PRISON HOMOSEXUALITY: LOCUS OF CONTROL AND FEMININITY Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. ' MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY HOWARD K. PORTER ' f 1969‘; Ixmmmmmmuwm\m\xflu\m\u\n\\\u\g\w ' M53753; 3 1293 104 1 208 U , . chmty This is to certify that the thesis entitled Prison Homosexuality: Locus of ControZ (172:1 Farr: in 7: r27: 1; 3,1 presented by .Fz'oz.)a2°(3 K . For 6 er has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for (311/‘7’7 777 s , [‘101'7. degree in p8.lv-.Lr 930.] m ‘ 7 _ _ Kay/1.9x W ' / \C'L’L\4Q\y\ /7 Major professor Date /(/////6’ 7 0-169 :6. “films BY w Hons & sons' 300K BINTTG‘» W i ABSTRACT PRISON HOMOSEXUALITY: LOCUS OF CONTROL AND FEMININITY BY Howard K. Porter Many explanations of male homosexuality include the ideas that homosexuals are more effiminate than other males and/or that they are more passive. The passivity may be hidden by an aggressive, hypermasculine facade. Youthfulness is thought to be an important variable in prison homosexuality. The Internal-External Control Scale, CPI Fe Scale, a Body Parts Satisfaction test, and a Figure Preference Test were given to 96 prison inamtes divided into 3 groups: 24 effeminate-passive homosexuals, 29 masculine-aggressive homosexuals, and 43 non-homosexuals. It had been hypoth— esized the groups would differ in test performances and age of first prison admission. No statistical support was found for the hypoth- esized differences between groups on any of the variables. 1 Howard K. Porter Despite the assumed importance of differences in role behaviors, the differences were not reflected in the personality variables studied. The grossness of the aggressive-passive dichotomy and the variability of human need satisfaction are possible explanations for the lack of reliable personality differences. PRISON HOMOSEXUALITY: LOCUS OF CONTROL AND FEMININITY BY ,V Howard Kl'Porter A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1969 A '{i.03 wm' It A)‘ )1)”'lo ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This thesis would have been impossible without the splended c00peration of some of my colleagues at Southern Michigan State Prison. Jesse Worth and George Graham gave invaluable assistance in the selection of subjects. Dr. Fred J. Pesetsky, Director of the Michigan Corrections Psychiatric Clinic, showed appreciated toler- ance of those times when the thesis was more highly cathected than my clinical staff duties. Jerry Watson gave excellent editorial assistance and was a valuable source of ideas. Each member of my thesis committee was helpful in a unique way. Dr. Dozier Thornton has been an impor- tant influence, both formally and informally, throughout my career as a graduate student. Dr. Bert Karon has been a welcome mentor and friend most appreciated for his will— ingness to help a budding clinician in moments of stress. Dr. A. I. Rabin has had more influence on more graduate students than any other single faculty member both as the ii person responsible for the core of the clinical training program and as a model of the clinical psychologist as a scholar—clinician-researcher. Dr. Zucker is best remem- bered for his ability to make pertinent comments and his willingness to discuss difficulties. Of course, none of it would have been possible without the support of my family and parents. My wife and children had to endure many deprivations and discom- forts associated with having a graduate student as a hus- band and father but have tolerated them with good grace. At times the overcoming of the hurdles between B.A. and Ph.D. became a family affair which made my task much easier. Having someone with whom to share disappointments and accomplishments with reduces the despair while in- creasing the elation. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Chapter I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l4 Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 II. METHOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Subjects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 III. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 IV. DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 APPENDIX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 iv Table II. III. IV. VI. VII. VIII. IX. LIST OF TABLES Page SUBJECT BACKGROUND VARIABLES . . . . . . . . 27 RESULTS OF £_TESTS OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POSSIBLE COVARIATES AND DEPENDENT VARIABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 CORRELATION BETWEEN IQ AND DEPENDENT VARIABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF THE DEPENDENT VARIABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . 34 ANALYSES OF VARIANCE OF DEPENDENT VARIABLES AND OF IQ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 PROPORTIONS AND DIFFERENCES IN PROPORTIONS ANSWERING IECS ITEMS IN SCORED DIRECTION . 36 PROPORTIONS AND DIFFERENCES IN PROPORTIONS ANSWERING FE ITEMS IN SCORED DIRECTION . . 37 PROPORTIONS AND DIFFERENCES IN PROPORTIONS ANSWERING BPS ITEMS IN SCORED DIRECTION. . 38 PROPORTIONS AND DIFFERENCES IN PROPORTIONS ANSWERING FPT ITEMS IN SCORED DIRECTION. . 39 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Homosexuality among male prisoners has long been a matter of concern to prison officials (Fishman. 1934; Vedder & King. 1967). Clemmer (1958) pointed out that prison officials will informally discuss the importance of this area while seeming to ignore the problem during formal meetings or in publications. Estimates of the number of prisoners engaging in homosexuality range from 32%.(C1emmer. 1958) to 85% (Lindner. 1948). Parentheti- cally. Clemmer (1958) estimated the rate at 32%.while his data would seem to justify 16%. .Most estimates are between 30 and 45% (Gagnon & Simon. 1968). Prisoners of a type committed to a homosexual role may range from 3% (Greco & Wright. 1944) to 10%.(C1emmer. 1940). Kinsey. Pomeroy & Martin (1948) estimated that 25% of the general male population have more-than-incidental homosexual expe- rience over a three year period and that 10% are more or 1 less exclusively homosexual. Comparing the different rate estimates is difficult because different sources of infor— mation and methods of identifying homosexuals were used. Assuming that estimates of frequency in prison refer to men who repeatedly engage in homosexual behavior would seem to indicate that the proportion of homosexually involved men is greater in prison than in the free community. Miller. Bradley. Gross and Wood (1968) concluded that homosexuality is not necessarily associated with other forms of pathology but prison officials perceive many associated problems. Lindner (1948) reported his expe- rience indicated most of the "psychiatric casualties" seen in prison suffer conflicts related to sex. Clemmer (1940) called the prison homosexual a center of infection. Huff- man (1961) said homosexual advances to young prisoners are a source of many difficulties which must be considered in deciding upon a job and housing classifications. Brier- ley (1961) characterized homosexuals as difficult prisoners who chronically create prdblems and are difficult to _ ”nu-A change. Halleck (1967) said that officials should not tolerate homosexuality because it is an expression of rebellion that makes a prisoner highly resistant to cor- rective efforts. Review Many explanations of homosexuality have been offered. The following are summaries of the most com- mon and widely accepted explanations. The most common psychological explanation of male homosexual behavior is that this behavior is a substitute for heterosexuality which is blocked by fear. Freud (1930) was uncertain about the causes and motivations for homosexuality but did feel that factors which inhibited normal sexuality were often important. Fenichel (1945) felt that all perversions were generally defenses against castration anxiety and male homosexuals turn to other men because the female genitals arouse anxiety. Bieber (1965) saw fear of sexual arousal around women as being a primary cause of homosexuality. Knight (1965) said fear of adult masculinity and of the destructive female is a common factor in three major types of homosexuality. Frenczi (1914). Caprio (1955). Cory (1967). West (1967). and Hoffman (1968) agreed that anxiety associated with heterosexuality is an important factor in many cases. although there are other possible explanations. Dis- turbances in relations with the opposite sex. based on difficulties in childhood. were seen by West (1967) as being a common factor in most explanations of homosexuality. While fear of heterosexuality may be important in producing initial homosexual inclinations. other needs are important in determining the nature and personal meaning of the actual homosexual behavior (Fenichel. 1945; Ovesey. 1954; Ovesey. Gaylin & Hendien. 1963; Rado. 1949; Thompson. 1947). Stekel (1950) suggested that the homosexual sees danger in heterosexuality not as coming from the female but as coming from his own sadistic predisposition toward the opposite sex. Another very common explanation of male homosexu- ality is that these men somehow resemble women more than do other men. The hypothesized similarity between women and male homosexuals may refer to physical and/or psycho- logical characteristics and may be seen as the result of physical factors. psychological factors or a combination of the two. Explanations in terms of genetic. constitu- tional or hormonal causes seem to have been thoroughly explored and discredited or at least not found to have convincing empirical proof (Cappon. 1965; West. 1967; Westwood. 1953). Theories which imply psychological similarities usually attribute homosexuality to an excessively strong maternal or feminine identification and/or to failure to gain masculine identification. Feminine or maternal iden- tification may be the product of an excessively close rela— tionship with the mother. Fenichel (1945) said that the probability of homosexuality is increased with increased maternal identification. The amount of hostility or affec- tion directed toward the mother is important in determining feminine identification but the relative ability of a father to provide an adequate and attractive masculine identification model is also important (Allen. 1958; Bene. 1965; Caprio. 1955; Harper. 1963; West. 1967; Westwood. 1953). Kolb and Johnson (1955) suggest that parents are important in that they may consciously or unconsciously give permission for homosexual behavior. Some of the cases presented by Bieber. Dain. Dince Drellich. Grand. Grundlach. Kremer. Rufkin. Wilbur and Bieber (1962) show a pattern of parents covertly permit- ting or encouraging homosexual behavior while interfering with heterosexual behavior. Of course. the most striking finding emerging from the study of the Bieber group was the identification of a family pattern with a closebinding. intimate mother and a hostile. detached father in the back— ground of many homosexuals. A similar pattern had emerged from the studies of Jonas (1944). Kolb and Johnson (1955). and West (1959) . Chang and Block (1960) found support for the hypothesis that even nonpatient homosexuals have a closer identification with their mother than with their father. Results from the extensive study of Schofield (1965) would seem to indicate that the disrupted or dis— turbed family pattern is more important in the background of those homosexuals who seek treatment or who are sent to prison than in the background of homosexuals who do not enter either therapy or prison. Westwood (1960) con- cluded that. while many homosexuals come from inadequate homes. a sizable minority (30%) do not. Dickey (1961) found that homosexuals who report greater self-satisfac- tion and more adequate job functioning were also those who saw themselves as more similar to heterosexual males than to homosexual males and would prefer the company of heterosexuals over the company of homosexuals. - In addition to those explanations which emphasize factors directly related to sexuality there is another group of explanations which emphasize the importance of various nonsexual needs or factors. For instance. Berg (Berg & Allen. 1958) admitted that he was unable to give a complete explanation but believed that homosexuality is similar to fetishism in that the sexual object has symbolic. but not necessarily sexual. meaning. Those theories which emphasize nonsexual factors stress the importance of pre-oedipal stages of psychosexual devel- opment and/or unconscious attempts to avoid other types of psychopathology. Some theories emphasize the role homosexuality plays in satisfying dependency needs because. unconsciously. the penis symbolizes the breasts (Fair- bairn. 1954; Ovesey. 1954. 1965). Bergler (1956) advanced the view that homosexuality is an expression of the psy- chic masochism common to all neuroses with the additional factors of an unconscious equating of the breast and penis and a failure to advance beyond a stage of infantile nar- cissism. Bychowski (1945) and Gershman (1953) advanced very similar views in considering homosexuality as an attempt to establish some sort of object relation despite the handicap of infantile narcissism. Implicit in the above views is the assumption that the homosexual retains some feeling of infantile passive-dependency. at least unconsciously. Some homosexuals react to passivity and/or an effeminate identification by attempting to assume the appearance of extreme activity or masculinity (Fenichel. 1945; Knight. 1965; Rado. 1949: West. 1967). Knight (1965) identified an active-masculine type who differs from a passive—receptive type in that any hint of passiv- ity is experienced as a threat to self-identity. Freeman (1955) compared three nonhomosexual patients with three homosexual patients and found that both groups feared passivity and wanted to deny femininity“through the defense mechanisms of repression. projection and reaction forma- tion. Bychowski (1945) suggested passive homosexuals are trying to gain strength through the male partner while aggressives have a reaction formation to feelings of pas— sivity and weakness. MacDonald (1938) and Brown (1958) indicate that. even in nonhomosexuals. extreme aggres- siveness may be a defense against passive needs or femi— nine identification. Curran and Parr (1957) found that homosexuals being seen in private psychotherapy will engage in a variety of sexual acts despite any preferences they might have. Westwood (1960). Hooker (1965). West (1967). and Hoffman (1968) questioned the validity of the traditional masculine-feminine. active-passive dichotomy. They found that most homosexuals will participate in a variety of behaviors during their homosexual careers and that pref- erences may change over time. However. they also admitted that many homosexuals do have role preferences. The prob- lem with considering the traditional dichotomy in a rigid way seems to lie in the human ability to behave in ways which do not correspond directly to preferences. Knight (1965) suggested that even if the dichotomy is not strictly accurate. study of extreme types can facilitate understanding of general motivating factors. Bieber et a1.. (1962) found that 36% of their sample of homosexuals were predominately "insertors" while 31% preferred being "insertees." In a second sample. of hospitalized adoles- cent homosexuals. they identified two subclasses: one being characterized as non-anxious. passive boys who were effeminate in sex and life style; and the other being highly anxious. aggressive boys who presented hyper- masculine facades. 10 Prison Homosexuality The most obvious explanation for homosexual behavior in prison is the deprivation of opportunities for heterosexual behavior (Cory. 1955; Fishman. 1934; Fuller. 1951; Huffman. 1960; Sykes. 1958; Vedder & King. 1967). That prison homosexuality is a direct conse- quence of heterosexual deprivation must be questioned on the grounds that all prisoners are heterosexually deprived. but. if the incident estimates of 30% to 45% are near accurate. only a minority are homosexually involved at any given time. Clemmer (1940) indicated that a history of unrestricted sexual behavior. boredom. and generalized unhappiness interact with heterosexual deprivation to produce homosexual behavior. Clemmer (1940) and Block (1955) saw homosexuality as a way of avoiding the depersonalizing aspects of prison life. Greco and Wright (1944). in a rare study of prison homo- sexuality which was not directed toward estimating rates. found that prior experience with a homosexual a a time of intense need for emotional and social security was the only factor differentiating their homosexual and non— homosexual samples. Halleck (1967) also indicated that 11 the satisfaction of nurturance needs enhances the attrac- tiveness of homosexuality. Gagnon and Simon (1968) indicated that one of the most striking differences between homosexuality in prison and in the free community is that in prison active and passive roles are assumed in highly stylized relationships. For some 30 years prison slang has contained terms dif- ferentiating between the passive "punk" and the aggressive "jocker" (Huffman. 1960; Sykes. 1958; Wilson & Pescor. 1939). Although not all prison homosexuals can be clas- sified as masculine or feminine. there is a general agree- ment among authors. guards and prison officials that this distinction applies to a majority of prison homosexuals. Oliver and Mosher (1968) found some empirical support for this commonly held distinction when they found that prison "insertor" homosexuals differ from "insertee" homosexuals on MMPI scales and a measure of guilt. The aggressive prison homosexual presents himself as differing very little from the nonhomosexual inmate. The only notable differences are in his relations with the passive homosexuals and in his reputation as an ex- tremely aggressive individual (Brierley. 1961; Sykes. 12 1958). The aggressive homosexual enjoys an enhanced repu- tation and seems to use homosexual behavior to validate masculinity (Clemmer. 1950; Gagnon & Simon. 1968; Sykes. 1958). Thus the active-masculine homosexual overempha- sizes culturally defined masculine characteristics. They are typically seen as not being homosexual by their peers. Brierley (1961) seems to have accepted this conception of the aggressive homosexuals as not really being homo- sexual because he does not include them among his three types of prison homosexuals but does label them as such in another section of the same article. Reiss (1961) found that a tendency to view the man taking a masculine- aggressive role as not homosexual was true within a delinquent subculture in a free community. Passive homosexuals behave in a highly compliant. dependent manner with their partners and exchange favors for protection and gifts. They openly adopt aspects of an effeminate life style. Their peers see them as having lost any claim to manhood. they are referred to with fem— inine pronouns and often have effeminate nicknames (Brier— ley. 1961; Gagnon & Simon. 1968; Sykes. 1958). Sykes (1958) and Gagnon and Simon (1968) suggest passive-feminine 13 prison homosexuals have renounced their claim to manhood in return for security. They do not let their biological maleness interfere with the satisfaction of security and dependency needs. Summary Hooker (1956. 1965) noted passivity and with- drawal are characteristic of homosexuals and of cultural minorities. She suggests that the similarities exist because homosexuals are a minority group. An alternative explanation is that the similarities exist because both groups see themselves as relatively powerless to affect their environment or to determine what happens to them. Harper (1963) suggested homosexuality is a way of tem- porarily escaping feelings of low self-esteem. An expla- nation of the passivity of homosexuals may lie in theo- retical accounts of motivating factors. Fear of heterosexuality or of the female genitals is linked to unconscious castration anxiety. Castration anxiety is especially noticeable in the sexual area but may generalize to other areas of behavior. For instance. l4 Bieber et a1. (1962) inferred that many of their homo- sexual subjects had been fearful of physical injury and had also inhibited boyish assertiveness as children. Kendrick and Clark (1967) found that homosexuals tend to describe themselves as less potent than nonhomosexuals. Within our culture femininity and passivity are closely linked. One of the implications of those theories of homosexuality which emphasize pre-oedipal fixations seems to be that. at least unconsciously. these men expect their needs to be satisfied without much assertiveness on their part and that the satisfaction of their needs is essential- ly the responsibility of others. In short. many authorie ties see passivity. conscious or unconscious. as being characteristic of homosexuals. In many cases aggressivity or a hypermasculine facade are used to disguise feelings of passivity. 1 25.9% This research was designed to investigate two questions: 1) what are some of the non-sexual charac- teristics which differentiate prisoners who adopt a 15 homosexual way of life from those who do not? and (2) what are some factors which distinguish between prison homo- sexuals who take a predominantly masculine-aggressive role and those who take a feminine-passive role? The younger prisoner seems to be especially sus- ceptible to homosexual pressures (Fishman, 1934; Huffman, 1961). His youth alone makes him attractive to homosex- uals (Hooker, 1965); his immaturity and inexperience make him less likely to be able to handle sexual advances. Oliver and Mosher (1968) found that their nonhomosexual §s were older than a group of homosexual prisoners. If young men are less able to deal with homosexual pressure and thus adopt a relatively stable homosexual life style, homosexual prisoners will tend to have been younger when they began serving their first prison sentence. (Feminine-passive homosexuals evidently have very little faith in the power of the individual to influence events that affect him. Masculine-aggressive homosexuals work v y hard to exert in luence in the area of sex, at least. he Internal-External Control Scale (IECS) de- scribed by Rotter (1966) measures the extent to which a person views the things that happen to him as being l6 influenced by his personal behavior or characteristics. It can be eXpected that feminine-passive homosexuals will show a greater tendency than masculine—aggressive homo— sexuals to obtain high IECS scores, indicating more ex— ternality. r‘ Qiince feminine-passive homosexuals are fairly overt in the adoption of an effeminate life style/ they can be expected to obtain a high (Feminine) score on an overt test of masculinity-femininity. (Eince aggressive homosexuals maintain a masculine facade and deny passivity they would not be expected to differ from nonhomosexuals in their performance on overt measure of masculinity- femininity) Thus passive homosexuals can be expected to obtain higher scores than both nonhomosexuals and masculine-aggressive homosexuals on the Gough (1952) Fe scale. (Deepite differences in facades, the two types of homosexuals have adOpted homosexuality as a way of satis- fying their needs in prison. While the masculine homo— sexual avoids any apparent hints of effeminacy or pas— sivity, he may not do so when the difference between mas- culine and feminine behavior is not obvious:\ For example, .‘ l l7 McClelland and Watt (1968) found womenfwere more dissat- isfied with their body parts and tended to prefer figures with slanted (as Opposed to upright) lines to a greater degree than men. As these differences are not obviously related to masculinity-femininity, both passive and aggressive homosexuals may be expected to obtain higher scores (when the test is scored for feminine choices) than nonhomosexuals. In summary, the younger a man is when he is sent to prison, the more homosexual pressure he is subjected to and the more likely he is to make a homosexual adjust- ment, especially if he has an effeminate or passive ori- entation. The feminine-passive homosexual prisoner openly expresses his effeminacy and seeks the guidance he feels he needs; the masculine—aggressive homosexual wants to disguise his passivity and show masculine assertiveness in the most readily available area: sexuality. Hypotheses A. Homosexual prisoners have had a lower mean age at the time of their first adult prison incar- ceration than non-homosexuals. 18 Feminine—passive homosexual prisoners obtain higher IECS scores than masculine-aggressive homosexual prisoners. Feminine homosexuals obtain higher Gough Fe scores than masculine homosexuals. Feminine homosexuals obtain higher Fe scale scores than non-homosexuals. Homosexuals express more dissatisfaction with their body parts than non—homosexuals. ./' Homosexuals express greater preference for figures with slanted (as opposed to upright) lines than non-homosexuals. CHAPTER TWO METHOD Subjects The subjects in this research were 96 men selected from the pOpulation of the State Prison of Southern Mich- igan (SPSM). SPSM is the largest penal institution in Michigan. It contains approximately 2700 men under max- imum security and about 1300 men under medium security. It is a policy that offenders under the age of 23 not be classified to SPSM except in unusual cases or for special purposes. Subjects were selected from the men housed at the prison after men with an Army General Classification Test (A.G.C.T.) score below 90 and an average grade rating below 6.0 were eliminated. The initial selection process continued until 64 non-homosexuals, 52 masculine-aggressive homosexuals, and 51 feminine—passive homosexuals had been selected. Classification of subjects as homosexuals for this study was dependent upon their behavior in prison with no 19 20@ implications that homosexuality was true of their be- havior in the free community. Classification as either Masculine-Homosexual (Masc) or Feminine-Homosexual (Fem) was done on the basis of information contained in con- fidential files in the Deputy Warden's office. An ex- perienced correctional officer is charged with the re- sponsibility of keeping track of known and suSpected homosexuals. The names of suspected homosexuals are ob- tained from the Reception Diagnostic Center officials, officers, and inmates. A suspect inmate is classified as a suspected homosexual until he actually admits to some official that he is homosexual or is caught in a homosexual act. SuSpected homosexuals were not con- sidered for gs unless the suspicion was confirmed through self—admission or observed behavior. Thus reputation as a homosexual was not sufficient for classification as homosexual for this study. The Deputy warden's file also contains informa— tion concerning the role preference, if any, of the homo- sexual prisoners. Role preference is determined by the man's reputation, choice of partners, and stated prefer- ence. Those confirmed homosexuals who displayed a 2160 definite preference for taking an effeminate-passive role were classified as Fems; those who demonstrated a prefer— ence for a masculine-aggressive role were classified as Mascs. Homosexuals who did not show a clear role prefer- ence were eliminated from consideration as gs. If there were any doubts about a §fs preference or insufficient evidence to establish a preference, he was also eliminated from consideration. Non-homosexual §s were those who were randomly selected from the population but did not appear on the Deputy's list as either confirmed or suspected homosexuals. The selection of Se was much more difficult than had been anticipated. Although a file of homosexuals is maintained, it includes primarily the passive homosexuals and ignores the more aggressive type. There seems to be two primary reasons for this tendency: within the prison culture, passive or effeminate homosexuals are considered homosexuals while the more masculine-aggressive type is not: many of the more aggressive homosexuals have such a well-established reputation that no file is required. Fortunately information regarding aggressive homosexuals is available or included in the information on the passive 23$) homosexuals and in a separate file concerning aggressive inmates. A more frustrating difficulty was encountered by the fact that many of the most blatant and well-known homosexual inmates failed to meet the IQ and grade rating requirements. Consequently it was necessary to continue making tentative selections until almost all of the homo- sexuals included on the Deputy's list meeting the minimal requirements were included in the sample. Not all of the selected §s completed the tests. Some of the §s moved or became otherwise unavailable be- tween selection and testing; some simply did not appear for testing; and some did come to the testing room but refused to take the test. The rates of refusals and failures to show are summarized in Table 1. There were no differences in the average age of the groups. The groups did differ on race and IQ. The race, age, and IQ of each group are summarized in Table l. The Fems were almost exclusively white; the Mascs were almost exclusively non—white. An §_test indicated the difference on IQ was statistically significant (p_1ess than .01). 2399 Tests The Internal-External Control Scale (I.E.C.S.) used was the 29-item forced-choice form described by Rotter (1966). In this form, high scores indicate a belief that the individual has little influence on what happens to him. It has been found useful in predicting a tendency to conform, prisoner's memory of parole infor- mation and the willingness of Negro college students to actively participate in civil rights work (Lefcourt, 1966; Gore & Rotter, 1963). It has also been found to be related to preference for skill vs. chance activities (Gold, 1967; Schneider, 1968), claimed reaction to frus- tration and anxiety (Butterfield, 1964), degree of com- fort in situations varying in degree of personal control (Julian, Lichtman, & Ryckman, 1968), performance on a verbal conditioning task (Getter, 1966), and decision- making time (Rotter & Mulry, 1965). The overt masculinity-femininity measure used was the Fe scale from the California Psychological Inventory (Gough, 1957). As in most questionnaire or attitude scale measures of masculinity-femininity, the Fe scale consists 2469 of items that are fairly obvious in their relationship to cultural stereotypes of masculinity and femininity. Bieliauskas, Miranda and Lansky (1968) found that both sexes could easily "fake" the performance of the opposite sex on the Fe scale. Nichols (1962) found that the Fe scale was highly loaded with both obvious and stereotyped sex-difference items. Gough (1966) presented evidence that it is valid for differentiating sexes and that it correlates with peer ratings of masculinity and femininity. Shepler (1951) and Bieliauskas (1965) suggested that less obvious or projective instruments may measure a slightly different aspect of masculinity-femininity. Two non-obvious measures of masculinity-femininity were used in this study: The Body Parts Satisfaction test (BPS) and Figure Preference Test (FPT) as described by McClel- land and watt (1968). The BPS is not obviously related to sex differences but was found to discriminate between the sexes, with women expressing the greater dissatisfac- tion. It consists of the names of twenty body parts and §_is asked to indicate whether or not he is satisfied with each part. The FPT used in this study consisted of seven scored choices between two figures, one which has upright 2569 lines and other slanted lines, plus four unscored "filler" items. McClelland and Watt (1968) had found that women tended to prefer figures with slanted lines to a greater extent than men. A copy of the tests as used in this study may be found in the Appendix. Procedure A notice was placed in the prison newspaper an- nouncing that 150 men had been randomly selected for par- ticipation in research of how prisoners think. Full confidentiality of test performance was assured. The date, place, and times of testing were given so that the gs would be expecting a call. The men called had been selected as described above but participation was volun- tary in that they could choose whether or not to honor the call and whether or not to complete the test if they did honor the call. All participants were promised a pack of cigarettes so that the randomly selected gs would be more likely to participate. Six §s happened to be in the disciplinary block at the time of testing and were tested individually in 2661) their cells. All other §s were tested in groups of 20 to 30. They were given the tests in booklet form and recorded their answers on IBM answer sheets. The answer sheets contained a subject number as the only means of identification. Only §_knew the correspondence between subject numbers and §fs prison number. After each §_had completed and returned the testing materials, he was given a pack of cigarettes. At the beginning of the first test session a statement explaining the purposes of the study (excluding any mention of homosexuality) was read. However, it quickly became apparent that such statements bored or irritated the gs. Subsequent experience indicated that allowing inmate clerks to distribute the test material and explain what was to be done in their own words was a more effective procedure. The inmate clerks explained the purpose of the tests as being a comparison of pris- oners with other groups but gave such explanation in very few words and only when it appeared necessary. O 27 TABLE I SUBJECT BACKGROUND VARIABLES Background Groups Variable Feminine Masculine Non-homosexual Number Called 41 47 59 No. Show 7 12 12 Refused 10 6 4 Completed 24 29 43 Mean Age In Years 32.31 30.69 31.23 AGCT M 115.00 102.34 111.58 SD 7.75 9.23 13.37 Race White 92% 14% 67% Nonwhite &% 86% 33% Type of Crime Against Property 67% 66% 72% Against Person 33% 34% 28% CHA PTER THREE RESULT 8 Three variables were considered as possible co- variates of the measures of primary interest in this study: Type of crime, race, and IQ. The offenses for which the gs were sentenced were divided into two cate- gories: Crimes against Persons and Crimes against PrOperty. Crimes against Persons included those crimes which involved direct damage to another person's well- being. Sex offenses were included in this category since they are traditionally assumed to be dangerous to another individual even when threats or force are not used. Crimes with the primary goal of illegal acquisition of property or money were classified as Crimes against Prop- erty even if a threat to another person's well-being was implied, as in the case of armed robbery or sale of drugs. Three §s had been convicted of a drug offense (possession) and were considered as having committed crime against prOperty since there was an implication that the drugs 28 were being possessed in order to be sold. The race of'§ was classified as White or Non—white. There were no Orientals, Mexican-Americans, or Indians among the gs, so the race classification was essentially White and Negro. IQ was determined by the AGCT which is routinely administered to all entering inmates. The percentage distribution of race and type of crime as well as mean IQ performance are summarized for each group in Table 1. A Chi—square analysis indicated the three groups did not differ on type of crime (Chi-square equal .41). The two homosexual groups obviously differed on the per- centage of non—whites. An analysis of variance of the IQ scores (Tables 1 and 4) indicated the groups differed significantly on IQ. Possible relationships between the covariates and criterion scores were analyzed through the use of.£ tests in the case of race and type of crime and with product-moment correlations in the case of IQ. The results of the t_tests are presented in Table 2; of the correlational analysis in Table 3. The t_tests did not indicate a relationship between race or type of crime and test performance. Although there was one statistically significant correlation between IQ and a dependent 3069 variable (—.42 between IQ and FPT) for a specific group (Masc) there were no significant correlations between IQ and the dependent variables for the total group of gs. Therefore, it was neither necessary nor useful to adjust the criterion scores for the possible covariates of race, type of crime, or IQ. The means and standard deviation of the test per- formances of the various groups are presented in Table 3. Summaries of the analyses of variance are presented in Table 4. The analyses indicated no support for the hy- potheses of differences between the groups on any of the variables. The distribution of BPS scores were highly skewed since most gs claimed complete or almost complete satisfaction with their body. The KruskaI-Wallis analysis of variance by ranks was used to analyze the data from the BPS. This analysis did not indicate any statistically significant difference between the groups in their per- formance (H = 5.52, 2 between .1 and .05). The number of gs.in each group who answered in the scored direction was recorded for each item of the four tests. The proportion of each group answering in the scored direction for each item is summarized in 31@ Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9. If the proportions of any two groups differed by more than .10, the item was subjected to a chi—square test. Of 261 possible tests, 29 (11%) were statistically significant while only 13 would be expected to have been significant by chance. An inspection of items on which significance was found may be summarized as follows: Homosexuals were more likely than non-homosexuals to say they get excited easily, sometimes feel they are about to go to pieces, and that people cannot prevent wars. Fems were more likely than Nons to like the work of store clerk, feel scared in strange places, and to express dissatisfaction with their eyebrows, face, fingers, and skin and less likely to boast or enjoy mechanical work. Mascs were more likely than Nons to prefer a shower, take things hard and get anxious when others disapprove and less likely to return excessive change. They are also more likely to believe that working for friendship is not al- ways successful and less likely to be dissatisfied with their teeth. Fems were more likely than Mascs to be irritated when someone spits on the sidewalk, return ex- cessive change, and to express dissatisfaction with their eyebrows, complexions, and teeth. 320> Aanzv ouflgzcoz .m> Hm.l mm. ob.l mw.l Ammflzv Ouafiz Aommzv comumm .m> mmEHHO .m> ma. em.| an.l ma.| Aomnzv munmmoum .m> mmEAHU ummu w. wocmuwmoum coauommmaumm accumuxm wusmfim muumm wpom IamcnoucH mm Hmo moanwflum> unopcmmoa meMHHm>OU QHQHmmom mmflmflHMflfi BZMQZMAMQ 92¢ mMBflHm€>OU mqummom ZMWSBWm mHmmZOHamflmm m0 HH mflmflfi mBmmE u no mBADme CORRELATION BETWEEN IQ AND DEPENDENT VARIABLES we TABLE III Dependent Coefficients variables Fems Mascs Nons Mean r All §s IECS .30 -.30 .16 .05 .02 Fe .16 -.34 -.02 -.07 ,-.02 FPT -.16 -.42* -.06 —.21 -.21 BPS .22 -.06 .01 .06 .08 *p less than .05. 34 Q) TABLE IV MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF THE DEPENDENT VARIABLES Group Variable Feminine Masculine Non-homosexual Age in Months M 287.58 259.55 281.90 SD 64.15 77.76 61.07 Internal— External (Control) M 6.63 8.28 7.53 SD 4.37 2.72 4.05 CPI Fe Scale M 18.21 17.07 16.56 SD 4.30 3.06 2.99 Body Parts (Satisfaction) M 3.42 1.86 2.00 SD 2.84 2.42 2.56 Figure Preference (Test) M 1.71 1.97 1.30 SD 1.34 1.40 1.17 TABLE V 3515?I ANALYSES OF VARIANCE OF DEPENDENT VARIABLES AND IQ variance Analyses Dependent variable Source df MS F AGCT IQ Group 2 1197.47 9.59* Error 93 124.94 Age in Months Group 2 8398.36 1.34 Error 93 6267.43 Internal—External Group 2 17.90 1.21 Control Error 93 14.82 CPI Fe Scale Group 2 21.04 1.78 Error 93 11.83 Figure Preference Group 2 3.98 2.33 Test Error 93 1.71 {p less than .05. 36® TABLE VI PROPORTIONS AND DIFFERENCES IN PROPORTIONS ANSWERING IECS ITESM IN SCORED DIRECTION Proportions and Differences in Proportions IECS Item Fem- Fem— Masc- Fem Masc Non Masc Non Non 2 .17 .10 .15 .07 .02 .05 3 .67 .87 .34 .20 .33* .53** 4 .38 .57 .46 .19 .06 .11 5 .33 .60 .49- .27 .16 .ll 6 .17 .23 .24 .06 .07 .01 7 .38 .63 .32 .25 .06 .31* 9 .17 .20 .20 .03 .03 .00 10 .04 .23 .12 .19 .08 .11 ll .13 .20 .17 .07 .04 .03 12 .63 .57 .46 .06 .17 .11 13 .21 .37 .37 .16 .16 .00 15 .17 .10 .17 .07 .00 .07 16 .13 .17 .12 .04 .01‘ .05 17 .42 .53 .44 .09 .02 .09 18 .38 .53 .49 .15 .19 .06 20 .42 .43 .37 .01 .05 .06 21 .21 .10 .12 .11 .09 .02 22 .38 .50 .56 .12 .18 .06 23 .13 .07 .10 .06 .03 .03 25 .46 .33 .39 .13 .07 .06 26 .21 .40 .44 .19 .23 .04 28 .33 .30 .15 .03 .18 .15 29 .13 .20 .17 .07 .04 .03 1 Filler Items not included. *Chi-square p_less than .05. **Chi-square p less than .01. 3799 TABLE VII PROPORTIONS AND DIFFERENCES IN PROPORTIONS ANSWERING FE ITEMS IN SCORED DIRECTION Proportions and Differences in Proportions Fe Item Fem Masc Non Fem- Fem- Masc- Masc Non Non 1 .75 .66 .86 .09 .11 .20 2 .42 .72' .62 .30* .20 .10 3 .13 .14 .07 .01 .06 .07 4 .54~ .24 .43 .30* .11 .19 5 .42 .62 .64 .20 .22 .02 6 .67' .69 .79 .02 .12 .10 7 .46 .62 .29 .16' .17 .33** 8 .08 .14 .05 .06 .03 .09 9 .38 .24 .05 .14 .33** .19 10 .33 .45 .07 .12 .26** .38** ll .13 .28 .38 .15 .25* .10 12 .58 .69 .81 .11 .23* .12 13 .79 .62 .81 .17 .02 .19 14 .38 .55 .29 .17 .09 .26* 15 .67' .48 .62 .19 .05 .14 16 .58 .62 .52 .04 .06 .10 17 .50: .55 .67 .05 .17 .12 18 .46 .34 .29 .12 .17 .05 19 .63' .59 .74 .04 .11 .15 20 .42 .48' .50 .06 .08 .02 21 .88 .83' .79 .05 .09 .04 22 .17 .17 .05 .00 .12 .12 23 .71 .67' .76 .04 .05 .09 24 .46 .41 .48' .05 .02 .02 25 .50 .72 .40 .22 .10 .32** 26 .63 .59 .52 .04 .09 .07‘ 27 .58 .48 .43 .10 .15 .05 28 .54 .41 .43 .13 .ll .02 29 .38 .24 .24 .14 .14 .00- 30 .21 .17' .31 .04 .10 .14 31 .54 .48 .26 .06 .28* .22* 32 .38 .24 .21 .14 .17 .03 33 .67 .62 .52 .05 .15 .10‘ 34 .38 .31 .48 .07 .10 .17 35 .42 .31 .14 .09 .28* .17 36 .83 .69 .86 .14 .03 .17 37 .25 .00 .297 .25** .04 .29** *Chi-square p_less than .05. **Chi-square‘p_1ess than .01. 38@ TABLE VIII PROPORTIONS AND DIFFERENCES IN PROPORTIONS ANSWERING BPS ITEMS IN SCORED DIRECTION Proportions and Differences in Proportions BPS Item Fem Masc Non Fem- Fem- Masc- Masc Non Non l .13 .10 .12 .03 .01 .02 2 .08 .03 .12 .05 .04 .09 3 .04 .00 .05 .04 .01 .05 4 .17 .00 .00 .17* .17** .00 5 .04 .03 .07 .01 .03 .04 6 .17 .14 .02 .03 .15* .12 7 .42 .07 .14 .35** .28* .07 8 .29 .14 .14 .15 .15* .00 9 .21 .10 .14 .11 .07 .04 10 .17 .10 .14 .07 .03 .04 11 .00 .03 .07 .03 .07 .04 12 .17 .07 .07 .10 .10 .00 13 .13 .10 .10 .03 .03 .00 14 .14 .03 .05 .ll .09 .02 15 .21 .10 .19 .11 .02 .09 16 .17 .03 .05 .14 .12 .02 17 .21 .17 .05 .04 .16* .12 18 .08 .10 .10 .02 .02 .00 19 .46 .10 .36 .36** .10 .26* 20 .00 .14 .07 .14 .07 .07 *Chi-square p less than .05. **Chi-square p less than .01. ‘ /"\ 398') TABLE IX PROPORTIONS AND DIFFERENCES ANSWERING FPT ITEMS IN SCORED DIRECTION Proportions and Differences in Proportions FPT 1 21 17 .10 .04 11 O7 2 00 00 .00 .00 .00 .00 3 l .17 .27 .10 .10 .07 .17* 4 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 5 .08 .27 .15 .19 .07 .12 6 .17 .23 .17 .06 .00 .06 7 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 8 .38 .27 .12 .11 .26* .15 9 17 .17 12 .00 05 05 10 .00 .00 .00 .00 .OO .00 11 .54 .53 .61 .01 .07 .08 12 .00 .00 .07 .00 .07 .07 .fi *Chi-square p_1ess than .05. CHAPTER FOUR DISCUSSION No statistically significant support was found for any of the hypotheses of this study. The most obvious conclusion is that prison homosexuals do not differ from other inmates on any of the variables studied. The same can be said in comparison of masculine-aggressive and feminine-passive homosexual prisoners. Despite differ- ences in their outward adjustment in prison, the groups do not differ on any of the selected personality variables. It seems to be generally accepted that younger and immature-appearing inmates will be subject to a greater intensity of homosexual pressures than will older, more mature inmates. Results of this research indicate that, even if the younger man is subjected to more pressure, he is no more likely to adopt a persistent homosexual adjust- ment than the more mature inmate. If the assumption that younger inmates are subjected to a greater sexual pressure is accepted, then the failure to find a significant 40 .160 relationship between age of first adult incarceration and later homosexual adjustment would seem to imply support for the idea that something besides sexual pressure de- termines the probability of a homosexual adjustment. Evidently the groups did not differ in degree to which they see themselves as being able to exert personal control over their fate. Despite the appearance of greater control projected by the masculine-aggressive homosexual, he does not view himself as having any more personal control than his feminine-passive counterpart, or than the average inmate. On the other hand, the feminine-passive homosexual evidently sees himself as having as much personal control as any other inmate, de- spite his facade of passivity and helplessness. Throughout this study it was assumed that high externality (as defined by IECS) would be similar to a feeling of helplessness which, in turn, would lead to or be similar to passivity. Perhaps a feeling of powerless- ness is not related to the passivity commonly associated with homosexuality. Instead there may be a feeling that passivity is the best way to obtain one's goals. For instance, the feminine—passive homosexual may see himself 42 as exerting control through his ability to grant or with- hold sexual favors and/or his projected dependency. The groups did not differ on the overt measure of masculinity-femininity or on the more subtle measures. Perhaps the lack of significant differences can be attri— buted to the fact that almost all of the subjects are members of a subculture in which aggressivity and mascu— line interests are common characteristics. In any case, there was no support for the hypotheses that prison homo- sexuality is related to a greater effeminacy or a reaction to underlying femininity. The rank order of mean Fe scale scores was in the predicted order but there were no statistically signifi- cant differences between groups. The difference on the BPS approached but did not attain an acceptable level of significance. Inspection of the scores indicate a ten- dency for feminine-passive homosexuals to express greater dissatisfaction with body parts than the other two groups. There may be a tendency for prison homosexuals, especially the feminine-passive type, to resemble women more than other prisoners but this tendency is hidden by the vari- ability in this area and by other factors. 4369 The majority (24 of 29) of the statistically sig- nificant chi-squares in the abbreviated item analysis concerned 18 items from the Fe and BPS. These two tests, perhaps with modifications, may be useful tools in future research on prison homosexuality. The remaining signifi- cant chi-squares were related to four items from the BPS and IECS and can be most economically interpreted as pro- duced by chance. Examination of the individual Fe and BPS items on which significance was found indicate homosexual prisoners are more emotional than other inmates. Fems express dissatisfaction with more body parts than the other two groups, and Mascs are more likely than Nons to be concerned when others disapprove. The greater emo- tionality may indicate a more intense reaction to the deprivations of prison and higher motivation to avoid the deprivations. The acceptance of a structured homosexual role may be attractive because it would reduce ambiguity and provide peer-approved methods of expressing emotion- ality. Passive homosexuals are expected to show emo- tion to a wide-range of situations as part of their sup- posed femininity; aggressive homosexuals are expected to be generally calm and collected but are allowed to be »"\ ,1“ ‘ , 44% very upset when they can perceive a situation as a threat to their homosexual relationship. The greater body dis- satisfaction expressed by Fems may reflect a belief that these body parts, primarily appearance items, interfere with their preferred methods of control and obtaining favors. The fact that Mascs are concerned with social approval may partially account for their adoption of the high status "jocker" role. The most striking difference between the groups had nothing to do with the major hypotheses. The racial composition of the two homosexual groups was markedly different with the Fems being almost entirely white while the Mascs were almost entirely Negro. It is questionable whether this racial imbalance accurately reflects the composition of homosexual groups within the prison popu— lation. Some of the most blatant Negro effeminate homo— sexuals were not included within the sample, primarily because they failed to meet the tested IQ and AGR re- quirements. It may be that Negro homosexuals are reluc- tant to turn to the predominantly white authorities for assistance when they experience difficulty with other inmates~While.white inmates feel few such inhibitions, especially if the troublesome inmates are Negro. 45 Discussion of the racial imbalance with experié enced inmates suggested other explanatory factors. It seems that while white masculine homosexuals tend to ap- proach other inmates as individuals, Negro masculine homosexuals tend to pressure other inmates as a group; A tendency to exert sexual pressure as a group would make their activities more apparent to custodial officials and\\\ lead the victimized inmate to complain more quickly. 1 There is also a tendency for white homosexual inmates to prefer long-lasting relationships while the Negro inmate prefers readily available physical release without endurff / ing affectional ties. Thus the Negro aggressive homo- sexual would more likely be included on the list from 1 which subjects for this research were selected. This study seems to be an addition to the growing body of literature indicating non-significant differences between homosexuals and non-homosexuals, except in sexual behavior (Hoffman, 1968; Hooker, 1957; Schofield, 1966; West, 1967). Schofield (1965) compared background and sociological features of a group of British men convicted of homosexual offenses with convicted pedOphiliacs and With other groups of homosexuals and found that men 46 convicted of homosexual offenses resembled other prisoners more than they resembled other homosexuals. The idea that there should be personality differences between homosex- uals and non-homosexuals is intuitively appealing. It is even more appealing in a prison setting where homosexuals and non-homosexuals not only differ in sexual behavior but also in social role behaviors. Such differences may exist but not in areas of passivity (as measured by the IECS) or femininity. On the other hand, perhaps there are no consistent personality differences and that choice of a homosexual adjustment is determined primarily by accidental learning experiences as suggested by Greco and Wright (1944) and Churchill (1967). The failure to find consistently important per- sonality differences between homosexuals and non- homosexuals or between different types of homosexuals may indicate that homosexuality meets a variety of needs and is part of several different personality patterns. Attempts to find a factor common to several cases may be doomed to failure because the presence of other im- portant, and often conflicting, factors makes the dis- covery of a single factor difficult. The ability to 47 fantasize or empathize means that a variety of acts can satisfy the same needs. For instance, a desire to be loved in a maternal way can be satisfied by being cuddled by another man or by cuddling another man. The same flexibility in need satisfaction can be found.in cases in which an active sodomist feels he is degrading another man while his passive partner fantasizes draining mascu- linity. Additional variation is introduced if a man learns to associate satisfaction with behavior not spe— cifically related to personality dynamics. Many person- ality patterns are possible because a given need can be satisfied in many ways; a specific act may satisfy many needs; and learning experiences not directly related to personality can associate homosexual behavior with seem- ingly irrelevant needs. Obviously further research is needed before psy- chologists can be satisfied either that there are no sig- nificant personality differences or that the important differences have been identified. This is especially true in the study of prison homosexuality where there is a marked lack of research in an important area. Fishman (1934) and Clemmer (1940, 1958) have commented on the 48 difficulties of doing research in this area because of the reluctance of correctional officials to explore the problem. This reluctance seems to stem partially from a desire to protect the rights of the individual and par- tially from a desire to deal with the problem either by ignoring it or by treating it as a disciplinary problem. For instance, in this research, concern was expressed that the inmates not discover the existence of the Deputy Warden's list and that the individual subject not be able to discover that they had been identified as homosexual. It is refreshing to note that more interest is being shown in research in this area and that the major concern, at least in Michigan, is with the rights of the individ- uals. Additional difficulties in research are defining, identifying, and eliciting the cooperation of the homo- sexual subjects. Most individuals are very reluctant to identify themselves as homosexuals and to cooperate in research because of the legal prohibitions against homo- sexual behavior. The results of this research would tend to indi- cate that further exploration of femininity and passivity (at least as measured by the IECS) would not be fruitful 49 for further research on prison homosexuality. Perhaps further areas of study would be suggested through inten- sive interviewing of a few highly selected, but cooper- ative, homosexual subjects representing different types of role adjustments. Another area of study could be the rather stereotyped seduction sequence described by Fish- man (1934) and by Huffman (1960) some twenty-six years later. Evidently the sequence is effective with a number of men and yet we have no knowledge as to why it is ef- fective with some people but not with others. REFERENCES . Allen, C. Homosexuality: its nature, causation, and treatment. London: Staples Press, 1958. Bene. E. On the genesis of male homosexuality: An attempt to clarify the role of the parents. British Journal of Psychiatry, 1965, III, 803- 813. ~/Berg, C. & Allen, C. The problem of homosexuality. New York: Citadel Press, 1958. ‘ Bergler, E. Homosexuality: disease or way of life? New York: Hill and Wang, 1956. Bieber, I. Clinical aspects of male homosexuality. In J. Marmor (Ed.) Sexual inversion. New York: CZ) Basic Books, 1965. Bieber, I., Dain, H., Dince, P., Drellich. M., Grand, H., Grundlach. R., Kremer, M., Rifkin, A., Wilbur, C. & Bieber, T. Homosexuality: aypsychoanalytic 7 study. New York: Basic Books, 1962. ,@ Bieliauskas, V. Recent advances in the psychology of masculinity and femininity. Journal of Psychology. 1965. _§g_. 255-263. 69 // Bieliauskas, V., Miranda, S. & Lansky, L. Obviousness of two masculinity-femininity tests. Journal of n Consulting and Clinical PsycholoQY. 1968, 32, 5? 314-318. Block, H. Social pressures of confinement toward sexual deviation. Journal of Social TheraQY. 1955, 1, 112—125. 50 51 // Brierley, J. The "difficult" prisoner. American Journal of Corrections, 1961, 22, 14-19. Brown, D. Sex-role development in a changing culture. Psychological Bulletin, 1958, 55, 232-242. Butterfield, E. Locus of control test anxiety, reactions to frustration, and achievement attitudes. Jour- nal of Personality, 1964, 32, 355-370. Bychowski, G. The ego of homosexuals. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 1945, 26, 114-127. Cappon, D. Toward an understanding of homosexuality. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1965. Caprio. F. variations in sexual behavior. New YOrk: Citadel Press, 1955. Chang, J. & Block, J. A study of identification in male homosexuals. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1960. 24, 307-310. J Churchill, W. Homosexual behavior among males. New York: Hawthorne Books, 1967. @9 Clemmer, D. The prison community. Boston: Christopher, 1940. Clemmer, D. Some aspects of sexual behavior in the prison community. Proceedings of the eighty—eighth an- nual congress of corrections, New York: American Correctional Association, 1958, 377-385. Cory, D. Homosexuality in prison. Journal of Social Therapy, 1955, 1, 137-140. Cory, D. Homosexuality. In A. Ellis & A. Abarbanel (Ed), The engyclopedia of sexual behavior. New YOrk: Hawthorne Books, 1967.69 Curran, D. & Parr, D. Homosexuality: an analysis of 100 male cases seen in private practice. British Medical Journal, 1957, 1, 797-801. 52 Dickey, B. Attitudes toward sex roles and feelings of adequacy in homosexual males. Journal of Con— sulting Psychology. 1961, 25, 116-122. Evans, R. Childhood parental relationships of homosexual men. Journal of Consulting and Clinical P§Yr chology, 1969, 33, 129-135. - Fairbairn, W. An objects—relations theory of the per— sonality. New York: Basic Books, 1954. Fenichel, O. The psychoanalytic theory of neurosis. New York: W. W. Norton, 1945. Ferenczi, S. The nosology of male homosexuality. Inter- national Zeitschrift fur Arztlich Psychoanalyse, 1914, Reprinted in H. Ruitenbeck (Ed.), The Prob- lem of homosexuality in modern society. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1934. Fishman, J. Sex in prison. New York: National Liberty Press, 1934. Freeman, T. Clinical and theoretical observations on male homosexuality. International Journal of Psycho- analysis, 1955, 36, 335-347. Freud, S. Three contributions to the theory of sex (4th ed.). Nervous and mental disease monographs, 1930. Fuller, J. Medical Services. In P. Tappan (Ed.), Con- temporary corrections. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1951. Gagnon, J. & Simon, W. The social meaning of prison ho — sexuality. FederalyProbation, 1968, 83, 23-29. Gershman, H. Consideration of some aspects of homosex— uality. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 1953, 12, 82-83. Getter, H. A personality determinant of verbal condi- tioning. Journal of Personality, 1966, 34, 397- 405. ' 53 Gold, D. Preference for skill or chance tasks in ambi- guous situation. Psychological Reports, 1967, 22, 877-878. Gore, P. & Rotter, J. A personality correlate of social action. Journal of PersonaliEY. 1963, 3;, 58-64. Gough, H. Identifying psychological femininity. Educa- tional and Psychological Measurement, 1952, $2, 427-439. Gough, H. Manual for the California Psychological Inven— tory. Consulting Psychologist Press, 1957. Gough, H. A cross-cultural analysis of the CPI femininity scale. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1966. Greco, M. & Wright, J. The correctional institution in the etiology of chronic homosexuality. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1944, i4, 295-307. Halleck, S. Psychiatry and the dilemmas of crime. New York: Harper and Row, 1967. Harper, R. Psychological aspects of homosexuality. In H. Beigel (Ed.), Advances in sex research, New York: Harper and Row, 1963.£%§ Hoffman, M. The gay world. New York: Basic Books, 1968115> Hooker, E. A preliminary analysis of group behavior of homosexuals. The Journal of PsychologY. 1956, .33. 217—225. Hooker, E. The adjustment of the male overt homosexual. Journal of Projective Techniqges, 1957, 3;, 18-31. Hooker, E. Male homosexuals and their "worlds." In J. ’ Marmor (Ed.), Sexual inversion. New York: Basicgb Books, 1965. Huffman, A. Sex deviation in a prison community. Journal offiSocial Therapy. 1960, 6, 170-181. 54 Huffman, A. Problems precipitated by homosexual approaches on youthful first offenders. Journal of Social Therapy, l96l,_l, 216-222. Jonas, C. An objective approach to the personality and environment in homosexuality. Psychiatric Quarterly, 1944, 18, 626-641. Julian, J., Lichtman, C., & Ryckman, R. Internal-External control and the need to control. Journal of So- cial PsycholoQY. 1968, 16, 43-48. Kendrick, D., & Clark, R. Attitudinal differences between heterosexually and homosexually oriented males. . British Journal of Psychiatry. 1967, 113, 95-9969 Kinsey, A., Pomeroy, W., & Martin, C. Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1948. Knight, E. Overt male homosexuality. In R. Slovenko. (Ed.), Sexual behavior and the law. Springfield, 111.: Charles Thomas, 1965. 69 Kolb, L. & Johnson, A. Etiology and therapy of overt homosexuality. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 1955, .24. 506—515. Lefcourt, H. Internal versus external control of rein- forcement: a review. Psychological Bulletin, 1966. 65. 206-220. Lindner, R. Sexual behavior in penal institutions. In A. Deutsch (Ed.), Sex habits of American men. New York: Grosset & DunlOp, 1948. MacDonald, M. Criminally aggressive behavior in passive, effeminate boys. American Journal of OrthOpsy- McClelland, D. & Watt, N. Sex-role alienation in schizo- phrenia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1968, 1;, 226-239. 55 Miller, P., Bradley, J., Gross, R., & Wood, G. Review of homosexuality research (1960-1966) and some impli- cations for treatment. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1968, 5, 3-6. Nichols, R. Subtle, obvious, and stereotype measures of masculinity-femininity. Educational and Psycho- logical and Psychological Measurement, 1962, 22, 449—461. Oliver, W. & Mosher, D. Psychopathology and guilt in heterosexual and subgroups of homosexual reform- atory inmates. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,(£f 1968. 1;. 323-329. ' Ovesey, L. The homosexual conflict: an adOptational analysis. Psychiatry, 1954, i1, 243-250. Ovesey, L. ~Pseudohomosexua1ity and homosexuality in men: 'psychodynamics as a guide to treatment. In J. 'Marmor (Ed.), Sexual inversion. New York: Basic Books, 1965. Ovesey, L., Gaylin, W. & Hendin, H. Psychotherapy of male homosexuality. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1963. 2, 19-31. Rado, S. An adoptional view of sexual behavior. Psycho- sexual development in health and disease. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1949, Reprinted in H. Ruitenbeek (Ed.), The problem of homosexuality in modern society. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1963. Reiss, A. The social integration of queers and peers. Social Problems, 1961, 2, 102-120. Rotter, J. Generalized expectancies for internal versus ' external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 1966, 89 (1, Whole No. 609). Rotter, J. & Mulry, R. Internal versus external control of reinforcement and decision time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1965, g, 598- 604. 56 Schnieder, J. Skill versus chance activity preference and locus of control. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psych01QQY. 1968, 33, 333-337. Schofield, M. Sociological aspects of homosexuality. Boston: Little, Brown, 1965. 69 Shepler, B. A comparison of masculinity-femininity mea- sures. Journal of Consulting Psychology. 1951, lé, 484—486. Stekel, W. The homosexual neurosis. New York: Emerson Books, 1950. Sykes, G. The society of captives. Princeton: Prince- ton University Press, 1958. Thompson, C. Changing concepts of homosexuality in Psy- choanalysis. Psychiatry, 1947, 19, 183-189. Vedder, C. & King, P. Problems of homosexuality in cor- rections. Springfield, 111.: Charles Thomas,® 1967. West, D. Parental figures in the genesis of male homo— sexuality.' International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 1959, 5, 85-97. West, D. Homosexuality. Chicago: Aldine, 1967.§9 Westwood, G. Society and the homosexual. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1953. Westwood, G. A minority. New York: Longmans, Green, 1960. Wilson, J. & Pescor, M. Problems in prison psychiatry. Caldwell, Idaho: Caxton Printers, 1939. APPENDIX BODY PARTS TEST PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY FIGURE PREFERENCE TEST BELIEF SCALE AND SCORING PROCEDURE BODY PARTS TEST This test is the Body Parts Satisfaction Test. Answers to this one are to be marked on answer sheet number two. You are asked to tell whether or not you are satisfied with that part mark the space by "t" on the answer sheet; if you are not satisfied, mark space "f. u back ears elbows eyebrows eyelashes face facial complexion fingers \DGJQO‘U'IDMNH hair on body hands P‘ H P‘ o hips g...- N O knees H D) 0 legs 14. lips 15. profile 16. shoulders 17. skin 18. skin color 19. teeth 20. thighs 58 PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY This test is the Psychological Inventory and is also paired with IBM answer sheet number two. In this test there are a series of statements. Read each one and decide how you feel about it. If you agree with the statement or feel it is true about you, answer "t" for true. If you disagree or feel it is not true about you, answer "f" for false. 21. I am very slow in making up my mind. 22. I think I would like the work of a building con- tractor. 23. I think I would like the work of a dress designer. 24. I become quite irritated when I see someone spit on the sidewalk. 25. It is hard for me to start a conversation with strangers. 26. I must admit I enjoy playing practical jokes on people. 27. I get very tense and anxious when I think other people are disapproving of me. 28. A Windstorm terrifies me. 29. I think I would like the work of a clerk in a large department store. 30. I get excited very easily. 31. I like to boast about my achievements every now and then. 59 6O Psychological Inventory (Cont.) 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. I think I would like the work of a garage mechanic. I like adventure stories better than romantic stories. I prefer a shower to a bathtub. The thought of being in an automobile accident is very frightening to me. The average person is not able to appreciate art and music very well. At times I feel like picking a fist fight with someone. Sometimes I have the same dream over and over. I think I am stricter about right and wrong than most people. I think I would like to drive a racing car. I like to be with a crowd who play jokes on one another. I am somewhat afraid of the dark. I think I could do better than most of the present politicians if I were in office. I always tried to make the best school grades that I could. I am inclined to take things hard. I would like to be a soldier. I like to go to parties and other affairs where there is lots of loud fun. 61 Psychological Inventory (Cont.) 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. I very much like hunting. In school I was sometimes sent to the principal for cutting up. I think I would like the work of a librarian. Sometimes I feel that I am about to go to pieces. I would like to be a nurse. I like mechanics magazines. I want to be an important person in the community. I must admit I feel sort of scared.when I move to a strange place. I'm pretty sure I know how we can settle the inter- national problems we face today. If I get too much change in a store, I always give it back. FIGURE PREFERENCE TEST The first test is the Figure Preference Test which is paired with IBM answer sheet number one. You are asked to tell which of two figures you like best. If you like figure "a" best darken the space by "a" on your answer sheet; if you like figure "b" best darken the space by “b . l0 (1) a. 10.1 _ (2) a. b. (3) a- L— ‘ b. 62 64 Figure Preference Test (Cont.) (a) a. .1 T (9) a. —— (10) a. (11) a. I (12) Answer either a or b. b. BELIEF SCALE This test is the Belief Scale. Your answers to this test are to be entered on IBM answer sheet number You are asked to choose between two statements. Select the alternative that seems most true to you. Mark the corresponding space on your answer sheet. If "a" seems most true darken space "a"; if "b" seems most true darken the space by "b." one . 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. a. Children get into trouble because their parents punish them too much. The trouble with most children nowadays is that their parents are to easy with them. Many of the unhappy things in peOple's lives are partly due to bad luck. People's misfortunes result from the mistakes they make. One of the major reasons why we have wars is be— cause people don't take enough interest in pol— itics. There will always be wars, no matter how hard people try to prevent them. In the long run peOple get the reSpect they de- serve in this world. Unfortunately, an individual's worth often passes unrecognized no matter how hard he tries. The idea that teachers are unfair to students is nonsense. Most students don't realize the extent to which their grades are influenced by accidental happen- ings. 65 66 Belief Scale (Cont.) 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Without the right breaks one cannot be an effec- tive leader. Capable people who fail to become leaders have not taken advantage of their opportunities. No matter how hard you try some people just don't like you. PeOple who can't get others to like them don't understand how to get along with others. Heredity plays the major role in determining one's personality. It is one's experiences in life which determine what they're like. I have often found that what is going to happen will happen. Trusting to fate has never turned out as well for me as making a decision to take a definite course of action. In the case of the well prepared student there is rarely if ever such a thing as an unfair test. Many times exam questions tend to be so unrelated to course work that studying is really useless. Becoming a success is a matter of hard work, luck has little or nothing to do with it. Getting a good job depends mainly on being in the right place at the right time. 67 Belief Scale (Cont.) 24. a. The average citizen can have an influence in government decisions. b. This world is run by the few peOple in power, and there is not much the little guy can do about it. 25. a. When I make plans, I am almost certain that I can make them work. b. It is not always wise to plan too far ahead be- cause many things turn out to be a matter of good or bad fortune anyhow. 26. a. There are certain people who are just no good. b. There is some good in everybody. 27. a. In my case getting what I want has little or nothing to do with luck. b. Many times we might just as well decide what to do by flipping a coin. 28. a. Who gets to be the boss often depends on Who was lucky enough to be in the right place first. b. Getting people to do the right thing depends upon ability. luck has little or nothing to do with it. 29. a. As far as world affairs are concerned, most of us are the victims of forces we can neither under- stand, nor control. b. By taking an active part in political and social affairs the peeple can control world events. 30. a. Most people don't realize the extent to which their lives are controlled by accidental happen- ings. b. There really is no such thing as "luck." 68 Belief Scale (Cont.) 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. One should always be willing to admit mistakes. It is usually best to cover up one's mistakes. It is hard to know whether or not a person really likes you. How many friends you have depends upon how nice a person you are. In the long run the bad things that happen to us are balanced by the good ones. Most misfortunes are the result of lack of ability, ignorance, laziness, or all three. With enough effort we can wipe out political cor- ruption. It is difficult for people to have much control over the things politicians do in office. Sometimes I can't understand how teachers arrive at the grades they give. There is a direct connection between how hard I study and the grades I get. A good leader expects people to decide for them- selves what they should do. A good leader makes it clear to everybody what their jobs are. Many times I feel that I have little influence over the things that happen to me. It is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck plays an important role in my life. 69 Belief Scale (Cont.) 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. a. b. People are lonely because they don't try to be friendly. There's not much use in trying too hard to please people, if they like you, they like you. There is too much emphasis on athletics in high school. Team sports are an excellent way to build char- acter. What happens to me is my own doing. Sometimes I feel that I don't have enough con- trol over the direction my life is taking. Most of the time I can't understand why poli- ticians behave the way they do. In the long run the people are responsible for bad government on a national as well as on a local level. I like being in prison. I do not like being in prison. SCORING PROCEDURE FOR TESTS The Figure Preference Test was scored for the choices of slanted figures on items 1, 3, 5, 6. 8, 9, and 11. Items 2, 4, 7, 10. and 12 are filler items. The Belief Scale (Internal-External Control Scale) was scored with the following items indicating exter- nality: ' 14 (a) Many of the unhappy things in people's lives are partly due to bad luck. 15 (b) There will always be wars. no matter how hard peOple try to prevent them. 16 (b) Unfortunately, an individual's worth often passes unrecognized no matter how hard he tries. 17 (b) Most students don't realize the extent to which their grades are influenced by accidental happen- ings. 18 (a) Without the right breaks one cannot be an effec- tive leader. 19 (a) No matter how hard you try some people just don't like you. 21 (a) I have often found that what is going to happen will happen. ’ 22 (b) Many times exam questions tend to be so unrelated to course work that studying is really useless. 23 (b) Getting a good job depends mainly on being in the right place at the right time. 70 71 Scoring Procedure for Tests (Cont.) 24 25. 27 28 29 30 32 33 34 35 37 38 (b) (b) (b) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (b) (a) (a) (b) This world is run by the few people in power, and there is not much the little guy can do about it. It is not always wise to plan too far ahead be- cause many things turn out to be a matter of good or bad fortune anyhow. Many times we might just as well decide what to do by flipping a coin. Who gets to be the boss often depends on who was lucky enough to be in the right place first. As far as world affiars are concerned most of us are the victims of forces we can neither under- stand, nor control. Most people don't realize the extent to which their lives are controlled by accidental happen- ings. It is hard to know whether or not a person really likes you. In the long run the bad things that happen to us are balanced by the good ones. It is difficult for people to have much control over the things politicians do in office. Sometimes I can't understand how teachers arrive at the grades they give. Many times I feel that I have little influence over the things that happen to me. There's not much use in trying too hard to please people, if they like you, they like you. 72 Scoring Procedure for Tests (Cont.) 40 (b) Sometimes I feel that I don't have enough control over the direction my life is taking. 41 (a) Most of the time I can't understand why politi- cians behave the way they do. The Body Parts Test was scored for all false answers as they indicated dissatisfaction with a partic- ular part of the body. The Psychological Inventory (CPI Fe Scale) was scored for true answers on the following items: 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 36, 38, 42, 44, 45, 50, 51, 52, 55, and 57. All other items were scored if answered false. "I7'1111111'71111111111|“