYOO _ II o. a an d1 A .5 mm H. n ..u... m _ _ _ _ I 3‘ *0 my «.9. on M a z u m S 3 c t I .- .... _ _ _ _ _ I we. N M H H H w 9 8 III .9 a... II .. _ _ _ _ _ e «won 0 00. u n I L \Y I I I I I .. _ _ _ _ _ _ I 0:04 «Nun I ... .I. ..,.. N Z .. _ _ _ _ _ _ I .6 .00 an .0. w .4. u R H /w I .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ s _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .... I v': I A L O n O O o o x w m w m w s w w 2 I o PsydToIogIcal Research Assooales '.‘-nn. ‘0'" PRO-'0L'C Olu. u Nun SI. '.'.m l I): 'xroud II, NATIONAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS— 44‘?" "(I 214 NT __NH -5 ALE ; I... 50;“ 5133:. MINNESOTA MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY E’ 55,2? $5.ng 'C'JI' "all? By Starke R. Hathaway, PIT. D. and 1. Charnley McKinley, “.0. :0 K K x K T SCORE PROFILE —— Plotted mm x .n I“ ? ? g 20 10 .0. so so .70....00... 90....I00....II0....I20 LIZ; . .T L I ' L m ‘3 I. F 1 ' F 20 10 .0. so 50 .7'0. . . .30. .90. . . .100. . . no. no I . K 1 I K L521 17 .‘Hs _1 ‘ H." "' .20....3'0.....0....sb....60....7b....00....90.. .I00. IIo. .Izc.__'5"T 2 . . 2 )9 ' Hy I I 1 I "7' ‘ ...zo....3'0....A0....5'o....60....7'0. ..eo.. .90....I00....IIO....120 L 7]] P." ""‘Ij' Pf‘ ' ' I .P‘d: -. 2: 5 MI . 1 ' m5 . . . .20. .. .3'0... ..0.. ..So. .. ..0....7'0.. ..00.. ...0... .100....110. ...110 . -. rg'Po : :1 : P.‘ 7 O D D O O .- D D O O O 7‘ aq 2? I 1 .Pt ] PT . " .20....1'0....40....s'0....so....7'0. .00....90. .100....110....120 " R1 23 ‘I a c ' 1 " OCR. ‘3 2'7 ' IP'I“? I ' l ' RR "R ..20....1'0.....o....sb....so.. .70....00. .90....Ioo. ..IIO....‘2°_"_2; o . . . . .0 A R E. Lb ca Dy 0. R. P. St c. “H RAw SCORE—... - 16 “'3 In 5 1‘ 1? 18 T 26 2T 9 B T SCORE --.- ‘1 -H :1 43 41 1.2 45 RS (T: L 36 7mm m _-. h" . Low CAuDALIYV OI‘DENOLNCT DOMINANCE SOCIAL "INDIE! SOCIAL CONTROL -PATIPIT PuESENTS SELF IN A FAVORABLE LIGHT PEGAPOT G CONFORMITY. SELF—rUWIROL Ann vORAL VALUES. -SII 'F'IM‘AT ”EHELLIOUS UN NONCONFORMIST. CVUIDS CL'ISE PERSONAL TIPS. DISSATISFIFU WITH FAIILY OR SOCIAL LIFE. .jé'I -Fs-IHI-IAIALY Ff-wEHGFTIC AIVI) E ~sTHUSIASTIC. VDQIF“ INTFRF 3's. Eéi ~IVCLI*ES T~~Auw ESTHETIC INTERESTS. fgz' ~FF5PFCTS "PINIOTS 1F HTHP‘HS «III—IUUT .I~II.UE SENSITIVITY. ’I‘ -n". CFC) IIF JI-TYSIC‘AL SY. PT“NS A It) CONCERN AI-d‘UT «I'DILY FUNCTIONS 33 FquIY rIPIrAL F‘H «EOICAL PATIENTS. EEI -VIF~S LIFE ’ITH AVERAGE "IxTqu 0F OPTIIISM ANr PESSIMISW. é: -PAS A canaluATIOR IE PRACTICAL AND I-EHIETTCAL I-IrHtSTS. 3% -hgs chFIC'ENT CAPACITY ro‘I‘TR JJGAHTZI G JOHK AN' PF-SHNAL LIFE. ;; -P«I»AALY SOCIALLY AJTOOI G Amr GRESA INNS. 8‘...” III Io. "TC Ad Item the mom. QupyI-QRI I943. Tear-ted I970 '95I IL} 9 "V'°" u'. The Psycholoqical Corporatl'o'n MMPI Reporting Service 304 East 45th Street New York, N. Y. 10017 215 BIPOLAR PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY OFFENDER NORMS — FORM A MALE _ No. NH -5 NT NOMOL A5 ..M O O O Ask~fi§$ m w w m w w w 3 z I O utesnun GI O I 7 4 5 4 8 0.9 A; «v 3‘ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 40% « fifih 99‘3”” w 0 I 7 5 4 3 8 l O 99 O! .1 . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .... «new: afrtflflflfl MI... M u m H D a. a O s 4 .I I0 v0 Q e _ _ _ _ _ _ __ § :8 4mm m m u n u n 9 o 7 4 ssot’ «a 3 o w _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ $ \w 0 coon» ....wu mm m u 4 u 7 4 s s a I o Le #02. 6 e8 3‘ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ a. v‘ .V O I .l vg £54.? k a! MUM-Ia BM l m 9 O 3 4 3 2 O .390! kw.» . _ _ _ _ . V'OOQ— — — — _ Q45 o ununnuuuumo a 7 o s s ....oa. 3.. s: _ _ _ _ _ 7g k! . 0*? one nwuuu m a o 4 3209.: «.3 A ...... _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ... 9v 35?! wonuuun I 4 s 4 3 : Ioée ..____ ___... «v «a a6 gnu an H w 9 U 7 5 3 l 0 Obb xv.» «vb .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . h. .13; (vb e v m Mum u u H m 9 a 4 s 4 3 z 0&9 a. s _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _§ Ac 0 gQflWW W H u n H nlv 7 5 4 3 2 0&3 are. Jo 6. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ‘00 07.0. 6 4 n n H m 9 7 4 8 4 3 I364 offs... _.-_.-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _o o s¢_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . g: I °\V' A m 0 O o o o o o o o i w w 0 7 6 5 w 3 2 I -oHI flu 71LTI0MHT71‘H IIIzleTzl 1 I Copynght 1972 Psychological Research Assocnates 1i $caucd by NAVIONAl COMPUTER SUSIEMS— 440| We“ 760‘ SLanropoEI. MIMI. lam MO-‘03C 2115 HI. _ NH -6 ; “ALE ‘n .R :5. 523;; MINNESOTA MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY - R 5‘53: i'THE ”SJ? Nola? 87 Starke R. Hathaway, Ph. D. and J. Charnley McKinley, 04.0. K K K K T SCORE PROFILE —— Plotted With K T 7 _ _ . ? ..2o.. .30....40. ..so....so....7o....ao....9o.. .Ioo. ..IIo....Izo 2 :6 A L L ' 1 - I L m ...zo... 3b. .40. 5b....so ...7b....ao.. .90....100....110...120___I a: 1% K 5 ' I f K ‘ ......... o. o . . . . o. - . . . a O- ......... . a 0 O ‘. ST 14 R? A 5:“ : ' 1 . fl5< ..2o....3o. ..ao.. s'o... 50....7o.. .oo. ..90. ..100.. no. .120 2 .3 2? ° ' : 1 : ° 3 .............. o T . . . o . . o. ......... a o a o J :6 2n "v 1 Hy ‘ ..2o....3b....Ao. .5b....60....1'o. ..ao....9o....Ioo. ..Iio....Izo s ......... o. a T . . o . . . o. ......... o .............. o . :o 2; “5 . . 1 . MI .20.. 3'0. .40. so. ..50 7b.. .00.. . .90....100. no. .120 I 13 1‘ Pa ' I .1 P06 7 - . . - o . . . . t . . . . g . . . . .g . . . . g - . . . g. .............. Q a ..... 7‘ 64 30 a7 15 .3; - . l . g: a 20. .3I). .40. .sb. .so . . 7b. 50. 90. .100. no. .120 I ~ - . . 5 65 30 ‘7 1‘ .fi : ' 1 32 9 ......... f o ......... g . . . . o. .............. o o ..... ___?.| 13 26 7f} 23 3‘2““ - ' 'l f?“ o ' 20. 3'0. .40. . . .s'o. . . .eo. .. 7b.. .30. .90 me. no. 320 ' 0 A R E. Lb c. a, O. R. P: so Cn Uri RAw SCORE-O- 1:. L9 43 13 110 23') 17 15 14 18 97 10 T scone —o- a: I57 43 66 ‘51 ‘51 56 3T 54 51 '35 41 FMSV SECOND (60 L0“ (LOCALITY OKDINOCNCV DOMINANCE 50(‘AL "(JUDICI SOCIAL CONYIOL VACYON VA(VOI SYIENCYH IKI FA. IISWSIDILWV STAYU’ ex.- mnc yolo. __1 _ Um'auill (II—bi Poitonom Invent hosyc AA on... 957 b, m.- ’67—— octoio .— Copyngh! ‘9‘3. levucd I970 IYSI .‘O~§ lowed»: ed hon-I The manual la: The Hm PDQRwHLE SUDERFIrIAL GAIETY AN“ GREGARIOUSHESSo -I-IIIEPE"IDENT OR MILDLY NONCONFHRMIST. -TENnS TOWARD AQSTRACT INTERESTS SUCH AS SCIENCE. -TEMpS To leE SOCIALLY APPROVED ANSWERS RFGAPDIVG SELF-CONTROL AND «ORAL VALUES. -TOUcHY. OVERLY RESPONSIVE To oPINIONS 0F OTHERS. I CLINED To BLAME OTHERS FDR GIN DIFFICULTTES. -RESTLESS AN“ IMPULSIVE. SCATTFRED INTERESTS AN» FNFRGTES. PELIOTUN. FATQ‘ -c0Nsc1ENTIOU$. ORDEPLY A“D SELF-cnITICAL. -MILOLY DEPDESSED on PESSIMISTIC. -INCLINES TONARD ESTHETIC INTEDESTS. -NUMuEP OF PHYSICAL SYMPTIMS AND CONCEQ“ ARHUT Y TYPICAL FUR MEDICAL DATTENTS. -HAS CAPACITY TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE SOCIAL QFLATIOMSquS. The Psychological Corporation MMPI Reporting Service 304 East 45th Street New York, N. Y. 10017 3’“ILOSPHY AND 5unILv FUNCTIONS 21I7 BIPOLAR PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY OFFENDER NORMS -- FORM A MALE 0an Age No. H - Nome L__NH 6 s” v \ —I0—'fl—" — zo— IO—I. _- I. '4 I3 I7 IO IO LOI‘II‘KIZI'TIBIB’I‘HHT flfij’IIéI .114] V I: Copynght 1972 PsychoIogical Research Assoc-ates II..\. lv‘dflfl. PM 'IV' uxuoht. Scoocd by NAIIUNAI Lumrulu ‘HSIINIS- «W Van rota II. _-.'..... 218 PS _NH -7 MALE , 5:3; MINNESOTA MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY SITIOTEIE S'VC'TSE a}? WORST. By Starke R. Hathaway, Ph. D. andJ. Charnley McKinley, “.0. K K K K T SCORE PROFILE — PIO'INI VIII“ K ? I I I T . . ..zo... .Jb....40....sb....so.. ..7'0. .. .00.. . .90....100....HO....I20 . L . 1 I L 1 F 1 F .zo....3b....‘0....s'0....60....7b....oo....90....IOO....HO....12° a a o g ......... p .............. a g .._.—1 [ 541 IR -. 7‘H- 1 "9 'sn . . . 91K .20. . . .30. . . .Io. . . .so. . . .oo. . . .70. . . .oo... .90. . ..100... .110.. ..I20_ ,7 in: D . . l O .4. MRI» : I I ' Hv’ .. ..20....Ib....40....sb....60....7b-...ao....90....100. . . .IIo. . . .Iaa__. [—691 27 .a (1‘ Pd. 1 Z 12 '4‘ '.4K , , _ 9.4x .’.I PA MI 1 ' “'5 .20. . . .3b. . . .Io. . . .sb. . . .eo. . . .7b. . . .30. . . .90. . . .Ioo. . . .no. . . J20 . -. q‘P. ‘ '1 ‘ P.‘ 73 3A ., 2R’f: : : :1 5" I zo .. so .. no... so .. so .. 7b.. .00 90 100 no no . n 31 I. 0'3.“ 3 : l : gen 60 21 ul li°89 3 3 l .flf "K ....2o. . . .I'o. . . .Ao. . . .s'o. . . .so. . . .7'o. . . .oo. . . .90. . . .Ioo. . . .IIo. . . .120 ' o I 3:0 $6 I I 1 ' Si A R E. Lb C. Dy O. R. P. 5. c. '9 RAY-SCORE» .' I4 .30 1? 18 3‘ 7 15 21 20 23 T5 T SCORE _.- ~/- 1.7 27 6? 56 ) 2a 60 67 65 35 -DATIF~T Tq AanE OF AND CONCERNED AROUT ASOCTAL ATTTTUDES AND EMOTI”NII l‘””LSES nUI UNABLE TO CONTROL THEM. -< EHHQT TENSE ANn RESTLESS. -IHIFosTELY DEPRESSED, NOQRYING AND pESSTMISTICo 5; -TE, R TOnARD ARSTRAcT INTERESTS SUCH AS SCIENCE. PRILOSPHY AND T; “FLINTU '9 :5 -RwrchLY QFSERVED IN UNFIMILIAH SOCIAL SITUATIONS. I“, -1.cL1.fs TuuARn ESTHETIC 1hTERESTS. i? -NLINER OF DdYSICAL SYMPTIMS Auu coucERN AROUT anILY FUNCTIONS 25' FATRIY IvuchL FOR REHICAL PATIENTs. g: -H:$QFcTS I»1~10ms 0F UTHFPS wTTHOUT HNDUE SENSITIVITY. ‘3)- Her I I IBL‘ “\IN‘VIII I04 INC Munncgnh.) 5". I970 IVSI R 9 0d ed Ion Copynuhl ‘9‘]. 'lffl‘ The Psychological Corporation MMPI Reporting Service 304 East 45th Street New York, N. Y. 1(1)]? -vodl 219 BIPOLAR PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY OFFENDER NORHSP-FORH A MALE No.2“ ‘ NH -7 PS .3333 n a m w u w w m m o A mlsffl_w“umfl I _I 1. C 8. I 8 O ...-.._ -_ _ _ _ _ __ _ .335: nflgul.w I I 1. I 4 3 .l I o . ....._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 83.3 \RMWMBMBM H D I I I I 4 lilo AAescsxv yatfurw K Wm M_ _ R “u h a_ I_ .1 H.S.JH \ ...-3......F-_.._ .. _- _ ._ L _. _--_ . ....._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 5'33 & RMDHMM P» H D I I 7 I I 4 3 2 I O f. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0% fflflflnuuflflHWO O I 5 4 3 RIO A.£c!_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ LEG _flfl “_flnu m I 1. I u. 4 S .1 0 ._ ...!H _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ bflflilcc I I.B I. w I I g. I .a 4 I. I I 0 _ 33-3.... .. -_ _-_. _ .._- - 33:: _____ )3! Lu W “mum" H mu m I fl. my I. 5_ 4 3 2 0 _ nsn€fghwnumw w M an n ._ I. I .r . .g a. a. I a. O ......L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ "nun w M mu m H w I 7 I I 4 .a I .._ ._ _ _ _ _ L _-_.._.-_ _ _ _ _ ELTQII3I1I‘5I7/I 0L ‘7.I f [OTIOI‘IIIJLIIIEIHX $T.I~CVN OAEI 9‘. utsmsmILIYv STATUS -9. LLY aa.bIIIVt now IIEALIQTIC mlld HIhH EST~FYIC. CULTURAL ll IE: I," I! T‘ PILQTQ. _.I- LIFE air. AVEFQGF IxTuzF or UNTIMIQM AN °=QSIMISN. -r - :PuCYIY I» thVI.1N AUEOHATE SOCIAL :FLATqufi'IPS. 52" - 1' I r. I“ .5! A I‘ sCTlVITY LFVFLo It: -('-' II "' L 9 V'R‘LLLISIIC A .I) CUI‘IFuHMiNG. 2;; -. . (“I .1 "AI I'IN 'IF PRIVTICAI. AM) THEIRETICAL 1"TERESTS. 23:. .. 14mm. 35 -.. L. LI a =F«3I¢‘. YEWDS In «E EbeEO DE».:LI~G .ng I-rk t-‘I ‘zL'eI'lcc. 2:3 ~I'r :IT'I‘ Ln ’HLQII‘ I4. :.1TTLE CONCF '01 AH “IT 6 -TI " HEALTH. 61:0 ; E. The Psychological Corporation MMPI Reporting Service if. .5 304 East 45th Street «U New York, N. Y. III-317 225 BIPOLAR PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY N OFFENDER NORMS — FORM A MALE I00 — — —- —II—Io—II-—II—II— — —— -— _. no ';2II..~. 33335332 I '0 II II II '3 " I7 I. II " I1 II ' ’0 —’—Ie— —II—II_II_"'._II—I1— _II_,.—Io_ ’0 I4 1: " II II I4 " ’ II I . I I3 I. I4 '° ‘— _"—In—"_'°‘—Io_'°_u—Is— "" —"_0_ '° ’ I3 . II I! 7 I. O 70 __ __I2_II_”_._.__ __m—H I3___,,__,_ 10 . II II '0 D ID I " IO -— ——.°—'°—- —’—. .—0 "— —.— IO I 7 . 5 b 3 ’ T 7 II I so -— —-,—.—-.— — — 7—, —o— 0 so 8 ‘ I 4 . 5_ ._ — .0— _4 I ‘0 ‘ 7 _s s ‘——s—— —-I—- 30 4 4 3 . e e 4 —,—‘— —1— .— to g 2 7 ' ' _. __ ——I—3—— —-- — —I 3— 'IO , I ' t | I ' g t I . o—o._0—O—O——O—o— — ——I O 3.253;};f35ffi5 & ~ If“ 6? of? 3 v: o6“ o. c J \" .3 v a; o‘” .3 g “006' o.‘' I‘IlfitIliIHflMSTfl 110lol7l . CopyIIgI'It 1972 PsydIoIogch Reeeerch AssooaIes BIBLIOGRAPHY 226 BIBLIOGRAPHY Anastasi, A. Psychology of testing. New York: MacMillan, 1968. Austin, A. W. A factor study of the MMPI psychopathic deviate scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, Ausubel, D. P. Causes and types of narcotic addiction: A psychological view. Psychiatric Quarterly, 1961, 35, 523-531. Ball, J. C. Social deviangy and adolescent personality; an analytical study with the MMPI. Lexington, Kentucky: University of Kentucky Press, 1962. Belleville, R. E. MMPI score changes induced by lysergic acid diethlyamide (LSD—25). Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1956, 12, 279-282. Blachly, P. H., Pepper, B., Scott, W., & Bagarz, P. Group therapy and hOSpitalization of narcotic addicts. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1961, 5, 393-396. Bogg, R. A., Smith, R. G., & Russell, S. D. Drugs and Michigan high school students. The final report of a study conducted for the Special Committee on Narcotics. Michigan Department of Public Health, April, 1969. Bullington, B., Munns, J. G., Brown, C. C., & Savage, C. The drug abuse controversy. Baltimore, Maryland: National Educational Consultants, Inc., 1971. Bullington, B., Munns, J. G., Geis, G., & Ranger, J. Concern- ing heroin use and official records. American Journal of Public Health, 1969, 59, 1887-1893. Byrd, O. E., & Byrd, T. R. Medical readings on heroin. San Francisco, California: Boyd & Fraser, 1972. Cavior, N., Kurizberg, R. L., & Lipton, D. S. The devel- Opment and validation of a heroin addiction scale with the MMPI. International Journal of Addiction, 1967, 2, 129-137. 227 228 Cohen, A. K. Deviance and control. New Jersey: Prentice- Hall, Inc., 1966. Cronbach, L. J. Essentials of psychological testing. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1960. Cushman, P. Methadone maintenance in hard-core criminal addicts. New York State Journal of Medicine, 1971, 71, 1768-1774. Dahlstrom, W. G., & Welsch, G. S. An MMPI handbook. Min- neapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1960. Dole, V., Nyswander, M., & Wagner, A. Successful treatment of 750 criminal addicts. Journa1_of the American Medical Association, 1968, 206, 2708. Drake, L. E., & Oetting, E. R. MMPI codebook for counselors. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1959. Drug dependence in Michigan. Lansing: Michigan Department of Public Health, 1969. Edwards, A., Bloom, M., & Cohen, S. The psychedelics: Love or hostility potion? Psychological Repgrts, 1969, 24, 843—846. Felix, R. M. An appraisal of the personality type of the addict. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1944, 100, 462-467. Fenichel, O. The psychoanalytic theory of neurosis. New York: W. W. Horton, 1945. Fort, J. The pleasure seekers: The drug crisis, youth and society. New York: Grove Press, 1969. Gallagher, J. J. An investigation of selected non-intellectual and certain personality variables, and their rela- tionship to heroin addiction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1973. Gallup, G. Pot gains in college. The Detroit Free Press, January 17, 1971. Gendreau, P., & Gendreau, L. The addiction-prone personality: A study of Canadian heroin addicts. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 1970, 2, 18-25. 229 Gerard, D., & Kornetsky, C. A social and psychiatric study of adolescent opiate addicts. Psychiatricguarterly, 1954, 28, 113-125. Gilbert, J. G., & Lombardie, D. N. Personality characteris- tics of young male narcotic addicts. Journal of Counseling Psycholggy, 1967, 31, 536-538. Glover, E. The prevention and treatment of drug addiction. Lancet, 1931. Glover, E. The prevention and treatment of drug addiction. Journal of Narcotic Addiction, 1932, 13(16). Good, P. K., & Brantner, J. P. The physician's guide to the MMPI. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Min- nesota Press, 1961. Greaves, G. MMPI correlates of chronic drug abuse in hos- pitalized adolescents. Psychological Reports, 1971, 29, 1222. Haertzen, C. A., Hill, H. E., & Monroe, J. J. MMPI scales for differentiating and predicting relapse in alcoholics, opiate addicts, and criminals. Inter- national Journal of Addiction, 1968, 3, 91-106. Hathaway, S. R., & Meehl, P. E. An atlas for the clinical use of the MMPI. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Univer- sity of Minnesota Press, 1951. Hathaway, S. R., & Monachesi, E. D. MMPI patterns of normal, delinquent! dropout and other outcomes. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1963. Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory manual. New York: Psycho- logical Corporation, 1951. Hill, H. E., Haertzen, C. A., & Davis, H. An MMPI factor analytic study of alcoholics, narcotic addicts and criminals. Quarterly Journal on Study of Alcoholics, 1962, 23, 411-431. Hill, H. E., Haertzen, C. A., & Glaser, R. Personality characteristics of narcotic addicts as indicated by the MMPI. Journal of General Psychology, 1960, 62, 127-139. 230 Hill, H. E., Haertzen, C. A., & Yamahoro, R. S. The addict physician: A Minnesota multiphasic personality inven- tory study of the interactions of personality char- acteristics and availability of narcotics. In A. Wikler (Ed.), The addictive state. Baltimore, Maryland: Williams and Wilkins, 1968. Hinsie, L. E., & Campbell, R. J. Psychiatric dictionary. New York: Oxford Press, 1970. Holloran, D. P. The personality characteristics of middle and upper middle class adolescent drug abusers. Arizona: Arizona State University Press, 1972. Howell, R. J., Payne, R. I., & Roe, A. V. Bipolar psycho- logical inventory administration manual. Provo, Utah: Psychological Research Associates, 1972. Ingham County Jail Inmate Rehabilitation Program. Referral- Intake Coordinator: Report Courtesy of Mike Bellah, Ingham County Jail, Mason, Michigan, 1972-73. Lansing Police Department. Report Courtesy of Kenneth Preadmore, Sheriff, Ingham County, Mason, Michigan, Lanyon, R. I. MMPI gropp profiles. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1968. Larner, J., & Tefferteller, R. The addict in the street. New York: Grove Press, 1964. Lombardi, D. N., O'Brein, B. J., & Isele, F. W. Differen- tial responses of addicts and non-addicts on the MMPI. Journal of Projective Techniques and Per- sonality Assessment, 1968, 32, 479-482. Maurer, D. W., & Vogel, U. H. Narcotics and narcotic addic- tion. Springfield, Illinois: Thomas Publishers, 1967. McAree, C., Steffenhagen, R. D., & Zheuthlin, L. Personality factors in chronic drug abusers. Intgrnational Journal of Social Psychology, 1969, 15, 102-106. McAree, C., Steffenhagen, R. D., & Zheuthlin, L. Personality factors and patterns of drug usage in college stu- dents. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1972, 128, 7. 231 McNell, J. H. The pharmacology of drugs of abuse. The Governor's Office of Drug Abuse, State of Michigan, 1972. Meehl, P. E., & Rosen, A. Antecedent probability and the efficiency of psychometric signs, patterns or cut- ting scores. Psychological Bulletin, 1955, 52, 194-216. Mill, J. S. A system of logic. London: Longmans, Green & Company, 1930. Monroe, J. J., & Lyle, W. The extension of psychopathic deviancy scales for_the screening of addict patients. Educational Psychology Measurements, 1967, 24, 47-56. Nicholson, W. N. A Guttman facet analysis of attitude- behaviors toward drug users by heroin addicts and mental health therapists. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972. Olds, J. Pleasure centers in the brain. Scientific American, 1954. Olsen, R. W. MMPI sex differences in narcotic addicts. Journal of General Psychology, 1954, 71, 257-266. Pennington, L. A. PsychOpathic and criminal behavior. In L. A. Pennington & I. A. Berg (Ed.), An intro- duction to clinical psychology. New York: Ronald Press, 1954. Pescor, M. A statistical analysis of the clinical records of hospitalized drug addicts. U.S. Public Health Reports, 1943, Suppl. 143. Pope, B., & Scott, W. H. Psychological diagnosis in clin- ical practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967. Preadmore, Kenneth. Personal interview, January 10, 1973. Prichard, J. D. A treatise on insanity and other disorders affecting the mind. Philadelphia: Haswell, Parrington, & Haswell, 1837. Pryor, A. B. Relationships of the Minnesota multiphasic per- sonality inventory and the bipolar psychological inventory to each other and to incarceration. Dis- sertation Abstracts International, 1972, 32(7-ATT— 232 Rado, S. The psychic effects of intoxicants. Jo. VIII, 1926. Rado, S. The psychoanalysis of pharmacothymia. 0. II, 1933. Richard, L. G., 5 Eleanor, E. C. Illicit drug use and addiction in the United States. Public Health Reports, 1970, 85, 1035-1041. Rosen, A. Test-retest stability of MMPI scales for a psy- chiatric population. Journal of Consulting Psy- ChOlOEY, 1953' 17’ 217-2210 Sheppard, C., Ricca, E., Fracchia, J., Rosenberg, N., & Merlis, S. Cross-validation of a heroin addiction scale from the Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory. The Journal of Psychology, 1972, 81, 263-268. Smart, R., & Feijer, D. Illicit LSD users: Their Social background, drug use and psychOpathology. Journal of Health & Social Behavior, 1969, 10, 297-308. Smart, R., & Jones, D. Illicit LSD users: Their personality characteristics and psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1970, 75, 286-292. Smith, G. N., Semke, C. W., & Beecher, H. K. Objective evidence of mental effects of heroin, morphine and placebo in normal subjects. Journal of Phage macology & Experimental Therapy, 1962, 136, 53-58. Smith, R. F., & Smith, L. S. Overdose aid. Michigan Office of Youth Services & Law Enforcement, Assistance Administration. State of Michigan, 1971. Stanton, J. M. Group personality profile related to aspects of anti-social behavior. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, & Political Science, 1956, 47, 340- 349. Straus, N. III. Addicts and drug abusers: Current approaches to the problem. New York: T. Wayne Publishers, 1971. Suchman, E. A. The comparative method in social research. Rural Sociology, 1964, 29(2), 123-264. 233 Suchman, E. A. The intensity component in attitude and opinion research. In S. A. Struffer (Ed.), Measurement and prediction. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950. Sutker, P. B. Personality differences and sociopathy in heroin addicts and non-addicts prisoners. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1971, 78(3), 247-251. Tribby, D. Public Health Director. Written report. Unpublished, presented at a Mental Health Board Meeting, 1970. U.S. Congress. Marihuana and health. 2d Annual Report to Congress from the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, 1972. U.S. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Admin- istration of Justice. Task force report: Narcotics and drug abuse. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1967. U.S. Select Committee on Crime. Heroin and heroip para- phernalia. 9lst Congress, 2d Session, 1971. U.S. Special House Committee on Narcotics. Drug dependency in Michigan--Part III: A study of attitudes and actions of the young peOple of Michigan. H.R. No. 256, December 16, 1968. Vaillant, G. E. A twelve year follow-up of New York nar- cotic addicts: In the relation of treatment to outcome. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1966, 123-127. Wakefield, D. The addict. Greenwich, Connecticut: Fawcett, 1963. Warner, D. Drug dependence in Michigan. Lansing: Michigan Department of Public Health, 1969. Welsh, G. S. Factor dimensions A & R basic readings on the MMPI in psychology and medicine. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1956. White, R. W. Theabnormal personality. New York: Ronald Press, 1956. Wikler, A. Opiod addiction. In A. M. Freedman and H. I. Kaplan (Ed.), Comprehensive textbook of psychiatry. Baltimore, Maryland: Williams & Wilkins, 1967. 234 Wikler, A., & Rasor, R. W. Psychiatric aspects of drug addiction. American Journal of Medicine, 1953, 14, 566-570. Willis, J. H. Drug dependence: Some demographic and psy- chiatric aSpects in U.K. and U.S. subjects. British Journal of Addiction, 1969, 64, 135-146. Additional References Bender, L. A visual motor gestalt test and its clinical use. New York: The Merican Orthopsychiatric Association, 1938. Buros, O. K. The seventh mental measurements yearbook. New Jersey: The Gryphson Press, 1972. Vol. I & II. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders.. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Associa- tion, DSM-II, 1968. Hamersma, R. J., Paige, J., & Jordan, J. E. Construction of a Guttman facet designed cross-cultural attitude- behavior scale toward racial interaction. Educa- tional and Psychological Measurement, 1973, in press. Hazelrigg, L. Prison within society. New York: Doubleday & Company, 1969. Hightower, J. H., & Aycock, J. Emergency services: Behind the scene rehabilitative crisis intervention in an urban community. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1973, in press. Jordan, J. E. Attitude-behavior research on physical- mental-social disability and racial-ethnic differ- ences. Psychological Aspects of Disability, 1971, 18, 1, 5-28(b). Jordan, J. E., Kaple, J., Maclean, C., & Nicholson, W. A facet theory model for studying attitudes toward addiction/dependency: Some cross-cultural findings. Abstracts, 2nd International Symposium on Drug Abuse, Jerusalem, May 28-31, 1972. Jordan, J. E., Kaple, J. M., & Nicholson, W. N. Attitude- Behavior Scale-DU. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1971. 235 Kaple, J. M. Development of an attitude-behavior toward drug users scale employing guttman facet design and analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971. Meehl, P. E. Clinical vs statistical prediction. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1964. Sax, G. Empirical foundations of educational research. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1968. Sixty Minute Program. Transcript data from documentary, Fall, 1972. United States Treasury Department. The traffic habit- forming narcotic drugs, 1923. HICHIGRN S we UNIV. LIBRARIES I W“IWIN"WW"IIIVWIIIIWWHI 93 1 01 91 31 2 1 312