_ .. ' L-. 11;"? 2,4 ,.

“I‘la-dh— ‘,

u h ...; A....!.-_{V* - A»;z’,;fr-,‘.l m RAW; Auxilxb, r," A; __.u . . “A i ._ .. M Q W , , ‘ 1‘ H A A ‘ ‘ , ,
.5'3 9, ‘. ‘A , “ - w. ‘- ,I‘ ‘ .H -:~..—A- ... .-.< y. - 7 ,_ . -r_- ‘.’ L .. w l . -. ‘_ ~ w ‘.-. ,.,. . .- 1, _ .4.
- .‘ _‘_‘ H q , 1" “I,“ W. 1:5»3‘31‘3‘Mpg-gull, 1.. ,V. 1‘ H , H . .‘ . . ‘ H ‘_. ‘H ‘ , .,
4 - ‘ .mdvg-vfix , ‘ "mm lthn‘. “I‘M“ ‘. Hl‘

NEUROTIC AND PSYCHOPATHFC CRIMINALS
SOME MEASURES OF EGO svmomcm

IMPULSE SOCIALIZATION. AND 9mm 3»,

 

MICHICAN STATE mm
Paui‘ $311!" David Bag
A ’ 1.963 '9‘ A

 

 

THESlS

 

II!!!(”III/llIII!IllWill/IIHIlllll/llllllllllll/IIIIll/III L

3 1293 10383 3715

This is to certifg that the

thesis entitled

NEUROTIC AND PSYCHOPATHIC CRIMINALS:
SOME MEASURES OF EGO SYNTONICITY,
IMPULSE SOCIALIZATION, AND
PERCEPTUAL CONSISTENCY

presented by

Paul Saul David Berg

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

“H. degree in Mogy

 

flaw A” 4%—

Major professor
DateJy/flfl 7 / [/17 :3

0—169

LIBRARY

Michigan §tate
University

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT
NEUROTIC AND PSYCHOPATHIC CRIMINALS: SOME MEASURES
OF EGO SYNTONICITY, IMPULSE SOCIALIZATION,
AND PERCEPTUAL CONSISTENCY

By Paul Saul David Berg

The present study was concerned with some of the
psychological attributes of two selected groups of prison-
ers. Many previous attempts at constructing typologies
of inmates have resulted in the isolation and definition
of "psychopathic" and "neurotic" adjustment types. The
"psychopathic" type is characterized by continuous anti-
social behavior and by lack of personal discomfort asso-
ciated with direct impulse expression. The "neurotic"
type shows greater ability to inhibit direct impulse
expression as well as a variety of signs suggestive of
personal discomfort, e.g., anxiety, guilt, and neurotic
symptoms in general.

On the basis of both clinical observations and
psychoanalytic formulations of character development, the
following characteristics were suggested as possible dis-
criminating factors between the two groups: impulse social-
ization, ego syntonicity (integration), perceptual con-
sistency, and extraversion.

In order to investigate these attributes, "psycho-
pathic" and "neurotic" inmates were selected on the basis

of institutional adjustment and MMPI profiles. From the

 

 

 

 

 

Paul Saul David Berg

pool of subjects who met the appropriate standards for
these criteria, two groups of 30 subjects each were
matched for race, age, I.Q., and time served on present
sentence. Four procedures were employed: (1) Eysenck's
Extraversion scale; (2) eight cards of the Thematic Apper-
ception Test (Pine's scoring system); (3) specially con-
structed pairs of high and low socialized slides presented
stereoscopically; (h) tachistoscopic presentation of these
slides.

The hypothesis that the drives of Psychopaths are
less socialized than those of Neurotics was confirmed by
the stereoscope results. When pairs of high and low
socialized slides, each depicting a different degree of
socialization of the same drive, were presented to the sub-
jects, Neurotics selected significantly more high social-
ized slides. The six individual pairs of slides confirmed
the hypothesis in each case; two of the slide pairs ac-
hieved significance individually. However, when impulse
socialization was tested by the Drive Socialization Index
(TAT) no significant differences were obtained. The lack
of positive results on this TAT index as well as on the
TAT Number of Drive Content was explained in terms of the
structure of the TAT and the poor internal reliability of
these two scoring systems.

The only TAT scale which yielded significant re-

sults was the Drive Integration Index. Thematic drive

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

———’—
r I (
. .1
(a n ‘ (
' n ' I
.
. i
I ' _‘ I ' ‘
t
._ . 1 ( 3
- J K I
.
t ’ o 1
. .
. 1
.

 

Paul Saul David Berg

integration used as an operational measure of ego syn-
tonicity occurred in greater degree for Psychopaths than
Neurotics, as predicted. The association between drive
integration and low-socialized perception was statisti-
cally significant.

When perceptual consistency was defined as the
commission of error in the perception of tachistoscopic
slides, the groups did not differ. However, when the
nature of the errors was examined, it was found that
Psychopaths committed significantly more low-socialized
errors and Neurotics more high-socialized errors. The
generality of the stereoscope results thereby received
additional support.

Psychopaths achieved greater perceptual consis-
tency which was defined by greater internal consistency
on stereoscope perception. Finally, Psychopaths obtained

significantly higher Extraversion scores than Neurotics.

Previous stereoscope studies have indicated that
assaultive, poorly adjusted inmates perceive more violent
stimuli than less aggressive inmates. The present study
extended previous work by utilizing slides depicting a
variety of impulsive themes, e.g., orality, sex, aggression,
Further support was provided for the contention that indi-
viduals who have had experience with impulsive behavior
tend to be sensitized toward perceiving impulse content.

Furthermore, the present study suggested that one of the

 

 

 

 

 

Paul Saul David Berg

correlates of the capacity for blatant impulse expression
and perception may be the degree to which impulses are
integrated into the personality.

Suggestions for further research with the stereo-
scope and drive integration measure were also considered.
A variety of investigations calculated to explore the
predictive validity of these instruments for various
indices of institutional and parole adjustment were sug-
gested.

Approved:

Chairman of Guidance Committee

Date Zézéégfl 5: /Qf4£5?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NEUROTIC AND PSYCHOPATHIC CRIMINALS: SOME MEASURES
OF EGO SYNTONICITY, IMPULSE SOCIALIZATION,

 

AND PERCEPTUAL CONSISTENCY

BY

Paul Saul David Berg

 

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Psychology

1963

4/;

 

 

 

9o

\fixxJn
:J //O/

DEDICATION

The labors of this thesis are dedicated to my
wife Miriam and my newborn daughter, Donna Irene. Miriam
was a constant source of strength throughout many of the
difficult hours. Both of us in turn drew support from

Donna Irene.

 

ii

 

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

A debt of gratitude is owed to all the members of
my dissertation committee for their advice, help and
support. My chairman, Dr. A. I. Rabin not only contributed
to the final product, but was a wise counsel throughout my
graduate school years. Dr. Hans Toch was an invaluable
source of consultation and encouragement. Drs. Henley and
Denny gave freely of their time and knowledge.

The Michigan Department of Corrections also de-
serves thanks. Director Harrison and his staff were kind
enough to furnish the facilities and approval for the
research. Especially helpful was Dr. F. J. Pesetsky,
Director of the Psychiatric Clinic where the research was
conducted. His role as my supervisor and friend facil-
itated my work.

Gratitude is owed to Max Hutt of the University of
Michigan, who contributed to the completion of this thesis
in ways too numerous to mention.

A final debt is owed to the convicts with whom I
live eight hours a day. Their sincere cooperation as
subjects, their willingness to lend their technical skills
to the research, and their assistance "beyond the call of

obedience" will always be remembered.

 

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER
I. BACKGROUND FOR THE STUDY . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . .
Type Theories. . . . . . . .
An historical approach. .
Present trends. . . . . .

Future directions . . .

A common thread . . . . . . .
Review of the Literature on Criminal
Typology. . . . . . . . . . . .
Hewitt and Jenkins se ies . . . .
Peterson-Quay studies . . . . . .
Summary regarding typologies. . .
Psychoanalytic Character Theories. .
Character and its deviations. . .
Autoplastic and Alloplastic Character
Ego flexibility . . . . . . . . .
Ego syntonicity of drives . . . .
Socialization of drives . . . . .
Id and superego . . . . . . . . .
Diagnosis and crime . . . . . . .
Neurotic and psychopathic criminal
types. . . . . . . . . . . . .

II. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . . . . . . .

Introduction . .'. . . . . . .
Interrelationships Among Variables .

III. SUBJECTS AND PROCEDURES. . . . . . . .
Subjects 0 O O O O I O O 0 I O O O 0
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory . . . . .
Neurotic. . . . . . .
Psychopathic. . . .
Behavior Check List. . .
Disciplinary category
Symptom categories. .
Matching Variables . . .
Race. 0 O O O O O O O

O
O O
0

Age 0 O O O o 0 I I

IOQO l o t o o a
Time served on present 5 n

O
O
O
O
O
0
O
C
0

O O I o O O O o 0 O O

O O
O O O '
o I o O
O O O 0
e tence

iv

o 0 o O O 0 O O o 0 a a

O

I O O O O O O O O O O

O O O O C C

C O O O I O O D O O O

Instruments and Special Equipment. . . . 40
Thematic Apperception Test (TAT). . . 40
Stereoscope . . . . . . . . . . . . . #4
Maudsley Personality Inventory. . . . 49

Procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5O
TAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Stereoscope . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Series I. . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Series II . . . . . . . . . . . . 5h

Series III. . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Maudsley Personality Inventory. . . . 55
Operational Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . 56

IV. RESULTS. 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 57

Socialization of Impulses. . . . . . . . 57

Ego Syntonicity of Impulses. . . . . . . 63

Perceptual Consistency . . . . . . . . . 65

Extraversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Interrelationships Among Variables . . . 76

V 0 DISCUSSION 0 a o o o a o I o o o o o o o o 79

Impulse Socialization. 79

Ego Syntonicity. . . . .
Ego Flexibility. . . . .
Extraversion . . . . . .
Two types of prisoners
Racial differences. .
Intercorrelations Among Variables.
Suggestions for Further Research .

O O
O O
O C
O O
O O

0
O
O
O
O

O O O I O O C U

0 O 0 I O O 0 O
\O
O

\O
\1

APPENDI CES I I O C O O O O I 0 O I C I O O O O

I-'
N
N

REFEREN CES . O O O . O I O O 0 O O C O I O O O O

 

 

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1. Mean TAT Drive Socialization Index Scores. . 58
2. Mean Percentage of High—Socialized Stereo- 6

O

scope Choices. . . . . . . . . . . .

3. Sign Test Probabilities Associated with the
Increment of Psychopaths' Over Neurotics'
Low Socialized Stereoscope Choices . . . . . 62

A. Mean TAT Number of Drive Content Scores. . . 64
5. Mean TAT Drive Integration Index Scores. . . 66 A
6. Relationship Between Tachistoscopic Errors
and Previous Stereoscopic Choices. . . . . . 68 fl
7. Mean Percentage of High Socialized Stereo-
scope Choices in Series I and Series II. . . 7O
8. Tachistoscope Errors When One High and One
Low Socialized Slide Chosen on Stereoscope . 72
9. Internal Consistency Scores of Stereoscope h
o h o o O O 0 7

Choices. . . . . . . . . . . .

10. Mean Scores on Maudsley Personality Inven-
tOI‘y o o o o o o o o o o c o c o o a o o o o 75

11. Product Moment Correlations of Selected
Scoring Variables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

vi

 

 

 

 

. 4
a . . C t I Q I . ‘ . '
u .
. u o
. ~
. o . v
. . r. . u
’ . I
u ‘ o a m
\J. u . o n .
I I V A.
. . . .
l I I . o h a
a . _
I l o
. v . , . . .
¢ . Q I I
N I O Q 1 r w I \ o
a g . . o u - a . v E . . . o
. . . o . o . . . . .
I 1‘ ~

 

 

 

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix

A.

B.

C.
D.
E.
F.

I.
J.
K.
L.

N.

MMPI T Scores and Number of Disciplinary
Violations or Triple 0 Segregation Status .

Ranges and Means of Neurotic Triad (Hs, D,
Hy) and Psychopathic Deviate (Pd) Scores. .

Ranges and Means of MMPI Scales . . . . . .
Behavior Check List . . . . . . . . . . . .
Types of Felonious Offenses for Both Groups
Distribution of Race, Age, I.Q., and Time
Served on Present Sentence for Matched
Pairs of Neurotics and Psychopaths. . . . .

Average Differences Between Matched Pairs
of Neurotics and Psychopaths on Matching
variables 0 I O O O O O O O O O I I O I O 0

Mean Age, I.Q., and Time Served on Present
Sentence for Matched Pairs of Neurotics
and Psychopaths . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sample Stereogram . . . . . . . . . . .
Series I and Series II . . . . . . . . . .
Series III. . . . . . . . . . . .
Maudsley Personality Inventory. . . . . . .
Table l in Mueller, 1958. . . . . . . . . .
Scoring Reliability of TAT Stories. . . . .

vii

Page

100
101
102
103

105

108

109
111
112
113
11h
118
121

 

 

 

 

 

v I u
l .
u
.
i
.
a o
. u .
o u
. n w u
v . t
.. n u
. .. ..
v n .
n a .
.. u u .
V . I v -
a e a
n a v
._ | .

    
 

 

CHAPTER I

BACKGROUND FOR THE STUDY
Introduction

While the field of mental health has progressed in
gaining some public understanding and acceptance of the mental

patient, correctional psychology has lagged behind in exorcising

the demons from the criminal. The publics' conception of the

criminal, (and of his home--the prison) is replete with weird
images and fantasy material related to unbridled violence and

horror. It is not questionable that such an attitude, which

permeates all sectors of our society, has impeded progress in
the understanding and treatment of "criminal disorders."
Certainly, the fantastic attitudes which the public at
large holds towards criminals is related to the fact that
criminals and prisons remain experiential unknowns to general
society. Although criminologists and social scientists do
possess degrees of experience with criminals in prison they,
too, fall short in understanding criminals on both empathic

and scientific grounds. However, as a result of years of

prison experience, penologists have naturally advanced some-
what further than the general public in understanding criminal

disorders. One clear distinction has been the development of

1

 

 

a position which no longer considers a single "criminal type",
but instead recognizes the balance between similarities among

criminals in conjunction with the inherent uniqueness and

idiosyncrasy of each criminal. Penologists have not yet been

able to organize relatively stable categories, or isolable

personality types, but the direction of interest in this area

is perhaps the clearest trend in criminology. Both Clinard
(1959) and Mueller (1958) have stated the case for typological

systems as the sine gua non of adequate treatment theories and

 

research in criminology.

Type Theories

pp Historical Approach
The recognition of personality, temperament, and char-
acter types in philosophy and psychology predates taxonomic

approaches in criminology. The first well known system was

developed by Hippocrates and was followed by such classical
‘attempts as those of Kraepelin, Francis Galton, Freud, and

Jung (Bonner, 1961, Ch. 3). The development of criminal

typologies can be dated back at least as far as the work of
Lombroso and his disciples (Gibbons and Garrity, 1959).
Perhaps the earliest attempt at classification of
criminal types was in‘Pennsylvania's Walnut Street Jail of
1797 (Barnes and Teeters, 1959, p. 466). Adams (1961) points
out that recognition of both the need for classification of

criminals and for different treatments for different types of

 

 

 

criminals was already a clear trend in the United States by

1845.
Present Trends

A review of the literature suggests that the issue
today is not whether the construction of typologies is a
useful and heuristic endeavor, but rather what directions such

efforts should take. The very few objections to construction

of criminal typologies are largely of an older vintage and

are not currently popular notions. McCann (1948) points out

that society chooses to think of "a" criminal type, regardless
of whether scientific support would be forthcoming for such a

notion. It would be comforting to think of a category of

persons, very much unlike us, who are designated as criminals

and who bear little or no resemblance to ourselves. Michaels

(1959) summarizes "logical and historical explanations" for

aversions to the construction of typologies.
Various trends in the construction of criminal typolo-

gies have been noted. Gibbons and Garrity (1959) point to a

movement away from general theories which attempt to account
for general criminal behavior towards separate theories for

specific patterns of crime. In a later publication, Gibbons

and Garrity (1962) cite a second trend in the direction of
sociological analysis of types, and away from gross multiple

factor frameworks. According to Gibbons and Garrity (1962)

another tendency in typologies has been to emphasize classi-

fication of young offenders rather than adult criminals.

 

 

 

There are presently available a large variety of
classification systems. Impetus for these systems has come
from every one of the social science fields, including psy—
chology, psychiatry, sociology, social work, penology, and
from various schools of thought within each of these disciplines.
Not only do orientations vary, but the method of the construc-
tion of the typologies may vary, e.g. empirical-statistical,
empirical-observational, theoretical.

There has been such a variety of classification attempts
that efforts are now being directed towards classifying the
classification systems themselves (Gibbons and Garrity, 1959;
Gibbons and Garrity, 1962; Grant, 1961).

The best summary of the development of criminal classi-
fication types is presented by Grant (1961). She summarizes
five broad types of classification attempts. The first cate-
gory is the "prior probability approach" which emphasizes the
prediction of criminality via base expectancy tables. The
second is labeled the "psychiatric-oriented approach," as
illustrated by the work of Aichorn (1935), and Jenkins and
Hewitt (l9hh). The third category is the "reference group"
typology represented by the work of Sykes (1958) and other
social class typologists. The fourth category is that of
"behavioral classification," which is well illustrated by the
work of Gibbons and Garrity (1959; 1962) and covers a range
of generality-specificty from offense types to conformity-

nonconformity dichotomies. The final approach is that of

 

 

 

 

 

"social perception and interaction classification" as pre-
sented by Baker and Sarbin (1956), Gough (l9h8; 1960),
Peterson, Quay and Cameron (1959), and Sullivan, Grant and
Grant (1957).

Although the relationship is not perfect, these
categories often tend to be associated with different orien-
tations. The "prior probability approach" category is usually
occupied by statistically-oriented scientists; the "reference
group" and "behavioral classification" categories are usually
reserved for sociologically-oriented investigators; the "psy-
chiatric" and "social perception" categories are usually
associated with clinical and experimentally-oriented investi-
gators. The focus in this thesis will center about the last
group.

Future Directions

A.variety of suggestions concerning the future directions
for criminal typology has been presented in the literature.
There seem to be four basic positions: (1) Continue to locate
and define the types (Mueller, 1958; Kinch, 1962); (2) The
types have been located; they are now ready to be interrelated
(Grant, 1961); (3) Create theoretical models (Eliasoph, 1962);
(4) Explore the dimensions and psychological correlates of
existing types (Grant, 1962; Kinch, 1962; Peterson, Quay, and
Tiffany, 1961).

The location and definition of types has been receiving
primary attention from modern typologists. However, demon-

strating the existence of types does not necessarily indicate

 

 

 

a state of readiness for elaborate and sophisticated theories.
Rather, the need seems to be for explaining what has already
been found. Too often the "labeling" of types is passed off
as "explaining" them. Gibbons has lamented, "Most of the
typologies presented to date involve little more than the
assertion that there are types, without any clear indication
of the attributes which distinguish different delinquent
patterns" (1962, p. 236). Kinch adds, "Simply because we
have a scheme to classify the various types studied so far
does not indicate that we have isolated either a cause or a
defining factor" (1962, p. 326).

The trend appears to represent a movement away from
constructing additional typologies based on cryptic, anecdotal
sources (Eliasoph, 1962; Gibbons, 1962; Gibbons and Garrity,
1959; Kinch, 1962; Mueller, 1958), and away from purporting
to explain criminal typologies or behavior by reference to
the "they're sick" theory. A growing concern with investi-
gating the functional differences among various criminal types
seems to be slowly replacing the race for more and new types.
For example, the relationship between types of offenders and
types of treatment (Adams, 1961; Grant, 1961; Grant, 1962;
and others), between institutional adjustment types and per-
ception of violence (Shelley and Toch, 1962), between insti-
tutional adjustment and neurosis and psychopathy (Peterson,
Quay, and Tiffany, 1961), have all begun to be explored. Pet-
erson, Quay and Tiffany have stated the direction for future

research:

 

 

 

Further research on the validity of such constructs
as socialization, psychopathy, and neuroticism, and study
of their relationships to various antecedents and con-
sequents, should lead to a considerable refinement in
research, and may offer a substantial increase in know-
ledge about antisocial behavior (1961, p. 13).

The definition of the major types, however, still re-
mains equivocal. Attempts to classify and synthesize recent
research findings in criminal typology are cumbersome due to
(a) the frequent use of arbitrary names or definitions of the
criminal groups; (b) the relative absence of commonly defined
types; (0) the lack of systematic attempts to interrelate
various classification systems, or to relate them to common
theoretical contexts.

Grant (1961) has declared that even if consistencies
do exist among studies, they are obscured by the differences
in definitions of groups, as well as by the lack of integra-
tive attempts to relate one study to another.

It is true that there are formidable terminology and
language barriers which prevent precise translation of types
from one study to another. However, examination of the types
can reveal an underlying consistency and uniformity of defin-

ing characteristics.

é Common Thread

 

When criminals are compared to noncriminals, it is
common for the former to be characterized as extraverted or
psychopathic and the latter as introverted or neurotic (Cassel
and Harriman, 1959; Foulds, 1960; Glueck and Glueck, 1950;
1956; Gough, 1960; Miller, 1956; Moller, 1960). However, when

 

 

the criminal population itself is examined and classified,
both psychopathic and neurotic types are consistently feund.
Whether the method of classification is psychophysiological
examination, case history study, or factor analytic analysis
of questionnaires, the psychopathic and neurotic types re-
appear. The terms used to describe these two types range
from "unsocialized-overinhibited" to "nonsocial neurotic-
asocial offender", but they all appear to be describing a
similar continuum of behavior involving neurotic and psycho-
pathic adjustment. The extraverted or psychopathic type1 is
characterized by impulsivity, acting out, and other external
manifestations of pathology; the introverted or neurotic type
by inhibitions, inability to express feelings, and by a rela-
tive internalization of pathology (symptoms). A review of
the studies which have located these types offers an oppor-

tunity for more detailed descriptions of their characteristics.

Mueller (1958) has collated various criminal typolo-
gies and classified the findings into summary types (See Ap-
pendix M). The two main psychological types, I and 11;,

represent essentially neurotic (introverted) and psychopathic

 

l"Psychopathic type" does not refer here to the wide
range of behaviors often ascribed to this "wastebasket" cate-
gory. Rather, it will be restricted in this thesis to those
persons whose behavior is aggressive and antisocial, and ap-
pears to be expressed without overt signs of moral apprehension,
guilt, anxiety, or other indications of internal discomfort.

 

 

9

(extraverted) categories, respectively.

Kinch (1959) has presented a similar tabulation of
criminal types found in the literature, although his emphasis
is almost entirely on social orientation. Two of the main
classifications which Kinch summarizes and labels ppp-social
neurotic and g-social offender also appear to correspond to
neurotic and psychopathic types, respectively. Other studies
reviewed below suggest the existence of a similar typology of
criminals.

Rodger (19h8) studied 50 naval prisoners who were free
from somatic disease and were clearly diagnosed as "psychopaths."
The total group was divided into those who were discipline
violators in prison and those who were without prison violation.
The prisoners were compared on case history incidence of 3229-

plastic and alloplastic2 traits, as well as on a variety of

 

tests of autonomic stability, e.g., Cold Pressor Test, inci-
dence of excessive sweating and blushing, etc. Rodger concluded
that both the experimental measures and the case history mater-
ial revealed that prisoners tended to fall into either neurotic
adjustment or acting out adjustment groups. For example, the
most flagrant institutional offenders produced normal responses

to the Cold Pressor Test, whereas the preponderance of neurotic

 

2Autoplastic traits refer to "self-molding" devices in
which conflict is dealt with by the organism via the production
of alterations within the organism, e.g., repression, fantasy,
psychoneurotic symptoms. Alloplastic traits, on the other hand,
refer to mechanisms for dealing with conflict which are directed
outside of the individual through the implication of the envir-
onment, i.e., through acting-out and "other-molding" devices.

 

 

 

.
.) ,
. .
(
n
1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10

indicators occurred in the non-discipline violators. The
neurotic non-violator group evidenced more complaints in the
following areas: gastro-intestinal, respiratory, muscular,
cardiovascular, and genito-urinary systems. Both the auto-
plastic and alloplastic adjustment types were viewed as
adaptive attempts to cope with anxiety and conflict, and
served to distinguish the two groups in terms of behavioral
adjustment. The results must be interpreted with caution
since control groups were not utilized and such factors as
age were not controlled within the groups.

Franks (1956) attempted to relate recidivism to
Eysenck's dimensions of neuroticism and introversion-extra-
version, in the context of a Pavlovian theory of cortical
excitation and inhibition. The author summarized recent
research as suggesting that:

. . .introverts and introverted neurotics condition
readily and extraverts and extraverted neurotics, in-
cluding psychopaths, condition poorly. It is suggested
that there are two kinds of recidivists; the introverted
ones, who condition well and who readily learn the rules
of their (undesirable) environment, and the extraverted
--possibly psychopathic--ones, who condition poorly and
who find great difficulty in learning the rules of their
environment (desirable or otherwise) 1956, p. 199.

Bartholomew (1959) specifically investigated the re-
lationship between extraversion-introversion and recidivism.
The author tested 50 consecutive first-offender admissions to
prison and 50 consecutive recidivists on Eysenck's Extraversion-

Introversion and Neuroticism-Normality scales. The results

showed that recidivists scored significantly higher on both

 

ll

Extraversion and Neuroticism than did first-offenders.
Bartholomew indicates that the results must be interpreted

with caution due to the manner in which the subjects were
selected (on specific court referral), failure to consider

the distribution of psychopathy in each group, and finally,
differential effects of confinement upon new prisoners as
compared to experienced prisoners. An objection of more im-
portance is the arbitrary labeling of the factor by Eysenck

as "neuroticism." Argyle (1961) points out that many studies
show neuroticism to be positively or negatively associated

with criminals depending on how neuroticism is defined. When
the Eysenck scale is used, or when neuroticism is defined in
terms of such behavioral measures as "low frustration tolerance,"
or when neuroticism is used as a synonym for maladjustment, con-
fusion of neuroticism and other kinds of maladjustment is bound
to occur.

Miller (1956) avoided confusing different kinds of
pathology by defining maladjusted groups according to type of
pathology. Six hundred white males seen at child guidance
clinics and classified as either introverted, extraverted, or
ambiverted were followed up 28 years later. In the follow-up
study which included a total of 551 subjects of which 165 has
been labeled introverted, 22h extraverted and 162 ambiverted,
the following percentages had incurred delinquency violations:
5 per cent of the introverted, 11 per cent of the ambiverted

and 25 per cent of the extraverted. The differences between

 

 

 

12

the high rate of delinquency-for the previously defined extra-
verted group and the other two groups were significant at the
.01 level. The author concluded that extraverted and ambi-
verted children, in that order, are more likely than introverted
children to incur disciplinary violations. While it is true
that the child guidance clinic sample is not a representative
sample of the entire population of delinquents, the results
are valuable in the validation of a longitudinal relationship
existing between introversion-extraversion and antisocial act-
ing out.
Hewitt Egg Jenkins Series

One of the best known typologies of offenders has been
evolved by Jenkins and Hewitt (Hewitt and Jenkins, 19h6; Jenkins
and Hewitt, l9hh; Jenkins, 1957). Their division of criminals
into different maladjustment types has served as a model for
many subsequent criminal typologies (Adams and Grant, 1961;
Mueller, 1958; and others). In the initial study concerned
with fundamental patterns of maladjustment, Jenkins and Hewitt
(l9hh) evaluated 500 cases referred to a child guidance clinic.
0n the basis of cross tabulation of 9h traits, three relatively
independent behavior syndromes were identified and labeled:
(1) Excessive Inhibitions, Internal Conflicts, Neurotic; (2)
Inadequape Inhibitions, External Conflicts, Unsocialized;
(3) Inhibition Toward ig-Lrw 9&11, m Conflict, Pseudo-

 

Social. The first type is essentially an internalizing syndrome,

 

the second an externalizing syndrome, and the third primarily a

 

 

 

13

sociological rather than psychological category.

 

Types (1) and (2) were subsequently labeled Over
Inhibited Syndrome Pattern and Unsocialized Aggressive fig-
havior Syndrome Pattern, respectively (Hewitt and Jenkins,
1946). The internalizing nature of Type (1) is revealed in
the following description: guilty, shy, sensitive, day-dreams,
overly dependent, cries easily, worries, apathetic, conforms-
submissive, feels inferior, compulsive, indecisive, easily de-
pressed, anxious, disturbed in dreams and sleep. The external—
izing nature of Type (2) is revealed in the following description:
deliberately destroys and/or attacks, inadequate guilt feelings,
refuses to accept blame, cannot get along with others, malic-
iously mischievous, boastful, selfish, defies authority,
deceitful, etc. >

In a later publication Jenkins (1957) redefined a basic
dichotomy of offender reactions. The basic thesis in this
article was that some criminal acts are goal-motivated whereas
others are frustration responses. The assumption behind this
division was that the former represented the "true delinquent"
and "actor out" and the latter represented a more classical
neurotic paradigm of crime.

Peterson-Quay Studies

 

Peterson, Quay and Cameron (1959) activated a series
of factor analytic studies of delinquent behavior. The authors
factor analyzed two questionnaire scales of demonstrated effec-

tiveness in differentiating delinquents from nondelinquents.

 

 

 

1h

Three personality dimensions and two background factors were
located. The first factor was characterized by a number of
psychopathic qualities and was named accordingly. The second
factor which included impulsive, antisocial behavior was found
to coavary with expression of guilt, regret, depression, and
other negative affect. The authors interpreted and labeled
this as a neurotic dimension. The third factor implied a sense
of inadequacy and was labeled accordingly. The main finding
of this study was the location of a psychopathic-like and
neurotic-like component to delinquent behavior.

A study designed to test the validity and meaningful- (
ness of the three labeled factors was conducted by Quay, Peter-
son and Consalvi (1960). Representative samples of Training
School boys, incarcerated for varying lengths of time, were
administered delinquency scales and were scored for the three
personality factors. In addition, the children's form of the
Manifest Anxiety Scale was included. The results indicated

low, but positive correlations between the 2g factor (Psycho-

 

pathic-Delinquency) and: incarceration for a crime against the
person as opposed to a crime against property; institutional
disciplinary problems; longer institutionalization and recidi-

vism. The NQ factor (Neurotic-Delinquency) related significantly

 

only to the anxiety measure. The authors interpreted the re-
sults as lending support to the appropriateness of the labels.
A more recent investigation (Quay and Blumen) analyzed

the court records of a sample of 191 male delinquents for the

 

 

15

presence or absence of 13 delinquent acts. A factor analysis
of the correlations between the separate offenses yielded four
major factors and a possible fifth one. The authors pointed
out that two of the major factors, "impulsivity" and "inter-
personal aggression," were probably manifested by delinquents
heavily loaded on Hewitt and Jenkins' unsocialized aggressive
type, discussed above. Another major factor, arbitrarily
labeled as "escape and impersonal aggression" was felt by the
authors to be related to the dimension of neurotic delinquency
as identified by Peterson, Quay and Cameron (1959).

Peterson, Quay and Tiffany (1961) attempted to test the
uniformity of their Psychopathy and Neuroticism factors. They
selected four questionnaires which had previously been found by
their authors to effectively differentiate offenders from non-
offenders. These questionnaires were then administered to a
large sample of delinquents and nondelinquents and the results
were factor analyzed. In both a first-order and second-order
factorization of the tests, the Psychopathy and Neuroticism
factors reappeared; other factors appearing at various stages
of data analysis were not as consistently found.

Summary Regardipg Typologies

This brief review of typologies has revealed an under-
lying consistency of "neurotic" and "psychopathic" offender
types. These types have been labeled variously as: autoplast
and alloplast (Rodger, l9h8); introvert and extravert (Bartholo-

 

mew, 1959; Franks, 1956; Miller, 1956); over-inhibited syndrome

pattern and unsocialized aggressive behavior syndrome pattern

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16

(Hewitt and Jenkins, 19h6; Jenkins and Hewitt, l9hh; Jenkins,
1957); neurotic delinguency and psychopathic delinguency
(Peterson, Quay and Cameron, 1959; Peterson, Quay and Tiffany,
1961; Quay, Peterson and Consalvi, 1960). Similar dimensions
are also found in Mueller's Iypp I and Typp III (1958) and in
Kinch's ppp-social neurotic and grsocial offender (1959).

The criminal types described above were labeled on the
basis of case history studies, questionnaire responses, and
behavioral observations. In only rare cases are formal clinical
diagnoses of neurosis or psychopathy3 used as the basis for
classification. However, it is reasonable to assume that par-
allels may exist between the "neurotic-like" and "psychopathic-
like" types found in the criminology literature, and psycho-
analytic formulations of neurosis and character disorder. It
may be fruitful, therefore, to examine some of the psychoana-
lytic distinctions between neurosis and character disorder,
and their possible application to "neurotic" and "psychopathic"

criminals.
Psychoanalytic Character Theories

Although orthodox psychoanalytic theory of psycho-

pathology was developed initially with a focus on the classical

 

3The term "sociopath" has replaced "psychopath" in the
standard psychiatric nomenclature (American Psychiatric Asso-
ciation, 1952). The change was intended to emphasize the nature
of the illness as social deviation. The term "psychopath" will
be retained here, however, due to its persistently common usage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l7

symptom neuroses, recognition was also given to the develop—
ment of character, and in fact, the present trends relegate
an even more important role to this concept (Hartmann, 1958;
Michaels, 1959)-

Glover defines character as, ". . .a set of organized
behavioral reactions founded on and tending to preserve a
stable equilibrium between id tendencies and submission to
realities" (1926, p. 26).

The stabilizing role of character is further high-
lighted in the following definition:

In behavioral terms, character may be described as a

person's usual manner of thinking, feeling, and acting:
it is a response-organization which is stable and gglg—
tively resistant to change (Brody, 1960, p. 79).

The distinction between the pervasiveness of character
traits and ordinary symptoms has been described by Reich. Ac-
cording to Reich, while the symptom is essentially a single
experience or striving, the character trait represents, ". . .
the specific way of being of an individual, an expression of
his total past" (l9h9, p. #4). Reich's concept of character
is that of an armor formed through chronic hardening of the
ego which limits the psychic mobility of the total personality.
The rigidity of character is thereby accentuated by Reich in
such a way as to make character and resistance practically
identical (Sterba, l95h).

Increasing recognition of the role of character in
pathological development led to distinctions between the class-x

ical psychoneuroses and character neuroses (character disorders).

 

 

 

 

 

18

Character ggd Egg Deviations

Perhaps the earliest specific formulation of character
deviation was that of Alexander's "neurotic character" (1930).
Alexander's conceptualization of the neurotic character was
intended to convey the idea that, ". . .the neurotic element
manifested its presence in these individuals not so much in
the form of circumscribed symptoms as in the character, that
is to say, it permeates the patient's personality and thus in-
fluences his total behavior" (1930, p. 295).

A similar formulation to that of the neurotic character

 

was Reich's "triebhafter character," an instinct-ridden person b
who was free from obvious neurotic symptoms but who, neverthe- ‘
less, behaved pathologically (Glover, 1960; Sterba, 1954).

The major distinction between the symptom neuroses and
the character neuroses is that the former involve autoplastic

symptoms and the latter alloplastic responses (Fenichel, 1945).

Autoplastic and Alloplastic Character

Autoplasticity and alloplasticity were originally
Lamarckian concepts describing organismic adaptation to the
environment, and were then reapplied by Freud and Ferenczi to
the adaptational processes of psychic life (Fenichel, 1945;
Ferenczi, 1926; 1955; Hartmann, 1958; Reich, 1949).

Glover (1926; 1960) has outlined the paradigm of con-
flict resolution in relation to direction of plasticity. When

situations of instinct tension occur they give rise to conflict

 

 

 

19

which requires some modification calculated to bring about
relief. Although the origins of tension emanate from within,
solutions of the resulting conflicts can conceivably take
place either within the organism or in manipulation of the
outer world. The former course of action involves the indi-
vidual modifying himself (autoplastic) via the production of
repression, fantasy, psychoneurotic symptoms. The latter
(alloplastic)requires modification of the environment. The
autoplastic mechanisms are "self-molding" devices whereas
alloplastic mechanisms are "other-molding" devices.

Exaggerations of either one of these modes of plasticity
represents psychopathological adjustment, even though both modes
of plasticity are present in some degree in all human organisms
(Eissler, 1949). In neuroses autoplastic mechanisms predomi-
nate; in most character disorders relatively unmodified allo-
plastic mechanisms are the case; in "normal" adjustment
alloplastic devices, although modified, are predominant (Eissler,
1949; Kozol, 1961; Miller, 1960; and Rodger, 1948).

Although both "normals" and character disorders utilize
a predominance of alloplastic devices, there are some important
differences in the quality of the devices. Whereas the drives
of autoplasts are ego alien and the drives of alloplasts are
ego syntonic, the drives of "normals" are both ego syntonic and
reality-syntonic. (The dimension of ego syntonicity of drives
will be developed in a later section.) The distinction between

the drives of "normals" and alloplasts resides not in the

 

 

 

 

 

 

20

direction of plasticity, nor in the congruency of drives with
the ego, but in the congruency of drives with the world, i.e.,
with reality (Hartmann, 1958).

The drives of "normals," therefore, are neither ex-
pressed primarily through fantasy or internalization (auto-
plastic-neurotic), nor through direct, unsocialized, external
channels (alloplastic-character disorder), but through approp-
riately sublimated behavior in tune with both the ego and the
world.

While neurotics and character disorders differ in the
direction of their symptomatology, i.e., autoplastic and allo—
plastic, they also differ on other dimensions, e.g., ego
flexibility, ego syntonicity of impulses, and impulse social-
ization.

Egg Flexibility

Reich's view of character and resistance as practically
identical (Sterba, 1954) is the clearest portrayal of the rigid-
ity of character disorders. Kozol (1961) has described the
rigidity of character disorders as an "intrapsychic stereotypy."
Others (Fenichel, 1945; Ferenczi, 1955) have also stressed the
rigidity of ego functioning in character disorders or alloplasts
in contrast to psychoneurotics or autoplasts.

Nunberg (1956) has pointed out that in character dis-
order, "The character seems to be identical with the ego, which
is never true of symptom and ego" (Nunberg, 1956, p. 44). Con-

sequently, in character disorders the pervasiveness and rigidity

 

 

 

 

 

21

of character block flexibility in ego functions, e.g., in
perception, mastery of motility, countercathexes, etc.

Fenichel (1945) and Reich (1949) have described the
ego functions of character disorders as rigid, definitive,
once-and-for-all formations which chronically limit ego flexi-
bility and operate as an armor against external or internal
stimuli. The character disorder, according to Fenichel, is
unable to perceive or respond to external stimuli by any means
other than certain set reactions. The result is that the ego
functions of character disorders are inflexible and are re-
flected in rigid, undifferentiated perception, poor judgment
and inadequate reality testing.

On a clinical level, the greater automatization and
inflexibility of character disorders as opposed to neurotics
has been noted in their differential potential for and response
to psychotherapy. Character disorders show more character
defenses, resistance to change, alloplastic devices to avoid
insight or self evaluation (East, 1945; Eissler, 1949; Fenichel,
1938; 1945; Glover, 1926; Michaels, 1959; Nunberg, 1956; Reich,
1949; Schulman, 1955).

Apparently the distinguishing factor behind the for-
mation of character traits and character disorders on the one
hand, and neurotic disorders and neurotic symptoms on the other
hand, is the role of repression. Whereas the neurotic symptom
is a partial failure of repression, thus leading to compromise

solutions (symptoms), the character trait represents previously

 

 

‘3; ,.

 

 

 

 

22

effective repression which no longer requires active main-
tenance (Nunberg, 1956).

Reich clarifies the role of repression in character
formation:

The relationship between character and repression is
the following: The necessity of repressing instinctual
demands gives rise to character formation. 0n the other
hand, the character, once formed, makes a great deal of
repression unnecessary; this is possible because in-
stinctual energies which are free-floating in the case of
simple repression, are absorbed in the character formations
themselves. The establishment of character trait, there-
fore, indicates the solution of a repression problem; it
either makes the process of repression unnecessary or it
changes a repression, once it is established, into a
relatively rigid, ego-accepted formation. . . . These
facts explain why it is so much more difficult to eliminate
repressions which have led to the formation of well-
established character traits than repressions which led
to a symptom (1949, p. 161).

Once formed, the rigid character traits are maintained
and resistant to change. This intractable quality of character
traits is related not only to the rigidity of character forma-
tion, but to the integration of character traits into the ego.
This dimension of integration is known as "ego syntonicity".
Egg Syntonicity g£_Drives

The classical neurotic symptom is a compromise between
drive and defense, and occasionally, an exaggeration of defense
only. The character disorder's behavior is more directly an
expression of the particular drive with the defensive element
either absent at the time, or negligible (Fenichel, 1945;
Glover, 1926; Reich, 1949; Rodger, 1948). In fact, the very
characteristic "low-controls" quality of the character disorder

is his best known behavioral pathology. The behavior of

--.__.—\——.——_~—.——. V ._.n ._..._.

 

 

 

.A
I _.. . . r p . I" . . u
. . . . . . .
s . . . . I . 1 a
.J .. _ . ) .
t . J v
. . x
.\ K . .
. . . . \I
. . . c
. . . . .
.\ . A \ .
. . .
I K
r . J ) 1
Q I
. , ox .
. (
c
I u
o\
0
K
. . . a
.
. .
. o 1.
.\
. .
. i
u I .
.
. n .
u . .
e
l l u
z. a n
r x
.x .
.
_ .
. . . . .
. .
_ _ . . .

 

 

 

 

23

neurotics, however, involves drive-plus-defense and occurs
with anxiety-~which is relatively absent for character dis-
orders.

The relative absence of current defensive elements in
the character disorder renders the nature of his drives accept-
able and admissible to his ego, in contrast to the neurotic‘s
drives which involve defense and censure. Consequently, the
neurotic's drives are ego alien (objectionable) while the
character disorder's drives are ego syntonic (acceptable).

Nunberg compares the ego syntonicity of neurotic symptoms
and character traits:

As a rule, the neurotic symptom causes subjective suf-
fering and is felt by the ego more or less as a foreign
body, for the symptom is assimilated by the ego only to a
limited extent, even where there is a symbiotic relation-
ship between symptom and ego. Character traits or habits
are much better assimilated than symptoms,eand form an

integral part of the ego. . .which is never true of symptom
and ego (1956, p. 44).

 

On a motivational level, the neurotic's behavior is
viewed as an "avoidance of pain" (although this may have plea-
surable aspects), and the character disorder's behavior is seen
as a "seeking of pleasure" (Eissler, 1949; Silverberg, 1952).
Since the character disorder's impulses are relatively without
defense, and thereby pleasurable, the ego in this vicious cir-
cle further assimilates the drive within itself. The ego is
avoided the task of evaluating the impulses, since the impulses
have become part of it and not some foreign entities peripheral
to it (Eissler, 1949; Glover, 1926; Nunberg, 1956). The

neurotic's impulses, on the other hand, ". . .are completely

 

 

 

24

out of touch with the ego, irrational, and dissociated"
(Glover, 1926, p. 21).

The greater syntonicity of the character disorder's
impulses leads to heightened difficulties in socialization of
those impulses.

Socialization 2; Drives

The neurotic possesses a system of checks and balances
on impulse expression which is absent for the character disorder.
The result is that the character disorder usually constitutes
a more intense social problem than does the neurotic. In the
first place, the character disorder's rigidity and inflexibility
leave him without the diverse alternatives of impulse expression

which are open to the neurotic, e.g., internalization, partial

 

expression, substitution, etc. Secondly, since the character
disorder's impulses are ego syntonic, there are no controls
through evaluation or censure of the impulses. Finally, their
character rigidity delimits not only other modes of conflict
resolution, but also such possibilities for change as psycho-
therapy and treatment in general. The unsocialized behavior
of character disorders, therefore, is a consequence of the
multiple lack of restraints against acting out.
lg_ggg Superego

So far, the focus has been on the ego's role in
pathological development. However, the ego's functions may
also be related to the other components of the psychic struc-

ture, i.e., the id and superego. The strength of id or

 

 

 

I. n
t
J
c
1.
.

.
x . . . . .
. .. .
. x
.. . . c
i .. ... .. .
. .
o . . x . c
. K
.x
C
.K
r .
c
c A .
.k
v .\
.\ a, ..
u .
I
.
. y l
.. .\ .

 

 

 

 

25

instinctual strivings is a popular variable in the explanation
of behavior disorders. The notion of "excessive" impulse
strivings in criminals implies the existence of constitutional
differences. This concept of constitutional bases of criminal
behavior has occupied strategic positions in such theories of
criminality as: Lombroso's "born criminal" (Cleckley, 1959),
Karpman's "idiopathic psychopath" (Karpman, 1941-1942), and
Bender’s "defective delinquent" (Bender, 1947). However,
constitutional explanations of criminal behavior are decreas-
ingly popular hypotheses (Rabin, 1961), and the diagnosis of

"constitutional psychopathic state" has been eliminated from

 

the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (American Psychiatric,

 

Association, 1952).

The incomplete or defective superego has also been
popularized in explaining criminal behavior (Brill and Baird,
1950; Dallmau, 1961; Karpman, 1961; Rabin, 1961). The differ-
ential etiology of superego malfunction in character disorders
(alloplasts) as compared to neurotic disorders (autoplasts) may
be related to the earliness of deprivation and trauma in the
former.

The ego-device first observed as a reaction to oral
trauma is that of finding a substitutive gratification,
but one cannot be certain that this is in actuality the
ego's earliest attempt at adaptation. The device of find-
ing a substitute would seem to require no autoplastic
operation and it may, in general, be supposed that the
earliest ego-devices would be alloplastic in character.

I assume here that, granting an awareness of distinctions
between self and other, where there is a sense of dis-
turbance the primary tendency will be to look for the
source of disturbance in the other rather than in the

 

 

 

 

 

26

self: other requires to be changed, not self. I find

it difficult to imagine the infant either as able to
isolate his own impulses in the manner necessary to
treating them as responsible for his difficulties, or

as inclined to take an attitude of mea culpg in his
attempts to cope with them. For him, as it seems to me,
it would always primarily be a matter of tua or sua culpg,
and consequently the outer world (other) would require
manipulation in some form (Silverberg, 1952, p. 64).

The argument at this point seems to run as follows:
if the child is forced to experience trauma before he has de-
veloped a sense of self, then his ego-defensive maneuvers must
be alloplastic, since the infant has not yet developed the
capacity for internalization, personal responsibility, or
autoplasticity in general. If trauma occurs at a later period
of development, for example during the oedipal stage, then the
defensive maneuvers are more likely to lead to autoplastic or
internalizing neurotic adaptations.

The most common example of infantile trauma is extreme
and early deprivation. Rabin (1961) and Naess (1959) have sum-
marized a number of psychoanalytic studies dealing with maternal
deprivation and its relationship to both delinquency and faulty
character development. The primary role of deprivation in
character disorders has also been emphasized by Baker and
Sarbin (1956), Friedlander (1949), Glueck and Glueck (1950),
Kaufmann (1955-1956), and Silverberg (1952). Other authors
(Bender, 1947; Lindner, 1944-1945; Wittels, 1937) have pointed
to the pre-oedipal nature of character disorders, and specif-

ically to the oral character of such deviations (Altman, 1957;

Fenichel, 1945).

 

 

 

27

Diagnosis ggg Qgigg

Although "character disorder" is a common designation
of criminals, many types of character disorder do not ordi-
narily display antisocial pathology, e.g., schizoid personality,
compulsive personality, etc. The need for separating the broad
category of character disorders into those who are actual be-
havior disorders and social offenders, versus those whose
illness does not involve extensive acting out has been suggested
by Brill and Baird (1950) and Cleckley (1959). The three
diagnostic subgroups who are characterized not only by disorders
of character but specifically by extensive acting out are: i
Emotionally Unstable Personality, Antisocial Reaction, Sexual
Deviation (American Psychiatric Association, 1952).

Criminal behavior, however, is not restricted to char-
acter disorders; neurotics and psychotics may also act out their
problems via criminal channels (Bartholomew, 1959; Bender, 1947;
wattenberg, 1961).

Many a crime is being committed, often repeatedly, by
persons who have a strong revenge motive, who "act-out"
repressed hostility, and so on. These may be largely
neurotic reasons rather than stemming from the basic per-
sonality defect we call "psychopathic personality" (Rabin,
1961, p. 282).

Neurotic ggg Psychopgthic Criminal Iypgg

 

Both neurosis and psychopathy and admixtures of the two
may contribute to criminal behavior. The prevalence of these
pathological types has been demonstrated in the review of crim-

inal typologies. These typology studies frequently described

 

 

 

28

the "psychopathic" criminal as: less socialized, more com-
fortable with expressing his impulses, and more resistant to
change than his "neurotic" counterpart. Similarly, psycho-
analytic theory characterized character disorders as: less
capable of impulse socialization, more ego syntonic in impulse
expression, and displaying more ego inflexibility than psycho-
neurotics.

The following chapters present a method for testing
the distribution of these traits in "neurotic" and "psycho-

pathic" criminals.

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER II

STATEMENT 93 THE PROBLEM
Introduction

Chapter I presented the background for this study.
A brief history of criminal typologies and a review of cur‘
rent trends in classification were outlined. Some of the
future directions in criminal typology were also considered.

The need for defining the characteristics of "known"
criminal types was stressed. An attempt was made to show
that despite differences in the terminology of types from
study to study, certain consistencies and uniformities in
findings existed. Specifically it was shown that two major
criminal types emerge from almost all classification systems.
On the one hand there is the criminal who is introverted,
inhibited, and neurotic; on the other hand, the criminal who
is extraverted, impulsive and psychopathic. In order to de-
fine some of the psychological factors which may distinguish
neurotic and psychopathic criminals, psychoanalytic theories
of neurosis and character disorder were presented. It was
expected that differences between neurotics and character
disorders might also apply to some of the clinically observed

differences between neurotic and psychopathic criminals.

29

 

 

 

 

30

The prison provides a laboratory for testing dif-
ferent types of criminals. Incarcerated persons may be
divided into two specialized groups, those who react to the
conflicts of confinement and the increased external suppres-
sive forces with neurotic mechanisms, and those who main-
tain their characteristic psychopathy in spite of the
exaggerated environmental restrictions upon this type of
behavior. Once these two groups are operationally defined
and located, it is proposed to investigate the relationship
between neurotic and psychopathic criminal types and the

following psychological attributes. _

Interrelationships Amopg Variables

The degree of the convict's neurosis and/or psy-
chopathy may be operationally defined here in terms of his
current behavioral adjustment, i.e., whether he displays
neurotic or psychopathic behavior patterns while in prison.
It is proposed that neurotics and psychopaths differ in the
following dimensions:

(1) Ego syntonicity

(2) Socialization of impulses

(3) Perceptual consistency

Psychopaths evidence little concern with the ob-
jectionable correlates of impulses, i.e., moral apprehension,
anxiety, guilt. Consequently, they experience their drives

as integrated into the personality rather than at the

 

 

 

 

 

 

31

periphery of it. Neurotics experience their drives as ego
alienzand suffer the objectionable aspects of impulses. The
drives of neurotics, therefore, rather than being integrated
into the personality, are peripheral to it and not exper-
ienced as part of themselves.

A second attribute of psychopaths is their relative
inability to express impulses in any other way than by acting
them out. Consequently they evidence lower degrees of social-
ization of impulses than do neurotics. The impulses of
neurotics, on the other hand, are either acted out or expressed
in the classical symptom compromise between drive and defense.
Because neurotics tend to direct some of their drives inward,
less of their impulses are apt to be expressed through un-
socialized channels.

Another attribute of psychopaths stems from their
rigid ego formations. As a result of ego-inflexibility, their
perceptual processes are rigid and intractable. Neurotics,
however, display less rigidity of ego processes and conse-
quently more fluctuation and inconsistency in their perception.

The general hypothesis is that psychopathic criminals
experience their drives as ego syntonic; express them in an
unsocialized manner; and are perceptually rigid and inflex-
ible. Conversely, neurotic criminals experience their drives
as ego alien; show more concern with socialization; and dis-

play more perceptual inconsistency and fluctuation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER III

SUBJECTS AND PROCEDURES

~—

Subjects

Sixty men incarcerated for felonious crimes at the
State-Prison of Southern Michigan (SPSM) served as subjects
for this research. The sample was composed of two matched
groups of 30 each. The criteria for inclusion in the

Neurotic and Psychopathic groups were as follows:

(1) Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)

Every incarcerated felon in the State of Michigan is
processed and evaluated at the Reception-Diagnostic Center
(RDC) located at SPSM. Although all inmates do not receive
the same battery of psychometric and projective tests, all
are administered the M.M.P.I. (Hathaway and McKinley, 1951).

In order to set up formal criteria for MMPI diagnoses
of neurosis and psychopathy, the Chief Psychologist,h RDC,
and the writer agreed on the following indices for inclusion

into the respective groups:

 

A

The writer is indebted to Alex Cade for his advice.

32

 

33

Neurotic

Either (1) Each of the three neurotic triad scales
(Hysteria, Depression, and Hypochondriasis)5 achieve a score
of 70 or above, i.e., two standard deviations above the mean,
or (2) Two of the three scales of the neurotic triad equal
70 or above, and the Psychopathic Deviate (Pd) scale equal
60 or below, i.e., one standard deviation above the mean or
less.
Psychopathic

Psychopathic Deviate scale equal 70 or more, and all
three of the neurotic triad scales equal 60 or less.

The scores of Neurotics and Psychopaths on the four
MMPI scales are listed in Appendix A. The range and means
of these scores are presented in Appendix B. The differences
between the means of both groups on the three scales of the
neurotic triad are significant well beyond the .01 level.
The mean scale scores for Neurotics were 78.77, 76.80, and
77.10, on Hs, D, and Hy, respectively. All three means were
between two and three standard deviations above the norma-
tive means of 50.00. In contrast, the Psychopaths' means on
these scales were: Hs, 49.20; D, 55.83; and Hy, 52.63. (The
ranges and means for all subjects on the remaining nine MMPI
scales are presented in Appendix C.)

The difference between Neurotics and Psychopaths on

the Pd scale was less than on the neurotic triad, although

 

5Hs, D, and Hy, respectively.

 

 

 

.. _ 1 . . i .. u . x i
. 1. . a .
.
A ) I ‘ .1
I . u
I '\ .
x I ~
‘ _
.x
t .\
.x
. K
.
t
. . |
u . .
K
n
. f .x
.\
.
. l
. . .\
.\
e y
. u
. .
e
r u
.
. .\
C 7 \
4
l-\ D ‘r
(
_.
‘
v _

 

 

34

the greater mean score for the Psychopaths is significant at
the .05 level. The psychopaths' mean Pd score was 79.03 as 1
compared to the Neurotics' mean of 75.33. Less difference
would be expected on the Pd scale since both groups are drawn
from a population of criminals. The important distinction be-
tween the groups is that in the psychopathic groups the pro-
clivity for acting-out occurs without significant neurotic
concomitants, whereas in the neurotic group acting out tend-
encies occur in conjunction with neurotic and discomforting

indications.

 

(2) Behavior Check List

 

In addition to MMPI criteria, subjects were required
to have displayed behavior relevant to their diagnostic
classification. In other words, it was not enough to appear
neurotic or psychopathic on the MMPI, but it was also ex-
pected that a subject would adjust to the institution in a
like manner. The institutional adjustment of a subject was
determined by reviewing his case folder. Information from
the case folder was then utilized to complete the Behavior
Check List for that subject (See Appendix D).

The Behavior Check List constructed by the writer
contains four items dealing with institutional behavior. The
first category considers the subject's disciplinary record
for the past year. The remaining three categories deal with

neurotic versus psychopathic indices of adjustment and are

 

 

 

35

comprised of symptoms usually associated with these two
types. The disciplinary criterion was an absolute one in
that the subject had to meet this criterion before he would
be considered on the remaining three categories.
Disciplinary Category,

Infractions of institutional rules are recorded by
the officer issuing a ticket describing the violation. The
violator is then "tried" in disciplinary court and sentenced
to isolation in a "restricted" cell for periods of 1 to 15
days at a time. Frequent violations, or single serious vio-
lations, e.g., violence, escape, etc., are punished by pro-
longed though modified segregation known as "Triple 0."

In order to qualify for the neurotic group a subject
had to have no disciplinary or "Triple 0" violations for the
past year. The psychopathic subjects were required to have
incurred either at least two separate "tickets" during the
past year or have been sentenced to "Triple 0." The dis—
tribution of number of "tickets" and/or "Triple 0" viola-
tions are contained in Appendix.A. All 30 neurotics were
free of any disciplinary violations for the previous year.
Eight of the psychopathic subjects incurred between 2 and 4
tickets during the previous year, With a mean of 2.8, where-
as the remaining 22 psychopaths qualified on the basis of
their "Triple 0" dispositions. The amount of acting out
of the Psychopathsis underemphasized in this tabulation

since many of them incurred at least one ticket in addition

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

36

to their "Triple 0" experience, and furthermore, lengthy
stays on "Triple 0" deprived the Psychopaths of opportun-
ities to accumulate additional violations. Nevertheless
the two groups represent extremes along the dimension of
institutional disciplinary adjustment. (Information re-

garding number and types of previous felonious offenses

 

committed by both groups are presented in Appendix E.)
Symptom Categories

In addition to the first Behavior Check List item
dealing with disciplinary record, the remaining three items
describe a polarity of neurotic-psychopathic symptomatology.
The three categories for neurotic classification are: (l)
characteristically anxious; (2) other neurotic symptoma-
tology (physical complaints with no organic findings,
phobias, tics, dissociative episodes); and (3) usually shy,
introverted, withdrawn. The psychopathic categories de-

scribe opposite attributes or at least the absence of

 

neurotic attributes: (1) not anxious; (2) no neurotic
symptoms; (3) bold-extraverted, manipulative.

For final selection, a subject who qualified on the
MMPI and disciplinary criteria needed only one of the three
symptom categories appropriate to his previous classification,
as well as the absence of any symptoms in the opposing cat-
egories.

The information for classifying subjects on these

three categories was obtained by reviewing notations in

 

 

 

 

 

37

their institutional folders recorded by treatment staff,
counselors, work supervisors, and other civilian personnel.
The type of comments relevant to the symptom categories
ranged from sophisticated diagnostic statements to layman
descriptions of behavior. One psychopathic subject was de-
scribed as: "arrogant, hostile, talks back, insclent,
agitator"; another as: "assaultive, aggressive, unpredict-
able psychopath"; yet another as: "manipulative, impulsive,
demands immediate gratification, antisocial, impulsive
psychopath"; still another as: "hot-tempered, highly ex-
plosive, typical sociopathic disorder, inappropriately ag-
gressive". Neurotic subjects were described as: "withdrawn
and frightened"; "exceptionally anxious individual whose
antisocial behavior is related to his neurotic defenses";
"most of his anxiety is internalized at this time as

opposed to acted out in a direct antisocial manner". In
addition to these behavioral descriptions many of the
neurotics displayed specific symptoms and disorders such as
essential hypertension, peptic ulcers, dissociative episodes,
psychophysiological skin disorders, depressions, compulsions,
phobias, as well as a variety of pan neurotic disturbances.

A pool of potential subjects who met the MMPI, dis-
ciplinary, and symptomatology criteria was thus accumulated.
This pool was considerably and progressively narrowed by the
three major avenues of exit from prison, i.e., discharge,

parole, and death. From the remaining numbers 30 subjects

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

38

were selected for each group and matched for race, age,
I.Q., and amount of time served on present sentence (See

Appendix F for the distribution of these variables).

Matchipg variables

§

 

The possible effect of racial differences was con-
trolled by matching subjects on race. The final sample con-
tained l6 Negro pairs and 14 White pairs. The one subject
in the final sample classified as "Mexican" was considered
as "White" for the purposes of matching.

Agg

The limits for matching on age were a maximum of a
five year difference between each subject of a pair. The
average difference between pairs, however, was less than 3
years per pair (See Appendix G). Negro Psychopaths averaged
less than one year older than Negro Neurotics; this differ-
ence was reversed for White pairs where the average Neurotic
was slightly over two years older than his Psychopathic
counterpart. The difference between White Neurotics and
White Psychopaths was significant at the .01 level despite
the small difference since the Neurotics' two year age in-
crement was almost constant throughout the White sample.
When White and Negroes were combined, Neurotics averaged
30.97 years and Psychopaths 30.50 years, the difference of

which was not significant (See Appendix H).

 

 

 

 

 

 

39

149-

Each inmate receives an 1.0. classification on the
Army General Classification Test administered during his
processing in the Reception-Diagnostic Center. For the
present study the limits for I.Q. matching were set at 15
points. The average difference between members of a pair,
however, was slightly more than 6 points for Negroes and
less than 6 for White subjects. When Negroes and Whites are
combined the average difference was 6.3 points (See Appen—
dix G).

The average I.Q.‘s were as follows: Negro Neurotics
= 92.44, Negro Psychopaths = 94.44, White Neurotics = 102.93,
and White Psychopaths = 104.00. For both Negroes and Whites
there is less than a two point I.Q. increment for the Psy-
chopathic groups. However, these differences were not
statistically significant, nor were they for All Neurotics
or All Psychopaths combined where the averages were 97.33
and 99.17, respectively (See Appendix H).

In order to control for possible effects of institu-
tionalization each Neurotic-Psychopathic pair was also
matched for the amount of time that they had served on their
present sentence. The limits for matching were set at a
maximum of 18 months. The average differences, however,
were 9.4 months for Negroes, 7.7 months for Whites, and 8.6

for all pairs combined (See Appendix G).

 

 

 

 

40

The average number of months served was as follows:
Negro Neurotics = 25.88, Negro Psychopaths = 30.25, White
Neurotics = 25.14, and White Psychopaths = 25.00 months.
When All Neurotics and All Psychopaths were combined, the
former attained an average of 25.33 and the latter 27.60.
None of these differences was significant (See Appendix H).

The final selection of subjecusthus provides a
Neurotic and a Psychopathic group, roughly equivalent on
race, age, I.Q., time served, and differing sharply on MMPI
and institutional indices of psychopathic and neurotic ad-
justment. These experimental subjects were then adminis-

tered the following experimental tasks:
Instruments and Special Equipment

Thematic Apperception Tppp (TAT)

The TAT was utilized because Pine's (1960) scoring
system of this test (below) appears highly appropriate to
the impulse socialization constructs of this research.

The following eight TAT cards were administered to
the subjects of both groups: 3BM, 4, 8BM, 12M, 13MF, 15,
17BM, and 18BM. These eight cards were selected by the
writer and a colleague6 as capable of eliciting stories
characterized by frequent use of obvious impulse themes.

The protocols were scored subsequently according to

the system outlined by Pine (1960). This scoring system

 

6Fred J. Pesetsky, Ph.D., Chief Psychologist, Psy-
chiatric Clinic, SPSM.

 

 

 

I
1 ' ‘ I I .
\
I I }- I
.1 .
Q i
I ' l I
‘ \ ‘) :
.
I Q ‘
. F
I.
'I l
I ~'
I) '

41 I

provided three separate scores for each card: (a) presence
of drive content (amount), (b) directness of expression of
drive content (socialization), (c) integration of drive con-
tent.

(a) The presence of drive contenteillows for record-
ing the number of specific, explicitly mentioned drives, e.g.,
sexual, aggressive, generally libidinal drives.

(b) The directness of expression of drive content
provides for scoring at three different levels of drive

socialization or modulation. Level 1 reflects direct-

 

unsocialized libidinal drives, e.g., murder, robbery, rape, U
etc.; Level 2, reflects direct-socialized drives, e.g., kiss-
ing, eating, intercourse between marital partners, etc;
Level 3 represents indirect-dis uised, weak drives. This
last category includes scoring for drives where the under-
lying impulse is neither explicitly thought nor acted upon,
e.g., mention of police, soldiers, accidents, etc. Level 3
is also relevant to rating drives which are weak and highly
derived, e.g., social expressions of aggression, strikes,
references to surgeons, etc.

(c) The integration of drive content is the final
scoring category and provides for recording three types of
integration. The highest level of integration is thematic
and here the drive is part of the central themeor character
portrayal; it may even receive only brief mention, but it

must retain a main link to the story. A lower level of

 

., "it" , '33

 

 

42

drive integration is scored as incidental; this drive may
have a tenuous link to the story, but it is generally ex-
pendable and enriches the story only tangentially. Finally,
a drive may be scored as ppp-appropriate, in which case the
drive is actually not in accord with the TAT task. For
example, exclamations and side comments before, during, and
after the story; mentioned drives not at all included in the
story; miSperceptions or doubts about the identity of per-
sons or objects; verbal slips about drive content items, etc.

The reliability and validity of this scoring system

 

 

 

are reported by Pine (1960). The reliability was deter-
mined by two independent scorers' ratings of eight TAT
stories of 28 undergraduates. Full agreement between raters i
on drive content occurred 69% of the time on a sample of 637

scoring units; agreement by chance alone would have occurred

only close to 0% of the time. Reliability was also computed

for drive level and drive integration on those units where

there was agreement on drive presence in the first place.

For drive level, complete agreement between the two raters -

on socialization Levels 1, 2, and 3, occurred 82%, 80%, and

85% of the time, respectively. The raters concurred on

thematic, incidental, and non-appropriate levels of inte-

gration 95%. 65%, and 89% of the time, respectively. The

overall agreement on all integration scores was 93%; agree-

ment by chance alone for the above six categories would have

been 33%.

 

I I I I . .. . I It
. I L . I .. . )
. .2 ,I. . .
. . , I, .
. 1 .I x
l . x l c v . II I I. .
. I. I.
.\ I .\ v
I .
o\
l
u L
..\ ..\
. r\
I .\
1 N
r\
I. n
n u :\
. _
-\
I r\
.\
.\ ,
. I I :\
u \
I c . i
. l
'x
(

 

 

 

 

43

Construct validity was assessed by correlating the
TAT scores with rankings derived from.Q-sorts. The Q-sorts
were obtained by the judges evaluating each subject's Ror-
schach, Wechsler-Bellevue, autobiography, and extensive
interview material, and then rating each of these materials
on six separate Q-sorts: Affects and Inner States, Thought
Processes, Motives, Defenses, Interpersonal Behavior, and
Identity and Self-Attitudes. Finally, these Q-sorts were

compared by rank correlations to the TAT scores.

 

Tables were then constructed indicating both ex-
tremes of the Q-sort rankings in relation to the extreme on
the relevant TAT score. Thereby, the various personality
attributes were related via Rho to the subjects with: high
versus low drive presence, well-integrated versus poorly
integrated use of drive, and modulated versus unmodulated
drive levels. On this basis 36 personality characteristics
were evolved. An overview of the results suggests the fol-
lowing tendencies:

(a) High-drive subjects show more emotional lability
and expressiveness, are relatively uninhibited, and minimally
anxious.

(b) Subjects with high degrees of drive integration
show little anxiety or disruption, lack somatization tenden-
cies, relate to people narcissistically behind a facade of
warmth, and have a relatively stabilized character struc-

ture o

 

 

 

44

(c) Subjects with unmodulated drive expression not
only show impulsive discharge, but also display little abil-
ity to discharge impulses in internalized ways such as
fantasy. Furthermore, they have rigid self-concepts and
little capacity to experience conflict within the self.

It might be noted at this time that the description
of Psychopaths in the present thesis corresponds very
closely to Pine's description of individuals who are char-
acterized by: high drive content; high degrees of drive
integration; and unmodulated drive expression.

Stereoscope

The TAT was employed in this design in an attempt to
tap fantasy pertinent to impulse socialization and integra-
tion. These variables may also be studied at the perceptual
level by use of the prism stereoscope, as modified by Engel
(1956).

The modified stereoscope allows the subject to put
his eyes to a viewer leading into a completely enclosed box.
Inside the box are two slots into which the two stimuli
(pictures) may be inserted. The subject then has one picture
facing his left eye and another in front of his right eye.
Both the distance of the stimuli from the viewer (focus) and
the illumination of the slides are variable individually and
in combination. In addition, a timing device is utilized
which permits setting the exposure time in intervals of 1/1000

of a second, 1/100 of a second, 1/10 of a second, 1 second,

and 10 seconds.

 

45

If two pictures are constructed so as to be mutually
exclusive, perceptually, i.e., so that they will not "fuse"
into a composite picture, then binocular rivalry occurs in
stereoscopic presentation. This means that first one picture
is perceived, then the other, then the first again, etc. In
this type of presentation, with a relatively short exposure
interval, the subject "sees" only one figure. The stimulus
in the other monocular field never "reaches" him. Further-
more, if eye dominance is controlled (through variable pre-
sentation of the experimental figures alternately to one eye
and then the other) the perception of the particular figure
is assumed to be determined by the subject; it is the way he
perceives. The specific contention is that if structural
differences in stimuli are accounted for, the kind of stim-
ulus for which the subject has some predisposition will
perceptually predominate in the stereoscope.

In other words, support is found in the literature
for the contention that what the subject sees in a stereo-
scopic "choice" situation may be determined by his needs
(Beloff and Beloff, 1959; Shelley and Toch, 1962) and by his
past experiences (Bagby, 1957; Davis, 1959; Hastorf and Myro,
1959; Toch and Schulte, 1961). This contention may be ap-
plied to the constructs of the present thesis. For example,
if the clinical formulations of Neurotics and Psychopaths
are correctly stated, the stereoscopic situation can be

modified to test these constructs directly. A test of these

 

 

 

 

 

46

constructs can be conducted on the differences in impul-
sivity between Neurotics and Psychopaths. These dissimi-
larities should differentially predispose the subjects in
their perception of impulse-related stimuli in a "choice"
situation.

In order to test these formulations, pairs of slides
were constructed which depict a higher and a lower level of
socialization of the same impulse within each slide pair.
These pairs of slides were presented to the group which al-
most always expresses impulses directly (Psychopaths) and to
the group which frequently internalizes impulse expression
(Neurotics). There should be some correspondence between
the ways that these two groups express their impulses, be-
haviorally, and the ways in which their impulses'are inte-
grated and expressed perceptually. It would be expected
that Psychopaths should perceive more "unsocialized" im-
pulse portraits than Neurotics who would tend to perceive
"socialized" impulse figures in the choice situations. The
results from such a study could prove interesting by vali-
dating the assumption that Neurotics and Psychopaths differ
not only in the way in which they express impulses, but also
in the way in which they integrate and perceive impulse-
related content. By utilizing a variety of impulse themes,
the generality-specificity of impulse integration and seei-
alization may also be examined.

The stimuli for the stereoscope were designed by the

 

 

 

 

 

 

47

writer and a convict artist. They consist of a set of ,
pictures (pictograms) presented in pairs of two each.
(stereograms). Both pictures in a pair_were constructed

so as to be roughly comparable in size, outline, and posi-
tion in the visual field. (A reproduction of one of the
stereograms, "Boxer-Brawler", is presented in Appendix I.)
Each pair of pictures represents an illustration or char-
acterization of an impulse-related theme, e.g., aggression,
sex, orality, etc. The two pictures in a pair represent dif-
ferent levels of socialization in the expression of the par-
ticular impulse. Thus, one pictogram portrays two men
brawling, while its mate depicts two men boxing in an arena.
The former is a more direct expression of an aggressive in-
stinct, while the latter is expressive of the same instinct,
but in a more socially modified or sublimated form. Another
pair depicts marital love making versus non-marital love
making. In this case, the former is a more highly socialized
form of the sexual activity which the latter also represents
in a less socialized form. Six such stimulus pairs consti-
tute Series I of the stereoscopic material and include:

(1) "Bride-Lover": Both slides picture a man em-
bracing a woman. In the "high-socialized" slide,
the woman is wearing a bridal gown, the man is
in formal attire, and the backdrop is an altar.

The "low-socialized" version contains none of

these signs of marriage and the backdrop is a bed.

 

 

 

 

v

(2

v

(3

(4

V

v

(5

(6)

 

48

"Singer-Stripteaser": Both slides portray two
men watching a female performer on a stage. In
the "high-socialized" version the performer is
dressed, while in the other she is nude except
for a "g-string."
"Coffee-Beer": In each slide a man is seen lean-
ing against a counter, drinking from a vessel.
In the former, he is holding a coffee cup; in
the latter a beer mug.
"Diner-Glutton": Both slides portray a man
seated at a table eating. In the former he is
using utensils and eating normally. In the
latter he is gluttonously devouring a hunk of
meat without benefit of silverware or restraint.
"Dancer-Rapist": This slide pair depicts a man
and woman in close "embrace." In the "high
socialized" version the embrace occurs in the con-
text of dancing, with musical notes as part of
the backdrop. In the "low-socialized" slide the
embrace is one-sided, with the man attacking the
woman and ripping off her clothes.
"Boxer-Brawler": Both slides depict two men in
combat. In the former they are wearing boxing
gloves and the action takes place in a boxing
ring. In the latter, one man is wielding a club

over the head of his adversary and the setting

 

 

 

 

 

49

is a beach.

A second Series (II) utilized exactly the same
materials, but presented them in the opposite order from
that of Series I. Thus, in Series I, brawling was left-eye,
and boxing, right eye; in Series II, boxing was left-eye,
and brawling, right-eye (See Appendix J).

Finally, a third series (III) was employed, utiliz-
ing the exact same stimulus materials from Series I and II.
However, in this last series, each pair consisted of the
same picture presented to both eyes. For example, the first
presentation presented the boxer to both the left and right
eyes, and the second pair in that series presented two slides
of the brawlers, one to the right eye and one to the left eye,
etc. (See Appendix K).

Maudsley Personality Inventory
The final instrument administered to the groups was

the Maudsley Personality Inventory (See Appendix L). Twenty-

 

four of the questionnaire's items provide a measure of
"Neuroticism" while the other twenty-four assess "Extraver-
sion." The inventory has been administered to a variety of
normal and pathological groups (Eysenck, 1959), and spe-
cifically to prisoner populations (Bartholomew, 1959). Re-
liability coefficients of between .75 and .90 have been
reported for both of the scales and its validity has been
assessed mainly by predicting differences between a variety

of standardization groups (Eysenck, 1959). Thus, as predicted,

 

 

 

50

normals score lower on Neuroticism than do prisoners or
hospitalized neurotics, while psychopaths obtain higher
Extraversion scores than neurotics or normals (Eysenck,
1959). The meaningfulness of the labels (Neuroticism and
Extraversion), derived through factor analysis, has been
questioned by some investigators (Argyle, 1961). However,
the Psychopathic and Neurotic prisoner groups utilized in
the present study provide interesting samples upon which to
apply Eysenck's Extraversion scale, since extraversion and

introversion were used as selection criteria for the two

groups, respectively.
Procedure

Prior to testing each subject was arbitrarily as-
signed a code number from 1 to 60 by an inmate clerk. The

name and prison number of the subject were not available to

 

the examiner during the testing and scoring of data in order
to control against possible unconscious biases in the direc-
tion of eliciting and/or scoring responses in accord with

the hypotheses. The masking of the subjects' identities

was not successful for the first five men tested since it
was learned that they were on the verge of leaving the in-
stitution and were thus given priority in the testing order.
It is also possible that the examiner was able to categorize
the subjects during testing on the basis of inevitable

"clinician second-guessing"; however, this was an

 

51
uncontrollable source of potential bias. For example, two

unsystematic observations of concurrent validity were made

during the testing sessions. One subject, who appeared to

become uncomfortable during testing, finally expressed his

feelings by regurgitating all over the room. Another, was

spotted stealing the examiner’s cigarettes while the stereo-

scope was being focused. It turns out, fortunately, that

they were classified as neurotic and psychopathic, respec-

tively.
The following procedures were administered to both

groups:

TAT

The eight card set of the TAT was individually ad-

ministered first to one half of each group, followed by the

stereoscope examination. The other half of each group re-

ceived the stereoscopic examination first, and the TAT last.
The following instructions preceded administration of the TAT:

I am going to show you a series of cards with pic-
tures of different types of situations on them. I want
you to look at each card and make up a story about it.

I will write down what you tell me and the story can
take any form that you care to use, but try to include
in each story: what is happening in the present, what
might have happened in the past to bring this about, and
your guess as to what might happen in the future.

7Pine (1960) recommends oral rather than written
stories. The former are more likely to elicit the extreme
reactions, e.g., intense drive, integration difficulties,
while the latter are more subject to control and censor~

ship.

 

 

 

 

 

52

All the TAT protocols were scored by the writer ac-
cording to Pine's (1960) directions outlined above. In order
to provide some estimate of the reliability of scoring, mea-
sures of inter-judge and intra-judge agreement were needed.
The writer had previous practice with Pine's scoring system
and undertook to train the second scorer, a social psychol-
ogy graduate student.8 Two training sessions of four hours
duration each were spent scoring sample stories, discussing
discrepancies in scoring, and resolving differences where
possible. The formal reliability check involved independent
scoring of a random selection of 12 subjects’ protocols; a

total of 96 stories or 20% sample. Product moment coef-

ficients or correlation were computed between both judges'
scores for the three scoring categories (See Appendix N).
The correlations were .582 for Number of Drive Content,
.722 for Drive Socialization and .615 for Drive Integration
Index. The correlation for Drive Socialization Index is
significant at the .01 level while the remaining two are
significant at the .05 level. The inter-judge reliability
seems adequate considering the relatively short training
sessions and the use of a non-clinical student inexperienced
with projective techniques.

The intra-judge reliability or internal consis-

tency of the scoring method was computed by dividing each

8Donald Holtrop, Counselor, SPSM.

 

 

 

s
. I
. I ' _..
I _ ‘ _
e ..
K I
i .
o _ o
. .- .
a - .
- . . , .
‘. I ‘
l I
H . ',I ,,
v
' .
. \ ‘
I
I.

 

 

53

subject's eight story protocol into odd-even half tests and

correlating the halves. The product moment coefficients of

correlation obtained for the three scoring categories were
.164 for Number of Drive Content, .242 for Drive Sociali-

zation Index, and .518 for Drive Integration Index (See Ap-
pendix N). The Drive Integration correlation is significant
at the .01 level while the others do not approach any rea-

sonable significance. The generally low correlations ob-

tained for the scoring categories are disappointing and sug-
gest that this scoring method possesses little internal
consistency. It is possible that the eight cards do not
equally elicit drive content or similar socialization quali-
ties, yet this does not explain the low correlations. It
would be expected that subjects who are high on drive con-
tent should score close to the possible maximum for that
category on any stimuli, and subjects low on this attribute
score close to the minimum for that category. Thus there
is evidence for the internal consistency of Drive Integration

scores, but not for Number of Drive Content or Socialization

scores in Pine's system.
Stereoscope

Series I
The following instructions preceded the adminis-

tration of Series I.

 

54

Please look into the viewer. I will be showing you
pictures of different scenes from life. They will be
on the screen for a short period of time and so I want
you to watch carefully, and when the picture goes off
the screen, tell me what you saw.

 

A constant illumination9 of 14 c/ft2 was maintained,
and the exposure interval was 0.5 seconds for each presen-
tation. Focus was individually adjusted for each subject by
having the subject report when the dot in one pictogram was
in the center of the circle in the other pictogram. If a
subject normally wore glasses he was requested to do so dur-
ing the examination. If any exposure did not permit confi-
dent identification, the subject was permitted to view the
slide again.

The six pairs of slides were presented in the same
order to each subject since we were interested in subject

choices rather than in differential picture potency. As a

 

control for eye dominance, a "high-socialization" slide
(Bride) was presented to the left eye, and the corresponding
"low-socialization" slide (Lover) was presented to the right
eye, and so on alternately until the complete series had
been presented.

Series I;

 

The same instructions, illumination, exposure inter-
val, and other conditions of administration described for

Series I were applied to Series II. The same stimuli were

 

9The writer is indebted to Professor S.H. Bartley
for the illuminosity readings.

 

 

 

 

 

55

administered here, except that the order of alternation was
reversed as an additional control against eye dominance.
For example, Series II began with the "high-socialization"

slide (Bride) presented to the right eye, and the corres-

 

ponding "low-socialization" slide (Lover) presented to the
left eye, etc. Thus, each eye of each subject was exposed
to all 12 figures.

Series II;

The final presentation (Series III) consisted of
duplications of each slide simultaneously viewed by both
eyes. In this series, therefore, there were twelve presen-
tations as compared with the six presentations of Series I
and II. Illumination in this series was also maintained at
14 c/ftz, however, the exposure interval was 1/10 second, a

condition approximating a tachistoscopic presentation. The

 

subject was informed that the slides would be on the screen
for a shorter period of time than were the slides of the
previous series.
Maudsley Personality Inventopy

The full forty-eight item inventory was administered
to both groups immediately after they completed their stereo-
scope and TAT tests. The inventory was scored according to
Eysenck's instructions (Eysenck, 1959) and Extraversion

scores were obtained.

 

 

 

 

56

Operational Hypotheses

Psychopaths differ from Neurotics in the following ways:

 

The drives pf Psychopaths are less socialized:
Hypothesis 1: Psychopaths will earn lower scores on the
TAT Drive Socialization Index.
Hypothesis 2: Psychopaths will select less frequently
high-socialization slides in Series I and
II of the stereoscope.
The drives pf Psychopgths are more ego syntonic:
Hypothesis 3: Psychopaths will earn higher Number of
Drive scores on the TAT.
Hypothesis 4: Psychopaths will earn higher scores on
the TAT Drive Integration Index.
The more rigid character structure and inflexible ego func-
tions pf Psychopaths lead pp more rigid and uniform
perception:

Hypothesis 5: Psychopaths will commit more errors on
tachistoscopic presentation of previously

 

 

viewed stereoscopic slides.
Hypothesis 6: Psychopaths will obtain higher internal

consistency scores on all stereoscopic
choices.

Psychopaths are characterized py greater extraversion pf
behavior.

Hypothesis 7: Psychopaths will obtain higher scores on
the Extraversion scale of the Maudsley
Personality Inventory.

 

Lag-9“-

 

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

 

Socialization pf Impulses

Hypotheses 1 and 2 predicted that Psychopaths would
score lower than Neurotics on impulse socialization as mea-
sured by the TAT and stereoscope, respectively.

Table 1 presents the mean TAT Drive Socialization
Index scores for Neurotics and Psychopaths. The Psychopath
mean score of 2.13 was lower than the Neurotic mean of 2.19,
as was predicted, but a t test of the difference between
means of matched groups was not significant. When the
Neurotics and Psychopaths are broken down into Negro Neu-
rotics and Psychopaths and White Neurotics and Psychopaths,
the relationship remains the same. Psychopaths obtained
slightly lower Socialization Index scores than Neurotics,
but not significantly so. The TAT Drive Socialization
Index mean differences are not great enough to reject the
null hypothesis of no difference.

The second opportunity for testing for differences
in impulse socialization occurred on the stereoscope test.
In this task each subject was required to choose 12 times
between a high and a low socialized slide. Each subject's

score was computed by calculating the number of high

J______

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

58

Table 1

Mean TAT Drive Socialization Index Scores

 

 

 

Race Neurotic Psychopath Diff. t
Negro 2.21 2.17 .04 .441
White 2.17 2.09 .08 1.283

Both Races 2.19 2.13 .06 1.084

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

59

socialized choices over total number of choices made, usually
12. This percentage index was used rather than absolute
number of high or low socialized choices because five sub-
jects failed to make all 12 discriminations; three subjects
made 11 choices and two subjects made 10 choices.

The mean percentages of high socialized stereoscope
choices are presented in Table 2. Negro Psychopaths selected
40% high socialized slides as compared to 62% for Negro
Neurotics. White Psychopaths selected 39% in comparison to
54% for White Neurotics. All Psychopaths earned a mean
score of 39% as compared to 58% for All Neurotics. The
greater Neurotic percentage of high socialized choices was
therefore 22% for Negroes, 15% for Whites, and 19% for both
races combined. The differences for Negroes and for all sub-
jects were significant at well beyond the .01 level on a
one tail t-test for matched groups. Differences between
White Psychopaths and White Neurotics were also significant,
but only at the .05 level. The greatest difference between
Neurotics and Psychopaths occurred in the Negro groups. The
null hypothesis of no difference between Neurotics and Psy-
chopaths on impulse socialization may be rejected for the
stereoscope data.

Now that the total stereoscope test was shown to
discriminate Neurotics from Psychopaths, the efficacy of the
individual stereograms remained to be analyzed. The sign

test (Siegel, 1956) was applied to the high and low

 

 

60

Table 2

Mean Percentage of High-Socialized Stereoscope Choices

 

 

 

Race Neurotic Psychopath Diff. t
Negro .6185 .3958 .2227 3.7l**
White .5355 .3900 .1455 2.41*
Both Races .5798 .3931 .1867 4.39**

 

*Significant at .05 level.

**Significant at .01 level.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

61

socialized choices of each Neurotic—Psychopathic pair on
each of the slide pairs. A positive sign was applied each
time that a Psychopath's choices on both presentations of the
same stereogram were more in the direction of low sociali-
zation than were his Neurotic counterpart's choices. Table

3 presents the probabilities associated with the greater
number of positive signs for Psychopaths as compared to
Neurotics. Only the "Glutton" slide was chosen signifi-
cantly more times by Negro Psychopaths than by Negro Neurotics I
(p:>.01), while none of the low socialized slides achieved a

probability as low as .05 for White Subjects. When N is I
increased by combining all Psychopaths and all Neurotics,
two of the low socialized slides achieved significance. The
"Lover" and "Glutton" slides were chosen significantly more
times by Psychopaths with probabilities of .02 and .05, re-
spectively. Although only two of the six pairs achieved
significance individually, the total six item test success-
fully discriminated Psychopaths from Neurotics as has been
shown above in Table 2.

For socialization of impulses, the stereoscope suc-
cessfully discriminated Psychopaths from Neurotics, while the
TAT Socialization Index failed to do so significantly. How-
ever, since the TAT Socialization Index results were in the
predicted direction, albeit not significant, it would be ex-
pected that a low but positive correlation would exist between

these scores and the stereoscope percentages of high socialized

 

 

62

Table 3
Sign Test Probabilities Associated with the Increment
of Psychopaths' Over Neurotics' Low Socialized

StereoscoPe Choices

 

 

Race Bride- Singer- Coffee- Diner- Dancer— Boxer-
Lover Stripper Beer Glutton Raper Brawler

illh‘..__

 

Negro .227 .h02 .105 .011 .h02 .598

White .090 .212 .395 .788 .395 .395

B th '
Rgces ‘022 0181 .102 .051 .291 .456

 

 

 

 

63

choices. The product moment coefficient of correlation be—
tween these two measures was .11, which is in accord with
expectations (See Table 11).

Egg Syntonigity g; Impulses

Hypotheses 3 and h predicted that the impulses of
Psychopaths were more ego syntonic than the impulses of
Neurotics. Both hypotheses were tested by TAT measures,
Number of Drive Content and Drive Integration Index, re-
spectively.

If the drives of Psychopaths are more ego syntonic,
then it would be expected that they would admit more drives
into awareness, and consequently should earn higher Number
of Drive scores on the TAT. Table A presents the mean num-
ber of drive content scores for all groups.

Negro Psychopaths scored 1.12 more drives than Negro
Neurotics, while White Psychopaths scored .86 less drives
than their White Neurotic Counterparts. All Psychopaths
scored .20 more drives than All Neurotics. The results were
in the predicted direction for Negroes and for all subjects,
but were in the opposite direction for Whites. None of
these differences proved significant when analyzed by one
tail t tests for matched groups.

The second measure of ego syntonicity of impulses
was the Drive Integration Index on the TAT. Hypothesis h
predicted that Psychopaths, whose drives are presumed to be
more ego syntonic and less objectionable than those of

Neurotics, would thereby show greater integration of their

 

Table 4

Mean TAT Number of Drive Content Scores

 

 

 

Race Neurotic Psychopath Diff. t

Negro lh.l9 15.31 1.12 .690
White 15.29 lh.h3 .86 1.19h
Both Races 1h.70 14.90 .20 .21h

 

 

 

 

 

65

drives on thematic material. Table 5 presents the mean

Drive Integration Index scores for all groups. For Negroes,
Whites, and Both Races, the Psychopaths obtained higher mean
integration indices than Neurotics, of .15, .02, and .09,
respectively. Although all three were in the predicted direc-
tion, only Negroes and Both Races were significant at the .05
level. The greatest difference between Psychopaths and Neu-
rotics occurred in the Negro groups, which is consistent

with the findings on the stereoscope (See Table 2).

Thus, while the TAT Number of Drive scores favored
the Psychopaths as predicted, the difference was not great
enough to reject the null hypothesis of no difference between
Psychopaths and Neurotics. However when the TAT Drive Inte-
gration Index was considered, Psychopaths' drives appeared
significantly more ego syntonic than Neurotics' drives,
using thematic integration as a measure of syntonicity.
Perceptual Consistgngy

Hypotheses 5 and 6 predicted that the perception of
Psychopaths would differ from that of Neurotics as a function
of the former's greater rigidity and inflexibility of ego
functioning.

Perceptual inflexibility was operationally defined
in Hypothesis 5 as committing errors on tachistoscopic pre-
sentations of previously viewed members of stereoscope slide
pairs. Pairs of high and low socialized slides presented on

the stereoscope in Series I and II were presented individ-

 

 

66

Table 5

Mean TAT Drive Integration Index Scores

 

 

 

Race Neurotic Psychopath Diff. t
Negro 2.h8 2.63 .15 2.03h*
White 2.48 2.50 .02 .312
Both Races 2.h8 2.57 .09 1.715*

 

*Significant at the .05 level.

 

 

 

 

 

 

67

ually on the tachistoscope in Series III. Thus while the
"Bride" and "Lover" pair were simultaneously presented on
the stereoscope, each of these slides was presented indi-
vidually on the tachistoscope (See Appendix K). A tachis-
toscope error was defined as any misperception of the
tachistoscope slide. Most often these errors constituted
perceiving one of the previously seen stereoscope slides
while being presented with its slide mate on the tachisto-
scope. If a subject had chosen "Bride" on "Bride-Lover"
presentation, he was liable to report "Bride" again even
when viewing "Lover-Lover" on the tachistoscope. Thus there
were two types of errors: (1) high socialized errors of re-
porting a high socialized slide while viewing a low social-
ized slide, and (2) low socialized errors of reporting a

low socialized slide while viewing a high socialized slide.
Furthermore, these errors could occur when the subject had
previously perceived the high socialized slide on both
stereoscope presentations of the slide pair, or the low
socialized slide on both stereoscope presentations, or fin-
ally, the high socialized member once, and the low socialized
member in the other presentation.

Table 6 summarizes tachistoscope errors and their
relationship to previous stereoscope choices. The total
errors committed by Neurotics, 130, did not differ signif-
icantly from the Psychopaths' total of 133 errors. It is

clear that when both stereoscope presentations of a slide

 

 

68

Table 6
Relationship Between Tachistoscopic Errors
And Previous Stereoscopic Choices

Neurotics

 

 

Tachistoscopic Stereoscope Choices
ror
Both High Both Low One High Totals
Socialized Socialized One Low

 

High Socialized

 

 

 

Error 62 2 18 82
Low Socialized ,
Error 1 34 13 #8
Total Errors 63 36 31 130
Psychopaths
Tachistoscopic Stereoscope Choices
Error

Both High Both Low One High Totals
Socialized Socialized One Low

 

High Socialized
Error 39 l h Ah

Low Socialized
Error 0 68 21 89

Total Errors 39 69 25 133

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

69

pair led to high socialized perceptions, the subsequent
tachistoscopic errors were high socialized errors, i.e.,
low socialized slides were perceived as high socialized.
Conversely, when the subject's choices on the stereoscope
were low socialized, his errors based on this experience
were low socialized ones. Therefore since Neurotics scored
significantly more high socialized percepts on the stereo-
scope, it is not surprising that they made 64 high social-
ized errors as Opposed to 35 low socialized errors. Psycho-
paths, who scored significantly more low socialized stereo-
sscope choices than Neurotics, consequently committed 68 low
socialized errors as opposed to only 40 high socialized
errors. This difference between the groups is of limited
interest since it is a reflection of their differential ex-
perience on the stereoscope.

In order to check for the possible role of set in
the stereoscopic results an additional analysis was con-
ducted. Table 7 presents the stereoscope results for both
groups on Series I and Series II separately. In Series I,
Neurotics reported 66% high socialized percepts, while in
Series II only 51% were reported. For Psychopaths the fre-
quency of high socialized choices dropped from 44% in Series
I to 34% in Series II. The decrease for Neurotics was sig-
nificant at the .02 level while the Psychopaths' decrease
was significant at the .05 level. Although the same rela-

tionship between the two groups was maintained, i.e.,

 

70

Table 7
.Mean Percentage of High Socialized Stereoscope Choices

in Series I and Series II

 

—— — A

 

Group Series I Series II Diff. pa
Neurotic 66% 51% 15% .02
PsychOpath 44% 34% 10% .05

 

aSignificance levels determined by Sign Test.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

71

Neurotics perceived more high socialized slides, the dif-
ference between the two groups was lessened in Series II as
compared to Series I.

The effects of previous experience on the stereoscope
can be controlled by considering those tachistoscope errors
which occurred when one high socialized and one low social-
ized slide were perceived on the stereosc0pe. Here the
subject had "equal" opportunity to err in either direction
since he had equivalent experience with the high and low
socialized slides. VUnder these conditions Neurotics com-
mitted 13 low socialized errors as opposed to 18 high soci-
alized errors. PsychOpaths committed 21 low socialized
errors and only 4 high socialized errors. A chi square of
low socialized and high socialized tachistoscope errors when
one high and one low socialized slide were chosen on the
stereoscope was significant at beyond the .01 level (See
Table 8).

The prediction that PsychOpaths would commit more
tachistoscope errors than Neurotics was not supported. Hows
ever, the tachistosc0pe provided additional support for the
hypothesis that Psychopaths perceive more low socialized
stimuli than Neurotics.

Perceptual consistency was operationally defined
in Hypothesis 6 as greater internal consistency of percep-
tion. Kuder-Richardson formula 20 was calculated for the

stereoscope performances of Psychopaths and Neurotics.

 

 

 

‘.
E , . ‘L I
— (
i u .
I . 'I
W
" '..v
. -1

 

 

l
" . , ~ - '
\
__ - I v,
' ‘ ‘ I
|
I ' '
Y ‘ I .
,5 '
1 , . - -‘ .,
o ‘-
1,
~ \
- ' I . \-,. \
. r ‘ ,-
. l
u ‘v' I I
. .
’ ‘ .. _
._ u, .
.‘ I. . .
' .'_". 4
A,. __ . '
I‘ .. ' ’ .
| l
l ‘\' I u u . ‘
.‘ I , I I

 

 

 

72

Table 8
Tachistoscope Errors When One High and One Low

Socialized Slide Chosen on Stereoscope

 

 

Tachistoscope Neurotics Psychopaths
Error

 

High Socialized
Error 18 4

Low Socialized
Error 13 21

 

Note.--Xz = 10.27, p <00].

 

 

 

 

 

 

73

Table 9 reveals that the internal consistency of Psycho-
paths' stereosc0pe choices was .444 as compared to .262 for
Neurotics. Although this data does not lend itself to
statistical tests of significance, support was provided for
Hypothesis 6.

When perceptual consistency was defined in terms of
total tachistosc0pe errors, no significant differences oc-
curred. However, when the direction of errors was consid-
ered, and when previous experience on the stereoscope was

controlled, Psychopaths committed significantly more low

 

socialized errors than Neurotics, and Neurotics significant-

ly more high socialized errors than Psychopaths. When per-

 

ceptual censistency was defined in terms of greater internal
consistency of perception, Psychopaths achieved greater
perceptual consistency.
Eggraversion

Hypothesis 7 predicted that Psychopaths would score
higher on Extraversion than would Neurotics. The Extraver-
sion measure was obtained from.the Maudsley Personality In-
ventory and the mean scores for all groups are presented in
Table 10.

For Negroes, Whites, and Both Races, Psychopaths
obtained higher mean Extraversion scores than Neurotics.
The White Psychopath increment was 2.00, the Negro Psychopath
4.91, and All Psychopaths 3.46. Only the difference between

All Psychopaths and All Neurotics proved significant on a

 

 

 

 

 

74

Table 9

Internal Consistency Scores of Stereoscope Choices

 

 

 

(Kuder-Richardsongo)
Group Variance qu Rtt
Neurotics 3.379 2.567 .262

P'sychOPaths 3 .799 2.250 .444

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

75

Table 10
Mean Scores on Maudsley Personality Inventory

Extraversion

 

 

Psychopaths Neurotics Diff. t

 

White 26.17 24.17 2.00 .778
Negro 29.33 24.42 4.91 1.687
32:25 27 . 75 24. 29 3 .46 1 .796*

 

*Significant at the .05 level.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

76

one tail t test for matched groups (p<<.05). The null hy-
pothesis that the groups do not differ on Extraversion may
be rejected.
Interrelationships Among Variables

Table 11 presents product moment correlations among
selected scoring variables. The two measures of impulse
socialization, the TAT Drive Socialization Index.and the
percentage of high Socialized stereoscope choices, corre-
lated .110, which was not significant. A negative corre-
lation was expected between the percentage of high social-
ized stereoscope choices and Extraversion since high scores
on the former occurred more frequently for Neurotics, and
high scores on the latter occurred more frequently fer
Psychopaths. The correlation of -.146 was thus in accord
with expectations, although it was not significant.

Finally the TAT Drive Integration Index, the only
TAT variable which significantly discriminated Psychopaths
from.Neurotics, was correlated with the other two variables
which were also significant discriminators. The correlation
between Drive Integration and Extraversion was .099, which
was not significant. Drive Integration and high socialized
stereoscope choices correlated -.236 which was significant
at the .05 level.

A correlation was also calculated between the high
socialized stereoscope scores of each matched pair of sub-

jects. Since the members of each pair were matched on race,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

77

 

Table 11

Product Mbment Correlations of Selected Scoring variables

 

i

Item. Percentage of High Extraversion
Socialized Stereoscope

 

 

Socialization

(TAT Index) +.110
Integration '

(TAT Index) -.236* +.099
Extraversion -.l46

 

*Significant at the .05 level.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

78

age, I.Q., and time served, a relatively high correlation
would be expected betWeen their scores if these variables
were significantly related to stereoscope performance. The
product moment correlation was ~.133 which suggests that

the matching variables were not correlated with stereoscope

performance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. .
L
u\
l 2
) 1
I . u
o A
C \ A
I
. I
.,
h .
ax
.
u
. u
L

 

 

 

CHAPTER V

W

Impulse Socialization

The results of the impulse socialization hypotheses
were mixed. When impulse socialization was defined as high-
er scores on the TAT Drive Socialization Index, no signif-
icant differences were obtained between Neurotics and
Psychopaths. However, when high socialized choices on the
stereoscope were used as the measure of impulse socializa-
tion, Psychopaths scored significantly lower.

The failure of the TAT to produce significant re-
sults (while the stereoscope was sensitive to differences)

may be attributed to a number of causes. The TAT and

 

stereoscope are not equivalent instruments in the sense that
the TAT is primarily a measure of fantasy and the stereo-
scope a measure of perception. As Bartley has pointed out,
". . .perception is the immediate response of the organism
to the energy impinging on sense organs" (1958, p. 23).

The stereoscope qualifies as a perceptual instrument since
the observer has no opportunity for interpretation or con-
scious selection of the stimuli. Responding to TAT cards,

however, provides greater opportunity for evaluation,

79

 

80

judgment, censorship, control, and other cortical activ-
ities which are nonperceptual. It is possible, therefore,
that some subjects may have guarded or defended their TAT
responses and "reported only what they wanted to." Be-
cause there is no way of assessing the overall extent of
defensiveness or the degree to which this may have occurred
in the two groups, the results cannot be explained on this
basis alone.

A second factor which may have influenced the re-
sults also resides in the fantasy nature of the TAT test.
Feshbach (1958) has reviewed studies which showed that
fantasy can act to reduce the strength of a motive or need
by means of symbolic satisfaction. Specifically the conten-
tion is that the fantasy expression of a drive represents
a substitute or compensatory function. It is possible that

Neurotics do not act out their impulses, in part, because

 

they are able to substitute direct satisfaction of their
drives via fantasy. However, if this explanation were

potent, significantly lower Socialization Index Scores for

 

Neurotics would have been expected rather than the negli-
gible differences which were found between the two groups.
An explanation is still needed to account for the fact that
the Neurotics and Psychopaths differed on both behavioral

criteria and perceptual indices of socialization, but not

 

on the TAT measures used here.

It is possible that it is not the TAT which is

 

 

 

81

unable to adequately measure socialization, but rather the
particular scoring scheme which was employed. It is diffi-
cult to evaluate the TAT's efficacy in measuring impulse
socialization since there is almost a complete lack of
previous research in this area. Shelley.(l959) reviewed

the literature and was able to find only three TAT studies
dealing with criminal populations as of 1959. None of these
were adequate experimental studies, and none have been re-
ported since, with the exception of the Shelley study (1959).
The only evidence that the TAT is sensitive to degrees of
impulse socialization is provided by Shelley's study. Using
a system.of scoring for number of antisocial themes, Shelley
found that antisocial responses decreased as a function of
young offenders' experiences in a minimum security setting.
A greater decrease in antisocial responses occurred for
those offenders who had organized counseling as opposed to
those who had not had such experience. Furthermore, decrease
in antisocial responses was found to be positively associated
with future parole success. Although the population Shelley
studied, i.e., "good-risk," young, first offenders, is not
comparable to the population in the present study, he was
able to show at least that the TAT was sensitive to changes
in impulse socialization. Therefore, it seems quite likely
that the Pine system used in the present study possesses

more culpability than the TAT, itself. Previous to this

study, the Pine (1960) method of measuring impulse

 

 

 

 

 

 

82

socialization was never subjected to the kind of construct
validity test provided by predicting scores of groups with
known degrees of impulse socialization. Pine's results are
applicable only to "normal" college undergraduates upon whom
the method was validated. The present study raises serious
questions regarding the applicability of the method to
pathologic groups as well as doubts concerning the internal
consistency of the scoring method. .Of the three scoring
categories used in the present study, only Drive Integration
provided reasonable internal reliability.

The stereoscopic measurement of impulse socializa-
tion provided more positive results. Not only did the
stereoscope test as a whole discriminate Psychopaths from
Neurotics, but to a degree several of the individual stereo-
grams were effective discriminators.

Previous research has shown that "violent-neutral"
slide pairs resulted in significantly more violent percep-
tions by inmates who subsequently developed into discipli-
nary problems (Shelley and Toch, l962),and by inmates with
extensive assaultive histories (Putoff, 1962). The "aggres-
sive," "poorly adjusted" subjects in these studies were
likely more heavily weighted on our "psychopathy” criteria
than on our "neurotic" selection criteria. The "unsocialized"
slides in these studies were "violent" ones, but in the pre-
sent study the two slides which attain the highest signifi-

cance are the "Lover" and "Glutton" slides.‘ Violence does

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

83

not appear to be the underlying motive behind the content

of these slides. Thus, a variety of aggressive and libidi-
nal drives, e.g., sex, orality, and violence, may occupy a
higher priority in the perception of extraverted, psycho-
pathic criminals than in inhibited, neurotic criminals. The
data therefore suggests that the perception of impulse con-
tent is general to a variety of impulse themes, and not
restricted to aggression or violence.

Another interesting facet of the stereoscope results
is the relatively high number of unsocialized slides per-
ceived by both groups. Psychopaths selected 61% low-
socialized slides and Neurotics 42%. On similarly con-
structed stereograms (violent-nonviolent) a "normal" control
group of college students selected 22% low-socialized slides
(Toch and Schulte, 1961). Since both the Neurotics and
Psychopaths perceived appreciably more impulsive-content
slides than "normals," it would suggest that Neurotics and
Psychopaths are not the polar extremes of a socialized-
unsocialized continuum. Rather, the data would suggest that
Neurotics and Psychopaths are the midpoint and one endpoint,
respectively, of a continuum ranging from socialized and well-
controlled, through unsocialized and moderately controlled,
to unsocialized and uncontrolled. In order to verify such a
relationship systematically, an investigation using "normals,"
Neurotics, and Psychopaths, all tested on the same stereograms,

would have to be conducted. Gough (1960) has suggested that

 

 

 

 

Q
a
.
\
(
" . u . .
{

 

 

 

84

any meaningful scale of socialization must be continuous
rather than dichotomous. A scale or theory of socialization
which applies only to the extremes is incomplete until vari-
ous points along the dimension can be located.

However, insofar as the present study is concerned,

Psychopaths were shown to perceive more impulsive content

 

than Neurotics. The relationship between behavior and per-
ception is thus explicit, since one of the major selection
criteria was "amount of acting out in the institution."

The Psychopathic inmates participated in more fights, sex
acts, drinking, food-stealing, etc.; they also perceived
more slides dealing with the drives assumed to be connected
with such behavior (aggression, sex, orality, etc.). It
seems possible therefore that one of the prerequisites for

unsocialized behavior is the perception of the environment as

 

a "supermarket" of unsocialized opportunities.

There are at least two ways to interpret this rela-
tionship between behavior and perception. First, since the
subjects were highly select in terms of presence or absence
of a variety of impulse areas, it is possible that their
stereoscope performances reflected a summation of separate
drives. A second interpretation would hold that some gen-
eral, rather than specific, process was operant and cut
across content areas. The data on ego syntonicity which
follows present one possible interpretation of the results

in terms of a generalized process.

 

85

Egg Syntonicity

One of the basic clinical assumptions about persons
who easily and readily express impulses directly is that
impulse expression is ego syntonic for these persons (Elias0ph,
1962; Van Evra and Rosenberg, 1963). .In other words, it would
be expected that blatantly unsocialized persons should show
higher degrees of drive integration. Such was the finding“
when ego syntonicity was defined in terms of the TAT Inte-
gration Index, but not when the TAT Number of Drive Content
was used. 0n the Integration Index, Psychopaths scored
significantly higher than Neurotics, but.only negligible
differences between the two groups were found on Number of
Drive Content.

The explanations above for the results of the TAT
Drive Socialization Index may very well apply to the Number
of Drive Content results. How "much" drive a person is Will-
ing to reveal when reSponding to TAT cards is probably
related to how many "unsocialized" drives he is willing to
describe. Similarly if amount of direct drive expreSsion
can be dissipated by fantasy, then it is also likely that
the degree of drive socialization may also be spent through
fantasy. Finally, the questionable validity of Pine's
socialization scoring system is also applicable tO'hiS drive
content scoring system. Not only did the Drive Content
scoring system fail to distinguish the two groups, but the-

internal reliability of this category was also unsatisfactory.

 

 

a
-
l

 

 

 

 

86

One final possibility is that the degree of syntonicity or
personal acceptability of drives is not reflected in the
number of drives which are reported in response to TAT
cards.

Pine's only scoring category which did provide sig-
nificant results was the Drive Integration Index, which is
independent of Drive Number and Socialization scores. Op-
portunities for defensiveness in this scoring category did
not exist, since it is unlikely that subjects knew they were
being evaluated for their ability to integrate thematic
materials, as they might have been aware of the examiner's
interest in antisocial responses. Furthermore, there is
less reason to believe that fantasy behavior has any specific
effect upon the degree of integration of drives, as it does
on the number or-socialization of drives.

In order for a person to continuously and openly
express his drives, he must be either grossly out of contact
with reality or possess minimal internal control. The Psycho-
paths clearly.fit the second category. These subjectsnot
only express their impulses when external controls are
absent, but persist in expressing them while under severe
and restricted confinement. This would suggest that-not
only are their controls extremely meager, but that "they
can see nothing wrong with doing what they feel like." On
another level this also means that the impulses and motives

behind this behavior are acceptable to the individual. They

 

 

 

 

 

87

are, in other words, ego syntonic, part of himself, and not
subject to personal evaluation or censure. Similarly when
the Psychopaths project stories in response to TAT cards,
they incorporate and integrate the impulse content into the
stories much as they do in their own lives. This high de-
gree of integration leaves little room.for change, since
change has to occur not for some isolated, compartmentalized
bits of behavior, but for a whole person.

age maximum

The ability to change is a function of the degree of
ego flexibility which the individual possesses. For example,
if a person's perception is so rigid and intractable that it
does not change even when stimuli change, it would be ex-
pected that his ability to alter his behavior would also be
severely restricted. Psychopaths retain their behavior
patterns in spite of extreme measures calculated by society
to cause them.to change. It would be expected that Psycho-
paths would demonstrate greater ego inflexibility than
Neurotics who do show some ability to change, e.g., better
response to psychotherapy, changes in symptom formations,
etc.

On the tachistosc0pe test Psychopaths committed sig-
nificantly more low-socialized errors and Neurotics signifi-
cantly more high-socialized errors. This difference appears
to be a direct consequence of the subjects' previous exper-

ience on the stereOSCOpe. Thus, since Neurotics perceived

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

88

significantly more high-socialized slides on the stereo-
scope, their tendency to continue to report high socialized
slides on the tachistoscope (even when the tachistoscopic
stimuli were low-socialized) appears to reflect their stereo-
scopic experience. Conversely, Psychopaths continued to
report lowesocialized percepts on the tachistoscope respon-
sive to the high-socialized slides, reflecting their greater
stereoscope experience with low~socialized slides.

”The effects of experience on perception were also
discerned when the first and second series of the stereo- ;
scope results were separately analyzed. Both Neurotics and
Psychopaths perceived significantly more lowesocialized
slides with the second series of presentations than they
had with the first. It seems plausible that experience with
uncommon low-socialized percepts in Series I was reflected
in heightened perception of these stimuli in Series II.

Both the tachistoscope results discussed above and the
analysis of stereoscope results by series lend support to
the contention that experience increases the tendency to
perceive impulsive-content stimuli.

{An opportunity for equating the effects of previous
experience was presented in the case of subjects who had
perceived one low and one high socialized slide in the
stereoscope. Under these conditions Psychopaths still per-
sisted in perceiving significantly more low-socialized slides

than did the Neurotics. Apparently this characteristic is

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

89

strong enough or general enough that it Operates both when

a perceptual choice is available (stereosc0pe) or when a
perceptual distortion situation is available (tachisto-
scope). In other words, not only is the perception of Psycho-
paths more sensitized towards impulse content, but such per-
ception is exaggerated in situations similar to those having
impulse content. Some mechanism appears to be operating
whereby Psychopaths can attribute their own involvement

‘with impulses onto the environment. Conversely, it is also
possible that Neurotics utilize some denial mechanism when I
dealing with stimuli of an impulsive nature.

Although the insignificant results between groups in
total number of errors may be attributed to no differences
in ego flexibility, it is more likely that the operational
definition of ego flexibility was inappropriate. Support for
this explanation of the results is provided by the internal
consistency data. In other words, when ego inflexibility
'was defined as higher internal consistency scores on the
stereoscope, PsychOpaths did demonstrate greater perceptual
consistency than Neurotics. It would of course be inter-
esting to ascertain how a control group of normals would
compare on total errors with Psychopaths and Neurotics. If

the argument advanced on behalf of the stereoscoPe data is

 

correct, i.e., if Neurotics and PsychOpaths are the midpoint
and one endpoint of a socialization continuum, then it might

also be expected that they both commit more errors than

 

 

 

 

 

9O

normals who represent the other endpoint.

One area where it was possible to compare the results
of the present study with that achieved by normals was the
standardized administration of Eysenck's Extraversion scale.
Normative data from a variety of clinical and "normal"
groups have been reported in the literature.

Egtraversion

Two assumptions concerning_the relationship between
criminality and extraversion have received support in the
literature. One position maintains that criminals tend
towards being extraverted, and noncriminals tend towards
being introverted and neurotic (Cassel and Harriman, 1959;
Glueck and Glueck, 1950; 1956). Another position holds that
criminals are not drawn from a homogeneous population in re-
lation to extraversion and neuroticism, but are bimodally
distributed on these variables (Miller, 1956; Peterson, Quay,
and Tiffany, 1961, Rodger, 1948). This first assumption
cannot be tested adequately in this study because the pre—
sent population is not a "criminal" one, but a "prisoner"
one, and even among the prisoners the sample was not ran-
domly selected. The relationship, however, between selected
types of incarcerated criminals and nonincarcerated popula-
tions can be examined. The data can also be inspected to
show whether two highly select and specialized groups of
inmates with respect to extraversion and introversion can be

selected from a total prison population.

 

 

 

 

 

91

$39 1192;; 9_f_‘ Prisoners

Bartholomew (1959) has contended that psychopaths
and recidivists should score higher on extraversion than
inmates without such demonstrated incidence of acting out..
The present data bears this assumption out for psychopaths.
Negro, White, and All Psychopaths obtained higher mean
Extraversion scores than their Neurotic counterparts. Al-
though the difference was greatest between Negro Psychopaths
and Neurotics, only the difference between All Psychopaths
and All Neurotics achieved statistical significance. 0n the
basis of Extraversion scores it is possible therefore to
discriminate extraverted and introverted prisoners when these
specialized groups are preselected.

The Glueck and Glueck (1950; 1956) contentién that
criminals are more extraverted and less introverted and
neurotic than noncriminals cannot be borne out by the present
data. In fact, the mean Extraversion-score of Americana
"normals" is higher than the means for the criminal groups
of Neurotics, PsychOpaths, or All Subjects. Although the
data do not provide a crucial test for the Gluecks' assump-
tions regarding introversion and extraversion, doubt may
be cast upon their generality.

Some striking differences occurred between Negroes
and Whites on the Extraversion scale. The possible rela-
tionship between ethnic background and all experimental

variables merits examination.

 

 

 

92

Racial Differences

Although the possible effect of racial differences
was controlled by matching subjects on race, differences
did occur on some tests between Negroes and Whites. On
every experimental measure which produced significant dif-
ferences between Psychopaths and Neurotics, the differences
‘were greater for the Negro pairs than fer the White pairs.
This accentuated difference between Negro Neurotics and
Negro Psychopaths occurred on the stereoscope measure of
high socialized choice, the TAT Drive Integration Index, and
the Eysenck measure of Extraversion.

It seems that Negroes' results conformed more closely
to the hypotheses than the results for White subjects. One
possible explanation is that the Negro groups were more
widely separated on the Operational definitions of neurosis
and psychOpathy. For example, if neurotic symptomatology
among Negro inmates is more rare than among White inmates,
then applying identical criteria to the selection of subjects
of both races would lead to the selection of more extreme
cases of Negro Neurotics. A survey was conducted on racial
prevalence of neurotic disorders at SPSM; When all cases
diagnosed as "neurotic" at both the Reception Center and
Psychiatric Clinic were tabulated, it was found that 70% of
these inmates were White and 30% Negro according to Recep-
tion Center diagnoses; 68% were White and 32% Negro accord-

ing to Psychiatric Clinic diagnoses. The relative

93

percentages of Negroes and Whites at SPSM, however, were
46.6% and 51.6% respectively. Conclusions that can be drawn
from this survey are very limited since uncontrolled diag-
nostician biases may exist as has been shown by Hollingshead
and Redlich (1958). Furthermore, these results have no
direct applicability to racial prevalence of types of mental
illness in society, due to the specialized nature of the
sample being dealt with here. Nevertheless, the results of
the Negro Neurotics and Psychopaths in the present study
show greater differences than do the results of White
Neurotics and Psychopaths.
Intercorrelations Aggpg Variables

Intercorrelations were computed among each of the
scoring variables which produced significant results. The
only significant correlation was between the TAT Integration
Index and the percentage of high socialized stereoscope
choices. The low but significant correlation was negative
since high scores on the former occurred more frequently for
Psychopaths while high scores on the latter occurred more
frequently for Neurotics. Based on this correlation, a.strong
argument cannot be made for low socialized perception being
a function of integration, due to the low magnitude of the
correlation (-.236). However, to some extent at least, some
of the same processes which dispose towards low-socialized
perception may be operative in the integration of drives.

One possible interpretation might contend that if an

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

94

individual's impulses are ego syntonic or integrated, then
unsocialized percepts may operate by virtue of the lack of
personal controls against such perception. This assumption
has been advocated by Eliasoph (1962) and van Evra and
Rosenberg (1963). The present data offers some additional
support for this contention.

None of the other scoring variables were signifi-
cantly correlated with each other. In the case of the
relationship between stereoscope choices and Extraversion,
it is likely that relatively independent psychological pro-
cesses were being measured. In the case of the TAT indices
of Drive Number and Drive Socialization, it is impossible
to say exactly what the negligible correlations mean. Since
neither of these measures were shown to have any reasonable
internal consistency, there is no evidence that they effect-
ively measure anything,.and thus correlations with other
scoring measures would not necessarily be expected.
Suggestions £9; Further Research

Although this study was primarily concerned with the

investigation of some personality attributes of two special-

 

ized groups of prisoners, it still leaves certain obvious
questions about these attributes unanswered.

According to roughly comparable datalO on "normals,"

 

10Since the stereograms in the study of "normals"
(Toch and Schulte, 1961) were violent-nonviolent pairs, and
in the present study were low socialized-high socialized
pairs, it is difficult to estimate how comparable the two
studies are.

 

95

both the Psychopaths and Neurotics appeared to have per-
ceived an inordinately large number of low-socialized slides.
An argument was presented that prison Neurotics and.Psycho-
paths may not represent the extremes on this dimension of
perception, but rather the midpoint and endpoint, with norm-
als occupying the other endpoint, i.e., the most socialized
perception group. A.similar position was taken in regard to
the data on ego inflexibility as measured by tachistoscopic
errors. In order for meaningful assessment of these two
types of prisoners, a study of theperformance of "normals"
on an identical set of stereograms should be conducted. It
would be of further interest to conceptualize a.socialization
continuum based not only upOn psychopathic and neurotic crim-
inals and normals, but also on "well-adjusted" criminals,

and criminals who are not incarcerated.

Since the stereoscope test has been shown to effec-
tively discriminate future disciplinary problems (Shelley and
Toch, 1962), inmates with extensive assaultive histories
(Putoff, 1962), and now inmates with psychopathic character-
istics, further studies specifically designed to investigate
the predictive validity of the instrument are in order. -Such
studies ndght relate stereoscope performance to a variety of
institutional adjustment indices as well as to parole
success. 4

From.the clinical psychologist's point of view, the

possible relationship between both stereoscope performance

 

 

 

96

and integration scores and success in psychotherapy provides
another interesting area of study. The CalifOrnia Depart-
ment of Corrections has undertaken a large scale project
calculated to investigate the psychological characteristics
of various offender types and amenability to different treat-
ment programs within and outside the prison (Grant, 1962).
Since much data has already been accumulated in the Cali-
fornia studies, it would be interesting to see how different
types of California wards vary on the dimensions in this
study. Such questions as the relationship between the
California classification of "maturity" types to the types
used in this study may provoke interesting hypotheses con-
cerning the psychological and social dynamics of offender
types.

Finally, there seems little reason to apply any fur-
ther the Number of Drive or Drive Socialization scoring
systems to criminal groups. However, any investigators in-
terested in these_scoring systems should critically evaluate
the internal reliability and construct validity of these
scales. One possible investhgation might apply these scales
to other groups of known degrees of socialization, e.g.,

over-achievers, "model" citizens, delinquent groups, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

97

Appendix.A
MMPI T Scores and Number of Disciplinary

Violations or Triple 0 Segregation Status

 

Psychopaths

Subject #' Hs D Hy Pd Violations
20 49 60 52 83 1 a Triple 0
28 45 60 40 79 Triple 0
21 59 60 60 83 Triple 0
15 57 60 58 86 2 a Triple 0
34 58 58 58 7O 2 & Triple 0
51 44 57 51 71 Triple 0
22 58 60 60 79 2 a Triple 0
38 48 51 49 74 l & Triple 0
29 52 56 55 90 Triple 0
44 49 6O 55 71 2
35 52 45 60 71 3
l 52 6O 48 76 4
18 45 58 55 75 2 & Triple 0
33 48 58 45 75 2
60 31 48 55 78 Triple 0
43 41 51 43 76 2 & Triple
31 48 51 48 75 3
36 58 60 49 102 Triple
57 48 58 55 83 3 & Triple
45 39 56 45 81 Triple 0

 

 

_‘—_

 

98

Appendix A (Continued)

 

 

PsychOpaths
Subject # Hs D Hy Pd Violations

5 57 60 58 79 Triple 0
39 52 53 49 76 Triple 0
48 42 60 55 75 2

47 57 58 60 86 Triple 0
58 57 60 56 79 Triple 0
5o 49 44 64 9o 2 a. Triple 0
54 39 48 42 76 Triple 0
26 47 60 53 71 3

59 41 45 45 82 Triple 0
14 54 60 56 74 3

Neurotics

3 70 77 74 83 0

8 82 80 73 69 0
23 110 90 95 71 O

7 75 70 71 33 0
16 85 80 93 86 0
37 100 70 82 65 Ci

4 7O 70 78 82 0
46 9O 77 82 79 O
17 82 83 8O 81 O
30 67 70 71 6O 0

 

 

Subject #

9
32
25
42
ll
10
40
56
13
41
19
55
27

2
6
49
24
12
52
53

 

 

 

 

99

Appendix A (Continued)

82
77
74
70
70
7o
78
85
85
72
77
70
95
75
90
72
78
8o
62

70-

Neurotics
D Hy
70 71
72 7O
72 82
77 7O
78 76
72 77
65 78
87 78
87 82
70 71
87 75
77 71
85 85
77 71
8O 8O
77 73
80 78
82 73
72 73
7O 8O

Pd
68
86
88
74
75

79
6O

82
72
64
81
73

75
64

83
69
9O
88

70

Violations

oooooooooppoogoooooo

 

100

Appendix B

Ranges and Means of Neurotic Triad (Hs, D, Hy)

and Psychopathic Deviate (Pd) Scores

 

 

 

Scale Neurotic Psychopathic Diff. t

Hs Range 62-110 31-59

HS Mean 78.77 49.20 29.57 12.37**
D Range 70-90 44-60

D Mean 76.80 55.83 20.97 l2.52**
Hy Range 70-95 40-64

HY Mean 77.10 52.63 24.47 14,40sa
Pd Range 60-90 70-102

Pd Mean 75.33 79.03 3.70 1.83*

 

*Significant at .05 level.

**Significant at .01 level.

 

 

101

Appendix C

Ranges and Means of MMPI Scalesa

 

 

 

Neurotic Psychopathic
Scale

Range Mean Range Mean
L 36-66 51.60 36—60 48.36
F 44-72 58.76 46-70 56.57
K 42-82 57.20 40-72 57.00
Mf 43-74 58.64 41-76 55.54
Pa 44-91 61.76 38-67 55.21
Pt 46-85 65.72 48-66 56.36
Sc 50-80 64.40 42-74 57.75
Ma 40-78 58.16 40-91 64.93
Si 38-77 54.80 40—72 46.50

 

aRanges and means for Hs, D, Hy, and Pd are

presented in Appendix B.

.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D

Behavior Check List

Directions: Circle the (X) next to each item which ap~

plies to the inmate.

Information is based

on the inmate's main folder and disciplinary
behavior during the present sentence.

 

E QEQER 3 Group
No tickets during the X 2 or more tickets during
previous year previous year

#

Characteristically X Not anxious
anxious
Other neurotic symptoms X No neurotic symptoms
(Physical complaints with
no organic findings, _
phobias, tics, dissoc1-
ative episodes)
Usually Shy, introverted, X Bold, extraverted, manip-

withdrawn

 

Score ( )

ulative

 

Score ( )

 

 

 

103

Appendix E
Types 2; Felonious Offensesa For Both Groupsb

 

 

 

 

Type Neurotics Psychopaths
Assault Less than Murder 1 2
Assault to Rob While Armed 5 1
Assault with Intent to Rape O 2
fittempted Breaking & Entering 0 3

n Auto

Attempted Breaking & Entering

in the Daytime 1 O
Attempted Breaking & Entering
in the Nighttime O 2
Attempted Larceny in a store 3 O
Attempted Uttering & Publishing 0 1
Breaking & Entering an Auto 3 4
Breaking & Entering in the
Daytime 3 7
Breaking & Entering in the
Nighttime 8 13
Carrying concealed weapons 0 l
Escaping Prison 1 3
False Pretenses 1 0
Felonious Assault 0 2
Felonious Assault with Intent
to Commit Murder 0 1
Forgery 1
1 0

Grand Larceny

 

104

Appendix E (Continued)

 

 

Type

Neurotics

Psychopaths

 

Indecent Liberties
Kidnapping

Larceny from a Building
Larceny from a Motor Vehicle
Larceny from a Person
Larceny from a Store
Larceny in a Dwelling
Manslaughter

Murder, Second Degree
Possession of Burglary Tools
Rape

Receiving Stolen Property
Robbery Armed

Robbery Unarmed

Statutory Rape

Unlawfully Driving Away an Auto

Uttering & Publishing

a: H o m 0‘ H N H w H o o o o s» H o

Violation of the State Check Law 2
Violation of the State Drug Law 6

«a H zo no u: F'\w H m o o o s- H w H o o c-

aIncludes present offense and previous felony

convictions.

bAccording to FBI arrest records, the neurotic
subjects had 24 previous felony convictions and the

psychopathic subjects 4 .

 

 

105

Appendix F

Distribution of Race, Age, I.Q., and Time

Served on Present Sentencea for Matched

Pairs of Neurotics and Psychopathsb

 

 

 

Subject # Race Age I.Q. Time
5 W 27 97 2—2
49 Mex 28 95 1-1
35 W 28 125 0-11
19 W 30 117 1-8
50 w 21 106 1-3
12 W 26 114 0-10
26 W 21 96 0-11
6 W 25 89 1-3
3 6 w 27 80 3—11
25 W 29 72 5-1
4 W 29 117 2-5
3; w 30 117 2-4
14. W 29 97 3-3
46 w 32 107 3-9
W 29 110 3-1
54 W 28 114 2-6
W 34 131 1-9
:2 w 38 126 1-1
W 35 103 2‘3
2'3 w 36 106 0-10
w 37 104 1-6
f; w 37 100 1-10
W 29 85 1-9
3?, w 32 79 1-4

Appendix

106

F (Continued)

 

 

 

Subject # Race Age I.Q. Time
38 W 32 104 2-11
17 W 36 109 3-10
48 W 23 109 1-3
27 W 23 96 1-7
15 N 43 100 4-7

3 N 40 85 3-3
21 N 44 78 6-2
30 N 43 84 6-1
29 N 34 90 3-11

8 N 39 86 2-7
34 N 29 100 3-5
40 N 28 105 2-6
22 N 27 89 0-9
11 N 25 96 1-11
44 N 28 80 2-0
55 N 26 89 1-9
33 N 37 87 1-4
23 N 39 88 0-9

1 N 28 114 1-6
32 N 27 115 0-7
13 N 27 114 2-9
10 N 26 117 2-10
31 N 27 70 1-5
56 N 25 71 1-10
60 N 35 75 1‘8
53 N 32 67 0-8

N 27 103 1-3
2: N 32 107 1-8

107
Appendix F (Continued)

 

 

 

 

Subject # Race Age I.Q. Time
58 N 33 110 2—1

9 N 28 95 1-3
54 N 26 96 4-4
42 N 22 92 2-10
59 N 29 108 1-8

2 N 24 95 1-2

20 N 40 97 1-6
16 N 43 87 2-8

 

aTime is expressed in years and months.

bTop member of a pair is a Psychopath
and bottom member is a Neurotic.

 

 

 

 

 

108

Appendix G
Average Differences Between Matched Pairs of Neurotics

and Psychopaths on Matching Variables

 

 

 

Race Age(Years) I.Q.(Points) Time(Months)
Negro 2081 6063 9038
White 2.21 5.93 7.71

Both Races 2.53 6.30 8.60

 

 

 

 

 

 

109

Appendix H

Mean Age, I.Q., and Time Served on Present Sentence

for Matched Pairs of Neurotics and Psychopaths

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Age
Race Neurotics Paychopaths Diff. t
Negro 31.19 32.13 .94 1.19
White 30.71 28.64 2.07 4.26**
Both Races 30.97 30.50 .47 .88
I.Q.
Race Neurotics Psychopaths Diff. t
Negro 920hll' 9h.£plp 2000 0995
White 102.93 104.00 1.07 .545
Both Races 97.33 99.17 1.84 1.363

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

110

Appendix H (Continued)

Time Served on Present Sentence (Menths)

 

 

 

Race Neurotics Psychopaths Diff. t

Negro 25.88 _ 30.25 4.37 1.727
White 25.14 25.00 .14 .063
Both Races 25.33 27.60 2.27 1.272

 

*Significant at .05 level.

assignificant at .01 level.

 

111

Appendix I

Sample Stereogram

(Boxer-Brawler)

Boxer Brawler

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

112
Appendix J
mum
GROUP I-.S.
SERIES 1
mm pig RIGHT pig
1. Bride 13. lover
213. Stripteaser 2. Singer

3. Coffee Drinker

4B. Glutton
5. Dancer

63.. Brawler

13. Lover
2. Singer
33. Beer Drinker
4. Diner
53. Raper

6. Boxer

33. Beer Drinker
4. Diner
53. Raper

6. Boxer

SERIES I

—o.

 

1. Bride

ZB. Stripteaser

————

3. Coffee Drinker

43. Glutton
5. Dancer

6B. Brawler

OTHER OBSERVATIONS
(FUSION, nit.)

 

 

H!!! W

A Bride-Bride:

B Love r—Lover:

C Stripteaser-s tripteaser :

D Singer-8 inger:

28 Coffee drinker-Coffee Drinker: Coffee

1? Beer drinker-Beer drinker:

G Glutt on-Glutton
H Diner-Diner:
IV Boxer-Boxer:

J Brawler-Brawler:

S.C.

Observations:

113

Appendix E
SERIES _I_I__I_
Bride

Lover

u—n—

Singer

Drinker

Glut ton

Diner

Boxer

Brawler

Doc.

Lover

S tripteaser

Beer drinker

__ Diner

__ Brawler

__ Boxer

Bride

Singer

__ Stripteas er ______

Beer Drinker

Coffee
drinker

Glutton

 

 

 

1. .
_ _ r r .
1 n
_ . r w
1 .. x .
.. . \ — . . 1
L _. ._ . . .
r ‘ . x | . .
. . . a ,
x . (
u. . a
. . . _ .
_ _ a _
.. ..
. .. .. .
. . .
.. .
. ,
..
..
.
. .r . . .
.
. .
.« .
. .
.
. i
r . . i
1
p _ A .
_ . .
.r . .
_ V _
w i .
.

 

 

 

 

11h
Appendix L
Maudsley Personality Inventory
NAME ________________ NUMBER
DATE ________________ AGE ___________ SEX
INSTRUCTIONS

Here are some questions regarding the ways you behave, feel
and act. After each question there is a "yes," a "?" and
a "no."

Try and decide whether "yes" or "no" represents your usual
way of acting or feeling; then put a circle around the "yes"
or "no." If you find it absolutely impossible to decide,
put a circle around the "?", but do not use this answer
except very occasionally. Werk quickly, and don't spend 4
too much time over any question; we want your first re-
action, not a long drawnout process! The whole question-
naire shouldn't take more than a few minutes. Be sure not
to omit any questions. Now go ahead, work quickly, and re-
member to answer EVERY question. There are no right or
wrong answers, and this isn't a test of intelligence or
ability, but simply a measure of the way you behave.

1. Are you happiest when you get involved in some pro-
ject that calls for rapid action . . . . . . Yes ? no

2. Do you sometimes feel happy, sometimes depressed,
without any apparent reason? . . . . . . . . Yes ? no

3. Does your mind often wander while you are trying
to concentrate? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes ? no

h. Do you usually take the initiative in making new
friendS? O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I 0 yes ? no

5. Are you inclined to be quick and sure in your
actionS?oooooooooouoo-ooooyes2110

6. Are you frequently "lost in thought" even when you are
supposed to be taking part in a conversation? yes 2 no

7. Are you sometimes bubbling over with energy and
sometimes very sluggish? . . . . . . . . . . yes ? no

8. Are you inclined to be overconscientious? . yes ? no

 

115

Appendix L (Continued)
9. Would you rate yourself as a lively individua1?yes ? no

10. Would you be very unhappy if you were prevented
from making numerous social contacts? . . . . yes ? no

11. Are you inclined to be moody? . . . . . . . . yes ? no

12. Do you have frequent ups and downs in mood, either
with or without apparent cause? . . . . . . yes ? no

13. Do you prefer action to planning for action? yes ? no

1h. Are you inclined to keep in the background
onoccaSionS?oooooooooooooooyes

'0

no

150 Are your daydreams frequently about things
that can never come true? . . . . . . . . . yes ? no

 

16. Are you inclined to ponder over your past? yes ? no

17. Do you ever feel "just miserable" for no good
reasonatall?eoooooooooooooyes

'0

no

18. Is it difficult to "lose yourself" even at
alivelypartY?.............oYES?n0

19. Do you often find that you have made up your
mind too late? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes

'9

no
20. Do you like to mix socially with people?. . yes ? no
21. Have you often lost sleep over your worries? yes ? no

22. Are you inclined to limit your acquaintances
to a select few? . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes ? no

23. Are you often troubled about feelings of
guilt ? O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O I O 0 yes ? no

24. Do you ever take your work as if it were a
matter of life or death? . . . . . . . . . yes

-o

no
25. Are your feelings rather easily hurt? . . . yes ? no
26. Do you like to have many social engagements? yes ? no

27. WOuld you rate yourself as a tense or "highlye
strung" individual? . . . . . . . . . . . . yes ? no

 

 

 

 

28.

29.

3o._

31.

32.

33-

3h.

35-

36.

37.

38.

39.

#0.

Al.

#2.

43.

116

Appendix L (Continued)

Do you generally prefer to take the lead in group
activities? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes

Do you often experience periods of lone-
liness? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes

Are you inclined to be shy in the presence of
the opposite sex? . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes

Do you like to indulge in reverie (day-
dreaming).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes

Do you nearly always have a "ready answer"
for remarks directed at you? . . . . . . . yes

Do you spend much time in thinking over good
times you have had in the past? . . . . . . yes

Would you rate yourself as a happy-go-lucky
individllal? I O O O O O O I O O O O O O I 0 yes

Have you often felt listless and tired for
no good reason? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes

Are you inclined to keep quiet when out in
social group? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes

After a critical moment is over, do you usually
think of something you should have done but
failed to d0? 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 yes

Can you usually let yourself go and have a
hilariously good time at a gay party? . . . yes

Do ideas run through your head so that you
cannot sleep? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes

Do you like work that requires considerable
attention?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes

Have you ever been bothered by having a use-
less thought oome into your mind repeatedly? yes

Are you inclined to take your work casually,
that is as a matter of course? . . . . . . yes

Are you touchy on various subjects?. . . . yes

‘0

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

##.

#5.
#6.

#7.
#8.

117

Appendix L (Continued)

Do other people regard you as a lively indi-
Vidual? O D O O O O O O O I O O O I O O D O Dyes ? no

Do you often feel disgruntled? . . . . . . yes ?

Would you rate yourself as a talkative
individual? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes ?

Do you like to play pranks upon others? . . yes ?

Do you have periods of such great restless-
ness that you cannot sit long in a chair? . yes ?

 

no

no

no

no

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hammonwws
eonuHmHOOmsp

on.“ m wohmwa
Hmwoomm

obummonwms
Hsfioomd

unosunafioe
we.“ m m mammal.

118

psosvuwwou
obammonwms
wouwflsnoomqs

Hb QNME b mNME bH mmMB HHH mmwa

 

pastes
H8316

anosvuufioc
coufiflwfioom

pnmsvnfifion
woufiasaoom

hop
Hsuoowuoupomm

vsosusuaod
donafisfioom

HH mNMB

Hmseabfienu
donovnmolmHom .m
capohpon
£6 332. .4 Amman;
obamfismaoo .4
psosvufiaow
03282 Emma

aoefifiwnnfihobo w¢.Abd¢Hv

A 9&5
335

$353“.
sfifiofioss .m
e323 .
us... .88 .e
pnosdnwfioc
eopbsfle
hafiofloaa Rams

H ENMB AMHHHV

MEMBmhm NECE¢UHEHmm¢HU ZHHEMbba.ZH ¢2Hmammm¢ mam»? BZHDOZHHHD 202200

8mg. $0382 5 H 3.35

AhoHHmez .vwh Hawk Mo newmmafihon New?» 2 Nanmmm¢

ZZMHE
$ moQHm

Noam

wmmmzmmomMHm

wZHmmoa

ZdEMoHnw
fl MZHMZHw

mumapd

 

 

. , . f r.
. .

 

 

. . r I
.I ..z i f.
\ ..

.r I, u.

 

 

HsHoomuonm

HmunodHood

finance

3.003 030.3

IEHm coxonr

honoHoHMow loam hHHd

9 Houses InoHpmppHm

n

powwow

#2000. on one 030

nofififlop IngddHHoHc

338135. amfiam
3393.09

0.3.095 HapdocHood

H3003.

Hung—Hue

advanced soufigflfiefi

050.38?
5890309300

0:335

00s 033%
:30th $00.“
:00 nopoggo

HS» Hessian,"
#53 B33

ofioudflhm
wngmoH
009.3033.

maoHfionfi H3
Inmaongqo no
.0003 H0333.
HsHoomlHasd

HdeEHno
2538»
no H3502

$2838 8 a fiend?

omeHdmaoo .4
Hedoomufiqa espoused owned

oeHmHafiaoo .4.
H.053? 0
douHHmfideHdnH

0&9ng .m
donHemaoo .4
mHon»

L80 Hakeem...
3.0050095

“H0300?”
030.302 . m
donHémaoo . 4
90.3.33
0053.3» 00
bagnpofioz

HddHaHno
0 30.302

A 305

Sam:

A 99;

Amman;

HHmeV

BHOEM

5355 s
seaweeds

Bowman.

Zoamqfififi

5&4

 

120

 

hon 03» aonohmm

£505

250 m0nmm0

.H 0.30 «M0 .H 0» 00.H 0:0

0.30MB .3.” 080m 0Hponohmm H300 01.3.0.0

0HH000A 000

03” $0an0

038035 .3003

bH0>H00H0m 0M0 M003

00.0.0.5 “H300 Emma ‘5

005.0? 030.23 moogg 0H0

omnomon Ion 30 m 00.3%: on 0>0m
30.500 H003

H0358 05500300

33¢ ogoaohmm 03» 0923500..

 

quHaHno 0.0.3.

Honpnoo
0M0tn0mfim
03$ 0 0 M00

5050030

00.393» 0 H0
0woun0mnm
aqunHHoo
043000

05.900300
3:930
.3 H9932

330388 2 ”303000.

1:8 0534. .m
uoaamuoo
H0933. .4
H3320
0.30.302 fihmHv

0.3ng .m
0.300qu 3w @an
0M0 M003 thaHv

000E909
“830.00g
00—0340»
H0939 . m
300.30g
hp 3.53. . 4.
000303.30
33.3; $an 0

000.3003
hHmnofloam .0
0mm pooh .d
uq0fidaHH00
039802 8:05

mangawmh

mmHfim

Ham

24%

 

Appendix N
Scoring Reliability of TAT Stories

(Product moment correlations)

 

 

 

Reliability Number of Drive Soc- Drive Inte-
Drive Content ialization gration Index

 

Inter-Judgea .582* .722** .615*

Intra-Judgeb .164 .2h2 .518**

 

aN = 12 protocols.
bN = 60 protocols.
*Significant at the .05 level.

**Significant at the .01 level.

 

 

 

n

 

,.

 

 

REFERENCES

Adams, S. Interaction between individual interview
therapy and treatment amenability in older youth
authority wards. California State Board of Correc-
tions Monograph, 1951, ;, 27-EE.

Adams, 8., & Grant, Marguerite Q. A demonstration pro-
ject: an evaluation of community-located treatment
for delinquents. California Department 9: Egg
Youth Authority: Division of Research, March 1, 1961.

 

Aichorn, A. Wayward youth. New York: Viking, 1935.

Alexander, F. The neurotic character. Int. 1. Psychoanal.,
1930, 1;, 292~311.

Altman, L. On the oral nature of acting out: a case of
acting out between parent and child. 1. Amer.
Psychoanal. Ass., 1957, 2, 6h8-662.

 

American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statis-
tical manual, mental disorders. washington: Mental
Hospital Service, 1952.

Argyle, M. A new approach to the classification of
delinquents with implications for treatment.
California State Board of Corrections Mbno ra h,

1961, g, 15‘260

Bagby, J. A cross cultural study of perceptual dominance
in binocular rivalry. i. abnorm. soc. Psychol.,
1957. 53, BBL-331+. "'" '

Baker, B. 0., & Sarbin, T. R. Differential mediation of
social perception as a correlate of social adjust-
ment. Sociometr , 1956, 12, 69-83.

 

Barnes, H. E., & Teeters, N. K. New horizons in crimi-

nology. (3rd ed.) New York: Prentice-Hall, 1959.

 

Bartholomew, A. A. Extraversion-introversion and neurot-
icism in first offenders and recidivists. Brit. g.

Bartley, S. H. Princi les of perception. New York:
Harper, 195 .

123

Beloff, H., & Beloff, J. Unconscious self evaluation
using a stereoscope. i. abnorm. soc. Psychol.,
1959, 22, 275-278.,

Bender, Lauretta. Psychopathic behavior disorders in
children. In R. M. Lindner & R. V. Selinger (Eds.),
Handbook 9; correctional ch 10 . New York:
Philosophical Library, 19 7. Pp. 3 0-377.

Bonner, H. Psychology pf personality. New York: Ronald
Press, 1961. Ch. . -

Brill, N. Q., & Baird, J. H. Psychopathic personality.
In W. H. Mikesell (Ed.), Modern abnormal psychol-
pgy. New York: Philosophical Library, 1950. Ch. 18.

Brody, E. B. Borderline state, character disorder, and
psychotic manifestations: some conceptual formations.
Psychiatr , 1960, 31, 75-80.

Cassel, R. N., & Harriman, B. C. A comparative analysis
of personality and ego strength test scores for
in-prison, neuro—psychiatric and typical individ-
uals. J. educ. figs., 1959, 23, 43—52.

 

Cleckley, H. M. Psychopathic states. In S. Arieti (Ed.),
Handbook pf s chiatr . Vol. 1. New York: Basic
Books, 1959. Ch. 2 . _

Clinard, M. B. Criminological research. In R. K. Merton,
L. Broom, & L. S. Cottrell, Jr. (Eds.), Sociology

toda : problems and prospects. New York: Basic
Books, 1959. Ch. 23.

Dallmau, C. J. Psychopathy and psychopathic behavior: a
psychoanal tic approach. Arch. crim. Psychodynam.,
1961, g, A 3-h55.

 

Davis, J. M. Personality, perceptual defense, and
stereoscopic perception. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.,
1959: 2§, 398-402.

 

East, W. N. Psychopathic personality and crime. J. ment.
5021., 1.996, 2;, #26“ 660 V

Eissler, K. R. (Ed.) Searchlights pp delin uenc . New
York: International Universities Press, 19 9.

Eliasoph, E. A paradigm for differential groupings of
maée adolescent offenders. Unpublished manuscript,
19 2.

 

124

Eliasoph, E., Beker, J., & Resnik, D. A theoretical par-
adigm for the classification of male adolescent
offenders. Paper read at Amer. Psychol. Ass.,

St. Louis, September, 1962.

Engel, E. The role of content in binocular resolution.
Amer. J. Psychol., 1956, 6 , 87-91.

Engel, E. Binocular fusion of dissimilar figures. J.
Psychol., 1958, A9, 53-57-

Eysenck, H. J. Manual pf the Maudsley Personality
Inventory. London: Univer. London Press, 1959.

Fenichel, O. Ego disturbances and their treatment. Int.
J. Psychoanal., 1938, 12, #16-43 .

Fenichel, O. The s choanal tic theory pf neurosis. New

York: W. W. Norton, l9 5.

Fenichel, O. Neurotic acting-out. Psychoanal. Rev.,
1945, 32, 197-206. (a)

Ferenczi, S. Further ppntributiong pg the theory and
technique pf psychoanalysis. V01. 2. London:
Hogarth Press, 192 .

Ferenczi, 8. Final contributions pg the problems and
methods pf psychoanalysis. Vol. 3. New York:
Basic Books, 1955.

 

Feshbach, S. The drive-reducing function of fantasy
behavior. In J. W. Atkinson (Ed.) Motives ip
fantasy, action, gpg society. Princeton: D. Van
Nostrand, 1953. Ch. 11.

Foulds, G. A. Attitude toward self and others of psycho-
paths. g. indiv. Psychol., 1960, ;§, 81—83.

Franks, C. M. Recidivism, psychopathy and personality.
Brit. it Delinguo, 1956, g, 192‘2020

Friedlander, Kate. Latent delinquency and ego develop-
ment. In K. R. Eissler (Ed.), Searchlights pp
delin uenc . New York: International Universities
Press, 1959. Pp. 205-215.

Gibbons, D. C. Prospects and problems of delinquent
typology. Sociol. In uir , 1962, 32, 235-24h.

 

125

Gibbons, D. C., & Garrity, D. L. Some suggestions for
the development of etiological and treatment theory
in criminology. §pp. Forces, 1959, 3§, 51-58.

Gibbons, D. C., & Garrity, D. L. Definition and analysis
of certain criminal types. 1. crim. Lay, Crimin. g

police §p;., 1962, pg, 27-35.
Glover, E. The neurotic character. Ipp. J. Psychoanal.,

1926’ 1, 11—300
Glover, E. The roots pf crime. New York: International
universities Press, 1960.
Glueck, E., & Glueck, S. Unraveling juvenile delinquency.
ambridge: Commonwealth Fund, 1950.

Glueck, E., & Glueck, S. Physique gpq delinquency. New

York: Harper, 1956.
Gough, H. G. A sociological theory of psychopathy. Amer.
J. SOCiOlo, 191F8, 22., 359-3660
Gough, H. G. Theory and measurement of socialization.

i. Consult. PSZChOIO, 1960, 2_ll', 23‘300

Grant, Marguerite Q. A current trend in correctional re-
interaction between kinds of treatments and

search:
kinds of delinquents. California State Board Bi

Corrections Monograph, 1961, 3: 5-1 .

 

 

Grant, Marguerite Q. Community treatment project: an
evaluation of community treatment for delinquents.
CTP Research Report No. 1, California Youth
Authorit , August 1, 1962.

Hartmann, H. Ego psychology and the problem pf adapta-

tion. New York: International Universities Press,

1953.
Hastorf, A. H., & Myro, G. The effect of meaning on
binocular rivalry. Amer. g. Psychol., 1959, 12,

Hathaway, 3. 12., (Ya-McKinley, J. 0. Minnesota Multiphasic

Personality Inventory: Manual. New York: Psychol.

Corp., 1951.
Hewitt, L. E., & Jenkins, R. L. Fundamental patterns 2:
State

maladjustment: the dynamics pf their origin.

of Illinois, 19 .

 

126

Hollingshead, A. B., & Redlich, F. C. Social class and
mental illness. New York: Wiley, 1953.

Jenkins, R. L. Motivation and frustration in delinquency.
Amer. i. orthOESYChiato, 1957, g1, 528-5370

Jenkins, R. L., & Hewitt, L. E. Types of personality
structure encountered in child guidance clinics.
Amer. J. 0rthopsychiat., 19hh, gg, 8h-9h.

Karpman, B. On the need for separating psychopathy into
two distinct clinical types: the symptomatic and
the idiopathic. J. crim. Psychopath., 19h1-19h2,
3, 112-137.

Karpman, B. The structure of neuroses: with special dif-
ferentialnbetween neurosis, psychosis, homosexual-
ity, psychopathy, and criminality. Arch. crim.
Psychodynam., 1961, E, 599-646.

Kaufman, I. Three basic sources for pre-delinquent char-
acter. Nerv. Child, 1955-1956, 1;, 12-15.

Kinch, J. W. Certain social-psychological aspects of
types of juvenile delinquents. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Univer. of Washington, 1959.

Kinch, J. W. Continuities in the study of delinquent
types. J. crim. Law, Crimin. g police Sci., 1962,
21: 323-323-

Kinch, J. W. Self-conceptions of types of delinquents.

Kozol, H. L. The dynamics of psychopathy. Arch. crim.
Psychodynam., 1961, i, 526-541.

Lindner, R. M. Psychopathic personality and the concept
of homeostasis. J. clin. Psychopath., l9hh-19h5,

9. 517-551».

McCann, W. H. The psychopath and the psychoneurotic in
relation to crime and delinquency. J. clin. Psycho~
path., l9h8, 2, 547-556.

 

 

 

 

127

Michaels, J. J. Character structure and character dis-
orders. In S. Arieti (Ed.), Handbook pf psychiatry.
Vol. 1. New York: Basic Books, 1959. Ch. 19.

Miller, E. Delinquent traits in normal persons. Brit.
J. Delinqu., 1960, JQ, 161-177.

Miller, M. C. Follow-up studies of introverted children.
I: Relative incidence of criminal behavior. J.
crim. Law, Crimin. g police Sci., 1956, 1. , Alli-1.22.

Moller, Hella. Stuttering, predelinquent, and adjusted
boys: a comparative analysis of personality charac-
teristics as measured by the WISC and the Rorschach
Test. Dip. Abstr., 1960, 2;, 1A61.

Mueller, P. F. An objective approach to a behavioral
classification of juvenile delinquents and its re-
lationship to the treatment assignment. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Univer. of washington, 1958.

Naess. S. Mother-child separation and delinquency. Brit.
J. Delinqu., 1959, J9, 22-35.

Nunberg, H. Character and neurosis. Int. J. Psychoanal.,
1956, 31, 36-45.

Peterson, D. H., Quay, H. G., & Cameron, G. R. Person-
ality and background factors in juvenile delinquency
as inferred from questionnaire responses. J. consult.
Psychol., 1959, 22. 395-399-

Peterson, D. R., Quay, H. G., & Tiffany, T. L. Personal-
ity factors related to juvenile delinquency. Child
Develpm., 1961, 13, 355-372.

Pettigrew, T., Allport, G., & Barnett, E. Binocular
resolution and perception of race in South Africa.
Brit. J. Psychol., 1958, h , 265=278.

Pine, F. A manual for rating drive content in the Thematic
Apperception Test. J. pr j. Tech., 1960, pg, 32-hh.

 

Putoff, 0. The perception of violence as related to a
history of violence. State of California. (Mimeo-
graphed report, CIM, April 27, 1962).

Quay, H. G., & Blumen, L. Factor dimensions of delinquent
behavior. J. soc. Psychol., in press.

 

 

 

 

128

Quay, H. G., Peterson, D. R. & Consalvi, C. The inter-
pretation of three personality factors in 'uvenile
delinquency. J. consult. Psychol., 1960, g_, 555.

Rabin, A. I. Psychopathic (sociopathic) personalities.
In H. H. Toch (Ed.), Legal & criminal s cholo .
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 19 1. Ch. 12.

Reich, W. Character ppplysis. New York: Orgone Insti-
tute Press, 19h9.

Rodger, T. C. A dynamic study of so-called psychopathic
personality. J. nerv. ment. Dis., 19h8, 102, 43-54.

Schulman, I. Dynamics and treatment of anti-social
psychopathology in adolescence. Nerv. Child, 1955,
11, 35-41.

Shelley, E. L. V. The effect of an organized counseling
program on the anti-social themes elicited by the
Thematic Apperception Test from youthful prison
inmates. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Michi-
gan State Univer., 1959.

Shelley, E. L. V., & Toch, H. H. The perception of
violence as an indicator of adjustment in institu-
tionalized youthful offenders. J. crim. Lap, Crimin.
g police §pi., 1962, 53, #63-469.

Siegel, S. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral
sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956.

Silverberg, W. B. Childhood experience and personal
destiny: g psychoanalytic view pf neurosis. New
York: Springer, 1952.

Sterba, R. F. Clinical and therapeutic aspects of char-
acter resistance. In Yearb. Ps choanal. New York:
International Universities Press, 1953, pg, 1&8-163.

 

Sullivan, 0., Grant, Marguerite Q., & Grant, J. D. The
development of interpersonal maturity: application
to delinquency. Psychiatry, 1957. 29. 373-385.

Sykes, G. M. The society pf captives: g study p§_g
maximum security rison. Princeton: rinceton
University Press, 195 .

Toch, H. H., & Goldstein, J. The development of crimi-
nal predispositions. In H. H. Toch (Ed.), Legal
& criminal s cholo . New York: Holt, Rinehart

& Winston, 19 1. Ch. 9.

 

 

129

Toch, H. H., & Schulte, R. Readiness to perceive vio-
lence as a result of police training. Brit. J.
Psychol., 1961, 22: 389'393.

Van Evra, Judy P., & Rosenberg, B. G. Ego strength and
ego disjunction in primary and secondary psycho-
paths. J. clin. Psychol., 1963, 12, 61-63.

Wattenberg, W. W. Psychologists and juvenile delinquency.
In H. H. Toch (Ed.), Le al p criminal s cholo .
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, l9 1. Ch. 11.

Wittels, F. The criminal psychopath in the psycho-
analytic system. Psychoanal. Rev., 1937, pp,
276-291.

 

 

 

h

 

 

J...

          

.In... I. 1...... .
v

. . lull-III IInu-Il:l5.l...1ll..|.al... l:.ll......1|

   

... II .. 1 ... I. 1.1 ..II| ‘IlnI. . , . .. .II 111.. . I. 1... u..u.\«4u|u.....l.l1. ....
. . . . . ... . . . . . . ..
.. . .. .. .. .. 1............

 

390M CHE, 0N1!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

’ 'IICHIGNQ STQTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES
111|111111111111||11111|11|1||1|111|
31293103833715