A STUDY OF THE SELF-ESTEEM AND
RELATED BACKGROUND FACTORS OF
NEW REFORMATORY INMATES

Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNWERSITY
ROBERT E. JOHNSON
1968

    
   

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

A Study of the Self-Esteem and
Related Background Factors of
New Reformatory Inmates

presented by

Robert E. Johnson

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in Education

%//

Riggs/protege“

 

Dam Jul 25, 1968

 

0-169

 

Unwcrsity

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

A STUDY OF THE SELF-ESTEEM AND RELATED
BACKGROUND FACTORS OF NEW
REFORMATORY INMATES

by Robert E. Johnson

The purposes of this study were to examine whether
the self-esteem of inmates is low when compared with the
self-esteem of a civilian population and to examine twelve
inmate background factors that might influence inmate self—
esteem at the time of incarceration. These purposes were
posed as thirteen questions in the study.

Self-esteem was defined as that element of the self-
configuration which results from positive or negative self-
valuing with the goals and ideals of the person as a
standard of reference, and was seen as a strong motivational
factor in behavior change, and hence important in design of
correctional education programs. Self-esteem was measured
through use of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, a ten item
seven-point Guttman—type scale.

The inmate population consisted of 153 Negro and 182
white "first timers" entering the Michigan Reformatory be—
tween September 1, 1965 and June 1, 1966, ranging from

seventeen through twenty-two years of age. The civilian

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Robert E. Johnson

population used for comparison with the white inmate pop—
ulation was a reasonably representative one consisting of
390 white twelfth grade males from three high schools in
a large city.

The inmate background factors studied in relation
to self-esteem were race, age at admission, work experi-
ence, school grade level attained, mothers' or fathers'
attitudes toward inmates, parental family cohesiveness,
marital status of parents, the age (of the inmates whose
homes were broken) at the time the home was broken, the
inmate's age at the time of his first recorded delinquency,
the time served in institutions as a juvenile, and the
length of the current minimum sentence.

Self—esteem scores were obtained by administering
the scale to inmates on their arrival at the Reformatory,
and to the civilians in September, 1965, in school. Data
for inmate background factors were derived from the inmate
classification records of the Reception Diagnostic Center

of the Michigan Department of Corrections.
\ The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the dis-

T

tributions of self-esteem scores of the white inmate and
white civilian populations. Pearson correlation coeffi-
cients were calculated by computer to describe the rela-
tionships between inmate self-esteem scores and the twelve

inmate background factors.

 

 

 

 

Robert E. Johnson

The two major findings were: 1) The distribution of
the self-esteem scores of the white inmate population did
not differ significantly from the distribution of self-
esteem scores of the reasonably representative civilian
population of white twelfth graders, and 2) such very
slight correlation coefficients between inmate self-esteem
and the inmate background factors were found that none of
the background factors appeared to have more than the
slightest influence on inmate self—esteem scores.

The following conclusions were drawn:

1. The data do not support the assumption that in—
mate self—esteem at the time of incarceration is lower
than the self-esteem of the civilian population used in
this study.

2. The data do not support the assumption that the
self-esteem of Negro inmates is lower than the self-esteem
of white inmates.

3. The data support the assumptions that very small
relationships would be found between inmate self-esteem
and age of inmates, the marital status of inmate's parents,
and the age (of inmates whose homes were broken) when their
homes were broken.

4. The data do not support the assumptions that
relationships would be found between the self-esteem of
inmates and school level attained, work experience, atti-

tudes of mothers or fathers toward the inmates during

 

Robert E. Johnson

childhood, the cohesiveness of the family home, the age
at which the inmate's recorded delinquency began, the
prior time served by the inmates as juveniles, or the cur-
rent minimum sentence.

5. The background factors studied do not account

for the observed variation in self-esteem scores.

Implications were drawn from these conclusions and

suggestions made for future research.

 

A STUDY OF THE SELF-ESTEEM AND RELATED

BACKGROUND FACTORS OF NEW

REFORMATORY INMATES

BY

Robert E. Johnson

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Administration
and Higher Education
College of Education

1968

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fFCopyright by
ROBERT EDWIN JOHNSON

1969

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to express sincere appreciation to my advisor,
Professor Russell J. Kleis, not only for his guidance and
painstaking assistance in this research, but also for the
buoyant enthusiasm, cheerful encouragement and dedicated
scholarship which characterized his help.

I am grateful to Drs. Wilbur Brookover, George Myers,
and Buford Stefflre for the time and assistance they gave
as members of my guidance committee. I wish to thank Dr.
Andrew Porter, Natalie Sproull, and David Wright for the
valuable suggestions and criticisms which they offered.

Other individuals contributed to the completion of
the research reported here, including Drs. E. L. V. Shelley,
Donald Thurston and Mr. Robert Glass of the Michigan Depart—
ment of Corrections. Appreciation is extended to the in-
mates of the Michigan Reformatory who participated in the
study and to the inmate clerks who assisted the project.

Finally, thanks to my wife, Relda Jean, my daughters
Valerie and Jennifer, and son, Steve, without whose inspira-
tion, understanding, sacrifice, and work this effort would

not have come to fruition.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .
LIST OF TABLES .
LIST OF FIGURES .

CHAPTER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Need for the Study . . . . . . . .
Purpose of the Study . . . . . . .
The Problem Statement . . . . . .
Objectives for Study . . . . . . .
Questions . . . . . . . . . . . .
Definitions . . . . . . . . . . .
Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . .
Limitations . . . . . . . . . . .
Overview of the Thesis . . . . . .

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . .

The Self and Self-Esteem .

The Nature of Self-Esteem . . . .
Studies of Self-Esteem . . . . . .

Backgr

ound Characteristics . . . .

Personal Data . . . . . . . . .

Race . . . . . . . . . . . .
Age at Admission . . . . . .
Work Experience . . . . . .
Educational Achievement . .

Early Home and Family Influences.

Mother's Attitude toward the
Inmate . . . . . . . . .
Father's Attitude toward the
Inmate . . . . . . . . .
Climate of Parental Marriage
Marital Status of Parents .
Age at which Parental Home
Broken . . . . . . . . .

iv

 

Page

ii
vi

viii

 

CHAPTER

Criminal History . . . . .
Age at First Attention of
Officials . . . . . . . .
Prior Time Served in
Institutions . . . . . .
Minimum Sentence . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . .

III. RESEARCH SETTING AND POPULATION . . .

The Setting of the Study . . . . .
The Reception—Diagnostic Center
The Classification Process . .
Michigan Reformatory . . . . .
Reformatory Treatment Programs

The Reformatory Inmates . . . . .

The High School Senior Boys . . .
Summary I I I I I I I I I I I I I
IV. METHODS AND PROCEDURES . . . . . . .

The Measure of Self-Esteem . . . .
The Scale . . . . . . . . . . .
Scoring . .

Reproducibility and Scalability
Validity . . . . . . . . . . .

Administering the Scale to Inmates

Administering the Scale to Twelfth
Grade Males . . . . . . . . . .

The Background Factors . . . . .

Statistical Tools and Analyses . .

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . .

V. PRESENTATION OF DATA . . . . . . . .

Question 1 Inmate and Civilian Self-

Esteem . . . . . .
Question 2 Race and Self— Esteem . . .
Question 3 Age and Self- Esteem . .
Question 4 Work Experience and Self—

Esteem . . . . .
Question 5 School Grade Level and

Self- Esteem . . .
Question 6 Mother's Attitude and Self—

Esteem . .

Question 7 Father's Attitude and Self-

Esteem . . .

00

Question
Self— -Esteem . . . .

Family Cohesiveness and

o o O o u I

Page

57

59

95
98
100
102
104
107

109

CHAPTER

VI.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Question 9

Question
Question

Question

Question

Summary

Summary

Conclusions

10 Age When Home Broken and

12 Time Previously Served as
Juveniles and Self—

Parents'

and Self-Esteem .

Self-Esteem .
11 Age When Delinquency Began
and Self—Esteem .

Esteem
13 Minimum Sentence and Self-
Esteem

Discussion of Results

Inmate and Civilian Self— Esteem
Inmate and Self- Esteem and Back-

ground Factors

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . .

APPENDIX

A.

THE ROSENBERG SELF-ESTEEM SCALE

vi

0

0

Marital Status

0

 

Page

113
115
115

118

123
123

127
127
130
131
131
134
138
146

146

TABLE

LIST OF TABLES

Frequencies of scores, and frequencies as
percents, for white inmates and white
civilians on the Rosenberg Self—Esteem
Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Frequencies of scores, and frequencies as
percents, on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem
Scale for white and Negro inmates . . . .

Frequencies of scores, and frequencies as
percents, on the Rosenberg Self—Esteem
Scale of inmates by age . . . . . . . . .

Frequencies of scores, and frequencies as
percents, on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem
Scale for inmates with work experience
and for those without work experience . .

Frequencies of scores, and frequencies as
percents, on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem

Scale for inmates by grade level attained
in school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Frequencies of scores, and frequencies as
percents, on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem
Scale for inmates whose mothers' attitudes
were judged healthy and for those whose
mothers' attitudes were judged unhealthy.

Frequencies of scores, and frequencies as
percents, on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem
Scale for inmates whose fathers' attitudes
were judged healthy and for those whose
fathers' attitudes were judged unhealthy.

Frequencies of scores, and frequencies as
percents, on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem
Scale for inmates from homes judged to be
harmonious and for those from homes judged
to be non—harmonious . . . . . . . . . .

 

Page

96

98

100

102

107

109

111

 

 

 

 

TABLE

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

 

Frequencies of scores, and frequencies as
percents, on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem

Scale for inmates whose homes were broken,

and for those whose homes were not broken

Frequencies of scores, and frequencies as
percents, on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem

Scale for inmates whose homes were broken
by their age at the time their homes were
broken . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Frequencies of scores, and frequencies as
percents, on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem
Scale for inmates by age at their first
recorded delinquency . . . . . . . . . .

Frequencies of scores, and frequencies as
percents, on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem
Scale for inmates by length of time in-
stitutionalized as juveniles . . . . . .

Frequencies of scores, and frequencies as
percents, on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem

Scale for inmates by the length of their
current minimum sentence . . . . . . . .

0

Summary of correlation coefficients showing

relationships between self-esteem scores
and background factors of inmates . . . .

viii

Page

113

116

119

121

124

126

 

F ‘— “an"

   

FIGURE

1.

 

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Distribution of scores on the Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scale of white inmates and

white civilians with frequencies converted

to percentages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Distribution of scores on the Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scale of white and Negro in—

mates with frequencies converted to

percentages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Distribution of scores on the Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scale of inmates by age with
frequencies converted to percentages . . . . 101

Distribution of scores on the Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scale of inmates with work

experience and those without work experi—

ence with frequencies converted to

percentages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Distribution of scores on the Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scale of inmates by grade

level attained in school with frequencies
converted to percentages . . . . . . . . . . 106

Distribution of scores on the Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scale of inmates whose mothers'
attitudes toward them were judged healthy

and those whose mothers' attitudes were

judged unhealthy, with frequencies con-

verted to percentages . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Distribution of scores on the Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scale of inmates whose fathers'
attitudes were judged healthy and those

whose fathers' attitudes were judged un-

healthy, with frequencies converted to
percentages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

ix

 

,L-L-n.

FIGURE

8.

10.

11.

12.

13.

Distribution of scores on the Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scale of inmates from homes
judged to be harmonious, and those from
homes judged to be non-harmonious, with
frequencies converted to percentages . . .

Distribution of scores on the Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scale for inmates whose

homes were broken, and those whose homes
were not broken, with frequencies con-
verted to percentages . . . . . . . . . .

Distribution of scores on the Rosenberg
Self—Esteem Scale of inmates whose homes
were broken by their age at the time
their homes were broken, with frequencies
converted to percentages . . . . . . . . .

Distribution of scores on the Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scale of inmates by age of
their first recorded delinquency, with
frequencies converted to percentages . . .

Distribution of scores on the Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scales of inmates by length
of time institutionalized as juveniles,
with frequencies converted to percentages

Distribution of scores on the Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scale of inmates by length
of their current minimum sentence, with
frequencies converted to percentages . . .

 

Page

112

114

117

120

122

125

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

The need and purpose of this study are set forth in
this chapter, followed by the problem statement. The ob-
jectives and questions to be answered are presented. Defi-
nitions, assumptions, and limitations of the study precede

the final section which provides an overview of the thesis.

Need for the Study

 

One of the most important problems in correctional
education concerns those elements of the self which influ-
ence an inmate's ability to utilize rehabilitatively the
treatment and educational programs now available to him as
a result of the "new penology." One of those elements,
the self—esteem of inmates, and its relationship to se-
lected inmate background factors provides the central focus
of this study.

An examination of the theoretical base of self-esteem
indicates that it is one of the important elements of the
self that influences the individual's motivation toward
change and learning. Knowledge of the level of self-esteem

of inmates at incarceration should contribute to more

 

 

 

 

 

enlightened decisions concerning the substance and aims

of correctional education.

In a review of the literature a scarcity of basic
information and empirical research regarding self-esteem
was found. Though assumptions were found in the litera-
ture regarding the "low self—esteem" of inmates, and its
relationship to background factors, no empirical studies
were found that investigated self-esteem of inmates in
particular nor its relationship to background factors of
inmates.

Evidence that inmates were not able to use the
learnings available to them in prison treatment and edu-
cational programs is found in the high recidivism rate
of offenders leaving prison. James V. Bennett reported
that between 55 and 70 percent of prisoners released re-
turned to prison within five years.1 In a study made in
Massachusetts, Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck found that dur-
ing parole 55 percent of the parolees studied "committed
serious breaches of parole conditions, including commission
of new crimes,"2 and that 80 percent of 422 men studied

during a five year period following expiration of parole

 

1James V. Bennett, "Evaluating a Prison." Annals
of the American Academy of Political and Social SCience,

 

2Sheldon Glueck and Eleanor Glueck, 500 Criminal
Careers (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1930), p. 169.

 

 

committed offenses.l Metzner and Weil reported in a study

of 311 men released from a Massachusetts reformatory in
1959, that 56 percent returned to prison within two and
one-half years.2

Perhaps the most comprehensive study recently made
of recidivism was Glaser's study for the University of
Illinois-Ford Foundation Research Program in the Federal
Correction System. Every tenth man was selected from a
list of those released from federal prisons in 1956. In
1960, it was found that of the 1015 cases studied 35 per—
cent returned to prisons, 52.2 percent "had no further
criminal record whatever," and 12.8 percent were involved
in minor contacts with the law.3 These rates of recidivism
indicate that though other factors may have been critical
in parole or post-parole failure, the correctional programs
participated in by the individual did not adequately enable
him to cope with problem situations that prompted his return
to prison.

The goal of the "new penology" as given by Schnur

is closely related to the reduction of recidivism. He

 

1Ibid., p. 184.
2Ralph Metzner and Gunther Weil, "Predicting Re-
cidivism." Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and

 

Police Science, 54, (September, 1963), P. 307-316.

3Daniel Glaser, The Effectiveness of a Prison and
Parole System (Indianapolis, Ind.: The Bobbs-Merrill Co.
InC., 1961,, P. 19-20.

 

 

says, "It is to get men ready, as rapidly and economically

as possible, to go out and stay out by returning them to
society, as useful, law-abiding, self-supporting, self-
reliant, independent citizens who will not contribute to
the commission of crime by others—-men who obey the law

because they want to and not because they are afraid not

Ill

to. The main responsibility for achieving this goal has

been given to those responsible for correctional treatment
and education.

The function of the "new penology" was defined as
re—education by Frank Jacobson and Eugene McGee who sug-
gested that correctional institutions need to become
educational institutions where

The total institution is organized to surround the
incarcerated delinquent with a system of experiences
which teach socially acceptable, self-actualized be-
havior in an atmosphere favorable to learning. The
total institution, plus necessary new services,

should be so organized that the adolescent is mobi-
lized to "internalize values, norms, goals, expecta-
tions, responsibility, limits, status, belongingness,
identification and alternative approaches." This is
the essential character of the total push, the thera-
peutic milieu or treatment community in the mental
health field. The atmosphere of the correctional
institution can be designed so that the delinquent's
only response possible is to change, by real learning,
in the direction of increased personal-social adequacy.

 

1Alfred C. Schnur, "The New Penology: Fact or Fic-
tion," Penolo , ed. Clyde B. Vedder and Barbara A. Kay
(Springfield, 111.: C. C. Thomas, 1964), p. 3.

2Frank Jacobson, Eugene McGee and Richard Jessor,
Re-Educating Confined Delinquents (Washington: U.S. Dept.
of Justice. Bureau of Prisons, 1964), p. 79.

 

 

 

 

 

 

For many years the popular view held by Americans

has been that "education" is a cure-all for nearly every
social malady. "Education" has been used by the dominant
middle class in the United States to transmit its values
and culture to succeeding generations, and to change the
values, as well as the socialization and behavior patterns
of the many varied sub-cultures found within the United
States. The changes sought have been in the direction of
conformity with the dominant middle class values which
have shaped our codified system of norms. It was not
difficult for the American public, when the gradual shift
occurred from punitive patterns to therapeutic patterns
for violators of societal norms and mores, to conclude
that "education" would encourage the desired conformity
with middle class values, mores and folkways.
This view was repeated as recently as 1959 in the
Manual of Correctional Standards, published by the Ameri-
can Correctional Association:
Extensive education opportunities for inmates have
been made available in all modern correctional in-
stitutions. No lengthy defense need be presented
here for the maintenance of a sound educational pro-
gram adequately staffed and financed. The value of
education in our society--to which most prisoners
will return--has been dramatically underscored by
recent scientific developments both here and abroad.
Also though, unfortunately, little factual informa-
tion is available as to the power of formal education
to change prisoners' attitudes, a belief in its po-

tentialities and paramount importance in a treatment
program is widely held.

 

lAmerican Correctional Association, Manual of Cor-
rectional Standards, 1959 (New York: The American Correc—
tional Association, 1959), p. 316.

 

 

 

Correctional education has become an important,

though specialized area of adult education, providing
educational treatment programs for young adult and older
adult individuals in penal institutions. The idea that
"education is good for prisoners" has quite generally gone
unchallenged. The result has been the development of a
wide range of educational programs in correctional settings
with only a few making provision for evaluation of these
programs or their effects upon the prisoners.
The need for basic research in corrections was em-
phasized by Schnur, who said:
The correctional process--probation, institutions,
parole-—is operated in relative ignorance today.
Correctional decisions are made today upon the basis
of blind hunch, faith, intuition, whim, dramatic.
circumstance, and so called common sense, when they
should be made upon the basis of the uncommon sense
that emerges from a statistical analysis of data des-
cribing the client and the process. No research has
been done to date that enables us to say that one
treatment program is better than another or that en-
ables us to 103k at a man and say this is the treat—
ment he needs.
Furthermore, E. H. Johnson, speaking of the lack of infor-
mation about the behavior of criminals needed to develop

treatment programs said, "There is little evidence con-

cerning the specific constellation of general attributes

 

1Alfred C. Schnur, "Correctional Research: Review
and Critique," Penolo , ed. Clyde B. Vedder and Barbara
A. Kay (Springfield, 111.: C. C. Thomas, 1964), p. 315.

 

 

 

which compose the etiology of a given offender."l Quay2

and Glaser3 spoke of this lack of similarly.

The design of adequate treatment programs needed to
attain the goals of the "new penology" depends in part on
our understanding of the inmate personality. This study
was directed to increasing our understanding of one criti-
cal part of the inmate's self structure, his self-esteem.
We looked at the inmate's self-esteem at the time he ar-
rived at the correctional institution to begin treatment.
The relationship between self—esteem and certain background

characteristics of inmates also was investigated.

Purpose of the Study

 

The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine
the nature of new youthful offenders' self-esteem at the
time of incarceration. Empirical evidence was sought to
support or reject the commonly held assumption that the
self-esteem of new inmates is low when compared with the
self-esteem of a civilian population. An effort was made
to discover what relationships, if any, exist between a

new inmate's self—esteem and certain background factors.

 

1Elmer Hubert Johnson, Crime, Correction and Society
(Homewood, 111.: The Dorsey Press, 1964), p. 49—50.

2Herbert C. Quay, Juvenile Delinquency (Princeton,
N. J.: D. Van Nostrand Co. Inc., 1965), p. 139.

 

3Glaser, op. cit., p. 497.

 

The implications of the findings for correctional educa—

tion and further studies of inmate self-esteem are

examined.

The Problem Statement

 

Three major questions emerged for study:
I. What is the distribution of measured self-
esteem of newly incarcerated inmates?

II. How does the discrete distribution of measured
inmate self-esteem at time of incarceration
compare with that of a civilian population?

III. Which of several selected background factors
of new inmates are related to their measured
self-esteem and in what direction (i.e. to
either high or low self—esteem) are they

related?

Objectives for Study

 

Two general objectives were suggested by the above

questions for this study:

I. To determine whether the distribution of self—
esteem scores of inmates at the time of incar-
ceration differs from the distribution of self-
esteem scores of a civilian population of twelfth
grade males.

II. To examine the relationship and its direction

between measured inmate self-esteem at the time

 

 

 

of incarceration and the following background

factors:

A. Personal Data

1. Race

2. Age at time of incarceration
3. Work experience

4. Educational achievement

CD

Early Home and Family Influences

. Mother's attitude toward inmate

. Father's attitude toward inmate

. Parental family cohesiveness

Marital status of parents

Age at which parental home broken, if
broken.

U'lobWNH

0

Criminal History

1. Age at first attention of officials

2. Prior time served in penal institutions
as juvenile

3. Minimum sentence.

These objectives were restated as questions.

Questions

1. Does a difference exist between the distribution
of self-esteem scores of newly incarcerated white inmates
and the distribution of self-esteem scores of a white
civilian population of twelfth grade males?

2. What correlation exists between self-esteem
scores and the race of inmates?

3. What correlation exists between self-esteem
scores and the age of inmates?

4. What correlation exists between self-esteem

scores and work experience of inmates?

 

 

 

 

 

10

5. What correlation exists between self—esteem
scores and school grade level attained by inmates?

6. What correlation exists between self-esteem
scores and mother's attitude toward the inmate?

7. What correlation exists between self-esteem
scores and father's attitude toward the inmate?

8. What correlation exists between self-esteem
scores and family cohesiveness?

9. What correlation exists between self-esteem
scores and marital status of parents?

10. Among inmates whose childhood homes were
broken, what correlation exists between self-esteem
scores and inmate's age at time home was broken?

11. What correlation exists between self-esteem
scores and age at which delinquency began?

12. What correlation exists between self-esteem
scores and length of time served in penal institutions
as juveniles prior to current committal?

13. What correlation exists between self-esteem

scores and minimum sentence?

Definitions
1. Self-esteem--that element of the self con-
figuration which results from positive or negative self-
valuing with the goals and ideals of the person as a

standard of reference.

 

 

 

11

a. high self-esteem-—valuing the perceived self
as worthy, self-respect, self—satisfaction.

b. low self-esteem--va1uing the perceived self
as unworthy, self-contempt, self—dissatisfaction.

2. Measured self-esteem--self—esteem measured by

 

the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale and distributed on a con-
tinuum from 0—1 (high) to 6 (low).

3. Newly incarcerated inmates--young white or Negro
adult persons, seventeen through twenty-two years of age,
on the date of their committal to Michigan Reformatory as
a result of conviction for crimes.

4. Recidivists--persons returned to prison as a
result of committing crimes or breaking parole regulations
after their release. Those who fall back into criminal
behavior after release from prison.

5. Background factors--taxonomic designation of
certain aspects of the inmate and his etiology prior to
his incarceration, as established by the professional
staff of the Michigan Department of Corrections Reception-
Diagnostic Center1 on the basis of presentence reports,
interviews, and tests.

a. race of inmates--designation of the inmates
as Negro or white on the Inmate Data Cards. Inmates with

other racial background were removed from the study.

 

1Michigan, Department of Corrections, Statistical
Manual, Section III, January 1, 1957.

 

 

 

 

 

12

b. age of inmates—-derivation of age in years
of inmates from the birth year indicated on Inmate Data
Cards. Birth years ranged from 1943-1948, yielding an
age range of seventeen through twenty-two years.

c. work experience of inmates--indication on

 

the Inmate Data Cards as to whether inmates were or were
not gainfully employed before their arrest.

d. school grade level attained by inmates-- g
designation of the "highest grade or year of school com-
pleted" by the inmates on the Inmate Data Cards.

e. father, mother, or parents of inmates--
designates either "natural parents or parent substitutes
if the maternal or paternal parent substitutes were the
first parents known to the offender during his childhood."
The designation reflects the judgment of the Reception-
Diagnostic Center staff in response to this definition.

f. mother's attitude or father's attitude

toward the inmate--description of the influence of the

 

parents, defined in paragraph "e," judged as healthy or
unhealthy by the professional staff of the Reception-
Diagnostic Center. A healthy attitude indicates "love,
affection, good discipline and training." An unhealthy
attitude is "rejecting, permissive of anti-social
behavior, indulgent, dominating, inattentive, or

inconsistent."

 

 

 

 

 

13

g. family cohesiveness--description of the climate
of the inmate's parental home as harmonious or non-harmoe
nious. Harmonious is used to "describe a good or adequate
marital relationship." Non-harmonious describes a rela-
tionship that was judged to be "discordant," marked by
"serious friction, or little or no cohesion." The judgment
is that of the RDC staff and is designated on the Inmate
Data Cards.

h. marital status ofgparents--defines whether

 

or not the inmate's parents "live together as a married
couple." The status is indicated on the Inmate Data Card.

i. inmate age at timegparental home was broken,

 

if broken--the age of the inmate designated on his data
card, when his parents ceased to live together as a
married couple.

j. age at which delinquency began--designation

 

on the Inmate Data Card of the age at which the "offender
was first recognized as a behavior problem by authorities
concerned with delinquent or antisocial behavior."

k. length of time served in penal institutions

 

prior to current committa1--the length of time shown on

 

the data card, spent by the inmate as a juvenile in insti—
tutions, jails or workhouses, prior to his conviction for
a state offense resulting in incarceration in a state

penal institution for youthful offenders.

 

wr-flfl "" a“? “1’3": - '-

 

 

 

 

l4

1. length of minimum sentence-—the designation

 

on the Inmate Data Cards of the minimum sentence imposed
by the court on the inmate as a result of conviction for

a crime against the state.

Assumptions

This study makes the following assumptions:

1. Self-esteem exists and is measurable.

2. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale measures self-
esteem.

3. The data supplied by the Michigan State Depart-
ment of Corrections represents an accurate evaluation of
the inmate's background factors by the professional staff

of the Department.

Limitations

1. Because this study utilizes intact groups,
generalization is limited to those groups.

2. Data input of background factors is limited to
data available from the Michigan State Department of
Corrections.

3. Self-esteem scores are those derived by the
Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale at the time of incarceration.
There is no assurance that they reflect self-esteem at

other times.

 

 

15

Overview of the Thesis

In Chapter II, the literature of studies relevant
to the study of self—esteem is reviewed. This is followed
by a report of the search of studies pertinent to the self-
esteem of inmates. Next, studies relating background fac-
tors to self—esteem are examined. A discussion of rela-
tionships suggested by the literature and a summary conclude

the chapter.

 

Chapter III includes a description of the unique
setting for the study. The Reception-Diagnostic Center,
the center's classification process in which inmate back-
ground factors are identified, and the Michigan Reformatory
are described. A delineation of the inmate and civilian
population used is also presented.

The methods and procedures used in the study are
outlined in Chapter IV. A description of the Rosenberg
Self-Esteem scale, a rationale for its selection as the
measure of self-esteem used in this study, and the pro-
cedure followed in its administration are set forth. The
background factors and the source of data concerning them
are presented. The statistical tools used in describing
the relationships existing between the variables are de-
tailed and followed by a summary statement.

Chapter V is a presentation of the data and the
findings resulting from their analysis. A summary of the

findings concludes the chapter.

 

16

A summary of the entire study, conclusions, and a
discussion interpreting the results and drawing implica-
tions from them for further study constitute the final

Chapter VI.

 

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Studies of the concept of the self, and particularly
of global self-concept or self-image have been reported
often by behavioral scientists; however, few researchers
have focused attention on the particular elements or as-
pects of it. Among those studies which have looked at
specific mechanisms and processes within the broad concept
of the self are the "self-concept of academic achievement"
studies by the Brookover teams at Michigan State Univer-
sity.1 Morris Rosenberg studied the self-esteem of high
school students in relationship to certain social back-
ground factors.2

In this chapter the literature of the nature and
conceptual development of the self and self-esteem is
reviewed. The result of the search for studies of self-

esteem, and of self-esteem of prison inmates and delinquents

 

lWilbur Brookover et a1. Self—Concept of Ability
and School Achievement (East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan
State University, Office of Research and Publications,
1962).

 

 

2Morris Rosenberg, Society and the Adolescent Self-
Ima e (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press,
1965).

 

l7

 

 

 

18

in particular is reported in the following section. Next,
the relationship of self—esteem to certain background
characteristics of inmates is explored. Finally, the im-

plications are discussed and summarized.

The Self and Self-Esteem

 

The study of the self-esteem of inmates is based on
the writings by the theorists of "self" and "personality"
who approach the "self" from psychological and sociologi-
cal orientations. The observable or measurable "self"
which they describe assumes the existence of the "self."
This study makes the same assumption and is not concerned
with philosophical or theological arguments regarding the
ontological nature of the "self," nor the currently un-
measurable unconscious self.

William James defined the person's self as the
1

sum
total of all that he can call his." G. H. Mead says,
"The self, as that which can be an object to itself, is
essentially a social structure, and it arises in social
experience."2 Jersild speaks of the self as "a person's

3

total subjective environment." He further defines self

 

1William James, The Principles of Psychology (New
York: Henry Holt and Co.,’1890, 1918), p. 291.

 

2George Herbert Mead, Mind, Self and Society (Chi-
cago: The University of Chicago Press, 1934), p. 140.

 

3Arthur Thomas Jersild, In Search of Self (New York:
Teachers College, Columbia University, 1952), p. 18.

 

 

 

 

19

as "a composite of thoughts and feelings which constitute
a person's awareness of his individual existence, his con-

ception of who and what he is."1

Purder and Hand say
that, "A man's Self, his 'Phenomenal' or 'Unique' Self,
is the hidden key to his learning behavior, and is formed
through his internalizations of what he thinks others

think of him."2

These general definitions suggest that
the self is a totality of experience and awareness. How-
ever, they do not inform us regarding the nature of the
parts which compose the self.

More help is found in the definitions of Landsman
and Rogers. Landsman writes, "It (the Self) is the cen-
tral aspect of personality, consisting of a number of
organized, defined objects or ideas, each with a corres-
ponding attitude indicating its adequacy in the eyes of
the person who is literally looking at himself and judging

himself."3

Landsman describes the self as consisting in
part of value attitudes held by the self towards the self.

Rogers defines the structure of the self as

 

lIbid., p. 9.

2William H. Purder and S. E. Hand, "Personality
Factors Which May Interfere with the Learning of Adult
Basic Education Students," Adult Education Journal XVIII
(No. 2, 1968),P. 81-93.

 

3Ted Landsman, "The Role of the Self-Concept in
Learning Situations." High School Journal XLV (April,
1962), p. 289-295.

 

 

 

20

an organized configuration of perceptions of the
self which are admissable to awareness. It is com-
posed of such elements as the perceptions of one's
characteristics and abilities; the percepts and
concepts of the self in relation to others and to
the environment; the value qualities which are per-
ceived as associated with experiences and objects;
the goals and ideals which are perceived as having
positive or negative valence. It is, then, the
organized picture, existing in awareness either as
figure or ground of the self and the self-in-rela-
tionship, together with the positive and negative
values which are associated with those qualities
and relationships, as they are perceived as exist—
ing in the past, present, or future."

 

Self-esteem is viewed here as one of the elements
of the self-configuration. Self-esteem is that element
of the self-configuration which results from positive or
negative self-valuing with the goals and ideals of the

person as a standard of reference.

The Nature of Self-Esteem

 

The conceptual development of self-esteem has a
short, but interesting history. William James, as early
as 1890, when psychology as science was emerging from

mental philosophy, defined self-esteem in the classic

Success "2

———————q———-. He noted that
Preten31ons

formula: "Self-esteem =
self—esteem can be increased either by increasing the
numerator, success, or by decreasing the denominator,

pretensions. Satisfaction with actual successes achieved

 

1Carl R. Rogers, Client—Centered Therapy (Boston,
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1951), p. 501.

 

2James, op. cit., p. 310—311.

 

 

 

 

 

 

21

and liking one's self is high self-esteem. Low self-
esteem stems from disappointment in failure to realize
one's "supposed potentialities" or "aspirations."

Cooley's discussion of the reflexive nature of the
self,1 G. H. Mead's emphasis on the cognitive processes
and role of the generalized other in the formation of the
concept of self,2 and Combs and Snygg's stress on the phe-
nomenal self and behavior3 contributed to the theoretical
base of this study.

The reflexive nature of the self was first described
by Cooley when he wrote:

In a very large and interesting class of cases the
social reference takes the form of a somewhat defi—
nite imagination of how one's self—-that is any
idea he appropriates--appears in a particular mind,
and the kind of self-feeling one has is determined
by the attitude toward this attributed to that other
mind. A social self of this sort might be called
the reflected or looking-glass self:

"Each to each a looking—glass

Reflects the other that doth pass."
As we see our face, figure, and dress in the glass,
and are interested in them because they are ours,
and pleased or otherwise with whom according as they
do or do not answer to what we should like them to
be; so in imagination we perceive in another's mind
some thought of our appearance, manners, aims, deeds,
character, friends, and so on and are variously af-
fected by it.

A self-idea of this sort seems to have three

principal elements: the imagination of our appearance

 

lCharles Horton Cooley, Human Nature and the Social
Order (New York: Charles ScribnerTs Sons, 1902, 1922).

2G. H. Mead, op. cit.

3

Arthur W. Combs and Donald Snygg, Individual Be-
havior (Rev. ed.; New York: Harper & Row, I959).

 

22

to the other person; the imagination of his judgment
of that appearance, and some sort of self-feeling,
such as pride or mortification.
Cooley's discussion of the manner in which the self-idea
or self-concept is formed emphasized one's evaluation of
the way he is perceived by others. The individual builds
his concept of self out of the reflections of himself

mirrored back to him by others and evaluates the self he

sees reflected. These evaluations result in self-feelings

 

of pride or mortification as suggested by Cooley and these
self-feelings suggest that the self—valuing process has
occurred. The self-esteeming process is implicit in
Cooley's description.

G. H. Mead added to Cooley's contribution of the
importance of reflection of affect by emphasizing the
cognitive processes and reflective thinking.2 He stressed
the role of the generalized other in the cognitive process
saying:

It is in the form of the generalized other that the
social process influences the behavior of the indi-
viduals involved in it and carrying it on, i.e., that
the community exercises control over the conduct of
its individual members; for it is in this form that
the social process or community enters as a determin-
ing factor into the individual's thinking. In abstract
thought the individual takes the attitude of the
generalized other toward himself, without reference
to its expression in any particular other individuals;
and in concrete thought he takes that attitude in so

 

lCooley, op. cit., p. 183-184.

2G. H. Mead, op. cit., p. 173.

 

 

23

far as it is expressed in the attitudes toward his be-
havior of those other individuals with whom he is
involved in the given social situation or act. But
only by taking the attitude of the generalized other
toward himself, in one or another of these ways, can
he think at all; for only thus can thinking—~or the
internalized conversation of gestures which consti-
tues thinking-—occur. And only through the taking by
individuals of the attitude or attitudes of the
generalized other toward themselves is the existence
of a universe of discourse, as that system of common
social meanings which thinking presuppposes as its
context, rendered possible.

The generalized other, then, is important to the genesis
of the concept one develops of himself and throughout life
provides a frame of reference for self-evaluations. Eval-
uations based on this frame of reference are not affective
only, but are cognitively based on the "internalized con-
versation of gestures which constitutes thinking."

The role of the self and of self-evaluation in re-
lationship to behavior was suggested by Combs and Snygg
in their discussion of the phenomenal self. They said:

The perceived, or phenomenal, self includes far more
than the physical aspects of self. Perceptions of
the self as strong, honest, good—humored, sophisti-
cated, just, guilty, and a thousand other qualities
may be a part of the phenomenal self of a particular
individual....the phenomenal self may include, by
identification, persons and objects entirely outside
our physical selves.

. . . We have defined the perceptual field as the
universe, including himself, as it appears to the in-
dividual at the moment. Although behavior is always
determined by the total field, that portion which the
individual regards as part or charateristic of himself
influences almost all of his behavior. Since it is
always the self which is perceived as behaving, be avior
must always be appropriate to the phenomenal self.

 

lIbid., P. 155—156.

2Combs, op. cit., p. 44.

 

 

24

Combs and Snygg further recognized the dynamic nature of
the self as changing, evolving, and causing one to enhance
his self-concept. They continued:
A changing world requires changes in the organization
of the self if it is to be maintained. Because we
are aware of the future and must maintain ourselves,
in the future as well as in the present, it is neces—
sary to enhance the self against the exigencies of
tomorrow.

To achieve this self-adequacy requires of man
that he seek, not only to maintain his existing orga—
nization, but also that he build up and make more
adequate the self of which he is aware. Man seeks
both to maintain and enhance his perceived self.

The effort of the individual to maintain his self
and enhance it is constantly influencing his behavior.

The effort is based on the frame of reference acquired

and internalized in the self-structure from the generalized
other and on the evaluation of self made in terms of this
frame of reference. Thus the individual not only sees
himself as object, but evaluates the self he sees, and

acts in accordance with that evaluation.

Hall and Lindzey have suggested the self-as-object
and self-as—process dichotomy in their analysis of various
self—theories.2 Based upon these insights from the dis-
cussions of Cooley, G. H. Mead, and Combs and Snygg it

was assumed in this study that self-as-object (self-concept,

self-image, self—picture, and self-esteem) and self-as-process

 

lIbid., p. 45.

2Calvin S. Hall and Gardner Lindzey, Theories of Per-
sonality (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1957), p. 468.

 

25

(self-conceiving, self-imagining, self-picturing and self-
esteeming) exist in simultaneous interaction within the
self at the level of awareness.

Self-concepts, self-images, self-pictures are per-
ceived as objects by the person's self. In and of them-
selves they are not "high" or "low," "adequate" or l
"inadequate" to the self until a valuation is placed on

them.. The high-low, adequate-inadequate valuations are

 

the result of a valuing process, self—esteeming. Self-
esteeming is thus seen as an important intervening variable
between the Gestalt of an individual's background experi-
ences and significant persons and his self-concept.
Bertocci defined the ego as "the critical—value-complex"
and said, "the self can know itself and its relations to
the world, and the ego symbolizes for the self a particu—
lar evaluation of that self's predicament."l

Indicative of the interest in self-esteem and the
importance attached to its relation to motivation were
the writings of several psychologists and personality
theorists. MacDougall classified self-regard as a senti-
ment which strongly influences conduct and serves to sus-

tain efforts.2 Allport underlined the importance he

 

1Peter A. Bertocci, "The Psychological Self, The Ego,
and Personality," Psychological Review, 52 (1945),
p. 91—99.

 

2William MacDougall, Character and The Conduct of
Life (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1927), p. 90.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

’rllm

["7

Ne

 

26

gives to self-esteem saying:

Self-love and pride are universal in human nature.
. . . Every day we experience grave threats to our
self-esteem: we feel inferior, guilty, insecure,
unloved. Not only big things but little things

put us in the wrong. . . . The ego sweats. We suf-
fer discomfort, perhaps anxiety, and we hasten to
repair the narcissistic wound.

The individual's drive to maintain a high level of '
self-esteem has been described by Sullivan. He has sug-

gested that some individuals characterized by customarily

 

low self—esteem exhibit anxiety and may seek to minimize
this anxiety through concealments and social isolation,
may channel their anxiety and disjunctive motivations in
interpersonal relations by exploitative attitudes and
substitutive processes, or may manifest them in dissocia-
tive processes.2 Horney similarly described these pro-
cesses in her discussion of the neurotic person.3 The
protection of the self has been studied by personality

theorists, such as Jersild,4 Gates,5 and Stagner.6

 

1Gordon W. Allport, Pattern and Growth in Person-
ality (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1961),
p. 155.

2Harry Stack Sullivan, The Interpersonal Theory of
Psychiatry (New York: W. W. Norton, 1953” p. 351.

3Karen Horney, Self-Analysis (New York: W. W. Nor-
ton, 1942), p. 63—66.

4Jersild, op. cit., p. 18.

5Arthur I. Gates et al., Educational Psychology
(3d ed.; New York: Macmillan, 1948), p. 682.

6Ross Stagner, Psychology of Personality (3d ed.;
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc., 1961), p. 197.

 

 

27

Murray contrasted the needs abasement and achieve-
ment and implied that they were opposite poles of self-
regard in his need system.1 Maslow emphasized that "all
people in our society have a need or desire for a stable,
firmly based, usually high evaluation of themselves for
self—respect, or self—esteem, and for the esteem of '
others."2 Rogers proposed that liking of one's self as

"a quiet pleasure in being one's self" is one of the im-

 

portant objectives and outcomes of therapy.3 The indivi-
dual's drive to satisfy the need for an enhanced self-esteem
becomes a powerful motivational force.

The importance of self-esteem was found also in the
anthropological writings by Kardiner,4 Honigmann,5 and
M. Mead.6 They suggested that each culture provides ways

to enhance or limit the self—esteem of its members. In

 

1Henry A. Murray et a1. Explorations in Personaligy
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1938), p. 161-166.

 

2Abraham Harold Maslow, Motivation and Personality
(New York: Harper & Row, 1954), p. 90.

 

3Carl R. Rogers, On Becoming a Person (Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Co., 1961), p. 87.

 

4Abram Kardiner et al. The Psychological Frontiers
of Society (New York: Columbia University Press, 1945).

 

5John J. Honigmann, Culture and Personality (New
York: Harper & Brothers, 1954Y.

 

6Margaret Mead, Male and Female (New York: William
Morrow & Co., 1949).

 

 

28

the various cultures, patterns have evolved which enable

the individual to develop a personality meaningful for

living in the particular culture. Erikson described the

impact of the positive resolution of his eight crises on

self-esteem in American culture saying, "This self-esteem,

confirmed at the end of the major crises . . . grows to '

be a conviction that one is learning effective steps to- [1

ward a tangible future, that one is developing a defined [

personality within a social reality which one understands."1 -
G. H. Mead stressed the role of the "generalized

other" in the formation of the concept of one's self.2

This input into the individual's self-structure is the

influence of "the organized community or social group

which gives to the individual his unity of self."3 Numer-

ous studies have illustrated that along with a dominant

culture and its value system, mores, folkways, and norms,

subcultures may exist with their own values, mores, folk—

ways, and norms. These subculture systems are often in-

consistent or even incompatible with the dominant culture

system. The modal personality of a dominant culture may

 

1Eric Homburger Erikson, "Growth and Crises of the
'Healthy Personality'," Personality in Nature, Society,
and Culture, ed. Clyde Kluckhohn and Henry A. Murray (2d
ed.; New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1959), p. 216.

 

 

2G. H. Mead, op. cit., p. 154.

31bid., p. 159.

 

 

 

29

vary considerably from the modal personalities of various
coexistent subcultures.

A close relationship is posited between self-esteem
on the one hand, and significant persons and cultural ex-
perience on the other. Anderson placed emphasis upon the
influence of significant people saying, "Without signifi— l
cant people or without their pressures and assumptions

and attitudes to cause the self-image to be formed and

 

have content . . . , the growing child, and, later, the
adult would have nothing to measure up to, to rebel against,
or to stop him."1 The experiences and influences of the
cultural and societal background and the significant per-
sons create a framework of criteria against which an
individual evaluates himself. The self-structure or self-
image is composed of elements each of which is valued,
according to Anderson, on the basis of "the acceptability
of the trait to the significant people."2 Anderson com—
mented, "If there is any discrepancy between these values
and those of the culture in which they live, it will be
the standards of the significant people the child will
structuralize, provided he derives a sense of security

from these significant people."3

 

lCamilla M. Anderson, "The Self-Image: A Theory of
the Dynamics of Behavior." The Self in Growth, Teaching,

and Learnin , ed. Don E. Hamachek (New York: Prentice-Hall,
I965), p. 9.

3

 

21bid., p. 12. Ibid., p. 7.

 

 

30

An individual influenced by a subculture system (a
generalized other) or by a significant person having the
values of such a system will incorporate these values in
his self-structure. These values will become his refer-
ents in the self-esteeming process though they may be
inconsistent with the values and norms of the dominant
culture. Thus, if he violates the dominant culture's
law, but in so doing behaves consistently with the struc-
turalized values of his subculture or significant person,
his self—esteem will remain high.

In contrast to this conclusion, it is often assumed
by members of a dominant norm—setting culture that those
who violate its laws have failed to measure up to its sys-
tem, and as failures must have low self—regard or low
self-esteem. It is commonly believed that the violator
has failed and cannot consider himself a success.

A recent study undertaken at the Federal Correc-
tional Institution at Englewood, Colorado, for planning
a re-education program, was built in part on this assump-
tion. It listed as one of its basic assumptions that
inmates "tended to suffer from self-deprecation and self-
defeat as a result of viewing themselves as unworthy,
'bad,‘ and incompetent."1 The purposes listed for a

phase of the newly developed program included an effort

 

lJacobson, op. cit., p. 5.

 

 

 

 

 

31

to "modify their (assumed) underlying concept of themselves
as unworthy and unable or unlikely to 'amount to anything'."1
This poses the problem for correctional education of
determining whether the self—esteem of new inmates entering
treatment is lower than, or is similar to, or even higher
than the self-esteem pattern of a normal population. The
present study sought to explore this problem. Our theoreti-
cal base suggested that the self-esteem of new inmates might

be similar to the self-esteem pattern of a normal population.

Studies of Self-Esteem

 

Despite the many discussions of self-esteem and the
importance attached to it, surprisingly few studies have
investigated it as a separate process. Many studies approach
self-esteem tangentially as part of the self-concept but
few have studied it directly. No studies were found which
directly measured the self-esteem of youthful offenders at
the time of incarceration.

Current interest in self—esteem and the diversity of
its application is indicated by several recent studies.

Sears and Sherman2 examined the self—esteem of eight ele-

mentary school children using the case study approach.

 

lIbid., p. 6.

2Pauline S. Sears and Vivian S. Sherman, In Pursuit
of Self-Esteem (Belmont, Ca1if.: Wadsworth Publisfiing Co.,
1964).

 

32

Lefkowitzl examined the self-esteem of industrial workers
using Bills Index of Adjustment and Values.

Wylie, in her comprehensive study of self-concept,
noted that agreement is lacking among a number of experi—
mental studies of self-regard and induced success or
failure. She observed that this is because ". . . each
study involved a unique combination of assumptions, pro-
cedures, and measuring instruments."2

Most relevant to our study was Rosenberg's study
of adolescent self-image.3 Rosenberg defined self-esteem
as "a positive or negative attitude toward a particular
object, namely, the self."4 By high self-esteem he means
"that the individual respects himself, considers himself

5

worthy." He said that "Low self-esteem, on the other

hand,implies self-rejection, self-dissatisfaction, self-

contempt."6

This definition corresponds closely to that
developed in our theoretical discussion.
Rosenberg devised a self-esteem scale intended to

measure directly the individual's self-esteem and produce

 

lJoel Morris Lefkowitz, "Self Esteem of Industrial
Workers" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Western Reserve
University, 1965).

2Ruth C. Wylie, The Self Conce t (Lincoln, Nebr.:
University of Nebraska Press, , p. 198.

4

3Rosenberg, op. cit. Ibid., p. 30.

5 6

Ibid., p. 31. Ibid.

 

 

 

33

scores distributed along a unidimensional continuum. The
scale was used to find the distribution of self-esteem of
adolescents in broad social groupings including the neigh-
hood and the family. He also sought to find the distribu-
tion of self-esteem in relation to certain psychological
conditions, attitudes, and behavior prevalent among adoles-
cents. Rosenberg did not at that time report the self-
esteem distribution of his sample, however he did report
it in a letter to the author.1
The close similarity between Rosenberg's definition
of self-esteem and the one developed in this study, his
recognition thatself-esteem can be measured on a high-low
continuum, the reproducibility, scalability and validity
of the scale and its brevity and usefulness in the context
of this study, led to the selection of the Rosenberg Self-
Esteem scale as the measure of self-esteem used here.
C00per2 using the Q-methodology, found that the
self-perceptions of drug addicts and alcohol addicts were

not consistent with the low self-esteem attributed to them

in literature. It should be noted that Cooper studied two

 

1The distribution of the self-esteem scores in Rosen-
berg's sample was received in a letter. (Letter from Morris
Rosenberg, National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda,
Md., August 8, 1966.)

2Morton Cooper, "Differences in Self-Perception Among
Physically Dependent Drug Addicts, Alcohol Addicts, and Con-
trols" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, the American
University, 1958).

 

34

limited inmate populations and did not study self-esteem

of the inmates at the time of their incarceration.

Background Characteristics

 

Certain background characteristics were selected
in this study for examination of their possible relation—
ship to self-esteem. These background factors were:

A. Personal Data

1. Race

2. Age at time of incarceration
3. Work experience

4. Educational achievement

B. Early Home and Family Influence

Mother's attitude toward inmate

Father's attitude toward inmate

Parental family cohesiveness

Marital status of parents

. Age at which parental home broken, if broken.

U'InbbdNH
I

C. Criminal History

1. Age at first attention of officials
2. Prior time served in institutions as juvenile
3. Minimum sentence.

Though none of the studies in the literature directly
examined these factors in relation to the self-esteem of in-
mates, studies were found that examined factors A-1 and A-2
in relationship to self—esteem. Other studies examined
factors A-3, A—4, B-l, B-2, B-3, B—4, B-5, C—1, C-2, and
C-3 as related to criminal and delinquent behavior. Further,
some studies were found which examined factors C-1, C-2, and
C-3 in relation to the self-concept of inmates. The latter

were included here because of the close relationships in

 

 

18::

 

35

theory between self-esteem and self-concept which have
been demonstrated in the earlier discussion of the nature
of self-esteem.

Coe, in a study of the relationship of inmate char—
acteristics to prison adjustment,l listed those character—
istics he found to be significantly related to inmate
adjustment to prison programs at Illinois State Penitentiary
at Menard, Illinois. Of forty-one factors studied, only
nineteen were found to differentiate significantly the well
adjusted from the poorly adjusted inmates. Though the pre-
sent study was not concerned with prediction of good or poor
adjustment, and though Coe's factors did not correspond
with those factors on which data was available to the pre—
sent study, the importance of self-esteem to behavior change
and thus to adjustment suggested the relevance of Coe's
findings to our study. Coe's list of significant factors
follows:

A. Personal Data

Age at admission
Race

Occupational status
Employment record

B. Early Social Data
Home status
Home conditions

Inmate reared by parental figures
Economic status (parents)

 

lRodney M. Coe, "Who is the Inmate? Characteris-
tics of Well Adjusted and Poorly Adjusted Inmates," Penol-
pgy, ed. Clyde B. Vedder and Barbara A. Kay (SpringfieId,
111.: C. C. Thomas, 1964), p. 46-61.

 

 

 

Sta
of

bah

the

”6ng

 

36

Current Social Data

0

Marital status

Economic status (inmate)

Length of residence in community
Personality evaluation

Criminal Data

0

Offense

Length of sentence
Classification type
Type of offender
Age at first arrest
Type of commitment
Prognosis

Personal Data

The factors selected from personal data included
race, age at admission, work experience, and educational
achievement. Each of these defines the individual as a
member of a group that may function as a generalized

other.

Race

In discussing race and its possible relationship
to self-esteem we directed special attention to the Negro.
Statistics indicated that Negro males comprise 31 percent
of the prison admissions and that they were four and one-
half times more likely to be imprisoned than white males.1
Low self-esteem of Negroes is generally assumed in
the literature. Grambs said, "The self-esteem of the

Negro is damaged by the overwhelming fact that the world

 

lJohnson, op. cit., p. 85.

 

 

I6<

EDI

edm
KVa:

 

37

he lives in said, 'White is right, black is bad.'"1 She

continued saying, "Those social symptoms report to the
Negro that he is not valued as a person; he cannot, against
such massive evidence, counter by his own feelings of
self-esteem, since in truth he can typically show little
factual support for a contrary view."2 Coe supported this 1
view commenting that, "The dominant sociopsychological

pressure of color prejudice seems to produce a collapsing

 

effect upon the individual's self-respect--to render him
ashamed of his existence."3

Simpson and Yinger indicated that self-hatred and
feelings of inferiority were "natural results of the
pressures acting upon a minority group."4 Rose reasoned
that "when one is abused or insulted and forces oneself
to react passively, the hatred that would normally be di-
rected toward the abusing or insulting person is instead

turned inward."5

 

lJean D. Grambs, "The Self-Concept: Basis for Re-

education of Negro Youth," Negro Self-Concept, William C.
Kvaraceus, et al., (New York: McGraw—Hill Book Co., 1965),
p. 15.

 

21bid., p. 17.

3Oliver C. Cox, Caste, Class and Race (New York:
Doubleday, 1948), p. 382-383.

 

4George Eaton Simpson and J. Milton Yinger, Racial
and Cultural Minorities (New York: Harper & Brothers,
1953), p. 192.

5Arnold Marshall Rose, The Negro's Morale (Minnea-
polis: University of Minnesota Press, 1949), p. 89.

 

 

38

The assumption of low self—esteem of Negroes was
supported by a number of studies of Negro children. The
Clarks in one of their studies found that Negro children
preferred white dolls and rejected colored dolls. Nearly
two-thirds of the children indicated liking white dolls
best, saying that they would rather play with a white doll
than a colored doll, and that they considered the white
doll the "nice" doll.l Findings indicating low self-esteem
among Negroes were reported in other studies by Goodman,2

Landreth,3 Morland,4 Stevenson,5 and Trager.6 Koch found

 

1Kenneth B. Clark and Mamie P. Clark, "Racial Iden-
tification and Preference in Negro Children," Readin s in
Social ngchology, ed. T. M. Newcomb and E. L. Hartley
(lst ed.; New York: Holt, 1947), p. 169-178.

 

2Mary E. Goodman, Race Awareness in Young Children
(Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1952).

 

3Catherine Landreth and Barbara C. Johnson, "Young
Children's Responses to a Picture and Inset Test Designed
to Reveal Reactions to Persons of Different Skin Color,"
Child Development, 24 (1953), p. 63-80.

 

4J. K. Morland, "Racial Recognition by Nursery
School Children in Lynchburg, Virginia," Social Forces,
37 (1958). P. 132-137.

5H. W. Stevenson and E. C. Stewart, "A Develop—
mental Study of Racial Awareness in Young Children,"
Child Development, 29 (1958), p. 399-409.

 

6Helen G. Trager and Marian R. Yarrow, They Live
What They Learn (New York: Harpers, 1952).

 

39

that some of this low self-regard disappeared in later
years.1 However, in other studies made by Johnson2 and
Seeman3 it was indicated that self-hate persists among
older Negro children. A study reported by Yarrow of
campers in an interracial setting found a tendency by
Negro children to avoid each other in the early days of
the camp. This tendency however modified toward the end

of the two week camp experience.4

T‘t

Milner5 suggested that this early disenchantment
with self becomes more complex in the teenage years as
patterns of dating and peer group affiliations become
segregated. Devaluation in school experiences and job-
search efforts further compound the confusion of self-

identity and deepens the self-hate. Katz and Benjamin6

 

lHelen L. Koch, "Social Distinction between Certain
Racial, Nationality, and Skin Pigmentation Groups in
Selected Populations of American School Children," Journal
of Genetic Psychology, 68 (1946), p. 63-95.

 

2C. S. Johnson, Growing up in the Black Belt (Wash-

ington: American Council on Education, 1941).

 

3M. Seeman, "A Situational Approach to Intragroup
Negro Attitudes," Sociometry, 9 (1946), p. 199-206.

4Marian R. Yarrow, "Interpersonal Dynamics in a
Desegregation Process," Journal of Social Issues, 14
(1958), p. 3-63.

 

5Esther Milner, "Some Hypotheses Concerning the
Influence of Segregation on Negro Personality Develop-
ment," Psychiatry, 16 (1953), p. 291-297.

6I. Katz and L. Benjamin, "Effects of White Authori-
tarianism in Biracial Work Groups," Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 61 (1960), p. 448-456.

 

 

 

 

40

in a recent study reported that even when Negroes were
confronted with evidence of their learning abilities in
an interracial situation they responded with feelings of
inadequacy and compliance. Clark stated,

By the age of seven most Negro children have accepted
the reality that they are . . . dark skinned. But
the stigma remains; they have been forced to recog—
nize themselves as inferior. Few if any Negroes ever
fully lose that sense of shame and self-hatred.

Pettigrew summarized the effect of minority status
on Negroes saying:

For years, Negro Americans have had little else by
which to judge themselves than the second-class
status assigned them in America. And along with
this interior treatment, their ears have been filled
with the din of white racists egotistically insist-
ing that Caucasians are innately superior to Negroes.
Consequently, many Negroes, consciously or uncon-
sciously, accept in part these assertions of their
inferiority. In addition, they accept the American
emphases on "status" and "success." But when they
employ these standards for judging their own worth,
their lowly positions and their relative lack of
success lead to further self-disparagement. Com-
petition with successful whites is especially
threatening.

Recent events such as civil rights legislation and
the Supreme Court decisions are viewed by Pettigrew as
changing the Negro's view of himself.

Now he is greeted with evidence from all sides that

the white supremacists are wrong . . . . He sees
segregationists desperately defying his national

 

1Kenneth B. Clark, Dark Ghetto (New York: Harper &
Row, 1965), p. 65.

 

2Thomas F. Pettigrew, A Profile of the Negro Ameri-
can (Princeton, N. J.: Van Nostrand, 1964), p. 9.

 

 

41

government in their losing battle to maintain Jim

Crow. . . . He sees all this and his wounds begin

to heal.1
Baldwin2 saw the recent changes as "a great antidote to
the poison of self-hatred." Clark also supported this
view.3

Despite these recent changes however, it was ex-

pected that the self-esteem of Negro inmates in this study
would be low. It appeared that low self-evaluation inter-
nalized from the "generalized other" of their subculture
in childhood years would be deeply entrenched before the

recent civil rights changes developed.

Age at Admission

The literature suggests that age of inmates cannot
be meaningfully discussed apart from an inmate's develop-
mental criminal history. Further, age as a factor in
itself does not appear to be meaningfully related to
self-esteem.

Clinard reported that serious crimes were most
often committed by individuals under twenty-five years

of age and that many of these individuals were under

 

1Ibid., p. 10.

2James Baldwin, Nobody Knows My Name (New York:

Dial, 1961), P. 81.

 

3Clark, Dark Ghetto, 9p; cit., p. 68.

 

 

42

twenty-one years.1 The median age in 1965 for auto theft,
burglary and larceny was about seventeen years, for robbery
and forcible rape about twenty-one, and for aggravated as-
sault and murder about twenty-seven years.2 Glaser sug-
gested that fa close relationship exists between the age

at which specific types of felonies are most often com-
mitted, and the age at which persons in our society first

try to enter legitimate pursuits for which these felonies
3

 

substitute."
Research studies of the relation of inmate age to
self-concept were few and no agreement was found in the
findings. Moran in a study of inmates in the U. S. Re-
formatory at Chillicothe, Ohio, found that younger inmates,
those under eighteen years of age, suffered "from the
poorest concepts of self-respect."4 In contrast Lefeber
in a recent study using the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale
found that "none of the self-concept scores as measured,

varied significantly as a function of the independent

 

1Marshall B. Clinard, Sociology of Deviant Behavior
(Rev. ed.; New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1963),
p. 207.

 

2U. S. Department of Justice. Federal Bureau of
Investigation. Uniform Crime Report, 1965 (Washington:
U. S. Government Printing Office, 1965), p. 112—113.

 

3Glaser, op. cit., p. 469.

4Mark Roland Moran, "Inmate Concept of Self in a
Reformatory Society" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The
Ohio State University, 1953).

 

43

variable of age, ethnicity, mental maturity, or socio-
economic status employed" in his study.1
Rosenberg reported that in his study of the self-
esteem of high school students he found that "age was
virtually unrelated to self-esteem with the exception of
the very young juniors and seniors (15 years old) who had
higher self-esteem."2
These studies indicated the lack of demonstrated
relationship between age and self-concept, and age and
self-esteem, except among individuals younger than those
within this study. Age of inmates in relationship to
the individual's developing criminal history will be dis-

cussed in a later section.

Work Experience

Glaser noted that over 90 percent of the major
crimes reported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation's
Uniform Crime Reports ". . . involve taking someone else's
money or property . . ." and concluded that "most crime is

either a supplement to or a substitute for work as a means

of procuring an income."3 In his study of 1015 federal

 

1James Arthur Lefeber, "The Delinquent's Self-
Concept" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of
Southern California, 1965).

2Letter from Rosenberg, op. cit.

3Glaser, op. cit., p. 230.

 

44

prisoner cases he found "only a quarter of the federal
prisoners were employed during 75 percent or more of their
last two years of civilian life in the free community, 38
percent were employed 25 to 74 percent of the time, 27 per-
cent had worked less than 25 percent of the time, 6 percent

had never had any legitimate employment. . ."1

This find- ’
ing leads to the conclusion that inmates lacked experience
in legitimate work pursuits. 4
The Gluecks in their study of after-school employ-
ment of delinquents and non-delinquents found few signifi-
cant differences except that delinquents worked less
regularly and in more hazardous and less favorable job
circumstances than non-delinquents.2 Sterne in a study
of delinquents reported similar findings.3
Clinard suggested a relationship between minority
status and work experience.4 Grambs, speaking of the
economic status of the Negro minority, writes
The Negro family is much more likely than the white

family to be on the lowest economic rung. . . . Al—
though we have seen in recent generations the rise

 

lIbid.

2Sheldon Glueck and Eleanor Glueck, Unravelin Juve-
nile Delin uenc (New York: The Commonwealth Fund, 1950),
p. 5 - 59.

3

Richard S. Sterne, Delinquent Conduct and Broken
Homes (New Haven, Conn.: College and University Press,

 

4Clinard, op. cit., p. 547.

Pram“:- ‘.E."--E “at ‘

 

 

 

 

45

of a Negro middle class, and even a very few wealthy

Negroes, most Negroes remain in the "last hired,

first fired" category.of employment.

. . . Not only is the Negro last to be hired and the

first to be fired, but he pays more for insurance

premiums, he has a much harder time obtaining home

mortgage money and any kind of bank or credit loans.

. . . In such an environment, it is hard indeed for

the Negro male to achieve a sense of self-worth as

a breadwiner and provider for his family.
Discrimination in employment practices may result in larger
numbers of Negro inmates with no work experience than is
found among their white counterparts. However, Glaser re-
ports "that the prior employment record of Negroes released
from federal prisons is about the same as that for white
releasees." He explains this saying, "In the prison popu-
lation, both whites and Negroes are predominantly unskilled,
and have dr0pped out of school early, hence both racial
groups are highly similar in the extent of their unemployment."2

The relationship of unemployment to self-esteem of

inmates has not been clarified by this discussion. Though
lack of work experience seems to be related to criminal
activity, there appears to be no empirical basis for pre-

dicting the relationship between self-esteem and work

experience.

 

1Grambs, op. cit., p. 17-18, 19.

2Glaser, op. cit., p. 232.

 

 

 

 

 

 

46

Educational Achievement

 

Lipset and Bendix noted that "Education has become
the principal avenue for upward mobility in most indus-

trial nations."l

It has been found, however, that
delinquents and criminals lag behind other students in
educational levels attained in school.. The Gluecks re-
ported that "delinquents, as a group, were a year behind
non-delinquents in educational achievement."2 Chenault
noted that "from 10 to 30 percent of the admissions to
correctional institutions throughout the country are

functionally illiterate."3

A study of 4000 inmates over
seventeen years of age admitted to the prison system of
Texas showed 5 percent had not completed the first grade,
44 percent had not completed eighth grade, 89 percent had
failed to complete high school, 99+ percent had not com—
pleted college. Comparison with admittees to New Jersey
State Prison produced comparable figures: 3.6, 41, 91,

and 99+.4

 

lSeymour M. Lipset and Reinhard Bendix, Social
Mobilityin Industrial Society (Berkeley: Univer51ty of
California Press, 1959), p. 91.

 

2Glueck, Unraveling_. . . , op. cit., p. 136.

 

3Price Chenault, "Education," Contemporary Correc-
tion, ed. Paul W. Tappan (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1951),
p. 226.

4U. 5., Congress, Subcommittee to Investigate Juve-
nile Delinquency, Education and Juvenile Delinquency,
Interim Report, 84th Cong., (Washington: U. S. Government
Printing Office, 1956). pp. 106-110.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

47

Glaser reported that though the median school grade

completed by the U. S. pOpulation is past the tenth grade,

"most compilations of the highest grade completed by prison

inmates have a median-in the eighth grade. . . . Only one

to three percent of men admitted to prison had completed

high school."

He further observed that "despite their de—

ficiencies in education, the intelligence of men in prison

is not markedly different from that of men out of prison."

He continues:

The average intelligence quotient of prisoners in
most compilations is in the upper nineties, and
there are many prisoners in every range of intelli-
gence.. Improvement in the educational attainment of
persons retarded in school is known to be correlated
with some increase in their scores on intelligence
tests. Therefore, it seems probable that much of the
small deficiency in prisoner intelligence scores, by
comparison with average scores, is due to school re-
tardation. Futhermore, the smallness of the inmate
deficiency in intelligence score compared with their
deficiency in schooling suggests that most of their
school retardation is due to lack of motivation to
perform well in school rather than to intelligence
below the level needed to progress at a normal rate.
Their lack of past educational effort generally re-
flects the interruption of their schooling by delin-
quent behavior and the failure of the home to effec-
tively motivate a high interest in educational
attainment.

Cloward and Ontell stated, "A firm educational

foundation is crucial if a young person is to have a good

idea of himself and a sense of competence."2

 

lGlaser, 0p. cit., p. 260-261.

2Richard A.Cloward and Robert Ontell, "The Trouble

with Training," American Child, 47 (1965), p. 1-6.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

48

This discussion led us to expect to find a failure
to progress in school grade levels among the inmates in
this study. The relationship between motivation and
feelings of self-worth and school attainment as reported
in our readings, led us to anticipate a depressed self—
esteem in relation to low school grade achievement among

inmates.

Early Home and Family Influences

Home and family members are significant components
of the "generalized other," and frequently parents are an
individual's "significant persons." The role of home and
family members, along with others, in the formation of
criminalanuidelinquent behavior was stressed by Tannenbaum:

The person becomes the thing he is described as being.
Nor does it seem to matter whether the valuation is
made by those who would punish or those who would re-
form. In either case the emphasis is upon the conduct
that is disapproved of. The parents or the policemen,
the older brother or the court, the probation officer or
the juvenile institution, in so far as they rest upon
the thing complained of, rest upon a false ground.
Their very enthusiasm defeats their aim. The harder
they work to reform the evil, the greater the evil
grows under their very hands. The persistent sugges-
tion, with whatever good intentions, works mischief,
because it leads tg bringing out the bad behavior that
it would suppress.

Holley concluded from his study of parole adjust-

ment that of the variables considered, "family life of

 

lFrank Tannenbaum, Crime and Community (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1938), p. 18.

 

 

 

 

49

the child appears to be the most important factor in-
fluencing his adjustment."l

Several aspects of home and family influence were
selected to discover their bearing on the self-esteem of
inmates. These aspects were:
Mother's attitudes toward the inmate
. Father's attitudes toward the inmate
. Climate of parental marriage

. Marital status of parents
. Age at which parental home broken, if broken.

mkWNl—J

A review of the literature regarding these aspects re-
vealed that some have been found to be significantly
related to delinquent or criminal behavior. The likely
relationship of these factors to self—esteem was inferred
from their relationship to self—concept as indicated in

several studies.

Mother's Attitude toward the Inmate

According to Cavan, the mother's attitude "toward
her children is regarded as most significant" in all dis-
cussions of parent-child relationships. She continued
that a

warm, loving mother is the one with whom the child
can identify and from whom he receives a sense of

worth and self-confidence. The rejecting mother not
only does not secure the child's identification but

 

1

Floyd Bernard Holley, "Case History Factors Asso-
ciated with Youth Parole Adjustment: A Follow-up Study
of Selected Boys of the New York State Training School
for Boys at Warwick, New York" (unpublished Ed.D. disser-
tation, New York University, 1964).

 

 

 

 

 

50

creates in him a sense 0 unworthiness and of re-
sentment toward herself.

This view was supported by the Gluecks who found in their
study of delinquents that a much lower percentage of
mothers of delinquents "had what might be described as a
warm attitude than mothers of non-delinquents (72.1% :
95.6%)." They also found that the prOportion of overpro-
tective mothers of delinquents was 24.4 percent compared
with 15.2 percent of mothers of non-delinquents.2

The McCords in their extension of the Cambridge-
Somerville youth study reported similar findings and
commented, "neglect on the mother's part led to a high
rate of criminality. . . . Loving mothers, regardless of
their other personality characteristics gave their chil-
dren enough emotional security for the internalization of
moral controls."3 Nye in summarizing his findings said
that a "test was made of the generally accepted relation-
ship between rejection of the child by the parent and de-
linquency. A significant but slight relationship was
found, considering the importance often accorded this

variable."4

lRuth Shonle Cavan, Juvenile Delinquency (Philadel-
phia, Pa.: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1962), p. 111.

 

2Glueck, Unraveling . . . , 0p. cit., p. 125.

3William McCord and Joan McCord, Origins of Crime
(New York: Columbia University Press, 1959), p. 101-102.

4F. Ivan Nye, Family Relationships and Delinquent
Behavior (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1958), p. 75.

 

 

 

 

5L

 

 

 

 

51

On the basis of the studies reported we expected
to find a relationship, possibly slight, between low self—
esteem, reflecting a sense of unworthiness in the inmate,
and an unhealthy and rejecting mother's attitude toward

the inmate in childhood.

Father's Attitude toward the Inmate

 

rail

The study by the Gluecks reported that close ties

 

to fathers be delinquents and non-delinquents was in the [u

1 They further

prOportion of 32.5percent:65.l percent.
found emulation of fathers was wholly acceptable to 17.1
percent of the delinquents, and to 42.1 percent of the
non-delinquents. Fathers were wholly unacceptable to
30.7 percent of the delinquents and to only 7 percent of
the non-delinquents.2 In disciplining practices many
more fathers of delinquents were found to be overstrict.
Nearly two-fifths of the fathers (41.6 percent) of delin-
quents were found to be inconsistent in disciplining.3
Many more of the delinquents than non-deliquents reported

that their fathers were not concerned for their welfare

(33.9 percent:5.2 percent).4 Twice as many fathers of

 

1Glueck, Unraveling . . . , 0p. cit., p. 126.

 

3

21bid., p. 127. Ibid., p. 132.

41bid., p. 129.

 

 

 

52

non-delinquents showed affection for their sons as did
fathers of delinquents.l

Healy and Bronner in their classic study of 143
delinquents reported that only one-fifth of their cases
expressed or evidenced love for father.2 Nye found a
slight correlation between rejecting fathers and
delinquents.3

The McCords found that fathers' attitude influenced

 

the criminal or non—criminal behavior of their sons.

The actions of two types of fathers--the warm and the
passive--tended to produce non-criminal sons. The
warm fathers furnished the prerequisites for their
sons' introduction to social life. . . . We believe
that the passive fathers, in most relevant respects,
closely resembled the warm fathers. Even though they
were markedly withdrawn men, many of them gave evi-
dence of an affectionate attitude toward their
children.

Two types of fathers, at the other end of the scale,
had a decidedly adverse effect upon the criminal pro-
clivities of their boys. The neglecting fathers had
the worst influence. These men were present in the
home and actively rejected their sons. They constantly
frustrated the basic emotional and material needs of
their boys. . . . Evidently, the constant frustrations
caused by the neglecting fathers had a more serious
effect than the brutal actions of the cruel fathers
(although the difference between the two is not sta-
tistically significant). Both types rejected their
children, but apparently the cruel fathers instilled

 

1Ibid., p. 125.

2William Healy and Augusta F. Bronner, New Light on
Delinquency and its Treatment (New Haven, Conn.: Yale
University Press, 1936), p. 48.

 

 

3Nye, op. cit., p. 74.

 

 

The

53

just enough fear of retribution to keep many of their
sons from becoming criminal.

McCords summarized their findings saying,

fathers arouse a tendency toward criminal behavior

in their children if the child is deprived of pater—
nal affection through absence, cruelty, or neglect.
The likelihood of crime is increased if the child is
disciplined in an erratic fashion or is left undis-
ciplined. . . . On the other hand, warmth or passivity
on the part of the father, combined with consistent
discipline and a non deviant role model, helps insu-
late the son against criminality.2

These studies indicate that a relationship exists

between rejecting fathers and criminal activity. If re-

jection should develop feelings of unworthiness in the

son, we might expect to find unhealthy rejecting fathers'

attitudes toward sons who became inmates related to low

self-esteem, and healthy, accepting attitudes related to

high self-esteem of inmates.

Climate of Parental Marriage

 

Healy and Bronner reported that 43 of their 143

delinquent cases evidenced emotional disturbance about

family disharmony and discipline.3 The finding of the

Glueck study showed only a third of the delinquent parents

had good conjugal relations as compared with two-thirds

 

1McCord, op. cit., pp. 90-91.

ZIbido ' P o 9 4 o

3Healy, op. cit., p. 49.

 

-mi- .41.. W

 

 

 

 

 

54

of the parents of non-delinquents. Another third of the
delinquents' parents and a fifth of the non—delinquents'
parents experienced only fair relationships. One-third
of the delinquents' parenEs' relationships were classed
as poor.1

The McCords categorized homes as cohesive, quarrel-
some-affectionate, broken, and quarrelsome-neglecting.
They found that quarrelsome—neglecting homes had a higher
crime rate than homes disrupted by permanent separation.
The lowest percentage of criminal activity came from
cohesive homes.2

The climate of the parental home appears to be re—
lated to criminal activity among the subjects reported in
the studies. A cohesive home climate appears to produce
fewer delinquents than a home marked by friction. Though
the relation of the climate of the parental home to inmate
self—esteem is not made clear in these studies, we might
assume that some relationship exists because of the sup-
posed importance of the home as a generalized other and

of the parents as significant others.

Marital Status of Parents

 

Sterne in his study of broken homes and delinquency

reported that "broken and unbroken homes do not differ

 

lGlueck, Unraveling . . . , op. cit., p. 111.
2McCord, op. cit., p. 81-83.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

55

significantly in their effects on delinquent behavior."1
This corresponded with the finding of the McCord study
that the percent of incarcerated boys from broken homes
was 11 percent and from cohesive homes 9 percent.2

The Gluecks found 60.4 percent of their delinquent
cases came from broken homes as compared with only 34.2
percent of their non-delinquent cases.3 Shaw and McKay
in a study of family disorganization and delinquency found
that broken homes were not an important factor in delin-
quency causation.4 Birge in a recent study reported that
the relationship between broken homes and delinquency was
not firmly supported, though boys from broken homes seemed
to be overrepresented. This he suggested was due to a
tendency of courts to treat boys from broken homes dif-
ferently than boys from homes where both parents are

present.5 Nye reported similar findings.6 Healy and

 

lSterne, 0p. cit., p. 61. 2McCord, op. cit., p. 83.

3Glueck, Unraveling . . . , op. cit., p. 122.

4Clifford R. Shaw and Henry D. McKay, "Social Fac—
tors in Juvenile Delinquency," National Commission on Law
Observance and Enforcement, Report on the Causes of Crime,
No. 13, II (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office,
1931), p. 261-263.

 

5RobertDean Birge, "The Relation of Differential
Association, Self—Concept, and Delinquent Behavior" (un-
published Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Nebraska,
1966).

6Nye' OE. Cite, p. 47-480

 

 

56

Bronner found that 65.5 percent of their delinquents came
from unbroken homes and only 34.5 percent from broken
homes.1

The evidence regarding the marital status of in-
mates' homes and delinquent activity appears to be in
conflict. As a result, predicting a relationship between

inmate self-esteem and the marital status of inmates'

parental homes would be difficult.

Age at which Parental Home Broken

 

In analyzing his findings, Sterne reported that
ages of boys whose parental homes were broken were not
significantly related to incidence of serious offenses
except for four to nine year old boys whose homes were
broken by maternal death. These boys committed a sig-
nificantly low percentage of serious offenses.2 The
McCords noted that children whose homes were broken at an
early age (before five years old) did not produce more
criminal activity than those whose homes were broken at
a later age.. They commented that this contrasted with
psychoanalytic generalizations which suggested "the dire
effects of an early separation of the child from his

parents."3 Nye supported these findings, reporting "no

 

lHealy, 0p. cit., p. 35. 2Sterne, 0p. cit., p. 90—92.

3McCord, op. cit., p. 83.

 

 

 

 

57

significant differences between children from homes broken

1 The Gluecks discovered "a

early or late in childhood."
considerable likeness" between delinquents and non-delin-
quents concerning their ages at the time their homes were
broken.2

As a result of these reports which indicated little
or no relationships between incidence of broken homes or
age of boys at which the home was broken, and delinquency,
it was anticipated that little or no relationship would

be found between these factors and the self-esteem of

inmates.

Criminal History

The criminal history of prison inmates is one in—
dication of the extent of their participation in the
delinquent subculture. The delinquent subculture, seen
as a "generalized other" with its own value system, would
perhaps influence the self-esteem of inmates.

Cohen stressed the importance of the delinquent
subculture saying that, though it is not the only road to
delinquency, ". . . for most delinquents delinquency would

not be available as a response were it not socially legiti-

matized and given a kind of respectability, albeit by a

 

lNye, op. cit., p. 46.

2Glueck, Unraveling . . . , op. cit., p. 122.

 

V.

 

58

restricted community of fellow adventurers."l Cohen saw
the delinquent subculture offering the delinquent "status
as against other children of whatever social level, but
it offers him status in the eyes of his fellow delinquents
only."2 He noted that a function of the "delinquent sub-
culture is the legitimation of aggression," which compen-
sates for status frustration.3

Glaser commented, "Each involvement in crime, and
each experience of arrest and correctional confinement
may increase a youth's alienation from home and school
at the same time it enhances his prestige and self-esteem
in delinquent social circles."4

Three indices of participation in the delinquent

subculture were examined in relation to self—esteem

1 Age at first attention of authorites
2. Time served in institutions before confinement
in the state facility

3 Minimum sentence

It was expected that inmates with participation in
the delinquent subculture as indicated by early involve-
ment in crime, time served, and the seriousness of the
offense committed as indicated by minimum sentence would
be found to possess a higher self-esteem than would in-

mates for whom the state offense was the first offense.

 

lAlbert K. Cohen, Delinquent Boys (Glencoe, 111.:

The Free Press, 1955), p. 135.

21bid., p. 136. 3Ibid., p. 131.

4Glaser, op. cit., p. 40.

 

 

 

 

It”

be

CG

ist
n01.
\

A
”A
U

 

59

Age at First Attention of Officials

Glaser hypothesized, "the younger a prisoner was
when first arrested, convicted, or confined for any crime,
the more likely he is to continue in crime." The find-
ings in his study of releasees from federal prisons sup-
ported this hypothesis. He concluded that the earlier age
age of first arrest the higher the failure rate after their
release from prison.1

The Gluecks reported that the average age of the
500 delinquents in their study was 12.4 years ($2.1) at
their first court appearance, and 28.4 percent first ap-
peared in court when they were under eleven years of age.
Nearly a half (45.8 percent) first appeared in court
between eleven and thirteen years of age, while 25.8 per-
cent were over fourteen years of age.2 The median age of
the 500 delinquents in the Glueck study was about fourteen
and one—half years. Ullman noted that the criminal careers
of the misdemeanants of his study tended to start early in
life.3

Healy and Bronner observed that the age of first

delinquency for their 153 cases was eight years or younger

 

lIbid., p. 37-38.

2Glueck, Unraveling . . . , op. cit., p. 27.

3Albert D. Ullman, et al., "Some Social Character-
istics of Misdemeanants," Journal of Criminal Law, Crimi-
nology and Police Science, 48 (1957), p. 44-53.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

60

for 48 percent, between eight and twelve for 30 percent,
and after twelve years for 22 percent.1

Age at first offense was found to be significantly
related to recidivism in a study of 132 prisoners at
Tokushima Prison, Japan, by Kashiwagi, Mano and Yasuhara.2
Fradkin in a study of the self-concept of 300 white male
prisoners at Ohio State Penitentiary reported that early
age of delinquency involvement was "prognostic of unfavor-
able self-concepts, of high delinquency vulnerability,
and of high degree of personality deviation." He further
stated that "early delinquency onset is apt to be prog-
nostic of the most unfavorable offenders from the stand—
point of rehabilitation."3

A relationship between the age at which criminality
begins and home influences was suggested by the McCords.
They listed factors which in their analysis of data ap-
peared to be related to early criminality: "passive or
neglecting mothers, passive or neglecting fathers, quarrel-

some homes, and poor neighborhoods." No significant

 

lHealy, op. cit., p. 51.

2Massayoshi Kashiwagi, Morizo Mano and Hisao Yasuhara,
"On Factors for the Prediction of Recidivism," National
Clearinghouse, Current Projects in the Prevention, Con—
trol, and Treatment of Crime andDelinquency, V (Summer
19647,4¥1785.

3Howard Elwin Fradkin, "Criminal Background and
Self-Concept as Prognostic Factors in the Lives of Pri-
soners" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State
University, 1958.

 

 

. x _ / ' .,_
I. f ’:'/ ‘
.- \. -
‘ *- .43, fr" - . ..
. V '~ _ 8 .f. - "' .0
. - ,;. ‘ - 7 1‘» .' ’

 

61

relationship was found between discipline or low intelli-
gence and early criminality. They suggested that "juvenile

criminals appear to be escaping from the conflict in the

home and from parents who fail to gratify emotional needs."1

The literature suggested a strong relationship be-
tween early criminality and prolonged deviation from legal n
norms as well as recidivism. If prolonged delinquent )“7

activity functions to enhance the delinquent individual's

 

self-esteem as Glaser suggests, then we might expect to L.
find a strong relationship between high inmate self-esteem

and the inmate's age at the time of his first offense.

Prior Time Served in Institutions

 

Harris noted "the correlation between self—concept
and length of prior incarceration . . . was low but highly
significant and in the expected direction." He concluded
that "as the amount of prior incarceration increases the
less a prisoner sees himself as different from the average
incarcerated person."2 Fradkin reported ". . . that men
with lengthy prior incarceration records were found to

have the poorest self-conceptions."3

 

1McCord, op. cit., p. 162-163.

2Joseph Jerry Harris, "A Self-Concept Measure for
Prisoners and its Relation to Certain Objective Indices
of Criminality" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Univer-
sity of Pittsburgh, 1957).

3Fradkin, 0p. cit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

62

These studies indicate that some relationship
exists between low self—concept and lengthy prior incar—
ceration. Because of the relationship between self-
concept and self—esteem developed earlier in this study
we would expect to find inmate self-esteem related to the

length of prior incarceration.

Minimum Sentence

Minimum sentence is viewed here as indicative of
the type of crime committed. Fradkin found that type of
offense was not "prognostic of the offender's self—
concepts." He suggests that his findings indicate that
"criminologists and correctional administrators have
placed too much emphasis on type of offense."1

Nardini, in a study of first-time offenders at Iowa
State Penitentiary reported finding that "inmates who have
a criminal self-conception tend to have negative reference
groups, longer sentences, have committed the more serious
crimes and are more likely to feel that they are guilty
of the crime for which they were convicted."2

The findings of these studies are in conflict and
create difficulty in predicting a relationship between

inmate self-esteem and minimum sentence.

 

lIbid.

2William Nardini, "Criminal Self Conceptions in the
Penal Community: An Empirical Study" (unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, State University of Iowa, 1959).

 

 

 

 

63

Summary

The nature of self-esteem in relation to the self
has been reviewed. Self-esteem is defined as that element
of the self-configuration which results from positive or
negative self-valuing with the goals and ideals of the
person as a standard of reference. It is seen as a strong
motivational factor in behavior change and hence an im-
portant consideration in the design of correctional edu-
cational programs for young adult inmates.. A correctional
program at the Federal Correctional Institution, Englewood,
Colorado, designed on the assumed low self-esteem of in-
mates was reported. A theoretical base for assuming that
inmate self-esteem may not be different from that of a
civilian pOpulation was posited.

The roles of the generalized other and the signifi-
cant person in developing a standard of reference for
self-valuing were discussed. Twelve background factors
which might influence self-esteem were reviewed. The
factors led to the following expectations:

1. The self-esteem of Negro inmates will be lower
than that of white inmates.

2. The self-esteem of inmates who failed to progress
in school grade levels will be lower than those who attained
higher grade levels.

3. Inmates whose mother's attitudes were judged to
be unhealthy will have lower self-esteem than those whose

mother's attitudes were judged to be healthy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

64

4. Inmates whose father's attitudes were judged to
be unhealthy will have lower self—esteem than those whose
father's attitudes were judged to be healthy.

5. The self-esteem of inmates who began delinquent
activity at an early age will be higher than that of
those who began such activity at a later age.

6. The self-esteem of inmates who had lengthy rec—
ords of prior institutionalization as juveniles will be
lower than those who have shorter records.

The literature revealed a lack of empirical evi-
dence on which to predict relationships between self—
esteem and the following inmate background factors:

1. Age

2. Work experience

3. Parental family cohesiveness

4. Marital status of parents

5. Age at which parental home broken, if broken

6. Minimum sentence.

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH SETTING AND POPULATION

In this chapter the setting in which the study
took place is described as well as the classification pro-
cess through which the inmate background factors were w 1.
derived. The general characteristics of the inmate pOpu-

lation and of the p0pulation of high school senior boys

are also presented.

The Setting of the Study

This study was undertaken with the c00peration of
the Michigan State Department of Corrections. Two facili-
ties of the department were directly involved: 1) the
Reception-Diagnostic Center at Jackson, Michigan, to which
all persons sentenced in the criminal courts of the state
are committed, and 2) the Michigan Reformatory at Ionia,
Michigan, to which the inmates involved in this study were

transferred for incarceration.

The Reception-Diagnostic Center

 

The Center was first Opened for use February 1,
1956. Though located on the grounds of the State Prison
of Southern Michigan at Jackson, Michigan, it Operates

65

 

 

 

66

as a separate facility, independently of the prison.

Every individual committed to prison in the state of
Michigan is processed through the Center. When the pro-
cessing has been completed, and the individual and his
case record evaluated by the staff, the new inmate is
transferred to one of the eight major residential penal
institutions in the state. In 1964, the Center processed
1838 new commitments. The average daily population ranged
from 450 to 500 inmates.

The professional staff of the Center includes a
supervisor, a psychiatrist, psychologists, vocational
counselors and social workers. Their function is to
examine the physical, social, and mental background and
presentation of each new inmate and to recommend a pro-
gram of treatment. This program of treatment is designed
to provide the inmate the opportunity to achieve an Opti-
mum level of rehabilitation utilizing the resources
available.

Inmates sometimes stay as long as thirty to forty
days at the Center. The classification procedures include
personal interviews, the testing and examination of abili-
ties, aptitudes, and personality configuration, and
counseling sessions. Many of the new inmates experience
their first exposure to institutionalized living at the
Center. They may interact socially with experienced in-

mates and recidivists who are at the Center awaiting

 

 

 

67

reclassification. The new youthful offender is not
separated from the "old-timers" until his classification
is complete and his transfer is made to one of the major

penal facilities.

The Classification Process

The classification process at the Reception-Diag-
nostic Center was the source for data on the inmate back-
ground factors used in this study. Information used in
classification was derived primarily from the inmate's
case history. An effort is made to obtain missing infor-
mation or check the accuracy of the case history through
the use of RDC-administered tests and interviews with
inmates at the Center.

The inmate case history is the substance of the
Pre-Sentence Report, an official court record, made fol-
lowing conviction and before sentencing, to assist the
judge in the particular.case to pass sentence fairly in
the best interests of the state and the convicted person.
This case history is carefully prepared by the probation
officer assigned to the particular case through interviews
with individuals acquainted with the convict. Those in-
terviewed include the convict's parents, his spouse and
children, his family's friends and neighbors, the school
officials and teachers at the school he attended, possible

employers and work partners, his minister, if any, and the

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

68

law enforcement officers involved in his case. As the in—
vestigation proceeds the probation officer seeks to dis-
cover other community or social agencies, and individuals
who may provide further information. The school records,
agency case records, and local police files often provide
necessary data. When the search and interviewing proce-
dure is completed, the probation officer prepares the case
history.

The case history contains information regarding the
convict's family and its interaction, his school and work
record and activity, his previous criminal record, and in-
formation regarding his attitudes, habits, and life patterns.
The items are carefully documented by giving the sources of
information.

In the effort to provide information that is missing
or to check available information certain tests are some-
times administered at the Reception-Diagnostic Center in-
cluding the Army General Classification Test or the
"individual" Wechsler for a measure of intelligence, and
the Stanford Achievement for a measure of school grade
level. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
is sometimes administered to indicate the possibility of
existing pathologies and the need for referral to the
prison psychiatrist for further testing.

With the case history and test scores at hand the

counselor interviews the inmate. The purpose of the

 

 

 

 

 

 

69

is to check the data avilable in the case history and the
test scores with the prisoner's self-report. Whenever
significant discrepancies are found, the counselor requests
the probation officer to clarify the issue through further
investigation. When the counselor is satisfied that the
available information is accurate, he codes the Statistical
Data Report which is used for punching I.B.M. cards, called
the Inmate Data Cards.

The classification process is completed with a de-
termination of the facility and treatment program best
suited for the rehabilitation of the inmate. The inmates
in this study were those classified for treatment at the

Michigan Reformatory.

Michigan Reformatory

Legislation providing for the establishment and
financing of the Michigan Reformatory, a maximum security
institution for younger offenders, was passed by the
Michigan legislature, April 22, 1875. The first inmates
were admitted to the reformatory in 1877, though construc-
tion begun in 1875 was not completed until 1880. The in-
stitution is located on the western outskirts of Ionia,
Michigan, on nearly fifteen acres enclosed by an eighteen
foot wall.

The reformatory which housed 600 inmates in the

early 1900's, and reached a peak population of 2250 inmates

 

 

 

 

 

70

in 1929, now has a regular cell capacity for 1050 persons
with special cell facilities for 125 additional men. A
new outside dormitory accommodates 235 inmates assigned to
trusty duties on the prison farm and grounds. The "end

of year population" reported for 1964 was 972 inmates which
was down from the "beginning of the year population" of
1094 inmates.

The professional staff of the reformatory is under
the direction of the warden who is responsible for the
operation of the institution and its program. A deputy
warden is reponsible for the custody and security of the
inmates. In 1964, 298 persons, most of whom were custo-
dial officers, were employed in the reformatory. Of this
number, 23 persons worked as supervisory and instructional
personnel for the Bureau of Prison Industries. A director
of classification and five counselors are responsible for
"the welfare, programming, and adjustment" of inmates dur-

ing their stay at the institution.

Reformatory Treatment Program

The treatment program includes an orientation period
with emphasis on personal adjustment and the inmate's role
in rehabilitation. After the initial orientation the in-
mate participates for five weeks in a program of social
education designed to assist adjustment, create a "treat—

ment-oriented" climate, and enable re-socialization.

 

71

The inmate is encouraged to utilize the counseling
and psychological services of the reformatory. He is
assigned to a counselor who may assist him with personal
problems and program adjustment. Nearly 20 percent of
the inmates are also involved in a group counseling pro-
gram. As the inmate participates in the prison program
his progress toward rehabilitation is observed. Reclassi- -
fication and adjustments in his treatment program can be 1
made at any time. At least every six months he confers a.
with his counselor to review his progress.

The variety of educational programs available
to inmates includes basic education, elementary and sec-
ondary school programs, vocational training, on-the-job
training, correspondence courses, and television courses.
The basic education or elementary school program derives
importance from the announced policy of the Department of
Corrections that no educable inmate should be released
with "basic skills below the fifth grade level." An in-
termediate education program includes subjects considered
as belonging to grades five through eight. Inmates suc-
cessfully completing the basic and intermediate programs
are issued a Basic Education Completion Certificate.

The high school program of the reformatory provides
for choice of one of the following three curricula: the
General Studies Curriculum, the Business Curriculum, and

the College Preparatory Curriculum. When an inmate

 

 

 

72

successfully completes a curriculum, an effort is made to

have his home high school issue a diploma. If the home

high school is not willing, the inmate is granted an in-

stitutional diploma. As an alternative to the high school

completion program,.inmates may follow a course of study

designed to enable successful completion of the General ‘
Education Development tests.

Vocational training includes shop courses in plumb-
ing, electricity, appliance and motor repair, drafting, 1
machine operation, sheet metal work, automotive servicing,
welding, tailoring and printing. These curricula include
related academic courses.. On-the-job training is provided
for inmates through work assignments in reformatory main-
tenance, or in one of the four prison factories. These
factories produce furniture, garments, soap, and laundry
services for th' reformatory and other nearby state insti-
tutions. A Trade Training Certificate is issued to in-
mates on the completion of courses indicating the number
of hours of training, skills acquired and the level of
competence attained.

Inmate instructors are widely used in the various
educational programs. They are prepared to teach through
Instructor Training Courses of twelve to fifteen weeks
which include principles of teaching, methods of teaching,
and working with students. After teaching begins each in-
structor participates in a continuing in-service training

program.

 

73

College level course work has been made available
to inmates through correspondence course offerings. Tele—
vision courses from neighboring universities were extended
recently to the inmates. Most recently, a program has been
initiated to enable a few of the "best behavior" inmates
to enroll in courses for which they qualified on nearby
college or university campuses. The inmates attend courses
during the day, returning to the reformatory each night.

Other treatment programs are the Dale Carnegie
courses, Alcoholics Anonymous, Civil Defense courses, and
extensive music, athletic and hobby—craft programs. The
reformatory library consists of 14,000 volumes and is open
to all inmates.

The goal of the treatment program is "the re-
orientation of each individual inmate"l and to "awaken
the individual prisoner to the recognition of his place

in a free society as a decent, law-abiding person."2

The Reformatory Inmates

 

The inmates at the Michigan Reformatory are youthful

offenders, most of whom are under 22 years of age. They

 

1Michigan, Department of Corrections, The Michi an
Reformatory and Its Programs (Ionia, Michigan: Michigan
Reformatory, 1964), p. 17.

 

2Michigan, Department of Corrections, Supervisor
of Treatment, Education Manual (Lansing, Michigan: Michi-
gan Department of Corrections, 1964), p. 5.

 

 

74

are described by the staff of the Department of Correc-
tions as needing close supervision because of emotional
instability or serious antisocial behavior characterized
by serious assaultive offenses, sex offenses or an escape
history. They are not considered by the staff to have
the potential or motivation for successful rehabilitation
in the more academically oriented program of the Michigan
Training Unit, a medium security facility also located at
Ionia, Michigan.
The criteria listed by the Reception-Diagnostic

Center supervisor for placement of men in the Reformatory
are of interest:

First timers, second timers and parole violators up

to the age of 23 are considered for placement at

this institution. These men are more aggressive

than routine cases and need close custody. They

may be very youthful-appearing individuals. High

school cases, semi-skilled level trade training

cases are considered. The associates of these in-

mates are juvenile rather than adult. They are

quite SOphisticated in anti-social behavior. Em-

phasis is placed on those men who need remedial

academic activities and who could profit from Dr.

Price's program.1

The reformatory inmates are described as generally

having sufficient intelligence to complete high school,
having average It). of about 90, and "serving sentences

for breaking and entering stores or dwellings, or for

various types of larceny and burglary. Although some

 

1Memorandum from Howard Grossman, Supervisor,
Michigan Department of Corrections Reception-Diagnostic
Center to E. L. V. Shelley, Supervisor of Treatment,
Michigan Department of Corrections, January 15, 1964.

 

 

75

are serving life sentences, over one—half are serving
sentences having a minimum term of two years or less."1

All inmates who entered the Michigan Reformatory
between September 1, 1965 and June 1, 1966 were included
in the research population who were a) either white or
Negro, b) aged seventeen through twenty-two years, and
c) "first-timers" at a state prison facility. Inmates
of other races, those younger than seventeen years or

older than twenty-two years, and those who were recidivists

were screened out of this study.

The High School Senior Boys

 

The high school senior boys, all twelfth graders,
were administered the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale by the
Brookover project team from Michigan State University in
September, 1965. These twelfth graders were students in
the three high schools of a Michigan city of over 150,000
population, located not far from the Reformatory. The
study included all male students in the twelfth grade
except Negro students, special education students, and
persons of unknown race. This population was assumed to

be reasonably representative of a normal population.

 

lMichigan,Department of Corrections, The Michigan
Reformatory and Its Programs, 1964, p. 5.

 

 

 

 

 

 

76

Summary

The two settings which directly influenced the
study and the process through which inmate background
factors were derived have been described. The nature
and characteristics of the inmate p0pulation and of the

p0pulation of high school senior boys have been presented. ’

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER IV

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

The objectives stated for this study in Chapter I
suggested that the following tasks be completed:

1 Selection of a measure of self-esteem.

2 Administration of the measure to the population

of new inmates and to the civilian population
of twelfth grade males, and determination of
self-esteem scores and their distribution.

Collection of the data for the selected back-

(A)
a

ground factors of inmates from the State De-

partment of Corrections.

3h
1

Selection of statistical tools and analyses for

a) comparing the distribution of inmate self-
esteem scores with that of the twelfth grade
males, and

b) establishing the relationships between inmate
self-esteem scores and the twelve background

factors.

In this chapter the methods and procedures used to complete

these tasks are described.

77

 

 

 

78

The Measure of Self-Esteem

 

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale was used as the
measure of self-esteem in this study. Rosenberg devised
the scale for use in his study of 5000 adolescents in an
attempt to understand "how they saw themselves, how they
felt about themselves, and what criteria for self—evalua-
tion they employed."l He reports that the main aim of
his study was "to specify the bearing of certain social
factors on self-esteem and to indicate the influence of
self-esteem on socially significant attitudes and be-
havior."2 The scale was designed and used to measure the
self-esteem of the subjects in the study.

Rosenberg defines self-esteem measured by the scale
as "a positive or negative attitude toward a particular
object, namely, the self."3 He dichotomizes the high and
low dimensions of self-esteem, saying,

High self-esteem, as reflected in our scale items,
expresses the feeling that one is 'good enough.‘
The individual simply feels that he is a person of
worth; he respects himself for what he is, but he
does not stand in awe of himself nor does he expect
others to stand in awe of him. He does not neces-
sarily consider himself superior to others.

Low self-esteem, on the other hand, implies self—
rejection, self-dissatisfaction, self—contempt.

The individual lacks respect for the self he

observes. The self-picture 's disagreeable, and
he wishes it were otherwise.

 

lRosenberg, op. cit., viii.

21bid., p. 15. 3Ibid., p. 30.

4Ibid., p. 31.

 

 

 

 

 

 

79

The Scale

This Guttman type scale consists of ten items which
deal with the dimension of self—esteem. Respondents were
requested to "strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly
disagree" with the following items:

1. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself. I

2. At times I think I am no good at all. ’1

3. I feel that I have a number of good qualities. )

 

4. I am able to do things as well as most other
people.

5.-I feel I do not have much to be proud of.

6. I certainly feel useless at times.

7. I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on
an equal plane with others.

8. I wish I could have more respect for myself.

9. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a
failure.

10. I take a positive attitude toward myself;l

Rosenberg arranged "positive" and "negative" items
in alternating order, and interspersed four non-used items

to help avoid respondent set.

Scoring
In the scoring procedure positive responses indi-

cated low self-esteem. Positive responses were the

 

lIbido , p. 17-180

 

 

I In... .53....

 

80

"agree" or "strongly agree" answers to "negative" items,
and "disagree" or "strongly disagree" answers to "posi-
tive" items.

To achieve Guttman scaling from "0" to "6" from the
ten items of the scale, some scale items consisted of
combined responses to several items as follows:

Scale Item I.--"Contrived from the combined re-

 

sponses" to items 7, 3, and 9. If a respondent answered
two out of three, or three out of three positively, he
received a positive score. If he answered one of three,
or none of three positively he received no score.

Scale Item II.--"Contrived from the combined re-

 

sponses" to items 4, and 6. One out of two, or two out
of two positive responses were considered positive.

Scale Item III.--Item 10.

 

Scale Item IV.--Item 1.

 

Scale Item V.--Item 8.

 

Scale Item VI.--"Contrived from the combined re-

 

sponses" to items 6, and 2. One out of two, or two out

of two positive responses were considered positive.

From this scoring procedure a seven point Guttman
type scale was produced measuring self-esteem on a con-
tinuum from 0 (high self-esteem) to 6 (low self-esteem).

The use of "contrived" items follows the procedure
of the H-technique proposed by Stouffer, Borgatta, Hays,

and Henry to guard against reversals in the ordering of

 

 

 

 

81

respondents. They say:

This is the task of the H-technique. Instead of using
one item to determine a given cutting point we use two,
three, or even more. In effect, what we are doing is
to convert the responses to two or more observed items
into a response to a "new" item, which we call a con—
trived item.1

The objective of the use of the 'contrived' item "is to
maximize the information available from the basic data, and
hence to strengthen confidence in the scalability of the
area under consideration and the generality of the dimen—
sion which the scale is defining, and to improve the rank-
2

ing of individuals through reduction of scale error."

Reproducibility and Scalability

The Rosenberg.Se1f-Esteem scale is a Guttman type
scale. According to Kerlinger,

the cumulative or Guttman scale consists of a rela-
tively small set of homogeneous items that are
unidimensional. A unidimensional scale measures one
variable, and one variable only. The scale gets its
name from the cumulative relation between items and
the total scores ofeindividuals.3

Guttman says,

The basic condition to be satisfied is that persons
who answer a question "favorably" all have higher

 

1Samuel A. Stouffer et al., "A Technique for Improv-
ing Cumulative Scales." Public Opinion Quarterly, 16,
(Summer, 1952), p. 276.

 

2Ibid., p. 273.

3Fred N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research
(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965),
p. 485.

 

 

 

 

82

scale scores than persons who answer the same question
"unfavorably." This constitutes a rigorous definition
ofaa scale. It provides a simple, objective technique
for testing the existence of a single variable, that
is, for determining whether the questions have the
same meaning for all respondents.

Regarding the measurement of error in scales, and thus the
internal consistency or reliability of the scale, he adds,

The amount by which a scale deviates from the ideal
scale pattern is measured by a coefficient of repro-
ducibility. This coefficient is simply a measure of
the relative degree with which the obtained multi-
variate distribution corresponds to the expected

multivariate distribution of a perfect scale. . . .
An acceptable approximation to a perfect scale has
been arbitrarily set at 90 percent reproducibility.

 

2

Rosenberg's report that the scale has reproducibility
of 92 percent3 is satisfactory in terms of Guttman's defi-
nition of acceptability. This test of the unidimensionality
of the scale informs us regarding the reliability of the
scale for as Kerlinger comments,

Another interpretation is that reliability is the
internal consistency of a test. This means that the
test items are homogeneous. This interpretation
boils down to the same idea of the other interpre-
tations: accuracy.

Menzel in proposing a coefficient of scalability

argues that the Guttman coefficient of reproducibility

 

1Louis Guttman, "Basis for Scalogram Analysis," Mea-
surement and Prediction, Samuel A. Stouffer et al.,
being Vol. 4, Studies in Social Psychology in WorId W35
II (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1950),

p. 76-77.

 

2Ibid., p. 77. 3Rosenberg, op. cit., p. 17.

 

4Kerlinger, op. cit., p. 439.

 

 

 

 

 

 

83

is not an adequate measure Of scalability alone, saying

Any degree Of success in reproductions which has
actually been attained is a joint result Of l) the
extremeness Of items, 2) the extremeness Of indivi-
duals, and 3) the scalability Of items for the
given individuals. The value Of the Coefficient Of
Reproducibility is therefore a joint result Of the
same three sources and not an accurate measure Of
scalability alone.i

Using Menzel's refined measure Of scalability,

Rosenberg reports that his scale has a scalability Of 72

percent.2 This is satisfactory according to Menzel,

who writes,

Since C. Of S. is always lower than C. Of R. (except
where they both equal one), a new 'level Of accept-
ance' will have to be established, considerably below
.90. Its exact value must await practical experience.
If the scalograms published in Measurement and Predic-
tion can serve as a guide, Table I Of the present
paper suggests that the new level Of acceptance may

be somewhere between .60 and .65.

Guttman also comments on the relationship Of re-

producibility tO test-retest reliability saying:

From general considerations Of scale theory, it
should be clear that if a set Of items has high re-
producibility, then the items must necessarily have
high test-retest reliability. If there were a sub-
stantial unreliability factor operating in the
responses to the items, this would create appreciable
scale error; there would be more than a single factor
present. Hence, if scalogram analysis shows that
essentially only a single factor is Operating in the

+

lHerbert Menzel, "A New Coefficient for Scalogram

Analysis," Public Opinion Quarterly, 17, (Summer, 1953),

269.

2Rosenberg, op. cit., p. 17.

 

3Menzel, op. cit., p. 279.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

84

responses, this must mean that there cannot pe many
additional factors, including unreliability.

Validity

Though the scale appears to have face validity, and
though the Guttman model usually insures "that the items
on a scale belong to the same dimension, they cannot de-
fine the dimension."2 Because Rosenberg was unable to
find "known" groups with which tO validate his scale he
sought tO defend the adequacy Of his scale on "the fol-
lowing grounds: if this scale actually did measure self-
esteem, then we would expect the scores on this scale tO
be associated with other data in a theoretically meaning-
ful way."3

Reasoning from the "familiar clinical Observation
that depression Often accompanies low self-esteem,"
Rosenberg concludes that, "If such depressed feelings rise
to the surface, and if the scale measures self-esteem, then
peOple with low self-esteem should appear more depressed

4

to outside Observers." Fifty "normal" volunteers retained

by the National Institutes Of Health as research subjects

 

lLouis Guttman, "Problems Of Reliability," Measure-
ment and Prediction, Samuel A. Stouffer et al., being VOI.
4, Studies in Social Psychoiogy in World War II (Princeton,
N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1950), p. 305.

 

 

2Rosenberg, Op. cit., p. 17. 3Ibid p 18
o, e 0

4Ibid.

 

 

 

 

85

and housed in the wards Of the Clinical Center were asked
to complete the self-esteem scale. Independently, nursing
personnel in the wards were asked to fill out Leary scales
on the subjects. He found a significant association,
a = .05, between individuals with low self-esteem and the
likelihood that the individuals appeared depressed to
nurses.1 He also found a "very strong and consistent re-
lationship between the self-esteem scale and a Guttman
scale Of 'depressive affect'."2
Rosenberg next related his self-esteem scale tO
Star's measure Of neuroticism which is based on psycho-
somatic symptoms and which was developed by the U. S. Army
Research Branch in World War II. He did this because "the
presence Of low self-esteem among neurotics is commonly
Observed in clinical practice."3 Further, he noted that
"Horney and Fromm stress that an underlying feeling Of-
worthlessness is characteristic CHE the sick personality."4
He reports that "each step down the self-esteem scale
finds a larger proportion Of respondents with many psycho-
somatic symptoms."5 In seeking additional information
Rosenberg presented respondents with "a list Of ailments
. . . thought to have psychogenic components and asked them

to indicate how much they have been bothered by such;ailments

 

lIbid., p. 20. 2Ibid. 31bid., p. 22.

 

41bid. SIbid., p. 23.

 

 

 

86

éEiuring the past five years." He found in reference tO
ichis list, "a clear, though imperfect, relationship be-
-tween self-esteem and psychosomatic symptoms of anxiety."1
The relationships in these two tests were significant,
d = .05.

Working from the statement that, "Cooley, Mead,
James and others agree that the individual's self Opinion
is largely determined by what others think Of him," Rosen-
berg conducted a sociometric test among 272 seniors from
two high schools near Washington, D. C. He reports that
"low self-esteem people were half as likely as medium
self-esteem people and one-third as likely as high self-
esteem respondents tO be selected as leaders by others."2
This finding was significant, a = .05. He also found
that the "lower the individual's self-esteem, the less
likely is he to be described as an active class participant."3

Rosenberg concludes his validation Of the self-

esteem scale saying,

If the scale actually measures low self—esteem, then
we would expect those with low scores tO appear de-
pressed tO others and to express feelings Of dis-
couragement and unhappiness, to manifest symptoms Of
"neuroticism" or anxiety; tO hold a low sociometric
status in the group; tO be described as commanding
less respect than others and to feel that others have
little respect for them. The evidence supports these
expectations.

 

1Ibid., p. 25. 21bid. 31bid., p. 26.

41bid., p. 30.

 

 

 

87

The face validity Of Rosenberg's Self-Esteem scale
appears to be corroborated by the "theoretically meaning-
ful" relationship Of self-esteem scores and other data.

The close similarity between Rosenberg's definition
Of self-esteem and the one developed in this study, his
recognition that self-esteem could be measured on a high-
low continuum, the reproducibility, scalability and valid-
ity Of the scale,and its brevity and usefulness in the
context Of this study, led tO the selection Of Rosenberg's
Self-Esteem scale as the instrument for establishing self-

esteem scores.

Administering the Scale to Inmates

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale was administered to
the new inmates Of the Michigan Reformatory upon their
arrival at the institution. Following the check-in pro-
cedures, inmates were taken to a small conference room
and comfortably seated. The inmate clerk who had greeted
them and processed their "check-in," then gave to each
inmate a OOpy Of the scale. He asked them tO complete the
scale before proceeding with the orientation session. The
conference room was small, seating only ten. Usually two
tO five inmates were given the scale at the same time.

During the "check-in" and in the conference room,

administering the scale, the inmate clerk sought to es-

tablish a relaxed, friendly, and encouraging atmosphere.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

88

After seeing that the new inmates were comfortably seated
around the table he maintained normal decorum telling the
prisoners that they should dO their own work and not talk
tO each other. He then read them the set Of instructions
for marking the scale. The marked scales were then col-
lected and placed in a file tO be held for scoring and
tabulation.

In June, 1966, the scales were picked up by the
investigator, and scored. The distribution Of scores
was determined. The scales were then matched with In-
mates' Data Cards by case number. The scores were punched
into the data cards for computer analysis.

Administgringthe Scale to the
Twelfth Grade Males

 

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale was administered tO
the civilian population Of twelfth grade males by the
Brookover Project team from Michigan State University.

The team administered the scale in September, 1965. In
June, 1966, the investigator Obtained the scales from the
Brookover team. The scores and their distribution were

determined.

The Background Factors

 

Twelve inmate background factors were studied in
relation to inmate self-esteem. These factors included

personal data about each inmate, his early home and family

 

 

 

 

89

influences, and his criminal history. Factors were limited
for practical reasons to those for which data were avail-
able from the State Department Of Corrections. These fac-
tors were:

A. Personal Data

1. Race

2. Age at time Of incarceration
3. Work experience

4. Educational achievement.

B. Early Home and Family Influences

1. Mother's attitude toward inmate

2. Father's attitude toward inmate

3. Parental family cohesiveness

4. Marital status Of parents

5. Age at which parental home broken, if broken.

C. Criminal History
1. Age at first attention Of Officials

2. Prior time served in penal institutions
as juvenile

3. Minimum sentence.
The source Of data regarding these factors has been des-
cribed in Chapter III as the classification process Of
the Reception-Diagnostic Center. The definitions Of the
factors are limited to those used by the department in
the classification process and are found in Chapter I.
Although the background factor data reflects the judgments
made by various probation Officers, it was assumed that
the reliability Of the data was enhanced by the checking
and validation Of the Pre-Sentence Reports by the Reception-

Diagnostic Center professional staff members who coded the

Inmate Data Cards. The Inmate Data Cards containing the

numerical codes for the background factors Of each inmate

 

 

 

 

 

 

90

were Obtained from the Records and Statistics Division

Of the Department. The numerical codes were used in

the computer calculations. The self-esteem scores bear-
ing the inmate identification numbers were matched to

the similar numbers on the Inmate Data Cards and the self-
esteem scores were punched into the cards to enable

computer analysis.

Statistical TOOls and Analyses

Two statistical analyses were used in this study.
The Mann-Whitney U test1 was employed in answering the
first question. The Pearson product-moment correlation
(r) was used to answer questions two through thirteen.

The first question, requiring comparison Of the
distribution Of inmate self-esteem scores with that Of
high school senior boys was examined using the Mann-Whitney
U test. This test is used tO determine if two groups are
drawn from the same pOpulation, and is one Of the most
powerful Of the non-parametric tests. It is appropriate
when the measurementused produCes scaling that is weaker
than interval scaling.

TO calculate the U value, the formula for large

samples, (n2 > 20), was used. The formula states:

 

lSidney Siegel, Nonparametric Statistics for the
Behavioral Sciences (New York: McGraw-Hill BOOk Company,

 

 

Inc., 1956), p. 123.

 

 

 

 

91

nl(nl + l)
U = nlnz + 2 - R1, where

 

nl = cases Of inmates,
n2 = cases Of high school senior boys, and

R1 = sum Of ranks Of inmates by self-esteem
scores, separated from the ranks Of the
total population.

The significance (2) Of the Observed value Of U,

 

where N2 > 20, and where tied scores occur, is calculated

solving for z in the formula:1

U _ nlnz
T

Z = , where

lvf nln2 (N3 - N
N(N - I)

12 ' 2T)

 

 

U = value of Mann-Whitney U Obtained above
n1 = cases Of inmates
n2 = cases Of high school senior boys
N = total cases
t3 - t '
T = —_I2_— , where t is the number Of Observations

tied for a giVen rank}

The values Of U and 2 were calculated and checked,
Reference was made tO the Table Of Probabilities Associated
with Values as Extreme as Observed Values Of z in the Nor-

mal Distribution2 tO determine the probability (p) associated

 

 

1Ibid., p. 125. 2Ibid., p. 247.,

 

 

 

 

92

with the value Of z Obtained.r A decision was made tO re-
ject the null hypothesis if p was smaller than.a = .05.
Questions two through thirteen required the deter-
mination Of the relationship between inmate self-esteem
scores and selected background factors. The Pearson
product-moment correlation (r) was selected as a measure H
Of the degree and direction Of relationship between the F

variables.

 

The correlation, r, was calculated through the [a
use Of a computer program provided for the CDC 3600 com-
puter installation at Michigan State University. The

formula1 used in the program was

r ___ . NEXY - (EXHZY)

WNZX' - (2x) ')(NZY - (ZY) ‘)

Graphs were constructed for each Of the tables to
compare and examine the curves Of each distribution. The
raw data in each row were converted into percentages for
graphing. The graphs were examined for evidence Of
shift in distribution from one row to another, for skew-

ness, and for shape.

Summary

In this chapter, four major tasks confronting this

study are outlined and the methods and procedures used

 

1John Morris, "Rank Correlation Coefficients," being
Technical Report #47, mimeO., (East Lansing, Mich.: Michi-

 

gan State University, Computer Institute for Social Science
Research, 1967). P. 5.

 

 

 

93

in completing these tasks are described. The Rosenberg
Self-Esteem scale is presented as the measure Of self—
esteem used. The Operating definitions, items, and
scoring procedures for the scale are presented. Its
reliability and validity are established. The manner

in which the scale was administered to the inmate and
civilian pOpulations is detailed. Inmate background
factors, the source Of data regarding them, and the way
in which the data were Obtained are explained. Finally,.

the statistical tOOls and analyses used in examining the‘

data are described.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER V

PRESENTATION OF DATA

The research presented here has been directed
toward increasing our understanding Of the self-esteem
Of newly incarcerated inmates. Answers were sought tO F
two general questions:
1. How high or low is the self-esteem Of inmates,
and
2. Is the level Of inmate self-esteem related to

selected factors in inmates' background?

The distribution Of self-esteem scores Of inmates was
compared with that Of a group Of twelfth grade males
selected as reasonably representative Of the civilian
pOpulation. Questions regarding relationships between
levels Of inmate self-esteem and twelve inmate background
factors were then investigated.

In this chapter the questions in researchable terms
are presented, as are relevant data and the results Of
the statistical analyses Of those data. Answers result-
ing from the statistical analyses are given. A concluding

section summarizes the findings Of the study.

94

 

 

 

 

 

95

Question 1

 

Does a difference exist between the distribution
Of self-esteem scores Of newly incarcerated white inmates
and the distribution Of self-esteem scores Of a white
civilian population Of twelfth grade males?

This question was restated as a null hypothesis
for testing.

HO: There is no difference between the distribu- 1
tion Of self-esteem scores Of newly incarcerated white we.
inmates and the distribution of self-esteem scores Of a
white civilian population Of twelfth grade males.

Table 5.1 shows the distribution Of self-esteem
scores in the two pOpulations. The Mann-Whitney U value
was calculated to compare the distribution Of self-esteem

scores and found to be U = 33135. Using this U value,

2 = -1.301 was Obtained. Reference to the Table Of Prob-

 

abilities Associated with Values as Extreme as Observed
Values Of 2 in the Normal Distribution revealed that

z_: -1.301 has a two-tailed probability under Ho Of

p < .1936. Since this p is larger than a = .05, the null
hypothesis was not rejected. An examination Of the curves

Of the two distributions in Figure 5.1 reveals only a

slight difference between them.

 

 

 

 

 

96

Table 5.1 Frequencies Of scores, and frequencies as per-
cents, for white inmates and white civilians
on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.

 

 

Self-Esteem Scores

 

 

Popula-
tions 0 l 2 3 4 » 5 6 Totals
10 32 47 52 27 13 l 182
Inmates
(5.5) (17.5) (25.8) (28.8) (14.8) (7.1) (.5) (100)
36 87 90 . 87 47 39 , 4 390
Civilian

(9.2) (22.3) (23.1) (22.3) (12.0) (10.1) (1.0) (100)

 

Question 2

 

What correlation exists between self-esteem scores
and the race Of inmates?

A correlation coefficient, r = -.069 was found.

This coefficient suggests a very slight negative
linear relationship between the two variables, race Of
inmates and self-esteem scores. The relationship is such
that the race Of the inmates in this study appears to have
had almost no influence on inmates' self-esteem scores.
The negative relationship indicates that Negro self-esteem
scores were slightly higher than those Of the white pOpu-
lation. The distribution Of inmate self-esteem scores by
race is shown on Table 5.2. The minor correlation can

best be attributed tO chance. The very slight irregularity

in the distribution curve of the Negro inmates evident in

 

 

 

 

 

 

97

     

 

 

 

35 r
o inmates
xcivilian twelfth
grade boys
30 -
25 -
x X
.|J
8
020 -
u
m
m
0
15 -
x
10
5 —.
I I I I I I
0 l 2 3 4 5 6

Self—Esteem Scores

Figure 5.1 Distribution Of scores on the Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scale Of white inmates and white civilians with
frequencies converted to percentages.

 

 

 

 

98

Figure 5.2 may be attributed to small N or to

chance.

Table 5.2 Frequencies Of scores, and frequencies as percents,
on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale for white and
Negro inmates.

 

 

 

 

Racial Self-Esteem Scores

Back- .

ground 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 Totals ' 3‘
10 32 47 52 27 13 1 182 .

White ‘8'.

(5.5) (17.6) (25.8) (28.6) (14.8) (7.1) (.6) (100)

17 33 32 36 24 9 2 153
Negro
(11.1) (21.6) (20.9) (23.5) (15.7) (5.9) (1.3) (100)

 

r = -.069

Question 3

 

What correlation exists between self-esteem scores
and the age Of inmates?

The correlation coefficient r = .031 suggests a
very slight positive linear relationship between the two
variables, age Of inmates and self-esteem scores. The
relationship is such that the age Of inmates appears to
have had almost no influence on inmate self-esteem scores.
The distribution Of inmate self-esteem scores by age Of
inmates is shown in Table 5.3. Reference to Figure 5.3

demonstrates the close similarity Of the distribution

 

 

 

 

 

percent

99

 

 

 

 

I
355‘
o white inmates
XNegrO inmates
3()"
255-
k
20 -
15-
10"
x
5
I I I I
o i 2 3 4 5 6
Self-Esteem Scores

Figure 5.2 Distributions Of scores on the Rosenberg

Self-Esteem Scale Of white and Negro inmates with frequencies
converted tO percentages.

 

 

 

 

100

 

 

 

 

 

curves. This minor correlation can best be attributed to

chance.

Table 5.3 Frequencies Of scores, and frequencies as per-
cents, on the Rosenberg Self—Esteem Scale Of
inmates by age.

Self-Esteem Scores
Age 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 Totals
4 13 9 15 6 2 - 49
17
(8.2) (26.5) (18.4) (30.6) (12.2) (4.1) - (100)
7 17 24 24 ll 6 2 91
18
(7.7) (18.6) (26.4) (26.4) (12.1) (6.6) (2.2) (100)
6 ll 16 l9 l7 4 - 73
19
(8.2) (15.1) (21.9) (26.0) (23.3) (5.5) - (100)
6 8 8 17 6 5 - 50
20
(12.0) (16.0) (16.0) (34.0) (12.0) (10.0) — (100)
2 9 15 4 4 2 l 37
21
(5.4) (24.3) (40.6) (10.8) (10.8) (5.4) (2.7) (100)
2 7 7 9 7 3 - 35
22
(5.7) (20.0) (20.0) (25.7) (20.0) (8.6) - (100)
r = .031

Question 4

 

What correlation exists between self-esteem scores

and work experience Of inmates?

 

”(unsold-Anna

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

017 year olds
#18 year olds
019 year olds
35's '20 year olds
A21 year olds
D22 year olds

30‘-

Percent

 

I
5 _

 

 

 

| I F77 l l I
0 l 2 3 4 5 6
Self-Esteem Scores

Figure 5.3 Distribution of scores on the Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scale Of inmates by age with frequencies converted
to percentages.

 

 

 

 

102

The correlation coefficient Of r = .032 suggests
a very slight positive linear relationship between the
two variables, work experience of inmates and self-esteem
scores. The relationship is such that the work experience
Of inmates appears to have had almost no influence on in—
mate self-esteem scores. The distribution Of inmate self-
esteem scores by work experience is shown in Table 5.4.
The close similarity existing between the distribution
curves of those with work experience and those without is
evident in Figure 5.4. This minor correlation can best

be attributed to chance.

Table 5.4 Frequencies Of scores, and frequencies as per-
cents, on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale for
inmates with work experience and for those
without work experience.

 

Self-Esteem Scores

 

 

 

Work
Experience 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Totals
12 18 25 31 19 5 - 110
None
(10.9)(16.4)(22.7)(28.2)(17.3)(4.5) - (100)
. 15 47 54 57 32 17 3 225
PreViously
Empl°Yed (6.7)(20.9)(24.0)(25.3)(14.2)(7.6)(1.3) (100)
r = .032

Question 5

What correlation exists between self-esteem scores

and school grade level attained by inmates?

 

 

 

 

 

 

103

 

 

35- O Inmates with work
experience
I Inmates without
work experience
30‘
25—
JJ
c
820‘
H
m
(3.:
X
x
15-
a
10-
I
5..
l T I l I '
0 l 5 6

2 3
Self—Esteem Scores

Figure 5.4 Distribution of scores on the Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scale Of inmates with work experience of those
without work experience with frequencies converted to percent—
ages.

 

 

 

 

104

The correlation coefficient Of r = -.119 indicates
a small negative linear relationship between the two vari—
ables, school grade level attained by the inmates and
self-esteem scores. The negative correlation indicates a
slight inverse relationship between progress in school and
high self-esteem. The relationship is such that the school
grade level attained by inmates appears tO have had very
little influence on self-esteem scores. The distribution
Of inmate self-esteem scores by school grade level attained
is‘shown in Table 5.5. Figure 5.5 shows the similarity Of
the distribution curves of inmates attaining different
school levels. The minor correlation can best be attri-
buted tO chance. The erratic distribution Of the group
with no schooling and the groups progressing only through

the fourth grade may be accounted for by size Of N,(N = 7).

Question 6

 

What correlation exists between self-esteem scores
and mother's attitude toward the inmate?

A correlation coefficient Of r = .029 was found.
This coefficient suggests a very slight positive linear
relationship between the two variables, mother's attitude
toward the inmate and self-esteem scores. The relationship
is such that mother's attitude toward the inmate appears

to have had almost no influence on self-esteem scores.

 

 

 

105

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5.5 Frequencies Of scores, and frequencies as per-
cents, on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale for
inmates by grade level attained in school.

Educa- Self-Esteem Scores

tional

Level 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 Totals
- 1 - 4 2 - — 7

None
— (14.3) - (57.1) (28.6) - — (100)

Gr. 1—2
— l 3 — 2 l - 7

Gr. 3-4
- (14.3) (42.8) - (28.6) - - (100)
- 4 4 7 2 l — 18

Gr. 5_6
— (22.2) (22.2) (38.9) (11.1) (5.6) - (100)
7 17 36 29 22 13 l 125

Gr. 7-8
(5.6) (13.6) (28.8) (23.2) (17.6) (10.4) (.8) (100)

14 32 22 32 16 5 l 122

Hos. 1—2

(11.5) (26.2) (18.1) (26.2) (13.1) (4.1) (.8) (100)
6 8 12 15 7 l - 49
HIS. 3_4
(12.2) (16.3) (24.5) (30.6) (14.3) (2.1) - (100)
- - — - — - l 1
_ _ _ - - - (100) (100)
Col. 3-4
r = -0119

 

 

 

106

ONO . school

   

XAttained grades 3-4
60- OAttained grades 5-6
IAttained grades 7—8
a Attained grades 9-10
AAttained grades 11-12
50-
X
401.
4.)
c
o
O
H
o
m
30-

20-

 

 

 

   

2 3

Self-Esteem Scores

Figure 5.5 Distribution Of scores on the Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scale Of inmates by grade level attained in school
with frequencies converted tO percentages.

 

 

 

 

 

107

The distribution Of inmate self-esteem scores by mother's
attitude toward the inmate is shown in Table 5.6. Exam-

ination Of Figure 5.6 reveals the close similarity of the
two distribution curves. This minor correlation can best

be attributed to chance.

Table 5.6 Frequencies of scores, and frequencies as per-
‘ cents, on the Rosenberg Self—Esteem Scale for
inmates whose mothers' attitudes were judged
healthy and for those whose mothers' attitudes
were judged unhealthy.

 

 

Self-Esteem Scores

 

 

 

Mother's
Influence 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 Totals
8 12 25 19 10 4 2 80
Healthy
(10.0) (15.0) (31.2) (23.8) (12.5) (5.0) (2.5) (100)
17 52 53 67 4o 18 l 248
Unhealthy
(6.9) (21.0) (21.4) (27.0) (16.1) (7.2) (.4) (100)
r = .029

Question 7

What correlation exists between self—esteem scores
and father's attitude toward the inmate?

A correlation coefficient Of r = -.002 was found.
This suggests an extremely slight negative linear relaion-
ship between the two variables, father's attitude toward

the inmate and self-esteem scores. The relationship is

 

 

Percent

355‘

.30

255‘

2C)

15

10

 

O Unhealthy
x Healthy

d

4

 

 

l l l I
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Self-Esteem Scores

Figure 5.6 Distribution Of scores on the Rosenberg
Self—Esteem Scale of inmates whose mothers' attitudes toward
them were judged healthy and those whose mothers' attitudes
were judged unhealthy, with frequencies concerted to percent-
ages.

 

 

  

 

109

such that father's attitude toward the inmate appears tO
have had nO influence on self-esteem scores. The dis-
tribution Of inmate self-esteem scores by father's atti-
tude toward the inmate is shown in Table 5.7. Examination
Of Figure 5.7 demonstrates the close similarity Of the two
distribution curves. This very minor correlation can best

be attributed to chance.

 

Table 5.7 Frequencies Of scores, and frequencies as per-
cents, on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale for
inmates whose fathers' attitudes were judged
healthy and for those whose fathers' attitudes
were judged unhealthy.

 

 

Self-Esteem Scores

 

 

 

Father's
Influence 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 Totals
5 7 13 15 5 . 5 - 50
Healthy
(10.0) (14.0) (26.0) (30.0) (10.0) (10.0) - (100)
20 57 64 73 43 17 3 277
Unhealthy
(7.2) (20.6) (23.1) (26.4) (15.5) (6.1) (1.1) (100)
r = -.002

Question 8

 

What correlation exists between self-esteem scores
and family cohesiveness?
The correlation coefficient, r = -.004, suggests

an extremely slight negative linear relationship between

 

 

 

 

110

 

 

.35
O‘Unhealthy
X Healthy
3()-
255-
«U
c
0 2()-
o
H
m
a.
15-
10 4
It
5-
l l l T l l
0 l 2 3 4 5
Self-Esteem Scores

Figure 5.7

Self-Esteem Scale of inmates whose fathers'

Distribution Of scores on the Rosenberg

attitudes were
judged healthy and those whose fathers' attitudes were judged
unhealthy, with frequencies converted to percentages.

 

 

 

 

 

   

111

the two variables, family cohesiveness and inmate self-
esteem scores. The relationship is such that family
cohesiveness appears to have had no influence on self-
esteem scores. The distribution Of inmate self-esteem
scores by family cohesiveness is shown in Table 5.8. The
close similarity Of the two distribution curves is evident
in Figure 5.8. This very minor correlation can best be

attributed to chance. The irregularity in the distribu—

 

tion curve Of inmates whose home climate was harmonious

may be attributed to chance or size Of N.

Table 5.8 Frequencies Of scores, and frequencies as per-
cents, on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale for
inmates from homes judged to be harmonious and
for those from homes judged tO be non-harmonious.

 

 

 

 

Climate Of Self-Esteem Scores
Parental
Marriage 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 Totals
10 26 21 36 15 9 2 119
Harmonious

(8.4) (21.8) (17.6) (30.3) (12.6) (7.6) (1.7) (100)

16 36 51 48 34 12 l 198
Non-

harmoni°us(3,1) (13.2) (25.7) (24.2) (17.2) (6.1) (.5) (100)

In _A‘

r = -.004

 

 

\ 112

 

 

 

35 ‘ o Harmonious
x Non-harmonious
3()-
X
253—
X
4..)
c:
8 2 o —
L:
m
a.
15w-
1()4
5
I I l l ' fl
0 l 2 3 4 5 6
Self-Esteem Scores

Figure 5.8

Distribution Of scores on the Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scale Of inmates from homes judged tO be harmonious,

and those from homes judged to be non—harmonious, with fre—
quencies converted to percentages.

 

 

 

113

Question 9

What correlation exists between self-esteem scores
and marital status Of parents?

The correlation coefficient Of r = .076 suggests
a slight positive linear relationship between the two
variables, marital status of parents and inmate self-
esteem scores. The relationship is such that marital
status of parents appears tO have had almost no influence
on the self-esteem scores of inmates. The distribution
of self—esteem scores of inmates by marital status Of
parents is shown in Table 5.9. The similarity Of the two
distributions is evidentiJIFigure 5.9. This minor cor-
relation can best be attributed to chance. The irregularity
in the distribution Of those whose homes were broken may be
attributed to chance or size of N.
Table 5.9 Frequencies of scores, and frequencies as per-

cents, on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale for

inmates whose homes were broken, and for those
whose homes were not broken.

 

Self-Esteem Scores

 

 

Home
Broken 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 Totals
13 27 22 43 12 9 - 126
NO
(10.3) (21.4) (17.5) (34.1) (9.5) (7.2) - (100)
13 36 54 44 38 13 3 201
Yes

(6.5) (17.9) (26.9) (21.9) (18.9) (6.4) (1.5) (100)

 

r = .076

 

 

\ 114

OParental Home Broken
_35 _ XParental Home Unbroken
.X

30 d

255'-
4.)
c:
8 20 ..
L!
a)
a.

X
155 -

 

L10

 

 

l l l I I I
0 l 2 3 4 5 6
Self-Esteem Scores

Figure 5.9 Distribution Of scores on the Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scale for inmates whose homes were broken, and
those whose homes were not broken, with frequencies converted
to percentages.

 

 

 

 

 

 

115

Question 10

Among inmates whose childhood homes were broken,
what correlation exists between self-esteem scores and
inmates' age at time home was broken?

For inmates whose childhood homes were broken, the
correlation coefficient, r = -.032, suggests a very slight
negative linear relationship between the two variables, in-
mate's age at time home was broken and self-esteem scores.
The relationship is such that age at time the inmate's home
was broken appears to have had almost no influence on self-
esteem scores. The distribution Of self-esteem scores by
age at which home was broken is shown in Table 5.10. Refer-
ence to Figure 5.10 reveals the similarity of the distribu-
tions. This minor correlation can best be attributed to
chance. A slight shift can be observed from higher to lower
self—esteem as the age of the inmate at the time his home
was broken increases. The indications of bimodality Observ-
able in the distribution of scores for those whose homes
were broken when they were twelve to fifteen year olds and
for those who were over fifteen may be attributed to the

small size Of N, (N = 17, and N = 23).

Question 11

What correlation exists between self-esteem scores
and age at which delinquency began?
The correlation coefficient, r = .046, suggests a

very slight positive linear relationship between the

 

 

116

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5.10 Frequencies Of scores and frequencies as per-
cents, on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale for
inmates whose homes were broken by their age
at the time their homes were broken.

Age When Self-Esteem Scores

Parental

Home

Broken 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 Totals
Before 3 16 24 18 16 6 1 84

Age 3
(3.6) (19.0) (28.6) (21.4) (19.0) (7.2) (1.2) (100)
2 7 7 ll 2 3 1 33

3-5
(6.1) (21.2) (21.2) (33.3) (6.1) (9.1) (3.0) (100)
3 4 5 5 3 l l 22
6—8

(13.7) (18.2) (22.7) (22.7) (13.7) (4.5) (4.5) (100)
l 4 5 5 6 1 - 22

9-11
(4.5) (18.2) (22.7) (22.7) (27.4) (4.5) - (100)
2 3 2 2 6 2 - 17

12-15
' (11.8) (17.6) (11.8) (11.8) (35.2) (11.8) - (100)
After 2 2 ll 3 5 - - 23
Age 15 (8.7) (8.7) (47.8) (13.1) (21.7) - - (100)

r = -0032

 

 

 

 

 

‘ . 47.8

 

117
OBefore age 3
X 3-5
0 6-8
I 9-11
- A 12-15
35 DAfter 15

130-'

25-

Percent
N
O
1

15-

 

 

‘

I l I I
0 1 2 3 4. 5 6
Self-Esteem Scores

Figure 5.10 Distribution of scores on the Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scale of inmates whose homes were broken by their

age at the time their homes were broken, with frequencies con-
verted to percentages.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

variables, age at which delinquency began and self—esteem

scores. The relationship is such that the age at which
delinquency began appears to have had almost no relation-
ship to self-esteem scores. The distribution of inmate
self—esteem scores by the age at which delinquency began
is shown in Table 5.11. The similarity of distributions
is demonstrated in Figure 5.11. This minor correlation
can best be attributed to chance. Small numbers of those
under ten years (N = 15), those nineteen and twenty

(N = 15), and those over twenty (N = 1), probably account

for the variations in those distributions.
W

What correlation exists between self-esteem scores
and length of time served in penal institutions as juve-
niles prior to current committal?

The correlation coefficient, r = -.018, suggests
a very slight negative linear relationship between the two
variables, length of time served in penal institutions as
juveniles prior to current committal and self-esteem
scores. The relationship is such that length of time
served in penal institutions as juveniles appears to have
had almost no influence on self-esteem scores. The dis-
tribution of self-esteem scores by length of time pre-

viously served is shown in Table 5.12. The similarity

 

 

 

119

Table 5.11 Frequencies of scores, and frequencies as per-
cents, on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale for

inmates by age at their first recorded delinquency.

 

 

 

 

Age at Self—Esteem Scores
First
Attention 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Totals
1 3 4 3 4 - - 15
Under 10
(6.6) (20.0) (26.7) (20.0) (26.7) - - (100)
6 ll 15 27 8 3 - 70
10-12
(8.6) (15.7) (21.4) (38.6) (11.4) (4.3) - (100)
9 17 22 25 16 1 1 91
13-14 '
(9.9) (18.7) (24.2) (27.4) (17.6) (1.1) (1.1) (100)
6 23 26 25 10 10 l 101
15-16
(5.9) (22.8) (25.7) (24.8) (9.9) (9.9) (1.0) (100)
3 5 10 6 6 6 - 36
17-18
(8.3) (13.9) (27.7) (16.7) (16.7) (16.7) - (100)
1 4 1 2 5 1 l 15
19-20
(6.7) (26.6) (6.7) (13.3) (33.3) (6.7) (6.7) (100)
1 - - — - - - 1
Over 20
(100) - - - - - - (100)

 

=' .046

 

 

‘

 

 

 

35‘

30‘

15-

10‘

Percent
N
o
l

120

 

 

 

 

oUnder 10
$10-12
013-14
I15-16
A17-18
019-20

 

N-

' | l l
0 1 3 4
Self-Esteem Scores

Figure 5.11 Distribution of scores on the Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scale of inmates by age of their recorded deliquency,

with frequencies converted to percentages.

 

 

 

 

121

 

of the distributions of the scores of inmates by the length

of their earlier institutionalization is seen in Figure

5.12. This minor correlation can best be attributed to

 

 

 

 

chance.

Table 5.12 Frequencies of scores, and frequencies as per-
cents, on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale for
inmates by length of time institutionalized as
juveniles.

Time Pre- Self-Esteem Scores

viously
Served 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 Totals
17 25 32 30 18 7 3 132

None

(12.9) (18.9) (24.3) (22.7) (13.6) (5.3) (2.3) (100)
Under 4 17 23 33 19 12 - 108
1 yr. (3.7) (15.7) (21.3) (30.6) (17.6) (11.1) - (100)
4 l6 19 18 ll 3 - 71

1-3 yrs.

(5.6) (22.5) (26.8) (25.4) (15.5) (4.2) - (100)
2 5 4 3 2 - - 16

3—5 yrs.

(12.5) (31.2) (25.0) (18.8) (12.5) - - (100)
- - l - - - - 1

5-10 yrs.

- _ (100) — - - - (100)
r = -.018

 

122

35-
ONone
XUnder 1 year
01 - 3
I3 - 5
30-
25- //
/ V
/
u 7 X
c
820 - /
H
m
m

 

0 1

 

 

I If 3 Vi l I
Self-Esteem Scores

Figure 5.12 Distribution scores on the Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scale of inmates by length of time instutionalized
as juveniles, with frequencies converted to percentages.

 

 

 

l|l flll‘|‘|("1

 

123

Question 13

What correlation exists between self-esteem scores
and minimum sentence?

The correlation coefficient, r = .059, suggests
a very slight positive relationship between the two vari-
ables, minimum sentence and self-esteem scores. The re—
lationship is such that minimum sentence appears to
have had almost no influence on inmate's self-esteem
scores. The distribution of inmate self-esteem scores
by minimum sentence is shown in Table 5.13. Reference
to Figure 5.13 reveals the similarity in the distribution
of self—esteem scores of inmates by length of minimum
sentence. This minor correlation can best be attributed
to chance. Because the small numbers render meaningless
the graphing of the scores of those sentenced for periods

of over three years, those numbers were not graphed.

Summary

Answers were sought to questions regarding the
self-esteem of inmates. Data and the results of statis-
tical analyses relevant to the particular questions were
presented.

In answer to the first question, the null hypothe-
sis that no difference exists between the distribution of
self-esteem scores of newly incarcerated white inmates and
the distribution of self—esteem scores of a white civilian

population of twelfth grade males, was not rejected.

 

 

 

’ ‘l; 11‘: '

!

 

 

 

 

 

124
Table 5.13 Frequencies of scores, and frequencies as per-
cents, on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale for
inmates by the length of their current minimum
sentence.
Length of Self-Esteem Scores
Minimum
Sentence 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 Totals
in Years
inéié & 2 13 14 20 3 6 - 58
(3.5) (22.4) (24.1) (34.5) (5.2) (10.3) - (100)
1 l-l 5 5 12 l7 17 11 4 1 67
° ° (7.4) (17.9) (25.4) (25.4) (16.4) (6.0) (1.5) (100)
1 6-2 0 6 14 18 19 15 2 l 75
° ' (8.0) (18.7) (24.0) (25.3) (20.0) (2.7) (1.3) (100)
2 1-2 5 4 5 6 5 10 2 - 32
° ° (12.5) (15.6) (18.7) (15.6) (31.3) (6.3) - (100)
2 6-3 0 3 9 11 15 2 3 - 43
° ' (7.0) (20.9) (25.6) (34.9) (4.6) (7.0) - (100)
- 1 2 3 - 1 - 7
3~1'3-5 - (14.3) (28.6) (42.8) - (14.3) - (100)
3 6-4 0 2 2 3 2 2 - l 12
° ° (16.7) (16.7) (25.0) (16.7) (16.7) - (8.2) (100)
4 1-5 0 2 4 4 3 5 1 - 19
' ' (10.5) (21.0) (21.0) (15.9) (26.3) (5.3) - (100)
5 1-7 5 3 3 1 l 2 1 - 11
° ' (27.3) (27.3) (9.1) (9.1) (18.1) (9.1) — (100)
l l 2 l - - 5
7°6’1°°° (20.0) (20.0) (40.0) (20.0) - — (100)
- - 1 - 1 - 2
10'1‘15°° - - (50.0) - (50.0) - (100)
- - l - - l - 2
99'0 - - (50.0) - - (50.0) - (100)
r = .059

 

..
.‘
‘
'x

 

125

OUnder 1 year
35- Xl.l-l.5 years
Ol.6-2.0 years
I2.l-2.5 years
A2.6-3.0 years

30-

Percent
N
‘P

15-

 

 

 

 

_—
-‘

l l l l
0 l 2 3 4 5 6
Self-Esteem Scores

Figure 5.13 Distribution of scores on the Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scale of inmates by length of their current minimum
rsentence, with frequencies converted to percentages. '

 

 

 

126

 

In answer to the questions regarding the relation-

ship of inmate self-esteem scores to inmate background
factors the correlation coefficients in Table 5.14 were
found. Only slight relationships were found to exist

between inmate self-esteem scores and the background

factors selected for study.

Table 5.14 Summary of correlation coefficients showing

relationships between self-esteem scores and
background factors of inmates.

 

 

Inmate Background

Correlation

 

Factors Coefficient (r) N
Race -.069 335
Age .031 335
Work Experience .032 335
School Grade Level -.119 329
Mother's attitude toward inmate .029 328
Father's attitude toward inmate -.002 327
Family Cohesiveness -.004 317
Marital Status of Parents .076 327
Age When Parental Home Broken -.032 201
Age When Delinquency Began .046 329
Prior Time Served -.018 328
Minimum Sentence .059 333

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The entire study is summarized and the conclusions )
are presented in this chapter. A discussion interpreting
the findings and drawing implications from the results

follows.

Summary

One purpose of this study was to examine the assump-
tion that the self—esteem of inmates is low when compared
with the self-esteem of a similar civilian population.

A second purpose was to examine twelve inmate back-
ground factors which might influence inmate self-esteem
at the time of incarceration.

These two purposes produced the objectives of the
research reported here. The first was to compare the dis-
tribution of self-esteem scores of young adult male offend-
ers at the time of their incarceration into a correctional
institution with that of a reasonably representative
civilian population of twelfth grade males. The second
was to examine the relationships that exist between inmate

self—esteem scores and twelve selected background factors.

127

 

   

128

These objectives were restated as thirteen questions to
be investigated in this study.
Self-esteem is defined as that element of the self-
configuration which results from positive or negative
self-valuing with the goals and ideals of the person as
a standard of reference. It is seen as a strong motiva- '
tional factor in behavior change and hence an important (a
consideration in the design of correctional education
programs for adults. 5w
Self-esteem was measured through the use of the
Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale. This measure is a seven-
point Guttman type scale of ten items. As evidence of
the scale's reliability, Rosenberg claims a reproduci-
bility of 92% and a scalability of 72%. He demonstrated
the validity of the scale by relating self-esteem scores
in a "theoretically meaningful way" with data produced
in measuring related constructs. The close similarity
between Rosenberg's definition of self-esteem and the
one deve10ped in this study; its reproducibility, scal-
ability, and validity; and its brevity and usefulness
in the context of this study, led to the selection of
Rosenberg's scale as the instrument for establishing
self-esteem scores.
The scale was administered to all inmates who
entered Michigan Reformatory between September 1, 1965

and June 1, 1966 at the time of their incarceration.

 

 

129

The inmate pOpulation used in this study consisted of 153
Negro and 182 white "first-timers" entering the Reforma-
tory. The inmates ranged from seventeen through twenty-
two years of age. Recidivists, inmates of races other
than Negro and white, and those whose ages were not in
the defined limits of seventeen through twenty-two years
were screened out.

The civilian population used for comparison with
the white inmate population consisted of 390 white twelfth
grade males from three high schools located in a Michigan
city not far from the Reformatory. This pOpulation was
administered the self-esteem scale in September, 1965 by
members of Brookover's Project teams from Michigan State
University.

Data for inmate background factors derived from
the inmate classification process of its Reception-
Diagnostic Center were supplied by the Michigan Depart-
ment of Corrections.

The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the
distributions of self-esteem scores of the inmate and
civilian pOpulations. Pearson product-moment correlation
coefficients were calculated to describe the relationships
between inmate self-esteem scores and the twelve inmate
background factors.

The analyses of the data resulted in the following

findings.

 

 

 

 

130

1. The distribution of the self-esteem scores of
the inmate white population did not differ significantly
from the distribution of the self-esteem scores of the
white civilian population of twelfth grade males.

2. Such very slight relationships between inmate

self-esteem and the inmate background factors were indi—

‘

cated by the correlation coefficients that each of the
background factors appeared to have almost no influence
on the self-esteem scores. The correlation coefficients
ranged from r = -.002 for the variable, father's attitude
toward inmates, to r = —.ll9, for the variable school

grade level attained by inmates.

Conclusions

The findings of this study lead to the following
conclusions.

1. The data do not support the assumption that
inmate self—esteem at the time of incarceration is lower
than the self-esteem of the civilian population used in
this study. The two populations cannot be differentiated
on the bases of self-esteem scores.

2. The data do not support the assumption that
the self-esteem of Negro inmates is lower than the self-
esteem of white inmates.

3. The data support the assumptions made in chapter

two that no relationship would be found between inmate

 

 

 

 

131

self-esteem and age of inmates, the marital status of
inmates' parents, and the age of inmates at the time when
the breaking of the parental marriage occurred in cases
of inmates from broken homes.

4. The data do not support the assumptions made
in Chapter two that relationships would be found between
the self-esteem of inmates and the school level attained,
work experience, the attitudes of mothers or of fathers
toward the inmate during childhood, the cohesiveness of
the family home, the age at which the inmate's delinquency
began, the prior time served by the inmate, or the serious-
ness of the crime for which the inmate was committed as
indicated by his minimum sentence.

5. The background factors studied do not account

for the observed variation in self-esteem scores.

Discussion of Results

Interpretations of the results of this study and
the implications derived from them are discussed in two
sections. The first section considers the comparison of
inmate and civilian self—esteem and is followed by a sec-
tion considering relationship of inmate self-esteem and

the twelve background factors studied.

Inmate and Civilian Self-Esteem

The decision not to reject the null form of Question

1 fails to support the commonly held assumption that inmate

 

132

self-esteem is lower than the self-esteem of a civilian
population. Though it is necessary to remember that this
research involved only a particular inmate population and
a particular civilian population, the failure of this one
research effort to support the assumption that inmate
self—esteem is indeed low, warrants further investigation ,
of the subject.

It is possible to argue that the measure of self-

 

esteem did not measure actual self-esteem of the inmates
because of the theoretical need of the individual to en—
hance his self-valuation. The influence of a person's
defensive mechanisms working to protect one's self-concept
has been discussed in Chapter two. However, it is the
presenting self-esteem of the inmate that is important to
us because this is the immediate phenomenon with which

the correctional staff must begin to work in the design

of the educational program for the rehabilitation of the
inmate.

It is possible that self-esteem might change over
time as a result of incarceration or treatment programs.
Research might be undertaken to measure such possible
changes and to study the implications for modifications
in treatment programs.

The possible dissonance between presenting self-
esteem and actual self—esteem might also suggest further

research. If dissonance actually exists efforts might

 

 

133

be made to modify self—esteem in the direction of the
optimum level for motivation to behavior change. If no
dissonance were found then existing correctional treat-
ment programs designed to enhance the individual's self-
esteem should be reevaluated.

The appropriateness of the use of a Guttman type
self-esteem scale for measuring the self—esteem of inmates
might also be questioned. The validity of the scale for
inmates might be checked by studies relating the scale to
measures of the depressive affect of inmates, symptoms of
anxiety or "neuroticism" of inmates, peer group reputa-
tional studies of inmates, and related self-concent scales.
This study assumed that the scale would measure the self-
esteem of inmates.

It might also be argued that the population of
twelfth grade males was not sufficiently similar to the
inmate population to justify comparison. Although prac-
tical limitations prevented the drawing of a completely
representative population of civilians, white inmate
cases were separated from Negro inmate cases and compared
with the white civilian population. Further, it should
be noted that the ages of the twelfth grade males were
similar to the younger members of the inmate population,
and that Rosenberg reported that "age was virtually un-

related to self-esteem" in his study.1 Future researchers

 

lRosenberg letter, op. cit.

 

 

 

134

conducting this type of study might benefit, however, by
attempting to draw a more representative sample of civil-
ians for comparison with the inmates.

Self-esteem as used in this research has been
taken to mean the valuation placed on the individual's
global self. Brookover and his project teams at Michigan
State University have demonstrated the wisdom of a differ-
ent approach in their study of a particularized conception
of self, the self-concept of academic ability.l Individuals
concerned with correctional studies might pursue the es-
teeming of such conceptualizations of self as the self as
inmate, the self as a rehabilitating inmate, or the self
as recidivist. Studies of the evaluation or esteeming of
particularized concepts of self might prove to be more

fruitful than the general approach taken in this study.

Inmate Self-Esteem and Background Factors

This study found only the slightest influence on
self esteem by the background factors studied. The most
surprising finding was that race did not appear to greatly
influence self-esteem. Though the majority of studies
lead to the assumption that Negro self-esteem would be
lower than white self—esteem, recent discussions by Clark

and Pettigrew were reported which indicated a change in

 

lBrookover, op. cit.

 

 

 

 

135

the Negro's View of himself. These discussions credited
recent civil rights legislation for the change. Though
their comments were not based on empirical testing, the
results of this study allow for the possibility that this
factor is at work and warrants further investigation to
keep pace with the changing social climate in the United
States.

The finding that virtually no relationship exists
between age and self-esteem supports the report by Rosen—
berg in his study of 5000 high school juniors and seniors
that self-esteem appeared virtually unrelated to age.

Though the studies reported in the literature indi-
cate a relationship between both failure to progress in
school and lack of work experience and criminal activity,
the findings of this study indicate very little relation-
ship between these variables and self-esteem. This sug-
gests that work experience and school grade level attained
do not function as critical elements in inmates' self-
valuing processes.

Similarly, the findings do not suggest that family
and early home influences function importantly in the in-
mate's self-esteeming. The influence of mothers' or
fathers' attitudes toward the inmate, family cohesiveness,
the marital status of parents and for those inmates whose
homes were broken, the age of the inmate at the time the

home was broken, had extremely small influence on self-esteem.

 

 

136

If these elements of home and family life functioned at
one time as significant influences in the lives of the
inmates the findings of this study indicate that they no
longer function strongly in relation to self—esteem.

This suggests that studies might be undertaken to examine
other possible significant persons' influences in inmates'
lives in relation to self-esteem. Such studies might in-
clude members of peer groups, teachers, neighborhood
leaders, family members other than mothers or fathers,

or other supposed influential persons.

The effort to investigate the criminal history of
the inmate as an element in the inmates' system of en-
vironmental influences revealed only the slightest influ-
ence of the criminal history of the inmate on self-esteem.
The inmate's criminal history was studied by examining the
age at which official delinquency began, the length of
time served in penal institutions as a juvenile, and the
seriousness of the type of crime as judged by the minimum
sentence given the inmate. Studies of other elements in
the systems of environmental factors influencing inmates
in relation to their self-esteem might also be undertaken
including the socio—economic milieu of the inmate, the
educational system in which he was involved, his relation
with the law enforcement community, or his participation

in a delinquent subculture.

 

 

137

This study used institutional records as its
source of data related to the background factors studied.
This limitation posed problems for the investigation.
Operational definitions of the background factors as a
result were those used by the Reception-Diagnostic Center
in its data collection. The data were also gathered by a
number of probation officers in many parts of the state
as described in Chapter III. There is no assurance that
these probation officers interpreted the definitions in
the same way. Investigators studying institutionalized
inmate populations should endeavor to secure permission
from institutional authorities to enable gathering data
on inmates and their backgrounds through direct question-
ing of inmates, their family members, and home community
acquaintances. Though the questions of inmate privacy
and financing of such a project would need to be resolved,
such a procedure would enable the researcher to establish
his own operational definitions and be more certain about
the consistency of his data.

This study was undertaken to contribute to the
understanding of inmate self-esteem as compared to that
of a civilian population, and the influence of twelve
background factors on inmate self-esteem. It is hoped
that this research, its findings, and the suggestions
made will encourage further research efforts contributing

to the understanding of inmates and their rehabilitation.

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allport, Gordon W. Pattern and Growth in Personality.
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1961.

 

American Correctional Association. Manual of Correctional
Standards, 1959. New York: The American Correc-
tional Assoc1ation, 1959.

 

Anderson, Camilla M. "The Self—Image: A Theory of the
Dynamics of Behavior," The Self in Growth, Teach-
ing, and Learnin , ed. Don E. HamacHeE. New York:
Prentice-Hall, 1965.

Baldwin, James. Nobody Knows My Name. New York: Dial,
19

Bennett, James V. "Evaluating a Prison," Annals Q: the
American Academ 9: Political and Soc1aI Science,
293 (May, 1954), 10-16.

Bertocci, Peter A. "The Psychological Self, The Ego, and
Personality," Psychological Review, Vol. 52 (1945),
91-99 I

 

Birge, Robert Dean. "The Relation of Differential Asso-
ciation, Self-Concept, and Delinquent Behavior."
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of
Nebraska, 1966.

Brookover, Wilbur, et a1. Self-Concept of Ability and
School Achievement. E. Lansing,_Mich.: MiEHigan
State University, Office of Research and Publica-
tions, 1962.

 

 

 

 

Cavan, Ruth Shonle. Juvenile Delinquency. Philadelphia,
Pa.: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1962.

 

 

Chenault, Price. "Education," Contemporary Correction,
ed. Paul Wilbur Tappan. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1951.

Clark, Kenneth B. Dark Ghetto. New York: Harper & Row,
1965.

138

 

 

 

 

139

.and Clark, Mamie P. "Racial Identification and
Preference in Negro Children," Readings in Social
Psychology, eds. T. M. Newcomb, and E. LT_HartIey.
1st ed. New York: Holt, 1947. “

Clinard, Marshall B. Sociology 9: Deviant Behavior. Rev.
ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.,
1963.

Cloward, Richard A., and Ontell, Robert. "The Trouble
with Training," American Child 47(1):l965, 1-6.

Coe, Rodney M. "Who is the Inmate? Characteristics of
Well Adjusted and Poorly Adjusted Inmates," Peno-
lo , ed. Clyde B. Vedder and Barbara A. Kay.
Springfield, 111.: C. C. Thomas, 1964.

Cohen, Albert K. Delin uent Boy : The Culture of the
Gang. Glencoe, I .: The Free Press, 1955.

Combs, Arthur W., and Snygg, Donald. Individual Behavior.
Rev. ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1959.

 

Cooley, Charles Horton. Human Nature and the Social Order.
New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1902, 19 .

Cooper, Morton. "Differences in Self-Perception Among
Physicially Dependent Drug Addicts, Alcohol Addicts,
and Controls." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,

The American University, 1958.

Cox, Oliver C. Caste, Class and Race. New York: Double-
day, 1948.

Erikson, Eric Homburger. "Growth and Crises of the
'Healthy Personality'," Personality in Nature,
Society, and Culture. ed. Clyde Kluckhohn and
Henry A. Murray. 2d ed. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1959.

Fradkin, Howard Elwin. "Criminal Background and Self-
Concept as Prognostic Factors in the Lives of
Prisoners." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The
Ohio State University, 1958.

Gates, Arthur I., et a1. Educational Psychology. 3d ed.
New York: Macmillan, 1948.

 

 

Glaser, Daniel. The Effectiveness g: 3 Prison and Parole
System. Indianapolis, Ind.: The Bost—MerriII
Company, Inc., 1964.

 

 

 

 

 

140

Glueck, Sheldon, and Glueck, Eleanor. 500 Criminal Careers.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1930.

. Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency._ New York:
The Commonwealth Fund? 1950.

Goodman, Mary E. Race Awareness I2 Youn Children. Cam-
bridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 952.

 

 

Grambs, Jean D. "The Self-Concept: Basis for Reeducation
of Negro Youth," Negro Self-Concept. William C.
Kvaraceus et al. New YorE: McGraw-HIll Book Co.,
1965.

Grossman, Howard. Memorandum from Howard Grossman, Super-
visor, Michigan Department of Corrections Reception-
Diagnostic Center to E. L. V. Shelley, Supervisor
of Treatment, Michigan Department of Corrections,
January 15, 1964.

Guttman, Louis. "Basis for Scalogram Analysis," Measure-
ment and Prediction, Samuel A. Stouffer, et a .
being—V31. 4, Studies I2 Social Psychology in World
ESE II. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton Univergity
Press, 1950.

. "Problems of Reliability," Measurement and Pre—
diction, Samuel A. Stouffer, et a1. being VEI.—IT
Studies IE Social Psychology £2 World W35 II.
Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press,
1950.

Hall, Calvin S. and Lindzey, Gardner. Theories gI Person-
ality. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., I957.

Harris, Joseph Jerry. "A Self Concept Measure for Pris—
oners and its Relation to Certain Objective Indices
of Criminality." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Pittsburgh, 1957.

Healy, William, and Bronner, Augusta F. New Light 93
Delin uenc and its Treatment. New Haven, Conn.:
Yale UniverSity Press, 1936.

Holley, Floyd Bernard. "Case History Factors Associated
with Youth Parole Adjustment: A Follow-up Study
of Selected Boys of the New York State Training
School for Boys at Warwick, New York." Unpublished
Ed.D. dissertation, New York University, 1964.

 

141

Honigmann, John J. Culture and Personality. New York:
Harper & Brothers, 1954.

Horney, Karen. Self-Analysis. New York: W. W. Norton,
1942

Jacobson, Frank, McGee, Eugene, and Jessor, Richard.
Re-Educating Confined Delinquents. Washington,
D.C.: U. S. Dept. of Justice. Bureau of Prisons.
1964.

James, William. The Principlies 23 Psychology. New York:
Henry Holt and Company, 1890, 1918.

Jersild, Arthur Thomas. 12 Search gI Self. New York:
Teachers College, Columbia University, 1952.

 

Johnson, C. S. Growing EB IE the Black Belt. Washington,
D.C.: American Council on Education, 1941.

 

Johnson, Elmer Hubert. Crime, Correction and Societ .
Homewood, Ill.: The Dorsey Press, 1964.

Kardiner, Abram, et al. The Psychological Frontiers g:
Society. New York: Columbia University Press,

Kashiwagi, Massayoshi, Mano, Morizo and Yasuhara, Hisao.
"On Factors for the Prediction of Recidivism."
National Clearinghouse. Current Pro'ects IE the
Prevention, Control, and Treatment of Crime gig—

Delinguency, V. 5 (Summer, 1964), #1785.

 

Katz, 1., and Benjamin L. "Effects of White Authoritar-
ianism in Biracial Work Groups," Journal of Abnor-
mal and Social Psychology, 1960, 61, 448-456.

 

Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research.

New York: HoIt, Rinehart—and Winston, Inc., 1965.

Koch, Helen L. "Social Distinction between Certain Racial,
Nationality, and Skin Pigmentation Groups in
Selected Populations of American School Children."
Journal g: Genetic Psychology, 1946, 68: 63-95.

Landreth, Catherine, and Johnson, Barbara C. "Young Chil-
dren's Responses to a Picture and Inset Test
Designed to Reveal Reactions to Persons of Differ-
ent Skin Color," Child Development, 1953, 24, 63-
80.

 

 

 

 

142

Landsman, Ted. "The Role of the Self-Concept in Learning
Situations," High School Journal XLV (April, 1962).

Lefeber, James Arthur. "The Delinquent's Self—Concept."
Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of
Southern California, 1965.

Lefkowitz, Joel Morris. "Self Esteem of Industrial Work-
ers." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Western
Reserve University, 1965.

Lipset, Seymour M., and Bendix, Reinhard. Social Mobilit
I3 Industrial Society. Berkeley, University of
California Press, 1959.

 

McCord, William, and McCord, Joan. Origins 9: Crime.
New York: Columbia University Press, 1959.

MacDougall, William. Character and the Conduct of Life.

New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1927.

Maslow, Arbraham Harold. Motivation and Personality.
New York: Harper & Row, 1954.

 

Mead, George Herbert. Mind, Self and Societ . Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, I934.
Mead, Margaret. Male and Female. New York: William Mor-

row & Co. I949.

Menzel, Herbert. "A New Coefficient for Scalogram Analy-
sis," Public Opinion Quarterly, 17, (Summer, 1953).

Metzner, Ralph, and Weil, Gunther. "Predicting Recidivism."
Journal 9: Criminal Law, Criminolo , and Police
Science. 54, (September, 1963 30 -16.

 

Michigan, Department of Corrections, Supervisor of Treat-
ment. Education Manual. Lansing, Michigan:
Michigan Department of Corrections, 1964.

Michigan, Department of Corrections. The Michi an Refor-
matory and its Program. Ionia, Mich.: Michigan

Re ormatory, 196 .

Michigan, Department of Corrections. Statistical Manual,
Section III, January 1, 1957. Lansing, Mich.:
Michigan Department of Corrections, 1964.

 

 

 

143

Milner, Esther. "Some Hypotheses Concerning the Influence
of Segregation on Negro Personality Development."
Psychiatry, 1953, 16, 291-297.

Moran, Mark Roland. "Inmate Concept of Self in a Refor-
matory Society." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation.
The Ohio State University, 1953.

Morland, J. K. "Racial Recognition by Nursery School
Children in Lynchburg, Virginia." Social Forces,
1958, 37, 132-137.

Morris, John. "Rank Correlation Coefficients," being
Technical Report #47, mimeo., East Lansing, Mich.:
Michigan State University, Computer Institute for
Social Science Research, 1967.

Murray, Henry A., et a1. Explorations £2 Personality.
New York: Oxford University Press, 19 .

Nardini, William. "Criminal Self Conceptions in the Penal
Community: An Empirical Study." Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, State University of Iowa, 1959.

 

Nye, F. Ivan. Fami y Relationships and Delin uent Behavior.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1958.

Pettigrew, Thomas F. A Profile gI the Negro American.
Princeton, N. J.: Van Nostrand. 1964.

Purder, William H., and Hand, S. E. "Personality Factors
Which May Interfere with the Learning of Adult
Basic Education Students." Adult Education Journal
XVIII (No. 2, 1968).

 

Quay, Herbert Callister. Juvenile Delinquency: Research
and Theory. Princeton, N. J.: D. Van Nostrand
Co., Inc., 1965.

 

Rogers, Carl R. Client-Centered Therapy. Boston: Hough-
ton Mifflin Co.,41951.

 

.Qp Becoming 3 Person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Co., 1961.

Rose, Arnold Marshall. The Negro's Morale: Group Identi-
fication and Protest. Minneapolis, Minn.: Univer-
sity of Minnesota Press, 1949.

 

 

 

144

Rosenberg, Morris. Letter, August 8, 1966, to Robert E.
Johnson. Bethesda, Md.: National Institute of
Mental Health.

 

Society and the Adolescent Self-Ima e. Princeton,

N J.: Princeton UniverSity Press, 65.

Schnur, Alfred C. "Correctional Research: Review and
Critique," Penology, ed. Clyde B. Vedder and
Barbara A. Kay. Springfield, 111.: C. C. Thomas,
1964.

"The New Penology: Fact or Fiction," Penology.
ed. Clyde B. Vedder and Barbara A. Kay. Spring-
field, 111.: C. C. Thomas, 1964.

Sears, Pauline S., and Sherman, Vivian S. 12 Pursuit gI
Self—Esteem. Belmont, Ca1if.: Wadsworth Pub-
Iishing Co., 1964.

Seeman, M. "A Situational Approach to Intragroup Negro
Attitudes." Sociometry, 1946, 9:199—206.

Shaw, Clifford R., and McKay, Henry D. "Social Factors
in Juvenile Delinquency." National Commission on
Law Observance and Enforcement, Re ort 93 the
Causes of Crime, No. 13, II. Washington, BT—C.:
U. S. Gavernment Printing Office, 1931.

 

Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behav-
ioral Sciences. New York: McGraw-HilI Book C .
Inc., 1956.

 

 

Simpson, George Eaton, and Yinger, J. Milton. Racial and
Cultural Minorities. New York: Harper & Brothers,
1953.

Stagner, Ross. Psychology gI Personality. 3d ed. New
York: McGraw-Hi Boo Co., Inc., 1961.
Sterne, Richard S. Delinquent Conduct and Broken Homes:

A Study 9: 1,050 Boys. New Haven, Conn.: CoIIege
and UniverSity Press, 1964.

 

 

Stevenson, H. W., and Stewart, E. C. "A Developmental
Study of Racial Awareness in Young Children."
Child Development, 1958, 29, 399-409.

Stouffer, Samuel A., et al. "A Technique for Improving
Cumulative Scales." Public Opinion Quarterly, 16,
Summer, 1952.

 

 

 

145

Sullivan, Harry Stack. The Interpersonal Theor g: Psy-
chiatry. New York: W. W. Norton, 95 .

Tannenbaum, Frank. Crime and Community. New York: Colum-
bia University Press, 1938.

 

Trager, Helen G., and Yarrow, Marian R. The Live What
They Learn. New York: Harpers, 195;.

Ullman, Albert D., et a1. "Some Social Characteristics
of Misdemeanants." Journal gI Criminal Law, Crim-
inology and Police Science, 48: 1957, 44-53.

 

 

U. 8., Congress, Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile
Delinquency. Education 3E9 Juvenile Delinquency,
Interim Report. 84th Congress. Washington, D. C.:
U. S. Government Printing Office, 1956.

 

U. S. Department of Justice. Federal Bureau of Investi-
gation. Uniform Crime Report, 1965. Washington,

 

 

 

D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1965.
Wylie, Ruth C. The Self Concept. Lincoln, Neb.: Univer-
sity of Nebraska Press, 1961.
Yarrow, Marian R. "Interpersonal Dynamics in a Desegre-
gation Process." Journal 9: Social Issues, 14,

1958, 3-63.

 

 

APPENDIX A: ROSENBERG SELF-ESTEEM SCALE

Name:
Number: Date:
Mo.Day Yr.

THIS IS NOT A TEST. THERE IS NO GRADE OR OTHER MARK. IT ASKS
ONLY FOR YOUR OPINIONS.

In this questionnaire we are interested in learning how
young men think about themselves. The only answer is your OWN
OPINION, your OWN FEELINGS. Please be frank in your answer.

The information we collect will be used only for scientific
research purposes.

WORK QUICKLY. DO NOT MULL OVER ANY QUESTION. If you are
doubtful, give whatever answer is closest to your own opinion or
feeling and move on quickly to the next question.

 

 

 

Below is a list of statements dealing with YOUR GENERAL FEELINGS

ABOUT YOURSELF. If you STRONGLY AGREE, circle SA. If you AGREE

with the statement, circle A. If you DISAGREE, circle 2. If you
STRONGLY DISAGREE, circle fl. 1 2 3 4

Strongly Dis- Strongly
Agree Agree agree Disagree

 

1. On the whole, I am satisfied with

myself. SA A D SD
2. At times I think I am no good at

all. SA A D SD
3. I feel that I have a number of

good qualities. SA A D SD
4. I wish I could believe in myself

more than I do. SA A D SD
5. I am able to do things as well as

most other people. SA A D SD
6. I feel I do not have much to be

proud of. SA A D SD
7. I do not like to put my abilities

to the test. SA A D SD
8. I certainly feel useless at times. SA A D SD
9. I feel that I'm a person of worth,

at least on an equal plane with

others. SA A D SD
10. I wish I could have more respect

for myself. SA A D SD
11. All in all, I am inclined to feel

that I am a failure. SA A D SD
12. I take a positive attitude toward

myself. SA A D SD
13. I seem to have feelings of inferi-

ority. SA A D SD
14. I have noticed that my ideas about

myself seem to change very quickly. SA A D SD

146

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nICHIGnN STATE UNIV. LIBRRRIES
)IHIHWIll)(I)(I”WI“(MINI)“W))llHlWlWl
31293102042698