THE SELF-CONCEPT AS A

PREDICTOR OF J U V E N I L E DELINQUENCY

Robert Frank K i s s n e r
B.A.(Hons.),

Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y ,

1974

A THESIS SUBMITTED I N PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS
i n the Faculty o f
0f

Interdisciplinary Studies

Robert Frank Kissner

1979

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

F e b r u a r y 1979

A l l r i g h t s reserved.
T h i s t h e s i s may n o t b e
reproduced i n whole o r i n p a r t , by photocopy
o r o t h e r means, w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n o f t h e a u t h o r .

APPROVAL

Name:
Degree:

Robert n.

Kissner

Master of A r t s

T i t l e o f Thesit;:

The S e l f - c o n c e p t a s a P r e d i c t o r o f
J u v e n i l e Delinquency

Examining Corn i-ttee :

Chairp?rson:

I a n R.

Whitaker

R. C . Brown
Senior Supervisor

M.-. C o l e s

D.

Cousineau

W. A.

S. S m i t h
E x t e r n a l Examiner
P r e s i d e n t , Athabasca U n i v e r s i t y

D a t e Approved :

PARTIAL COPYRIGHT LICENSE

I hereby g r a n t t o Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y t h e r i g h t t o lend

my t h e s i s , p r o j e c t o r extended essay ( t h e t i t l e o f which i s shown below)

t o u s e r s o f t h e Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r y , and t o make p a r t i a l o r
s i n g l e c o p i e s o n l y f o r such u s e r s o r i n response t o a r e q u e s t f r o m t h e
l i b r a r y o f any o t h e r u n i v e r s i t y , o r o t h e r e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n , on
i t s own b e h a l f o r f o r one o f i t s users.

I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n

f o r m u l t i p l e c o p y i n g o f t h i s work f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d

by me o r t h e Dean o f Graduate S t u d i e s .

I t i s understood t h a t c o p y i n g

o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s work f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d
w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n .

T i t l e o f T h e s i s / P r o j e c t / E x t e n d e d Essay
The Self-concept as a P r e d i c t o r of J u v e n i l e Delinquency

Author:
(signature)

(name)

(date)

ABSTRACT

THE SELF-CONCEPT

AS A

PREDICTOR OF J U V E N I L E DELINQUENCY

R o b e r t F.

Kissner

This study evaluates the role which self-concept, as

measured by the Tennessee Self Concept Scale, may play in the
prediction of juvenile delinquency.
The study focuses on a group of boys who were referred
to a juvenile social agency over a thirty-two month period.

The

research was designed to determine if the Tennessee Self Concept

Scale is a useful criterion for differentiating between subjects
who commit a delinquency during a follow-up period versus those
who do not.
The sample consisted of 139 males, aged 12 to 16.

Four

subgroups were established on the basis of a subject's degree

of formal involvement with the juvenile justice system, ranging
from having no previous involvement to being convicted of more
than 'one previous offence.
The results indicate that differences in self-concept
do exist between juveniles who commit an adjudicated offence
or who were subjects of a Probation Officer's Enquiry during an
eighteen month follow-up period, as opposed to those who have
*
iii

c o m m i t t e d no f u r t h e r a d j u d i c a t e d o f f e n c e s .
Some o f t h e r e s u l t s , h o w e v e r , w e r e more p r o v o c a t i v e
t h a n c o n c l u s i v e and v a r i a n c e was f o u n d b e t w e e n s a m p l e s u b g r o u p s .
For e x a m p l e , w h i l e t h e f i n d i n g s f o r o n e s u b g r o u p t e n d e d t o s u p p o r t t h e h y p o t h e s i s , those f o r another tended not t o .
I n g e n e r a l t h e s t u d y p r o v i d e s some s u p p o r t f o r t h e v i e w
t h a t negative self-concept precedes the occurrence of offences
by d e l i n q u e n t s , b u t n o t t o s u c h a d e g r e e t h a t e f f e c t i v e p r e d i c tion is currently possible.

Enough q u e s t i o n s r e m a i n t o w a r r a n t

f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i n t h e a r e a , p o s s i b l y f o c u s i n g on a more e x t e n s i v e a n a l y s i s of s e v e r a l of t h e subgroups included i n t h e l a r g e r

s t u d y sample.

To Wanda, who b y h e r c o n s t a n t
l o v e a n d e n c o u r a g e m e n t h a s t a u g h t me much,
a n d t o my p a r e n t s
who e n c o u r a g e d a n d s u p p o r t e d
my a c a d e m i c w o r k .

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express my sincere appreciation to the members of my supervisory committee: Dr. R. D. Bradley, Dr. R. C.
Brown, Dr. E. M. Coles, and Dr. D. F. Cousineau, for their
time and assistance.

I am particularly indebted to Dr. Brown,

my senior supervisor, for his encouragement and cooperation.

special thanks to Dr. Coles for his careful review and comments
on the text.

I would also like to express thanks to Dr. R. F.

Koopman for his advice concerning the data analysis techniques
used in the study as well as their interpretation.
Thanks are also due to my external examiner, Dr. W. A.
S. Smith for his attendance at my oral exam even though he had
to come from Edmonton to do so.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT

............................................iii

CHAPTER

............................ 2
.............................. 3
......................... 5
..................... 7
................................... 8
..................... 9
........................ 9
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . 1 3
I n t r o d u c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
H i s t o r i c a l Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
D e f i n i t i o n a l C o n s i d e r a t i o n s .................. 1 9
S t a b i l i t y o f S e l f - c o n c e p t .................... 2 1
Measuring I n s t r u m e n t s ........................ 23
S e l f - c o n c e p t a n d B e h a v i o u r ................... 2 6
S e l f - c o n c e p t a n d D e l i n q u e n c y ................. 3 1
S e l f - C o n c e p t D i f f e r e n c e s Between
G r o u p s o f D e l i n q u e n t s ........................ 37
Summary ...................................... 4 3
R e f e r e n c e s t o C h a p t e r I 1 .................... 4 5
METHODS AND PROCEDURES ....................... 48
I n t r o d u c t i o n ................................. 4 3
The S a m p l e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8
The A g e n c y S e t t i n g ........................... 4 9
( i ) B a c k g r o u n d ........................... 5 0
( i i ) P r o g r a m D e s c r i p t i o n .................. 5 1
( i i i ) S o u r c e o f R e f e r r a l s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
( i v ) P r o g r a m O b j e c t i v e s ................... 55
( v ) S e r v i c e P h i l o s o p h y ................... 55
The C u r r e n t S t u d y
Background
D e f i n i t i o n s o f Terms
Statement o f t h e Problem
Hypotheses
L i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e Study
O u t l i n e o f the Thesis
References t o Chapter I

II.

111

v i i

...................

( v i ) Cefining Features
Procedures
The M e a s u r i n g I n s t r u m e n t
(i)
Description
( i i ) Development o f t h e Scale
( i i i ) Norms
( i v ) R e l i a b i l i t y and V a l i d i t y
Data A n a l y s i s
Summary
References t o Chapter I 1 1

..................................
....................
.........................
............

...............................
............
...............................
.....................................
..................

................................
...................................
....................................
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C o n c l u s i o n s .................................
( i ) Major Findings ......................
( i i ) S u b g r o u p F i n d i n g s ...................
( i i i ) I n c i d e n t a l F i n d i n g s .................
I m p l i c a t i o n s ................................
Introduction
P a r t One
P a r t Two

V.

I . The N a t u r e a n d M e a n i n g o f
TSCS S u b s c a l e S c o r e s
I 1 . TSCS S a m p l e T e s t Q u e s t i o n s
1 1 1 . TSCS N o r m a t i v e D a t a

....................
.............
.....................

viii

Page
55
57
59
59
61
62
63
65
67
68

71
72
94
112
112
118
118
120
123
124

129
133
135

LIST O F TABLES
Table
1.
2.

3.

4.
5.
6.
7.

8.
9.

10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

Page
Summary TSCS D a t a f o r C o m p a r i s o n o f
Delinquent R e c i d i v i s t s Versus N o n - R e c i d i v i s t s
Summary TSCS D a t a f o r C o m p a r i s o n o f
HR R e c i d i v i s t s V e r s u s HR N o n - R e c i d i v i s t s

....

74

.........

82

Summary TSCS D a t a f o r C o m p a r i s o n o f
POE R e c i d i v i s t s V e r s u s POE N o n - R e c i d i v i s t s

.......

85

Summary TSCS D a t a f o r C o m p a r i s o n o f
JD 1 s t R e c i d i v i s t s V e r s u s JD 1 s t N o n - R e c i d i v i s t s .

89

Summary TSCS D a t a f o r C o m p a r i s o n o f
JD X2 R e c i d i v i s t s V e r s u s J D X2 N o n - R e c i d i v i s t s

...

92

...............

97

Summary D i s c r i m i n a n t R e s u l t s f o r
R e c i d i v i s t and N o n - R e c i d i v i s t Data

Prediction Results f o r
R e c i d i v i s t and N o n - R e c i d i v i s t Groups

.............

Summary D i s c r i m i n a n t R e s u l t s f o r H R
R e c i d i v i s t a n d HR N o n - R e c i d i v i s t D a t a

............

P r e d i c t i o n R e s u l t s f o r HR
R e c i d i v i s t a n d HR N o n - R e c i d i v i s t G r o u p s
Summary D i s c r i m i n a n t R e s u l t s f o r POE
R e c i d i v i s t a n d POE N o n - R e c i d i v i s t D a t a

97
100

..........

100

...........

103

P r e d i c t i o n R e s u l t s f o r POE
R e c i d i v i s t a n d POE N o n - R e c i d i v i s t G r o u p s . .

.......

103

Summary D i s c r i m i n a n t R e s u l t s f o r JD 1 s t
R e c i d i v i s t s a n d JD 1 s t N o n - R e c i d i v i s t D a t a

.......

106

P r e d i c t i o n R e s u l t s f o r JD 1 s t
R e c i d i v i s t a n d JD 1 s t N o n - R e c i d i v i s t G r o u p s
Summary D i s c r i m i n a n t R e s u l t s f o r JD X2
R e c i d i v i s t a n d JD X2 N o n - R e c i d i v i s t D a t a .

......

106

........

109

P r e d i c t i o n R e s u l t s f o r JD X2
R e c i d i v i s t a n d JD X2 N o n - R e c i d i v i s t G r o u p s
$

.......

109

L I S T OF F I G U R E S
Figure
1.
2.
3.

4.
5.
6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

Page
P o s i t i v e Versus N e g a t i v e Sel f - C o n c e p t :
A B e h a v i o u r a l Flow Chart

30

D e l i n q u e n t R e c i d i v i s t and N o n - R e c i d i v i s t
Tennessee S e l f Concept S c a l e P r o f i l e s

75

HR R e c i d i v i s t a n d H R N o n - R e c i d i v i s t
T e n n e s s e e S e l f C o n c e p t S c a l e P r o f i1 e s . .

.........

83

...........

86

.......................
...........

POE R e c i d i v i s t a n d P O E N o n - R e c i d i v i s t
Tennessee S e l f Concept S c a l e P r o f i l e s

JD 1 s t R e c i d i v i s t a n d JD 1 s t N o n - R e c i d i v i s t
Tennessee S e l f Concept S c a l e P r o f i l e s

90

JD X2 R e c i d i v i s t a n d JD X2 N o n - R e c i d i v i s t
Tennessee S e l f Concept Scale P r o f i l e s . .

.........

93

Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n o f R e c i d i v i s t
and N o n - R e c i d i v i s t Groups
D i s c r i m i n a n t Function Scores.

...................

98

...........

F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f HR
R e c i d i v i s t and N o n - R e c i d i v i s t
Groups D i s c r i m i n a n t F u n c t i o n Scores

.............

F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f POE
R e c i d i v i s t and N o n - R e c i d i v i s t
Groups D i s c r i m i n a n t F u n c t i o n Scores..

...........

104

............

107

.............

110

F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f JD 1 s t
R e c i d i v i s t and N o n - R e c i d i v i s t
Groups D i s c r i m i n a n t F u n c t i o n Scores.
F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f JD X2
R e c i d i v i s t and N o n - R e c i d i v i s t
Groups D i s c r i m i n a n t F u n c t i o n Scores

101

CHAPTER

INTRODUCTION

The more o n e w o r k s w i t h i n d i v i d u a l s i n a
c l o s e and i n t i m a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p , t h e more
one a p p r e c i a t e s t h e i n f i n i t e v a r i e t y o f
i n d i v i d u a l s i n our s o c i e t y a s w e l l a s t h e
u n i q u e i d e n t i t y and w o r t h o f e a c h .

- William F i t t s ( 1 9 7 2 )

One o f the few agreed upon facts in the study of

juvenile delinquency is that not all offenders are alike.
J

They differ not only in the form of offence, but also in

response to judicial sanctions.

This latter conclusion has

been illustrated effectively by a number of studies cited by

Gottfredson (1968) and Warren (1972) which demonstrate the
differing effectiveness of various programs on various subsets
of the offender population.
During the past decade, heightened awareness of such
differences and increased disillusionment with traditional
correctional methods has led to the establishment of a greater
variety of possible court dispositions, with particular emphasis
on community-based programs. 1
This increase in community resources has resulted in
a need for objective criteria and/or instruments to help justice
staff determine which offenders are most likely to respond to
such progr%ms.

As a result the development of predictive and

classificatory indices have been of interest to an increasing

number o f researchers.

But, while a fairly extensive litera-

ture have developed on the subject, current methods are still

at a very primitive stage. 2
In considering ways of improving treatment decisions,
Gottfredson (1970) suggests that each social agency working
with delinquents should initiate a continuous cycle of data
collection and testing o f possible predictive measures.

Wenk

(1974) indicates that such an approach might also lead to the

development of a classification system that has greater relevance for counsellors working in the corrections field.

While

it is apparent that such research will be varied and highly

dependent on the type of program, offender selected, and variables chosen, unless definite criteria are developed, Sarata
(1976) suggests that decisions concerning juvenile offenders
will continue to be made on the basis of chance and professional
politics.
THE CURRENT STUDY

The current study was designed to investigate the

effectiveness of a psychometric measure of self-concept in
discriminating between juveniles referred to a community social
agency (known as PURPOSE) who become recidivists within a period
of eighteen months versus those who do not.
The results of the study may contribute to a better
understanding of some of the factors linked with recidivism and

aid in the development of predictive criteria for usage by

community juvenile resources.

Such an investigation also may

serve as a stimulus to other practitioners in the field.

BACKGROUND

A number of social psychological theorists have emphasized that persons come to hold views not only of others but
also of themselves.

For example, Mead (1934), Raimy (1943),

Rogers (l95l), Combs and Snygg (l959), Buhler (l962), Brandon

(1969),and Hansen and Maynard (1973), theorize that a person's
view of himself influences and helps to determine his behavior.
One of the earliest and most influencial studies dealing
with this concept was conducted by Reckless et al. (1957) who
took the position that a person's view of himself or selfconcept is an important variable in delinquent behavior.

Their

work suggested that a healthy self-concept may serve as an

insulator against delinquency, even in juvenile populations
which are otherwise delinquency prone.

A growing body of

reported research, some of which will be examined later in the

study, provides strong substantiation for their claim that
delinquents tend to have poor self-concepts.
Ziller (1969) suggests that persons with poor selfconcepts are field-dependent and tend to conform to the influence of the prevailing social environment.

According to this

view a delinquent is seen to react to immediate environmental

6

circumstance rather than using his personal values to mediate

his behavior.
Many of the studies dealing with self-concept have
used some kind o f psychometric measure and the Tennessee Self
Concept ScaZe or TSCS, is the most frequently used scale for
this purpose.3

Long term research conducted at the Dede Wallace

Center in Tennessee by William Fitts and his associates,

suggests that the TSCS is a psychometrically sound and useful
measure of self-concept.

These findings have been reported in

a series of research monographs. 4

A

number o f reported research studies demonstrate that

there are significant differences in the reported self-concept

of delinquents.

For instance, Balster (1956) using a Q-sort

measure found significant differences between recently incarcerated first offenders and recently incarcerated repeaters.
He found that the mean positive score of the first offenders
was significantly higher than the positive mean score of the
repeaters.

Lefeber (1965) reports similar findings using the

TSCS on a group of 108 first offenders and recidivist juveniles.

In a two year follow-up study of 28 delinquents who

completed the Highfields program in New Jersey, Joplin (1972)

found significant differences in self-concept between eleven
subjects recommitted to another institution and seventeen
who successfully remained out of correctional institutions.
Such results have important ramifications for agencies
working with delinquents.

If, as suggested, self-concept may

be related to delinquency, and there is a relationship between

t h e l e v e l o f r e p o r t e d s e l f - c o n c e p t and r e c i d i v i s m , t h e n k n o w l e d g e o f r e p o r t e d s e l f - c o n c e p t may p r o v e t o b e h e l p f u l i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h i c h o f f e n d e r s a r e l i k e l y t o commit o t h e r d e l i n q u e n c i e s .

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
A d j u d i c a t e d O f f e n c e : Having b e e n t h e s u b j e c t o f j u v e n i l e
c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s and a d e t e r m i n a t i o n made t h a t a d e l i n q u e n c y
has been committed.

F i r s t O f f e n d e r : One who h a s b e e n g u i l t y b u t o n c e o f
c o m m i t t i n g a d e l i n q u e n c y a s d e t e r m i n e d by a j u v e n i l e c o u r t
j u s t i c e and r e f l e c t e d i n j u v e n i l e c o u r t r e c o r d s .

F r a s e r Region: A c o r r e c t i o n a l managment a r e a c o n s i s t i n g
o f t h e f o l l o w i n g m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and c i t i e s :

Burnaby, Coquitlam,

P o r t C o q u i t l a m , New W e s t m i n i s t e r , P o r t Moody a n d Maple R i d g e .

J u v e n i l e C o u r t Record: An o f f i c i a l r e c o r d c o n t a i n i n g
summary i n f o r m a t i o n p e r t a i n i n g t o a n i d e n t i f i e d j u v e n i l e , c o n c e r n i n g c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s , d i s p o s i t i o n s , and P r o b a t i o n O f f i c e r
Enquiries.

J u v e n i l e D e l i n q u e n t : The J u v e n i l e D e l i n q u e n t A c t R . S . ,
C.

160, S . l

(1929) s t a t e s t h a t :

J u v e n i l e D e l i n q u e n t means a n y c h i l d ' who v i o l a t e s a n y

p r o v i s i o n o f t h e C r i m i n a l Code o r o f a n y Dominion o r P r o v i n c i a l S t a t u t e ; o r o f any b y - l a w o r o r d i n a n c e o f a n y
m u n i c i p a l i t y o r who i s g u i l t y o f s e x u a l i m m o r a l i t y o r a n y
s i m i l a r f o r m o r v i c e , o r who i s l i a b l e by r e a s o n o f a n y
o t h e r a c t t o be committed t o an i n d u s t r i a l s c h o o l o r
j u v e n i l e r e f o r m a t o r y u n d e r t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f a n y Dominion
or Provincial Statute.
Fos t h e purposes o f t h i s s t u d y , t h e agency s e l e c t e d f o r
d a t a - c o l l e c t i o n s h a l l be c o n s i d e r e d a s a j u v e n i l e r e f o r m a t o r y

and a l l r e f e r r a l s deemed t o b e d e l i n q u e n t s .

This d e f i n i t i o n

t a k e s i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e f a c t t h a t many j u v e n i l e s who would

formerly have been s u b j e c t t o formal c o u r t proceedings a r e
c u r r e n t l y b e i n g d i v e r t e d d i r e c t l y t o s o c i a l agency programs.
P r o b a t i o n : "The c o n d i t i o n a l f r e e d o m g r a n t e d by a j u d i -

c i a l o f f i c e r t o an a l l e g e d o f f e n d e r , o r a d j u d i c a t e d p e r s o n , a s
l o n g a s h e / s h e m e e t s c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s o f b e h a v i o r . 1 16
P r o b a t i o n O f f i c e r : An employee o f t h e P r o v i n c i a l g o v e r n -

ment whose d u t i e s i n c l u d e : s u p e r v i s i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l s p l a c e d on
p r o b a t i o n , and p r e p a r a t i o n of p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t s t o a s s i s t t h e
court i n determining the sentence o r juvenile court disposition. 7
Probation O f f i c e r Enquiry (POE):

An i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f a

j u v e n i l e who h a s a d m i t t e d t o p o l i c e t h a t h e h a s c o m m i t t e d a
delinquency.

A POE i s c o n d u c t e d by a p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e r a t t h e

r e q u e s t o f t h e crown p r o s e c u t o r and i t s p u r p o s e i s t o e n a b l e
t h e crown t o d e t e r m i n e i f a n o f f e n c e s h o u l d be d e a l t w i t h i n
c o u r t o r by some o t h e r means w i t h i n t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e
P r o v i n c i a l Corrections Act.
R e c i d i v i s t : For p u r p o s e s , o f t h i s s t u d y , a j u v e n i l e

who commits a n a d j u d i c a t e d o f f e n c e o r h a s h a d a POE c o n d u c t e d

on h i m , w i t h i n a p e r i o d o f e i g h t e e n months a f t e r r e f e r r a l t o a
juvenile s o c i a l agency.
Self-concept:

A person's conscious s e l f - a p p r a i s a l of

h i s a p p e a r a n c e , b a c k g r o u n d and o r i g i n s , a b i l i t i e s and r e s o u r c e s ,
and a t t i t u d e s a n d f e e l i n g s .

O r more s i m p l y , t h e b e l i e f s a

p e r s o n h a s a b o u t h i m s e l f r e s u l t i n g f r o m p r e s e n t and p a s t

observation.

S e l f - c o n c e p t i s m e a s u r e d i n t h i s s t u d y by a

p s y c h o m e t r i c m e a s u r e known a s t h e T e n n e s s e e S e l f C o n c e p t S c a l e .

S t a t u s O f f e n d e r : "A j u v e n i l e who h a s b e e n a d j u d i c a t e d
by a j u d i c i a l o f f i c e r o f a j u v e n i l e c o u r t , a s h a v i n g c o m m i t t e d
a s t a t u s o f f e n c e , which is an a c t o r conduct which i s an
o f f e n c e o n l y when c o m m i t t e d o r e n g a g e d i n by a j u v e n i l e .

118

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The p r o b l e m i s t o d e t e r m i n e i f a s e l e c t e d g r o u p o f
s i x t y - s e v e n d e l i n q u e n t s who commit f u r t h e r d e l i n q u e n c i e s a f t e r
r e f e r r a l t o a community s o c i a l a g e n c y , d i f f e r on a m e a s u r e o f
s e l f - c o n c e p t from a s e l e c t e d group o f s e v e n t y - t w o d e l i n q u e n t s
who commit no f u r t h e r o f f e n c e s a f t e r r e f e r r a l t o t h e same a g e n c y .
The t i m e p e r i o d f o r i n c l u s i o n i n t h e s t u d y was two y e a r s e i g h t
months a n d t h e f o l l o w - u p p e r i o d f o r e a c h s u b j e c t was l i m i t e d t o
e i g h t e e n months.
Each s u b j e c t was g i v e n t h e TSCS on i n i t i a l e n t r y i n t o
a g e n c y p r o g r a m a n d p r o b a t i o n r e c o r d s w e r e examined a f t e r
e i g h t e e n months a n d a n y f u r t h e r d e l i n q u e n c i e s t h e y h a d c o m m i t t e d
were n o t e d .
The s t u d y m a i n l y c o n c e r n s a c o m p a r i s o n o f r e c i d i v i s t
and n o n - r e c i d i v i s t p r o g r a m c l i e n t s w i t h r e g a r d t o t h r e e dimens i o n s o f s e l f a n d f i v e f r a m e s o f r e f e r e n c e on t h e T e n n e s s e e
S e l f Concept S c a l e .
The i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s o f t h e s t u d y a r e t h e dimens i o n s o f r L c i d i v i s m and n o n - r e c i d i v i s m .

The d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s

a r e t h e d i m e n s i o n s o f s e l f - c o n c e p t m e a s u r e d by t h e TSCS.

Extra-

n e o u s v a r i a b l e s s u c h a s e d u c a t i o n a n d a g e a r e assumed t o e x e r t
e q u a l i n f l u e n c e s on b o t h g r o u p s .

This l a t t e r assumption is

b a s e d on a number o f s t u d i e s t h a t w i l l b e c i t e d l a t e r i n
C h a p t e r 111.

HYPOTHESES
The h y p o t h e s e s f o r t h i s s t u d y a r e a s f o l l o w s :
D e l i n q u e n t s who a r e r e f e r r e d t o a c o m m u n i t y p r o g r a m who
maintain a clean record during a follow-up

period w i l l obtain

s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r scores on a measure o f s e l f - c o n c e p t on
a d m i s s i o n t o t h e p r o g r a m t h a n d e l i n q u e n t s r e f e r r e d t o t h e same
p r o g r a m who d o n o t ( h e r e a f t e r c i t e d a s r e c i d i v i s t s ) ,

when

c l a s s i f i e d by t h e i r :
(1) o v e r a l l concept o f s e l f ;

(2) basic identity o f self;

(3) self-satisfaction with t h e i r basic identity;

( 4 ) concept o f t h e i r behavior;
( 5 ) concept o f t h e i r physical s e l f ;

( 6 ) c o n c e p t o f t h e i r m o r a l s and e t h i d s ;

( 7 ) sense o f personal worth;

( 8 ) s e n s e o f w o r t h a s a f a m i l y member;
(9) social self.

L I M I T A T I O N S OF THE STUDY

This investigation was limited to a specific subset

of a juvenile delinquent population attending a specific program and was designed subject to the following limitations:
1. an operational definition of self-concept in terms
of the scores the subjects obtained on the Tennessee Self
Concept Scale;
2. a subject sample which was limited to one hundred
thirty-nine juvenile males referred to a community agency
located in a suburb of Vancouver, British Columbia, and cannot
be regarded as a representative sample of all juvenile delinquents from any location;
3. a standard follow-up period of eighteen months;

4. follow-up data which was limited to juvenile probation

record files obtained with the cooperation of juvenile probation
officers and restricted to Fraser Region.
O U T L I N E OF THE T H E S I S

This chapter has been concerned with a general overview

of the problem and purpose of the investigation.
Chapter I 1 provides a review o f self-concept theory
as well as a number of studies of particular relevance to this
enquiry.

In particular it discusses self-theory from a histor-

ical point of view, notes difficulties of application and definition, an$ the theoretical relationship between self-concept
and behavior with particular attention to delinquency.

Chapter 111 details the method and procedures used in

the study.

It also provides a description of the community

program where the study data was collected, describes the

subject population, data collection process, and reviews the
reliability, validity and the general format of the scale
utilized to measure self-concept.
Chapter IV examines the findings obtained from application of the TSCS, and presents a detailed comparison of the
study groups.
Chapter V presents the summary, conclusions, and recommendations resulting from the research.

REFERENCES TO CHAPTER I

or

a more detailed consideration of the trends leading to the development of new sentencing options and the
recent emphasis on community-based resources, see for example,
M. Q. Narren, C o r r e c t i o n a l T r e a t m e n t i n Community S e t t i n g s : A
R e p o r t o f C u r r e n t R e s e a r c h , (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972) pp. 1 - 2 ; and L. T. Empey, A Model f o r t h e
E v a l u a t i o n o f P r o g r a m s i n J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e , (Washington : U. S.
Government Printing Office, 1977) pp. 1-2.

he

literature dealing with prediction and classification in criminology is extensive. For further information
concerning the logic of classification, see for instance,
A. H. Barton, "The Concept of Property Space in Social Research,"
in The Language o f S o c i a l R e s e a r c h , ed. P. F. Lazarfeld and
M. Rosenberg (Glencoe Illinois: Free Press, 1955); also, C. G.
Hempel, "Fundamentals of Taxonomy," A s p e c t s o f S c i e n t i f i c E x p l a n a t i o n and O t h e r E s s a y s i n t h e P h i l o s o p h y o f S c i e n c e , (New York:
Prentice-Hall, 1965); also, J. C. McKinney, C o n s t r u c t i v e T y p o l o g y and S o c i a l T h e o r y , (New York: Appleton Century-Crofts, 1966).
For similar information concerning the logic of prediction, see
for instance, C. I. Dessaur, ~ o u n d a t i o n so f T h e o r y orm mat ion
i n C r i m i n o l o g y , (The Hague: Flouton and Co., 1971) ; also, L. T.
Wilkins, "Prediction, Evaluation and Decision Making," in
E v a l u a t i o n o f P e n a l M e a s u r e s , (New York: Random House, 1969).
Wilkins, ibid., pp. 91-94, provides an excellent
discussion of the distinction between prediction and classification. Two examples of excellent reviews of general classification approaches are: J. B. Roebuck, C r i m i n a l T y p o l o g y , (Springfield, Illinois: C. C. Thomas Pub., 1967) pp. 3-27, and M. Q.
Grant, I n t e r a c t i o n B e t w e e n K i n d s o f T r e a t m e n t s and K i n d s o f
D e l i n q u e n t s , Board of Corrections Monograph No. 2, (Sacramento:
State Printing Division, 1961). Roebuch identifies four
general classification approaches: legalistic, phsycialconstitutional-hereditary, psychological-psychiatric, and
sociological. Grant suggests a somewhat different view and
defines six general approaches: psychiatrically oriented, social
theory, behavioral offence or conformity-nonconformity studies,
social perception and interpersonal interaction studies, cognitive approaches, and empirically derived prediction-classification methods.
An excellent review of the critical research problems
in using prediction methods is provided by D. M. Gottfredson in
his article, "Assessment and Prediction Methods in Crime and
Delinquency. " in the T a s k F o r c e R e p o r t : ~ u v e n i l eDe Z i n q u e n c y a n d
Y o u t h C r i m e , President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration ~f Justice, (Washington: Government Printing Office,
1966) pp. 171-187. E. A . Wenk provides an excellent overview of

the subject in An A n a Z y s i s o f C l a s s i f i c a t i o n F a c t o r s f o r Young

A d u l t O f f e n d e r s , VoZ. 2 , (Davis, California: National Council
on Crime and Delinquency, 1974) pp. 21-46. Wenk cites reviews
by Sparkes (1968) and King et al. (1971) that indicate that
current methods are still at a very primitive stage of development.
3 ~ H.
. Joplin, W. T. Hamner, W. H. Fitts, and S.
Wrightman, "A Self-concept Study of Juvenile Offenders in
Minnesota," Dede W a l l a c e C e n t e r P a p e r s , No. 8 , (Nashville:
Dede h'allace Center, 1973).
4
see, for instance, W. H. Fitts and W. T. Hamner, The
S e l f C o n c e p t and D e l i n q u e n c y , Dede Wallace Center, Monograph
No. 1, (Nashville: Counselor Recordings and Tests, 1969), and
W. H. Fitts, The S e l f C o n c e p t and B e h a v i o r : O v e r v i e w and S u p p l e m e n t , Dede Wallace Center, Monograph No. 7, (Nashville: Counselor
Recordings and Tests, 1969).

he Juvenile Delinquent Act. R.S., c.160, s.1 defines

a "child" as, ... ar~yboy or girl apparently or actually under
the age of sixteen years, or such other age as may be directed
In British Columbia
in any province pursuant to subsection ( 2 ) . "
no other age has been directed and the age stipulated in the Act
is applied.
II

' ~ i c t i o n a ro~f C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e Data T e r m i n o l o g y , Search

Group Inc., (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1976), p.73.

7 ~ d a p t e dfrom ibid., p. 74.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E

INTRODUCTION

Although Chapter I b r i e f l y d e s c r i b e d t h e s e l f - c o n c e p t
c o n s t r u c t and n o t e d some t h e o r i s t s who s u g g e s t t h a t i t may b e
a c e n t r a l dynamic i n human b e h a v i o u r , l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n was
p a i d t o some o f t h e k e y u n d e r l y i n g i s s u e s and b a s i c p o s t u l a t e s .
I t i s t h e purpose of t h i s c h a p t e r t o provide a l i m i t e d
o v e r v i e w o f s e l f - c o n c e p t t h e o r y and e x a m i n e a number o f s t u d i e s
of p a r t i c u l a r relevance t o the present investigation.
c a l l y , t h e f o l l o w i n g w i l l be examined:
ment o f t h e c o n c e p t ;

1 ) h i s t o r i c a l develop-

2) definitional considerations;

sistency of self-concept;

4 ) measuring i n s t r u m e n t s ;

r o l e o f s e l f - c o n c e p t i n human b e h a v i o u r ;
j u v e n i l e d e l i n q u e n c y ; and

Specifi-

3) c o n -

5) t h e

6 ) s e l f - c o n c e p t and

7 ) s e l f - c o n c e p t d i f f e r e n c e s between

d e l i n q u e n t r e c i d i v i s t s and o t h e r d e l i n q u e n t o f f e n d e r s .
I n g i v i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o such a wide scope of i s s u e s
t h e i n t e n t i s t o b u i l d a t h e o r e t i c a l framework f o r l a t e r d i s c u s s i o n of r e s u l t s , r a t h e r than t o p r o v i d e an exhaustive
review.

I t i s hoped t h a t s u c h a d i s c u r s i v e a p p r o a c h w i l l

p e r m i t t h e r e a d e r t o g a i n i n s i g h t i n t o t h e a d v a n t a g e s and
l i m i t a t i o n s of such a concept i n delinquency r e s e a r c h .
A y e c u r r e n t theme t h a t i s t r a c e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e c h a p t e r

i s t h e view t h a t s e l f - c o n c e p t should be s e e n a s a s c r e e n i n g

and guiding mechanism in the processing of information relative

to the self.

As xi11 be elaborated later in the chapter, it

is posited that perception of self or self-concept plays an

important role in influencing and possibly determining an
individual's behaviour.
H I S T O R I C A L DEVELOPMENT

The study of self theory in psychology may be traced

to one of its earliest sources in the writings of William
James.

In P r i n c i p l e s o f P s y c h o l o g y , James (1892) identified

the e m p i r i c a l s e l f which he saw in the broadest sense as the

sum total of all that a person could call his own, including
the physical objects he surrounds himself with, awareness of
his identity before others, and awareness of his own thought
processes.

James in turn labelled each of these areas as:

material s e l f ,

social self,

and s p i r i t u a l s e l f .

Epstein (1973) notes that James viewed the self as

being closely associated with emotions which in turn were
mediated through self-esteem.

In the same article, Epstein

goes on to suggest that our achievements are measured against

our personal aspirations, and unless there is a wide divergence
between the two, we generally tend to regard ourselves in a
positive light.

This view is similar to James (1892) who

states:
Our self feeling in this world depends entirely on
what we,back ourselves to be and do. It is determined
by the ratio o f our actualities to our supposed poten. . a fraction of which our pretensions are
tialities;

the denominator, and numerator of our success; thus

success
. . self esteem =
2
pretensions

. . .

Wylie (1968) notes that after James, the study of the

self was pursued to some extent by the introspectionists, such
as Calkins (1915), who were unable to absorb the construct
0

into their theories, and consequently the concept gradually

fell into disuse.

Hilgard (1949) points out that this was also

due to the rise o f behaviourism in psychology, an approach that

rejects the methodology on which self-concept is based.
While the influence of behaviourism curtailed further
consideration of the concept within the field of psychology
until the 19401s, writers in sociology continued to construct
theories about the self.
One of the earliest and most significant contributions
to self theory from the field of sociology was made by Charles
*
Cooley (1902), who stressed the relationship between the self
and the social environment.

He felt that a person's feelings

about himself were created as a product of his relations with

others.

Webster and Sobieszek (1974) summarize Cooley's

contributions as three-fold: a) he developed the theory o f

the Z o o k i n g g l a s s s e l f , or the idea that an'individual perceives
himself in the way that he believes that others perceive him;
b) he recognized that a person makes a differentiation between
degrees of importance attached to other persons; and c) he
developed 'the notion that one internalizes a mental image of
others with whom an individual usually interacts.

George Herbert Mead (1925) modified and extended the

concept of the looking glass self, and wrote in terms of the
generalized other, which he defined as:

"The organized com-

munity or social group which gives the individual his unity of

self

. . .

The attitude o f the generalized other is the attitude

of the whole community. 4

I!

Mead's idea of the generalized other stresses the

importance of social roles and suggests that self-concept is
derived from the reflective appraisal of others.
In contrast to Cooley, who envisioned self-concept to
be fairly fluid and quite responsive to the immediate environment, Mead saw self-concept as a more established semipermanent
structure.
Nash (1973) points out that while James and Cooley ar-e
similar in stressing the importance of self-feeling, Mead emphasizes the role of self-perception and cognition.

Mead argues

that self structure is dependent on intellectual versus affective awareness. 5

With the growth of clinical psychology in the 1940's
and an increasing concern with the motivational aspects of
behaviour, self referent concepts eventually regained a wide
usage in psychology.

But, as a result of the influence of

positivism on the field, most investigators began to confine

their interests to specific dimensions of the self, instead of
using the concept in a global manner. Such specification
*
permitted more precise empirical measurement and definition,

and t e r m s s u c h a s s e l f - e s t e e m and s e l f - a l i e n a t i o n became p o p u l a r .

Among a number o f a r t i c l e s p u b l i s h e d o n t h e s u b j e c t
d u r i n g t h e 1 9 4 0 1 s , t h e work o f V i c t o r Raimy (1943) p a r t i c u l a r l y
stands out.

Raimy d e f i n e d s e l f - c o n c e p t a s a l e a r n e d p e r c e p t u a l

system t h a t n o t o n l y influenced b e h a v i o r , b u t i s i t s e l f r e s t r u c t u r e d by b e h a v i o r and u n s a t i s f i e d n e e d s a n d m i g h t b e a r l i t t l e

o r nor r e l a t i o n t o external r e a l i t y .
term a s :

"...

He f u r t h e r d e f i n e d t h e

t h e more o r l e s s o r g a n i z e d p e r c e p t u a l o b j e c t

r e s u l t i n g from p r e s e n t o r p a s t o b s e r v a t i o n
person believes about himself.lf6

...

i t i s what t h e

This d e f i n i t i o n i s s t i l l

widely a c c e p t e d and r e c o g n i z e d a s b e i n g o f tremendous import

to later studies.
W h i l e Raimy i n t r o d u c e d t h e t e r m s e l f - c o n c e p t i n a f o r m
t h a t was t o l a t e r become i t s most common t e r m i n o l o g y , Combs
and Snygg ( 1 9 5 9 ) e m p h a s i z e d t h e t e r m ' s p r a g m a t i c u t i l i t y .
S t a r t i n g f r o m t h e p r e m i s e t h a t a l l b e h a v i o r d e p e n d s on a
p e r s o n ' s p e r s o n a l f r a m e o f r e f e r e n c e o r phenomenal f i e l d ,
t h e y s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e phenomenal f i e l d d e t e r m i n e s b e h a v i o r .
I t may t h e r e f o r e b e s e e n t h a t i f o n e o b s e r v e s b e h a v i o r , t h e
phenomenal f i e l d may b e i n f e r r e d , a n d g i v e n a n a p p r o p r i a t e
d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e phenomenal f i e l d , b e h a v i o r may p o s s i b l y be
predicted.

Combs a n d Snygg viewed s e l f - c o n c e p t a s c o n s i s t i n g

of t h o s e p a r t s o f a p e r s o n ' s p e r s o n a l frame o f r e f e r e n c e t h a t
an i n d i v i d u a l h a s d i f f e r e n t i a t e d a s b e i n g d e f i n i t e and r e a s o n ably s t a b l e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of himself.

I n s k e t c h i n g t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f Combs a n d S n y g g ' s

thought, Diggory (1966) suggests that since all behaviour is

a function of an individual's phenomenal field, knowledge of
an individual's phenomenal field may be helpful in predicting
their behaviour.

However, he points out that since it is impos-

sible to gain access to all of the pertinent information, selection on the basis of relevance must be made.

The only relevant

facts in his view are the phenomenal ones which an individual

designates as having meaning in terms of his present needs.

The

methodology that Diggory suggests is varied and ranges from

self report to observation of behaviour and projective testing.
The criteria on which the accuracy of phenomenological conclusions should be tested are:

impressions o f subjective certainty,

comparison with known facts, capability to survive mental manipulations, demonstration of predictive power, achievement of
social agreement with others, and demonstration of internal
consistency.

Diggory's analysis may be seen as an example of

the topical interest of Raimy's and Combs and Snygg's contributions, as well as a demonstration that much of the current work
in the field is still related to definitional considerations
made in the late 1940's.
Having reviewed a number of key figures in the early
development of self-concept, we are now in a position to
briefly summarize some of the distinguishing elements generally
attributed to self-concept.
1)

These may be enumerated as follows:

It is a learned perceptual system that develops out

*
of experience, particularly out o f social interaction with

significant others;
2)

I t may c o n t a i n d i f f e r e n t c o n s t r u c t s w i t h i n i t s e l f ,

such a s s o c i a l s e l f , p h y s i c a l s e l f , and s p i r i t u a l s e l f ;
I t i s a dynamic o r g a n i z a t i o n t h a t may c h a n g e a s a

3)

function of experience;
4)

I t may h a v e l i t t l e o r no r e l a t i o n t o e x t e r n a l

5)

I t i s a phenomenological c o n s t r u c t . 7

reality;

DEFINITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Any a t t e m p t t o d e r i v e a p r e v i s e d e f i n i t i o n o f s e l f c o n c e p t f r o m t h e c u r r e n t l i t e r a t u r e i s l i k e l y t o end i n c o n f u s i o n and l a c k o f c o n s e n s u s .

I n a r e c e n t review of t h e t o p i c ,

Marx and H i l l i x (1973) n o t e t h a t t h e r e a r e n e a r l y a s many

definitions of self-concept a s there are t h e o r i s t s .

They a l s o

c l a i m t h a t many o f t h e c u r r e n t a p p r o a c h e s l a c k o p e r a t i o n a l
meaning.

While a g e n e r a l d e f i n i t i o n of s e l f - c o n c e p t i s p r o -

v i d e d i n most s t u d i e s , f r e q u e n t l y i t i s used i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y
w i t h t e r m s s u c h a s s e l f - e s t e e m , s e l f - p e r c e p t i o n , and o t h e r
self referent labels.
W e l l s a n d Marwell ( 1 9 7 6 ) n o t e t h a t o n e o f t h e p r i n c i p a l
d i f f i c u l t i e s h a s been t h a t s e l f - c o n c e p t i s n o t o n l y a t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t used i n s o c i a l s c i e n c e , b u t is a l s o a term t h a t
is f r e q u e n t l y used i n everyday language.

Consequently, s i n c e

most r e s e a r c h e r s h a v e a n i n t u i t i v e i d e a a s t o what s e l f - c o n c e p t
t

i s and d o e s ,

"...

i t o f t e n seems u n n e c e s s a r y t o s p e l l o u t i t s

n a t u r e and p r o c e s s e s by w h i c h i t o p e r a t e s . " 8

Such o v e r s i g h t

r a i s e s s e r i o u s d i f f i c u l t i e s , making c o m p a r i s o n s between s t u d i e s
d i f f i c u l t , a s well a s leading t o a l e s s than c r i t i c a l analysis
o f r e s u l t s and a tendency t o t r e a t t h e c o n c e p t a s a g i v e n r a t h e r
than a s a hypothetical conceptualization.

They f u r t h e r s u g g e s t

t h a t i f s u c h a t e r m i s n o t p r o p e r l y o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d and i s a t
t h e same t i m e u s e d i n a n e x p l a n a t o r y way, t h e n t h e f e e l i n g t h a t
i t i s a u s e f u l c o n s t r u c t may grow, w h i l e t h e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s

o f t h e e x p l a n a t i o n s may r e m a i n u n t e s t e d .
I n l i g h t o f o u r d i s c u s s i o n t o t h i s p o i n t , i t might be
argued t h a t given t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s i n developing a p r e c i s e
d e f i n i t i o n and t h e l a c k o f consensus i n t h e f i e l d , perhaps i t
would be b e t t e r t o s e e k a l t e r n a t e c o n c e p t s .

In defence of

usage of t h e term d e s p i t e i t s d e f i c i e n c i e s , t h e o r i s t s such a s

Diggory (1966) i n d i c a t e t h a t g e n e r a l d e f i n i t i o n s a r e a c c e p t a b l e
a s l o n g a s t h e y a r e c l e a r and c a p a b l e o f a p p l i c a t i o n i n e x p e r i mental o p e r a t i o n s .

Wells and Marwell (1976) n o t e t h a t , a s a

h y p o t h e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t , s e l f c o n c e p t s h a r e s , w i t h a number o f
o t h e r s o c i o l o g i c a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o n c e p t i o n s , d i f f i c u l t i e s
of s c i e n t i f i c a b s t r a c t i o n .

They s e e d e f i n i t i o n a s a p r o c e s s

i n w h i c h r e f i n e m e n t i s u l t i m a t e l y d i c t a t e d by e x p e r i m e n t .
F i n a l l y , McKinneyls ( 1 9 6 6 ) r a t i o n a l e f o r c o n s t r u c t i v e t y p o l o g y
may be a p p l i e d , a s h e s u g g e s t s i n t h e f o l l o w i n g q u o t a t i o n :
The c o n s t r u c t e d t y p e i s a p r a g m a t i c e x p e d i e n t a n d
.does n o t p u r p o r t t o be e m p i r i c a l l y v a l i d i n t h e s e n s e
of r e t a i n i n g a l l t h e unique a s p e c t s o f t h e empirical
w o r l d . * The main p u r p o s e i t s e r v e s i s t o f u r n i s h a
means by w h i c h c o n c r e t e o c c u r r e n c e s c a n b e c o m p a r e d ,
9
p o t e n t i a l l y m e a s u r e d , and comprehended

...

As stated earlier, the definition of self-concept

selected for the present investigation was a person's conscious self-appraisal of his background and origins, abilities
and resources, and attitudes and feelings.

Or more simply,

the beliefs that a person has about himself resulting from

present and past observation.
It may be seen that our definition implies a configuration that is developed as a function of past and present experience.

This also suggests that self-concept may be seen as a

fairly stable structure, which paradoxically is also dynamic,

as conceptualizations of self change over time.

In making a

division of past and present influences it should also be

recognized that the individual's self-concept may also be
described according to multiple dimensions.

Thus, self-concept

1
1

I
I
I

may be seen as a convenient label for a number o f subreferents

rather than being considered as a global construct.

Other im-

plications will become clear later in the discussion.

STABILITY O F SELF-CONCEPT
Gergen (1971) suggests that one of the traditional
issues of debate among theorists is whether self-concept is to
be considered a stable entity which is structural in nature or
whether it is dependent on given circumstance and as such, only
constitutes a referent process.

While detailed consideration

of this issue is beyond the scope of the current review, it

*
will be briefly considered.

A number o f t h e o r i s t s whom we h a v e e x a m i n e d t o t h i s

p o i n t , s u c h a s Combs a n d Snygg ( 1 9 5 9 ) , v i e w s e l f - c o n c e p t a s a
r e l a t i v e l y s t a b l e e n t i t y consisting of an organized s e t of
c o g n i t i o n s and p e r c e p t i o n s o f s e l f .

Other t h e o r i s t s , such a s

Roseberg (1965) and Rogers (1960), promulgate s i m i l a r views.

I n c o n t r a s t , o t h e r t h e o r i s t s , s u c h a s Mead ( 1 9 3 4 ) ,
Diggory (1966) a n d S e c o r d ( 1 9 6 8 ) , s u g g e s t t h a t v i e w i n g s e l f c o n c e p t a s d y n a m i c and s u b j e c t t o c h a n g e o v e r t i m e would
f a c i l i t a t e o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f human b e h a v i o u r .

Such a c o n -

sideration suggests t h a t self-concept is a perceptual process

and i t s p r i m a r y v a l u e l i e s i n i t s u s e a s a n e x p l a n a t o r y f o r c e .
A p o s s i b l e r e s o l u t i o n t h a t s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e two v i e w -

p o i n t s may b e u s e d i n a c o m p l e m e n t a r y manner h a s b e e n s u g g e s t e d
by Gergen ( 1 9 7 1 ) .

He a r g u e s t h a t j u s t a s a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f

how a machine o p e r a t e s i n v o l v e s a c o m p r e h e n s i o n o f how t h e comp o n e n t p a r t s o p e r a t e , a d i s c u s s i o n o f c o n c e p t s r e q u i r e s a knowledge of t h e process of conceptualizing.

I n o t h e r words, u s i n g

a s t r u c t u r a l concept o r approach does n o t r e q u i r e t h a t a l l cons i d e r a t i o n s o f p r o c e s s be r u l e d o u t , f o r p r o c e s s e s

the operation of e n t i t i e s " .

"...

involve

10

I n a p p l y i n g t h e l o g i c Gergen s u g g e s t s , F i t t s ( 1 9 7 1 )
p o s i t s t h a t s e l f - c o n c e p t should be c o n s i d e r e d a s a frame o f
r e f e r e n c e t h r o u g h which a n i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r a c t s w i t h t h e world.
He p r o p o s e s t h a t s e l f - c o n c e p t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y a f f e c t e d b y :
a ) i n t e r p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e o f a p o s i t i v e n a t u r e , b) competence
*
i n a r e a s a d j u d g e d by t h e i n d i v i d u a l and o t h e r s t o be o f v a l u e ,

and c ) i n c r e a s e d r e a l i z a t i o n o f o n e ' s p o t e n t i a l i t i e s .
Reported s t u d i e s t e n d t o a g r e e w i t h t h e view t h a t a
person's self-concept is r e l a t i v e l y stable.

For example, i n an

unpublished c o m p i l a t i o n of s t u d i e s designed t o measure s e l f c o n c e p t c h a n g e i n j u v e n i l e d e l i n q u e n t s , F i t t s (1973) r e p o r t s

t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t c h a n g e s a r e r e p o r t e d i n o n l y 23 o f a t o t a l o f
75 s t u d i e s examined.

This f a c t suggests t h a t s e l f - c o n c e p t , a t

l e a s t a s m e a s u r e d by t h e TSCS, i s f a i r l y s t a b l e and i s n o t s u b j e c t t o s u b s t a n t i a l change o r f l u c t u a t i o n s over time.

There-

f o r e , where s i g n i f i c a n t c h a n g e s a r e r e p o r t e d , i t i s a good i n d i c a t i o n t h a t s u b s t a n t i a l change h a s o c c u r r e d i n an i n d i v i d u a l .

T a y l o r (1955) found s i m i l a r r e s u l t s i n h i s s t u d y , and
i n an e x t e n s i v e r e v i e w concludes t h a t s e l f - c o n c e p t i s :

a ) gen-

e r a l l y s t a b l e a s a t o t a l e n t i t y although s u b j e c t t o change i n
minor w a y s ; b ) n o t a f f e c t e d by i m m e d i a t e f e e l i n g s o r moods;
and c ) i s m i l d l y a f f e c t e d by r e p e a t e d p s y c h o m e t r i c measurement
i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e o r i g i n a l v a l u a t i o n a s a consequence of
introspection.

A d d i t i o n a l s t u d i e s by V i a (1969) a n d F i t t s and

B e l l (1962) c o r r o b o r a t e T a y l o r ' s c o n c l u s i o n .

11

For t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h e p r e s e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n , t h e
a p p r o a c h t a k e n w i l l r e f l e c t t h e t y p e o f l o g i c s u g g e s t e d by
G e r g e n , t h e a p p l i c a t i o n e l a b o r a t e d by F i t t s , w i t h t h e r e c o g n i t i o n of r e l a t i v e s t a b i l i t y noted i n the c i t e d investigations.

MEASURING INSTRUMENTS
e

A s mentioned e a r l i e r i n t h e c h a p t e r , l a c k o f a p r e c i s e

definition of self-concept has resulted in difficulties at the

methodological level in developing techniques for the measure'ment of self-concept.
Wylie (1961, 1974) suggests that most instruments designed to measure self-concept have been devised for a particular study with little replication or assessment of validity
and reliability.

As a consequence, comparison between studies

is often difficult, and care must be taken to ensure that any

significant differences are noted.

Bonjean et al. (1967) make

the important point that such a difficulty is characteristic

of social-psychological research in general, rather than of
self-concept in particular. l2

They note that some 2,080 dif-

ferent measures were used in over 3,609 social research studies

that involved the application of scales or indices.
Spitzer, et al. (1966) and Zirkel (1971) provide support for Wylie's criticism of current approaches to self-concept
research, and suggest that if the proliferation of instruments
is to be reduced, then further data relating to the psychometric
properties of individual instruments is most desirable.
In attempting to understand some of the difficulties
involved in devising and/or selecting an instrument for selfconcept measurement, it may be helpful to be aware of a few

of the main difficulties that should be taken into consideration.

According to Lowe (1966), any attempt to measure self-concept
faces three main problems:

1) demonstration that what is

measured is congruent with actual inner conceptualization;

2) development o f specific terms for inclusion in test instru-

ments that meet with general concurrence of other researchers;

and 3) evidence that there is acceptable congruence between
the operational definition on which the test is based and
actual test measurement.

In seeking to improve current methods

he proposes that individual instruments should be validated

in comparison with established variables.

He further states

that ultimately such instruments will stand or fall on the

basis of their utility in providing further understanding of
human behaviour.
While a number of self-concept measures have received
some sampling and study, such considerations have usually been
limited to a specific subtopic area. l3

AS a result, the selec-

tion o f a particular instrument for research purposes has usually been an arbitrary choice.

For the present investigation,

the Tennessee Self Concept Scale (TSCS) was selected.

In a

review of over thirty self-concept measures used most consistently in published reports, Crandall (1973) concludes that
in overall quality the TSCS currently represents the best of
the available measures that are specifically designed to measure self-concept.

Criteria Crandall used in making his se-

lection included consideration of a test's convergent validity

(the extent the scale relates to similar measures), discriminant
validity (the extent to which the test doesn't tap irrelevant
constructs), and predictive validity (the extent to which a
*
scale predicts relevant criteria). Wells and Marwell (1976)

point out that the test is one of the few measures available
that take an individual's response bias into consideration by
giving a weighted index of how an individual distributes his/her
answers across five available choices in responding to various
items on the scale.

Bliss (1977) notes that one of the advan-

tages of the test is the fact that test items have been drawn
from a wide frame of reference and that it is not culture-bound.
In addition to other available data concerning the test's validity and reliability, which will be discussed in Chapter 111,
consideration was also given to the fact that since the test
has been used in a considerable number of delinquency studies,
a body of literature exists for comparison purposes.

Finally,

in selecting the TSCS as the test instrument for the study, consideration was also given to the fact that it is c ~ r r e n t l y ~ b e i n g
employed by several programs in British Columbia as well as Alberta and the results might have some pragmatic implications. 14
SELF-CONCEPT AND BEHAVIOUR

Self-concept is held by most self theorists to be of

considerable significance in determining an individual's behaviour

.
Combs and Snygg (1959) hold the view that without

exception all behaviour is

". . .

completely determined by and

pertinent to the phenomenal field (including self-concept) o f

the behaving organism. 1 5
*
Raimy suggests a more moderate view and states that
I f

1I

...

o u r g e n e r a l b e h a v i o u r i s t o a l a r g e e x t e n t r e g u l a t e d and

o r g a n i z e d by what we p e r c e i v e o u r s e l v e s t o b e . "16 A c c o r d i n g
t o Raimy, s e l f - c o n c e p t h a s s o c i a l m e a n i n g f o r t h e p e r s o n and
a c t s a s a frame o f r e f e r e n c e o r background f o r behaviour.

Thus,

s e l f - c o n c e p t may b e s e e n a s p l a y i n g a d e f i n i t i o n a l r o l e i n r e g u l a t i n g a p e r s o n ' s s t a t u s and f u n c t i o n s i n s o c i e t y .

T h i s may

be e l a b o r a t e d a s f o l l o w s :
A s an i n t e g r a t e d o r c o n f l i c t e d p e r c e p t u a l system,
t h e S e l f Concept f o r m s t h e c r i t e r i o n a g a i n s t w h i c h
c h o i c e s a s t o d i r e c t i o n and k i n d o f b e h a v i o u r a r e
made.
I f a person believes t h a t a c e r t a i n l y valued
a s p e c t o f h i s s e l f c o n c e p t c a n b e o v e r s h a d o w e d ...
he w i l l p r o b a b l y e n g a g e i n c o v e r i n g u p . . . I n s o f a r a s
t h e p e r s o n h a s c o n t r o l o v e r h i s a c t i o n s , any a c t i s
d e t e r m i n e d by t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s e x i s t i n g b e t w e e n t h e
s t r e n g t h o f t h e need o r d r i v e which i s m o t i v a t i n g ,
t h e c o n t e n t and s t r u c t u r e o f t h e S e l f C o n c e p t , and
there
t h e g o a l o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l ... (However)
may b e f a c t o r s i n t h e e x t e r n a l s i t u a t i o n o r c o n f l i c t s
i n t h e S e l f Concept w h i c h e n t e r i n t o d e t e r m i n a t i o n
of behaviour. 1 7

...

R o g e r s (1951) t a k e s t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t s e l f - c o n c e p t i s
r e s p o n s i b l e f o r s e l e c t i n g p a t t e r n s o f b e h a v i o u r ; however, h e
a d d s t h a t o r g a n i s m i c p r o c e s s e s and a u t o m a t i c b e h a v i o u r s s h o u l d
be t a k e n i n t o account.

Overall, t h e research evidence indicates a s i g n i f i c a n t

r e l a t i o n s h i p between s e l f - c o n c e p t and b e h a v i o u r .

For i n s t a n c e ,

s t u d i e s c o n d u c t e d by R o s e b e r g ( 1 9 6 5 ) , S u i n n ( 1 9 6 1 ) , and T e s s l e r
and S w a r t z (1972) i n d i c a t e t h a t low s e l f - c o n c e p t i n a d o l e s c e n c e
i s h i g h l y r e l a t e d t o low a c c e p t a n c e by p e e r s , p e r i o d s o f a n x i e t y
and w i t h d r a w a l , and p o o r a c c e p t a n c e o f o t h e r s .

Other s t u d i e s

c o n d u c t e d W y S t o t l a n d and H i l l m e r ( 1 9 6 2 ) , S i l v e r m a n ( 1 9 6 4 ) ,
and Cohen (1959) show t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s t e n d t o d e m o n s t r a t e

d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n s o f r e s p o n s e t o s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e dependent
on t h e i r l e v e l o f s e l f - c o n c e p t , p o s i t i v e o r n e g a t i v e .
Wahler and P o l l i o ( 1 9 6 8 ) , and Krop e t a l .
by Ryan e t a 1 . ( 1 9 7 6 )

Finally,

(1971), a s reviewed

found t h a t s p e c i f i c b e h a v i o u r a l changes

i n c h i l d r e n were a l s o accompanied by p o s i t i v e changes i n s e l f concept.

They f u r t h e r s u g g e s t t h a t t h e r e i s some e v i d e n c e t o

i n d i c a t e t h a t p o s i t i v e b e h a v i o u r a l c h a n g e s a r e p r e c e d e d by
p o s i t i v e s e l f - c o n c e p t changes. 18
Of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t t o t h e c u r r e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n
a r e s t u d i e s d e m o n s t r a t i n g a r e l a t i o n s h i p between s e l f - c o n c e p t
and b e h a v i o u r c o n d u c t e d u s i n g t h e TSCS.

I n a s e r i e s o f mono-

g r a p h s , F i t t s (1969, 1971, 1972a, 1972b) reviews a c o n s i d e r a b l e

number o f s t u d i e s t h a t r e v e a l t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s
e x i s t among v a r i o u s s u b s e t s o f t h e g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n , and
t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s a r e r e l a t e d t o d i f f e r e n t i a l performance i n
a v a r i e t y of s i t u a t i o n s .
I n s e e k i n g t o s p e c i f y how s e l f - c o n c e p t a c c o u n t s f o r
s u c h a wide v a r i e t y o f b e h a v i o u r s , W y l i e (1968) s u m m a r i z e s
t h e t h r e e main p o i n t s a s :
1) A t a n y g i v e n s t a g e o f d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e s e l f c o n c e p t t h e p e r s o n t e n d s t o p e r c e i v e o r l e a r n more
r e a d i l y t h i n g s which a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e s e l f concept while tending n o t t o l e a r n o r b e l i e v e t h i n g s
that a r e inconsistent with the self-concept
2)
a person w i t h an i n a c c u r a t e s e l f - c o n c e p t
i s s a i d t o be v u l n e r a b l e b e c a u s e h e i s c o n t i n u a l l y
exposed t o t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of r e c e i v i n g n e g a t i v e
r e a c t i o n s from o t h e r s . T h e s e r e a c t i o n s may b e o n e s
t o w h i c h h e c a n n o t r e s p o n d i n a way l e a d i n g t o
p o s i t i v e r e i n f o r c e m e n t ; and f u r t h e r m o r e t h e y may
f o r c e dpon him a n e g a t i v e l y r e i n f o r c i n g r e v i s i o n o f
the self-concept.

...

...

3) Evaluation of others is a positive function

of one's own level of self-evaluation. .. one's level
of self regard might generalize to others and in
this hypothesis we again deal with the supposed
antecedent influence of level of self regard upon
level of regard for others. 19

Of particular import to later discussion is the ability

of self-concept to account for negative behavior.

Such behavior

is usually accounted for by self theorists as a result of

failure to correctly symbolize experience and as a mechanism
of covering up negatively valued aspects of self-concept.

It

is posited that the degree of inappropriate behavior is determined by how negative a person's self-concept is.

Conversely,

a positive self-concept may lead to appropriate behaviors and

what Hansen and Maynard (1973) term a greater acceptance of
reward and success.
The relationship between negative and positive valuation of self-concept and behavior may be seen more clearly
in Figure 1 which illustrates a behavioral flow chart of
positive and negative behavior.
Combs and Snygg (1959) have provided one o f the more
cogent developmental explanations for the composite that is
provided in Figure 1.

They suggest that each person develops

a concept of self in interaction with others and that future

interactions will be coloured as a function of whether or not
that relational experience has been positive or negative.

As

a result, an individual develops an orientation to the environment that +s accepting or rejecting.

This conception in turn

FIGURE 1
POSITIVE VERSUS NEGATIVE SELF-CONCEPT A
BEHAVIOURAL FLOW C H A R T *

NEGATIVE

A d a p t e d f r o m J . Hansen a n d P . M a y n a r d , Y o u t h : S e l f (Columbus, Ohio: C. E . b I e r r i l 1 Pub.,

1 9 7 3 ) p. 5 4 .

Concept and B e h a v i o r ,

may b e e n h a n c e d , i m p a i r e d , o r r e i n f o r c e d d e p e n d e n t on w h e t h e r
r e a c t i o n s t o f u r t h e r b e h a v i o r have a r e w a r d i n g o r p u n i s h i n g
e f f e c t and a r e p e r c e i v e d a s s u c c e s s e s o r f a i l u r e s .
I n v e s t i g a t i o n s c o n d u c t e d by V i d e b e c k ( 1 9 6 0 ) , Maehr
et al.

( l 9 6 2 ) , W e i n s t e i n and B l a c k ( l 9 6 9 ) , and S c h a f e r e t a l .

( 1 9 7 3 ) t e n d t o s u p p o r t Snygg and Combs v i e w t h a t s e l f - c o n c e p t

may b e m o d i f i e d i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f f e e d b a c k and i n f o r m a t i o n
p r o v i d e d by o t h e r s . 2 0
A s t u d y a n d r e v i e w c o n d u c t e d by M i s c h e l e t a l .

(1973)

suggested t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l can r e i n f o r c e p o s i t i v e o r n e g a t i v e
perceptions of himself through a process of s e l e c t i v e a t t e n t i o n .
T h e i r d a t a a g r e e d w i t h c o l l e c t e d r e s u l t s o f o t h e r s t u d i e s and
s u g g e s t s t h a t s u c c e s s e x p e r i e n c e s l e a d t o more b e n i g n r e a c t i o n s
t o o n e s e l f and o t h e r s .
that stress, "...the

This i n t u r n i s manifested i n behavior

positive aspects of the s e l f i n one's

interactions with others.

Conversely, f a i l u r e and n e g a t i v e

f e e d b a c k l e a d s t o a more c r i t i c a l and n e g a t i v e r e a c t i o n t o
o n e s e l f a n d o t h e r s , w h i c h may r e s u l t i n m a l a d a p t i v e b e h a v i o r a l
A s we w i l l examine more f u l l y l a t e r i n t h e t e x t ,

reactions.

u n d e r t h i s model s p e c i f i c n e g a t i v e b e h a v i o r s may b e a c c o u n t e d
f o r on t h e b a s i s o f a d e g r e e o f n e g a t i v e v a l u a t i o n a c t i n g i n
c o n c e r t w i t h s u b l i m a t i o n and r e p r e s s i o n .
SELF-CONCEPT AND DELINQUENCY

Self-concept theory suggests t h a t delinquents tend t o

a c t out t h e i r disturbances rather than using a repressive

process in accepting a negative valuation of themselves.

Self-

concept is seen to play a definitional role in regulating an

individual's reactions and behaviors in society.

Such a theory

suggests that delinquents and non-delinquents will manifest

very different self-concepts, and differentiations within
populations may occur.
The purpose of this section is to describe some of the
empirical evidence relating self-concept to delinquency through

a selective review of the literature,

One of the most frequently cited and comprehensive

investigations of self-concept and delinquency was conducted
by Reckless and associates (1956, 1957a, 1957b, Dinitz et al.
1962).

Their research was completed in four stages and has

been reported in a series of four journal articles.

In the initial research stage, 30 sixth grade teachers
from a high delinquency area o f Columbus, Ohio, were asked
to designate those white-male students in their classes who,
in their opinion, would not become juvenile delinquents.

After

eliminating 16 boys who had already been adjudged delinquent

and 51 others who could not be located in the community, the
remaining 125 boys received a series of tests.

Results

indicated that the selected good boys were less vulnerable

to delinquency and were more socially responsible than boys
with behavior problems and reformatory inmates, when compared
on the Gough California Personality Inventory.
+

Additionally,

data collected concerning self conceptualization suggested

t h a t t h e r e s e a r c h s u b j e c t s had p o s i t i v e v i e w s o f t h e i r f a m i l y
l i f e a n d p o r t r a y e d t h e m s e l v e s a s b e i n g l a w a b i d i n g and o b e d i e n t .
R e l a t i n g t h e s e r e s u l t s t o freedom from i l l e g a l a c t i v i t i e s ,
Reckless e t a l .

(1956) conclude t h a t :

". ..

there is a strong

s u s p i c i o n t h a t a w e l l - d e v e l o p e d c o n c e p t o f s e l f a s a good
boy i s t h e component t h a t k e e p s m i d d l e a n d u p p e r c l a s s b o y s ,
who l i v e i n b e t t e r n e i g h b o u r h o o d s , o u t o f d e l i n q u e n c y . I , 2 2
I n t h e s e c o n d p h a s e o f t h e r e s e a r c h c o n d u c t e d one y e a r
l a t e r , R e c k l e s s and h i s a s s o c i a t e s a s k e d t h e same g r o u p o f
t e a c h e r s t o d e s i g n a t e those white-male s t u d e n t s i n t h e i r c l a s s e s
who t h e y t h o u g h t would become d e l i n q u e n t s .

The 108 s e l e c t e d

b o y s , o f whom 24 h a d a l r e a d y been a d j u d g e d d e l i n q u e n t , r e c e i v e d
t h e same s e t o f t e s t s g i v e n t h e p r e v i o u s g r o u p .

Comparisons

made b e t w e e n t h e two g r o u p s showed s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s

i n t h e e x p e c t e d d i r e c t i o n , w i t h t h e bad b o y s o b t a i n i n g l e s s
f a v o u r a b l e r e s u l t s on a l l m e a s u r e s .

Thus, t h e r e s u l t s t e n d

t o s u p p o r t R e c k l e s s ' s i n i t i a l c o n c l u s i o n t h a t s e l f - c o n c e p t may
be a n u n d e r l y i n g f a c t o r i n d e l i n q u e n t a n d n o n - d e l i n q u e n t
behavior.
Four y e a r s a f t e r t h e f i r s t c o n t a c t a follow-up s t u d y
was c o n d u c t e d t o d e t e r m i n e how many b o y s i n e a c h g r o u p had
become d e l i n q u e n t .

Of 1 0 3 d e s i g n a t e d good boys s t i l l l i v i n g

i n t h e a r e a , f o u r had been c o n v i c t e d of f a i r l y minor o f f e n c e s ,

w h e r e a s , o f t h e 70 d e s i g n a t e d bad boys i n c l u d e d f o r f o l l o w - u p ,
2 7 had been c o n v i c t e d a n a v e r a g e of t h r e e o f f e n c e s .

After

reviewing t h e s e f i n d i n g s , L i v e l y , D i n i t z , and Reckless (1962)

conclude t h a t self-concept a c t s a s an i n s u l a t o r a g a i n s t d e l i n q u e n c y e v e n i n s u b s e t s of t h e p o p u l a t i o n t h a t a r e c o n s i d e r e d
delinquency prone.

R e c k l e s s and D i n i t z (1967) e l a b o r a t e t h e i r

r a t i o n a l e a s follows :
We f e e l t h a t components o f t h e s e l f s t r e n g t h ,
such a s a favourable concept of s e l f , a c t a s an i n n e r
b u f f e r o r i n n e r containment a g a i n s t deviancy, d i s t r a c t i o n , l u r e and p r e s s u r e s .
Our o p e r a t i o n a l a s s u m p t i o n s
a r e t h a t a good s e l f - c o n c e p t i s i n d i c a t i v e o f a r e s i d u a l
f a v o u r a b l e s o c i a l i z a t i o n and a s t r o n g i n n e r s e l f , w h i c h
i n t u r n s t e e r s t h e p e r s o n away f r o m b a d companions and
s t r e e t c o r n e r s o c i e t y , t o w a r d m i d d l e c l a s s v a l u e s , and
t o a w a r e n e s s o f p o s s i b i l i t y o f upward movement i n t h e
23
opportunity structure.
I n a methodological c r i t i c i s m o f t h e foregoing s t u d y ,
H i r s c h i a n d S e l v i n (1967) s u g g e s t t h a t R e c k l e s s e t a l . may
h a v e e r r e d by a s s u m i n g t h a t good b o y s a l l h a v e e q u a l l y good
s e l f - c o n c e p t s a n d t h a t bad b o y s a l l h a v e e q u a l l y b a d s e l f concepts.

For i n s t a n c e , o v e r h a l f o f t h e boys responded

f a v o r a b l y t o t h e q u e s t i o n : "Up ' t i 1 now, do you t h i n k t h a t

t h i n g s h a v e gone y o u r way?"

24

S m i t h (1972) p r o v i d e s a s i m p l e a n s w e r t o H i r s c h i a n d
S e l v i n ' s c r i t i c i s m by s u g g e s t i n g t h a t i n d i v i d u a l f l u c t u a t i o n s
w i l l n o t a f f e c t t h e p o s t u r e o f t h e group s i n c e i n d i v i d u a l

f l u c t u a t i o n s a r e probably o f f s e t t i n g .
T a n g r i and S w a r t z ( 1 9 6 7 ) n o t e t h a t w h i l e improved
measures a r e needed t o measure s e l f - c o n c e p t , i t i s c e r t a i n l y
f e a s i b l e t o o p e r a t e on t h e p o s t u l a t e t h a t s e l f - f a c t o r s d e t e r mine d i r e c t i o n o f b e h a v i o r t o w a r d o r away from d e l i n q u e n c y .
One weaknesf i n t h e R e c k l e s s e t a l .

( 1 9 5 6 , 1957) r e s e a r c h

w h i c h t h e y p o i n t o u t , i s t h e f a c t t h a t many o f t h e t e s t i t e m s

were drawn from a middle class frame of reference.

Consequently,

this may have unfairly biased the responses of the bad boy
group in a negative direction without consideration of positive alternatives.
Other criticisms of the Reckless et al. (1956, 1957)
research include the fact that possibly Merton's (1968) concept
of the "self-fulfilling prophesy" could explain why such a
high proportion of the two groups fell in the predicted direction.

Also, the teachers' nominations may have resulted in

a less than respresentative sample of non-delinquents, as a

majority o f superior students may have been included in the
group.
In an investigation similar to the Reckless et al.
(1957) study, Donald (1963) found that boys categorized as
delinquency-prone by teachers had low self-concepts when
measured by the California Personality Inventory.

A signif-

icant number of the boys were found later to have committed

delinquencies.
Other studies have found significiant differences
between delinquents and non-delinquents on a number of selfconcept measures.

Grant (1962) in a comparison study of 51

delinquent and non-delinquent girls matched on the basis of

age, race, I.Q., and socio-economic status, found delinquent
girls rated themselves more negatively on three separate scales
used in the study. Similarly, Deitche (1959) using an early
*
version o f the TSCS, found significant differences between

50 delinquent and 50 non-delinquent white males.

While this,

difference was not found on all dimensions of the test, in

every case the direction of the difference revealed a more
positive self-concept for the non-delinquents.
A study conducted in New Zealand by Roberts (1972)
found that not only did self-concept differentiate between
non-delinquent and delinquent girls, but also good self-concept
was related to good performance on parole and a satisfactory
work record.

The Twenty Statements Test (~cpartland, 1959)

was used as a measure of self-concept and administered to

110 girls senetnced to their first term of residential training,
between the years 1964-1966.

Six months after release from

the program each girl was sent a follow-up test with a letter
seeking information about current status.

She found that

self-c.oncept discriminated between delinquent and non-delinquent

girls and was significantly related to ultimate performance
on parole.
Gold (1978) reports a study by Flassimo and Shore (1963)
that points to a causal relationship between self-concept and
delinquency.

Twenty boys aged fifteen to seventeen who were

at the point o f leaving school and who were adjudged delinquent were selected for the study.

Ten boys were selected to

receive comprehensive guidance and employment assistance for

a period of ten months, while the other ten did not.

At the

end of that time, seven o f the control group had been placed
C

on probation compared with only three of the treatment group.

The Thematic Apperception Test was used to measure self-concept

and subjects were tested at the beginning and end of the ten
months.

Improvement in self-concept was noted significantly

more frequently for the treatment than the control group.

causal relationship to changes in behavior is suggested by

the authors: "-The results indicate that the first area of
change is in attitude toward self.I! 2 5
Kaplan (1976) in a study of over 4000 junior high
school students who were asked about their attitudes towards
themselves on a questionnaire and about their deviant behavior
in the previous year, found a significant correlation between
low self-concept and the commission of delinquent acts.
In summary, a number of different investigations
employing several different measures of self-concept indicate
that significant differences exist between delinquent and non-.
delinquent youth.

Each of the studies corroborated the view

that non-delinquents tend to have more positive or a higher

self-concept than delinquents.

Thus, the studies support

the hypothesis that low self-concept is correlated with delinquent behavior.

SELF-CONCEPT D I F F E R E N C E S BETWEEN GROUPS O F D E L I N Q U E N T S

A number of studies have successfully attempted to

investigate whether self-concept differences exist between
groups of delinquents. It is hypothesized that since there
*
is a constant interaction between a person's self-concept and

h i s b e h a v i o u r , w i t h each i n f l u e n c i n g t h e o t h e r , t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s
w i l l e x i s t according t o t h e degree o f involvement w i t h t h e j u s -

t i c e system.

For example, d i f f e r e n c e s s h o u l d e x i s t b e t w e e n

f i r s t o f f e n d e r s a n d r e c i d i v i s t s , and i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d a n d
non-institutionalized delinquents.
B a l s t e r (1956) u s e d a Q - s o r t m e a s u r e m e n t o f s e l f - c o n c e p t
t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n c o u l d b e made b e t w e e n
recently incarcerated recidivist delinquents, already incarcerated r e c i d i v i s t delinquents, recently incarcerated delinq u e n t f i r s t o f f e n d e r s , and a l r e a d y i n c a r c e r a t e d d e l i n q u e n t
f i r s t offenders.

He found t h a t t h e two g r o u p s o f f i r s t o f f e n d -

e r s h a d a s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r p o s i t i v e mean s c o r e t h a n t h e
two g r o u p s o f r e c i d i v i s t s .

I n comparing each group independ-

e n t l y , h e f o u n d t h a t t h e two g r o u p s o f r e c i d i v i s t s o b t a i n e d
Q - s o r t v a r i a n c e s c o r e s t h a t were c l o s e r t o e a c h o t h e r t h a n
e i t h e r o f t h e o t h e r two g r o u p s .

He c o n c l u d e d t h a t e v e n i n

t h o s e i n s t a n c e s where o b t a i n e d d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n f i r s t
o f f e n d e r s a n d r e c i d i v i s t s were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t , t h e t r e n d
indicated higher scores for f i r s t offenders.
I n a s t u d y t h a t compared n o n - d e l i n q u e n t ,

recidivist,

and f i r s t o f f e n d e r d e l i n q u e n t s , L e f e b e r ( 1 9 6 5 ) f o u n d r a n k
o r d e r d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e groups.

Non-delinquents obtained

t h e h i g h e s t mean s c o r e on t h e TSCS u s e d i n t h e s t u d y , t h e
f i r s t o f f e n d e r s n e x t , and t h e d e l i n q u e n t r e c i d i v i s t s o b t a i n e d
t h e l o w e s t mean s c o r e .

D i f f e r e n c e s on t h e s c a l e w e r e c o n s i s t -

e n t l y f o u n d t o b e t h e most e x t r e m e b e t w e e n t h e r e c i d i v i s t and

non-delinquent groups.
Fitts (1969) suggests that in design, execution, and
thoroughness, the Lefeber study is unsurpassed in studies
conducted using the TSCS.

Certainly the procedure that Lefeber

used demonstrates attention to empirical detail.

He adminis-

tered the TSCS to a group of 410 non-delinquents, 206 delinquent first offenders, and 231 delinquent recidivists.

Sub-

jects were matched on the basis of age, ethnicity, mental

maturity, and socio-economic status to produce a study sample
o f three groups of 58 juveniles.

Profile patterns for each

of the gro.ups were plotted and the results noted earlier obtained.
In the recommendation section of the research, Lefeber
suggests that further study should be made of delinquent first
offenders, since:
It is quite possible that at least two subgroups
would emerge: 1) those that would appear destined to
join the recidivist group, and 2) those whose profiles
diverge from the recidivist pattern. This suggests
that among the first offenders a good prognosis subgroup could be identifiable for future study and treatment. 26
Dorn (1968) investigated whether significant differences existed between 104 institutionalized delinquents, 52
non-institutionalized delinquents, and 176 non-delinquent
male adolescents on dimensions of self-concept, alienation,
and anxiety.

Measures employed included:

the Twenty-Statement

Test (McPartland, 1959) to measure self-concept, the Manifest

*
Anxiety Scale (Taylor, 1953), and an alienation measure

constructed for the study.

He found a correlation between the

degree of self-depreciation, anxiety, and alienation, as well

as overall level of self-concept. Specifically, he found that
non-delinquents had a higher level of self-concept than the
delinquent groups and that non-institutionalized delinquents
in the study had a more positive self-concept than institutionalized delinquents.
Fitts and Hamner (1969) compared 54 delinquent first
offenders with 42 delinquent recidivists incarcerated at a
correctional institution in Pikeville, Tennessee, using the
TSCS.

They found that the recidivists obtained consistently

more deviant scores than the first offenders on all test scores.

A more recent study conducted by Curry, Manning, and

Monroe (1971) on male juvenile offenders from three different
correctional institutions in the state of Tennessee found
significant differences between first offenders and recidivists.

The data indicated that recidivists have a more nega-

tive self-concept than first offenders.

Similar results have been obtained in New Zealand by
Masters and Tong (1968) using the semantic differential test.
West (1973), in citing the study, notes that recidivist delinquents had worse self-concepts than either non-recidivist
delinquents or non-offenders.

In the same study, Masters and

Tong also found that offenders who are likely to commit further
offences are less socialized than either the first or non*
offender groups.

I n y e t a n o t h e r s t u d y , C r a i g (1975) found s i g n i f i c a n t
d i f f e r e n c e s between r e c i d i v i s t s and f i r s t o f f e n d e r s a t t e n d i n g
a six-month i n s t i t u t i o n a l program i n P l a i n f i e l d , I n d i a n a .

His

s t u d y was o r i g i n a l l y d e s i g n e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e c o r r e l a t i o n
b e t w e e n g a i n s i n a c a d e m i c a c h i e v e m e n t and s e l f - c o n c e p t i m p r o v e ment.

The TSCS was u s e d a s a m e a s u r e o f s e l f - c o n c e p t and was

a d m i n i s t e r e d t o 210 j u v e n i l e s b e f o r e and a f t e r c o m p l e t i n g t h e
program.

Academic m e a s u r e s i n c l u d e d t h e Wide Range Achievement

T e s t (WRAT) and t h e S t a n f o r d R e a d i n g T e s t (SRT).

R e s u l t s showed

t h a t j u v e n i l e s i n t h e program improved s i g n i f i c a n t l y on f i f t e e n
o f t h e s e v e n t e e n TSCS s u b s c a l e s , a n d a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n
was f o u n d b e t w e e n s e l f - c o n c e p t improvement and a c a d e m i c p e r f o r mance.

I t is i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t the proportion of d e l i n -

q u e n t s who l a t e r c o m m i t t e d f u r t h e r o f f e n c e s and who showed s e l f c o n c e p t improvement d u r i n g t h e p r o g r a m , was s i g n i f i c a n t l y s m a l l e r

t h a n t h o s e r e c i d i v i s t s whose t e s t s c o r e s i n d i c a t e d no c h a n g e o r
lower s e l f - c o n c e p t v a l u a t i o n .

Such a r e s u l t s u g g e s t s t h a t

m e a s u r a b l e improvement i n s e l f - c o n c e p t may p r o v e t o b e a p o s s i b l e i n d i c a t o r o f l a t e r p o s i t i v e p e r f o r m a n c e i n t h e community.

F i t t s and Hamner ( 1 9 6 9 ) r e p o r t a s t u d y by J o p l i n (1968)
a t H i g h f i e l d s C e n t e r i n New J e r s e y t h a t showed s i m i l a r r e s u l t s .
Data c o l l e c t e d showed t h a t t h o s e p a r t i c i p a n t s who d e m o n s t r a t e d
t h e g r e a t e s t improvement i n s e l f - c o n c e p t w h i l e i n t h e p r o g r a m
were t h e l e a s t l i k e l y t o be c o n v i c t e d of f u r t h e r d e l i n q u e n c i e s .
B l i s s (1977) compared 29 j u v e n i l e s i n d e t e n t i o n , 2 7
#

j u v e n i l e s on p r o b a t i o n , a n d 5 6 n o n - d e l i n q u e n t s , u s i n g a m o d i f i e d

version of the TSCS and the Twenty Statements Test.

Results

were consistent with the other reported research with delinquents in detention having the most negative self-concept, followed by delinquents on probation, and then non-delinquents.
A major shortcoming of the Bliss (1977) study as well
as the others cited is the fact that no determination is made
as to whether a youth's negative self-concept preceded or followed initial and subsequent delinquent labelling.

Casual in-

ference on the basis of studies that utilize such an afteronly research design is extremely risky.

Ideally, a before-

after research design should be employed that permits initial

self-concept testing o f a group of juveniles with subsequent
follow-up and comparison on the basis of involvement o r further
involvement with the justice system.

Such an approach may help

in providing further information as to which juveniles are

likely to become involved or further involved with the justice
system.
Although Lefeber (1965) found the TSCS to be a suitable
self-concept instrument and recommended that a before-after
study of first offenders should be conducted, a review of the
TSCS literature until the end of 1974 shows that only one
limited study by Joplin (1972) has focused on the question in
such a manner. 27

Joplin followed up 28 juvenile delinquents

two years after they had completed the Highfields Program in

New Jersey.

* The subjects were analyzed according to pre- and

post-test scores on the TSCS. Results indicated that the two

groups were i n i t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t w i t h t h e r e c i d i v i s t s r e p o r t i n g
a more p o s i t i v e s e l f - c o n c e p t t h a n t h e n o n - r e c i d i v i s t s .

However,

t h i s r e s u l t c o u l d b e e x p l a i n e d by t h e f a c t t h a t t h e r e c i d i v i s t s
o b t a i n e d a s i g n i f i c a n t l y l o w e r s c o r e on t h e m e a s u r e o f s e l f criticism included i n the t e s t .

While J o p l i n n o t e d t h a t c r o s s -

v a l i d a t i o n o f t h e r e s e a r c h would be r e q u i r e d , he s u g g e s t e d t h a t
r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t s u c h t e s t s may p r o v e t o be b e n e f i c i a l i n
d e t e r m i n i n g which y o u t h s a r e l i k e l y t o b e n e f i t from such p r o grams.
The c u r r e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n was d e s i g n e d t o c o n t r i b u t e
f u r t h e r information t o t h e q u e s t i o n of whether a n e g a t i v e s e l f c o n c e p t p r e c e d e s d e l i n q u e n t b e h a v i o u r and w h e t h e r t h e TSCS i s
b e n e f i c i a l i n d e t e r m i n i n g which d e l i n q u e n t s a r e l i k e l y t o b e n e f i t
from a p a r t i c u l a r community p r o g r a m .
SUMMARY

This review of t h e l i t e r a t u r e has attempted t o provide

a n o v e r v i e w o f a number o f i s s u e s and s t u d i e s r e l e v a n t t o t h e
present investigation.

C o n s i d e r a t i o n was g i v e n t o t h e h i s t o r i c a l

development o f s e l f - c o n c e p t t h e o r y , d i f f i c u l t i e s o f d e f i n i t i o n
and measurement, and s e l f - c o n c e p t s t a b i l i t y .

Background on t h e

r o l e o f s e l f - c o n c e p t i n human b e h a v i o u r was p r o v i d e d t h r o u g h
c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f s e v e r a l o f t h e l e a d i n g s e l f t h e o r i s t s and
empirical studies.

I t was c o n c l u d e d t h a t s e l f - c o n c e p t p l a y s

a n i m p o r t a n t r o l e i n d e t e r m i n i n g human b e h a v i o u r .
C

S t u d i e s c o n c e r n i n g s e l f - c o n c e p t and d e l i n q u e n c y w e r e

examined and it was concluded that delinquents generally tend

to have negative or poor self-concepts.

It was found that de-

linquents could be differentiated from non-delinquents on the

basis of self-concept.
Finally, studies concerning self-concept differences
between groups of delinquents were examined, and it was shown
that differences existed according to the degree of involvement
with the justice system.

It was noted that further study would

be required using a before-after design to determine whether

r 4

negative self-concept precedes recidivist behaviour.

Further discussion of the framework presented in this
section will be presented in the succeeding chapters as the

lw.l,

tmc'

present investigation is analyzed.

In the next chapter, the

ji?.:
*

methods and procedures used in the study are presented.

The

chapter provides a description of the community program selected

for investigation, the subject population, data collection procedures, and a review o f the reliability, validity, and general
format of the scale used to measure self-concept.

%
N
Z

"",
.

REFERENCES TO CHAPTER I 1

l ~ o ra more detailed review, see for example: K. Gergen,

(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1971), also R. Wylie, "The Present Status of Self Theory",
Handbook o f P e r s o n a l i t y T h e o r y and R e s e a r c h , ed. E . Borgatta
and W. Lambert, (Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1968), also
R. Wylie, The S e l f C o n c e p t , (2nd ed., Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press, 1974), also L. Wells and G. Marwell, S e l f E s t e e m : I t s C o n c e p t i o n and M e a s u r e m e n t , (Beverly Hills: Sage
Publications, 1976).
The C o n c e p t o f S e l f ,

'William James, P r i n c i p l e s o f P s y c h o l o g y , (New York:

Holt, 1890) p.310, cited by J. Diggory, S e l f - E v a l u a t i o n :
C o n c e p t s a n d S t u d i e s , (New York: John Wiley 6 Sons, 1966).

,,

3 ~ e o r g eHerbert Mead, Mind, S e l f , and S o c i e t y , (Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 1934) cited by, M. Webster Jr. and
B. Sobieszek, S o u r c e s o f S e l f - E v a l u a t i o n , (New York: John Wiley
and Sons, 1974) p. 11.

A
P

&

18,

bid.,

p. 11.

k
m r*
11 11

he

work of Cooley and Mead are part of an orientation

in sociology that stresses the psychological meaning in human
relations. From this standpoint self-concept may be seen as
an important link between the fields of psychology and sociology
and as a result may offer a unique interdisciplinary perspective
to juvenile delinquency study.
%ictor Raimy, The S e l f C o n c e p t a s a F a c t o r i n CounseZl i n g and P e r s o n a l i t y O r g a n i z a t i o n , (PhD dissertation, Ohio
State University, 1943), p. 24.
7~henomenological in the sense that R. Wylie (1974)
uses the term, to mean the study of direct awareness. Because
of the central role accorded to conscious perceptions, cognitions and feelings, self-concept theory has often been termed
phenomenoZogicaZ.
For a more detailed consideration see R.
Wylie, T h e S e l f C o n c e p t , (2nd ed., Lincoln: University o f
Nebraska Press, 1974), pp. 8-12.
8 ~ Wells
.
and G. Marwell, S e l f - . E s t e e m : I t s ConceptioaL
(Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1976) p. 8 -

and Measurement,

'5. McKinney, C o n s t r u c t i v e T z j p o l o g y and S o c i a l T h e o r y ,

(New York: Appleton Century-Crofts, 1966) p. 12.
II

'OK. Gergen, T h e C o n c e p t o f S e l f ,
Rinehart and Winston, 1971), p. 19.

(New York: Halt,

,I4 *.
ye.

!k

:,;
I

''cited

i n , W . F i t t s and W . Hamner, The S e l f C o n c e p t

( N a s h v i l l e : Counselor Recordings and T e s t s ,
1959), pp. 27-52.

and D e l i n q u e n c y ,

''cited

i n W e l l s and M a r w e l l , o p . c i t . , p . 79

1 3 s e e f o r example: J . Robinson and P. S h a v e r ,

The
Measurement o f S e l f - E s t e e m and R e l a t e d C o n s t r u c t s " , M e a s u r e s
o f S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g i c a l A t t i t u d e s , (2nd e d . , Ann A r b o r :
I n s i t u t e f o r S o c i a l Research, 1973) pp. 45-158; a l s o ,
0 . J o h n s o n a n d J . Bommarito, T e s t s and M e a s u r e m e n t s i n C h i l d
D e v e l o p m e n t : A Handbook, (San F r a n c i s c o : J o s s e y - B a s s , 1971) ;
a l s o , P. Z i r k e l a n d R . G a b l e , "The R e l i a b i l i t y a n d V a l i d i t y
o f V a r i o u s M e a s u r e s o f S e l f - c o n c e p t Among E t h n i c a l l y D i f f e r e n t
A d o l e s c e n t s " i n Measurement and E v a Z u a t i o n i n G u i d a n c e , Val.
1 0 , N O . 1, ( 1 9 7 7 ) , p p . 4 5 - 5 4 .
1 4 ~ h eTSCS i s c u r r e n t l y b e i n g u s e d a t t h e Roper H a l l
D e t e n t i o n C e n t e r i n C a l g a r y , A l b e r t a ; t h e V i c t o r i a Youth
A t t e n d a n c e C e n t e r i n V i c t o r i a , B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a ; t h e PURPOSE
Program i n B u r n a b y , B r i t i s h Columbia.
LaBenne and B . G r e e n e , E d u c a t i o n a l
Concept Theory, ( P a c i f i c P a l i s a d e s ,
C a l i f o r n i a : Goodyear P u b l i s h i n g C o . , 1 9 6 9 ) p . 1 0 .
''cited

i n , W.

Implications of Self

Raimy, o p . c i t . , p . 1 4 .

17v.

Raimy, o p . c i t . , p . 1 0 4 .

1 8 s e e , V . L . Ryan, C . A . K r a l l , a n d W . F . Hodges, " S e l f

C o n c e p t Change i n B e h a v i o u r M o d i f i c a t i o n " The J o u r n a l o f
C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , V o l . 4 4 , No. 4 , ( 1 9 7 6 ) ,
pp. 638-645.
"R.
W y l i e , "The P r e s e n t S t a t u s o f S e l f T h e o r y " ,
E . B o r g a t t a a n d W . L a m b e r t , o p . c i t . , p . 751.

in

' O ~ o r a more d e t a i l e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n , s e e R . S c h a f e r ,
R. B r a i t o and J . Bohlen, "Self Concept and t h e R e a c t i o n of a
S i g n i f i c a n t O t h e r : A Comparison o f Husbands a n d Wives",
S o c i o l o g i c a l I n q u i r y , V o l . 4 6 , No. 1 , p p . 5 7 - 6 5 .
'Iw. h l i s c h e l and E . E b b s e s e n , " S i t u a t i o n a l A t t e n t i o n
t o t h e S e l f : S i t u a t i o n a l and D i s p o s i t i o n a l D e t e r m i n a n t s " ,
J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , V o l . 2 7 , No.1
pp. 129-142, p . 138.
"#.
R e c k l e s s and E. M u r r a y , " S e l f C o n c e p t a s a n
I n s u l a t o r A g a i n s t D e l i n q u e n c y " , A m e r i c a n ~ o c i o l o g i c a lR e v i e w ,
V o l . 2 1 , ( 1 9 5 6 ) , p p . 7 4 4 - 7 4 6 , p . 746.

2 3 ~ .Reckless and S. Dinitz, "Pioneering with Self

Concept as a Vulnerability Factor in Delinquency", J o u r n a l
o f C r i m i n a l Law, C r i m i n o Z o g y , and P o l i c e S c i e n c e , Vol . 58,
No. 4 , (1967), pp. 515-523, p. 517.

2 4 ~ .Dinitz, F. Scarpitti, and W. Reckless, "Delinquency Vulnerability: A Cross Group and Longitudinal Analysis",
A m e r c i a n S o c i o l o g i c a l R e v i e w , Vol. 27, (1962), pp. 515-517,
p. 517.
"J.
L. Massimo and M. F. Shore, "The Effectiveness
of a Comprehensive, Vocationally Oriented Psychotherapeutic
Program for Adolescent Delinquent Boys", A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l o f
O r t h o p s y c h i a t r y , July 1963, pp.634-642, p. 641.

2 6 ~ .A. Lefeber, "The Delinquents Self Concept" (unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Southern California,
l965), pp. 138-139.

27source, W. Fitts, T e n n e s s e e S e l f C o n c e p t S c a Z e
B i b Z i o g r a p h y o f R e s e a r c h S t u d i e s , (Nashville: Dede Wallace
Center, 1973) and S u p p l e m e n t (1974)

CHAPTER

111

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

INTRODUCTION

The p r e s e n t c h a p t e r d i s c u s s e s t h e m e t h o d s and p r o c e d u r e s used i n t h e s t u d y .

I n f o r m a t i o n on t h e s a m p l e p o p u l a t i o n

and d a t a c o l l e c t i o n p r o c e s s i s provided a s w e l l a s a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e community-based s o c i a l agency s e l e c t e d a s t h e

setting for the investigation.

The T e n n e s s e e S e l f C o n c e p t

S c a l e i s d e s c r i b e d i n d e t a i l a l o n g w i t h some d i s c u s s i o n o f

i t s r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y .

Finally, t h e chapter concludes

w i t h a n e x p l a n a t i o n o f some o f t h e s t a t i s t i c a l p r o c e d u r e s
used t o analyze t h e d a t a .
THE SAMPLE

The s u b j e c t s f o r t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y c o n s i s t e d o f one
h u n d r e d and t h i r t y - n i n e j u v e n i l e s who w e r e r e f e r r e d t o a
c o m m u n i t y - b a s e d p r o g r a m l o c a t e d i n B u r n a b y , B r i t i s h Columbia
known a s P r o b a t i o n R e s o u r c e s o r PURPOSE, b e t w e e n F e b r u a r y 1974
and O c t o b e r 1 9 7 6 .

F i f t y - t w o s u b j e c t s were o b t a i n e d d u r i n g t h e

1974 p e r i o d , f o r t y - t h r e e d u r i n g 1 9 7 5 , and f o r t y - f o u r d u r i n g
1976.

A l l s u b j e c t s were twelve through s i x t e e n y e a r s o f a g e ,

w i t h 1 5 . 1 2 y e a r s b e i n g t h e mean a g e .

A l l s u b j e c t s had completed

a t l e a s t t h e ' f i f t h g r a d e and none were c o n s i d e r e d t o b e m e n t a l l y

retarded.

S e v e n t y - f o u r o f t h e s u b j e c t s came f r o m homes w i t h

two p a r e n t s and s i x t y - f i v e came from s i n g l e p a r e n t f a m i l i e s .

T h i r t y - f o u r of t h e s u b j e c t s had no p r e v i o u s formal
c o u r t h i s t o r y b u t had been r e f e r r e d t o t h e program p r i m a r i l y
f o r b e h a v i o r a l p r o b l e m s by s o c i a l w o r k e r s .

T h i r t y - f o u r of t h e

s u b j e c t s had a d m i t t e d committing a d e l i n q u e n c y t o t h e p o l i c e
b u t had b e e n d i v e r t e d from f o r m a l c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s a s a
r e s u l t of a Probation O f f i c e r ' s Enquiry.
were on p r o b a t i o n on a v o l u n t a r y b a s i s .

Most o f t h i s g r o u p
Twenty-eight s u b j e c t s

had p r e v i o u s l y been t h e s u b j e c t o f formal c o u r t proceedings

and had b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f c o m m i t t i n g o n e d e l i n q u e n c y .

Forty-

t h r e e o f t h e s u b j e c t s had p r e v i o u s l y been t h e s u b j e c t of formal

c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s o n more t h a n o n e o c c a s i o n a n d h a d b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f more t h a n one p r e v i o u s d e l i n q u e n c y .

The r a n g e o f

o f f e n c e s c o v e r e d a s p e c t r u m , from m i n o r o f f e n c e s s u c h a s
c o m m i t t i n g a n i n d e c e n t a c t , t o more s e r i o u s o f f e n c e s s u c h a s
t h e f t o v e r two h u n d r e d d o l l a r s .
b r e a k i n g and e n t e r i n g and t h e f t .

The most common o f f e n c e was

A s a r e s u l t of t h e provincial

government's wish t o n o t p r o s e c u t e s t a t u s o f f e n c e s such a s

u n m a n a g e a b i l i t y , no s t a t u s o f f e n d e r s w e r e i n c l u d e d i n t h e l a t t e r
two g r o u p s b u t w e r e r e p r e s e n t e d i n t h e g r o u p r e f e r r e d by s o c i a l
workers and i n d i v i d u a l s r e f e r r e d a s a r e s u l t o f a P r o b a t i o n
O f f i c e r ' s Enquiry.
THE AGENCY S E T T I N G

The a g e n c y s e l e c t e d a s t h e s e t t i n g f o r t h e s t u d y i s
+

known a s P r o b a t i o n R e s o u r c e s o r more commonly c a l l e d

P.U.R.P.0.S . E

.'

( h e r e a f t e r c i t e d a s PURPOSE) a n d i s l o c a t e d

i n t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y o f Burnaby, B r i t i s h Columbia.

The p r d j e c t

i n v o l v e s p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f working i n c o o p e r a t i o n w i t h
p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e r s , s o c i a l w o r k e r s , t e a c h e r s , and p a r e n t s ,
i n an e f f o r t t o p r o v i d e a s s i s t a n c e and d i r e c t i o n t o j u v e n i l e s
d e s i g n a t e d a s needing such h e l p .

The p r o g r a m h a s b e e n p a r t

of a f a i r l y comprehensive study conducted w i t h f i n a n c i a l

a s s i s t a n c e from t h e F e d e r a l D e p a r t m e n t o f N a t i o n a l H e a l t h and
Welfare and h a s been i n c l u d e d i n s e v e r a l r e v i e w s o f programs
o f f e r e d f o r j u v e n i l e s i n B r i t i s h C o l ~ r n b i a . ~I n a d d i t i o n t h e
p r o g r a m h a s r e c e i v e d a f a i r d e g r e e o f community s u p p o r t a n d
c e r t a i n a s p e c t s o f t h e program have been a d o p t e d i n o t h e r a r e a s
o f t h e p r o ~ i n c e . ~T h i s s e c t i o n i s p r i m a r i l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h

t h e p r o g r a m a s i t e x i s t e d d u r i n g i t s s e c o n d , t h i r d , and f o u r t h
y e a r s o f o p e r a t i o n ; o r t h e p e r i o d o f t h e s t u d y from F e b r u a r y
1974 t o O c t o b e r 1 9 7 6 .
Background

PURPOSE was e s t a b l i s h e d i n J a n u a r y o f 1 9 7 3 u n d e r t h e
a u s p i c e s o f a m u n i c i p a l c o m m i t t e e known a s t h e Burnaby F a m i l y
Court Committee.

O r i g i n a l f u n d i n g came f r o m t h e F e d e r a l

Government t h r o u g h t h e L o c a l I n i t i a t i v e s Program ( L . I . P . )
l a t e r t h r o u g h O p p o r t u n i t i e s For Youth ( O . F . Y . ) .

and

The B . C .

D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s i n i t i a l l y c o n t r i b u t e d f i f t y
p e r c e n t o f t h e p r o g r a m b u d g e t i n J a n u a r y o f 1974 and b e g a n
funding t h e & t i r e

program i n June o f 1974.

Sponsorship of

t h e p r o g r a m c h a n g e d i n F e b r u a r y o f 1 9 7 5 when a n o n - p r o f i t

s o c i e t y known a s F r a s e r C o r r e c t i o n a l R e s o u r c e s S o c i e t y was
s t a r t e d f o r t h a t purpose.
Under t h e o r i g i n a l g r a n t a p p l i c a t i o n PURPOSE was s e t
up t o p r o v i d e r e s o u r c e a s s i s t a n c e t o v o l u n t e e r s w o r k i n g w i t h
i n d i v i d u a l s on a o n e - t o - o n e b a s i s a n d work w i t h i n d i v i d u a l
p r o b a t i o n e r s who r e q u i r e d more t i m e t h a n a v o l u n t e e r c o u l d
reasonably be expected t o give.

In t h e l a t t e r p a r t of 1973,

t h e p r o g r a m was m o d i f i e d 'as a r e s u l t o f some r e s e a r c h t h a t

i n d i c a t e d t h a t s t a f f t i m e would be b e t t e r s p e n t i n o f f e r i n g a
g r o u p - o r i e n t e d program f o r s e l e c t e d youth.

Consequently, t h e

f o r m a t o f t h e p r o g r a m c h a n g e d and p a r t i c i p a n t s w e r e s o o n m e e t i n g
i n g r o u p s t h r e e t i m e s a week f o r v a r i o u s a c t i v i t i e s a r r a n g e d by
and w i t h program s t a f f .

S i n c e t h a t t i m e t h e program h a s c o n t i n -

ued t o work w i t h r e f e r r a l s u s i n g a g r o u p a c t i v i t y f o r m a t .

Program D e s c r i p t i o n
PURPOSE i s a v a i l a b l e t o y o u t h a g e d 1 3 - 1 7 , who l i v e i n
t h e F r a s e r R e g i o n a r e a , a n d who h a v e b e e n d e s c r i b e d by t h e
program l i t e r a t u r e a s a s o c i a Z i z e d .

While t h i s l a t t e r t e r m

h a s n o t been a d e q a u t e l y e x p l a i n e d i n t h e program's w r i t t e n
m a t e r i a l , i n p r a c t i c e i t h a s u s u a l l y b e e n t a k e n t o mean what
a n o t h e r program d e s c r i b e s a s :

" . . . y o u t h who t h r o u g h t h e i r

a t t i t u d e a n d b e h a v i o r i n d i c a t e a r e a l p o s s i b i l i t y o f some
f u t u r e involvement w i t h t h e j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e system.

114

blast p a r t i c i p a n t s a t t e n d t h e p r o g r a m on t h e b a s i s o f

a n i n f o r m a l c o n t r a c t , a l t h o u g h some may be d i r e c t e d t o a t t e n d
by a F a m i l y C o u r t j u d g e o r a p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e r .

Average l e n g t h

o f i n v o l v e m e n t i n t h e p r o g r a m i s b e t w e e n t h r e e and f o u r m o n t h s .
Data i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e a v e r a g e involvement f o r t h e r e c i d i v i s t
g r o u p was 3 . 6 8 m o n t h s a n d t h e n o n - r e c i d i v i s t g r o u p was 3 . 5
months.
Program l i t e r a t u r e d e s c r i b e s t h e p r o g r a m a s c o n s i s t i n g
of three l e v e l s :
1) A t t e n d a n c e C e n t e r L e v e l :

Participants attend the

program t h r e e t i m e s a week f o r g r o u p a c t i v i t i e s a n d i n d i v i d u a l
counselling.

The p r o g r a m a t t e m p t s t o i n v o l v e p a r t i c i p a n t s i n

p l a n n i n g group a c t i v i t i e s which i d e a l l y a r e t o be s e l e c t e d
e v e n l y from a r e a s s u c h a s r e c r e a t i o n , e d u c a t i o n , v o c a t i o n a l
t r a i n i n g , and community r e s o u r c e i n v o l v e m e n t .

A report pre-

s e n t e d i n February 1 9 7 5 , r e v e a l s t h a t an average of f i v e hours

i s s p e n t i n i n d i v i d u a l c o u n s e l l i n g and f i f t y - f i v e h o u r s a r e

s p e n t a s a g r o u p d u r i n g a month.

Despite the f a i r l y intensive

a n d v o l u n t a r y n a t u r e o f t h e p r o g r a m , s t a t i s t i c s show t h a t
average attendance i s seventy-seven percent.

The a v e r a g e

g r o u p s i z e d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d o f t h i s r e s e a r c h was s e v e n j u v e n i l e s , and t h r e e g r o u p s o f b o y s a n d o n e o f g i r l s w e r e u s u a l l y
o p e r a t i n g a t any g i v e n t i m e .

A s mentioned e a r l i e r , t h e average

l e n g t h o f t i m e i n t h e p r o g r a m was t h r e e and a h a l f months and

a p p e a r e d t o b e r e l a t e d t o f a l l , s p r i n g , and summer t i m e p e r i o d s .
2)

Detached Worker L e v e l : P a r t i c i p a n t s a r e i n v o l v e d

with a c o u n s e l l o r on a n i n d i v i d u a l b a s i s f o r a p e r i o d o f about
s i x weeks.

T h i s l e v e l was d e s i g n e d a s a f o l l o w - t h r o u g h t o t h e

a t t e n d a n c e l e v e l a n d was s e e n a s a way o f r e d u c i n g a y o u t h ' s

involvement i n t h e program.
3 ) V o l u n t e e r Sponsor L e v e l :

P a r t i c i p a n t s may c h o o s e

t o be i n v o l v e d w i t h a v o l u n t e e r from t h e community i n a Big

Brother type of r e l a t i o n s h i p .
I n a d d i t i o n a n e d u c a t i o n a l p r o g r a m was a d d e d t o PURPOSE
i n March o f 1 9 7 4 , when t h e Burnaby S c h o o l B o a r d a g r e e d t o p r o v i d e a t e a c h e r on a p a r t - t i m e b a s i s .

I n i t i a l l y , t h i s component

was t o be l i m i t e d t o a s s i s t i n g i n d i v i d u a l s r e - e n t e r s c h o o l and
h e l p i n g them a c q u i r e r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g s k i l l s s u f f i c i e n t t o
o b t a i n employment.

A s a r e s u l t o f a r e q u e s t made by t h e p r o g r a m ,

t h e t e a c h e r ' s t i m e was e x t e n d e d and a f u l l - t i m e p r o g r a m was

s t a r t e d i n J a n u a r y o f 1975.
While m o s t o f t h e m a t e r i a l on t h e p r o g r a m m e n t i o n s t h e
f o r e g o i n g l e v e l s , i t would a p p e a r t h a t i n p r a c t i c e t h e s t a g e s
o f i n v o l v e m e n t h a v e b e e n more c o n c e p t u a l t h a n r e a l .

For

i n s t a n c e , o v e r t h e t i m e p e r i o d d a t a was c o l l e c t e d f o r t h i s
r e s e a r c h almost no i n d i v i d u a l s were a s s i g n e d t o a v o l u n t e e r
s p o n s o r , a l t h o u g h i n f a i r n e s s it should be p o i n t e d o u t t h a t
most o f t h e j u v e n i l e s s a i d t h e y d i d n o t want o n e .

Also, t h e

d e t a c h e d l e v e l may b e s e e n t o be o p e r a t i n g f o r a much l o n g e r
t i m e p e r i o d t h a n s t a t e d , w i t h most i n d i v i d u a l s m a i n t a i n i n g
c o n t a c t w i t h t h e i r c o u n s e l l o r long a f t e r formal involvement
w i t h t h e program h a s t e r m i n a t e d .

blost o f t h e p r o g r a m e m p h a s i s

a p p e a r s t o h a v e b e e n p l a c e d on t h e a t t e n d a n c e l e v e l a n d w i t h
t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a n e d u c a t i o n a l p r o g r a m , i t h a s become
t

e v e n more p r o n o u n c e d .

I n summary, PURPOSE p r o v i d e s b o t h d i r e c t a n d i n d i r e c t
s e r v i c e s t o youth r e f e r r e d t o t h e program.
services include:

Some o f t h e d i r e c t

i n d i v i d u a l and g r o u p c o u n s e l l i n g , i n d i v i d u a l

and g r o u p a c t i v i t i e s , t u t o r i n g , and a s s i s t i n g y o u t h i n d e a l i n g
w i t h t e a c h e r s , p a r e n t s , and a u t h o r i t i e s .
services include:

Some o f t h e i n d i r e c t

a s s i s t i n g other agencies i n formulating

i n t e r v e n t i o n p l a n s , and p a r e n t s i n d e v i s i n g a l t e r n a t e r e l a t i o n a l
models.

Nost o f t h e c o u n s e l l i n g i s d i r e c t e d a t s i t u a t i o n a l

v a r i a b l e s , such a s problems between a y o u t h and h i s p a r e n t s o r

peers; youth with serious psychological d i f f i c u l t i e s a r e r e f e r red t o outside agencies f o r assistance.
Source of R e f e r r a l s
P r o b a t i o n o f f i c e r s and t h e C o u r t s a c c o u n t f o r t h e
m a j o r i t y o f r e f e r r a l s t o t h e program, a l t h o u g h r e f e r r a l s a r e
a l s o a c c e p t e d from s o c i a l w o r k e r s , t e a c h e r s , and i n some c a s e s
parents.

The p r o g r a m i s a l s o f a i r l y u n i q u e s i n c e i t i s o n e o f

t h e few e s s e n t i a l l y c o r r e c t i o n a l p r o g r a m s o p e r a t i n g i n t h e
province t h a t w i l l allow youth t o r e f e r themselves.

Program

s t a f f i n d i c a t e t h a t such a d i v e r s i f i e d r e f e r r a l system t e n d s
t o d i s c o u r a g e l a b e l l i n g and encourages i n t e r a c t i o n between
i n d i v i d u a l s h a v i n g s i m i l a r d i f f i c u l t i e s who a r e r e a c t i n g i n
d i f f e r e n t ways.

S u r p r i s i n g l y , l i t t l e concern about t h e f a c t

t h a t a number o f n o n - d e l i n q u e n t s a r e a s s o c i a t i n g w i t h d e l i n q u e n t s h a s b e e n e x p r e s s e d by a n y o f t h e s o u r c e s making r e f e r r a l s
t o t h e progf-am.

Program O b j e c t i v e s

The objectives of the program as outlined in a program

report, are as follows:
1) To help the young person find a meaningful place
for himself-herself in the community.
2) To involve the participant in the learning of
acceptable social interaction. This process involves
an active give and take relationship in the form of
instruction, demonstration, practice, and feedback.
3) To expose the participant to a variety of new
interests, activities, and human interaction, which
will motivate the youth to learn new approaches to
behavior.
4) To make youth responsible and accountable to
themselves and society for their behavior.
5) To make the program more than a "paper" community
intervention program by actually involving the total
community in such areas as, the Society itself, advisory
committee, resource people, and volunteers.
6) To translate the idea of an integrated service
delivery system into a practical, economic, and
humanistic reality.
7) To utilize existing community services and
structures in fulfilling program objectives and goals
rather than establishing a duplication. 5
Service Philosophy

The philosophy underlying the services the program

provides may be described as c o m m u n i t y i n t e r v e n t i o n , a term
that suggests that social problems in a community are best
dealt with in the community itself.

This particular agency's

attitude is more closely related to an opportunity model and

rather than seeing clients as in need of correction or punishment, staff see themselves as offering opportunities and
options to participants.
Defining Fe%tures

PURPOSE may be seen to have a number of defining

features that are relatively unique in comparison to most

offerings to such a target population:
First, client choice appears to play a considerable
Individuals
referred to the program have
-

part in the program.

considerable discertio; about whether or not to enter the

e

program and how long to stay.

Second, effort appears to be directed at involving
clients in their own rehabilitiation through involvement with
program planning, thus imparting a sense of belonging and
program ownership.
Third, all staff may be classed as paraprofessional,
having a fairly diverse educational background, ranging from
grade ten completion to some master's work in a completely
unrelated field.

None of the staff during the research period

had ever previously worked with juveniles in a correctional

setting.
Fourth, the program accepts referrals from more than
one or two government departments and permits referrals from
parents and the youth themselves.
Finally, it would appear that the program takes* a
v

trial-and-error approach in working with referrals rather

than operating in a standardized manner.

Given the current

"state of the art" in working with d e l i n q ~ e n t s , ~such a

heuristic approach may prove to be justified provided that
funding agencies
accept such a rationale.
6

PROCEDURES

I n i t s o r i g i n a l c o n c e p t i o n , t h i s r e s e a r c h was d e s i g n e d
t o generate t h e s i s data, but a l s o t o generate information t h a t
m i g h t h a v e p r a c t i c a l u t i l i t y f o r p r o g r a m management.

As a

c o n s e q u e n c e , i t was d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e t e s t s e l e c t e d would
be a d m i n i s t e r e d t o a l l p r o g r a m c l i e n t s a s p a r t o f t h e n o r m a l
intake process.

This n o t o n l y avoided s t i g m a t i z a t i o n of

individuals included i n the research study but has a l s o genera t e d a l a r g e r d a t a base f o r f u r t h e r s t u d y and comparison.
I n t h e i n i t i a l i m p l e m e n t a t i o n a l l t e s t i n g was a d m i n i s t e r e d by t h i s i n v e s t i g a t o r ; h o w e v e r , o v e r t i m e program
c o u n s e l l o r s were t r a i n e d t o a d m i n i s t e r t h e t e s t i n t h o s e c a s e s
w h e r e i t was i n c o n v e n i e n t f o r t h e r e s e a r c h e r t o do s o .

In

e i t h e r c i r c u m s t a n c e , p r o c e d u r e s were f o l l o w e d a s o u t l i n e d i n
t h e t e s t m a n u a l , and t o t a l t e s t i n g t i m e was u s u a l l y 1 5 t o 20
minutes.

The t e s t was u s u a l l y a d m i n i s t e r e d t o t h e j u v e n i l e

t h r e e o r f o u r d a y s a f t e r t h e j u v e n i l e h a d become i n v o l v e d i n
t h e p r o g r a m and some r e l a t i o n s h i p h a d been e s t a b l i s h e d w i t h
program s t a f f .

The p r i m a r y r e a s o n s g i v e n t o p a r t i c i p a n t s a s t o

why i t was n e c e s s a r y t o c o m p l e t e t h e t e s t w e r e :

a need t o c o l -

l e c t d a t a f o r p r e s e n t a t i o n t o s o u r c e s who f u n d t h e p r o g r a m , and
t o h e l p t h e p r o g r a m b e t t e r meet t h e i r p e r s o n a l n e e d s .

Par-

t i c i p a n t s w e r e a s s u r e d t h a t t e s t r e s u l t s would b e k e p t c o n f i d e n t i a l and t h e y were e n c o u r a g e d t o b e o p e n a n d h o n e s t i n t h e i r

replies.

Ov&r t h e s t u d y p e r i o d o n l y two i n d i v i d u a l s , b o t h o f

whom i n d i c a t e d f e a r o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l i n s t r u m e n t s , r e f u s e d t o

complete t h e t e s t .

In n e i t h e r instance d i d t h i s a f f e c t t h e i r

acceptance i n t o t h e program.
Individuals selected for inclusion i n t h i s investigation
were a l l male p a r t i c i p a n t s who c o m p l e t e d t h e f o r e g o i n g p r o c e d u r e
d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d F e b r u a r y 1, 1974 t o O c t o b e r 3 1 , 1976.

Program

r e c o r d s o f i n d i v i d u a l s m e e t i n g t h e c r i t e r i a were c h e c k e d a g a i n s t
juvenile offence records maintained a t t h e four juvenile prob a t i o n o f f i c e s i n F r a s e r Region.
An e i g h t e e n month f o l l o w - u p on e a c h o f t h e s e l e c t e d
s u b j e c t s was c o n d u c t e d a n d d e l i n q u e n t o f f e n c e d a t a was o b t a i n e d
o n c e a g a i n from t h e p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e s i n t h e R e g i o n .

Such a

f o l l o w - u p p e r i o d was deemed n e c e s s a r y i n l i g h t o f d a t a r e p o r t e d
by Manning ( 1 9 7 4 ) , who f o u n d t h a t t h e t i m e s p a n between r e p o r t e d
occurrences vary a s a function o f :

1) age a t t h e time of f i r s t

o c c u r r e n c e , 2 ) n a t u r e o f t h e f i r s t o c c u r r e n c e , and 3) d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e f i r s t o c ~ u r r e n c e . ~He f o u n d , f o r i n s t a n c e , t h a t
j u v e n i l e s who f i r s t o c c u r r e n c e was a t f i f t e e n t h a t t h e mean
i n t e r v a l f o r l a t t e r o f f e n c e s was 3 . 2 m o n t h s .

In t h e case of

j u v e n i l e s who h a d c o m m i t t e d t h e i r f i r s t o f f e n c e a t a youngerq
a g e , t h e i n t e r v a l was c o n s i d e r a b l y l o n g e r ; f o r e x a m p l e , y o u t h
who c o m m i t t e d t h e i r f i r s t o f f e n c e when t h e y w e r e e i g h t h a d a
mean i n t e r v a l o f 1 7 . 4 months f o r l a t t e r o f f e n c e s .

Thus, i n

order t o permit s u f f i c i e n t time f o r c o l l e c t i o n of offence

d a t a t h a t would a c c o u n t f o r a g e a n d o f f e n c e v a r i a t i o n , an
e i g h t e e n month f o l l o w - u p was i n s t i t u t e d .
*

THE MEASURING I N S T R U M E N T

As we noted in our review of the literature, the number

of self-concept scales and indices is vast and varied, and any
selection of an instrument for a study is to some extent
arbitrary.

In selecting an instrument for this investigation,

consideration was given to reliability, validity, norms, availability, convenience o f administration and scoring, and interpretability of results.

In light of these considerations, the

T e n n e s s e e S e l f C o n c e p t S c a l e (TSCS), developed by William

Fitts (1965), was deemed to be acceptable for the current study.

Other factors that made it suitable were:

1) the items included

in the scale could easily be understood by the subjects, 2) the

statements are clear and cover a large range of specific selfconcept dimensional areas, and 3) the scale can be administered
in one brief session, making it suitable for studying populations with short attention spans and interest.

This section

provides information on the TSCS as a measurement of selfconcept.

Description

The Tennessee Self Concept Scale is comprised of one

hundred self-descriptive statements which the subject uses to
describe himself.

Of the hundred items, ninety measure the

self-concept and are equally divided into forty-five positive

and forty-five negative statements in an attempt to minimize
*
a negative response orientation. These ninety items, when

p l a c e d i n o r d e r , form a m a t r i x w i t h t h r e e rows a n d f i v e c o l u m n s .
The rows a r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h how a s u b j e c t d e s c r i b e s h i m s e l f .
Row o n e o f t h i s m a t r i x c o n t a i n s i t e m s w h i c h p e r t a i n t o a n i n dividual's identity.

Row two d e a l s w i t h s e l f - s a t i s f a c t i o n , o r

how t h e i n d i v i d u a l a c c e p t s h i m s e l f .

Row t h r e e i s c o n c e r n e d w i t h

t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f h i s own b e h a v i o u r and f o c u s e s on

how he a c t s o r what h e d o e s .
The f i v e columns a r e t h e f r a m e s o f r e f e r e n c e t h a t a
person uses t o d e s c r i b e himself.
follows :

Column A

These r e f e r e n t s a r e a s

Physical Self

Column B - Moral E t h i c a l S e l f
Column C - S e n s e o f P e r s o n a l Worth
Column D - S e n s e o f Worth a s a F a m i l y Flember
Column E - S o c i a l S e l f
The r e m a i n i n g t e n t e s t i t e m s a r e u t i l i z e d s o l e l y f o r
t h e s e l f - c r i t i c i s m s c a l e , which i s a c t u a l l y t a k e n from t h e L
s c a l e o f t h e M i n n e s o t a M u l t i p h a s i c P e r s o n a l i t y I n v e n t o r y and
g i v e s a measure o f t r u t h f u l n e s s o f r e s p o n s e .
The sum o f t h e t h r e e rows e q u a l s t h e sum o f t h e f i v e
columns and r e s u l t s i n a P s c o r e , o r t h e s u b j e c t ' s t o t a l s e l f e s t e e m , and i s t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t s c a l e i n t h e i n v e n t o r y .
In addition, v a r i a b i l i t y o r V scores a r e calculated f o r
e a c h column a n d row, e x c l u d i n g t h e s e l f - c r i t i c i s m s c o r e s .

The

t o t a l v a r i a b i l i t y throughout t h e instrument i s used t o d e t e r mine u n i t y and i n t e g r a t i o n o f S e l f .

*
The i n s t r u m e n t a l s o p r o v i d e s d a t a c o n c e r n i n g a n o t h e r

a s p e c t o f s e l f p e r c e p t i o n t h r o u g h a summary s c o r e o f t h e way
one d i s t r i b u t e s h i s answers a c r o s s t h e f i v e a v a i l a b l e c h o i c e s
i n r e s p o n d i n g t o i t e m s on t h e s c a l e .

This provides a d i s t r i -

bution score (D).

The S c a l e h a s a p a p e r and p e n c i l f o r m , a n d i s s e l f s c o r i n g i n t h e s e n s e t h a t a l l answers a r e carboned through t o
the scoring matrix.
A c c o r d i n g t o r e s e a r c h c o n d u c t e d by F i t t s ( 1 9 6 5 ) , t h e
s c a l e is u s a b l e w i t h s u b j e c t s twelve y e a r s of age o r h i g h e r
who h a v e a c h i e v e d a t l e a s t t h e s i x t h g r a d e r e a d i n g l e v e l .

He

a l s o r e p o r t s t h a t t h e t e s t i s a p p l i c a b l e t o a whole r a n g e o f
p s y c h o l o g i c a l a d j u s t m e n t , from h e a l t h y w e l l - a d j u s t e d p e o p l e t o
psychotic p a t i e n t s .

Dependent on t h e s u b j e c t ' s d e l i b e r a t i o n ,

t e s t i n g t i m e f o r t h e s c a l e r a n g e s from t e n t o t w e n t y m i n u t e s ,
w i t h a r e p o r t e d mean t i m e o f t h i r t e e n m i n u t e s . 8
A l t h o u g h t h e s c a l e i s a v a i l a b l e i n two f o r m s , a c o u n s e l l i n g form and a c l i n i c a l and r e s e a r c h form, b o t h u s i n g t h e
same t e s t b o o k l e t a n d t e s t i t e m s , t h e r e s e a r c h e r c h o s e t h e
c o u n s e l l i n g f o r m , s i n c e i t c o u l d be shown t o t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s
i n a way t h a t t h e y c o u l d u n d e r s t a n d ; t h e c l i n i c a l a n d r e s e a r c h
form was deemed t o h a v e more a p p l i c a b i l i t y t o i n d e p t h p s y c h o pathological investigation.

Appendix I p r o v i d e s a d e t a i l e d

e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e m e a n i n g o f t e s t s u b s c a l e s and Appendix I 1
provides samples o f s p e c i f i c t e s t q u e s t i o n s .
Development df the Scale

Beginning i n 1955, F i t t s , then a r e s e a r c h p s y c h o l o g i s t

w i t h t h e Tennessee Department of blental H e a l t h , r e c o g n i z e d t h e

need f o r a b e t t e r s e l f - c o n c e p t s c a l e .

As a r e s u l t , he devoted

t h e n e x t t e n y e a r s t o t h e development a n d v a l i d a t i o n o f t h e
TSCS.

He d e s c r i b e s t h e t e s t ' s d e v e l o p m e n t i n t h e f o l l o w i n g

quotation:
I n t h e o r i g i n a l development o f t h e s c a l e t h e f i r s t
s t e p was t o c o m p i l e a l a r g e p o o l o f d a t a c o n c e r n i n g
s e l f - d e s c r i p t i v e i t e m s . The o r i g i n a l p o o l o f i t e m s
was d e r i v e d f r o m a number o f o t h e r c o n c e p t m e a s u r e s
i n c l u d i n g t h o s e developed by: B a l s t e r (1956), Engel
( l 9 5 6 ) , and T a y l o r ( 1 9 5 3 ) .
Items were d e r i v e d a l s o
from w r i t t e n s e l f d e s c r i p t i o n s by p a t i e n t s and n o n patients.
A f t e r c o n s i d e r a b l e s t u d y , a phenomenologi c a l s y s t e m was d e v e l o p e d f o r c l a s s i f y i n g i t e m s on
t h e b a s i s o f what t h e y t h e m s e l v e s w e r e s a y i n g . T h e s e
e v o l v e d i n t o t h e two d i m e n s i o n a l , 3 X 5 scheme employed
on t h e s c o r e s h e e t . T h i s p a r t o f t h e s c a l e c o n t a i n e d
90 i t e m s , e q u a l l y d i v i d e d a s t o p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e
items.
The r e m a i n i n g 10 i t e m s c o m p r i s e t h e s e l f
c r i t i c i s m s c o r e which were t a k e n from t h e &INPI. 9
The n e x t s t a g e o f t h e s c a l e ' s d e v e l o p m e n t came i n
1965 when, w i t h t h e TSCS e s t a b l i s h e d on a l i m i t e d s c a l e , o t h e r
r e s e a r c h e r s had t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o use i t i n t h e f i e l d .

Norms
TSCS norms w e r e o r i g i n a l l y d e v e l o p e d from a b r o a d
s a m p l e o f 626 s u b j e c t s from g e o g r a p h i c a l l o c a t i o n s t h r o u g h o u t
t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , w i t h a g e r a n g e s from 1 2 t o 6 8 .

T h i s norming

g r o u p i n c l u d e d e q u a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f m a l e s and f e m a l e s ; e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l s f r o m t h e s i x t h g r a d 2 t o PhD w e r e r e p r e s e n t e d .
The n o r m a t i v e d a t a f o r a l l m a j o r t e s t s c o r e s a r e
r e p o r t e d i n A p p e n d i x 111.
I n tHe o r i g i n a l m a n u a l , F i t t s ( 1 9 6 5 ) c i t e s d a t a c o l l e c t e d

by Suby ( 1 9 6 2 ) , G i v i d e n ( 1 9 5 9 ) , a n d H a l l ( 1 9 6 4 ) , t o show t h a t
n o n e e d e x i s t s t o e s t a b l i s h s e p a r a t e norms b y a g e , r a c e , o r
sex.

However, i n t h e y e a r s s i n c e t h e p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h e TSCS

a number o f s t u d i e s h a v e f o u n d d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s .

In general

w h i l e most o f t h e s t u d i e s s u b s t a n t i a t e t h e v i e w t h a t t h e r e i s
a high degree of c o n s i s t e n c y of samples w i t h i n a p a r t i c u l a r
age group10, socio-economic level1',
level1',

and e d u c a t i o n a l g r a d e

some d i f f e r e n c e s on t h e s e v a r i a b l e s h a v e b e e n f o u n d

using s e l e c t e d samples.

These f i n d i n g s i m p l y s u c h v a r i a b l e s

s h o u l d be c o n t r o l l e d i n s t u d i e s u s i n g t h e t e s t .

Control i n the

p r e s e n t s t u d y was a c h i e v e d by r e s t r i c t i n g t h e r e s e a r c h t o a
specific subset of the adolescent population, l i v i n g i n the
same g e n e r a l a r e a , w i t h s i m i l a r e d u c a t i o n a l b a c k g r o u n d s .

Indivi-

d u a l f l u c t u a t i o n s a r e assumed t o b e e q u a l l y o f f s e t t i n g .

Reliability and Validity

F i t t s (1965) s u g g e s t s e v i d e n c e o f t h e r e l i a b i l i t y of t h e
TSCS i s f o u n d i n t h e s i m i l a r i t y o f p r o f i l e p a t t e r n s f o u n d t h r o u g h
r e p e a t e d m e a s u r e s o f t h e same i n d i v i d u a l s o v e r l o n g p e r i o d s o f
t i m e .l 3

C r o n b a c h ( 1 9 6 0 ) s u g g e s t s a m o r e e x t e n s i v e a p p r o a c h , and

p o s i t s t h a t a t e s t may b e v a l i d a t e d o n t h e b a s i s o f :
tive validity

1) predic-

t h e a b i l i t y of a measure t o p r e d i c t future per-

f o r m a n c e i n some a r e a b a s e d on t h e k n o w l e d g e o f t e s t r e s u l t s ; 2 )
concurrent v a l i d i t y

c o r r e l a t i o n d e t e r m i n e d by o b t a i n i n g e s t i -

m a t e s o f p e r f o r m a n c e from a t l e a s t t w o i n s t r u m e n t s a t t h e same
t i m e ; 3) c o n t e n t v a l i d i t y - r e q u i r e t e s t i t e m s t o be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f s u b j e c t m a t t e r t h e t e s t i s d e s i g n e d t o measure; and

4) c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y - t h e c o n c e p t s o f t h e t e s t may b e t e s t e d
on i d e n t i f i e d p e r s o n a l i t y d i s o r d e r e d g r o u p s t o d e t e r m i n e i f
t h e g r o u p s a r e homogenous a n d show t h e same c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
Examining e a c h o f t h e s e c a t e g o r i e s i n t u r n , we f i n d :

i ) P r e d i c t i v e Validity

F i t t s ( 1 9 7 2 ) c i t e s s t u d i e s by

Smith (1969) a n d F r a n k e l ( 1 9 7 0 ) t h a t i n d i c a t e t h e TSCS's p r e dictive validity.

Smith ( 1 9 6 9 ) i n a s t u d y w i t h v i s u a l l y i m -

p a i r e d c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s found t h a t i n i t i a l s e l f - c o n c e p t , a s
m e a s u r e d by t h e TSCS, was a k e y i n p r e d i c t i n g w h e t h e r s u b j e c t s
p e r s i s t e d o r dropped o u t of t r a i n i n g .

Similar results are re-

p o r t e d by F r a n k e l ( 1 9 7 0 ) , who f o u n d t h a t when t h e TSCS was

introduced a s a c r i t e r i o n i n selecting paratroops f o r I s r a e l
t h a t t h e number o f d r o p - o u t s r e d u c e d .

I n a d d i t i o n , B l a c k (1976)

n o t e s t h a t i n t h e o r i g i n a l development o f t h e t e s t , s c o r e s
were used t o p r e d i c t p e r s o n a l i t y changes under p a r t i c u l a r conditions.

R e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t 765 o f 1110 s c o r e c h a n g e s

had been s u c c e s s f u l l y p r e d i c t e d , c o n s t i t u t i n g a d d i t i o n a l e v i dence f o r t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e instrument.

i i ) Concurrent Validity - C h r i s t i a n (1969) c o r r e l a t e d

n i n e TSCS m e a s u r e s w i t h f i v e i n d i c e s o f p h y s i c a l f i t n e s s ; i n
t h r e e o f t h e f i v e c a s e s t h e measures were c o r r e l a t e d w i t h t h e
14
physical s e l f score.
However, ' W y l i e ( 1 9 7 4 ) n o t e s t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e TSCS a n d o t h e r m e a s u r e s a r e n o t t o o e n couraging.

She c i t e s a s t u d y b y Wayne ( 1 9 6 3 ) who f o u n d a . 6 8

c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e TSCS a n d I z a r d ' s S e l f R a t i n g P o s i t i v e
*
A f f e c t S c a l e , a n d Rentz a n d W h i t e ' s ( 1 9 6 7 ) s t u d y t h a t f o u n d

.*

o n l y one o u t o f t w e n t y - f o u r m e a s u r e s l o a d e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y on
t h e f i r s t f a c t o r o f t h e TSCS.

I n c o n t r a s t , B l a c k (1976) r e p o r t s

t h a t t h e TSCS i s h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d t o i t e m s i n t h e Edwards P e r sonal Preference Schedule.

i i i ) C o n t e n t Validity - In t h e development of t h e s c a l e ,
a n i t e m was r e t a i n e d o n l y i f t h e r e was unanimous a g r e e m e n t by
e i g h t s e l e c t e d j u d g e s t h a t i t was a s s i g n e d t o t h e c o r r e c t c a t e gory.

Thus, t h e requirement t h a t t h e t e s t i t e m s be l o g i c a l l y

m e a n i n g f u l was met i n t h e o r i g i n a l t e s t c o n s t r u c t i o n .

i v ) C o n s t r u c t V a l i d i t y - George ( 1 9 7 0 ) a s k e d s u b j e c t s
t o r e s p o n d t o t h e t e s t i n t e r m s o f what t h e y would l i k e t o be
r a t h e r t h a n t h e way t h e y w e r e .

A n a l y s i s showed t h a t s e l f -

c r i t i c i s m d r o p p e d o n e s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n and d e f e n s i v e p o s i t i v e n e s s i n c r e a s e d by t h e same amount.

This r e s u l t suggests t h a t

t e s t scores are sensitive t o distortion.

In addition t o the

George ( 1 9 7 0 ) s t u d y , a number o f o t h e r s t u d i e s a r e r e v i e w e d by
F i t t s ( 1 9 7 2 ) and F i t t s a n d Thompson ( 1 9 7 2 ) t h a t a l l d e m o n s t r a t e
t h a t s i m i l a r g r o u p s c l a s s i f i e d by d e v i a n t p s y c h o l o g i c a l b e h a v i o u r
a l l show s i m i l a r TSCS c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a n d p r o f i l e s .
I n f a c t o r a n a l y t i c s t u d i e s o f t h e TSCS, r e s e a r c h e r s
s u c h a s V a c c h i a n o a n d S t r a u s s (1968) and V i n c e n t (1968) a r e
c i t e d by B l a c k (1976) a s g e n e r a l l y s u p p o r t i n g t h e c o n s t r u c t
v a l i d i t y o f t h e TSCS.
DATA ANALYS I S
e

The s t a t i s t i c a l t e c h n i q u e s u s e d i n t h e a n a l y s i s o f t h e

data involved both nonparametric and parametric approaches.

Specific statistical tools employed included:

means, standard

deviations, comparative t-tests, and discriminant function

analysis.
T-tests were utilized for comparison between the recidivist and non-recidivist groups on specific dimensions of
self -concept as measured by the TSCS.
Discriminant function analysis permitted the TSCS to
be considered according to those variables on the test that
would result in maximal separation (in relation to their pooled
standard deviations) of the recidivist and non-recidivist
groups.

Predictive classification results were obtained from

the procedure and are reported in Chapter IV.

In recognition of a controversy in the literature concerning the appropriateness of the use of such significance
tests, actual significance levels are reported in the results
and a two-tailed versus a one-tailed level of significance was
required for acceptance of hypotheses. 15
Data was coded and the Statistical Package for Social
Sciences computer program was utilized for both the comparative
t-tests and the discriminant function analysis.
In addition to comparing the TSCS data for the total
population of recidivists and non-recidivists, independent
analyses of the two groups were made according to the four
original type o f delinquent offenders referred to the program:
C

Social Worker referrals, Probation Officer Enquiry referrals,

d e l i n q u e n t f i r s t o f f e n d e r s , and d e l i n q u e n t s c o n v i c t e d o f more
t h a n one p r e v i o u s o f f e n c e .
The . 0 5 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e was c h o s e n a s t h e r e g i o n
of rejection f o r the n u l l hypothesis.
SUMMARY

I n t h i s c h a p t e r t h e methods and p r o c e d u r e s u s e d i n t h e
s t u d y have been p r e s e n t e d .

The s t u d y p o p u l a t i o n was e x a m i n e d

and t h e s o c i a l a g e n c y s e l e c t e d a s t h e s e t t i n g f o r t h e s t u d y was
described.

The p r o c e d u r e s u s e d i n c o l l e c t i n g t h e d a t a were

o u t l i n e d a n d a n o v e r v i e w o f t h e T e n n e s s e e S e l f Concept S c a l e
was p r o v i d e d .

F i n a l l y , t h e s t a t i s t i c a l t e c h n i q u e s employed

i n t h e a n a l y s i s o f t h e d a t a were n o t e d .
The r e s u l t s o f t h e r e s e a r c h a r e p r e s e n t e d i n t h e
following chapter.

REFERENCES TO CHAPTER I 1 1

'P . u . R . P . o . s . E .
: P r o b a t i o n a r y Understanding and
Realignment t o P u r p o s e f u l l y O r i e n t e d S o c i e t a l Endeavors.
2

s e e f o r i n s t a n c e , W . Z a r c h i k o f f a n d J . Crew, A
D e s c r i p t i v e and E v a l u a t i v e A s s e s s m e n t o f Y o u t h A t t e n d a n c e Cent r e s i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a : An A l t e r n a t i v e t o I n c a r c e r a t i o n ,
G r a n t Number 2 5 1 6 9 - 1 - 5 5 , F e d e r a l D e p a r t m e n t o f N a t i o n a l H e a l t h
and W e l f a r e , O f f i c e o f W e l f a r e G r a n t s D i r e c t o r a t e , O t t a w a ,
1975; a l s o , T . L a j e u n e s s e , "Diversion - A Survey", J u s t i c e
P l a n n i n g and R e s e a r c h , D e p a r t m e n t o f t h e A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l ,
V i c t o r i a , B . C . , u n d a t e d ; a l s o , "Local D i v e r s i o n Programs",
T r a i n i n g a n d E d u c a t i o n Group, J u s t i c e Development Commission,
Department o f t h e A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l , V i c t o r i a , B . C . , u n d a t e d .
3

s e e , W.

Z a r c h i k o f f a n d J . Crew, i b i d .

Final Report:
C l u s t e r Evaluation o f Five Delinquency
Diversion P r o j e c t s , C a l i f o r n i a Taxpayers' A s s o c i a t i o n ,
S a c r a m e n t o , C a l i f o r n i a , 1 9 7 5 , p . 25.
'FCRS - A R e p o r t , F r a s e r C o r r e c t i o n a l Resources S o c i e t y ,
Burnaby, B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1 9 7 5 , p . 1 2 .

f o r a r e c e n t r e v i e w s e e f o r i n s t a n c e , D . Flann, I n t e r v e n i n g w i t h C o n v i c t e d S e r i o u s J u v e n i l e O f f e n d e r s , (Washington:
Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1 9 7 6 ) .
The J u v e n i l e S e r v i c e s
7 c i t e d i n J. Byles, Final Report:
P r o j e c t , G r a n t Number 2 5 5 5 - 5 5 - 1 , O f f i c e o f W e l f a r e G r a n t s
~ i r e c t o r a t e ,D e p a r t m e n t o f N a t i o n a l H e a l t h a n d W e l f a r e , O t t a w a ,
1977.
8 ~ F
. i t t s , Manual f o r

(Nashville :

'w.

t h e Tennessee S e l f Concept S c a l e ,
C o u n s e l o r R e c o r d i n g s and T e s t s , 1 9 6 5 ) p . 1.

F i t t s , i b i d . , p . 1.

number o f s t u d i e s have r e p o r t e d o n TSCS a g e norrnative data.

F o r e x a m p l e , Wendland ( 1 9 6 8 ) , G o d f r e y ( 1 9 7 1 ) , Walton
(1971) a n d L o s s n e r ( 1 9 7 1 ) a l l f o u n d s e l f - c o n c e p t p r o f i l e s c o n Other s t u d i e s conducted on:
s i s t e n t among h i g h s c h o o l s t u d e n t s .
c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s , Wagner and F i t t s ( 1 9 6 9 ) , T e d e s c o ( 1 9 6 9 ) ;
a d u l t s , F i t t s a n d S t e w a r t ( 1 9 6 9 ) ; e l d e r l y p e o p l e , Postema ( 1 9 7 0 ) ;
have found t h a t w h i l e s e l f - c o n c e p t s c o r e s a p p e a r t o i n c r e a s e
w i t h a g e , t h i s i s a c c o u n t e d f o r by a p r o p o r t i o n a t e d e c r e a s e i n
s c o r e s on t h e s e l f - c r i t i c i s m s c a l e . A l l o f t h e s e aforementioned
s t u d i e s may Be f o u n d i n W . Thompson, C o r r e l a t e s o f t h e S e l f Concept, ( N a s h v i l l e :
Counselor Recordings and T e s t s , 1972).

l l F i t t s ( 1 9 7 1 , 1 9 7 2 ) and Thompson (1972) c i t e s t u d i e s

c o n d u c t e d by Gordon ( l 9 6 6 ) , b l i t c h e l l ( l 9 6 7 ) , Morgan ( l 9 7 O ) ,
P e a r s o n ( 1 9 6 9 ) , and R e n b a r g e r (1969) t h a t c o n c l u d e l o w e r s o c i o economic g r o u p s t e n d t o h a v e s i g n i f i c a n t l y l o w e r s e l f - c o n c e p t s
than higher socio-economic groups, i n c r e a s i n g a s a f u n c t i o n of
a g e and p e r c e i v e d d i s a d v a n t a g e m e n t . One m a j o r f a i l i n g o f t h e i r
r e s e a r c h i s t h e f a c t t h a t s u b j e c t s t e n d e d t o be c h o s e n from
h i g h d e n s i t y low s t a n d a r d h o u s i n g p r o j e c t s , p o s s i b l y i n f l u e n c i n g
t h e outcome.
1 2 ~ i t t (s1 9 7 2 ) c i t e s s t u d i e s c o n d u c t e d by A t c h i s o n
( 1 9 5 8 ) , D e i t c h e ( l g S g ) , Gay ( 1 9 6 6 ) , and Warner (1969) t h a t h a v e
c o n c l u d e d t h a t c h a n g e s i n TSCS s c o r e s a s a f u n c t i o n o f e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l a n d s t a t u s i s l i k e l y due t o d i f f e r e n c e s i n
a g e and m a t u r a t i o n a l l e v e l s . He c o n c l u d e s t h a t t h e r e i s s t i l l
no d e f i n i t i v e a n s w e r r e g a r d i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n s e l f concept and e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l .

1 3 F o r t h e r e a d e r who w i s h e s t o c o n s i d e r t h e i s s u e o f t h e
t e s t ' s r e l i a b i l i t y i n more d e t a i l , W . F i t t s e t a l . , The S e l f C o n c e p t and S e l f A c t u a l i z a t i o n , ( N a s h v i l l e :
Counselor Recordi n g s a n d T e s t s , 1 9 7 1 ) p p . 4 6 - 6 6 , i s p a r t i c ~ l l a r l yrecommended.
1 4 c i t e d i n , l\i. F i t t s , The S e l f C o n c e p t and P s y c h o p a t h o l o g y
Dede W a l l a c e C e n t e r , Monograph 4 , ( N a s h v i l l e : C o u n s e l o r R e c o r d i n g s and T e s t s , 1972) p. 116.

or

a more d e t a i l e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e c o n t r o v e r s y
c o n c e r n i n g t e s t s o f s i g n i f i c a n c e , s e e f o r e x a m p l e , D. E .
M o r r i s o n a n d R . E . H e n k e l , e d s . , The S i g n i f i c a n c e T e s t Cont2.ov e r s y , ( C h i c a g o : A l d i n e Pub. Co., 1 9 7 0 ) , and P . E . b l e e h l , "...
S i r Ronald and t h e Slow P r o g r e s s o f S o f t P s y c h o l o g y " , J o u r n a l
o f C o n s u l t i n g a n d C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 46 ( 4 ) , p p . 8 0 6 - 8 3 4 .
M o r r i s o n a n d H e n k e l b a s i c a l l y q u e s t i o n Tlie g e n e r a l u t i l i t y o f
t h e t e s t s and s u g g e s t t h e y p r o v i d e n e i t h e r n e c e s s a r y n o r
s u f f i c i e n t s c o p e n o r t h e t y p e o f knowledge t h a t b a s i c s o c i a l
science research requires.
In terms of s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l s ,
they encourage r e s e a r c h e r s t o r e p o r t l e v e l s of p r o b a b i l i t y
of sampling e r r o r r a t h e r than using a r b i t r a r y l e v e l s .
In the
same work , a n a r t i c l e by D . Bakan ( 1 9 6 7 ) r e v i e w s t h e t e s t
o f s i g n i f i c a n c e i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h and s u g g e s t s t h e
t e s t has limited appropriateness.
He a r g u e s t h a t s t a t i s t i c a l
p r o c e d u r e s s h o u l d n o t b e a l l o w e d t o become s u b s t i t u t e s i n s t e a d
of a i d s t o t h o u g h t , and t h a t r e s e a r c h e r s should r e t u r n t o
common s e n s e . He c o n c l u d e s t h a t p s y c h o l o g i s t s must g e t on w i t h
the business of generating appropriate hypotheses, r a t h e r than
c o n d u c t i n g a n y number o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n s w h e r e we h a v e e v e r y
r e a s o n t o s u p p o s e what t h e r e s u l t s w i l l b e b e f o r e we b e g i n .
I n h i s a r t i c l e , Meehl makes s i m i l a r comments and a s a p r e s c r i p t i o n o f f e r s t o n s i s t e n c y t e s t i n g , a p r o c e d u r e he o u t l i n e s a s :
W h e r e v e r p o s s i b l e t w o o r more n o n r e d u n d a n t e s t i m a t e s o f t h e .

..

same t h e o r e t i c a l q u a n t i t y s h o u l d b e m a d e , b e c a u s e m u l t i p l e
approximations
a r e a l w a y s more v a l u a b l e , p r o v i d e d t h a t
met7zods o f s e t t i n g p e r m i s s i b l e t o l e r a n c e s e x i s t . . . " .
However,

...

he admits that the possibility o f using consistency tests

is problematic and exact procedures have yet to be derived.

CHAPTER I V
RESULTS

INTRODUCTION

The p r e s e n t c h a p t e r p r e s e n t s a n a n a l y s i s o f r e s u l t s o f
the study's data.
separate sections:

F o r c l a r i t y , f i n d i n g s a r e r e p o r t e d i n two
a ) P a r t One examines d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n

r e c i d i v i s t s and n o n - r e c i d i v i s t s on d i m e n s i o n s o f s e l f - c o n c e p t
a s m e a s u r e d by t h e TSCS; b ) P a r t Two d e m o n s t r a t e s t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e TSCS i n b e i n g a b l e t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e t h e two
groups w i t h a p p l i c a t i o n o f d i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t i o n a n a l y s i s .
P a r t One d e a l s w i t h t h e major f i n d i n g s i n v o l v e d i n
t e s t i n g t h e hypotheses e a r l i e r s t a t e d i n Chapter I .

Data i s

o r g a n i z e d i n o r d e r o f e a c h o f t h e h y p o t h e s e s b e i n g t e s t e d , and
s e p a r a t e c o r r e s p o n d i n g t a b l e s and f i g u r e s a r e g i v e n t o i l l u s t r a t e
the results.

C o m p a r i s o n s a r e between 6 7 PURPOSE c l i e n t s who

were c l a s s i f i e d a s r e c i d i v i s t s d u r i n g t h e f o l l o w - u p p e r i o d and
7 2 who w e r e n o t .

I n a d d i t i o n t o comparing t h e TSCS d a t a f o r t h e

f o r e g o i n g p o p u l a t i o n o f r e c i d i v i s t s and n o n - r e c i d i v i s t s , i n d e p e n d e n t b e t w e e n - g r o u p a n a l y s e s a r e shown f o r e a c h o f t h e f o u r
t y p e s o f j u v e n i l e s d i f f e r e n t i a t e d i n C h a p t e r 111:

S o c i a l Worker

o r M i n i s t r y o f Human R e s o u r c e s r e f e r r a l s ; P r o b a t i o n O f f i c e r Enq u i r y r e f e r r a l s ; d e l i n q u e n t f i r s t o f f e n d e r s ; and d e l i n q u e n t s

c o n v i c t e d of,more t h a n one p r e v i o u s o f f e n c e .
P a r t Two r e p o r t s t h e r e s u l t s o f a n a p p l i c a t i o n o f a

d i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t i o n a n a l y s i s on t h e TSCS d a t a g e n e r a t e d f o r
t h e r e c i d i v i s t and n o n - r e c i d i v i s t groups.

A s i n P a r t One, i n -

d e p e n d e n t b e t w e e n - g r o u p a n a l y s e s a r e a l s o shown f o r t h e f o u r
t y p e s o f j u v e n i l e s o r i g i n a l l y r e f e r r e d t o t h e program:

Human

R e s o u r c e s r e f e r r a l s ( h e r e a f t e r c i t e d a s HR), P r o b a t i o n O f f i c e r
E n q u i r y r e f e r r a l s ( h e r e a f t e r c i t e d a s POE), d e l i n q u e n t f i r s t
o f f e n d e r s ( h e r e a f t e r c i t e d a t J . D . l s t ) , and d e l i n q u e n t s c o n v i c t e d
o f more t h a n o n e p r e v i o u s o f f e n c e ( h e r e a f t e r c i t e d a s J . D .

X 2).

D i s c r i m i n a n t s c o r e s a s w e l l a s r e s u l t s from a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n
a n a l y s i s u s i n g t h e d e r i v e d c o e f f i c i e n t s a r e shown.

Such an

a p p r o a c h p e r m i t s u s t o examine t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e TSCS i n
d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g b e t w e e n r e c i d i v i s t and n o n - r e c i d i v i s t program
c l i e n t s a n d may a l l o w p r e d i c t i v e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n c r i t e r i a t o be
developed f o r f u r t h e r t e s t i n g .
The c o n c l u s i o n s and recommendations r e s u l t i n g from t h e
s t u d y a r e d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter V.
PART ONE

The TSCS d a t a f o r t h e r e c i d i v i s t a n d n o n - r e c i d i v i s t
c l i e n t s a r e r e p o r t e d i n T a b l e 1 and shown g r a p h i c a l l y i n F i g u r e
2.

The more s p e c i f i c a s p e c t s o f t h e d a t a , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e

r e l e v a n t h y p o t h e s e s , a r e p r e s e n t e d below:

H y p o t h e s i s 1. - N o n - r e c i d i v i s t s will o b t a i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r
m e a n s c o r e s t h a n r e c i d i v i s t s w h e n c l a s s i f i e d by t h e i r overall
conceDt o f self.
A s T a b l e 1 s h o w s , n o n - r e c i d i v i s t s o b t a i n e d a mean s c o r e

o f 3 1 2 . 3 1 w i t h a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f 3 5 . 9 2 , compared t o t h e
r e c i d i v i s t s who o b t a i n e d a mean s c o r e o f 3 0 0 . 1 3 a n d a s t a n d a r d
d e v i a t i o n of 31.39.

Analysis resulted i n a t - s c o r e of 2.12

b e i n g o b t a i n e d , w h i c h was s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e . 0 5 l e v e l .

Thus,

h y p o t h e s i s 1 was s u s t a i n e d .
Hypothesis 2.

Non-recidivists w i l l obtain significantly higher

mean s c o r e s t h a n r e c i d i v i s t s w h e n c l a s s i f i e d b y t h e i r b a s i c
i d e n t i t y o f s elf.

A s T a b l e 1 s h o w s , n o n - r e c i d i v i s t s o b t a i n e d a mean s c o r e
o f 1 0 8 . 4 4 w i t h a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f 1 3 . 0 3 , compared t o t h e
r e c i d i v i s t s who o b t a i n e d a mean s c o r e o f 1 0 5 . 4 3 a n d a s t a n d a r d
deviation of 13.68.

Analysis r e s u l t e d i n a t - s c o r e of 1.33,

w h i c h was j u d g e d n o t t o b e s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e . 0 5 l e v e l .

Thus,

w h i l e t h e mean o f t h e n o n - r e c i d i v i s t s was h i g h e r t h a n t h e r e c i d i v i s t s , t h i s d i f f e r e n c e was n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e h y pothesis.

H y p o t h e s i s 3.

- Non-recidivists w i l l obtain significantly higher

mean s c o r e s t h a n r e c i d i v i s t s when c l a s s i f i e d

by t h e i r s e l f -

satisfaction with t h e i r basic identity.

A s t h e T a b l e 1, R 2 s c o r e s s h o w , n o n - r e c i d i v i s t s o b t a i n e d
a mean s c o r e o f 1 0 5 . 8 2 w i t h a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f 1 5 . 6 5 , comp a r e d t o t h e r e c i d i v i s t s who o b t a i n e d a mean s c o r e o f 9 9 . 4 8 and
a s t a n d a r d d c ~ r i a t i o no f 1 3 . 8 5 .

Analysis resulted i n a t-score

o f 2 . 5 3 b e i n s o b t a i n e d , w h i c h was s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e . 0 5 l e v e l .
T h u s , t h e t h i r d h y p o t h e s i s was s u s t a i n e d .

TABLE 1
SUMMARY TSCS DATA F O R COMPARISON OF
DELINQUENT RECIDIVISTS (N=67) VERSUS NON-RECIDIVISTS (N=72)
Variable Non-Recidivists
Mean
S.D.

Recidivists
Mean
S.D. -

t-score prob. sign.

2-tail

TP

.05

R1

N. S.

R2

.05

R3

N.S.

Col. A

.05

Col. B

N.S.

Col. C

N.S.

Col. D

.05

Col. E

.05

SC

N.S.

N.S.

TV

N. S.

RV

N.S.

cv

N.S.

PROFILE SHEET

Counseling F o r m

T e n n e s s e e Self C o n c e p t Scale
SCWPL GPAU

.U

SCX
Y

SCORE

PERCENTILE
SCORES

POSITIVE SCORES (SELF ESTEEM)

SELF
CRITICISM

DATC

COL.
OTAL

..-

450

--A40

---9C-

--

-43C--

420

Delinquent Recidivists ( N
Delinquent Non-Recids. ( N

.
i

,,,.

,,.,T

,*.

67 )

72 )

----

"-

C O L ~ H S C L O RR L C C R D I N G S A N D T E S T S
C

~ CICI
X

ACKLCH S T A .

h l S H V I L L E . T L N N 37112

H y p o t h e s i s 4.

Non-recidivists w i l l obtain significantly higher

mean s c o r e s t h a n r e c i d i v i s t s when c l a s s i f i e d b y t h e i r c o n c e p t
o f t h e i r behaviour.

As the Table 1, R3 scores show, non-recidivists obtained

a mean score of 98.01 with a standard deviation of 12.34, compared to the recidivists ~ h obtained
o
a mean score of 95.12 and
a standard deviation of 10.35.

Analysis resulted in a t-score

of 1.49 which was judged to not be significant at the .05 level.

Thus, while the mean of the non-recidivists was higher than the
recidivists, this difference was not sufficient to support the
hypothesis.
Hypothesis 5.

- -.N o n - r e cidivists w i l l obtain significantly higher

mean s c o r e s t h a n r e c i d i v i s t s when c l a s s i f i e d b y t h e i r c o n c e p t
o f t h e i r physical self.

As the Table 1, Col. A scores show, non-recidivists

obtained a mean score of 66.44 with a standard deviation of
8.43, compared to the recidivists who obtained a mean score of
62.79 and a standard deviation of 9.99.

Analysis resulted in

a t-score of 2.33, which was judged as significant at the .05

level.

Thus, hypothesis 5 was sustained.

Non-recidivists w i l l obtain significantly

higher

mean s c o r e s t h a n r e c i d i v i s t s w h e n c l a s s i f i e d b y t h e i r c o n c e p t
o f t h e i r morals and e t h i c s .

As the Table 1 , Col. B scores show, non-recidivists

obtained a mean score of 58.62 with a standard deviation of

7.52, compared to the recidivists who obtained a mean score of

56.70 and a standard deviation of 7.99.

Analysis resulted in

a t-score of 1.46 which was judged as not significant at the

.05 level.

Thus, while the mean of the non-recidivists was

higher than the recidivists, this difference was not sufficient

to support the hypo thesis.
H y p o t h e s i s 7. - N o n - r e c i d i v i s t s w i l l o b t a i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r
mean s c o r e s t h a n r e c i d i v i s t s when c l a s s i f i e d b y t h e i r s e n s e o f
personal worth.

As the Table 1, Col. C scores show, non-recidivists

obtained a mean score of 61.85 with a standard deviation of
9.06, compared to the recidivists who obtained a mean score of
59.88 and a standard deviation of 9.46.

Analysis resulted in

a t-score of 1.25, which was judged as not significant at the

.05 level.

Thus, while the mean of the non-recidivists was

higher than the recidivists, this difference was not sufficient

to support the hypothesis.
H y p o t h e s i s 8.

Non-recidivists w i l l obtain significantly higher

mean s c o r e s t h a n r e c i d i v i s t s w h e n c l a s s i f i e d b y t h e i r c o n c e p t
o f their social self.

As the Table 1 , Col. D scores show, non-recidivists

obtained a mean score of 61.47 with a standard deviation of
10.83, con~pared to the recidivists who obtained a mean score
of 56.97 and a standard deviation of 10.73.

Analysis resulted

in a t-score of 2.46, which was significant at the .05 level.

Thus, hypothesis 8 was sustained.

H y p o t h e s i s 9.

Non-recidivists w i l l obtain significantly higher

mean s c o r e s t h a n r e c i d i v i s t s when c l a s s i f i e d by t h e i r c o n c e p t
of t h e i r family s e l f .
A s t h e T a b l e 1 , C o l . E s c o r e s show, n o n - r e c i d i v i s t s
o b t a i n e d a mean s c o r e o f 6 3 . 1 9 w i t h a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f
8 . 2 3 , compared t o t h e r e c i d i v i s t s who o b t a i n e d a mean s c o r e
o f 5 9 . 9 1 and a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f 9 . 3 3 .

Analysis resulted

i n a t - s c o r e o f 2 . 1 9 , w h i c h was s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e . 0 5 l e v e l .
Thus, h y p o t h e s i s 9 was s u s t a i n e d .
I t i s p e r t i n e n t t o n o t e t h a t no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s
were f o u n d b e t w e e n t h e two g r o u p s on t h e t e s t d i m e n s i o n s o f :
t r u t h f u l n e s s o f r e s p o n s e (SC) ; d e f i n i t e n e s s o f s e l f ( D ) ; o r
t h e v a r i a b i l i t y s c o r e s (TV, R V , C V ) .
F i g u r e 2 shows SC s c o r e s a r e a c t u a l l y w i t h i n t h e r a n g e
o f t h e n o r m a l p o p u l a t i o n and t h a t s u b j e c t s t e n d e d t o b e q u i t e
honest.

Low s c o r e s would h a v e i n d i c a t e d d e f e n s i v e n e s s and

may h a v e a r t i f i c i a l l y e l e v a t e d t e s t s c o r e s , making c o m p a r i s o n s
between t h e g r o u p s d i f f i c u l t .
The s i m i l a r i t y o f t h e D s c o r e s f o r b o t h g r o u p s shows
t h a t s u b j e c t s d i s t r i b u t e d answers a c r o s s c h o i c e items o f t h e
s c a l e i n a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h e same manner.

While t h e low s c o r e s

i n d i c a t e d t h a t s u b j e c t s w e r e n o t t o o d e f i n i t e i n t h e way t h a t
t h e y v i e w e d t h e m s e l v e s , r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d were n o t e x t r e m e enough
v

t o s u g g e s t t h a t s u b j e c t s w e r e a t t e m p t i n g t o a v o i d c o m m i t t i n g thems e l l - e s by e m p l o y i n g "3" r e s p o n s e s on t h e a n s w e r s h e e t .
l ' a r i s b i l i t y s c o r e s f o r both groups f e l l w i t h i n t h e

l i m i t s f o r t h e normal p o p u l a t i o n and s u g g e s t s t h a t s u b j e c t s

w e r e c o n s i s t e n t from o n e a r e a o f s e l f - p e r c e p t i o n t o a n o t h e r .
High s c o r e s would h a v e meant t h a t t h e g r o u p s w e r e q u i t e v a r i able in the l a t t e r respect.
These r e s u l t s s u g g e s t t h a t t h e s e l f - c o n c e p t p r o f i l e
of t h e n o n - r e c i d i v i s t g r o u p i s d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e r e c i d i v i s t
group.

However, a s f i g u r e 2 i l l u s t r a t e s , t h i s d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t s

i n terms o f p r o f i l e l e v e l r a t h e r than t h e p r o f i l e p a t t e r n s of
t h e two g r o u p s .

Such a f i n d i n g s u g g e s t s t h a t e s s e n t i a l l y t h e

two g r o u p s h a v e b a s i c a l l y t h e same c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a n d i s
c o n s i s t e n t w i t h o t h e r s i m i l a r f i n d i n g s by F i t t s ( 1 9 7 3 ) .
On a l l t e s t m e a s u r e s t h e r e s u l t s w e r e i n t h e h y p o t h e sized direction with the non-recidivists obtaining the higher
mean s c o r e o n a l l n i n e s u b s c a l e s .

S i g n i f i c a n c e was o b t a i n e d

o f f i v e o f t h e s u b s c a l e s w i t h t h e g r e a t e s t d i f f e r e n c e between
t h e groups b e i n g found on:

self-satisfaction with basic iden-

t i t y (Rl) and f a m i l y s e l f (Col. D ) .

This i n d i c a t e s t h a t non-

r e c i d i v i s t s f e l t more s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e i r
i d e n t i t y a n d f e l t more w o r t h a s a f a m i l y member.

Implications

of t h e s e r e s u l t s w i l l be e l a b o r a t e d i n Chapter V.
A s mentioned e a r l i e r i n t h e c h a p t e r , i n an attempt t o

f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t e s e l f - c o n c e p t d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e nonr e c i d i v i s t and r e c i d i v i s t g r o u p s , f o u r f u r t h e r a n a l y s e s were

conducted between t h e g r o u p s , corresponding t o t h e f o u r t y p e s
o f j u v e n i l e s t h a t were o r i g i n a l l y r e f e r r e d t o t h e program:
Human R e s o u r c e s r e f e r r a l s , P r o b a t i o n O f f i c e r E n q u i r y r e f e r r a l s ,
*
d e l i n q u e n t f i r s t o f f e n d e r s , a n d d e l i n q u e n t s c o n v i c t e d o f more

t h a n one p r e v i o u s d e l i n q u e n c y .

Such a n a p p r o a c h h a s a c l e a r

l o g i c a l b a s i s , s i n c e it allows f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n of d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t s of previous contact with t h e j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e

system.

I n a d d i t i o n , c o n t i n u i n g e x p e r i e n c e w i t h t h e TSCS

s u g g e s t s t h a t some d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t b e t w e e n s u c h g r o u p s .

For

e x a m p l e , L e f e b e r (1965) found s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n
f i r s t o f f e n d e r s a n d r e c i d i v i s t s ; F i t t s and Hamner (1969) r e p o r t
s i m i l a r r e s u l t s f o r p a r o l e v i o l a t o r s and f i r s t o f f e n d e r s ; and
Mamner e t a l .

(1973) found s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between

j u v e n i l e s a s s i g n e d t o p r o b a t i o n and i n s t i t u t i o n s .

I n t h e same

s t u d y , t h e y a l s o found a p a t t e r n s i m i l a r i t y between j u v e n i l e s
d e s i g n a t e d a s h e a d i n g f o r s c h o o l d r o p o u t and j u v e n i l e d e l i n quent p r o f i l e s .

biore r e c e n t l y , B l i s s (1977) f o u n d s i g n i f i c a n t

d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n d e l i n q u e n t s on p r o b a t i o n and d e l i n q u e n t s
in detention.
C o n s i d e r a t i o n of s e l f - c o n c e p t d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e
f o u r t y p e s o f o f f e n d e r s i n c l u d e d i n t h e s t u d y was beyond t h e
s c o p e o f t h e c u r r e n t a n a l y s i s , s i n c e t h e c e n t r a l f o c u s i s on
TSCS d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n r e c i d i v i s t s a n d n o n - r e c i d i v i s t s .

How-

e v e r , i t i s r e c o g n i z e d t h a t s u c h a n i n v e s t i g a t i o n u s i n g matched
g r o u p s would b e w o r t h y o f f u t u r e i n v e s t i g a t i o n s .
l'he TSCS d a t a f o r Human R e s o u r c e s r e c i d i v i s t s ( N
and n o n - r e c i d i v i s t s ( N

= 20)

14)

i s r e p o r t e d i n T a b l e 2 and i s

shown g r a p h i c a l l y i n F i g u r e 3 .
A s t h e d a t a i n d i c a t e s , no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s w e r e

f o u n d b e t w c c n t h e g r o u p s on a n y o f t h e t e s t ' s d i m e n s i o n s

selected f o r study.

The r e s u l t s were i n t h e h y p o t h e s i z e d

d i r e c t i o n on o n l y f i v e o f t h e t e s t ' s s u b s c a l e s :
C o l . B , a n d C o l . D.

T P , R 2 , R3,

The r e s u l t s were i n t h e o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n

on t h e r e m a i n i n g f o u r s u b s c a l e s :

R 1 , C o l . A , C o l . C , and C o l .

E.

No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were f o u n d b e t w e e n t h e two
g r o u p s on t h e t e s t ' s d i m e n s i o n s o f : t r u t h f u l n e s s o f r e s p o n s e
(SC), d e f i n i t e n e s s of s e l f ( D ) ,

or the variability scores

(TV, R V , CV).
These r e s u l t s s u g g e s t t h a t t h e r e a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t
s e l f - c o n c e p t d i f f e r e n c e s between H R r e c i d i v i s t s a n d H R n o n recidivists.

W h i l e t h e two g r o u p s a p p e a r t o d i s p l a y a s i m i l a r -

i t y of p r o f i l e p a t t e r n s , as i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e 3, c e r t a i n l y
more v a r i a n c e i s e v i d e n t t h a n d i s p l a y e d f o r t h e l a r g e r s a m p l e
as earlier illustrated in figure 2.

Interestingly, the vari-

a b l e t h a t came c l o s e s t t o a c h i e v i n g s i g n i f i c a n c e , s e l f - s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h b a s i c i d e n t i t y (RZ), was t h e most s i g n i f i c a n t

v a r i a b l e f o r t h e l a r g e r sample.
Whether t h e s e r e s u l t s a r e g e n e r a l i z a b l e on t h e b a s i s
o f such a s m a l l t e s t sample i s d o u b t f u l s i n c e i n d i v i d u a l s
s e l e c t e d t o a t t e n d t h e program c o u l d n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d t o be
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f a g g r e g a t e Human R e s o u r c e c l i e n t s .

Experi-

e n c e on t h e p a r t o f program s t a f f i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e s e t y p e
of r e f e r r a l s tended t o be high p r o f i l e i n d i v i d u a l s , i n t h e
s e n s e t h a t c o n s i d e r a b l e a c t i n g o u t b e h a v i o r would h a v e t o

o c c u r f o r t h e i r s o c i a l w o r k e r t o n o t i c e them.

TABLE

SUMMARY T S C S D A T A F O R C O M P A R I S O N O F
HR R E C I D I V I S T S ( N = 1 4 )
Variable

VERSUS HR N O N - R E C I D I V I S T S

Non-Recidivists
Mean
S.D.

Recidivists
Mean
S.D.

t-score

(N=20)
prob.
2-tail

sign.

N. S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N. S.
N .S.
N.S.

PROFILE SHEET
Tennessee Self Concept Scale

Counseling Form

The TSCS d a t a f o r P r o b a t i o n O f f i c e r E n q u i r y r e c i d i v i s t s (N

1 2 ) and n o n - r e c i d i v i s t s

(N

22) i s r e p o r t e d i n

T a b l e 3 a n d i s shown g r a p h i c a l l y i n F i g u r e 4 .
As the data indicates, highly significant differences

w e r e f o u n d b e t w e e n t h e two g r o u p s on s e v e n o f t h e n i n e s u b s c a l e s used i n t h e s t u d y .

The r e s u l t s w e r e i n t h e h y p o t h e -

s i z e d d i r e c t i o n on a l l t e s t m e a s u r e s w i t h n o n - r e c i d i v i s t s
o b t a i n i n g t h e h i g h e r mean s c o r e i n e a c h c a s e .
was a c h i e v e d on t h e f o l l o w i n g s u b s c a l e s :

Significance

TP - l e v e l o f o v e r a l l

esteem, R 1 - i d e n t i t y of s e l f , R2 - l e v e l of s e l f - s a t i s f a c t i o n ,
R3

p e r c e p t i o n o f b e h a v i o r , Col. A - p h y s i c a l s e l f , Col. C -

s e n s e o f p e r s o n a l w o r t h , and Col. E - s o c i a l s e l f .
d i f f e r e n c e s w e r e n o t f o u n d on t h e d i m e n s i o n s o f :
m o r a l - e t h i c a l s e l f , and Col. D

Significant
Col. B

family s e l f .

No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s w e r e f o u n d b e t w e e n t h e
two g r o u p s on t h e t e s t ' s d i m e n s i o n s o f :

truthfulness of

r e s p o n s e (SC), d e f i n i t e n e s s o f s e l f ( D ) ,

o r the variability

s c o r e s (TV, RV, CV).

T h e s e r e s u l t s s u g g e s t t h a t POE n o n - r e c i d i v i s t s h a v e
much h e a l t h i e r s e l f - c o n c e p t s t h a n POE r e c i d i v i s t s .

They a l s o

h a v e a much b e t t e r s e n s e o f i d e n t i t y , w e r e much more s a t i s f i e d

w i t h t h e i r p e r c e i v e d i d e n t i t y , and p e r c e i v e d t h e i r g e n e r a l
b e h a v i o r i n a much more p o s i t i v e l i g h t .

Their sense of

p e r s o n a l w o r t h was much h i g h e r t h a n t h e r e c i d i v i s t g r o u p and

t h e y p o s s e s s e d a g r e a t e r number a s w e l l a s s e n s e o f p e r s o n a l
@

social skills.

TABLE 3
4

S U M M A R Y TSCS DATA FOR COMPARISON OF

P O E RECIDIVISTS (N=12) VERSUS P O E NON-RECIDIVISISTS (N=22)
Variable

Non-Recidivists
Mean
S.D.

Recidivists
Mean
S.D.

t - s c o r e prob. s i g n .
2-tail

TP

0.002

.01

R1

0.031

.05

R2

0.001

.01

R3

0.027

.05

Col. A

0.001

.01

Col. B

0.242

N.S.

Col. C

0.001

.01

Col. D

0.108

N.S.

Col. E

0.008

.01

SC

0.319

N.S.

0.588

N.S.

TV

0.782

N.S.

RV

0.145

N.S.

CV

0.296

N.S.

PROFILE SHEET

Counseling Form

Tennessee Self Concept Scale

T
SCORE

PERCENTILE
SCORES

Ti;
r

COUNSELOR RECORDINGS A N D TESTS

*ILLIaM

l h l T 1

1e.4

BOX 6184. ACULEN ST*.

NASHVILLE. T E N N 37212

According t o J o p l i n e t a l .

(1973) i t i s r a r e t o f i n d

a s many s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s a s t h e s e r e s u l t s show.

Five

o f t h e s c o r e s w e r e a t t h e p . C . 0 1 l e v e l , two w e r e a t t h e
p.<.05

l e v e l , and e v e n t h o u g h t h e r e m a i n i n g two s c o r e s w e r e
*

n o t s i g n i f i c a n t , t h e m a g n i t u d e o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e was q u i t e h i g h
and i n t h e h y p o t h e s i z e d d i r e c t i o n .
While g e n e r a l i z e d c o n c l u s i o n s f r o m s u c h a l i m i t e d
s a m p l e m i g h t be u n d e s i r e a b l e , one p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e
c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e two g r o u p s may l i e i n a
s u g g e s t i o n by t h e o r i s t s s u c h a s Abrahamsen (1944) and Warren
( 1 9 7 1 ) t h a t a number o f d e l i n q u e n t s a r e m o m e n t a r y o f f e n d e r s
o r s i t u a t i o n a z o f f e n d e r s and w i l l p r o b a b l y o n l y commit one
d e t e c t e d o f f e n c e and t h e n s t o p .

Their theory suggests t h a t

t h e o r i g i n a l o f f e n c e was p e r h a p s a p r o d u c t o f a n i r r e s i s t i b l e
o p p o r t u n i t y t h a t may i n v o l v e a p e r s o n i n a n i l l e g a l a c t i v i t y .
T h i s v i e w i s p r o b a b l y b o r n e o u t by t h e f a c t t h a t c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s were n o t i n s t i t u t e d a f t e r a p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e r ' s
investigation.

Further support is a l s o i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e

4 w h i c h shows t h a t w h i l e t h e r e i s some p a t t e r n s i m i l a r i t y
b e t w e e n t h e g r o u p s , c e r t a i n l y more v a r i a n c e i s e v i d e n t t h a n
d i s p l a y e d f o r t h e l a r g e r sample e a r l i e r i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e
2.

Such a f i n d i n g i s s i g n i f i c a n t s i n c e i t i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e

two g r o u p s may h a v e v e r y d i f f e r e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r a t h e r t h a n
just differing in profile level.

However, a n y d e f i n i t e

conclusion should await f u r t h e r investigation.

C

The TSCS d a t a f o r d e l i n q u e n t f i r s t o f f e n d e r r e c i d i v i s t s

( N = 1 0 ) and n o n - r e c i d i v i s t s (N

18) i s r e p o r t e d i n Table 4

and i s shown g r a p h i c a l l y i n F i g u r e 5 .
A s t h e d a t a i n d i c i a t e s , a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was

f o u n d b e t w e e n t h e two g r o u p s on o n l y one s u b s c a l e , C o l . C personal s e l f .

The s u r p r i s i n g a s p e c t o f t h i s f i n d i n g i s t h e

f a c t t h a t t h i s d i f f e r e n c e was i n t h e o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n f r o m
t h e o r i g i n a l h y p o t h e s i s ; r e c i d i v i s t s o b t a i n e d a h i g h e r mean
score than non-recidivists.

T h i s t e n d e n c y o f f i n d i n g s t o be

i n t h e o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n from t h e h y p o t h e s i s i s a l s o f o u n d
on s i x o f t h e o t h e r s u b s c a l e s , a l t h o u g h a t a v e r y i n s i g n i f i c a n t
level.

The r e s u l t s w e r e i n t h e h y p o t h e s i z e d d i r e c t i o n o n l y

on two s u b s c a l e s :

R3

p e r c e p t i o n s o f b e h a v i o r , and C o l . D -

f a m i l y s e l f , a l t h o u g h once a g a i n a t an i n s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l .
No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s w e r e f o u n d b e t w e e n t h e two
g r o u p s on t h e t e s t ' s d i m e n s i o n s o f :

t r u t h f u l n e s s of response

(SC), d e f i n i t e n e s s o f s e l f ( D ) , o r t h e v a r i a b i l i t y s c o r e s
( T V , RV, CV)

W h i l e c e r t a i n l y no o n e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e s e r e s u l t s
c a n be g i v e n , s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t a l t e r n a t i v e s s h o u l d b e c o n sidered.

F i r s t , the difference in standard deviation scores

may i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e n o n - r e c i d i v i s t g r o u p was n o t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of n o n - r e c i d i v i s t s i n general, a s a g r e a t e r variance in

s c o r e s were r e p o r t e d t h a n f o r t h e r e c i d i v i s t group.

Conse-

q u e n t l y , a l a r g e r and more r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s a m p l e m i g h t y i e l d
different results.

S e c o n d , t h e Col. C r e s u l t may b e e r r o n e o u s

and r e a l l y n o s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t b e t w e e n t h e two

TABLE

SUMMARY TSCS DATA FOR COMPARISON OF

JD 1 s t R E C I D I V I S T S ( N = 1 0 ) V E R S U S JD 1 s t N O N - R E C I D I V I S T S ( N = 1 8 )
~~~

Variable

Non-Recidivists
Mean
S.D.

Recidivists
Mean
S.D.

t - s c o r e prob.
2-tail

--

sign.

TP

N.S.

R1

N.S.

R2

N.S.

R3

N.S.

Col. A

N.S.

Col. B

N.S.

Col. C

barely
.05

Col. D

N. S.

Col. E

N.S.

SC

N.S.

N.S.

TV

N.S.

RV

N.S.

CV

N.S.

Tennessee Self Concept Scale

PROFILE SHEET
Counseling Form

PUBLISHED BY:
IW

~ L L ~H~ ~
U 0 ~ 7e.r
1 s

COUNSELOR RECORDINGS A N D T E S T S
B O X 6184. A C K L E N S T A .
K A S H V I L L E . T E N N 37212

groups.

Third, first offenders who become recidivists versus

those who do not scored higher on Col. C - sense of personal

worth.

This may indicate that such youth consider their pre-

vious delinquent involvement to be accidental, and as a result

are not open to personal counselling.

All three of the fore-

going possibilities warrant further investigation.

The TSCS data for delinquent recidivists convicted
o f committing more than one previous delinquency (N

31) and

non-recidivists convicted of committing more than one previous

delinquency (N

12) is reported in Table 5 and is shown

graphically in Figure 6.
As the data indicates, a significant difference was

found between the two groups on only one subscale, Col. E social self.

The results were in the hypothesized direction

on all of the test's subscales, with the non-recidivists obI

taining the higher mean score in each case.

No significant differences were found between the two

groups on the test's dimensions of:

truthfulness of response

(SC) or the variability scores (TV, RV, CV).

However, a sig-

nificant difference was found between the two groups on the

dimension of definiteness of self (D) subscale.

This finding,

when taken in conjunction with the Col. E difference, suggests

that delinquents who were non-recidivists had better developed
social skills and a more definite view of themselves.

Non-

recidivists may be seen as better equipped to resist negative

*

peer pressure and to develop other positive relationships.

TABLE 5
SUMMARY TSCS DATA FOR COMPARISON OF

JD X2 R E C I D I V I S T S ( N = 3 1 ) VERSUS JD X2 N O N - R E C I D I V I S T S ( N = 1 2 )
Variable

Non-Recidivists
Mean
S.D.

Recidivists
Mean
S.D.

t-score prob.
2-tail

sign.

TP

N.S.

R1

N.S.

R2

N.S.

R3

N.S.

Col. A

N.S.

N.S.

Col. C

N.S.

.D

N.S.

Col. E

N.S.

SC

N.S.

N.S.

TV

N.S.

RV

N.S.

cv

N.S.

Col

Col

PROFILE SHEET

Counseling Form

Tennessee Self Concept Scale

T
SCORE

PERCENTILE
SCORES

60

55

M45
40

35

80

- .- - -- --

30-

- -

---

--

45

m
40

65

-----

55

bj

3
'

60

7-T--o

J.D. X2 Recidivists ( N = 31 )
J.D. X2 Non-Recids. ( N = 12 )

75

30

35

20-

u^"

--

2
0
:

PUBLISHED BY:
C O U N S E L O R RECORDlkGS A N D TESTS
7 W l r ~ l r rW

,171.

19.4

BOX 6184. ACKLEN S T A .

N A S H V I L L E . T E N N 37212

The profile pattern similarity illustrated in Figure

6 suggests that basically the two groups have the same charac-

teristics, although differences in profile level are also evident.

Thus, while the magnitude of the differences between the

groups was not conclusive, it may be clearly seen that all the
results are in the hypothesized direction.

It may be reasonably

suggested that with a larger sample the results would have been
significant.

Once again further investigations appear to be

warranted.
PART TWO

Part Two presents the results of the computations using

the discriminant function statistic comparing the recidivist
and non-recidivist groups and the four delineated referral
types, as discussed earlier in the chapter.
In reaching the final discriminant function equation
a TSCS variable was considered for selection only if its
partial multivariate F ratio was larger than 1.
In order to check the adequacy of the derived discriminant functions and in doing so indicate the effectiveness of
the TSCS in being able to discriminate between recidivist and
non-recidivist program clients, the study sample is classified
to see how many clients are correctly classified by the variables
selected.

The procedure used was part of a subprogram of the

SPSS computer program and involved the separate linear combina*

tion of discriminating variables for each group.

The manual

s t a t e s t h a t t h e s e p r o d u c e a p r o b a b i l i t y o f membership i n t h e
r e s p e c t i v e group, and t h e c l i e n t i s a s s i g n e d t o t h e group w i t h
the highest probability.
In using t h e discriminant scores as a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n
t o o l , t h e g o a l i s t o a t t a i n r e s u l t s t h a t would r e p r e s e n t a n
improvement o v e r p r e d i c t i o n s made w i t h o u t t h e t e s t .

Thus, i t

i s m e a n i n g f u l t o d i s c u s s t h e d e g r e e o f improved a c c u r a c y
b r o u g h t a b o u t by u s i n g t h e d e r i v e d t e s t f u n c t i o n s .

I n making

s u c h a c o m p a r i s o n , knowledge o f t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f p a r t i c i p a n t s
who r e m a i n e d n o n - r e c i d i v i s t s was u s e d f o r b a s e r a t e c o m p a r i s o n s .

111
I/l
1
I

For e x a m p l e , we know t h a t 5 1 . 8 0 % were n o t r e c i d i v i s t s ; t h u s , t h e

n e t g a i n i n u s i n g t h e t e s t would be t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f i m p r o v e - .
ment o v e r 5 1 . 8 0 % .
In applying t h e discriminant function s t a t i s t i c t o t h e
t o t a l data reported f o r t h e Recidivists (N
v i s t s (N

67) and N o n - r e c i d i -

7 2 ) , f o u r TSCS s u b s c a l e s ( h e r e a f t e r c i t e d a s v a r i a -

b l e s ) met t h e e s t a b l i s h e d c r i t e r i a f o r i n c l u s i o n i n t h e e q u a t i o n .
The s e l e c t e d v a r i a b l e s , a s w e l l a s t h e i r F v a l u e s f o r i n c l u s i o n

....
I

and d i s c r i m i n a n t c o e f f i c i e n t s , a r e r e p o r t e d i n Table 6.
Discriminant s c o r e s were c a l c u l a t e d f o r both groups
and a r e p r e s e n t e d a s two s e p a r a t e f r e q u e n c y d i s t r i b u t i o n s i n
Figure 7 .

The c a l c u l a t e d g r o u p c e n t r o i d f o r t h e n o n - r e c i d i v i s t s

was - 0 . 2 7 7 9 1 a n d f o r t h e r e c i d i v i s t g r o u p , 0.29865.

The n o n -

r e c i d i v i s t s c o r e s r a n g e d f r o m - 2 . 9 5 3 t o 1 . 4 8 0 , and t h e r e c i d i v i s t s from -1.655 t o 2.801,

between t h e groups.

indicating considerable overlap

When t h e p o i n t b i s e r i a l P e a r s o n c o r r e l a t i o n

was c a l c u l a t e d , a n r v a l u e o f 0.289 was o b t a i n e d , d e m o n s t r a t i n g

o n l y a s m a l l s e p a r a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e two g r o u p s , w h i c h was f o u n d
t o be s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e ,001 l e v e l .
For c l a s s i f i c a t i o n p u r p o s e s a c u t o f f s c o r e was computed
t o be 0.041666.

R e s u l t s from t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a n a l y s i s a r e

presented i n Table 7.

Examination i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e d e r i v e d

c o e f f i c i e n t s were a b l e t o c o r r e c t l y p r e d i c t n o n - r e c i d i v i s t
membership w i t h 5 6 . 0 9 % a c c u r a c y and r e c i d i v i s t membership w i t h
62.07% accuracy.

The computed o v e r a l l a c c u r a c y t h r o u g h u s e o f

t h e d e r i v e d c l a s s i f i c a t i o n f u n c t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s was 5 9 . 7 1 % .
In comparing t h e n e t advantage of u s i n g t e s t s c o r e
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n u s i n g d i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t i o n a n a l y s i s v e r s u s random
a s s i g n m e n t on t h e b a s i s o f p o p u l a t i o n s i z e , a s i m p l e c o m p a r i s o n
b e t w e e n t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l s who became r e c i d i v i s t s
o r r e m a i n e d n o n - r e c i d i v i s t s and t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d computed
o v e r a l l a c c u r a c y s c o r e may b e made.

While s u c h a n a p p r o a c h

may be weak, s i n c e i t a s s u m e s t h a t a c c u r a c y by c h a n c e w i l l b e
e q u a l t o s a m p l e s i z e r a t h e r t h a n t h e two p o s s i b l e o u t c o m e s
( 5 0 / 5 0 c h a n c e ) , t h i s w e a k n e s s may b e c o m p e n s a t e d by t h e f a c t
t h a t i n t h i s s t u d y t h e d i s c r i m i n a n t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n h a s been
weakened, a s t h e f u n c t i o n s w e r e d e r i v e d from a ' b e s t - f i t '

of

e x i s t i n g d a t a r a t h e r t h a n by c o m p a r i s o n w i t h a new s a m p l e .
We know f r o m t h e d a t a t h a t 4 8 . 2 0 % o f t h e c l i e n t s b e came r e c i d i v i s t s a n d 5 1 . 8 0 % d i d n o t .

Thus, t h e n e t advantage

of using t e s t s c o r e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s c a l c u l a t e d t o be a r e l a C

t i v e l y small 7.91%.

TABLE 6
SUMMARY DISCRIMINANT RESULTS
FOR R E C I D I V I S T ( N = 6 7 ) AND N O N - R E C I D I V I S T ( N = 7 2 ) DATA

F Value

Variable

R 2

3.11505

Col .D

1.66587

Standardized Discriminant
Function Coefficients

Col C
Col .E

TABLE 7
P R E D I C T I O N RESULTS FOR
RECIDIVIST AND NON-RECIDIVIST GROUPS

Actual Group
Group 1 Non-Recidivists
Group 2 Recidivists

Predicted Group Membership

Group 2
Group 1

72

41

67

25

% of "Grouped" Cases Correctly Classified :

42

59.71%

% Grouped

62.7%

FIGURE 7
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION O F RECIDIVIST A N D NONRECIDIVIST GROUPS DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION SCORES

Recidivists

I................................
x
x
xxx xxxx xxx
I
I

X X X X
X X X X X

XX

X
X X

...

I
I
X
x I
..............
I

Non-Recidi vi sts

* denotes a group centroid

In applying the discriminant function statistic to the

TSCS data reported for HR recidivists (N

ivists (N

14) and HR non-recid-

20), two of the test variables met the established

criteria for inclusion in the equation.

The selected variables

as well as their F values are reported in Table 8.

Discriminant scores were calculated for both groups
and are presented as two separate frequency distributions in
Figure 8.

The calculated mean for the non-recidivist group

was -0.38503 and for the recidivist group was 0.55005.

The

non-recidivists' scores ranged from -2.030 to 0.824 and the

recidivists' from -0.816 to 2.949.

When the point biserial

Pearson correlation was calculated, an r value of 0.467 was

obtained, demonstrating moderate separation between the groups,
which was significant at the .O1 level.

For classification purposes, a cutoff score of .0833

was established.

Classification results from the analysis

are presented in Table 9.

Examination indicates that the

derived coefficients were able to correctly predict non-recidivist membership with 75% accuracy and recidivists with 64.3%
accuracy, for an overall accuracy of 70.59%.
Our data indicates that 41.18% of the HR clients
became recidivists and 58.82% did not.

Thus, the percentage

degree of improved accuracy brought about by using the test

versus assignment by sample size is 70.59% compared to 58.82%,
or a difference o f 11.77%.

This latter figure represents an

improvement of 3.86% over the results for the larger sample.

TABLE 8
SUMMARY DISCRIMINANT RESULTS
FOR HR RECIDIVIST (N=14) AND H R NON-RECIDIVIST (N=20) DATA

Variable

F Value

Col. B

2.65772

-1.18300

Col. C

5.61268

0.99848

Standardized Discriminant
Function Coefficients

TABLE 9
PREDICTION RESULTS FOR
HR RECIDIVIST AND NON-RECIDIVIST GROUPS

Actual Group
Group 1 Non-Offenders
Group 2 Offenders

Predicted Group Membership % Grouped

Group 2
Correctly
Group 1

20

15

75.0%

14

64.3%

% of "Grouped" Cases Correctly Classified : 70.59%

FIGURE 8
FREQUENCY D I S T R I B U T I O N OF H R R E C I D I V I S T AND
NON-RECIDIVIST GROUPS DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION SCORES

-3.00

-2.25

-1.50

-0.75

0.0

0.75

1.50

+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
I

*I

2.25

Offenders

I
I
I
I

Non-Offenders

denotes a group c e n t r o i d

I-10 r

II
I
I

e
9

II 5

n
c
Y

I
I

I
1

3.00

In applying the discriminant function s t a t i s t i c t o the

TSCS d a t a r e p o r t e d f o r POE r e c i d i v i s t s ( N = 1 2 ) a n d POE n o n - r e c i d i v i s t s ( N = 2 2 ) , f i v e o f t h e t e s t v a r i a b l e s met t h e c r i t e r i a

f o r inclusion i n t h e equation.

The s e l e c t e d v a r i a b l e s a s w e l l

a s t h e i r F v a l u e s a r e reported i n Table 10.

D i s c r i m i n a n t s c o r e s were c a l c u l a t e d f o r b o t h groups
a n d a r e p r e s e n t e d a s two s e p a r a t e f r e q u e n c y d i s t r i b u t i o n s i n
Figure 9.

The c a l c u l a t e d mean f o r t h e n o n - r e c i d i v i s t g r o u p

was - 0 . 5 3 5 1 a n d f o r t h e r e c i d i v i s t g r o u p was 0 . 9 8 9 2 8 . The n o n r e c i d i v i s t s c o r e s r a n g e d from - 1 . 3 6 8 t o 0 . 6 2 8 a n d t h e r e c i d i vists'

from - 0 . 8 0 4 t o 2 . 2 4 7 ,

t h e groups.

i n d i c a t i n g some o v e r l a p b e t w e e n

When t h e p o i n t b i s e r i a l P e a r s o n c o r r e l a t i o n was

c a l c u l a t e d a n r v a l u e o f 0.742 was o b t a i n e d , d e m o n s t r a t i n g
s u b s t a n t i a l s e p a r a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e two g r o u p s , w h i c h was
significant a t the .O1 level.
For c l a s s i f i c a t i o n p u r p o s e s a c u t o f f s c o r e o f 0.1666
was e s t a b l i s h e d .

C l a s s i f i c a t i o n r e s u l t s from t h e a n a l y s i s a r e

p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 11.

E x a m i n a t i o n shows t h e d e r i v e d c o e f f i -

c i e n t s w e r e a b l e t o c o r r e c t l y p r e d i c t n o n - r e c i d i v i s t membership
w i t h 86.9;

a c c u r a c y and r e c i d i v i s t s w i t h 9 1 . 7 % a c c u r a c y , f o r

a s u b s t a n t i a l o v e r a l l accuracy of 88.24%.
O ~ i rd a t a i n d i c a t e s t h a t 3 5 . 2 9 % o f t h e POE c l i e n t s

became r e c i d i v i s t s and 6 4 . 7 1 % d i d n o t .

Thus, t h e p e r c e n t a g e of

improved a c c u r a c y b r o u g h t a b o u t by u s i n g t h e t e s t v e r s u s
a s s i g n m e n t b y s a m p l e s i z e i s 8 8 . 2 4 % compared t o 6 4 . 7 1 % , o r a
L

3%

TABLE 1 0
SUMMARY DISCRIMINANT RESULTS

FOR P O E R E C I D I V I S T ( N = 1 2 ) AND P O E NON-RECIDIVIST ( N = 2 2 ) DATA

Variable

F Value

Standardized D i s c r i m i n a n t
Function C o e f f i c i e n t s

Col .A

Col D
Col . E

T A B L E 11
P R E D I C T I O N RESULTS FOR

POE R E C I D I V I S T AND NON-RECIDIVIST GROUPS

Predicted Group Membership

Group 1
Group 2

% Grouped
Correctly

A c t u a l Group

Non-Offenders

22

19

86.4%

Group 2 O f fenders

12

11

91.7%

% of "Grouped" Cases C o r r e c t l y C l a s s i f i e d : 88.24%

FIGURE 9
F R E Q U E N C Y D I S T R I B U T I O N O F POE R E C I D I V I S T AND
NON-RECIDIVIST

GROUPS D I S C R I M I N A N T F U N C T I O N SCORES

O ff e n d e r s

I
X
X
X

I
I

1I
I

I
X X X
* x x
X
X
X
X
I
I...............................................................................
I
I
I
I

Non-Offenders

denotes a group c e n t r o i d

YC

improvement o f 1 5 . 6 5 % o v e r t h e r e s u l t s f o r t h e l a r g e r s a m p l e .
In applying t h e discriminant function s t a t i s t i c t o t h e
TSCS d a t a r e p o r t e d f o r J D 1 s t r e c i d i v i s t s ( N = 1 0 ) and J D 1st
n o n - r e c i d i v i s t s ( N = 1 8 ) , s i x o f t h e t e s t v a r i a b l e s met t h e
c r i t e r i a for inclusion i n the equation.

The s e l e c t e d v a r i a b l e s

a s well a s t h e i r F values a r e r e p o r t e d i n Table 1 2 .

D i s c r i m i n a n t s c o r e s were c a l c u l a t e d f o r b o t h groups
and a r e p r e s e n t e d a s two s e p a r a t e f r e q u e n c y d i s t r i b u t i o n s i n
Figure 10.

The c a l c u l a t e d mean f o r t h e r e c i d i v i s t g r o u p was

- 1 . 0 0 5 5 4 and f o r t h e n o n - r e c i d i v i s t s ' was 0 . 5 5 8 6 3 .

The r e c i d i -

v i s t s c o r e s ranged from -2.052 t o 0.216 and t h e n o n - r e c i d i v i s t s

- 0 . 9 6 3 t o 1 . 3 1 1 , i n d i c a t i n g some o v e r l a p b e t w e e n t h e g r o u p s .
When t h e p o i n t b i s e r i a l P e a r s o n c o r r e l a t i o n was c a l c u l a t e d , a n

r v a l u e o f 0 . 7 6 3 was o b t a i n e d , showing s u b s t a n t i a l s e p a r a t i o n

b e t w e e n t h e two g r o u p s , s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e . O 1 l e v e l .
For c l a s s i f i c a t i o n p u r p o s e s a c u t o f f s c o r e o f - 0 . 2 0 8 4
was e s t a b l i s h e d .

C l a s s i f i c a t i o n r e s u l t s from t h e a n a l y s i s a r e

presented i n Table 13.

E x a m i n a t i o n shows t h e d e r i v e d c o e f f i -

c i e n t s w e r e a b l e t o c o r r e c t l y p r e d i c t n o n - r e c i d i v i s t membership
w i t h 88.9% accuracy and r e c i d i v i s t s w i t h 80.0% a c c u r a c y , f o r a
s u b s t a n t i a l o v e r a l l a c c u r a c y of 85.71%.
Our d a t a i n d i c a t e s t h a t 3 5 . 7 2 % o f t h e J D 1st c l i e n t s
became r e c i d i v i s t s a n d 6 4 . 2 8 % d i d n o t .

Thus, t h e p e r c e n t a g e of

improved a c c u r a c y b r o u g h t a b o u t by u s i n g t h e t e s t v e r s u s
a s s i ~ n m e n tby s a m p l e s i z e i s 8 5 . 7 1 % compared t o 6 4 . 2 8 % o r a
d i f f e r e n c e of 21.43%.

This l a t t e r f i g u r e r e p r e s e n t s an

TABLE 1 2
SUMMARY DISCRIMINANT RESULTS
FOR JD 1ST RECIDIVIST (N=10) AND NON-RECIDIVIST (N=18) DATA

Variable

F Value

Standardized Discriminant
Function Coefficients

Col .C
SC
R 3
R 2
Col . A
Col .D

TABLE 1 3
PREDICTION RESULTS FOR
JD 1ST RECIDIVIST AND NON-RECIDIVIST GROUPS
Actual Group
Group 1 Non-Recidivists
Group 2
Recidivists

Predicted Group Membership % Grouped

Group 1
Group 2
Correctly

18

16

10

% of "Grouped" Cases Correctly Classified : 85.71%

88.9%

FIGURE 10
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF J D 1ST RECIDIVIST AND
NON-RECIDIVIST GROUPS DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION SCORES

-4.000
-3.125 -2.250
- 1.375
-0.500
0.375
1.250
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

2.125

3.000

I
II
I
I
I
II
I
T
X
X
X
I
X
x
x
*
x
x
X
X
I ...............................................................................I
I
I
I
I Non-Recidivists
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
X
I
I
I
X
*xx
I
T
X
X X
XX XXX X XXXX
X X
I
Recidivists

f
10 r
e
9
U

e
5 n
C

* denotes a group centroid

f
10 r

e
9
U

5 n
C

improvement o f 1 3 . 5 2 % o v e r t h e r e s u l t s f o r t h e l a r g e r s a m p l e .
In applying the discriminant function s t a t i s t i c t o the
TSCS d a t a r e p o r t e d f o r J D X 2 r e c i d i v i s t s ( N = 3 1 ) and J D X 2
n o n - r e c i d i v i s t s ( N = 1 2 ) , two o f t h e t e s t v a r i a b l e s met t h e
c r i t e r i a f o r inclusion i n the equation.

The s e l e c t e d v a r i a b l e s

a s well a s t h e i r F values a r e reported i n Table 14.

D i s c r i m i n a n t s c o r e s were c a l c u l a t e d f o r b o t h groups
and a r e p r e s e n t e d a s two s e p a r a t e f r e q u e n c y d i s t r i b u t i o n s i n
F i g u r e 11.

The c a l c u l a t e d mean f o r t h e r e c i d i v i s t g r o u p was

- 0 . 2 6 9 2 1 a n d f o r t h e n o n - r e c i d i v i s t s ' was 0 . 6 9 5 4 7 .

The r e c i d -

i v i s t s s c o r e s ranged from -2.019 t o 1.310 and t h e n o n - r e c i d i v i s t s from -0.680 t o 2.131,

b e t w e e n t h e two g r o u p s .

indicating substantial overlap

When t h e p o i n t b i s e r i a l P e a r s o n c o r -

r e l a t i o n was c a l c u l a t e d , a n r v a l u e o f 0 . 4 3 8 was o b t a i n e d ,

showing m o d e r a t e s e p a r a t i o n o f t h e two g r o u p s , s i g n i f i c a n t a t
the . O 1 level.
For c l a s s i f i c a t i o n purposes a c u t o f f s c o r e o f 0.20726
was e s t a b l i s h e d .

C l a s s i f i c a t i o n r e s u l t s from t h e a n a l y s i s a r e

presented i n Table 15.

E x a m i n a t i o n shows t h e d e r i v e d c o e f f i -

c i e n t s w e r e a b l e t o c o r r e c t l y p r e d i c t n o n - r e c i d i v i s t membership
w i t h 8 3 . 3 % a c c u r a c y and r e c i d i v i s t s w i t h 67.7% a c c u r a c y , f o r
an o v e r a l l a c c u r a c y o f 72.09%.
Our d a t a i n d i c a t e s t h a t 7 2 . 0 9 % o f t h e J D X 2 c l i e n t s
became r e c i d i v i s t s a n d 2 7 . 9 1 % d i d n o t .

T h u s , no improved

accuracy l y u l d be brought about by u s i n g t h e d e r i v e d func.tion

v e r s u s random a s s i g n m e n t , s i n c e b o t h w e r e e q u a l .

+.

I,:

TABLE 1 4
SUMMARY DISCRIMINANT RESULTS
FOR JD X2 R E C I D I V I S T ( N = 3 1 ) AND N O N - R E C I D I V I S T ( N = 1 2 ) DATA

Variable

F Value

Col .B

5.89947

Col. E

3.26310

Standardized Discriminant
Function C o e f f i c i e n t s

-0.79323
1.34416

TABLE 1 5
PREDICTION RESULTS FOR
JD X2 R E C I D I V I S T AND N O N - R E C I D I V I S T GROUPS
P r e d i c t e d Group Membership
Group 2
Group 1

A c t u a l Group

Group 1 Non-Recidivists

12

10

Group 2 Recidivists

31

10

% o f "Grouped" Cases C o r r e c t l y C l a s s i f i e d :

72.09%

Z Grouped
Correctly

FIGURE 11
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF J D X 2 RECIDIVIST AND
NON-RECIDIVIST GROUPS DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION SCORES

I
I

Recidivists

.I

* denotes a group centroid

SUMMARY

I n t h i s c h a p t e r , t h e r e s u l t s and a n a n a l y s i s o f t h e
r e s e a r c h d a t a has been presented.
P a r t One o f t h e c h a p t e r d e a l t w i t h m a j o r f i n d i n g s
involved i n t e s t i n g t h e hypotheses s t a t e d i n Chapter I .

In

a d d i t i o n t o c o m p a r i n g TSCS d a t a f o r t h e o v e r a l l p o p u l a t i o n o f
r e c i d i v i s t s and n o n - r e c i d i v i s t s ,

t h e hypotheses were f u r t h e r

examined a c c o r d i n g t o t h e f o u r t y p e s o f j u v e n i l e s t h a t were
r e f e r r e d t o t h e program.

In each c a s e t h e s t a t i s t i c a l t e c h -

n i q u e s employed i n t h e a n a l y s i s w e r e i d e n t i c a l .
P a r t Two r e p o r t e d t h e r e s u l t s f r o m a n a p p l i c a t i o n of
d i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t i o n a n a l y s i s on t h e TSCS t e s t d a t a r e p o r t e d
f o r t h e r e c i d i v i s t and n o n - r e c i d i v i s t g r o u p s .

A s i n p a r t one,

independent a n a l y s e s were a l s o conducted a c c o r d i n g t o t h e f o u r

t y p e s o f o f f e n d e r s t h a t were r e f e r r e d t o t h e p r o g r a m .

Discrim-

i n a n t s c o r e s a n d c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i n f o r m a t i o n was r e p o r t e d f o r
e a c h o f t h e g r o u p s and t h e r e s u l t s o f a c o m p a r i s o n w i t h random
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a s s i g n m e n t w e r e a l s o shown.
The c o n c l u s i o n s , r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s , a n d i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r
f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h a r e presented i n Chapter V.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This c h a p t e r p r e s e n t s a general overview of t h e study

and d i s c u s s e s some o f i t s i m p l i c a t i o n s .

I n i t i a l l y , a summary

o f t h e r e s e a r c h and r e l e v a n t f i n d i n g s i s p r o v i d e d .

This is

f o l l o w e d by a d i s c u s s i o n o f some o f t h e c o n c l u s i o n s t h a t may
b e made f r o m t h e work.

Finally, t h e chapter concludes with

r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s t h a t o t h e r s may w i s h t o c o n s i d e r i n c o n d u c t i n g
further research i n the area.

SUMMARY
The s t u d y was d e s i g n e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e w h e t h e r s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n s e l f - c o n c e p t e x i s t b e t w e e n j u v e n i l e s who
a r e r e f e r r e d t o a community s o c i a l a g e n c y who l a t e r become
r e c i d i v i s t s v e r s u s t h o s e who do n o t .

A r e c i d i v i s t was d e f i n e d

a s a j u v e n i l e who c o m m i t t e d a n a d j u d i c a t e d o f f e n c e o r h a d a
P r o b a t i o n O f f i c e r ' s E n q u i r y c o n d u c t e d on them w i t h i n a p e r i o d
o f e i g h t e e n months from t h e i r i n i t i a l r e f e r r a l .
The r e v i e w o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e i n d i c a t e d t h a t a number
of s t u d i e s had found s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n s e l f - c o n c e p t
between subgroups o f d e l i n q u e n t s a s w e l l a s 'between d e l i n q u e n t s .
and n o n - d e l i n q u e n t s .

However, i t was n o t e d t h a t most o f t h e

s t u d i e s made c o m p a r i s o n s on t h e b a s i s o f i n t e r g r o u p d i f f e r e n c e s
*
a t one p o i n t i n t i m e r a t h e r t h a n e m p l o y i n g a b e f o r e - a f t e ' r

r e s e a r c h d e s i g n t e s t i n g a homogeneous g r o u p and making comparisons a t a l a t e r date.

C o n s e q u e n t l y , i t was n o t e d t h a t c a u s a l

i n f e r e n c e h a s b e e n d i f f i c u l t and t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r
n e g a t i v e s e l f - c o n c e p t p r e c e d e s o r f o l l o w s i n i t i a l and s u b s e q u e n t ' l a b e l l i n g o f d e l i n q u e n t s , i s s t i l l l a r g e l y open.

It

was c o n c l u d e d t h a t r e s e a r c h e m p l o y i n g a b e f o r e - a f t e r d e s i g n
might be b e n e f i c i a l i n p r o v i d i n g f u r t h e r d a t a t o answer t h e
question a s well a s indicate the characteristics of juveniles
who a r e l i k e l y t o b e n e f i t f r o m s u c h a programme.

In addition,

t h e r e s e a r c h was d e s i g n e d t o e x p l o r e t h e T e n n e s s e e S e l f Concept
Scale's possible u t i l i t y a s a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n instrument f o r
community s o c i a l a g e n c y programmes.
The s a m p l e u s e d i n t h e s t u d y c o n s i s t e d o f 1 3 9 b o y s who
were r e f e r r e d t o a j u v e n i l e s o c i a l a g e n c y , l o c a t e d i n B u r n a b y ,
B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , known a s PURPOSE, d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d from
F e b r u a r y 1974 t o O c t o b e r 1 9 7 6 .

The s a m p l e c o n t a i n e d 34 j u v e n \

i l e s w i t h no p r e v i o u s c o u r t h i s t o r y b u t who had b e e n r e f e r r e d by
s o c i a l w o r k e r s b e c a u s e o f b e h a v i o u r a l p r o b l e m s ; 34 who h a d
admitted committing a delinquency b u t a s a r e s u l t of a Probat i o n O f f i c e r ' s Enquiry had n e v e r had c o u r t proceedings i n s t i t u t e d a g a i n s t them; 28 d e l i n q u e n t f i r s t o f f e n d e r s , and 4 3
d e l i n q u e n t s who h a d b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f more t h a n o n e p r e v i o u s
delinquency.
The m a i n i n s t r u m e n t o f t h e s t u d y was t h e T e n n e s s e e
S e l f Concept S c a l e w h i c h was a d m i n i s t e r e d t o a l l o f t h e s u b j e c t s

a s p a r t o f t h e n o r m a l i n t a k e p r o c e s s i n t h e programme. .'An

e i g h t e e n month f o l l o w - u p on e a c h o f t h e s u b j e c t s was c o n d u c t e d .
D e l i n q u e n t o f f e n c e d a t a was o b t a i n e d from c o u r t r e c o r d s maintained i n the four juvenile probation offices i n the area.
The s p e c i f i c h y p o t h e s i s was t h a t c l i e n t s who commit
a n a d j u d i c a t e d o f f e n c e o r h a d a POE c o n d u c t e d on them d u r i n g
t h e f o l l o w - u p p e r i o d d i f f e r i n i n i t i a l s e l f - c o n c e p t from t h o s e
who d i d n o t .

I t was p r e d i c t e d t h a t p r o g r a m r e c i d i v i s t s would

h a v e a more n e g a t i v e s e l f - c o n c e p t t h a n n o n - r e c i d i v i s t s .

In

o t h e r w o r d s , t h e p o s i t i o n was t a k e n t h a t n e g a t i v e s e l f - c o n c e p t
precedes i n i t i a l and subsequent l a b e l l i n g of d e l i n q u e n t s .
The d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n r e c i d i v i s t and n o n - r e c i d i v i s t
t e s t s c o r e s w e r e compared u s i n g a t - s c o r e and d i s c r i m i n a n t
function analysis.

In order t o f u r t h e r t e s t the hypotheses

and i n r e c o g n i t i o n o f F i t t ' s (1973) o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t l a r g e

g r o u p s may o b s c u r e s u b - g r o u p d i f f e r e n c e s , outcome c o m p a r i s o n s
w e r e c o n d u c t e d o n f o u r s u b g r o u p s o f r e f e r r a l s d i f f e r e n t i a t e d on
t h e b a s i s of t h e degree of t h e i r formal c o u r t records.
The s t u d y p r o d u c e d two m a j o r g r o u p s o f f i n d i n g s : ( 1 )
a comparison o f s e l f - c o n c e p t d i f f e r e n c e s between program r e c i d i v i s t s and n o n - r e c i d i v i s t s o n t h e TSCS; a n d ( 2 ) d i s c r i m i n a n t
f u n c t i o n c o m p a r i s o n s b e t w e e n t h e two g r o u p s and s u b s e q u e n t
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n p r e d i c t i o n s from t h e d a t a .
I n t h e f i r s t a n a l y s i s , t h e s t u d y showed t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n s e l f - c o n c e p t e x i s t between j u v e n i l e s who
c o m m i t t e d a n a d j u d i c a t e d o f f e n c e o r h a d a POE c o n d u c t e d o n
C

them d u r i n g a n e i g h t e e n month f o l l o w - u p v e r s u s t h o s e who d i d n ' t

The d i f f e r e n c e s i n mean s c o r e s b e t w e e n t h e two g r o u p s w e r e a l l

i n the ,hypothesized direction with n o n - r e c i d i v i s t s obtaining
h i g h e r s c o r e s on a l l o f t h e s e l e c t e d t e s t v a r i a b l e s .

Compar-

a t i v e t - t e s t s e a r l i e r r e p o r t e d i n Table 1, i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e s e
d i f f e r e n c e s a r e s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e . 0 5 l e v e l , o r b e t t e r , on
f i v e of t h e nine t e s t subscales.

Non-recidivists:

1. Had a h i g h e r o v e r a l l s e l f - c o n c e p t a s i n d i c a t e d by
t h e s i g n i f i c a n t d f f f e r e n c e a t t a i n e d on t h e " T o t a l
positive" subscale;

2. Were more s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e i r p e r c e i v e d i d e n t i t y a s
indicated b v t h e s i p n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e a t t a m e d on
t h e " s e l f - ~ i t i s f a c t ? o n "s u b s c a l e ;
3 . Had a more p o s i t i v e v i e w o f t h e i r p e r s o n a l a p p e a r a n c e

a n d h e a l t h a s i n d i c a t e d by t h e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e
a t t a i n e d on t h e " P h y s i c a l S e l f " s u b s c a l e ;
4 . F e l t more w o r t h a s a f a m i l y member a s i n d i c a t e d by t h e
s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e a t t a i n e d on t h e "Family S e l f "
subscale;
5 . F e l t t h e y p o s s e s s e d more d e v e l o p e d s o c i a l s k i l l s a s
i n d i c a t e d by t h e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e a t t a i n e d on
t h e "Social Self" subscale.

The s e c o n d a n a l y s i s , u s i n g d i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t i o n a n a l y s i s , r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e TSCS may be u s e d t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e , a t

l e a s t on a l i m i t e d b a s i s , b e t w e e n c l i e n t s who a r e l i k e l y t o
become r e c i d i v i s t s and t h o s e who w o n ' t .

An r v a l u e o f 0 . 2 8 9

was o b t a i n e d f r o m t h e d a t a a n a l y s i s w h i c h d e m o n s t r a t e s o n l y
a s m a l l s e p a r a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e two c l i e n t g r o u p s .

This is

f u r t h e r c o n f i r m e d by f r e q u e n c y d i s t r i b u t i o n s e a r l i e r i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 7 and t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a n a l y s i s e a r l i e r
reported i n Table 7 .

Figures indicate t h a t t h e derived

c o e f f i c i e n t s w e r e o n l y a b l e t o c o r r e c t l y p r e d i c t g r o u p member-

s h i p with an o v e r a l l accuracy of 59.71%.

This figure only

represents a 7.91% improvement over classification by sample

size, which was discussed earlier in Chapter IV.
In applying the two analyses to the data reported for
the two groups according to which of the four original client
groups a subject came from, markedly different results are
obtained:
(i) T-score analysis of the data reported for clients
referred from Human Resources, shows that not only was
there no significant difference between clients who committed an adjudicated offence or who had a POE conducted on
them during the follow-up period and those who did not, in
the case of four of the nine subscales the results are in
the opposite direction to what was hypothesized.

However,

the five that are in the hypothesized direction are the

same as those that were significant for the larger sample.
Discriminant function analysis demonstrates that only
a moderate separation between the two groups was attained.
This is shown by the r value of 0.467 which is significant
at the .O1 level.

Figures show that the derived coeffi-

cients were able to correctly predict group membership with

70.59% accuracy.

(ii) T-score analysis of the data reported for POE

referrals shows a substantial difference between the two
groups.

The differences were all in the hypothesized

direction and significance was attained on seven o f the

nine subscales.

All significant variables were the same

a s t h o s e r e p o r t e d f o r t h e l a r g e r sample e x c e p t f o r one,
"Family S e l f " w h e r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was shown,
and t h r e e o t h e r s i n d i c a t e d e a r l i e r i n T a b l e 3 w h e r e t h e
POE s u b g r o u p d e m o n s t r a t e d s i g n i f i c a n c e .

D i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t i o n a n a l y s i s shows t h a t a s u b s t a n t i a l
s e p a r a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e two g r o u p s was a t t a i n e d , s i n c e t h e

r v a l u e was 0 . 7 4 2 , which was s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e . O 1 l e v e l .

F i g u r e s e a r l i e r shown i n T a b l e 11, r e v e a l t h e d e r i v e d
c o e f f i c i e n t s w e r e a b l e t o c o r r e c t l y p r e d i c t g r o u p members h i p w i t h 88.24% accuracy.
( i i i ) T-score a n a l y s i s of t h e d a t a r e p o r t e d f o r
d e l i n q u e n t f i r s t o f f e n d e r c l i e n t s , shows t h a t t h e r e was
l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e two g r o u p s .

Significance

was o n l y a t t a i n e d on t h e " P e r s o n a l S e l f " v a r i a b l e w h i c h

was i n t h e o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n t o w h a t we h y p o t h e s i z e d .
I n f a c t t h e r e s u l t s w e r e o n l y i n t h e same d i r e c t i o n a s was
o r i g i n a l l y h y p o t h e s i z e d on t h e " B e h a v i o u r " and " F a m i l y
Self" subscales.
D i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t i o n a n a l y s i s shows t h a t a s u b s t a n t i a l
s e p a r a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e two g r o u p s was a t t t a i n e d , a s i n d i c a t e d by a n r v a l u e o f 0 . 7 6 3 w h i c h was e a r l i e r r e p o r t e d i n
C h a p t e r I V , a n d was s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e . O 1 l e v e l .

Figures

e a r l i e r s h o m i n Table 13, r e v e a l t h e derived c o e f f i c i e n t s

w e r e a b l e t o c o r r e c t l y p r e d i c t g r o u p membership w i t h
85.71% accuracy.
C

( i v ) T-score a n a l y s i s of t h e d a t a r e p o r t e d f o r

d e l i n q u e n t s who had c o m m i t t e d more t h a n o n e o f f e n c e p r i o r

t o p r o g r a m i n v o l v e m e n t o r t h e J D X 2 g r o u p , shows t h a t
t h e r e was l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e two g r o u p s .

While

s i g n i f i c a n c e was o n l y a t t a i n e d on o n e s u b s c a l e , " S o c i a l
S e l f 1 ' , a l l d i f f e r e n c e s w e r e i n t h e same d i r e c t i o n a s was
o r i g i n a l l y hypothesized.
D i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t i o n a n a l y s i s shows t h a t o n l y a
m o d e r a t e s e p a r a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e two g r o u p s was a t t a i n e d ,
a s i n d i c a t e d by a n r v a l u e o f 0 . 4 3 8 w h i c h was s i g n i f i c a n t
at the . O 1 level.

F i g u r e s e a r l i e r shown i n T a b l e 1 5

r e v e a l t h e d e r i v e d c o e f f i c i e n t s were a b l e t o c o r r e c t l y
p r e d i c t g r o u p membership w i t h 7 2 . 0 9 % a c c u r a c y .

CONCLUSIONS
The s t u d y p o i n t s t o a number o f c o n c l u s i o n s c o n c e r n i n g
d i f f e r e n c e s i n s e l f - c o n c e p t w i t h i n t h e s u b j e c t p o p u l a t i o n and
t h e p o s s i b l e u t i l i t y o f t h e TSCS a s a p r e d i c t i v e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n
instrument.

For t h e s a k e of c l a r i t y t h i s s e c t i o n i s d i v i d e d

i n t o t h r e e s u b s e c t i o n s : (1) t h e major conclusions concerning

t h e i n i t i a l h y p o t h e s e s made f o r t h e c o m p l e t e s t u d y p o p u l a t i o n ;
( 2 ) c o n c l u s i o n s d e r i v e d from t h e s e p a r a t e a n a l y s e s conducted

a c c o r d i n g t o t h e f o u r o r i g i n a l s u b g r o u p s t h a t made up t h e l a r g e r
s a m p l e ; and ( 3 ) i n c i d e n t a l c o n c l u s i o n s f r o m t h e s t u d y .

M a j o r F i n d-in=
The main c o n c l u s i o n t h a t may b e made f r o m t h e s t u d y

is t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n self-concept e x i s t between

commit a n a d j u d i c a t e d o f f e n c e o r who w e r e s u b j e c t s o f a POE

d u r i n g a n e i g h t e e n month f o l l o w - u p p e r i o d , v e r s u s t h o s e who
h a v e c o m m i t t e d no r e c o r d e d o f f e n c e s d u r i n g t h e same p e r i o d .
The e m p i r i c a l f i n d i n g s c o n f i r m e d most o f t h e p o s t u l a t e d h y p o t h e s e s w h i c h s t a t e d t h a t t h o s e who c o m m i t t e d no f u r t h e r o f f e n c e s
would o b t a i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r s c o r e s t h a n t h o s e who d i d ,
on a s e l e c t e d m e a s u r e o f s e l f - c o n c e p t .
The most s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e two g r o u p s
were f o u n d on t h e " S e l f - s a t i s f a c t i o n " a n d "Family S e l f " s u b scales.

T h i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t j u v e n i l e s who c o m m i t t e d no f u r t h e r

o f f e n c e s w e r e more s a t i s f i e d w i t h p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e i r i d e n t i t y
and f e l t more v a l u e d a n l e s s l i k e l y t o b e i n c o n f l i c t w i t h
t h e i r family than t h e o t h e r group.
O t h e r s u b s c a l e s w h e r e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were f o u n d ,
i n c l u d e : " P h y s i c a l S e l f " , t t S o c i a l S e l f " , and "Overall Level o f
Self-Esteem".

A c c o r d i n g t o t h e t e s t manual t h i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t

j u v e n i l e s who c o m m i t t e d a n o f f e n c e o r who w e r e s u b j e c t s o f a
POE t e n d t o h a v e f e w e r s o c i a l s k i l l s a n d a r e more l i k e l y t o

conceive of themselves a s u n a t t r a c t i v e .

In addition, they a l s o

r e p o r t a l o w e r o v e r a l l l e v e l o f s e l f - c o n c e p t t h a n j u v e n i l e s who
c o m m i t t e d no f u r t h e r o f f e n c e s .
The r e s u l t s from t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f d i s c r i m i n a n t
a n a l y s i s t o t h e d a t a s u g g e s t t h a t t h e TSCS would be a p o o r
instrument f o r p r e d i c t i v e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n with s i m i l a r populaC

t i o n s and might be b e t t e r r e s t r i c t e d t o i n d i v i d u a l c o u n s e l l i n g

, -,'

and diagnosis.

The small r value that was reported showed that

only a small separation was achieved between the two groups

and also indicates considerable heterogeneity in scores within
both populations.

Results from the classification analysis

which showed that the derived coefficients were only able to

correctly predict group membership with 59.71% accuracy, are
even less impressive when you consider that the procedure was
retrospective based on existing data rather than the result of
predictive usage with a new sample.
Subgroup Findings

Any consideration of the results obtained from the

analyses conducted according to the four original study subgroups should take into account three pertinent factors: 1)
First, the analyses were the result of retrospective consideration and no attempt was made to match the groups, either
according to sample size or socio-demographic criteria;

2)

Second, the groups may not be considered to be representative

since referral to the program was made according to behavioural
versus offence criteria; and .3) Third, results may have been
influenced by the comparatively small sample size of each of
the respective groups.

Thus, subgroup findings should be con-

sidered to be suggestive and provocative more than conclusive,

and generalized conclusions should not be made from the results.
With the foregoing acknowledgement, a separate presentation is
made for each subgroup.

(i) In the analysis of the Human Resource referrals, no

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s w e r e found between t h e two g r o u p s .

When d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s was a p p l i e d i t was f o u n d t h a t
m o d e r a t e s e p a r a t i o n o f t h e two g r o u p s was p o s s i b l e and
t h e d e r i v e d c o e f f i c i e n t s were a b l e t o c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f y
7 0 . 5 9 % o f t h e g r o u p members.

T h i s r e s u l t would t e n d t o

s u g g e s t t h a t t h e TSCS i s o f l i t t l e u s e i n d e t e r m i n i n g
d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n j u v e n i l e s who would l a t e r commit a n
o f f e n c e a n d t h o s e who would n o t .

While t h e d i s c r i m i n a n t

a n a l y s i s shows some p r o m i s e , r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t t h e o v e r a l l
improvement o v e r a s s i g n m e n t by p o p u l a t i o n s i z e was o n l y
approximately 1 1 . 7 7 % , leads t o a s i m i l a r conclusion.
F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h w i t h a more r e p r e s e n t a t i v e g r o u p may l e a d
t o more s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s .
( i i ) I n t h e a n a l y s i s o f t h e POE r e f e r r a l s , s i g n i f i c a n t
d i f f e r e n c e s w e r e f o u n d b e t w e e n t h e two g r o u p s on s e v e n o f
the nine t e s t variables.

When t h e d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s

was a p p l i e d i t was f o u n d t h a t s u b s t a n t i a l s e p a r a t i o n o f
t h e two g r o u p s was p o s s i b l e a n d t h e d e r i v e d c o e f f i c i e n t s
were a b l e t o c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f y 8 8 . 2 4 % o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n .
T h i s r e s u l t i n d i c a t e s t h a t s e l f - c o n c e p t may b e a n i m p o r t a n t
v a r i a b l e i n determining whether another delinquency i s
c o m m i t t e d and t h e TSCS c o u l d b e a p o w e r f u l t o o l f o r p r e d i c t i v e usage with t h i s type of population.

Certainly, the

r e s u l t s would s u p p o r t t h e view t h a t f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s
should be encouraged.

( i i i ) In the analysis of the delinquent f i r s t offender

group, t h e o n l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between t h e groups

was o n t h e d i m e n s i o n o f " P e r s o n a l S e l f " w h i c h was i n t h e
o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n t o what was h y p o t h e s i z e d .

While t h e

s a m p l e w a s n ' t l a r g e enough t o draw a n y d e f i n i t e c o n c l u s i o n s ,

r e s u l t s may i n d i c a t e t h a t f i r s t o f f e n d e r s who l a t e r become
r e c i d i v i s t s may n o t c o n s i d e r t h e m s e l v e s a s i n n e e d o f t h e
t y p e o f a s s i s t a n c e t h a t s u c h a community p r o g r a m c a n p r o v i d e ,
w h i l e n o n - r e c i d i v i s t s may be o p e n t o s u c h h e l p .
f o r t h i s v i e w i s p r o v i d e d by Lewis e t a l .

Some s u p p o r t

( 1 9 7 7 ) who, i n a n

a n a l y s i s o f r e c i d i v i s m i n a D e t r o i t program, conclude t h a t
t h e agency w a s n ' t e f f e c t i v e i n reducing r e c o n v i c t i o n s f o r
f i r s t o f f e n d e r s a s t h e y may b e l e s s r e c e p t i v e t o r e h a b i l i t a t i o n e f f o r t s b e c a u s e t h e y a r e l e s s l i k e l y t o s e e thems e l v e s a s r e a l l y having a problem.

T h i s view i s a l s o

s u s t a i n e d by t h e f a c t t h a t a j u v e n i l e ' s a t t i t u d e i s c o n s i d e r e d by a p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e r d u r i n g a p r e - c o u r t e n q u i r y ,
a n d a number o f f i r s t o f f e n d e r s i n c l u d e d i n t h e sample may
h a v e h a d t h e "wrong a t t i t u d e " s i n c e c o u r t a c t i o n was deemed
necessary.
R e s u l t s from t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s
t o t h i s population indicated t h a t a substantial separation
o f t h e two g r o u p s c o u l d be a c h i e v e d and a c o r r e c t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f 8 5 . 7 1 % o f t h e s a m p l e c o u l d b e made.

A signifi-

c a n t number o f i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a b l e s w e r e i n c l u d e d i n t h e
derived,function indicating t h e u t i l i t y of discrimination
on a number o f d i f f e r e n t d i m e n s i o n s o f s e l f - c o n c e p t .

C e r t a i n l y , t h e r e s u l t tends t o support usage o f a weighing

system such a s discriminant a n a l y s i s i n c o n t r a s t t o s e p a r a t e
a n a l y s i s o f each v a r i a b l e .

Further research using the

t e s t i s w a r r a n t e d i n view of t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r e s u l t s
o b t a i n e d from such a l i m i t e d sample.
( i v ) I n t h e a n a l y s i s of t h e d a t a r e p o r t e d f o r t h e
J D X 2 g r o u p , t h e o n l y d i f f e r e n c e t h a t was f o u n d b e t w e e n

r e c i d i v i s t s a n d n o n - r e c i d i v i s t s was o n t h e " S o c i a l S e l f "

subscale.

T h i s i m p l i e s t h a t t h o s e who c o m m i t t e d f u r t h e r

o f f e n c e s may h a v e more d i f f i c u l t y i n making new f r i e n d s

and a s a r e s u l t a r e l e s s l i k e l y t o o b t a i n p e e r s u p p o r t
f o r p e r s o n a l c h a n g e s , t h a n t h o s e who c o m m i t t e d no f u r t h e r
offences.
When t h e d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s was a p p l i e d , o n l y a
s m a l l s e p a r a t i o n o f t h e two g r o u p s was a c h i e v e d and t h e
d e r i v e d c o e f f i c i e n t s were o n l y a b l e t o c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f y
72.09% of t h e population.

This r e s u l t demonstrates l i t t l e

a p p r e c i a b l e improvement o v e r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n by s a m p l e
s i z e a n d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e TSCS would b e a p o o r i n s t r u m e n t
f o r p r e d i c t i v e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n with similar populations.
Incidental Findings

S e v e r a l o t h e r f i n d i n g s a l s o a p p e a r t o be w a r r a n t e d
from t h e s t u d y ' s d a t a :
F i r s t , i t would a p p e a r t h a t t h e J D X2 s u b g r o u p may n o t
h a v e b e e n a c c u r a t e i n t h e i r s e l f - r e p o r t o r t h e y may n o t h a v e
n o t been r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f o t h e r such d e l i n q u e n t s i n g e n e r a l .

T h i s view i s s u b s t a n t i a t e d b y t h e f a c t t h a t t h e J D X 2 s u b g r o u p ' s
mean s c o r e o n t h e " T o t a l P o s i t i v e " o r " O v e r a l l L e v e l o f S e l f Esteem" s u b s c a l e was h i g h e r t h a n t h o s e r e p o r t e d f o r t h e o t h e r
subgroups.

The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h e Human R e s o u r c e s u b g r o u p

mean on t h e s u b s c a l e was 3 1 0 . 0 6 , t h e POE s u b g r o u p mean was

3 0 6 . 4 7 , t h e f i r s t o f f e n d e r s u b g r o u p mean was 2 9 7 . 7 1 , w h i l e t h e
J D X 2 mean was 3 0 9 . 2 3 , much h i g h e r t h a n o t h e r r e p o r t e d r e s e a r c h

would l e a d u s t o e x p e c t .

For i n s t a n c e , r e s u l t s documented by

Bliss (1977) p r e d i c t t h a t g r o u p means s h o u l d b e i n a d e s c e n d i n g

o r d e r w i t h t h e Human R e s o u r c e g r o u p o b t a i n i n g t h e h i g h e s t
score.
F i n a l l y , r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t c o n s i d e r a b l e improvement
i n c l a s s i f i c a t i o n u s i n g d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s may be a t t a i n e d
by s e p a r a t e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f j u v e n i l e s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r
degree of formal involvement w i t h t h e j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e system.

In a l l i n s t a n c e s t h e four s e p a r a t e a n a l y s e s o f t h e subgroups
y i e l d e d a much more s i g n i f i c a n t d e g r e e o f c o r r e c t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n
than f o r t h e l a r g e r group.

However, f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h e x p l o r i n g

d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e type of o f f e n d e r p o p u l a t i o n s included

i n t h e s t u d y a r e n e c e s s a r y b e f o r e any d e f i n i t e c o n c l u s i o n s
s h o u l d be drawn.

IMPLICATIONS
T h e s e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s h a v e a number o f i m p o r t a n t i m p l i c aC t i o n s f o r p r a c t i t i o n e r s and r e s e a r c h e r s i n t h e
juvenile delinquency f i e l d .

E a r l i e r , t h e question of whether n e g a t i v e s e l f - c o n c e p t
p r e c e d e s i n i t i a l and s u b s e q u e n t l a b e l l i n g o f d e l i n q u e n t s was
I t was s u g g e s t e d t h a t i f n e g a t i v e s e l f - c o n c e p t c o u l d

raised.

be shown t o p r e c e e d d e l i n q u e n t b e h a v i o r t h e n some c a u s a l
r e l a t i o n s h i p may b e p r o p o s e d .

The d a t a from t h i s r e s e a r c h

s u p p o r t s t h e v i e w , t h a t t o some e x t e n t n e g a t i v e s e l f - c o n c e p t
does preceed delinquent behavior.

The d e g r e e o f s i g n i f i c a n c e

achieved i n t h i s research i s c o n s i s t e n t with t h e theory e a r l i e r

d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter I1 t h a t suggested t h a t t h e r e i s a c o n t i n u a l
i n t e r a c t i o n between s e l f - c o n c e p t and b e h a v i o r .
concept

leas

One's s e l f -

s e e n t o be a f f e c t e d by b e h a v i o r a n d i n t u r n b e h a v i o r

was s e e n t o b e a n e x p r e s s i o n o f , o r p a r t l y d e t e r m i n e d by s e l f concept.

I t may b e t h e o r i z e d t h a t s h o u l d t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n a l

dynamic n o t h a v e b e e n t a k i n g p l a c e , t h e n e i t h e r t h e r e would
h a v e b e e n no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e f o u n d b e t w e e n t h e g r o u p s ,
indicating t h a t behavior exclusively determines self-concept,
o r s i g n i f i c a n c e would h a v e b e e n a c h i e v e d a t a n e v e n g r e a t e r
l e v e l , indicating t h a t self-concept exclusively determines
behavior.
A s B l i s s (1977) h a s n o t e d , t h e f o r e g o i n g i n t e r a c t i o n

concept h a s important i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r a g e n c i e s working w i t h

delinquents.

The i n t e r a c t i o n c o n c e p t s u g g e s t s t h a t c h a n g e i n

d e l i n q u e n t b e h a v i o r m i g h t b e s t be a c c o m p l i s h e d by w o r k i n g on
b o t h v a r i a b l e s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y , b e h a v i o r and s e l f - c o n c e p t .
T h e r e f ~ r e , ~ s u cahg e n c i e s s h o u l d c r e a t e a n a t m o s p h e r e where
n o t only i s f i r m and e f f e c t i v e s u p e r v i s i o n r e c e i v e d , b u t

i n d i v i d u a l s a l s o a r e encouraged t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e y a r e of
p e r s o n a l w o r t h and v a l u e .

A l s o , t h e a g e n c y must h e l p t h e

d e l i n q u e n t f i n d a new b e h a v i o r t h a t i s more r e w a r d i n g and

provide t h e opportunies f o r those rewards.
The s t u d y may a l s o h a v e d e f i n i t e i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e
p a r t i c u l a r agency involved.

The r e s u l t s s u g g e s t t h e p o s s i b l y

f a m i l y c o u n s e l l i n g , a component n o t o f f e r e d by t h e p r o g r a m a t
t h e moment, may b e w o r t h w h i l e and s h o u l d b e i n c l u d e d .

Also,

programming s h o u l d s t r e s s o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r s o c i a l s k i l l
d e v e l o p m e n t , i d e n t i t y f o r m a t i o n , a n d e x c e r c i s e s and t r a i n i n g
i n decision-making.

F i n a l l y , t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n s c o r e s on

t h e " P h y s i c a l S e l f " s u b s c a l e may i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e p r o g r a m

should:

a ) i n c l u d e an a c t i v e r e c r e a t i o n a l component s t r e s s i n g

bodybuilding; b) u t i l i z e medical examinations t o a l l a y c l i e n t

c o n c e r n s w i t h t h e i r body; a n d / o r c ) p r o v i d e o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o
p u r c h a s e c l o t h i n g t h a t i s i n keeping w i t h p e e r s t a n d a r d s of
d r e s s and a p p e a r a n c e .
I n v i e w o f some o f t h e o t h e r d i f f e r e n c e s f o u n d w i t h i n
p a r t i c u l a r s u b g r o u p s , t h e a g e n c y may a l s o w i s h t o c o n s i d e r :
a) e i t h e r not accepting f i r s t offenders o r attempting t o get
them t o a c k n o w l e d g e t h e n e e d f o r t h e p r o g r a m ; b ) d e v e l o p i n g
a s o c i a l s k i l l program f o r r e c i d i v i s t s r e f e r r e d t o t h e agency;
and c ) a p p l y i n g t h e d e r i v e d p r e d i c t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s t o f u t u r e
POE r e f e r r a l s a n d w o r k i n g more c l o s e l y w i t h low s c o r e r s .
Fo5 r e s e a r c h e r s who w i s h t o c o n d u c t o t h e r s e l f - c o n c e p t
s t u d i e s , t h i s s t u d y h a s two main i m p l i c a t i o n s .

The f i r s t i s

t h a t a l a r g e h e t e r o g e n e o u s s a m p l e may o b s c u r e i m p o r t a n t d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n i n d i v i d u a l s u b g r o u p s t h a t make i t up.

This f a c t

was amply i l l u s t r a t e d i n t h e c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a n c e i n r e s u l t s
a t t a i n e d by s e p a r a t e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e f o u r t y p e s o f d e l i n q u e n t s r e f e r r e d t o t h e program.

A second i m p l i c a t i o n i s t h a t

d i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t i o n a n a l y s i s may y i e l d i m p o r t a n t r e s u l t s
n o t r e a d i l y a p p a r e n t i n a s i m p l e t - s c o r e c o m p a r i s o n o f TSCS
subscales.

T h i s was d e m o n s t r a t e d by t h e s u b s t a n t i a l s e p a r a t i o n

a t t a i n e d f o r t h e d e l i n q u e n t f i r s t o f f e n d e r subgroup even though

l i t t l e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found i n t - s c o r e c o m p a r i s o n s .
The r e s e a r c h i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n o f what d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t b e t w e e n POE p r o b a t i o n c l i e n t s and d e l i n q u e n t f i r s t
o f f e n d e r s would be a f r u i t f u l a r e a o f f u t u r e s t u d y , s i n c e s u c h
s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s w e r e f o u n d b e t w e e n POE r e c i d i v i s t s a n d
non-recidivists.
Others c o n s i d e r i n g research i n t h i s a r e a should consider
the following points:
a ) The t y p e o f d e s i g n u s e d i n t h i s s t u d y was a b e f o r e a f t e r d e s i g n , which d i d n o t p r o v i d e f o r t h e r e t e s t i n g o f
s u b j e c t s and was l i m i t e d t o a n e i g h t e e n month f o l l o w - u p ,
I d e a l l y , r e s e a r c h t h a t was l o n g e r t e r m and p r o v i d e d f o r
r e t e s t i n g would b e more f r u i t f u l .

An example o f s u c h a

s t u d y i s p r o v i d e d b y A g e t o n and E l l i o t ( 1 9 7 3 ) who i n t e r viewed 2,617 y o u t h s i n e i g h t d i f f e r e n t s c h o o l s , once

annuall

Y9

from t h e n i n t h t o t w e l f t h g r a d e s .

Such a f o u r

y e a r comparison would p r o v i d e v a l u a b l e d a t a a s v a r i o u s

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s o f d e l i n q u e n t s c o u l d be compared a s f u r t h e r
d e l i n q u e n c i e s were recorded.
b ) Dependency on a p a p e r a n d p e n c i l t e s t was l i m i t i n g

and f u t u r e s t u d i e s s h o u l d c o n s i d e r i n c l u d i n g d a t a from
o t h e r s o u r c e s s u c h a s p a r e n t i n t e r v i e w s and t e a c h e r r a t i n g s .
c ) T h i s s t u d y was c o n d u c t e d u s i n g o n l y male s u b j e c t s .
Data c o l l e c t e d f r o m f e m a l e s u b j e c t s would be i n t e r e s t i n g
f o r c o m p a r i s o n and m i g h t p e r m i t t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f
separate predictive c r i t e r i a .

APPENDIX I
NATURE AND MEANING

OF
TSCS SUBSCALE SCORES

A c c o r d i n g t o W , F i t t s ( 1 9 6 5 : Z ) i n t h e Manual f o r t h e
T e n n e s s e e s e l f Concept S c a l e , t h e n a t u r e a n d meaning o f t h e
s u b s c a l e s c o r e s i n c l u d e d on t h e C o u n s e l l i n g Form i s a s f o l l o w s :
A . The S e l f C r i t i c i s m S c o r e ( S C ) . T h i s s c a l e i s comp o s e d o f 10 i t e m s . These a r e a l l m i l d l y d e r o g a t o r y s t a t e m e n t s t h a t most p e o p l e a d m i t t o b e i n g t r u e f o r them. I n d i v i d u a l s who d e n y most o f t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s a r e b e i n g d e f e n s i v e a n d making a d e l i b e r a t e e f f o r t t o p r e s e n t a f a v o r a b l e
p i c t u r e of themselves.
High s c o r e s g e n e r a l l y i n d i c a t e
n o r m a l h e a l t h y o p e n n e s s , and c a p a c i t y f o r s e l f - c r i t i c i s m .
Extremely h i g h s c o r e s (above t h e 9 9 t h p e r c e n t i l e ) i n d i c a t e
t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l may be l a c k i n g i n d e f e n s e s and may i n
f a c t be p a t h o l o g i c a l l y undefended.
Low s c o r e s i n d i c a t e
d e f e n s i v e n e s s , and s u g g e s t t h a t t h e P o s i t i v e S c o r e s a r e
p r o b a b l y a r t i f i c i a l l y e l e v a t e d by t h i s d e f e n s i v e n e s s .
B . The O v e r a l l Level o f S e l f - E s t e e m o r T o t a l P o s i t i v e
S c o r e ( P ) . T h i s i s t h e most i m p o r t a n t s i n g l e s c o r e on t h e
C o u n s e l l i n g Form.
I t r e f l e c t s the o v e r a l l l e v e l of s e l f esteem. persons with high scores tend t o l i k e themselves,
f e e l t h a t t h e y a r e p e r s o n s of worth and v a l u e , have conf i d e n c e i n t h e m s e l v e s , and a c t a c c o r d i n g l y . P e o p l e w i t h
low s c o r e s a r e d o u b t f u l a b o u t t h e i r own w o r t h ; s e e thems e l v e s a s u n d e s i r a b l e ; o f t e n f e e l a n x i o u s , d e p r e s s e d , and
unhappy; and have l i t t l e f a i t h o r c o n f i d e n c e i n t h e m s e l v e s .
I f t h e S e l f C r i t i c i s m (SC) S c o r e i s low, h i g h P
s c o r e s become s u s p e c t and a r e p r o b a b l y t h e r e s u l t o f d i s tortion.
Extremely h i g h s c o r e s ( g e n e r a l l y above t h e 9 9 t h
p e r c e n t i l e ) a r e d e v i a n t and a r e u s u a l l y f o u n d o n l y i n s u c h
p e o p l e a s p a r a n o i d s c h i z o p h r e n i c s who a s a g r o u p show many
e x t r e m e s c o r e s , b o t h h i g h and low.
On t h e C o u n s e l l i n g Form t h e P o s i t i v e S c o r e s a r e
simply designated a s P Scores.

C . Row 1 P S c o r e - I d e n t i t y . T h e s e a r e t h e w h a t I am
items.
Here t h e i n d i v i d u a l i s d e s c r i b i n g h i s b a s i c
i d e n t i t y - what h e i s a s h e s e e s h i m s e l f .
D . Row 2 P S c o r e - S e l f S a t i s f a c t i o n . T h i s s c o r e comes
from t h o s e i t e m s w h e r e t h e i n d i v i d u a l d e s c r i b e s how h e
f e e l s about t h e s e l f t h a t he p e r c e i v e s .
In general t h i s
score reflects the level of self satisfaction or s e l f
a c c e p t a n c e . An i n d i v i d u a l may h a v e v e r y h i g h s c o r e s on
Row 1 a n d Row 3 y e t s t i l l s c o r e low on Row 2 b e c a u s e o f
v e r y h i g h s t a n d a r d s and e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r h i m s e l f .
O r vice
v e r s a , h e may h a v e a low o p i n i o n o f h i m s e l f a s i n d i c a t e d
by th"e Row 1 a n d Row 3 s c o r e s y e t s t i l l h a v e a h i g h S e l f
The s u b - s c o r e s a r e t h e r e f o r e
S a t i s f a c t i o n S c o r e on Row 2 .

b e s t i n t e r p r e t e d i n c o m p a r i s o n w i t h e a c h o t h e r and w i t h t h e
Total P Score.

E . Row 3 P S c o r e - B e h a v i o u r . T h i s s c o r e comes f r o m
t h o s e i t e m s t h a t s a y t h i s i s w h a t I d o o r t h i s i s t h e way
I a c t . Thus, t h i s s c o r e measures t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f h i s own b e h a v i o r o r how h e f u n c t i o n s .
F . Column A - P h y s i c a l S e l f . H e r e t h e i n d i v i d u a l i s
p r e s e n t i n g h i s view of h i s body, h i s s t a t e of h e a l t h , h i s
h h y s i c a l appearance, s k i l l s and-s e x u a l i t y .
G . Column B - M o r a l - E t h i c a l S e l f . T h i s s c o r e d e s c r i b e s
t h e s e l f from a m o r a l - e t h i c a l frame o f r e f e r e n c e - - moral
w o r t h , r e l a t i o n s h i p t o God, f e e l i n g s o f b e i n g a g o o d o,r b a d
p e r s o n , and s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h o n e ' s r e l i g i o n o r l a c k o f i t .
H . Column C - P e r s o n a l S e l f . T h i s s c o r e r e f l e c t s t h e
i n d i v i d u a l ' s sense of personal worth. h i s f e e l i n e of
a d e q u a c y a s a p e r s o n and h i s e v a l u a t i o n o f h i s p G r s o n a l i t y
a p a r t f r o m h i s body o r h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h o t h e r s .

I . Column D - F a m i l y S e l f . T h i s s c o r e r e f l e c t s o n e ' s
f e e l i n g s o f a d e q u a c y , w o r t h , and v a l u e a s a f a m i l y member.
I t r e f e r s t o t h e individual's perception of s e l f i n
r e f e r e n c e t o h i s c l o s e s t and mbst immediate c i r c l e o f
associates.

J . Column E - S o c i a l S e l f . T h i s i s a n o t h e r s e l f a s
perceived i n r e l a t i o n t o others category but pertains t o
o t h e r s i n a more "
g e n e r a l wav.
I t reflects the person's
s e n s e o f a d e q u a c y and w o r t h ' i n h i s s o c i a l i n t e r i c t i o n w i t h
other people -in general.
K . The V a r i a b i l i t y S c o r e s ( V ) . The V S c o r e s p r o v i d e a
s i m p l e m e a s u r e o f t h e amount o f v a r i a b i l i t y o r i n c o n s i s t e n c y
f r o m o n e a r e a o f s e l f p e r c e p t i o n t o a n o t h e r . High s c o r e s
mean t h a t t h e s u b j e c t i s q u i t e v a r i a b l e i n t h i s r e s p e c t
w h i l e low s c o r e s i n d i c a t e low v a r i a b i l i t y w h i c h may e v e n
a p p r o a c h r i g i d i t y i f e x t r e m e l y low ( b e l o w t h e f i r s t p e r c e n tile).
1 . T o t a l V ( T V ) . T h i s r e p r e s e n t s t h e t o t a l amount o f
v a r i a b i l i t y f o r t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d . High s c o r e s mean
t h a t t h e p e r s o n ' s s e l f concept i s s o v a r i a b l e from one
area t o another a s t o r e f l e c t l i t t l e unity or integrat i o n . High s c o r i n g p e r s o n s t e n d t o compartmentalize
c e r t a i n a r e a s o f s e l f and v i e w t h e s e a r e a s q u i t e a p a r t
from t h e r e m a i n d e r o f s e l f . W e l l i n t e g r a t e d p e o p l e
g e n e r a l l y s c o r e below t h e mean on t h e s e s c o r e s b u t a b o v e
the *first percentile.

2 . C o l u m n T o t a l V ( C V ) . T h i s s c o r e m e a s u r e s a n d summ a r i z e s t h e v a r i a t i o n s w i t h i n t h e columns.
3. Row T o t a l V ( R V ) . T h i s s c o r e i s t h e sum o f v a r i a t i o n s a c r o s s t h e rows.
L . T h e D i s t r i b u t i o n S c o r e ( D ) . T h i s s c o r e i s a summary
s c o r e o f t h e way o n e d i s t r i b u t e s h i s a n s w e r s a c r o s s t h e
f i v e a v a i l a b l e choices i n responding t o t h e items of t h e
S c a l e . I t i s a l s o i n t e r p r e t e d a s a measure o f s t i l l another
a s p e c t o f s e l f - p e r c e p t i o n : c e r t a i n t y a b o u t t h e way o n e s e e s
himself.
High s c o r e s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e s u b j e c t i s v e r y
d e f i n i t e and c e r t a i n i n what h e s a y s a b o u t h i m s e l f w h i l e
low s c o r e s mean j u s t t h e o p p o s i t e .
Low s c o r e s a r e a l s o
f o u n d a t t i m e s w i t h p e o p l e who a r e b e i n g d e f e n s i v e a n d
g u a r d e d . They h e d g e and a v o i d r e a l l y c o m m i t t i n g thems e l v e s by e m p l o y i n g "3" r e s p o n s e s o n t h e Answer S h e e t .
E x t r e m e s c o r e s on t h i s v a r i a b l e a r e u n d e s i r a b l e i n
e i t h e r d i r e c t i o n and a r e most o f t e n o b t a i n e d f r o m d i s t u r b e d
people.
F o r e x a m p l e , s c h i z o p h r e n i c p a t i e n t s o f t e n u s e "5"
and "1" a n s w e r s a l m o s t e x c l u s i v e l y , t h u s c r e a t i n g v e r y h i g h
D scores.
Other disturbed patients a r e extremely uncertain
and n o n c o m m i t t a l i n t h e i r s e l f d e s c r i p t i o n s w i t h a p r e dominance o f " 2 " , " 3 " , and ''4" r e s p o n s e s a n d v e r y low D
scores.

APPENDIX

TSCS

I1

S A M P L E TEST QUESTIONS

I. I have

a healthy body

................................................
...........................................

3. 1

om on a t t r a c t i v e person..

5. 1

consider myself a sloppy person..

19. 1

am a d e c e n t sort o f person.

....................................

.........................................

21. l a m a n honest person ................................................

2 3 . , I o m ~ b o person
d

37.

l a m a c h c e r f u l person

39. 1
41.

...................................................
...............................................

am a c a l m a n d easy g o i n g person..

l a m o n o b o dy

...................................

......................................................

55. 1 hove o f a m i l y t h o t w o u l d olwoys h e l p me i n any k i n d o f t r o u b l e . .

57. 1

59.

am o member o f a happy f a m i l y . .

....................................

M y friends h o v e n o c o n f i d e n c e i n m e . .

73. 1 am a f r i e n d l y person..
75. 1 am p o p u l a r w i t h m e n . . .

77. I am

........

................................

.............................................
............................................

not interested in whot other people do..

91. 1 do n o t a l w a y s t e l l the t r u t h . .

...........................

........................................

93. 1 g e t angry sometimes ................................................

APPENDIX I I I
TSCS N O R M A T I V E D A T A

W.

Fitts (1965:13) in t h e Manual for t h e T e n n e s s e e

s e l f c o n c e p t S c a l e reports t h e following n o r m a t i v e d a t a f o r

the test:
Means,

Standard Deviations,

a n d Re1 i a b i l i t y C o e f f i c i e n t s

Tennessee S e l f Concept S c a l e

MEAN

SCORE

S e l f - c r i t i c i s m (SC)

35.54

Total Positive (TP)

345.57

Row 1 ( R l )

127.10

Row 2 ( R 2 )

103.67

Row 3 ( R 3 )

115.01

Column A ( C o l . A )

71.78

Column B ( C o 1 . B )

70.33

C o l u m n C ( C o l C)

64.55

Column D ( C o l .D)

70.83

Column E ( C o 1 . E )

68.14

T o t a l V a r i a b l it y ( T V )

48.53

Column V a r i a b i l i t y (CV)

29.03

Row V a r i a b i l i t y ( R V )

19.40

D i s t r i b u t i o n Score ( D )

STANDARD
DEVIATION

RELIABILITY*

120.44

* Reliability data based o n test-retest w i t h 6 0 c o l l e g e

students o v e r a t w o - w e e k period.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abrahamsen, D a v i d . Crime and t h e Human ~ i n d New
,
York: Columbia
U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1944.
Abrahamsen, D a v i d . psychoZogy o f C r i m e , New York:
U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1960.

Columbia

Ageton, S u z a n n e , and D . S . E l l i o t . "The E f f e c t s o f L e g a l P r o c e s s i n g on S e l f C o n c e p t . "

Boulder:
I n s t i t u t e of Behavioral
S c i e n c e , U n i v e r s i t y of Colorado, 1973.
(Mimeographed.)
C i t e d i n D . C . B l i s s , The E f f e c t s o f t h e J u v e n i Z e J u s t i c e
S y s t e m o n S e l f C o n c e p t , San F r a n c i s c o : R G E R e s e a r c h
A s s o c i a t e s , 1977.
A t c h i s o n , C . 0 . "A C o m p a r a t i v e S t u d y o f t h e S e l f - c o n c e p t o f
B e h a v i o r Problem and Non-Behavior P r o b l e m High S c h o o l
Boys." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , I n d i a n a U n i v e r s i t y , 1958.
Cited
i n W . H . F i t t s and W . T. Hamner, The S e l f Concept and
D e l i n q u e n c y , p . 1 6 . Dede W a l l a c e C e n t e r Monograph No. 1.
N a s h v i l l e : C o u n s e l o r R e c o r d i n g s and T e s t s , 1 9 6 9 .
B a l e s t e r , R . J . "The S e l f Concept and J u v e n i l e D e l i n q u e n c y . "
Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , V a n d e r b i l t U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 5 6 . C i t e d
i n W . H . F i t t s a n d W . T . Hamner, T h e S e l f Concept and
D e z i n q u e n c y , p . 1 6 . Dede W a l l a c e C e n t e r Monograph No. 1.
N a s h v i l l e : C o u n s e l o r R e c o r d i n g s and T e s t s , 1 9 6 9 .
Bakan, D .

"The T e s t o f S i g n i f i c a n c e i n P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e s e a r c h , "
E d i t e d by P. E .
N o r r i s o n and R. E . Henkel.
Chicago: Aldine P u b l i s h i n g
Co., 1970.

i n The S i g n i f i c a n c e T e s t C o n t r o v e r s y .

B l a c k , B . M. "The R e l a t i o n a h i p o f S e l f C o n c e p t t o P h y s i c a l S k i l l
and A t h l e t i c C o m p e t i t i o n . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , D e e r f i e l d
C o l l e g e , 1976.
B l i s s , D . C . The E f f e c t s o f t h e J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e S y s t e m o n S e l f
Concept, San F r a n c i s c o : R
E Research A s s o c i a t e s , 1977.
B o n j e a n , C . , R . H i l l , a n d S . D . McLemore.
S o c i o Z o g i c a Z Measuremen&: An I n v e n t o r y o f S c a l e s and I n d i c e s , San F r a n c i s c o :
Chandler P u b l i s h i n g , 1967.
B r a n d e n , N . The P s y c h o l o g y o f S e l f - E s t e e m ,
Boo$s, 1 9 6 9 .

Los A n g e l e s : Bantam

B u h l e r , C . " G e n e t i c A s p e c t s o f t h e S e l f , " A n n a l s of t h e New Y o r k

Academy o f S c i e n c e s , 96 ( 1 9 6 2 ) , 7 3 0 - 6 4 .
C i t e d i n L. Wells
a n d G . M a r w e l l . s e l f - E s t e e m : I t s C o n c e p t i o n and M e a s u r e m e n t , p . 39. B e v e r l y H i l l s : Sage P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1 9 7 6 .
B u t t e r f i e l d , M . L . The E f f e c t o f C e r t a i n Group A c t i v i t i e s o n
t h e S e l f R e p o r t o f S e l e c t e d High S c h o o l S t u d e n t s , Ph.D.
d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Miami.
Ann A r b o r , M i c h . :
U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s , No. 6 6 - 1 2 , 9 9 8 , 1 9 6 6 . C i t e d i n
W . H . F i t t s , The S e l f C o n c e p t and P e r f o r m a n c e , p . 3 3 .
Dede W a l l a c e C e n t e r Monograph No. 5 .
Nashville:
Couns e l o r Recordings and T e s t s , 1972.
B y l e s , J . F i n a l R e p o r t : The J u v e n i l e S e r v i c e s P r o j e c t , O f f i c e
o f W e l f a r e G r a n t s D i r e c t o r a t e , G r a n t No. 2 5 5 5 - 5 5 - 1 ,
Ottawa: Department o f National H e a l t h and Welfare, 1977.
C a l k i n s , M. W . "The S e l f i n S c i e n t i f i c P s y c h o l o g y , " A m e r i c a n
J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o Z o g y , 26 ( l 9 1 5 ) , 4 9 5 - 5 2 4 .
C i t e d i n R.
W y l i e , "The P r e s e n t S t a t u s o f S e l f T h e o r y , " i n Handbook
E d i t e d by E . B o r g a t t a
o f P e r s o n a l i t y T h e o r y and R e s e a r c h .
C h i c a g o : Rand McNally a n d C o . , 1 9 6 8 .
and W. Lambert.
C h r i s t i a n , Q . A . The Re Z a t i o n s h i p B e t w e e n P h y s i c a l F i t n e s s and
S e l f C o n c e p t , Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , E a s t T e x a s S t a t e
University.
Ann A r b o r , Mich: U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s ,
No. 6 9 - 2 1 , 1 6 5 , 1 9 6 9 . C i t e d i n W . F i t t s , a n d o t h e r s .
The S e l f C o n c e p t a n d S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n , p . 4 6 .
Dede
W a l l a c e C e n t e r Monograph No. 3 . N a s h v i l l e : C o u n s e l o r
Recordings and T e s t s , 1971.
Cohen, A . "Some I m p l i c a t i o n s o f S e l f - E s t e e m f o r S o c i a l I n f l u e n c e , " i n P e r s o n a l i t y and P e r s u a s i b i l i t y , p p . 1 0 2 - 2 0 .
New Haven: Y a l e
E d i t e d by C . H o v l a n d a n d I . J a n i s .
U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1959.
Combs, A . W . a n d D . Snygg. I n d i v i d u a l B e h a v i o r , New York:
IIaryers, 1959.
C o o l e y , C . H . Human N a t u r e a n d S o c i a l O r d e r , N e w York:
S c r i b n e r s ' Sons, 1902.

Charles

C r a i g , R . S . "Changes i n S e l f C o n c e p t s a n d Academic A c h i e v e m e n t
o f I n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d D e l i n q u e n t Boys i n a D i f f e r e n t i a l
T r e a t m e n t P r o g r a m . " Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , I n d i a n a U n i v e r s i t y , 1975
C r a n d a l l , R . "The bleasurement o f S e l f - E s t e e m a n d R e l a t e d Cons t r q c t s , " i n M e a s u r e s of S o c i a l P s y c h o Z o g i c a Z A t t i t u d e s ,
pp. 35-158.
E d i t e d by J . R o b i n s o n a n d P. S h a v e r . Ann
Arbor, Mich.:
I n s t i t u t e f o r S o c i a l Research, 1973.

C r o n b a c h , L . J . E s s e n t i a l s of p s y c h o l o g i c a l T e s t i n g , 2nd e d .
New Y o r k : H a r p e r and Row, 1 9 6 0 .
C u r r y , M . , R . Manning, a n d D . Monroe. "A S t u d y o f S e l f C o n c e p t s
of Juvenile Delinquents i n S p e c i f i c I n s t i t u t i o n s i n t h e
S t a t e o f T e n n e s s e e . " M.A. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f
T e n n e s s e e , 1 9 7 1 . C i t e d i n W . Thompson, C o r r e l a t e s of t h e
S e l f C o n c e p t , p . 3 2 . Dede W a l l a c e C e n t e r Monograph No. 6 .
N a s h v i l l e : Counselor Recordings and T e s t s , 1972.
D e i t c h e , J . H . "The P e r f o r m a n c e o f D e l i n q u e n t a n d N o n - D e l i n q u e n t
Boys on t h e T e n n e s s e e D e p a r t m e n t o f M e n t a l H e a l t h S e l f
C o n c e p t S c a l e . " Ph. D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , I n d i a n a U n i v e r s i t y ,
1 9 5 9 . C i t e d i n W . F i t t s a n d W . Hamner, The S e l f C o n c e p t
a n d D e l i n q u e n c y , p . 1 9 . Dede W a l l a c e C e n t e r Monograph
No. 1. N a s h v i l l e :
Counselor Recordings and T e s t s , 1969.
D e s s a u r , C . I . F o u n d a t i o n s of Theory F o r m a t i o n i n C r i m i n o l o g y ,
The Hague: blouton a n d C o . , 1 9 7 1 .
D i g g o r y , S. S e l f - E v a l u a t i o n : C o n c e p t s a n d S t u d i e s , New York:
John Wiley and S o n s , 1966.
D i n i t z , S . , F. S c a r p i t t i , and W . R e c k l e s s . " D e l i n q u e n c y V u l n e r a b i l i t y : A C r o s s - G r o u p a n d L o n g i t u d i n a l A n a l y s i s , " Americ a n S o c i o l o g i c a Z Review, 27 ( 1 9 6 2 ) , p p . 5 1 5 - 1 7 .
D o n a l d , E . P. " S e l f C o n c e p t o f S i x t h G r a d e B o y s : A S t u d y o f
D e l i n q u e n c y P r o n e n e s s . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Ohio S t a t e
U n i v e r s i t y , 1963.
Dorn, D . S . " S e l f C o n c e p t , A l i e n a t i o n , a n d A n x i e t y i n a C o n t r a c u l t u r e a n d S u b c u l t u r e : A R e s e a r c h R e p o r t , " J o u r n a l of
59 ( 1 9 6 8 ) ,
C r i m i n a l Law, Criminology, a n d P o l i c e S c i e n c e , pp. 531-35.
Empey, L . T. A Model f o r t h e E v a l u a t i o n of P r o g r a m s i n J u v e n i l e
J u s t i c e , W a s h i n g t o n : Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1 9 7 7 .
E p s t e i n , S . "The S e l f C o n c e p t R e v i s i t e d : o r a T h e o r y o f a
Theory," American P s y c h o l o g i s t , 28 (1973), pp. 404-16.
F i t t s , W . H . NanuaZ f o r t h e T e n n e s s e e S e l f C o n c e p t S c a l e ,
N a s h v i l l e : Counselor Recordings and T e s t s , 1965.
F i t t s , W . H . The S e l f C o n c e p t a n d P s y c h o p a t h o l o g y , Dede W a l l a c e
C e n t e r blonograph No. 4 .
N a s h v i l l e : Counselor Recordings
and T e s t s , 1972a
C

F i t t s , W . Id. The S e l f C o n c e p t a n d P e r f o r m a n c e , Dede W a l l a c e

C e n t e r FIonograph N O . 5 . N a s h v i l l e : C o u n s e l o r R e c o r d i n g s
and T e s t s , 1972b.

.,

F i t t s , W . H . The S e Z f C o n c e p t and B e h a v i o r : O v e r v i e w and S u p p l e m e n t , Dede W a l l a c e C e n t e r Monograph No. 7 . N a s h v i l l e :

Counselor Recordings and T e s t s , 1972c.
F i t t s , W . H . "The S e l f C o n c e p t : A V a n t a g e P o i n t f o r Viewing
t h e Human S t a t e , " N a s h v i l l e : Dede W a l l a c e C e n t e r , 1 9 7 3 a .
(Mimeographed.)
F i t t s , W . H . " R e s e a r c h I s s u e s i n S e l f C o n c e p t Change: A S t u d y
o f S e n s i t i v i t y T r a i n i n g w i t h T e a c h e r s , " N a s h v i l l e : Dede
(Mimeographed.)
W a l l a c e C e n t e r , 1973b.
F i t t s , W . H . , J . L . Adams, G . R a d f o r d , W . C. R i c h a r d , B . K .
Thomas, hl. M . Thomas, a n d W . Thompson. The S e Z f C o n c e p t
and S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n , Dede W a l l a c e C e n t e r Monograph
No. 3 . N a s h v i l l e : C o u n s e l o r R e c o r d i n g s and T e s t s , 1 9 7 1 .
F i t t s , W . H . a n d G . K . B e l l . "An E v a l u a t i o n o f Group C o u n s e l i n g w i t h Nursing S t u d e n t s , " N a s h v i l l e Mental Health
C e n t e r R e s e a r c h B u l l e t i n No. 4 , 1 9 6 9 .
(Mimeographed.)
F i t t s , W . H . a n d W . T. Mamner.
The S e l f C o n c e p t and D e l i n q u e n c y ,
Dede W a l l a c e C e n t e r Monograph No. 1. N a s h v i l l e :
Counselor
R e c o r d i n g s and T e s t s , 1 9 6 9 .
F i t t s , W . H . a n d 0 . C . S t e w a r t . "The S e l f C o n c e p t o f T e a c h e r s
a s A f f e c t e d by S e n s i t i v i t y T r a i n i n g , ' " N a s h v i l l e M e n t a l
H e a l t h C e n t e r R e s e a r c h B u l l e t i n No. 6 , 1 9 6 9 .
(Mimeographed. )
F r a s e r C o r r e c t i o n a l R e s o u r c e s S o c i e t y . "FCRS - A R e p o r t , "
Burnaby, B r i t i s h Columbia: F r a s e r C o r r e c t i o n a l Resources
S o c i e t y , 1975.
(Mimeographed.)
Frankel, J . J . "Cross-Cultural V a l i d a t i o n of P e r s o n a l i t y I n t e g r a t i o n . " Paper presented a t t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Council of
P s y c h o l o g i s t s , Tel Aviv, I s r a e l , August 1970. C i t e d i n
W . H . F i t t s , The S e Z f C o n c e p t and P e r f o r m a n c e , p . 1 3 .
Dede W a l l a c e C e n t e r Monograph No. 5 . N a s h v i l l e : C o u n s e l o r
R e c o r d i n g s and T e s t s , 1 9 7 2 .
Gay, C . J . A c a d e m i c A c h i e v e m e n t a n d I n t e l l i g e n c e Among Negro
E i g h t h Grade S t u d e n t s a s a F u n c t i o n o f S e l f C o n c e p t .
Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , N o r t h T e x a s S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y .
Ann
A r b o r , b l i c h . : U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s , No. 6 6 - 6 4 0 9 , 1 9 6 6 .
C i t e d i n W . H. F i t t s , T h e S e l f C o n c e p t a n d P e r f o r m a n c e ,
p . 31.
Dede W a l l a c e C e n t e r Monograph No. 5 . N a s h v i l l e :
Counselor Recordings and T e s t s , 1972.

G e o r g e , F . H . The R e l a t i o n s h i p o f S e l f C o n c e p t , I d e a 2 Self
Concept, V a l u e s , and P a r e n t a l S e l f Concept t o t h e
V o c a t i o n a l A s p o r a t i o n o f A d o l e s c e n t Negro M a l e s .
Ph.D.
d i s s e r t a t i o n , N o r t h Texas S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . Ann A r b o r ,
M i c h . : U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s , No. 7 0 - 9 1 3 0 , 1970. C i t e d
i n W. Thompson, C o r r e Z a t e s o f t h e S e l f C o n c e p t , p . 36.
Dede W a l l a c e C e n t e r Monograph No. 6. N a s h v i l l e : C o u n s e l o r
R e c o r d i n g s and T e s t s , 1 9 7 2 .
G e r g e n , K . The C o n c e p t o f S e l f . New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t , and
Winston, 1971.
Gividen, G. M. " S t r e s s i n Airborne Training a s Related t o t h e
S e l f - c o n c e p t , M o t i v a t i o n , and B i o g r a p h i c a l F a c t o r s . "
M.A. d i s s e r t a t i o n , V a n d e r b i l t U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 5 9 . C i t e d i n
W. Thompson a n d o t h e r s .
The S e l f C o n c e p t a n d S e l f A c t u a Z i z a t i o n , p . 3 7 . Dede W a l l a c e C e n t e r Monograph No.
3.
N a s h v i l l e : C o u n s e l o r R e c o r d i n g s a n d T e s t s , 1971.
G o d f r e y , E . e d . "The N o r t h C a r o l i n a Advancement S c h o o l R e p o r t . "
W i n s t o n - S a l e m , 1 9 7 1 . C i t e d i n W . Thompson, C o r r e l a t e s
o f t h e S e l f C o n c e p t , p . 26. Dede W a l l a c e C e n t e r blonog r a p h No. 6.
N a s h v i l l e : C o u n s e l o r R e c o r d i n g s and T e s t s ,
1972.
G o l d , M . " S c h o l a s t i c E x p e r i e n c e s , S e l f - E s t e e m , and D e l i n q u e n t
Behavior: A Theory o f A l t e r n a t e Schools,"
Crime and
Delinquency, 14 ( 3 ) ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 2 9 0 - 3 0 8 .
Gordon, E . W . " G u i d i n g S o c i a l l y and E d u c a t i o n a l l y D i s a d v a n t a g e d
Youth." P a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t t h e C o l l e g e E n t r a c e Examinat i o n Board I n v i t a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e on t h e P r e p a r a t i o n o f
S c h o o l C o u n s e l l o r s , C h i c a g o , F e b r u a r y , 1966. C i t e d i n
W . Thompson, C o r r e Z a t e s o f t h e S e l f C o n c e p t , p . 4 1 .
Dede
W a l l a c e C e n t e r Monograph No. 6 . N a s h v i l l e :
Counselor
Recordings and T e s t s , 1972.
G o t t f r e d s o n , D . M . ''Assessment and P r e d i c t i o n Methods i n Crime
and D e l i n q u e n c y , " i n T a s k F o r c e R e p o r t : J u v e n i l e D e Z i n q u e n c y and Y o u t h C r i m e , The P r e s i d e n t ' s Commission o n
Law E n f o r c e m e n t a n d A d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f J u s t i c e . W a s h i n g t o n :
Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1 9 6 8 .
G o t t f r e d s o n , D . M . " A s s e s s m e n t and P r e d i c t i o n Methods i n Crime
and D e l i n q u e n c y , " i n J u v e n i l e D e l i n q u e n c y , p p . 401- 24.
E d i t e d by J . E . T e e l e . I t h a s c a , I l l i n o i s : P e a c o c k
P u b l i s h i n g , 1970.
G r a n t , N. *Q. I n t e r a c t i o n B e t w e e n K i n d s o f T r e a t m e n t s and K i n d s
of D e l i u q u e n t s , B o a r d o f C o r r e c t i o n s , Monograph No. 2 .
S a c r a m e n t o : S t a t e P r i n t i n g D i v i s i o n , 1961.

G r a n t , M . Q . " I t ' s Time t o S t a r t C o u n t i n g , " Crime and DeZin8 ( 1 9 6 2 ) , 259-64.

quency, Hansen, J . , and P . Maynard. Y o u t h : S e l f C o n c e p t and B e h a v i o r ,
Columbus, O h i o : C h a r l e s E . M e r r i l l , 1 9 7 3 .
H a l l , C . C . A C o m p a r i s o n o f P e e r N o m i n a t i o n s and O t h e r V a r i a b l e s
o f S t u d e n t , T e a c h i n g E f f e c t i v e n e s s , Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
N o r t h Texas S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y .
Ann A r b o r , M i c h . : U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s , No. 6 7 - 1 5 , 0 1 7 , 1 9 6 7 . C i t e d i n W . F i t t s ,
The S e l f C o n c e p t and P e r f o r m a n c e , p . 48.
Dede IVallace
C e n t e r Monograph No. 5. N a s h v i l l e : C o u n s e l o r R e c o r d i n g s
and T e s t s , 1 9 7 2 .
Hempel, C . G . A s p e c t s o f S c i e n t i f i c E x p l a n a t i o n and O t h e r E s s a y s
i n t h e P h i l o s o p h y o f S c i e n c e , New York:
Prentice-Hall,
1965.
H i l g a r d , E . R . "Human M o t i v e s and t h e Concept o f S e l f , " A m e r i c a n
Psychologist, 4 (1949), 374-82.
H i r s c h i , T . a n d H . C . S e l v i n . D e l i n q u e n c y R e s e a r c h : An A p p r a i s a l
The F r e e P r e s s , 1 9 6 7 .
o f A n a l y t i c M e t h o d s , New York:
I g i n s k y , C . L . I n t e l l e c t u a l and N o n - I n t e Z l e c t u a l F a c t o r s A f f e c t i n g A c a d e m i c S u c c e s s o f C o l l e g e F r e s h m e n . Ph. D . d i s s e r t a t i o n , E a s t Texas S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y .
Ann A r b o r , M i c h . :
U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s , No. 6 8 - 1 4 , 4 9 9 , 1 9 6 8 . C i t e d i n W .
F i t t s , The S e l f C o n c e p t and P e r f o r m a n c e , p . 31.
Dede
W a l l a c e C e n t e r Monograph No. 5 .
Nashville:
Counselor
Recordings and T e s t s , 1972.
J a m e s , W . p r i n c i p l e s o f P s y c h o Z o g y , V o l . 1, New York:
H o l t , 1890.
James, W. P s y c h o l o g y :
H o l t , 1892.

The B r i e f e r C o u r s e , New York:

Henry
Henry

T e s t s and Measurement i n C h i l d
J o h n s o n , 0 . a n d J . Bommarito.
D e v e l o p m e n t : A Handbook, San F r a n c i s c o : J o s s e y - B a s s ,
1971.

J o p l i n , G . H . " S e l f C o n c e p t and t h e H i g h f i e l d s P r o g r a m , "

CorrectionaZ Psychologist, 3 (1968), 4-5.
J o p l i n , G . H . " S e l f Concept and t h e H i g h f i e l d s Program: R e c i d i 9 (1972), 491-95.
v i s t s and N o n - R e c i d i v i s t s , " C r i m i n o l o g y , J o p l i n , G . H . , W . T. Hamner, W . H . F i t t s , and S . Wrightman, "A
s e l f Concept Study o f J u v e n i l e Offenders i n Minnesota,"
N a s h v i l l e : Dede W a l l a c e C e n t e r , 1 9 7 3 .
(Mimeographed.)

Kaplan, H. B .
Forces,

" S e l f A t t i t u d e s and D e v i a n t R e s p o n s e , " S o c i a l

54 ( 4 ) ( l 9 7 6 ) , 7 8 8 - 8 0 4 .

King, R . D . , N . Y . Raynes and J . T i z a r d . P a t t e r n s o f R e s i d e n t i a l

C a r e , London: R o u t l e d g e , 1971.
Krop, H . , B . C a l h o u n , and R . V e r r i e r . " M o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e S e l f
Concept o f E m o t i o n a l l y D i s t u r b e d C h i l d r e n by C o v e r t R e i n 2 (1971) , 201-04.
f o r c e m e n t ," B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y , Labenne, I$'. a n d B . G r e e n e . E d u c a t i o n a l I m p l i c a t i o n s o f S e l f
C o n c e p t T h e o r y , P a c i f i c P a l i s a d e s , C a l i f . : Goodyear P u b . ,
1969.
L a j e u n e s s e , T. " D i v e r s i o n - A S u r v e y " , J u s t i c e P l a n n i n g and
Research.
V i c t o r i a , B . C . : Attorney-General's Department,
undated.
(Mimeographed.)
L a z a r s f i e l d , P . F . and M . R o s e n b e r g . The Language o f S o c i a l
R e s e a r c h , Glencoe, I l l i n o i s : Free P r e s s , 1955.
L e f e b e r , J . A . T h e D e l i n q u e n t ' s S e l f C o n c e p t . Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a . Ann A r b o r ,
M i c h . : U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s , No. 6 5 - 1 0 , 0 9 4 ,
L e w i s , S . , C , M . L i c h t m a n , S . M . Smock, and R . A . Emory. " P r o j e c t S t a r t - R e c i d i v i s m Update R e p o r t " , D e t r o i t : Wayne
S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1977.
(Mimeographed.)
L i v e l y , E . L . , S . D i n i t z , and W . R e c k l e s s , " S e l f C o n c e p t a s
a P r e d i c t o r o f J u v e n i l e Delinquency," American Journal
32 (1) (1962), 159-168.
of Orthopsychiatry, L o s s n e r , A . B . "The R e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h e S e l f C o n c e p t t o Maladj u s t m e n t i n High S c h o o l S t u d e n t s . " M.A. d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
FIurray S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 7 1 . C i t e d i n W. F i t t s , The
S e l f C o n c e p t and P e r f o r m a n c e , p . 40.
Dede W a l l a c e C e n t e r
Monograph No. 5 .
Nashville:
Counselor Recordings and
T e s t s , 1972.
Fact o r A r t i f a c t ? " PsychoZogicaZ
Lowe, C . "The S e l f C o n c e p t :
Bulletin, 58 ( 1 9 6 1 ) , 3 2 5 - 3 6 .
Maehr, M . , J . M e n s i n g , a n d S . M a f z g e r . "The C o n c e p t o f S e l f a n d
the Reaction of Others," Sociometry, 25 ( 1 9 6 2 ) , 3 5 3 - 5 7 .
hlann, D . I n t e r v e n i n g w i t h C o n v i c t e d S e r i o u s J u v e n i l e O f f e n d e r s ,
Washington:
Government P r i n i t i n g O f f i c e , 1 9 7 0 .
C

blarx, M . ]I. a n d W . A . H i l l i x . S y s t e m s and T h e o r i e s i n P s y c h o Z McGraw-Hill, 1 9 7 3 .

o g y , 2nd. e d . New York:

Massimo, J . L . , and M . F . S h o r e . "The E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f a Comprehensive, Vocationally Oriented Psychotherapeutic Program f o r A d o l e s c e n t D e l i n q u e n t Boys," A m e r i c a n JournaZ
o f Orthopsychiatry, 23 ( 4 ) ( l 9 6 3 ) , 6 3 4 - 4 2 .
M a s t e r s , F. G . a n d J . E . Tong. "The S e m a n t i c D i f f e r e n t i a l T e s t
w i t h B o r s t a l S u b j e c t s ," B r i t i s h J o u r n a l o f C r i m i n o Z o g y ,
8 (1968), 20-31.
FlcKinney, J . C.' C o n s t r u c t i v e T y p o l o g y and S o c i a Z T h e o r y , New
York: A p p l e t o n - C e n t u r y - C r o f t s , 1 9 6 6 .
F l c P a r t l a n d , T. ''A Manual f o r t h e T w e n t y - S t a t e m e n t s P r o b l e m . "
D e p a r t m e n t o f R e s e a r c h , The G r e a t e r Kansas C i t y M e n t a l
H e a l t h F o u n d a t i o n , 1959.
(Mimeographed.)
Mead, G . H . Mind, S e l f , and S o c i e t y , C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y o f
Chicago P r e s s , 1934.
Fleehl, P. E . " . . . S i r R o n a l d and t h e Slow P r o g r e s s o f S o f t
P s y c h o l o g y , " J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y ,
46 ( 4 ) ( l 9 7 8 ) , 8 0 6 - 3 4 .
b l e r t o n , R . K . S o c i a l T h e o r y and S o c i a l S t r u c t u r e , New York:
H a r c o u r t B r a c e , 1968.
b l i s c h e l , W . and E . E b b s e s s e n . " S i t u a t i o n a ' l A t t e n t i o n t o t h e
Self:
S i t u a t i o n a n d D i s p o s i t i o n a l D e t e r m i n a n t s ," J o u r n a l
o f P e r s o n a l i t y and s o c i a ? P s y c h o l o g y , 2 7 (1) (1969),
129-42.
M i t c h e l l , S . G . "A S t u d y o f C e r t a i n A s p e c t s o f S e l f Concept o f
S e l e c t e d D i s a d v a n t a g e d R u r a l M o u n t a i n Youth." M.A.
d i s s e r t a t i o n , Tennessee T e c h n o l o g i c a l U n i v e r s i t y , 1967.
C i t e d i n W . Thompson, C o r r e l a t e s o f t h e S e l f C o n c e p t ,
p . 4 2 . Dede W a l l a c e C e n t e r Nonograph No. 6 . N a s h v i l l e :
C o u n s e l o r R e c o r d i n g s and T e s t s , 1 9 7 2 .
b l o r r i s o n , D . E . and R . E . Henkel e d s . The S i g n i f i c a n c e T e s t
C h i c a g o : A l d i n e Pub. C o . , 1 9 7 0 .
Controversy,
Fforgan, E . R . " B e h a v i o r T h e o r y C o u n s e l i n g w i t h C u l t u r a l l y ,
D i s a d v a n t a g e d , U n d e r a c h i e v i n g Youth."
Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 7 0 . C i t e d i n W . F i t t s , The S e l f
C o n c e p t and P e r f o r m a n c e , p . 3 3 . Dede W a l l a c e C e n t e r
C o u n s e l o r R e c o r d i n g s and
Flonograph No. 5 . N a s h v i l l e :
T e s t s , 1972.
Nash, J . , D . Thomas, a n d A. W e i g e r t . "Code E l a b o r a t i o n a n d S e l f
Conoept S t a t e s , " J o u r n a l o f S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 90 ( 1 9 7 3 ) ,
45-51.

N i e , N . H . , C . H . H u l l , J . G. J e n k i n s , K . S t e i n b r a n n e r , D . H .
B e n t . S t a t i s t i c a Z Package f o r t h e S o c i a l S c i e n c e s ,
McGraw-Hill Book C o . , 1 9 7 0 .
P e a r s o n , K . V . The E f f e c t o f t h e Upward Bound P r o j e c t o n
S e l e c t e d F a c t o r s o f P u p i l Growth o f a Group o f H i g h S c h o o l
S t u d e n t s . Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f T e n n e s s e e .
Ann A r b o r , M i c h . : U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s , No. 7 0 - 2 1 3 2 ,
1 9 7 0 . C i t e d i n W . F i t t s , The S e l f C o n c e p t a n d P e r f o r m a n c e ,
p . 28.
Dede W a l l a c e C e n t e r Monograph No. 5 . N a s h v i l l e :
C o u n s e l o r R e c o r d i n g s and T e s t s , 1972.
P o s t e m a , L . J . " R e m i n i s c i n g , Time O r i e n t a t i o n , and S e l f Concept
i n Aged Men." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 7 0 . C i t e d i n W . Thompson, C o r r e l a t e s o f t h e S e l f
C o n c e p t , p . 1 6 . Dede W a l l a c e C e n t e r Monograph No. 6 .
N a s h v i l l e : C o u n s e l o r R e c o r d i n g s and T e s t s , 1 9 7 2 .
Raimy, V. C . T h e S e l f C o n c e p t a s a F a c t o r i n C o u n s e l i n g and
P e r s o n a l i t y O r g a n i z a t i o n , Ph. D . d i s s e r t a t i o n , Ohio
S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1943.
R e c k l e s s , W . a n d E . Murray. " S e l f Concept a s a n I n s u l a t o r
21
Against Delinquency," American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, ( l 9 5 6 ) , 744-46.
R e c k l e s s , W . , S . D i n i t z , a n d B . Kay. "The S e l f Component i n
P o t e n t i a l N o n - D e l i n q u e n c y , " A m e r i c a n ~ o c i o l o g i c a lR e v i e w ,
2 2 (195'7a), 566-70.
R e c k l e s s , W . , S . D i n i t z , and E . Murray. "The Good Boy i n t h e
High D e l i n q u e n c y A r e a . " J o u r n a l o f C r i m i n a l Law, C r i m i n o l o g y , and P o l i c e S c i e n c e , 48 ( 1 9 5 7 b ) , 1 8 - 2 6 .
R e c k l e s s , W . a n d S. D i n i t z . " P i o n e e r i n g w i t h S e l f C o n c e p t a s
a V u l n e r a b i l i t y F a c t o r i n Delinquency."
~ o u r n a lo f
58 ( 4 )
C r i m i n a l Law, C r i m i n o l o g y , and P o l i c e S c i e n c e , (1967), 515-23.
R e n b a r g e r , R . N . "An E x p e r i m e n t a l I n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e R e l a t i o n s h i p Between S e l f - E s t e e m and Academic Achievement
i n a P o p u l a t i o n o f D i s a d v a n t a g e d A d u l t s . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1969. C i t e d i n W .
Thompson, C o r r e l a t e s o f t h e S e l f C o n c e p t , p . 50. Dede
W a l l a c e C e n t e r Monograph 6 . N a s h v i l l e : C o u n s e l o r R e c o r d i n g s and T e s t s , 1972.
R e n t z , R . R . a n d W . F. W h i t e . " F a c t o r s o f S e l f - p e r c e p t i o n i n t h e
T e n n s s s e e S e l f C o n c e p t S c a l e , " P e r c e p t u a l and M o t o r S k i l l s ,
24 ( l 9 6 7 ) , 1 1 8 .
-

R o b e r t s , J . S e l f - I m a g e and D e l i n q u e n c y : A S t u d y o f flew Z e a l a n d
A d o l e s c e n t G i r l s , W e l l i n g t o n : J u s t i c e D e p a r t m e n t o f New
Zealand, 1972.
Roebuck, J . B . C r i m i n a l ~ y p o l o g y , S p r i n g f i e l d , I l l i n o i s :
C . C . Thomas P u b . , 1 9 6 7 .
R o g e r s , C . C l i e n t - . C e n t e r e d T h e r a p y , B o s t o n : Houghton M i f f l i n ,
1951.
R o s e b e r g , M . S o c i e t y and t h e A d o l e s c e n t S e l f I m a g e ,
N . J . : P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1965.

Princeton,

Ryan, V . L . , C . A . K r a l l , and W . F. Hodges. " S e l f C o n c e p t

Change i n B e h a v i o r M o d i f i c a t i o n , " The J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t 44 ( 4 ) ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 6 3 8 - 4 5 .
i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , S a r a t a , B . P. " A l i e n a t i o n Reduction a s a Paradigm f o r D e l i n quency Reduction." Journal o f C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e , 4 (1976),
123-31.
S c h a f e r , R . , R . B r a i t o , and J . B o h l e n . " S e l f Concept and t h e
R e a c t i o n o f S i g n i f i c a n t O t h e r s : A Comparison o f Husbands
46 ( 1 ) ( 1 9 7 6 1 , 5 7 - 6 5 .
and Wives." ~ o c i o l o g i c a l I n q u i r y , SEARCH Group I n c . , D i c t i o n a r y o f C r i m i n a l . J u s t i c e T e r m i n o l o g y ,
W a s h i n g t o n : Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1 9 7 6 .
S e c o r d , P . " C o n s i s t e n c y Theory and S e l f R e f e r e n t B e h a v i o r , " i n
T h e o r i e s o f C o g n i t i v e C o n s i s t e n c y : A S o u r c e b o o k , p p . 34955.
E d i t e d by R . A b e l s o n , E . A r o n s o n , W . McGuire, T.
Chicago:
Newcomb, M. J . R o s e b e r g , and P . Tannenbaum.
Rand N c N a l l y , 1 9 6 8 .
S i l v e r m a n n , I . " S e l f - E s t e e m and D i f f e r e n t i a l R e s p o n s e s t o F a i l ure,"
J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l P s y c h o Z o g y , 69
(l964), 115-19.
S m i t h , C . R . "An A n a l y s i s o f t h e E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f a C o l l e g e
P r e p a r a t o r y Program f o r t h e V i s u a l l y I m p a i r e d . "
Ph.D.
d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Tennessee, 1969. C i t e d i n
W . F i t t s , p . 11. Dede W a l l a c e C e n t e r Monograph No. 5.
Nashville:
Counselor Recordings and T e s t s , 1972.
S m i t h , R . E . J r . , "The S e l f Concept o f Female D e l i n q u e n t s . "
Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 7 2 .
S p a r k e s , R . F . "Types o f T r e a t m e n t f o r Types o f O f f e n d e r s , " i n
Council o f Europe, C o l l e c t e d S t u d i e s i n C r i m i n o l o g i c a l
~ e s e @ a r c hV
, o l . 3 . S t r a s b o u r g : C o u n c i l o f E u r o p e , 1968.

Spitzer, S., J. Stratton, J. Fitzgerald, and B. Mach. "The Self

Concept: Test Equivalence and Perceived Validity," S o c i o 7 (1966), 265-80.
logical Quarterly, Stotland , E. and M. Hillman. "Identification, Authoritarian
Defensiveness and Self-Esteem," J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 64 (1962), 334-42.
Suinn, R. "The Relationship between Self-Acceptance of Others:
A Learning Theory Analysis," J o u r v a l o f Abnormal and
63 (1) (1961), 37-42.
Social Psychology, Tangri, S. and M. Swartz. "Delinquency Research and the Self
Concept Variable," J o u r n a l o f C r i m i n a l Law, C r i m i n o l o g y ,
and P o Z i c e S c i e n c e , 58 (1967), 182-90.
Taylor, A . "A Personality Scale of Manifest Anxiety," J o u r n a l
o f Abnormal and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 48 (1953), 285-90.
Taylor, D. "Changes in Self Concept Without Psychotherapy,"
Journal o f Consulting Psychology, 19 (1955), 205-09.
Taxpayers' 'Association. F i n a l R e p o r t :

Cluster Evaluation of
F i v e D e l i n q u e n c y D i v e r s i o n P r o j e c t s , Sacramento: Calif.

Taxpayers Association, 1975.

Tedesco, J. F. "Self-other ~iscriminations in Schizophrenia."
M.A. dissertation, Oaklahoma State University, 1969.
Cited in W. Thompson, C o r r e l a t e s o f t h e S e l f C o n c e p t ,
p. 13. Dede Wallace Center Monograph No. 6. Nashville:
Counselor Recordings and Tests, 1972.
Tessler, R. amd S. Swartz. "Help-Seeking, Self-Esteem and
Achievement Motivation," J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and
21 (1972), 318-26.
S o c i a l PsychoZogy, Thomas, M. and J. Seeman. "Criterion Measures for Therapy
Outcome: A Study in Personality Integration," P s y c h o t h e r a p y : T h e o r y , R e s e a r c h , a n d P r a c t i c e , in press, 1971.
Vacchiano, R. B., P. S. Strauss, and D. C. Schiffman, "Personality Correlates of Dogmatism," J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g and
32 (1) (1968), 83-5.
C l i n i c a l Psychology, Via, M., Los Angeles City Schools, unpublished data, 1969.
Cited in W. Fitts and W. T. Hamner, The S e l f C o n c e p t and
DeZ.inquaney, Dede Wallace Center Monograph No. 1. Nashville: Counselor Recordings and Tests, 1969.
*

V i n c e n t , J . "An E x p l o r a t o r y F a c t o r A n a l y s i s R e l a t i n g t o t h e
C o n s t r u c t V a l i d i t y o f S e l f Concept L a b e l s , " EducationaZ
and ~ s y c h o Z o g i c a Z M e a s u r e m e n t , 28 ( 3 ) ( l 9 6 8 ) , 9 1 5 - 2 1 .
V i d e b e c k , R . " S e l f - C o n c e p t i o n and t h e R e a c t i o n s o f O t h e r s , "
Sociometry, 23 ( 1 9 6 0 ) , 3 5 1 - 5 9 .
Wagner, M . K . and W . F i t t s , "The E f f e c t s o f H o s p i t a l i z a t i o n
on S e l f C o n c e p t . " N a s h v i l l e M e n t a l H e a l t h R e s e a r c h
C e n t e r , 1969.
(Mimeographed.)
C i t e d i n W . Thompson,
C o r r e Z a t e s o f t h e S e l f C o n c e p t , p . 1 3 . Dede W a l l a c e
C e n t e r Monograph No. 6 . N a s h v i l l e : C o u n s e l o r R e c o r d i n g s
and T e s t s , 1 9 7 2 .
W a h l e r , H . J . "The S e l f - D e s c r i p t i o n I n v e n t o r y : b l e a s u r i n g L e v e l s
o f S e l f - E v a l u a t i v e B e h a v i o r i n Terms o f F a v o r a b l e a n d
Unfavorable P e r s o n a l i t y A t t r i b u t e s , " Journal o f C l i n i c a l
24 (1968), 40-45.
PsychoZogy, W a l t o n , R . S. "The E f f e c t s o f a n Open o r C l o s e d B e l i e f S y s t e m
o f E l e v e n t h Grade S t u d e n t s o f N o r f o l k C a t h o l i c High
S c h o o l upon t h e S e l f C o n c e p t . " M . A . d i s s e r t a t i o n , Old
Dominion U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 7 1 . C i t e d i n W . Thompson, C o r r e l a t e s o f t h e S e l f C o n c e p t , p . 8 . Dede W a l l a c e C e n t e r MonoN a s h v i l l e : C o u n s e l o r R e c o r d i n g s and T e s t s ,
g r a p h No. 6 .
1972.
W a r r e n , M . Q . " C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f O f f e n d e r s a s a n Aid t o E f f i c i e n t hlanagement a n d E f f e c t i v e T r e a t m e n t , " J o u r n a l o f
C r i m i n a l LGU, C r i m i n o l o g y , and P o l i c e s c i e n c e , 62 ( 1 9 7 1 ) ,
239-58.
W a r r e n , M. Q . C o r r e c t i o n a Z T r e a t m e n t i n Community S e t t i n g s : A
R e p o r t o f C u r r e n t R e s e a r c h , R a c k v i l l e , Md.: N a t i o n a l
I n s t i t u t e o f M e n t a l H e a l t h , 1 9 7 2 . DHEW P u b l i c a t i o n No.
(HSM) 7 2 - 9 1 2 9 .
1

Wayne, S . R . "The R e l a t i o n o f Se1f:Esteem t o

c e i v e d and B e h a v i o r a l H o s t i l i t y . " Ph.D.
V a n d e r b i l t U n i v e r s i t y , 1963. C i t e d i n
S e l f C o n c e p t and P s y c h o p a t h o Z o g y , Dede
Nashville: Counselor
Monograph No. 4 .
T e s t s , 1972.

Indices of Perdissertation,
W . F i t t s , The
Wallace Center
Recordings and

W e b s t e r , hf. J r . , and B . S o b i e s z e k , S o u r c e s o f S e l f - E v a l u a t i o n ,
New York: J o h n W i l e y a n d S o n s , 1 9 7 4 .

I t s Conception and
W e l l s , L . and G . h l a r w e l l . S e l f - E s t e e m :
Measzcrement,
B
e
v
e
r
l
e
y
H
i
l
l
s
: Sage P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1 9 7 6 .
*

Wendland, M. M. S e l f Concept i n S o u t h e r n Negro and W h i t e AdoZesc e n t s a s R e l a t e d t o Rural-Urban R e s i d e n c e . Ph.D . dissertation, University of North Carolina. Ann Arbor, Mich.:
University Microfilms, No. 69-1695, 1968. Cited in W.
Thompson, C o r r e l a t e s o f t h e S e l f C o n c e p t , p. 24. Dede
Wallace Center Monograph No. 6. Nashville: Counselor
Recordings and Tests, 1972.
Weinstein, E. A. and C. Black. "Factors Mediating the Effects
of Other's Response on the Self," S o c i o l o g i c a l I n q u i r y ,
39
- (l969), 189-93.
Wenk, E. A. An A n a l y s i s o f C l a s s i f i c a t i o n F a c t o r s f o r Young
A d u l t O f f e n d e r s , Vol. 2. Davis. Calif.: National Council
on Crime and Delinquency, 1974.
West, D. J. and D. D. Farrington. Who Becomes D e l i n q u e n t ? ,
London: Heinemann Educational Books, 1973.
Wilkins, L. T. E v a l u a t i o n o f Penal M e a s u r e s , New York: Random
House, 1969.
Wylie, R. The S e l f C o n c e p t , 2nd. ed. Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press, 1974, Vol. 1.
Wylie, R. The S e l f C o n c e p t , Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press, 1961.
Wylie, R. "The Present Status of Self Theory," in Handbook o f
Edited by E . Borgatta
P e r s o n a l i t y T h e o r y and R e s e a r c h .
and W. Lambert. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1968.
Zarchikoff, W. and J. Crew. A D e s c r i p t i v e and E v a l u a t i v e
A s s e s s m e n t o f Y o u t h A t t e n d a n c e C e n t e r s i n B r i t i s h Columbia
An A l t e r n a t i v e t o I n c a r c e r a t i o n , Ottawa: Office of Welfare

Grants Directorate, 1975. Grant No. 25169-1-55.

5

Zirkel, P. A. "Self Concept and thef~isadvantage'

of Ethnic
Group Membership and Mixture," R e v i e w o f E d u c a t i o n a l
41 (1971), 211-25.
Research, Zirkel, P. A. and R. Gamble. "The Reliability and Validity of
Various Measures of Self Concept Among Ethnically Different Adolescents," Measurement and E v a l u a t i o n i n G u i d a n c e ,
10 (1) (1977), 85-94.
Ziller, R., J. Hagey, and D. C. Smith. "Self-Esteem: A SelfSocial Construct." J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l
Psychology, 33 (l969), 84-95.
*