ALLEN, Harry Ellis, 19 38- BIO-SOCIAL CORRELATES OF TWO TYPES OF ANTI SOCIAL SOCIOPATHS.
The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1969 Sociology, criminology
University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan
(2) Copyright by
Harry Ellis Allen
:1970f
DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED BIO-SOCIAL CORRELATES OF TWO TYPES OF
ANT I-SOCIAL SOCIOPATHS
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Harry Ellis Allen, B.A., M.A.
******
The Ohio State University 1969
Approved by
Adviser v / Department of Sociology PLEASE NOTE:
Not original copy. Blurred and faint type on several pages. Filmed as received.
UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS. PREFACE
Sociopathy has traditionally been a neglected step-child of the behavioral sciences, a "waste basket" category for deviant behaviors that could not readily be subsumed under some more obvious category.
In the last 20 years, an increasing amount of research has been directed toward refining the categories of sociopathic behavior, and especially toward various aspects, primarily physiological, of the anti-social sociopath. Recent physiological studies have been extremely provocative, and have provided the impetus for this multidisciplinary study of the anti-social sociopath which was conceptualized in the .
Department of Psychiatry by Drs. Lewis Lindner (Psychiatry) and
Harold Goldman (Psychiatry and Pharmacology). Dr. Simon Dinitz (Socio logy) became a part of the interdisciplinary staff in the early stage of conceptualization, and attracted the author to this rewarding and fruitful project.
The theoretical framework which has guided the bio-medical aspect of this interdisciplinary investigation of the anti-social sociopath is complex. Simply stated, it is hypothesized that the anti-social socio path has a defect in the sympathetic nervous system, and neural degen eration has occurred. As a result, the sociopath is cardiovascularly hyper-reactive to the sympathomimetic agent epinephrine. The latter suggests the presence of a lesion within the nervous system. This dissertation is an outgrowth of the attempt to establish the cardio vascular hyper-reactivity of the male anti-social sociopath.
ii The author would like to express his appreciation to the many people who, through their assistance, encouragement and advice, have made this dissertation possible.
First of all, appreciation must be expressed to Dr. Simon Dinitz, whose assistance in all stages of my graduate training has been above and beyond that required of an adviser, and whose scholarship is to be emulated. Appreciation is also expressed to Dr. Walter C. Reckless and Dr. Kent Schwirian for their reading of the manuscript and assis tance in many facets of my educational experience.
Appreciation must also be expressed to Craig Mosier, who pro grammed the analysis of data. Special thanks must go to Karin Mosier for her patience, understanding and suggestions in correcting and typing the final draft of the dissertation.
Finally appreciation must be expressed to those numerous persons who have encouraged and aided my progression through a dissertation, making the experience possible, bearable, and worthwhile, especially my mother.Cleo.
iii VITA
February 16, 1938 ...... Born - Selma, Alabama
1960 B.A., Stetson University, DeLand, Florida
1965 M.A., Vanderbilt University, Nashville Tennessee
1965-69 Teaching Associate, Department of Sociology The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
PUBLICATIONS
"The Nurse: A Study in Role Conflict," South Carolina Journal of Nursing, Vol. 12 (Winter, 1962), pp. 12-17.
"Some Effects of Numerical Growth on Social Organization," Sociologies, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Spring, 1967), pp. 45-52.
"Inmate and Non-Inmate Attitudes Toward Punitiveness,11 Criminologica, Vol. 5, No. 2 (August, 1967), pp. 74-79, with Christine Schultz.
"Family Structure and Juvenile Delinquency," to be published in Marriage Has Many Faces by Jerome Folkman and Nancy Clatworthy (C. Merrill Co., August, 1969), with Christine Schultz.
"Social and Bio-Medical Correlates of Sociopathy," Criminologica, Vol. 7, No. 4 (1969), pp. 68-75, with Lewis Lindner, Harold Goldman, and Simon Dinitz.
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Fields: Criminology, Methodology, Social Psychology TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE ...... ii
LIST OF TA B L E S ...... vii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ...... ' xvii i
Chapter
I. ORIENTATION AND BACKGROUND ...... 1
Introduction Early Formulations Empirical Studies Present Study
II. METHODOLOGY ...... 27
Method Scales Experimental Test Procedures Analysis
III. RESULTS: EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS ...... 35
Classification Procedures Experimental Results The Emergence of Two Types of Sociopaths Characteristics of Hostile and Simple Sociopaths
IV. RESULTS: CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS ...... 63
Intercorrelational Matrix Anomie and the Criminality Level Index
V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 88
Discussion
v APPENDIX
A ...... 101
B ...... 127
C ...... 196
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 211
vi
)' LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Comparison of 1960 Consecutive Admissions Sample with Present Study Sample ...... 32
2. Median Scores on Classification Criteria of 277 Conse cutive Admissions to the Ohio Penitiary ...... 38
3. Mean Lykken Scale Scores for the Four Population Groups 42
4. Item Analysis of Lykken Scale: Acceptance of Sociopa- thic Response (In P e r c e n t a g e s ) ...... 43
5. Summary Table of the Social Characteristics of the Four Population Groups ...... 48
6. Summary Table of the Military Service History of the Four Population Groups ...... 50
7. Crime for Which Currently Incarcerated for Four Popula tion Groups (In Percentages) ...... 52
8. Summary Table of Criminal Histories of the Four Popula tion Groups ...... 53
9. Summary Table of I. Q., Gleckley Checklist, and Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale Scores of the Four Population G r o u p s ...... 56
10. Summary Table of the MMPI Subscales of the Four Popula tion Groups...... 57
11. Intercorrelation Matrices of Indicators of Sociopathy for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths ...... 61
12. Summary Table of the Social Characteristics of 277 Con secutive Admissions ...... 66
13. Summary Table of the Military Service History of the 277 Consecutive Admissions ...... 68
14. Summary Table of Types of Offenses for Which Presently Incarcerated for the 277 Consecutive Admissions (In Percentages) ...... '...... 69
vii Table Page
15. Summary Table of Criminal Histories of the 277 Con secutive Admissions ...... 71
16. Summary Table of I. Q. and Cleckley Checklist Scores of the 277 Consecutive Admissions ...... 73
17. Summary Table of MMPI Subscales of 219 Consecutive A d m i s s i o n s ...... 75
18. Tntercorrelation Matrix of 39 Variables for Hostile S o c i o p a t h s ...... 77
19. Intercorrelation Matrix of 39 Variables for Simple S o c i o p a t h s ...... 78
20. Summary Table of Distribution of Pluses and Minuses of Hostile and Simple Sociopaths for Sign Test...... 80
.21. Summary Table of Degree of Difference Between Correla tions of 49 Variables for Hostile and Simple Socio paths ...... 81
22. Summary Table of Anomie Scale and Criminality Level Index Scores of the 277 Consecutive Admissions . . . 86
23. Mean Age of Four Population Groups in Experimental G r o u p ...... 102
24. Racial Distribution of Four Population Groups in Experimental Group (In Percentages)...... 102
25. Rural-Urban Background of Four Population Groups in Experimental Group (In Percentages) ...... 103
26. Mean Family of Procreation Size of Four Population Groups in Experimental Group ...... 104
27. Family Intactness of Four Population Groups in Experi mental Group (In Percentages) ...... 104
28. Marital Status of Four Population Groups in Experimen tal Group (In Percentages) ...... 105
29. Mean Number of Times Wed for Four Population Groups in Experimental Group ...... 106
30. Mean Number of Children in Family of Orientation of Four Populations of Experimental Group ...... 106
viii Table Page
31. Mean Last Grade Completed in School of Four Population Groups in Experimental Group ...... 107
32. Mean Socio-Economic Status Scores of Four Population Groups in Experimental Group ...... 107
33. Mean Number of Jobs Since Age 18 of Four Population Groups in Experimental Group ...... : . 108
34. Religious Affiliation of Four Populations in Experimen tal Group (In P e r c e n t a g e s ) ...... 108
35. Termination of Military Service of Four Population Groups in Experimental Group (In Percentages).... 109
36. Mean Number of Months Served in Military Service of Four Population Groups in Experimental Group . . . . . 110
37. Mean Number of Arrests Not Cleared by Dismissal of Four Population Groups in Experimental Group ...... 110
38. Mean Number of Incarcerations including Current Incar ceration of Four Population Groups in Experimental G r o u p ...... Ill
39. Mean Number of Months Incarcerated of Four Population Groups in Experimental Group ...... Ill
40. Mean Number of Months Incarcerated Since Age 18 of Four Population Groups in Experimental Group ...... 112
41. Mean Percentage of Life Incarcerated Since Age 18 of Four Population Groups in Experimental Group ...... 112
42. Mean Number of Parole Violations of Four Population Groups in Experimental Groups ...... 113
43. Mean Number of Escapes and Percentage of Escapists of Four Population Groups in Experimental Group ...... 114
44. Mean I. Q. Score of Four Population Groups in Experi mental Group ...... 114
45. Mean Cleckley Checklist Score of Four Population Groups in Experimental Group ...... 114
46. Mean Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale Score of Four Popu lation Groups in Experimental Group ...... 115
ix Table Page
47. Mean Lie (L) Subscale Scores of MMPI of Four Popula tion Groups in Experimental Group ...... 115
48. Mean Infrequency (F) Subscale Scores of MMPI of Four Population Groups in Experimental Group ...... 116
49. Mean Correction (K) Subscale Scores of MMPI of Four Popu lation Groups in Experimental Group ...... 116
50. Mean Hypochondriasis (Hs) Subscale Scores of MMPI of Four Population Groups in Experimental Group ...... 117
51. Mean Depression (D) Subscale Scores of MMPI of Four Popu lation Groups in Experimental Group ...... 117 ,r 52. Mean Hysteria (Hy) Subscale Scores of MMPI of Four Popu lation Groups in Experimental Group ...... 118
53. Mean Psychopathic Deviate (Pd) Subscale Scores of MMPI of Four Population Groups in Experimental Group .... 118
54. Mean Masculinity-Feminity (Mf) Subscale Scores of MMPI of Four Population Groups in Experimental Group .... 119
55. Mean Paranoia (Pa) Subscale Scores of MMPI of Four Popu lation Groups in Experimental Group ...... 119
56. Mean Psychasthenia (Pt) Subscale Scores of MMPI of Four Population Groups in Experimental Group ...... 120
57. Mean Schizophrenia (Sc) Subscale Scores of MMPI of Four Population Groups in Experimental Group ...... 120
58. Mean Hypomania (Ma) Subscale Scores of MMPI of Four Population Groups in Experimental Group ...... 121
59. Mean Social Introversion (Si) Subscale Scores of MMPI of Four Population Groups in Experimental Group .... 121
60. Level of Custody Assignment of Four Population Groups in Experimental Group (In Percentages) ...... 122
61. Level of Supervision of Four Population Groups in Experimental Group (In Percentages) ...... 123
62. Designated Psychological Diagnosis of Four Population Groups in Experimental Group (In Percentages) ...... 124
x Table Page •
63. Psychological Prognosis of Adjustment on this Commit ment of Four Population Groups in the Experimental Group (In P e r c e n t a g e s ) ...... 125
64. Drug Addictions of Four Population Groups in Experi mental Group (In Percentages)...... 126
65. Mean Age of the 277 Consecutive Admissions ...... 128
66. Racial Distribution of the 277 Consecutive Admissions (In P e r c e n t a g e s ) ...... 129
67. Rural-Urban Background of 277 Consecutive Admissions (In P e r c e n t a g e s ) ...... 130
68. Mean Family of Procreation Size of 277 Consecutive A d m i s s i o n s ...... 131
69. Family Intactness of 277 Consecutive Admissions (In Percentages) ...... 132
70. Marital Status of 277 Consecutive Admissions (In Percentages) ...... 133
71. Mean Number of Times Wed of 277 Consecutive Admissions 134
72. Mean Number of Children of 277 Consecutive Admissions 135
73. Mean Last Grade Completed in School of 277 Consecutive A d m i s s i o n s ...... 136
74. Mean Socio-Economic Status Scores of 277 Consecutive A d m i s s i o n s ...... 136
75. Mean Number of Jobs of 277 Consecutive Admissions . . 137
76. Religious Affiliation of 277 Consecutive Admissions (In P e r c e n t a g e s ) ...... 138
77. Termination of Military Service of 277 Consecutive Admissions (In Percentages) ...... 139
78. Mean Months of Military Service of 277 Consecutive Admissions ...... 140
79. Mean Number of Arrests Not Cleared by Dismissal of 277 Consecutive A d m i s s i o n s ...... 141
xi Table Page
80. Mean Number of Incai*cerations of 277 Consecutive A d m i s s i o n s ...... 141
81. Mean Number of Months Incarcerated of 277 Consecutive A d m i s s i o n s ...... 142
82. Mean Number of Months Incarcerated Since Age 18 of 277 Consecutive Admissions ...... 142
83. Mean Percentage of Life Incarcerated Since Age 18 for 277 Consecutive Admissions ...... 143
84. Mean Parole Violations of 277 Consecxitive Admissions . 143
85. Mean Number of Escapes of 277 Consecutive Admissions . 144
86. Mean Intelligence Quotient Scores of 277 Consecutive A d m i s s i o n s ...... 144
87. Mean Cleckley Checklist Scores of 277 Consecutive A d m i s s i o n s ...... 145
88. Mean Lie (L) Subscale Scores of 219 Consecutive A d m i s s i o n s ...... 146
89. Mean Infrequency (F) Subscale Scores of 219 Consecutive Admissions ...... 146
90. Mean Correction (K) Subscale Scores of 219 Consecutive A d m i s s i o n s ...... 147
91. Mean Hypochondriasis (Hs) Subscale Scores of 219 Consecutive Admissions ...... 147
92. Mean Depression (D) Subscale Scores of 219 Consecutive A d m i s s i o n s ...... 148
93. Mean Hysteria (Hy) Subscale Scores of 219 Consecutive A d m i s s i o n s ...... 148
94. Mean Psychopathic Deviate (Pd) Subscale Scores of 219 Consecutive Admissions ...... 149
95. Mean Masculinity-Feminity (Mf) Subscale Scores of 219 Consecutive Admissions ...... 149
xii Table Page
96. Mean Paranoia (Pa) Subscale Scores of 219 Consecutive A d m i s s i o n s ...... 150
97. Mean Psychasthenia (Pt) Subscale Scores of 219 Consecu tive Admissions ...... 150
98. Mean Schizophrenia (Sc) Subscale Scores of 219 Consecu tive Admissions ...... 151
99. Mean Hypomania (Ma) Subscale of 219 Consecutive A d m i s s i o n s ...... 151
100. Mean Social Introversion (Si) Subscale Scores of 219 Consecutive Admissions ...... 152
101. Mean Anomie Scale Scores of 277 Consecutive Admissions 152
102. Mean Criminality Level Index Scores of 277 Consecutive A d m i s s i o n s ...... 153
103. Mean Level of Supervision Assigiiment of 277 Consecutive A d m i s s i o n s ...... 153
104. Mean Level of Supervision Assignment of 277 Consecutive A d m i s s i o n s ...... 154
105. Designated Psychological Diagnosis of 277 Consecutive Admissions (In Percentages) ...... 154
106. Mean Psychological Prognosis of Adjustment Scores of 277 Consecutive Admissions ...... 155
107. Drug Addictions of 277 Consecutive Admissions (In Percentages) ...... 155
108. Mean Household Mobility Frequency of 277 Consecutive A d m i s s i o n s ...... 156
109. Mean Lykken Scale Scores of 277 Consecutive Admissions 156
110. Sign Test Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Variable 1 (Age) . . 157
111. Sign Test Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Variable 2 (Number of Times Wed) ...... 158
xiii Table Page
112. Sign Test Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Variable 3 (Number of C h i l d r e n ) ...... 159
113. Sign Test Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Variable 4 (Number of Children in Family of Procreation) ...... 160
114. Sign Test Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Variable 5 (Size of Family of Orientation) ...... 161
115. Sign Test Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Variable 6 (Last Grade Completed in School) ...... 162
116. Sign Test Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Variable 7 (X. Q.) . . 163
117. Sign Test Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Variable 8 (Rural- Urban Background) ...... 164
118. Sign Test Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Variable 9 (Socio- Economic Status) ...... „ ...... 165
119. Sign Test Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Variable 10 (House hold Mobility) ...... 166
120. Sign Test Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Variable 11 (Psycho logical Prognosis of Adjustment on this Commitment) . . 167
121. Sign Test Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Variable 12 (Level of Custody Assignment) ...... 168
122. Sign Test Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Variable 13 (Level of Supervision Assignment) ...... 169
123. Sign Test Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Variable 14 (Number of Escapes) ...... 170
xiv Table Page
124. Sign Test Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Variable 15 (Number of Months in Military Service) ...... 171
125. Sign Test Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Variable 16 (Number of Parole Violations) ...... 172
126. Sign Test Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Variable 17 (Number of Arrests not cleared by Dismissal) ...... 173
127. Sign Test Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Variable 18 (Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Number of Incarcerations) . . 174
128. Sign Test Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Variable 19 (Length of Time Incarcerated) ...... 175
129. Sign Test Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Variable 20 (Length of Time Incarcerated Since Age 1 8 ) ...... 176
130. Sign Test Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Variable 21 (Percen tage of Life Incarcerated Since Age 1 8 ) ...... 177
131. Sign Test Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Variable 22 (Cleckley C r i t e r i a ) ...... 178
132. Sign Test Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Variable 23 (Psycho pathic Deviate Minus Psychasthenia Subscale) ...... 179
133. Sign Test Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Variable 24 (Lykken S c a l e ) ...... 180
134. Sign Test Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Variable 25 (Anomie S c a l e ) ...... 181
135. Sign Test Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Variable 26 (Criminality Level Index) ...... 182
xv Table Page
136. Sign Test Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Variable 27 (Lie S c a l e ) ...... 183
137. Sign Test Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Variable 28 (Infre quency Subscale) ...... 184
138. Sign Test Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Variable 29 (Correction S u b s c a l e ) ...... 185
139. Sign Test Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Variable 30 (Hypo chondriasis Subscale) ...... 186
140. Sign Test Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Variable 31 (Depression Subscale) ...... 187
141. Sign Test Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Variable 32 (Hysteria Subscale) ...... 188
142. Sign Test Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Variable 33 (Hysteria Subscale) ...... 189
143. Sign Test Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Variable 34 (Mascu- linity-feminity Subscale) ...... 190
144. Sign Test Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Variable 35 (Paranoia S u b s c a l e ) ...... 191
145. Sign Test Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Variable 36 (Psych asthenia Subscale) ...... 192
146. Sign Test Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Variable 37 (Schizo phrenia Subscale) ...... 193
147. Sign Test Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Variable 38 (Hypomania Subscale) ...... 194
xv i Table Page
148. Sign Test Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients for Hostile and Simple Sociopaths on Variable 39 (Social Introversion Subscale) ...... 195
xvii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
1. Composite MMPI Profiles of the Four Population Groups Among the Experimental Subjects ...... 59
2. Composite MMPI Profiles of the 219 Consecutive A d m i s s i o n s ...... 74
xviii CHAPTER I
ORIENTATION AND BACKGROUND
Introduction
Anti-social sociopathic personality, or sociopathy, is a common, confusing and intractable psychiatric problem whose course, mechanism, and etiology are presently unknown. Previously and less specifically 2 referred to as psychopathy, constitutional psychopathic state, and
^■Rudolph Kaelbling and Ralph Patterson, Eclectic Psychiatry (Springfield, Illinois: Charles Thomas, 1966), p. 371. 2 Psychopathic personality was the generic term used to refer to a large group of disorders which were regarded by many physicians and clinicians as diverse in nature, and as having too little in common to justify subsuming them under the general term. Furthermore, practi tioners seldom used the term except to refer, not to the more hetereo- geneous group, but to one and only one of the disorders, psychopathy. Recently the classificatory termininology was changed to reflect more recent research and theory, and to eliminate much of the problem of denotation. The restricted term, psychopath, was replaced by the term sociopath, and refers in regular discourse to the anti-social sociopathic personality. Other types of sociopathic personality dis turbances include the dyssocial reaction, sexual deviation, and addic tion. Dyssocial reaction refers to habitual criminals who utilize their illegitimate gains for particular ends, show strong motivation in behavior, attempt to avoid the consequences of their anti-social behavior, and show loyalty to other group members and their codes. Sexual deviation refers to individuals whose sexual interests are limited primarily toward objects other than people of the opposite sex, or acts, sexual in nature, not usually associated with coitus; this category includes homosexuality, fetishism, tranvestitism, etc. Finally, addiction refers to alcoholism and drug addiction, suggest ing habitual use and interference with normal and personal function ing. This dissertation throughout will follow the general medical usage, and sociopathy will refer specifically to the anti-social sociopathic disturbance.
1 2
psychopathic personality, sociopathy has been attributed to genetic, 3 biologic, interpersonal, and cultural causes.
Anti-social sociopathy, as defined by the American Psychiatric 4 Association Diagnostic Manual, refers to:
"...chronically antisocial individuals who are always in trouble, profiting neither from experience nor punishment, and maintaining no real loyalties to any person, group, or code. They are frequently callous and hedonistic, showing marked emotional immaturity, with lack of sense of responsibility, lack of judgement, and an ability to rationalize their behavior so that it appears warranted, reasonable, and justified."
Clinical evidence indicates that anti-social sociopaths consti
tute from one to three percent of all adults of both sexes.Even if
this estimate is somewhat overdrawn numerically, sociopathy is an eco
nomically and socially expensive mental disorder. Furthermore, this
chronic and disabling disease, which is probably characterized by a
3 An excellent summary of these attributions may be found in Hervey Cleckley, "Psychopathic States," in Silvano Arieti (ed.), Ameri can Handbook of Psychiatry (New York: Basic Books, 1962), pp. 567-588. See also Arthur Noyes and Lawrence Kolb, Modern Clinical Psychiatry (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1963), pp. 460-464; Eli Robins, "Personality Disorders; II: Sociopathic Types: Antisocial Disorders and Sexual Deviations," in Alfred Freeman and Harold Kaplan (eds^, Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1967), pp. 955-956; and William McCord and Joan McCord, Psychopathy and Delinquency (New York: Greene and Stratton, 1956), pp. 47-81.
^"American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Washington, D. C.: American Psychiatric Association, 1952), p. 38.
-*Ian Gregory, Psychiatry (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1961), pp. 52-67. shortened life span, is estimated to affect approximately 20 percent '
of the adult correctional population in the United States.^ These 8 institutionalized offenders are at best difficult to rehabilitate and
are often disruptive to the point of negating rehabilitative efforts
for the remaining 80 percent of the inmates.
In contrast to the relative ease of management of the anti-social
person in the smaller, more homogeneous community, the sociopath today represents an increasingly serious problem in the complex urban setting.
Whatever the precise etiology--the extraordinary disruption of
the modern family, the increased geographic mobility, the "eclipse" of
community, the elaboration of the female-headed household as a major
type--the increased social disorganization occasioned by urbanization
seems to have exacerbated the problem. The sociopath creates problems
for the urban community; the urban community negatively influences the 9 sociopath. The spiral effect is to be seen in "Children Who Hate,"
the "core" members of gangs,^ and the changing composition of inmate
^Lee Robins, Deviant Children Grown Up (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1966), pp. 90-92.
^Hervey Cleckley, The Mask of Sanity (St. Louis: C. V. Mosby Company, 1950), Appendix A. Bernard Glueck investigated 608 Sing Sing inmates, 18.9 percent of whom were found to be sociopaths; quoted in Sydney Maughs, "A Concept of Psychopathy and Psychopathic Personality: Its Evolution and Historical Development," Journal of Criminal Psycho pathology. Vol. II (April, 1941), p. 480.
O Noyes and Kolb, op. cit., p. 462.
^Fritz Redl and David Wineman, Children Who Hate (Glencoe, Illi nois: The Free Press, 1951).
■^Lewis Yablonsky, The Violent Gang (New York: Macmillan, 1962). 4 populations. Experienced corrections people are more than ever dis turbed by this trend and freely confess that they are unable to deal successfully with these highly disruptive inmates.
Despite the size of the sociopathic population and the belief of many psychiatrists that this phenomenon is probably an irreversible personality disorder, little headway has been made in effective treat ment techniques. In general, most correctional officers feel that no effective therapy exists and, even worse, that anti-social sociopaths are not amenable to treatment.^ If sociopathy could be studied, its epidemiology delineated, and its social and bio-medical characteristics elucidated, some of the defeatism which now characterizes the correc
tions system might be alleviated.
Thus a study of the anti-social sociopath is warranted by the
immensity of the problem, by the need for knowledge, especially in
treatment and prevention, and by the theoretically interesting impli cations of several recent studies.
Early Formulations
The contemporary conception of the anti-social sociopath which
forms the theoretical basis of this research has evolved from formula
tions that have been advanced by numerous investigators, most of whom have described their theories and insights based on clinical experience.
H-Such opinions are found in Lee Robins, pp. cit., p. 2; Freed man and Kaplan, op. c i t . , p. 958; Noyes and Kolb, op. pit., pp. 464- 465; Cleckley, "Psychopathic States," pp. 585-587; and D. J. McCarthy and K. M. Corrin, Medical Treatment of Mental Diseases (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1955), pp. 415-418. • 5
12 Pinel is credited with first describing this phenomenon in modern terms. His classification and description of manie sans delire
(mania without delusions), while mixing a variety of disorders, shed some light on previously unexplained phenomena. His tri-partite classi
fication (impulsive insanity and moral idiocy, hypomania, and melan cholia aotiva), broadened the conception of mental illness, and led
others to question the prevailing notion of the time that the intellect
is always involved in mental illness. 13 The American psychiatrist Benjamin Rush expressed similar ideas
as early as 1812, speaking of moral alienation, defective organization
of moral faculties, and deranged will. While postulating a special moral sense, in accordance with faculty psychology, Rush, like Pinel, recognized that mental illness may involve other than intellectual
faculties.
These formulations influenced the English physician, J. C.
Prichard.^ His comprehensive descriptions of sociopathy (under the
titles of moral insanity and moral imbecility), drew attention to states
characterized by a disorder of the affections and feelings, rather than
of understanding and intellect. While his description of non-intellec
tual "insanity" was a bold step in the classification of mental diseases, he grouped all disorders on the basis of symptomatology and consequently
included disorders other than sociopathy.
^Maughs, jag, cit., pp. 465-499.
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid.. p. 329. 6
Garofalo attempted to evade the issue of moral insanity by suggesting that biological factors might be present:
"Should /such moral anomalies as the sociopath/ be regarded as a new nosologic form--the moral insanity of the English \jriters? The existence of this form of alienation is questionable, to say the least. In spite of utmost efforts to discover traces of insanity, one is often obliged to admit that the individual under examination possesses an intelligence which leaves nothing to be desired, that he exhibits no nosologic symptom, unless it be the absence of a moral sense, and that, to quote a French physician, what ever be the subject’s unity of mind, 'the psychic keyboard has only one false note and only one.' "
Garofalo further noted that "these children /are/ born with ferocious instincts."
For these criminals with imprudence, lack of insight, and moral insensibility, and who exhibit complete indifference to shame, he substituted the term "constitutional inferiority" for "moral insanity." 16 Lombroso, on the other hand, embraced the conception of the anti-social sociopath as a moral imbecile, noting that he was guilt less, highly aggressive, impulsive, boastful, and particularly insen sitive to social criticism and physical pain. Lombroso wanted such 13 persons placed in asylums:
1 s Raffaele Garofalo, Criminology (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1914). Quotations are from page 80.
■^Cesare Lombroso, Crime: Its Causes and Remedies (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1911).
^jCbid., pp. 365-366.
18Ibid., p. 423. 7
"At first sight this proposition seems absurd . . . But proper attention has not been paid to the fact that it is just such . . . cases, intermediate between reason and insanity, in which, therefore, the criminal asylums are most useful and of most service in guaranteeing the public safety." 19 Partridge is credited with the introduction of the term socio path, suggesting that persons with this disorder should be considered in terms of the process of socialization. Utilizing psychoanalytic theory,
Partridge located the sociopath's maladjustment in the developmental process. A study of 50 sociopaths revealed, Partridge contended, that
the sociopath fails to progress through the stages of normal child development and retains adjustment techniques common to early childhood.
He described this disorder as a permanently fixed concentration on oral 20 needs. His studies led him to conclude that:
"... /the sociopathic/ personality is a persistent behavior pattern or tendency in which there is usually excessive demand . . . which when there is a failure of direct or immediate satisfaction, is reacted to by a tendency to develop characteristic ways of dominating situations; by emotional displays we call tantrums, by sulks; by running away ..." 21 Thompson offers a somewhat similar conception. To him, the
sociopathic personality is a personality deviation characterized by an
inability to adjust adequately and consistently to social standards.
He maintained that this deviation stems from a basic mental defect which
renders the sufferer incapable of developing an adequate sense of time,
19 Maughs, o£. cit., p. 487. 20 Quoted in P. K. Henderson, Psychopathic States (New York: Norton, 1939), p. 27. 91 G. N. Thompson, "Psychopathy," Archives of Criminal Psycho dynamics , Vol. 4, No. 2 (Spring, 1961), pp. 736-749. 8 particularly with regard to self. Lack of guilt, insufficient judge ment, impulsiveness and inability to profit from experience are secon dary symptoms which result from this basic defect. 22 Henderson used the term psychopathic state to refer to the anti-social sociopath, and included three groups under this rubric: predominately aggressive, predominately passive or inadequate, and predominately creative. The latter state suggests the genius as a 23 variant of the sociopath. In essence, Henderson described the socio path as unstable, explosive, and egocentric. Psychic immaturity is 24 the prime feature of his condition:
"He cannot accept things as they are; he is unable to fit into the life of the herd, but tends to lead an independent, individualistic type of existence with no thought or feeling for his family, his friends, or his country. He is blunted emotionally . . . for a time he may prove charming . . . For some inscrutable reason he fails to grow up, he remains at the level of a primitive savage with a distast for reasoning and an 'impermeability to experience1 .... For some inscrutable reason he fails to grow up, he remains at the . level of a primitive savage with a distaste for reasoning and an 'impermeability to experience' .... The judicial, deciding, selecting process described as intelligence, and the energising, emotivating, driving powers called charac ter, are not working in harmony."
Henderson, pp. cit. 23 Kozol, a more recent contributor, also related genius and so- ciopathy, and stated that the same dynamics operate in both. The level of assault differs--the genius creates whereas the sociopath makes his attacks for "kicks"; yet both are characterized by identical factors, Kozol maintained. There is dissociation between basic impulse patterns and the development of social pseudo-conformity. They learn to conform for their own benefit; however, this educative process appears unrelated' to the primitive impulse structure. This separation or preschizopathy accounts for the lack of internal control and the primitiveness of goals which characterizes them. Maughs, op. c i t ., p. 484.
^Henderson, pp. cit., pp. 128-129. 9
Cleckley provided the most inclusive and thorough conceptualiza
tion of the anti-social sociopath, maintaining that the latter is a distinguishable, deeply-rooted clinical entity. The disorder adversely affects interpersonal relations and is demonstrated best when the socio
path confronts problems of living.
The anti-social sociopath, according to Cleckley, is characterized
1. Superficial charm and good intelligence. 2. Absence of delusions and other signs of irrational thinking. 3. Absence of nervousness and other psychoneurotic manifestations. 4. Unreliability. 5. Untruthfulness and insincerity. 6. Lack of remorse or shame. 7. Inadequately motivated anti-social behavior: 8. Poor judgement and failure to learn by experience. 9. Pathologic egocentricity and incapacity for love. 10. General poverty of major affective relations. .11. Specific loss of insight. 12. Unresponsiveness in interpersonal behavior. 13. Fantastic and uninviting behavior, with drink and sometimes without. 14. Suicide rarely carried out. 15. Sex life impersonal, trivial and poorly integrated. 16. Failure to follow any life plan.
More precisely, Cleckley described the sociopath who is likely to
end up in prison as easy to talk with, friendly, and frequently of
superior intelligence. Outer perceptual reality is not distorted; social
values may be accepted verbally, and excellent logical reasoning prevails.
The sociopath with great verbal facility forsees consequences of action,
and criticizes former mistakes. These excellent rational powers, so
apparent verbally as well as in hypothetical situations, do not carry
^Cleckley, Mask of Sanity.
^Ibid.. pp. 363-400. 10
over into behavior. Despite his rationality, the sociopath shows poor
judgement in behavior and has a perplexing ability for creating situa
tions in which no rational man would participate. Furthermore, he
suffers from specific loss of insight. He neither knows how others
feel in relation to him nor appreciates subjectively the values and major emotional concerns others have for him. There is a total absence
of appraisal of self as a real and moving experience. He has all the
qualities by which insight is gained, and awareness of major facts,
all the words of understanding; yet these facts neither enter into
his evaluations nor prompt him to change his behavior. The discrepancy
between his favorable orientation and ability to reason, and behavior,
is enigmatic.
This baffling paradox is clearly revealed in the sociopath's
inadequately motivated anti-social behavior, his failure to develop a
life plan, and his untruthfulness. As part of his anti-social conduct,
he often commits crimes for small stakes and under great risks. Yet
there is no evidence of a compulsive or neurotic component. He does
not formulate long-term goals, but seems to be motivated to fail in
life. He cannot be trusted in his accounts of the past, statements of
present intentions, or promises for the future. He lies, seemingly
without purpose and, with ready sincerity, manipulates truth to gain
his immediate ends.
His untruthfulness is coupled, Cleckley maintained, with an
unreliability and irresponsibility. He is irresponsible, no matter
how binding the obligation, in trivial as well as in serious matters.
While the anti-social sociopath intermittently reveals convincing and 11
27 conforming loyalty, predicting when he will or will not be responsible appears to be impossible. It does not seem to be related to mood, objective stress, or amount at stake for himself or for others.
He feels no shame or remorse; the anti-social sociopath usually projects blame on others, and his blaming of himself is hollow, casual, and instrumental. He is seemingly incapable of object love, and is generally unresponsive in interpersonal behavior. While he may be attentive to small courtesies, perhaps even obliging and generous, he cannot show consistent, ordinary responsiveness to kindness and trust.
He is not usually motivated by altruistic concern, although he may superficially claim to be. Nor can he express genuine human emotions.
The sociopath is impoverished in affective reactions.
The sociopath, Cleckley suggested, has not deep personal commit ment to either ideas or persons. He often over-indulges in sexual behavior, alcohol, drugs, and other "thrill-producing" substances.
Sexual behavior is random, provoked frequently by whimlike impulses of little intensity, and is free of emotional involvement. Thus, one would predict little marital involvement for the anti-social sociopath.
Cleckley adopted the term "semantic disorder" or "semantic psychosis" to refer to the clinical entity characterized above. The sociopath mimics the human personality, and wears a "mask of sanity."
He is unaware of and lacks the ability to become cognizant of what the most important life experiences mean to others. Major emotional accom-
^Kaelbling and Patterson, jop. cit., p. 372. 12 paniments or affective competencies are missing. His response to life is dissociated, and components of normal experience are not integrated into a wholely human reaction.
no Gough, in a social psychological treatment of sociopathy, con tended that the sociological theory of role playing as described in the work of Cooley and Mead provides a synthesis of known facts of socio pathy, and formulated deductive hypotheses for empirical testing. The anti-social sociopath, according to Gough, is pathologically deficient in role-taking ability. This deficiency is characterized by an inability to view the self as an object and to identify with another's point of view. Since other aspects of sociopathy are associated with this deficiency, Gough concluded that the causes of sociopathy must be sought in the causes of inadequacy in role-playing ability.
Empirical Studies
1. Defective Role Taking.
Apart from clinical studies, the anti-social sociopath has been relatively neglected as a subject of research. There have been only three social-psychological studies. These three follow in chronological order.
28 Harrison Gough, "A Sociological Theory of Psychopathy," American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 53 (March, 1948), pp. 359-366. Following Gough, Baker investigated skill in taking the role of the other and hypothesized that in a group of male prisoners, anti-social 30 sociopaths would be less able than non-sociopaths to empathize with their cellmates, all of whom had shared a cell with these cellmates for at least four weeks. Each subject and his cellmate filled out four adjective checklists: for self (A); for cellmate (B); prediction of self checks for cellmate (C); and prediction of (B), subject's guesses as to how he appears to his cellmate (D). Predictions made by each subject on checklists (C) and (D) were compared with the cellmate's actual choices on checklists (A) and (B), thus providing two measures of empathy, including the percentage of correct predictions on checklist (G), and the percentage of correct predictions on checklist (D). The first indi cates ability to perceive qualities or traits others use in assessing one's self. While the samples are small (21 sociopaths and 13 non-socio paths), the differences in (C) and (D) percentages are statistically significant; sociopaths are less able to empathize with others. 31 Albrecht and Sarbin, arguing that anti-social sociopaths cannot take the time to put themselves in the role of the other before they
Baker, Accuracy of Social Perceptions of Psychopathic and Won-Psychopathic Prison Inmates. Unpublished manuscript, 1954. Sum marized in T. R. Sarbin, "Role Theory" in Gardner Lindzey (ed.) Handbook of Social Psychology (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1954), p . 246. 30 Subjects were assigned to a category on the basis of MMPI profiles. 31 Ruth Albrecht and T. R. Sarbin, Contributions to Role-taking Theory: Annoyability as a Function of the Self. Unpublished manuscript, 1954. Gardner Lindzey, _og. cit., p. 246. 14
32 act, and therefore are poor tension binders, hypothesized that such • persons would be most responsive to annoying stimuli. Administering a
172 item annoyance questionnaire to 60 male subjects (20 diagnosed as sociopaths, 27 diagnosed as neurotics, and 13 without psychiatric diagnosis), they found significant differences between groups on total means scores, with sociopaths having the highest, normals intermediate, and neurotics lowest mean annoyance scale scores. 33 McCord and McCord offered one of the more recent formulations of the sociopath, and specify guiltlessness and lovelessness as the core 34 characteristic of the anti-social sociopath:
"The /anti-social sociopath/ is an asocial, aggressive, highly impulsive person, who feels little or no guilt and is unable to form lasting bonds of affection with other human beings."
These'characteristics, it would appear, are considered basic to the anti-social sociopath syndrome; they are consistently employed in almost all contemporary uses of the concept.
The McCords attempted to evaluate the contributions of milieu therapy on young aggressive sociopathic boys at the Wiltwyck school in
Mew York, wherein both individual and group therapy were combined in a warm, permissive environment. After painstaking study, the authors concluded that milieu therapy causes radical alterations in personality
^This point is basic to Gough's role-taking theory of socio pathy, following G. H. Mead, Mind, Self and Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934). Gough, op. cit. 33 McCord and McCord, c>£. cit.
34 I b i d .. p. 2. 15 of the subjects. However, such an environment is easily manipulated by sociopaths; if the subjects had been followed after release, much of the optimism concerning successful treatment might have been dispelled by observing the behavior of sociopathic boys in a non-accepting environment.
2. Longitudinal Research. 35 Robins, in the most thorough sociological and psychiatric study of the anti-social sociopathic personality to date, directed a ten-year research project representing a 30-year longitudinal study into the adult status of 524 child-guidance clinic patients of the St. Louis
Municipal Psychiatric Clinic. This patient group was made up predomi nately of male offspring of American-born Protestant parents of low
socio-economic status; Negroes were excluded from the investigation.
Ninety percent of the subjects were located, 82 percent were inter viewed, and 98 percent were successfully traced through adult records.
On the basis of interview and record information, and for each of the
19 areas of the subject's life in which he might have failed to conform 36 to societal norms, specific criteria for sociopathic behavior were 37 established. These criteria alloxtfed two psychiatrists to agree as
35 Lee Robins, op. cit., pp. 90-92. 3 6 The specific criteria are found on page 80, ibid. 37 The median number of areas in which subjects given the diagno sis of anti-social sociopathic personality met the various criteria for failure to conform to societal norms was first reported to be 11 (p. 80). In the next paragraph it was reported that 13 of the 19 symptoms occurred in at least half the subjects diagnosed anti-social sociopathic person ality. Five pages later it was noted that 69 percent of the sociopathic group had at least nine of these 19 symptoms. 16
38 to whether 80 percent of the subjects were well or ill, and to make reasonably specific diagnoses for 71 percent of the subjects. Robins does not indicate the degree to which the 29 percent of cases which could not be specifically diagnosed differ from those which were 39 successfully diagnosed.
The 94 St. Louis sociopathic personality subjects were compared with four other specific diagnostic groups which occurred frequently enough to permit statistical comparisons (anxiety neurosis, hysteria, schizophrenia, and alcoholism), and with a group of 100 control subjects from St. Louis, matched on race, area of residence, sex, age, and I. Q.
This important research was concerned basically with three areas of delineation: distinctive symptoms of the sociopathic personality, a portrait of adult sociopathic personality, and childhood behavior pre dicting later diagnosis. The findings in these three areas are complex, subject to differences in interpretation, and not necessarily presented in a wholly satisfactory fashion. They are further vitiated by a low level of statistical analysis; percentages and Chi-square analysis of independence. A much more advantageous presentation of findings, even with a relatively small number of cases, could have utilized multi-var- iate analysis, especially the contingency table presentation, which would have prevented many uncertainties and ambiguities from arising,
The psychiatrists were aware that the topic of interest was anti-social sociopathic personality; a relatively high proportion (15.6 percent) were diagnosed sociopathic. It may well have been that "blind" evaluators would not have found such a high proportion to be sociopathic.
39 This introduces possible unknown biases into a study group which is not necessarily representative of any mentally disordered popu lation. 17 especially in the area of the effects of social class on symptoms and possible etiology. Despite these weaknesses, however, the data are theoretically significant, and a synopsis of l'esults will be presented.
As for symptoms, persons diagnosed as sociopathic personalities in the St. Louis study had more symptoms than any other diagnostic group, the three most common symptoms being financial dependency, poor work history, and multiple arrests. Four symptoms distinguished the sociopathic personality group at a statistically significant level from the other four groups: poor marital history, impulsiveness, vagrancy, 40 and the use of aliases. The presence of one or more of the latter symptoms was noted to be the best indicators of later sociopathic personality diagnosis.
The portrait of the St. Louis patient diagnosed as a sociopathic personality as an adult is contaminated by the use of the 19 symptom areas which were used to diagnose subjects; the very criteria used for diagnosis were later treated as characteristics of the sociopath. How
ever, four non-circular aspects of sociopathy are also presented; social
adjustment, health, psychiatric symptoms, and treatment.
In general, persons diagnosed as sociopathic personalities in the
St. Louis study had a disproportionately high death rate, more than
twice the national rate; felt themselves to be sicker than other groups;
were extremely mobile; more often lived in the core city; were currently
more often unemployed; had experienced long periods of unemployment;
usually held a low-ranking blue-colar job; rarely held a job for long; 18
functioned longer in jobs in which they had little supervision; earned
less when employed; were downwardly mobile in occupation; had low edu
cational attainment; experienced little upward mobility from their
fathers; were more frequently recipients of aid from public agencies; had the lowest percentage with established credit ratings; were more
divorced than any other group and less often currently living with
spouse; tended to marry spouses with serious behavior problems; married
somewhat younger than either patient or control groups; were slightly more often childless; were parents to children who were already showing marked emotional problems, few of whom graduated from high school; had
the lowest rates of induction into the Armed Forces; were extreme
medical and disciplinary problems in service; and served aborted periods
of military service.
The St. Louis patients also had unusually high proportions of
non-traffic arrests, those arrested being arrested at least once for a
major crime; had more convictions when arrested than all other subjects;
were less likely to "burn out" in criminal behavior over time; evinced
high rates of problem drinking; and were either currently experimenting
with drugs (five percent) or were or had been addicted to drugs (10
percent).
The sociopaths in the St. Louis study were also more often iso
lated from relatives and neighbors; belonged to very few formal organi
zations; had many neurotic and somatic symptoms; had rarely sought
psychiatric care; had been frequently hospitalized in mental hospitals
(21 percent); and had been more often previously diagnosed as socio
pathic when hospitalized. 19
The above characteristics have been closely linked with lower social class status by sociologists, especially Matza,^ Kahl/*^ and 43 Komarovsky. Social class may well be intervening to produce these marked differences and traits, although Robins made a concerted but somewhat ineffectual and unconvincing effort to contraindicate social 44 class as an explanatory variable.
Finally, as for childhood behaviors predicting sociopathy, Robins suggested that these symptoms would be aggression or theft.for a boy; many episodes of diverse anti-social behavior, at least one of which could bring him before a juvenile court; anti-social involvement with strangers and organizations as well as parents and teachers; gratuitous lying; a history of truancy, staying out late, and refusing to obey parents; little guilt over behavior; irresponsibility concerning both
David Matza, "Poverty and Disrepute," in Robert Merton and Robert Nisbet (eds.) Contemporary Social Problems (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1966), pp. 619-669. 42 Joseph Kahl, The American Class Structure -(New York: Rinehart and Company, 1957), pp. 205-215. ' ' 43 Mirra Komarovsky, Blue-Collar Marriage (New York: Random House, 1964). 44 Robins' treatment of social class as a variable is at best less than ideal. Her study group is somewhat vaguely broken into "blue collar" and "white collar" on the basis of father's occupation; 24 percent of the former and 13 percent of the latter were found to be sociopathic. This represents a ratio of almost 2:1. It may be that sociopathy is concen trated in the lower class due to the relative breakdown in socialization, or due to the sociopaths' having drifted downward. A third possible alternative is that psychiatrists see such anti-social behavior of the lower class as sociopathy, exhibiting middle class perspective as pro fessional judgement. Perhaps all three may be operating, although Robins argues against the latter. However, the argument would have been stronger if she had presented the average number of symptoms necessary for diagno sis as sociopath for the lower and middle class, separately. 20 being where he was supposed to be and taking care of money; interest in sexual behavior and experimenting with homosexual behavior; bed-wetting; and poor grooming. Only self-exposure and vandalism, among the anti
social symptoms, were innocuous. Girls resembled boys in the anti-so cial symptoms, except they were more frequently and prominently exhibiting sexual misbehavior and experiencing the onset of difficulties more visible at a later age.
Robins noted that anti-social behavior by the fathers of the patients is predictive of anti-social behavior for patients, particularly
paternal desertion, arrest, excessive drinking, failure to support the
family, and chronic unemployment. However, as for the effects of the
family setting on sociopathic personality per se, Robins noted only that
parental rejection does not appear to lead to sociopathy, and early
separation from an anti-social father does not appear to prevent the development of sociopathy in the child. In the latter case, this may
be due to the lessened ability of the mother alone to exercise control
over the child.
In conclusion, Robins suggested that a more precise study of the
sociopathic personality could be made from a longitudinal study of con
secutive births, thus minimizing the selectivity inherent in subjects
volunteering or being forced to seek attention at mental health or
child guidance clinics. Such would be a difficult but potentially
rewarding enterprise.
3. Psychophysiological Studies.
Limited investigations of the anti-social sociopath have been
conducted by physiologists and physicians, most of whom have focused on 21 the physiological l'esponses of the sociopath. In particular, these studies have been conducted by Funlcenstein ^t aj;.., Lykken, Schachter and Latane, and Lippert. These four studies form the crux of the inves tigation reported herein, and present the formulations on which the bio-social portion of this research is based. 45 Funkenstein jet al. conducted the first physiological research on the sociopath in 1949, injecting epinephrine into 13 males and two females who had been committed for crimes of violence and classified as anti-social sociopathic personalities. With systolic blood pressure as the measurement variable, the researchers found that these 15 patients in a receiving hospital showed an increased sympathetic arousal, 46 or increased blood pressure reactivity to epinephrine. However:
". . . /we/ have no clue as to whether the autonomic patterns of response represent primarily inborn reactions, learned- acquired forms of adjustment, or both." 47 Lykken theorized that if sociopaths have the clinical charac teristic of lack of normal affective reactions, then they would also
(1) be defective in their ability to develop anxiety through condition ing; (2) show abnormally little manifest anxiety in conditions condu cive to this response; and (3) be relatively incapable of avoidance learning under circumstances where such learning can only be effected through the mediation of the anxiety response.
^ D . H. Funkenstein, M. Greenblatt, and H. C. Solomon, "Psycho- physiological Study of Mentally 111 Patients," American Journal of Psychiatry. Vol. 106 (1949), pp. 16-28.
^ I b i d .. p. 26. 47 David Lykken, A Study of Anxiety in the Sociopathic Personality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Minnesota, 1955. 22
To test these hypotheses, the following tests of anxiety were 48 administered to 19 primary and 20 neurotic sociopathic inmates of prisons, selected on Cleckley's criteria, and to 15 "normal" students:
1. the Taylor Manifest Anxiety test, primarily a measure of
neuroticism;
2. the MMPI Pd (psychopathic deviation) subscale, measuring
sociopathic deviation;
3. and a 33 item "Anxiety Scale" constructed by Lykken.
The experimental condition required the subject to learn a mechanical maze; a mild electric shock punished errors and introduced avoidance learning. Galvanic skin response was recorded to indicate emotional reactivity.
Significant differences in the predicted direction were obtained on all hypotheses. As compared with "normals," the primary sociopaths showed significantly less anxiety on the questionnaire scales, less avoidance of punishment on the avoidance learning, and less galvanic skin response associated with shock. Lykken concluded that the chief clinical characteristic of primary sociopaths is a lack of normal affective accompaniments of experience.
48 Consensus among clinicians is that sociopaths do not possess neurotic tendencies. Cleckley, for example, in Mask of Sanity, indi cated that the sociopath has an absence of nervousness and other neurotic manifestations. Pescor also characterized the sociopath as non-neurotic. M. J. Pescor, "The Psychopath," Federal Probation, Vol. 4 (January, 1945), pp. 28-32. • 23
,49 Schachter and Latane replicated Lyklcen's study in part, pro curing subjects through prison personnel who nominated inmates on the basis of Cleckley's criteria of sociopathy. Nominees were eliminated who had low I. Q. scores or evinced emotionality at time of intake.
The Lykken Anxiety Scale, number of offenses, and length of time incar cerated since age nine x^ere used to place subjects into groups. Due to time demands, subjects were processed through the experimental pro cedure before they could be assigned a research classification. Thus three groups emerged: sociopath (N=15), normal (N=15), and a group of 10 subjects that had some of the sociopathic characteristics, but not enough to be classified as sociopath ("mixed").
The explanatory variable which Schachter and Latane" introduced was derived from a body of experimental research demonstrating that anxiety can be induced by sympathetic activation of the autonomic nerv ous system. Each subject was injected with a sympathomimetic agent, epinephrine, and a placebo. Measurement was taken of heart rate, an indicator of autonomic activation. The formal experiment was Lykken's task requiring the subject to learn to avoid electric shock.
Schachter and Latane" concluded that:
1. both sociopaths and normals are equally capable of learning
positively reinforced behavior;
2, in non-drug or placebo conditions, normals learn to avoid
punishment, whereas sociopaths do not;
^ S t a n l e y Schachter and B. Latane", "Crime, Cognition, and the Auto nomic Nervous System," in D. Levine (ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motiva tion (Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1964), pp. 221- 272. 24
3. when injected with epinephrine, sociopaths show marked
improvement in avoidance learning, but normals decrease in
this ability;
4. sociopaths under drug condition learn faster and make
fewer errors than do normals;
5. and sociopaths are more autonomically responsive to
epinephrine.
While Schachter and Latane'' appear to have confirmed decreased avoidance learning and increased reactivity to epinephrine in the anti social sociopath, methodological difficultues reduced their groups to as few as four subjects. Because of the small number of cases, these results are suggestive rather than definitive. Furthermore, neither
Lykken nor Schachter and Latane' have attempted to study the social characteristics of the anti-social sociopath, and thus have not capi talized on the potential for the elucidation of etiology. 50 Lippert studies 42 white, male adolescents in the detention unit of a juvenile court. Two groups, composed of 21 subjects each and 51 matched on age and intelligence, were formed on the basis of juvenile court diagnosis as either sociopathic personality or adjustment reaction of adolescence. Galvanic skin resistance of subjects was measured for
■^Walter W. Lippert, Jr., The Electrodermal System of the Socio path. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Cincinnati, 1965.
"^Although the groups were matched on age and intelligence, sig nificant differences in I. Q. scores between the two groups emerged (P is less than .05). 25
(a) basal level of activity, (b) spontaneous galvanic skin response, and (c) specific galvanic skin response to a threat situation. No sig nificant differences were found on basal level of activity, but socio paths had significantly fewer spontaneous responses. On the last measurement, sociopaths showed significantly less galvanic skin response to a threat situation and recovered from stress more rapidly, indicat- 52 ing a rebound phenomenon.
Present Study
The major purpose of the interdisciplinary research from which data for this dissertation were drawn was to replicate the Schachter and 53 Latane study, concerned with autonomic reactivity and avoidance learn ing in the anti-social sociopath under drug (epinephrine) and non-drug
(saline) conditions. The present study also entails, therefore, a replication of the Lykken experimental condition. Schachter and Latane's psychophysiological study was expanded to include the measurement of galvanic skin response of the groups involved in physiological reactivity to epinephrine.
The particular contributions of this dissertation toward an under standing of the sociopath lie in (1) an estimate of prevalence of the
52 Lippert suggests that good recovery subjects act out their feelings, and the frequent physical acting-out of the sociopathic sub ject in his anti-social behavior may be an adjustment to stress conditions, and that "It may be that the autonomic nervous sytem of the sociopath undergoes a conditioning process which is out of step with normal culturization."
53 y Schachter and Latane*1, £p. c i t . • 26 anti-social sociopath in prison; (2) an extended investigation of the social characteristics of the incarcerated anti-social sociopath, or the social correlates of sociopathy; and (3) an attempt to delineate and differentiate two possible types of anti-social sociopath on the basis of sociologically relevant variables. The delineation of social corre lates is a first step in the empirical process by which a developmental theory may evolve. Such a delineation can hopefully suggest the social forces functioning in etiology, and may possibly reveal patterns that permit theoretical inference.
Finally, even though this is basically an exploratory as well as a replication study, two hypotheses were made. First, it was hypothe sized that anti-social sociopaths, feeling that their behavior merits no correction but who have been incarcerated, would have less favorable attitudes toward the legal agents responsible for their "unjust11 treat ment. Therefore, it was predicted that anti-social sociopaths would display less favorable attitudes toward law, the courts, and the police.
Second, it was hypothesized that anti-social sociopaths, feeling less able to deal effectively with the official agents of society, would also feel more alienated from society. Therefore, it was pre dicted that anti-social sociopaths will be more anomic than other incarcerated felons.
The next chapter deals with the methodology of the study. CHAPTER II
METHODOLOGY
Method
The data for this multi-disciplinary study of the bio-medical and social correlates of the anti-social sociopath were gathered with the cooperation and involvement of both the Ohio State Department of
Mental Hygiene and Corrections— Division of Correction, and the Ohio
State University. In this comprehensive study, 1,375 consecutive admissions to the Ohio Penitentiary were screened by the Psychological
Services staff of the prison. The Ohio Penitentiary, located in the city of Columbus, is a maximum security institution receiving all committed male felons except the less serious, first-commitment, offenders under thirty-five years of age, who are sentenced directly to the Ohio State Reformatory at Mansfield. Each staff member, who was trained in the application of the previously listed 16 Cleckley criteria of sociopathy, screened consecutive admissions on the basis of age, intelligence, and on the Cleckley criteria. This screening was designed to produce potential subjects on the same basis as in the
Schachter and Latane study, and to produce potential subjects between
the ages of 21-35, with I. Q. greater than 100 on the Ohio Penal Class
ification Test (OPCT), and with characteristics of the sociopath that
Cleckley had delineated. In the latter case, subjects were sought who fulfilled either less than five, or more than 12 of the 16 charac
teristics in the Cleckley Checklist.
27 28
The medical records of all original admissions qualified in the
initial screening on age, I. Q., and Cleckley critex*ia were x*eviewed by
the prison physician. Inmates were eliminated if their medical records
indicated any chronic or certain specified physical disorders, particu
larly a history of hypertension and/or hyperthyroidism. This medical
screening eliminated slightly more than 31 percent of the previously
eligible population. Consent forms were obtained from approximately
90 percent of those who passed the health screening.
Presented in flow chart form, of the 1,375 new admissions sub
jects, half were lost to the age requirement; of the 685 who remained
eligible, about two-thirds were lost to the I. Q. requirement. This
left 200 eligibles; of these, roughly two-thirds did not score either
over 12 (sociopath) or under 5 (non-sociopath) on the Cleckley criteria.
Approximately 70 inmates remained. The health screening eliminated
22 more, or 31 percent, and consent refusals accounted for five others.
Of the 1,375 then, 43 were actually studied on all levels--organic,
psychological, and sociological.
The intake procedures described above were instituted in July,
1967. In order to determine prevalence, all incoming cases, during
October through December, 1967, were routinely administered the Lykken
Scale, the Mylonas Criminality Level Index, and the Srole Anomia Scale
by the writer. Finally, prison and social history data were collected
on this entire cohort, as well as on the 43 completely screened and
finally selected experimental sample consisting of criterion socio
paths and non-sociopaths. 29
Scales
The three scales--Lykken, Mylonas, and Srole--were part of a questionnaire to which was attached a background data sheet. These were routinely administered, at one sitting, to the newly admitted felons in groups of 25-35 men, in the Psychological Services testing room of the Ohio Penitentiary. All questions were read aloud to the inmates by the writer, facilitating the administration of the scales by (1) permitting the writer to provide standardized interpretations for the more difficult items, and (2) minimizing differences in reading skills. 54 The first scale, the Lykken Scale, consists of 33 forced- choice items, in each of which the respondent has to choose between two possible tasks. The first task is an innocuous but presumably anxiety-arousing task. Theoretically, sociopaths are not able to perceive the anxiety inherent in the situation, and thus opt for the anxiety-producing task in opposition to the more tedious one. Non sociopaths, perceiving the anxiety latent in the second task, select the first alternative. Thus, the Lykken Scale could be seen as a measure of sociopathy.
5 4 Reliability and validity of this scale are discussed in David T. Lykken, "A Study of Anxiety in Sociopathic Personality," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 55 (1957), pp. 6-10. The writer administered the scale to 59 students enrolled in an introductory sociology course, and obtained a test-retest reliability coefficient of +.85, with a month's lapse between applications. The scale, along with the entire questionnaire, is presented in Appendix C. 30
55 The second scale administered was the Srole Anomia Scale, con sisting of five items with a Likert-type response format. The Anomia
Scale basically measures a sense of powerlessness. Items register the
individual’s feeling that (1) life holds little meaning and small prospect for one's children; (2) one cannot count on one's associates
for psychological and social support; (3) community leaders are indif
ferent to his needs; (4) little can be accomplished in a society which
is seen as basically unpredictable and lacking order; and (5) life goals are receeding rather than being recognized.
The third scale administered consisted of the Mylonas Criminal- 56 ity Level Index, an instrument designed to permit national and inter national comparisons of degree of potential for involvement in crime as
an adult. The 24 items measure attitudes toward law, courts, and the
police. The assumption is made that the accumulated residues of social experience with these legal agencies, consisting of attitudes and per
ceptions, permit the measurement of criminality potential. Such a scale
also permits the comparison of commitment to criminality for various
types of offenders.
Robert K. Merton, "Anomie, Anomia, and Social Interaction: Con texts of Deviant Behavior," in Marshall Clinard (ed.) Anomie and Deviant Behavior (New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1964), pp. 213-242. 56 Reliability and validity of this scale are discussed in Walter C. Reckless, "The Development of a Criminality Level Index," in Walter C. Reckless and Charles Newman (eds.), Interdisciplinary Problems in Criminology (Columbus, Ohio: College of Commerce and Administration, The Ohio State University, 1965), pp. 71-82. The scale, with buffer items to disguise directionality, is presented in Appendix C. 31
Finally, a background data sheet eliciting religion, year of birth, household mobility, marital status, rural-urban background, and occupation at time of arrest was attached to the questionnaire. From
the background data sheet respondents were identified and prison and social history data were collected on the entire cohort of 277 cases
from the Social Services files of the Ohio Penitentiary.
There is the question of the representativeness of the sample of
consecutive admissions to the population in the Ohio Penitentiary. Data
on the characteristics of inmates during the time of the study are not
available, but data to which the sample is congruent with another con
secutive admissions study of the population in the Ohio Penitentiary
are presented in Table 1. This comparison of sample data on age, race
and marital status indicates no significant differences between study
samples.
Experimental Test Procedures
Immediately after consent was obtained, the 43 subjects indi
vidually completed the Lykken and Srole Scales, and the Taylor Manifest 57 Anxiety Scale. The Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale is a 50-item,
forced-choice scale derived from Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory (MMPI) items selected by judges as being indicative of
anxiety. This polydimensional scale is primarily a measurement of
neurotic maladjustment (neuroticism) rather than of anxiety level
"^Janet A. Taylor, "A Personality Test of Manifest Anxiety," Journal of Abnorma1 and Social Psychology, Vol. 48, No. 2 (April, 1953), pp. 285-290. 32
TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF 1960 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS SAMPLE WITH PRESENT STUDY SAMPLE3
Character 1960 Percent- Present Percent Chi istic : Study .. age Study age Square P
Age of Subject 15-19 1 .3 5 1.8 8.50 .30 20-24 43 12.8 45 16.2 25-29 70 20.8 51 18.4 30-34 90 26.8 57 20.6 35-39 58 17.3 54 19.8 40-44 34 10.1 27 9.7 45-49 18 5.4 17 6.1 50 or more 22 6.5 21 7.6 Total 336 100.0 277 99.9
Race White 212 63.1 181 65.3 2.85 .30 Negro 118 35.1 95 34.3 Other 6 1.8 1 .4 Total 336 100.0 277 100.0
Marital Status Married 140 41.7 106 38.3 2.01 .50 Single 94 28.0 72 26.0 Divorced, Separated 102 30.4 99 35.7 336 100.1 • 277 100.0
aSource: John P. Clark, Blame Acceptance Among Ohio Prisoners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Ohio State University, 1961. 33
58 per se. It is in general use by clinical psychologists and industrial firms, and is now recognized as a reasonably adequate measure of neu- 59 rotic anxiety.
Approximately one week later--to separate the earlier from the experimental effect, and to provide compatibility of our present investi gative procedures with those of Schachter and Latane--the subjects were individually brought to a room containing the experimental apparatus.
The experimental procedures were:
a. The subject was brought into the room and seated in front
of a four-lever manipulandum.
b. Four (Beckman) electrodes were attached to different loca
tions of the subject's body, for continuous monitoring
purposes.
c. The subjects, after a variable period of time for emotional
adjustment to the situation, were instructed in the use of
the manipulandum and the objectives of the learning task.
d. The subject, after these instructions, was given, on a
random basis, either an injection of epinephrine or a
placebo.
■^Lykken, "Sociopathic Personality," p. 8. 59 Reliability of this scale is discussed in Taylor, o£. cit. Validity statements are presented in C. W. Eriksen and Anthony Davis, "The Meaning and Clinical Validity of the Taylor Anxiety Scale and the Hysteria-Psychasthenia Scales from the MMPI," Journal of Abnorma1 and Social Psychology, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 135-137. 34
e. The subject began work on the taped avoidance learning task
three minutes after injection.
After the experimental program, the subject was instructed to
complete the Lykken and Srole Scales, and the Mylonas Criminality
Level Index. This repeated testing was designed to determine immedi
ate psychological and attitudinal change following the injection of epinephrine.
Analysis
The data were coded, punched onto cards, and processed. The Chi-
square test of independence was used in making comparisons of attributes between sub-groups involved in the breakdown of groups of inmates, utilizing the Coefficient of Contingency as the measure of association between variables. The t-test was used in comparisons of sub-groups
for scale scores.
Quantitative variables were intercorrelated. The sign test was used in testing the degree of consistency of correlations between sub groups within the population sampled. All tests of significance utilized
the .05 level of significance.
In the next chapter the physiological, psychological, and socio
logical findings on the experimental group are presented in detail. CHAPTER III
RESULTS: EXPERIMENTAL GROUP
This chapter presents the data derived from this bio-social inves tigation of the anti-social sociopath. Inasmuch as this interdisciplinary study began as a replication of the Schachter and Lataney study of the cardiovascular hyper-reactivity of the anti-social sociopath, it was necessary to select subjects on the same basis as Schachter and Latane.
Subjects, as was noted in Chapter II, were selected from consecutive admissions to the Ohio Penitentiary and were initially screened by the
11 man Psychological Services staff.
These consecutive admissions to the Ohio Penitentiary, while probably reasonably typical of the approximately 200,000 inmates of
Federal and state prisons, are disadvantaged and impaired far beyond general population expectations on nearly all measureable variables-- medical, psychological, and sociological. They are relatively young, predominately lower class, of very modest educational attainment, with no specific occupations or skills, with frequent previous criminal involvement, from broken and/or pathological families of procreation and orientation, and they exhibit a much higher incidence of physical and mental diseases than persons in a non-institutional population.
The group of 1,375 was, as previously noted, routinely screened in a diagnostic interview at admission by the prison intake staff on age,
I. Q., and the Cleckley Checklist. 36
Four very interesting findings emerged from the diagnostic inter view. Despite repeated training and the high motivation of the Psycho logical Services staff, the results on the Cleckley Checklist were most disheartening. First, inter-rater reliability was extremely low. The distribution of the Cleckley criteria scores was found to be more charac teristic of the individual rater than of the subject rated.
Second, scores increased with time. Initial scores were lower, across all raters, that were later intake scores. Because of this, the research staff were compelled to retrain each rater and to rearrange the diagnostic sheet. The median score fell immediately; soon after, however, the upward trend was again evident.
In addition, and utilizing only the 43 subjects who survived the successive screens for the physiologic testing, two other major failings of the diagnostic interview were demonstrated. Third, scores did not correlate well with other diagnostic criteria or the final diagnosis.
Fourth, no Negro was given si score in the non-sociopathic range. This score distribution may reflect the possibility of subconscious bias in the interviewer, in the nature of the criteria themselves when applied across racial lines, that the administration of justic procedures were such as to produce a racial bias in this penal population, or that there really is a racial difference in this respect--genetic or socio-cultural, and more likely the latter. The final diagnosis, which was based on five additional criteria, led to the inclusion of Negroes in both the sociopathic and non-sociopathic experimental groups. The "harder" criteria--the MMPI, the Lykken Scale, and the criminal variables-- yielded no racial bias. 37
Those subjects scoring less than five or more than 12 on the
Cleckley Checklist criteria, who were under 35 years of age, who had an intelligence test (OPCT) of 100 or more, who passed the medical screening for chronic or specified organic disorders, and who consented to the experiment underwent the experimental test procedures described in Chapter II. Inasmuch as this was a double-blind study, the experi menters did not know the tentative classification--sociopathic or non- 60 sociopathic--of any subject.
Classification Procedures
In order to arrive at a final diagnosis for the experimental sub jects as sociopath or non-sociopath, from July through December, 1967, the last 277 of the 1,375 consecutive admissions brought forward were extensively studied on the classificatory variables to determine the cutting points of the composite criteria for classification. Following the diagnostic procedures of Schachter and Latane*, the research team
A double-blind study involves a research design that attempts to eliminate both feedback to the subjects and subtle structuring of investigator-subject interaction which might influence the results of the study, especially if the investigator cues the subject that he is negatively evaluated. In this particular research design, only the writer, who selected the subjects, knew the tentative classification of each subject--sociopathic or non-sociopathic. Subjects were ran domly passed on to the physician-colleague, who was thus unable, while processing the subjects, to indirectly cue the latter as to appropriate behavior. The second "blind” or design aspect to prevent the undesir able interaction of social stimuli, was the taped avoidance learning program. The four tapes, requiring that subjects correctly learn a maze in order for the experiment to advance, were ordered by a third member of the research team, and the physician-colleague was also ignorant of this order. 38 utilized five criteria in addition in making the final diagnosis. These criteria and their relative weights, as agreed by the research team, were: the Lykken Scale score (weighted one-fourth of the total); the number of arrests since age 18 that had not been dismissed (weighted one-fourth); the percentage of life incarcerated since age 18 (weighted one-fourth); the MMPI (Scale Number 4 /psychopathic deviation, or Pd/ minus Scale Number 7 /psychasthenia, or P_t/) (weighted one-twelfth); and the presence of any recorded escapes from any penal or correctional institution (weighted one-twelfth). The Cleckley criteria, then, accounted for one-twelfth of the final diagnosis.
Median scores were used as cutting points on these six criteria:
Lykken Scale, Number of Arrests Since Age 18, Percentage of Life
Incarcerated Since Age 18, Pd Minus Ft Scale Scores (Plus a 50 Constant),
Escapes, Cleckley Checklist. These medians are presented in Table 2.
TABLE 2
MEDIAN SCORES ON CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA OF 277 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS TO THE OHIO PENITENTIARY
Criterion: Median Score
Lykken Scale 11.3
Number of Arrests Since Age 18 2.6
Percentage of Life Incarcerated Since Age 18 16.3
Pd Minus Pt Scale Scores (Plus a 50 Constant) 51,3
Escapes 0.0
Cleckley Checklist 9.1 39
Inasmuch as five of the medians were not whole numbers, they were rounded to the next highest whole number. The median for the Lykken Scale, for example, became 12 (rather than 11.3); for the number of arrests, 3
(rather than 2.6); and for the percentage of life incarcerated since age
18, 17 months (rather than 16.3). Thus the cutting points are biased in the direction of being conservative, and the estimates of sociopathy that follow slightly understate its prevalence.
On the basis of these same composite criteria, two estimates of the prevalence of sociopathy in the Ohio Penitentiary were obtained for the 277 consecutive admissions studied. The minimum estimate includes
5.4 percent of these 277 cases/ These 15 are pure or "hard core" socio paths by virtue of meeting all of the above criteria. In contrast, there were an identical number of pure non-sociopaths who fulfilled none of the requirements. A more realistic estimate of prevalance, however, based on meeting at least two major (each weighted 25 percent), and two minor (each weighted eight percent), criteria yielded 70 sociopaths, 61 or 25.3 percent of the consecutive intake cases. This same criteria mix yielded 141 non-sociopath prisoners, or about 50.9 percent of the
277 consecutive admissions. The remaining 66 of the 277 prisoners, roughly 23.8 percent, were classified as "mixed"--with some sociopathic characteristics, but not enough to be classified as sociopath. Inasmuch as the medians of the composite criteria were rounded to the next high-
61 This estimate of 25.3 percent is similar to those obtained by both Cleckley and Glueck. The former estimated 20 percent of a penal population to be sociopaths. Cleckley, Mask of Sanity, Appendix A. The latter found 18.9 percent of 608 Sing Sing inmates to be sociopaths. Maughs, op. cit., p. 480. 40 est whole number, these estimates of the prevalence of sociopathy in a maximum security prison should be considered conservative.
To be classified as a sociopath, each of the 43 experimental sub jects had to score above the median on all of the major variables
(Lykken Scale, number of arrests since age 18, and percentage of life incarcerated since age 18), or on a minimum of two of the three major and at least two of the three minor criteria (Pd minus Pt Scale scores, escapes, and Cleckley Checklist). Subjects who scored above the median on either two of the major and none of the minor, or only one of the major and two of the minor criteria were classified as "mixed." Sub jects who met none of the criteria, or only one major criterion or only two minor criteria were classified as non-sociopaths. On this basis, then, the 43 experimental subjects were categorized as sociopaths (19),
"mixed" (10), and non-sociopaths (14).
Experimental Results
Physiologic measures of heartbeat and skin resistance as well as of avoidance and positively reinforced learning under drug and placebo conditions were obtained on the 43 index inmates. Two findings were evident. Epinephrine elevated the heart rate and skin resistance more in the sociopath than in the non-sociopath, though not to the point of statistical significance. As xvould be expected, the saline solution
(placebo), failed to elevate the heart rate and skin resistance of the two groups--the sociopaths and non-sociopaths. These findings tend to confirm the Schachter and Latane'1’ results regarding heart rate. Schachter and Latane^ of course, did not use skin resistance as one of their parameters. 41
With regard to avoidance learning, preliminary data failed to differentiate the two groups. Using the ratio of shocks to errors on the covert learning task, both groups learned to avoid the shock-pro ducing keys at the same rate, under the two conditions of epinephrine and saline injection. This finding is in conflict with both Lykken and the Schachter and Latane results. The former found impaired avoid ance learning in the anti-social sociopaths; the latter demonstrated that epinephrine compensated for this impairment.
The Emergence of Two Types of Sociopath
Despite the fact that sociopaths showed greater cardiovascular reactivity to epinephrine than non-sociopaths, the difference was not as pronounced as the Schachter and Latane^ study suggested it might be. The intragroup variances were so great, particularly among the sociopaths, that the between-group differences were significant at only a level of confidence above .10.
The excessive variance in cardiovascular reactivity within the sociopath group suggested that this group of 19 subjects was, in fact, not homogeneous. Following a lead (not clearly delineated) by Lykken, it was thought that the 19 subjects might also include two types of sociopaths. If this were the case, in fact, then the Lykken Scale should differentiate the two types. Therefore, it seemed reasonable to divide the sociopaths into high and low scorers on the 33-item
Lykken Scale, using as a standard the mean score obtained for the
277 consecutive admissions. In the two groups which were derived on this basis--scores above
or below the universe mean--it was found that the high-Lykken group
averaged 16.3 and the low-Lykken group only 9.7 on the Scale, (See
Table 3). Furthermore, an item analysis (Table 4) revealed an unusually
TABLE 3
MEAN LYKKEN SCALE SCORES FOR THE FOUR POPULATION GROUPS
Group: Mean t-values
2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopaths 16.3 6.209** 3.762** 6.286** (n=8)
2. Simple Sociopaths 9.7 1.486 .520 (n=ll)
3. Mixed 11.1 1.486 (n=10)
4. Non-Sociopaths 9.3 (n=14)
Mean 11.1 (N=43)
** significant at the .01 level of confidence, one-tailed t-test.
great number of items which differentiated these sub-groups of sociopaths.
To avoid confusion, and for reasons to be discussed later, the eight high-Lykken Scale scorers (13 and above) are hereafter referred to as
the "hostile sociopaths" (more aggressive toward people), while the
11 low-Lykken Scale scorers (12 or below) are referred to as the "simple sociopaths" (less aggressive toward people). TABLE 4
ITEM ANALYSIS OF LYKKEN SCALE: ACCEPTANCE OF SOCIOPATHIC RESPONSE (IN PERCENTAGES)
Hostile Sociopath Simple SociopathMixed ‘ Non-SociopathGroup ______(n-8)______(n=ll)______(n=10)______(n=14)______Mean
1 87.5% 91.0% 90.0% 92.9% 90.7%
2 75.0 18.2 30.0 21.4 32.6
3 12.5 9.1 0.0 14.2 9.3
4 25.0 0.0 0.0 14.2 4.7
5 50.0 0.0 0.0 14.2 14.0
6 62.5 45.5 40.0 28.5 41.9
7 12.5 0.0 10.0 7.1 7.0
8 25.0 9.1 30.0 14.2 18.6
9 87.5 54.5 40.0 28.5 48.8
10 100.0 72.7 80.0 71.4 79.1
11 37.5 45.5 0.0 7.1 27.9
12 50.0 9.1 20.0 14.2 20.9
13 0.0 0.0 10.0 7.1 7.0
■P* w TABLE 4— Continued
Hostile Sociopath Simple Sociopath Mixed Non-Sociopath Group Item Number:______fa=8)______(n=ll)______(n=10)______(n=14)______Mean
14 25.0 9.1 30.0 14.2 18.6
15 50.0 36.4 20.0 42.9 37.2
16 37.5 0.0 0.0 7.1 9.3
17 75.0 91.0 100.0 57.1 79.1
18 100.0 81.8 100.0 85.7 90.7
19 100.0 63.6 80.0 35.1 65.1
20 25.0 36.4 50.0 7.1 27.9
21 0.0 9.1 30.0 0.0 9.3 i—I • 22 62.5 0.0 0.0 14.0
23 37.5 9.1 0.0 7.1 11.6
24 87.5 54.5 70.0 64.2 67.4
25 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3
26 62.5 36.4 30.0 64.2 48.8
27 87.5 63.6 60.0 57.1 65.1
28 75.0 72.7 80.0 57.1 69.8 •p* TABLE 4--Continued
Hostile Sociopath Simple Sociopath Mixed Non-Sociopath Group Item Number;______(n=8)______(n=ll)______(n=10)______(n=14)______Mean
29 37.5 9.1 10.0 14.2 16.3
30 37.5 0.0 20.0 21.4 18.6
31 25.0 9.1 30.0 14.2 18.6
32 12.5 18.2 40.0 21.4 23.3
33 50.0 18.2 10.0 14.2 20.9 46
Characteristics of Hostile and Simple Sociopaths
1. Heart Rate and Skin Resistance.
Physiologically, the two sociopath groups--the eight hostile
(more aggressive) and the 11 simple (less aggressive)--differed signi ficantly in heart rate under epinephrine. (It should be remembered that the two groups were identical on the other five criteria necessary for inclusion in the original sociopath group,) The low-Lykken or simple sociopath showed far greater reactivity to epinephrine than did the hostile sociopaths. The 11 simple (less aggressive) sociopaths experi enced an increased heart rate of 12.3 beats per minute, as measured by the difference of the heart rate rise following epinephrine injection, minus that following saline injection. The other three groups of sub- jects--the eight hostile sociopaths, the 10 mixed, and the 14 non-socio- paths--only increased an average of about 6 beats per minute. The difference between the simple and the hostile sociopaths, despite the 62 large standard deviations, falls at the .10 level (t=1.54).
On the other hand, no significant intergroup differences could be demonstrated in the mean palmar skin resistance under epinephrine,
62 There are those who would argue for stringent level of signifi cance. The issue of level of significance still continues, but an extremely helpful series of suggestions as to choice of significance level is found in Sanford Labovitz, "Criteria For Selecting a Signifi cance Level: A Note on the Sacredness of the .05," The American Sociol ogist . Vol. 3, No. 3 (August, 1968), pp. 220-222. This paper follows Labovitz's suggestions urging the use of larger error rates with small sample size and crude measurements. He is willing to accept the less serious consequence of making a Type II error (false positive). • 47 between any groups. This lack of difference is probably due to the instrumentation which provided a less precise measurement of skin response. Perhaps, this is why we failed to replicate Lykken's skin -63 resistance findings.
2. Demographic Data.
That the simple and hostile sociopath subjects indeed represent different groups is also evident in their social background character istics. (See Summary Table 5.) The eight hostile sociopaths are two years younger on the average than the 11 simple sociopaths. There is very little difference between the groups of sociopaths in terms of race or rural-urban background. The hostile sociopaths, however, are very different in marital status, most being divorced or never married.
More often, too, the hostile sociopaths come from smaller families of procreation that do the simple sociopaths. The hostile sociopaths come from families with an average of 4.4 children while the average for the simple is 5.3. Hostile sociopaths marry on the average of less than half as frequently as the simple sociopaths; the average is .63 to 1.46, respectively. Furthermore, they have fewer children on the average. These latter two differences may be spurious because of the over two years average age difference. Even more important, the hostile sociopaths come from non-intact families as contrasted with simple sociopaths. Using intact to signify being reared by two
In this connection, it should be noted that much more sophisti cated instruments are being used at the Ohio Reformatory for Women, and that even further refinement is anticipated in studies to follow. TABLE 5
SUMMARY TABLE OF THE SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FOUR POPULATION GROUPS3
Hostile Simple Non- Social Sociopath Sociopath Mixed Sociopath Group Characteristic: (n=8) ( n = m (n=10) (n=14) (N=43)
Mean Age 25.9 28.1 27.0 27.2 27.1
Percent White 62.5 63.6 70.0 78.6 69.8
Percent Reared in a City 50.0 54.5 20.0 18.6 37.2
Mean Family of Procreation Size 4.4 5.3 4.7 4.8 4.8
Percent Reared by Two Parents 25.0 72.7 40.0 42.9 46.5
Percent Married 25.0 54.5 50.0 35.7 41.9
Mean Number of Times Wed . 6 1.5 . 6 .9 .9
Mean Number of Children .8 1.2 1.1 1.9 1.3
Mean Last Grade Completed 9.2 9.5 9.0 10.9 9.8
Mean Social Class Score 20.8 24.5 17.2 25.5 22.4
Mean Number of Jobs as Adult 4.3 3.6 2.2 4.5 3.8
Percent Protestant 50.0 55.5 70.0 85.7 67.4
aTables displaying the detailed data for the 43 experimental subjects are located in Appendix A, and include tests of significance and levels of confidence. 49
parents until at least age 10, only 25 percent of the hostiles as com
pared to 73 percent of the simples were so reared. Both of these
latter variables suggest that family configuration and familial vari
ables might be etiologically significant.
Educationally, there is almost no difference at all between the
two groups of sociopaths. Both averaged less than a 10th grade educa
tion. In terms of socio-economic status as measured by Reiss’ occupa- 64 tional criteria, the hostiles are somewhat lower in social class
standing. Looking at their occupational histories, the hostiles,
although much younger, held an average of 4.3 jobs since age 18, in
contrast to 3.6 for the simples.
3. Military History.
In general, hostile sociopaths were more often than simple socio
paths, accepted by the armed forces (see data in Summary Table 6).
Those who were inducted, however, without exception, received less than honorable discharges. In this respect, they do not differ from the simple sociopaths, but are somewhat different from the mixed and mark edly different from the non-sociopaths. Interestingly enough, the simple sociopaths, when they do serve, tend to be cashiered more quickly.
This suggests that their anti-social behavior is either more frequent, more visible, or less tolerable. The hostile sociopaths, on the other hand, when accepted by the military, serve for an appreciably longer
Albert J. Reiss, Jr., Occupation and Social Status (New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1964), p. 263. TABLE 6
SUMMARY TABLE OF THE MILITARY SERVICE HISTORY OF THE FOUR POPULATION GROUPS
Hostile Simple Non- Military Sociopath Sociopath Mixed Sociopath Group Characteristic: fa-8) (n=ll) fa=10) fa=14) (N=43)
Percent Ever Served 75.0 36.4 50.0 57.1 53.5
Percent Receiving Honorable Discharges 0.0 0.0 10.0 42.9 16.3
Mean Months Served 17.4 6.7 11.2 21.4 14.6 51 period of time. If the crimes for which they are generally convicted is an indicator, they perform the more aggressive acts leading to their dismissal from the military service.
4. Criminal Histories.
The criminal histories of the hostile and simple sociopaths are also different. The hostile sociopaths differ from the simple socio paths on type of offense, especially on rape and larceny (Table 7).
Of the hostile sociopaths, 12.5 percent had been convicted for rape, while no simple sociopath had been so convicted. On the other hand, no hostile had been convicted of larceny, whereas 36.4 percent of the simples had been.
Hostile sociopaths experienced an average of more than five arrests each; simple sociopaths were arrested more than six times each.
In contrast, non-sociopaths were arrested only an average of 2.9 times each (Table 8). Not only are the two types of sociopath different in number of arrests, they are markedly different in number of times they have been incarcerated. The hostiles have averaged 2.8 incarcerations each, while the simple sociopaths have averaged 4.1 incarcerations.
Simple sociopaths have a somewhat higher frequency of counts on convictions (crimes for which they have been convicted and for which they are sentenced) than do hostile sociopaths. When, however, these rates are corrected for discrepancies in age, hostile sociopaths are convicted on more counts than are simple sociopaths. Furthermore, hostile sociopaths are convicted on relatively more counts of crime against the person than are simple sociopaths. It is for this reason that the high-Lykken Scale scorers are referred to as hostile sociopaths. TABLE 7
CRIME FOR WHICH CURRENTLY INCARCERATED FOR FOUR POPULATION GROUPS (IN PERCENTAGES)
Hostile Sociopath Simple Sociopath Mixed Non-Sociopath Group Tvne of Crime:3 (n=8) (n=ll) (n=10) (n=14) (N=43)
Criminal Homicide 12.5% 9.1% 10.0% 14.3% 11.6%
Rape 12.5 0.0 10.0 21.6 11.6
Robbery 25.0 0.0 40.0 21.6 20.9
Assault 12.5 9.0 0.0 0.0 4.7
Burglary 37.5 36.4 40.0 7.1 27.9
Larceny 0.0 36.4 0.0 35.7 20.9
Auto Theft 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 2.0
Totals 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
a This classification of crimes follows the procedure for reporting and classifying crimes as recommended by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1965). Inasmuch as many of these subjects had been convicted for multiple offenses, only the most serious was scored. TABLE 8
SUMMARY TABLE OF CRIMINAL HISTORIES OF THE FOUR POPULATION GROUPS
Hostile Simple Non- Criminal Sociopath Sociopath Mixed Sociopath Group Characteristic: (N=8) . ... (n=ll) (n=10) .(n=14) CN=43)
Mean Number of Arrests 5.3 6.4 3.5 2.9 4.4
Mean Number of Incarcerations 2.8 4.1 2.6 1.6 2.7
Mean Counts on Conviction 5.4 5.9 3.5 2.6 4.4
Mean Counts on Conviction, 6.6 5.9 3.9 2.8 4.6 Corrected for Age
Mean Crimes Against Person, 1.1 .9 .7 1.2 1.0 Corrected for Age
Mean Months Incarcerated 55.0 81.0 52.7 16.4 48.6
Mean Months Incarcerated 49.5 69.6 44.5 13.2 41.7 Since Age 18
Mean Percentage of Life In 53.0 61.2 41.0 13.6 39.5 carcerated Since Age 18
Mean Number of Parole Violations . 6 1.4 ’ 1.0 .2 .8
Mean Number of Escapes .5 .2 .2 .0 .2 54
In addition, the hostile sociopaths averaged 55 months and the simple sociopaths 81 months in all incarcerations, both juvenile and adult. In terms of the average number of months incarcerated since age
18, the hostile sociopaths spent 50 months in prison and the simple sociopaths, 70 months. Controlling for age discrepancies does not alter these relationships. The simple sociopaths still averaged pro portionately more time in prison.
As for parole violations, these too follow the same pattern.
The hostiles have averaged 0.6 violations, while the simple sociopaths averaged over twice as many violations (1.36).
Despite their generally more lengthy criminal histories, the simple sociopaths were recommended for about the same level of custody and supervision as the hostile sociopaths, by the Classification
Officers at the Ohio Penitentiary (Tables 60 and 61 in Appendix A).
As for their official diagnosis at intake, and surely most startling in view of their life histories, only three of the eight hostiles
(37.5 percent) and three of the 11 simples (27.3'percent) were officially classified by the Psychological Services staff either as sociopaths or as exhibiting dyssocial reactions (Table 62, Appendix A).
Finally, an examination of their escape attempts reveals that only one hostile subject was successful in escaping, and he did so on four different occasions. In contrast, two of the 11 simples were credited with one escape each.
5. I. Q., Cleckley Checklist, and the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale.
I. Q. was one of the screening criteria. Only inmates with an
I. Q. of 100 or higher on the OPCT were accepted into the study. As a 55 result, there was no difference in average I. Q. score of the hostiles- and simples. Their means were 122 and 120, respectively (see Summary
Table 9). On the Cleckley Checklist, also one of the initial screeing criteria, the two groups were largely indistinguishable. The Taylor
Manifest Anxiety Scale scores for the two groups were significantly different. The hostile sociopaths averaged only 5.8, while the simple sociopaths averaged 10.2 on the scale. These scores corroborate the
Lykken scores, since the Lykken purports to measure the propensity of subjects to choose anxiety or non-anxiety provoking activities. The high-Lykken subjects (hostile sociopaths) presumably select anxiety producing choices, because their level of anxiety is extremely I o w an observation or interpretation observed on the Taylor Manifest
Anxiety Scale.
6. MMPI Subscale Scores.
The corrected MMPI subscale scores were obtained from the Psycho logical Services case folders. The MMPI is one instrument which has been administered routinely by the administration staff to all new admissions with at least a sixth grade education. Following Schachter and Latane^, who used the psychopathic deviation (Pd) minus the psych- asthenia (Pt) subscale scores as one of their screening criteria, the same criterion was used in this study. In addition, however, all of the other subscales were examined and two in particular--the hypomania
(Ma) and the social introversion (Si)--proved highly discriminating.
Parenthetically, the Pt did not differentiate as expected. On all of the other subscales, no differentiation between the hostiles and the simples could be found (see data in Table 10). TABLE 9
SUMMARY TABLE OF I. Q., CLECKLEY CHECKLIST, AND- TAYLOR MANIFEST ANXIETY SCALE SCORES OF THE FOUR POPULATION GROUPS
Hostile Simple Non- Sociopath Sociopath Mixed Sociopath Group Psychological Variable: (n=8) (n=ll) (n=10) (n=14) (N=43)
Mean I. Q. Score 121.9 120.9 111.6 114.4 114.4
Mean Cleckley Checklist Score 11.9 11.6 12.1 10.0 11.3
Mean Taylor Manifest Anxiety 5.8 10.2 11.3 10.2 9.9 Scale Score
a The OPCT is basically a non-verbal test of intelligence, and one of the criticisms of this intelligence test in particular is that subjects can remember or learn the items on the test. Inas much as the number of incarcerations has been highest for the two types of sociopaths, it is possible that their relatively better showing vis-a-vis the other two population groups is more a reflection of frequency of taking the test rather than innate characteristics. The OPCT is administered to each incoming inmate, regardless of the number of times he has previously taken the test. TABLE 10
SUMMARY TABLE OF THE MMPI SUBSCALES OF THE FOUR POPULATION ■GROUPS
Hostile Simple Non- Sociopath Sociopath Mixed Sociopath Group Subscale: (n=7) (n=ll) (n=10) (n=14) (N=42)
Mean Lie (L) Score 2.9 3.8 4.5 4.4 4.0
Mean Infrequency (F) Score 5.1 3.7 5.9 3.9 4.5
Mean Correction (K) Score 17.7 16.3 15.6 15.1 16.0
Mean Hypochondriasis (Hs) Score 11.0 11.0 12.8 12.8 12.0
Mean Depression (D) Score 18.4 19.4 18.0 20.9 19.4
Mean Hysteria (Hy) Score 18.1 19.9 19.9 20.1 19.7
Mean Psychopathic Deviate (Pd) Score 31.4 28.9 28.1 26.6 28.4
Mean Masculinity-feminity (Mf) Score 23.1 20.6 22.7 22.7 22.2
Mean Paranoia (Pa) Score 8.6 10.2 8.6 10.3 9.6
Mean Psychasthenia (Pt) Score 24.3 24.8 26.2 28.6 26.3
Mean Schizophrenia (Sc) Score 27.0 24.2 25.5 27.6 26.1
Mean Hypomania (Ma) Score 26.4 18.9 22.1 20.9 21.6
Mean Social Introversion (Si) Score 19.0 24.0 20.6 29.7 24.3 58
The Pd subscale has been thought to be especially useful in prison and delinquent populations, who generally show marked elevation in scores 65 as compared with non-criminal subjects:
"The scale was developed to reflect the concept of 'psycho pathic deviancy,' which refers to people who are unable to form satisfactory emotional relationships or to appreciate the feelings of others and who cannot anticipate the con sequences of their own behavior."
Research tends to confirm this latter point. On the scale, both socio path groups showed considerable elevation, with the hostile showing by far the highest peak (see the group profiles in Figure 1).
The hypomania (Ma) subscale, when taken in conjunction with the psychopathic deviate (Pd) subscale, is considered to be highly indicative of sociopathy. An examination of our results shows that this subscale differentiated the hostiles from the simples better than any other measure, except the Lykken Scale. The hostiles peaked some seven points higher than the simples (see Table 10).
The psychasthenia (Pt) subscale, ostensibly a measure of neurotic characteristics, unfortunately failed to differentiate the two groups. However, all 19 sociopaths were clearly differentiated from the non-sociopath subjects. This of course indicates some face validity to the subscale, but not enough sensitivity to differentiate between these two groups of sociopaths.
Finally, the social introversion (Si) subscale, purportedly meas uring introversion-extroversion, and social adeptness, clearly distin-
65 R. I. Lanyon, A Handbook of MMPI Group Profiles (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1968), p. 7. 90 Hostile Sociopaths 90 Simple Sociopaths
80 80
A A 3CD 70 A 8 70 / \ }-* I \ / \ o o o 60 o 60 « y C/3 / \
t- / Y / \ O Ln // S o 40 40
'
L F K Hs D Hy Pd Mf Pa Pt Sc Ma Si L F K Hs D Hy Pd Mf Pa Pt Sc Ma Si
90 Mixed 90 Non-Sociopaths
80 80
I60 — I60 / 'V/ ---— / \ J - . ^ . /X/ LOo ^ 50 \ ^ --- 40 40 L F K Hs D Hy Pd Mf Pa Pt Sc Ma Si L F K Hs D Hy Pd Mf Pa Pt Sc Ma Si Figure 1. Composite MMPI profiles of the four population groups among the experimental subjects. in 60 guished the two sociopath categories. The hostile sociopaths peaked much lower, indicating greater facility and adequacy in interpersonal relations than the simples, whose scores were elevated. Based on this experience, future research ought to use a more complex combination of subscales. An MMPI expert has suggested that the hypomania (Ma) and psychopathic deviate (Pd) subscales (in t-scores) be utilized to separate the two types of sociopaths. Also recommended was the inclusion of the depression (D) subscale. 6. Correlation Matrix of Psychological Indicators of Sociopathy. An analysis of the intercorrelations within each of the two groups of sociopaths of the Cleckley Checklist, psychopathic deviate (Pd), psychasthenia (Pt), and Lykken Scale (sociopathy) scores revealed marked differences in the size and directions of the intercorrelations. In the hostiles, the Cleckley Checklist was significantly negatively correlated with the Pd subscale. In the same group, the Pd and the Pt were significantly and positively correlated. The Lykken Scale was seemingly measuring something other than that which the other scales were measuring, based on its low intercorrelation values. In the simple sociopaths, only the Pd subscale was significantly and positively intercorrelated with any of the other scales — in this instance, the psychasthenia (Pt) and the Lykken Scale (see Table 11). In concluding this chapter, it should be stressed that although the whole emphasis has been on differentiating the sub-groups of socio paths from one another, the two groups combined are even more different from the non-sociopaths in this study, and even from the mixed group, TABLE 11 INTERCORRELATION MATRICES OF INDICATORS OF SOCIOPATHY FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS Variable: Correlation Coefficient 1. 2. 3. 4. Hostile Sociopath 1. Cleckley Checklist -.678* -.570 .114 2. Psychopathic Deviate (Pd) Subscale .924** .045 3. Psychasthenia (Pt) Subscale .141 4. Lykken Scale Simple Sociopath 1. Cleckley Checklist .481 .218 .208 2. Psychopathic Deviate (Pd) Subscale .672* .814** 3. Psychasthenia (Pt) Subscale .417 4. Lykken Scale ^significant at the .05 level of significance, ^significant at the .01 level of significance. 62 than they are from each other. This can readily be observed in the Tables in this chapter and in Appendix A. Chapter IV describes the results of the analysis of the 277 consecutive admissions on these same parameters except for the physiological. CHAPTER IV RESULTS: CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS In the preceeding chapter, detailed examination was presented of the two groups of sociopaths who had been isolated from each other on a variety of psychological, clinical, criminal history, demographic and especially physiological bases. In this chapter the concern is with determining whether these same groups can be isolated in a much larger sample. Reference here is to the 277 consecutive admissions to the Ohio Penitentiary, on whom all but the experimental test data were obtained. These 277 subjects, unlike the 43, were not eliminated on the bases of age and I. Q., and hence reflect the universe of inmates at the Ohio Penitentiary. To recapitulate rather briefly, these 277 consecutive admissions were tested by the Psychological Services staff. They were also adminis tered the Lykken and Anomie Scales, and the Criminality Level Index. Criminal histories and MMPI subscale scores were obtained from their folders, as were socio-economic status, familial, and related background data. The same classificatory weights were utilized with these 277 con secutive admissions cases as with the 43 experimentsIs. Specifically, the number of previous arrests, the percentage of time incarcerated since age 18, and the Lykken Scale score, each were weighted 25 percent, 63 64 while the Cleckley Checklist score, a record of successful escapes, and the psychopathic deviate (Pd) minus the psychasthenia (Pt) subscale scores of the MMPI were each weighted around eight percent. As before, to be classified as a sociopath, it was necessary that one be above the median on at least two of the three major variables and also on two of the three minor criteria. It was also possible to be so classified by meeting all three of the major criteria. The application of these criteria initially yielded three groups . of subjects--70 sociopaths, 66 mixed, and 141 non-sociopaths. Again, following earlier precedent, the Lykken Scale scores were used to differentiate the hostile from the simple sociopath. The former (hostile) included 47 and the latter (simple) included 23 subjects. The emphasis as before was on differentiating these two groups from each other and, much less importantly, both together from the others. 1. Demographic Variables. The 47 hostile sociopaths averaged 30.8 years of age as compared with the much older simple sociopaths, whose mean age was 39.7. Both groups x lines5 the hostiles came from families with slightly fewer children than did the simple sociopath subjects (5.1 versus 5.4). The socio-economic status level as measured by Reiss' occupational criteria showed the hostile group to be of slightly higher status than the simples. Finally, the average grade school attainment level was 9.7 for the hostile and 8.1 for the simple sociopath subjects (see Summary Table 12). On nearly every one of these measures, with the exception only of. last grade completed in school and socio-economic status (mentioned above), the direction of the results is identical to that obtained when the eight hostile and 11 simple sociopaths were contrasted. It appears, therefore, that the application of the Lykken criterion reliably differentiates the same sub-groups on these demographic characteristics. Whatever it may be that the Lykken Scale is tapping seems to distinguish these sub categories from each other. By the same token, the weighted criteria differentiate both sociopathic groups from the mixed and the non-socio paths . 2. Military History. The three variables concerning military history which were pre sented in the analysis of the 43 experimental subjects were percent ever serving in armed forces, termination of military service, and average months in military service (see Summary Table 6 in Chapter III). Com parable data were obtained on the 47 hostile and the 23 simple socio paths on all three variables. While the proportions of subjects who ever served in the military is approximately the same, only 44.7 percent of the hostiles and 52.2 percent of the simples ever served in the TABLE 12 SUMMARY TABLE OF THE SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF 277 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS3 Hostile Simple Non- Sociopath Sociopath Mixed Sociopath Group Social Characteristic: (n=47) (n=23) (n=66) (n=141) (N=277) Mean Age 30.8 39.7 31.8 34.8 33.8 Percent White 66.0 69.6 62.1 66.4 66.1 Percent Reared in a City 51.6 65.2 45.5 29.1 39.7 Mean Family of Procreation Size 5.1 5.4 5.1 5.0 5.1 Percent Reared by Two Parents 46.8 60.0 72.7 63.6 61.8 Percent Married 25.5 34.8 34.8 44.7 38.2 Mean Number of Times Wed .8 1.2 .9 1.1 1.0 Mean Number of Children .8 1.2 1.4 2.4 1.8 Mean Last Grade Completed 9.7 8.1 9.9 9.3 9.4 Mean Social Class Score 16.4 14.7 17.1 14.7 18.1 Mean Number of Jobs as Adult 4.0 3.4 3.4 3.9 3.7 Percent Protestant 70.2 77.3 85.0 69.6 62.8 a Tables displaying the detailed data for the 277 consecutive admissions are located in Appendix B, and include tests of significance and levels of significance. 67 military. Of the total groups, 14.9 percent and 26.1 percent of the hostile and simple sociopaths respectively received honorable discharges, while about 30 and 26 percent, respectively, received other than honor able discharges. Interestingly enough, none of the experimental socio path subjects, whether hostile or simple, received honorable discharges. Despite this minor discrepancy, the direction of difference in both cohorts— experimental and consecutive admissions--was the same. Another reversal occurred on the variable, number of months in military service. In this instance, the hostile group averaged 9 months of service while the simple sociopaths were somewhat higher at 11.4 months in the military (see Summary Table 13). Neither of these discrepancies seems to offset the preponderant weight of the evidence that the simple sociopaths are likely to engage in more frequent but less aggressive anti-social behavior. This is attested to by a considerable number of criminal history variables. 3. Criminal History. To begin, the distribution of offenses for which committed indi cates that hostile sociopaths committed more than twice the rate of crimes against the person (criminal homicide, rape, and assault) than did the simple sociopaths--19 percent to 8.6 percent, respectively (see Table 14). The simple sociopath subjects averaged 5.3 officially recorded arrests as opposed to 4.6 for the hostile sociopaths. The latter had 3.4 previous incarcerations while the simple averaged 3.7 previous prison sentences. The hostile sociopaths had spent some five years (66 months) in correctional institutions, which was much less than the mean of nearly 12 years (140 months) spent by the simple sociopaths TABLE 13 SUMMARY TABLE OF THE MILITARY SERVICE HISTORY OF THE 277 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Hostile Simple Non- Sociopath Sociopath Mixed Sociopath Group Military Characteristic: (n=47)______(n=23)______(n=66) (n=141) (N=277) Percent Ever Served 55.3 47.8 51.5 50.0 47.3 Percent Receiving Honorable Discharges 14.9 26.1 27.3 35.7 29.2 Mean Months Served 8.9 11.4 15.2 17.6 15.1 TABLE 14 SUMMARY TABLE OF TYPES OF OFFENSES FOR WHICH PRESENTLY INCARCERATED FOR THE 277 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS (IN PERCENTAGES) Hostile Sociopath Simple Sociopath Mixed Non-Sociopath Group Offense: (n=47) (n=23) (n=66) (n=141) (N=277) Criminal Homicide 4.1% 4.3% 6.1% 18.5% 11.6% Rape 2.1 0.0 3.0 11.3 6.9 Robbery 23.4 30.4 15.1 6.4 13.4 Assault 12.8 4.3 9.0 7.8 8.7 Burglary 30.0 39.1 31.8 19.1 25.6 Larceny 19.1 17.6 28.8 31.9 27.8 Auto Theft 6.4 4.3 4.5 2.1 3.6 Other3 2.1 0.0 1.7 2.9 2.4 ^ i t h one exception (one case of perjury), the "Other'1 category includes only violations of drug laws. 70 in institutions. The picture is much the same when one looks at the record of incarceration since age 18--62.0 months for the hostile and 134.0 months for the simple sociopaths. Perhaps an even better way of showing the same thing while at the same time controlling for the nine year age difference is the percentage of time incarcerated since age 18. The hostiles had spent about 44.5 percent of their adult lives behind bars and the simple sociopaths 49.4 percent . In addition, judgements of the intake staff regarding the prog nosis on the present commitment, custody recommendations, and super vision showed no differences between the groups (see Tables 103-105 in Appendix B. As far as escapes are concerned, the hostiles averaged 0.19 and the simple sociopaths .78 escapes. Finally, the hostile sociopaths showed far fewer parole violations (0.79) than the simple group, which averaged 1.26. With regard to all these variables but one, it is fair to say that the direction of difference in means or percentages were of the same order and in the same direction as those obtained in the comparisons of the nine hostile versus 11 simple experimentals on these variables. The single reversal concerned escapes in which, as already noted, the simples had succeeded more often than the hostile sociopaths (see Table 15). 4. I. Q. and Cleckley Checklist. In selecting the experimental subjects, an I. Q. minimum of 100 on the OPCT was used as a. screening criterion. Hence all subjects were above this level of I. Q. It will be recalled that the two sociopath TABLE 15 SUMMARY TABLE OF CRIMINAL HISTORIES OF THE 277 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Hostile Simple Non- Criminal Sociopath Sociopath Mixed Sociopath Group Characteristic: (n=47) (n=23) (n=66) (n=141) (N=277) Mean Number of Arrests 4.6 5.3 3.6 1.7 2.9 Mean Number of Incarcerations 3.4 3.7 2.6 1.4 2.2 Mean Counts on Conviction 3.9 4.2 3.5 2.1 2.9 Mean Counts on Conviction, 6.6 4.2 5-5 2.7 4.1 Corrected for Age Mean Crimes Against Person, 1.0 .5 .8 .8 .8 Corrected for Age Mean Months Incarcerated 66.2 140.0 51.4 13.3 42.0 Mean Months Incarcerated 61.9 134.7 47.4 12.2 39.4 Since Age 18 Mean Percentage of Life In 44.6 49.4 30.7 49.4 24.2 carcerated Since Age 18 Mean Number of Parole Viola .8 1.3 .6 .2 .5 tions Mean Number of Escapes .2 .8 .1 .0 .3 72 groups averaged 120 or over while the average for all 43 subjects was 114. With regard to the 277 (for whom I. Q. was not used as a screen ing variable), the mean I. Q. on the OPCT was 101.5. Both sociopath groups, though nearly identical to one another, were above this mean, at approximately 104. As before, the Cleckley Checklist failed to differentiate the two groups of sociopaths from each other and from the non-sociopaths. The mean score on the Cleckley Checklist for the entire group of 277 was 9.1, and it was 10.3 for the hostiles and 10.0 for the simple sociopaths (Table 16). 5. MMPI Subscale Scores. The composite MMPI profiles of the four population groups among 66 the consecutive admissions are presented in Figure 2, and it is fairly clear, when compared with Figure 1, that although the peaks vary slightly between the two cohorts--experimental and consecutive admissions--taken as a whole, the 8 experimental hostile and the 47 consecutive admission hostile sociopaths are not appreciably different. The same holds for the two sets of simple sociopath subjects. As before, the subscales which seemed to differentiate most effectively were the Pd and Ma subscales. There were also some differences in the averages on the K, Pt, Sc and Si subscales. On the Pd (Table 17), 66 The minimum educational requirement for taking the MMPI is a sixth grade education. On the 277 consecutive admissions, 58 did not meet this requirement; the MMPI profiles and the mean subscale scores that follow are based on the 219 cases who successfully completed the test. TABLE 16 SUMMARY TABLE OF I. Q. AND CLECKLEY CHECKLIST SCORES OF THE 277 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Psychological Hostile Sociopath Simple Sociopath Mixed Non-Sociopath Group Variable: (n=47) (n=23) (n=66) (n=141) (N=277) I. Q. 104.3 104.4 103.2 99.3 101.5. Cleckley Checklist 10.3 10.0 9.0 8.7 9.1 u i scores t-scores 80 90 40 50 70 ______L F K Hs D Hy Pd Mf Pa Pt Sc Ma Si Ma Sc Pt Pa Mf Pd Hy D Hs K F L L F K Hs D Hy Pd Mf Pa Pt Sc Ma Si Ma Sc Pt Pa Mf Pd Hy D Hs K F L ; ______otl Sociopaths Hostile iue . opst MI profiles MMPI Composite 2. Figure Mixed 40 70 80 50 90_ 40 60 80 50. 60 70 90. of , F s yP fP P S a Si Ma Sc Pt Pa Mf Pd Hy D Hs K F L L F K Hs D Hy Pd Mf Pa Pt Sc Ma Si Ma Sc Pt Pa Mf Pd Hy D Hs K F L 1 cneuie admissions. consecutive 219 ipe Sociopaths Simple Non-Sociopaths •vj TABLE 17 SUMMARY TABLE OF MMPI SUBSCALES OF 219 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Hostile Simple Non- Sociopath Sociopath Mixed Sociopath Group Subscale: (n=4l) (n=18) _ (n=59) (n=100) (N=219) Mean Lie (L) Score 5.1 5.3 4.8 4.5 4.8 Mean Infrequency (F) Score 6.3 5.1 6.6 4.7 5.6 Mean Correction (K) Score 18.2 16.6 15.3 16.6 15.6 . Mean Hypochondriasis (Hs) Score 13.1 13.5 14.5 13.3 13.6 Mean Depression (D) Score 20.3 20.4 22.6 20.4 21.5 Mean Hysteria (Hy) Score 19.4 21.3 22.3 21.0 21.1 Mean Psychopathic Deviate (Pd) Score 31.6 29.5 28.6 26.6 28.3 Mean Masculinity-feminity (Mf) Score 22.8 22.6 22.3 23.1 22.8 Mean Paranoia (Pa) Score 10.9 9.7 10.4 10.2 10.3 Mean Psychasthenia (Pt) Score 28.0 25.2 23.0 26.3 27.0 Mean Schizophrenia (Sc) Score 28.5 25.4 27.0 26.0 26.7 Mean Hypomania (Ma) Score 22.7 20.6 20.2 19.7 20.5 Mean Social Introversion (Si) Score 20.9 23.3 26.9 25.7 24.9 76 the respective means for the hostile and simple sociopaths were 31.6 and 29.5; on the Ma, 22.7 and 20.6; on the K, 18.2 and 16.6; on the Pt, 28.0 and 26.2 (something of a reversal); on the Sc, 28.5 and 25.4; and on the Si, 20.9 and 23.3. It should be noted that with the exception of the Pt, the direction of these differences parallels those obtained between the hostile and simple experimental sociopatliic subjects. With regard to the MMPI subscale scores and profiles, it is again necessary to emphasize that the two groups of sociopaths combined differed from the mixed and non-sociopath groups among the consecutive admissions in very much the same manner and to approximately the same degree as did the 19 experimental sociopaths from the 24 experimental non-sociopaths (see Tables 88-100 in Appendix B ) . Intercorrelational Matrix In addition to the analyses previously presented, an attempt was made to intercorrelate all quantitative variables with each other for both the hostile and simple groups together. The purpose of this cor relational analysis was to try to determine the relationship of the 39 variables to each other. The intercorrelational matrices are displayed in Tables 18 and 19. Since there are so many of these intercorrelations, inspection alone fails to adequately depict their substance. For this reason, and in order to test whether or not the intercorrelation of variables with each other was different in each group, sign tests using all 1,444 intercorrelations and individual tests for each of the 39 variables were computed. In computing the sign test for comparison of correlation coefficients, the larger correlation, as is standard procedure, TABLE 18 INTERCORRELATION MATRIX OF 39 VARIABLES FOR HOSTILE SOCIOPATHS Variable CoMGjoicN CamaeiT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 U 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 B a 21 22 3 a s X 27 a a a 21 5 3 n 5 E V 3 a 1. ta 550* 512* -33 .os' -are 2S 42B -449 -42 -,0B -.ow -400 .23? 432 .363* ,678* m2* .88*-4E3* me 4BS -472 -.2a -mo -.027 -408 -ms -.069 -.196 -439 -.009 -418 -J75 -460* 466 2. IMPt OF Tins tfcD Wa“ -413 -451 -ms -mi -490 -J3 418 422 -564 -479 475 438 409 -JX& .229 .22 ,270* .336" .309* -,0S .22 460 -437 -499 .186 -,CG2 sm -.067 -B13 .009 JQ06 -.117 -.218 J306 >.* ttita of Gulden .ov -JZ .ere-JOB -127 401 -SS2 ISO m -3SfC -.TO 406 .013 -.061 .069 AS .097 445 569* .306*-mi 434 m -33? •079 -408 -.092 4. amly riekthkm -.366* -42 •26*-499 418 4S4 S36 -.as -417 -.064 ,354 -mo F Sts Q ) -SB ,QD6 -06 -427 -447 446 -,2V-312" 401 -.S9“-.019 -.054 -2B8* -494 -430 .308 -SB ,0» -430 -3S* 5. GMCE AtTAUFENT -U05 -409 .057 1397 m7 -.116 -449 -447 -494 -475 -.£0 -.027 -.055 -433 -4B 453 SO6 -466 -433 472 ,114 -410 -.164 355 -49B*-494* -472 -.107 -.132 320 sm -.2 * eO* Inteujczke tamen -33F -439 -.168 -.15 -30 -.093 .05 .as 460*-.065 .23 -452 -.024 •JEL 478 sm J3S 453 212 40 -4S 406 -.DB0 .271* .300* .100 .013 SB SB 4ffi -402 -mo■ -m2 SOS SBo SEC .279* 459 .133 7It mxekxk m2 mo ■183 33 456" 45 ,156 .286* .174 fiM.'Unw E ) SB -sm -30\ XQ2 sso 460 .2)3 -,HE 4S .090 .049 S30 -413 468 J15 TP 2PT .0B 0.0 tatus -iso mi SB mi mo -.018 33 .196 .208 .24“ .263“ 255 485 4B Sxt^-Gooove S M m -SB) -404 -438 409 HP -.m SB -mi -,(B5 -.ire -400 SB .027 g#Hu e k u FtauuTr -ms me ,05 ,ia 412 .210 ms me 433 473* .133 .HP .1<6 .13 .156 .121 ,060 00 -.135 .005 -4<0 .IE .069 -SB -.135 -.311*-.302* -.27 461 33 .328“ .332“ .126 n. ftrwuscat tamo$ts or Ausmir 452 29* .<63* mop <28? 421 .361* J8L .32 .215 .121 .380* .37 .23? U. Lew. of Cusrcor -S54*-,938* -453 H6 .an -SB -419 -SOU -.IB JOE -484 JB2 -443 SB 4ca 471 -424 JOB -.02 -423 -.115 -407 -.061 -4m -.101.-m3 ,0£ J035 -.052 4B7t 494 -.au 494 -350 -SB .005 .QL4 .061 M -JOB -JE3 -411 -42 -.312* -JOB-.282“ ,QU -.079 -SB .161 -.081 ms -.079 -435 ,028 -.BO 12. Ievq. of Sifowisidi .049 -J075 13. Itaa of Escws 473 -415 417* 409 .071 mo .064 -465 -460 JE2 -JOES 06 -m3 ms 42“ .08 4SL 409“ .199 .281* .381* 406 .233 3T? .247“ .338“ -«0E -4« .113 -ms -.138 -418 ,2S -me -m3 <027 SS2 -421 -ms* -.093 45 -443 -494 -42 -432 -JH9 -mo -.OV -.128 -411 -4*0 -407 14. itasi of fame in nturm Sdms JB5 .115 ,135 .099 .134 IS. Paku Vtcunae -408 .099 -471* -.092 .095 4$ SB -.05 454 -SB mi 421 .178 .089 .172 sm .082 4E0 .19 467“ -SB .an .222 .342 430 mi UEB -.59* -ms -408 -mu* sm ms 488 M SB -USD -mi M ,1£3 .399 .100 -StB sm IS. tiftER OF AnCCTS mo* .98* 535* 37. tlMER OF iNCMCEWnCie 422 -JEEP -401 -W 45 499 449 -.006 422*-419 -sm -.au -4B* -JQ44 -.014 .108 .066 m2 -4DB 45 .313* 496* -me -JCEB -32 13. Length of Tin Incmremib) -410 6 -431 4C5 -.028 -401 .15 -465“ -4D4 -.15 -489“-mo -.33" -,(52 -439 -441 -403* a v SH* •26*-.064 JOB -.w -ms* .093 -423 -sm SB -sm -IV 19. Uher o f farms Inowsuqeii Since As IS -.096 -.116 -490 -488 SB -JB3 -418 -mo* .201 & -m2 •QB a. ftKENItiE OF Us IncafSMEB SlNCE As IS -5a me -430 -mo sm -.065 sm -.064 -4B -sm -mi mi .311 -.060 -41T 431 -49B*-443 -sm -tZB -4B 2 21. Oner o f Jess -475 -m .on 412 m ms -JE m 466 .mi 4EE .080 ms .137 22. CtfOdEY Criteria SSO .IX sm ms 498 470-412 mo -mi -482 -mi -sm -mi -.138 -SB •409 -474 -.161 3. Pd - Pt Senses 439 sm -SB -mi .33“ .an ,»* .57* .29* .060 .290“ .072 419“ .25“ .243 -.005 -SB Ina* Scales SSO -.068 mo 438 ms SB* .101 .150 .117 .420* .040 .1ft SB .227 .2V -459 2. Acne Scale JW* 314“ ms .291 .067 -.007 .075 -4V 4V -mi .1ft .18 .171 463 -.0B 25. Crwdiautv Level Imex 467* -JB4 3fl*-4E -.053 .SB -.114 .083 .006 mi .009 .112 .160 .27“ 7. L Sou 462 403 .117 -.05 .084 -ms .152 .CEE .074 573 429 .13Q - m o 2. FSau m me* ,526* ,39* -ma .562* 453 .782* ,70B* mo* -.0B -as 2. K Sou J6* .9** .593* .065 .657* .a? .622t .661* .757* ,354* .<82* 3D. Hs SCM£ .695* .663* ,1V .777* .SB* .835* .837* .IX -Off 31. DSCRE mi* .528* .sat .655* .713* ,854* .771* .<61* .<00* 32. Nr Scale .583* .as* .688* .790* .875* ,838* .98* .<89* 35. Pp Scale .504* ,7B* .068 .341* .2E6" .65* .591* a. Hf Scale mo* .784* .900* ,919* .615- .398* $, Pa Scale .309“ .57* .45* ms* .606* 36, Pt Scale .900* m2* 470 .068 37, Sc Scale .949* .417* .37* 33. ftSOlE .481* .324* 39. Si Scale 570* •Sioanwrr a t k .(6 le v e l o fsieMFiawz. •SlCWnOKT IT VC .0 1 L M L CF SIMFICAKE. VI TABLE 19 INTERCORRELATION MATRIX OF 39 VARIABLES FOR SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS Ymubc GM&ATKN COOTICSBfT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JO u 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 2D 21 22 3 a 3 E 27 3 3 30 31 2 33 3> 3R 37 B 3) h tm 0a sss 022 -03) -JE4 .as JBS -JK" -jwe- jm* 047 060 JW JOB 055 .595' 356* -.IS 086 -.049 -.028 -064" -as -50 -.306" -an* -JOS -.335 -J84"-j*r -.b ? -.31 -.413" -,W -.w -.JU* 2. i«MBtcFT»eto jzi* 03D Jtt4 .213 -.573' .066 -JfiB -J5C .276 .062 .418* .251 .258 .258 -on -.081 -,1£6 .42? *.2B 067 059 -m3 •OS! -072-JB6 -JOS -007 -JK -.199 -JTO -.SO -OB -.1T2 -074 -.Til .13) 3, ;«m b k f Chubi 06 -.129 JX -JB ms ,33 -JS Jfi ,325 -0« JSS 033 SSH -.067 -.042 -.328 .308 -.3® -052 -OB -.233 -0B9 -0* 017 -055 .063 .23 ,586 ,13) .017 .311 JR7 .02? -,n JT> Q. Frau Sac CkmttnnoO -JEB -036 M -JJ94 J» US o» 035 -JBB -319 OSD 004 052 002 JB9 055 -.008 -034 -OPS -.E7 .77) -048 040 -033 -023 sm -.012 .041 -.143 -.149 -J3B -.129 -.IB -SG -.TSl 5. GMaArouran JC -,® .251 JD an -J7T JD6 jwr JOS 057 -003 -071 -.1ST -.165 -JOE 075 as J1D 095 -.132 -JW 051 J£8 031" .309 .275 .423* .43? .39? .3B .37? .43? .55? OS 6. Imoiafea Qianea -JU3* JS 03 JOGD £59 .312 Am* JET Jffi -.058 .061 -.039 -.046 JOB 077 -M JS5* -.m -.39 -JOT OB JI9 .«4" .174 0* .357 .466" .517 .47? .JT .33 ,4b * .IT 7. ftNL*U«« IMfOOM) -.087 JH3 .37 OZ7 -J36 -.092* SSB •25 JB7 311 .28) JB6* -041 M -,9B* 017 .38 070 JU3-.069 ».2B9 -022 -09) -.315 -.40? -015 -.293 -043 -081 -.31& -.31 & Scao-£a>mc Sumjt -.233 .308 -JBQ -238 J27 as 060 03) OS 07 022 JB2 as -099 -JQ7 -.375 -5S*-J0J3 -018 .003 JIM -.129 m -s b sm -.15 -.*1 -.978 -.943 -.36 3. ixuteaD ifaMirry 021 UB3 J78 -JIB -JS? .328 .021 -,(B4 -Jtt -.K .283 .418" -.309 009 097 .413* 086 UB .43? JE2 -JB3 .SI .si .IB .133 .062 053 .179 .163 .ITT, 3D, Pftofuucw. F*o«ki$ ar fotfiefT -jar-.50*-JED -JB7 J6P -.032 -JB3 -083 -.2® 03 OSS -013 -Ott J20 .421*-018 JB4 -OSt - m -041 -.260 -.067 -.348 -OS) -.213 -.133 -.154 -.141 -.327 1L Lklof Qsmr 09? -085 -.532* ais -.067 027 AST .488* JBT .135 -072 -OB -033 -070 -023 -086 -JBB -05 •064 -.224 -JB -.20 -.20 -.215 -.25 -.3)7 -.w -.151 12. tM.vStfeNun -JSH -1E0 -053 J17 072 033 OS 039 -.068 -.060 007 OQO -SI 077 Off J2E 021 .029 .197 .118 .313 .£0 .21 .232 .233 34 .51 13. iklWCFCsOVB 027 as 017 009 .033 as -013 .Jffl -JE9 as -0*6 -OS -.OB s m 044 .261 .414" ,381* .B6" .329 .115 .287 .264 ,2C 053 14. Hm b or >bnw n ftiraw Soma -084 -M -02 -094 -,39 -.597 097 .4F .091 -J6T -.5? JJB -J3E7 J®* an ,139 .22 JW .181 .2)7 .254 sm .45" .Ilf. 15. Pnoi Vicunas -.OB ,W* 08) 051 jsat .4JP-.317 -.085 -.119 063 -JOB -013 JEB -.200 -OB -XS3 -.IS -01) -010 -.018 -.lM -.IT) -0T -,9D £. itmxcFtaesn Jffi" JOB 0£ JOB an -JE2 -JK .57 .211 M as m2 .S3 .S3 .296 OS -052 075 a* .929 -.911 .131 17. linsiv hosewos ■657' £74* JOE* .338 -.as OS 081 033 .086 -jsr -osz -JDS' -.411'-.360*-.W -JOE" -.W -094 -JIT* -.C5* -sm* - S 3 3 33. tom CF Tm bCMKSKTD Off* J711 -•099 as -.Ml m -.2® -.066 -03D -.312 -088" -JG1"-3H -JO? -.400" -.304 -.32 -.JP*-.41? -.3T5" -Jfl? 19. Hun o ffane IwrnwiD Sm ta13 04? -.M2 038 -.IE -021 -.318 -069 -033 -OB -J98* -J5f -.335 -JO? -J94" -.333 -.32 -JW -.W -.X? -JS1" 20. PmmaflFURkamaKDSmtelS J35 -.063 -.TO 004 -.022 JUS -as -006 -ass. -.334 ■Of, -as -057 -.164 -.112 -.38 -.2T -081 -.33 21. ilfnopJac -JW" .too 012 094 -,®7 -034 07) -096 -JB2 -.042 -sm -sm -oao -as -.124 -.138 -,nm -.13) 22. Cuaur Cktoba 069 .037 -.29 -067 JOE -.57 03 -.049 -043 -sm -.040 094 -as -.OF JW .1)4 -.238 23. to-PrSaus -026 -.087 073 -JB1 SSS J71* .1» .232 JEl* .934* as ,sn .KS OB .47? 0® a. boa Sous 074 073 -JW -041 -0*0 -JOS’-.673* -.557*-.492* -565* -J474"-.517* -.42? -jn -.43? 25. tou Sou J61" JE9 JB5 -as -021 -004 -.25 -JB -.27) -.228 -.3)2 -.24) -JW -.1® 26. Cruuuiy ton. base JUS 07? -JH6 JEB 071 -.(CO .049 -OS JTC .TZ7 .062 JU2 JU S. 1 Sou .45? J95* .668' .600* .639* .531* .63* .671* .642* £33* .«? ,45? 23. F Sou JOS" J33* J80S* 527* 53* ,M* 583* 023* OV* .606- 03)' 29. K Sou 3B' ■713* ,900* .894* 546* 543* .an* .874* 052* .sa* 33. HiSau .909* .942* .854* 041*‘ 3V* .904* 07* .631- JW* 3L iiSou .866* .868* 075* JBZ* .SB* .ar/>- .727- 3B* 2. l*SaU .921* .813* 53* .907* £72- .791' JW* S. PbSou .837* .894* .936* .124 .911' 011- A it Sou 033* JEE* .394* JP)' £55* 56, RuSau .914* .922* .BE- .752* 30. Pr Sou .IS* JW* 3C’ 37. Sc Sou au- .7T.- 3B. !Ii Sou £77- 39. Si Sou ^iMncwvjuicJ E lo o . (*«»■■ no n . ‘Sw rnow rxn* <01m of s t u n c m . 00 79 received a plus and the smaller correlation a minus. After the correla tion coefficients of each variable with every other variable were com pared, the difference between pluses and minuses for one group of sociopaths was obtained, and a significance test performed on the 67 difference by variable. On the sign test involving each and every one of the intercor- 68 relations, a significant difference (z=11.834) was obtained (see Table 20). In addition, when both groups of sociopaths were compared on each variable separately, 23 out of the 39 comparisons were signi ficantly different from each other. Thus significant differences between correlations were obtained for the two sociopath groups on rural-urban background, psychological prognosis of adjustment, level of custody, number of escapes, number of parole violations, number of arrests, length of time incarcerated, number of months incarcerated since age 18, percentage of life incarcerated since age 18, number of jobs, the Lykken Scale, and the following subscales of the MMPI: F, K, H s , D, Hy, P d , Mf, Pa, Pt, Sc, Ma, and Si (see Table 21). It is interesting to note that with the exception of the Lie (L) subscale 67 The formula for the sign test was: Where d = differences between z = d-1 pluses and minuses v/HT N = number of paired comparisons 68 The distribution of pluses and minuses for each variable is displayed in Appendix B. TABLE 20 SUMMARY TABLE OF DISTRIBUTION OF PLUSES AND MINUSES OF HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS FOR SIGN TEST Group:______;______Pluses______Minuses______z Hostile Sociopaths 495 945 11.834 Simple Sociopaths 945 495 Totals 1,440 1,440 aThere were four comparisons on which the two groups tied. TABLE 21 SUMMARY TABLE OF DEGREE OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CORRELATIONS OF 49 VARIABLES FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS Number of Pluses Hostile Sociopath Simple Sociopath a Variable: (n=47) (n=23) d-1 N z 1. Age 14 24 9 38 1.460 2. Number of Times Wed 14 24 9 38 1.460 3. Number of Children 21 17 3 38 .487 4. Family Size (Orientation) 17 20 2 37 .329 5. Grade Attainment 13 25 12 38 1.947 6. Intelligence Quotient 15 22 6 37 .986 7. Rural-Urban Background 10 28 17 38 2.758** 8. Socio-economic Status 17 21 3 38 .487 9. Household Mobility 21 17 3 38 .487 10. Psychological Prognosis of Adjustment 11 27 15 38 2.433* 11. Level of Custody 9 29 19 38 3.082** 12. Level of Supervision 20 18 1 38 .162 TABLE 21— Continued Number of Pluses Hostile Sociopath Simple Sociopath Variable:______( n = 4 7 ) ______(n-23)______d-1______N______z 13. Number of Escapes 9 29 19 38 3.082** 14. Number of Months in Military Service 13 25 11 38 1.785 15. Parole Violations 12 25 ' 12 37 1.972* 16. Number of Arrests 27 11 15 38 2.433* 17. Number of Incarcerations 14 24 9 38 1.460 18. Length of Time Incarcerated 11 27 15 38 2.433* 19. Number of Months Incarcerated Since Age 18 11 27 15 38 2.433* 20. Percentage of Life Incarcerated Since Age 18 12 26 13 38 2.109* 21. Number of Jobs .12 26 13 38 2.109* 22. Cleckley Checklist 20 18 1 38 .162 23. Psychopathic deviate minus Psychasthenia Subscales 20 18 1 38 .162 24. Lykken Scale 7 31 23 38 3 .731*i TABLE 21— Continued Number of Pluses Hostile Sociopath. Simple Sociopath a Variable: (n=47) (n=23) ______d-1______N______z 25. Anomie Scale 15 23 7 38 1.136 26. Criminality Level Index 19 19 1 38 .162 27. Lie (L) Subscale 15 22 6 37 .986 28. Infrequency (F) Subscale 9 28 19 38 3.082** 29. Correction (K) Subscale 10 28 17 38 2.758** 30. Hypochondriasis (Hs) Subscale 7 31 23 38 3.731** 31. Depression (D) Subscale 9 29 19 38 3.082** 32. Hysteria (Hy) Subscale 9 29 19 38 3.082** 33. Psychopathic Deviate (Pd) Subscale 8 30 21 38 3.407** 34. Masculinity-feminity Subscale 10 28 17 38 2.758** 35. Paranoia (Pa) Subscale 9 29 19 38 3.082** 36. Psychasthenia (Pt) Subscale 9 29 19 38 3.082** 37. Schizophrenia (Sc) Subscale 7 31 23 38 3.731** 38. Hypomania (Ma) Subscale 9 29 19 38 3.082** TABLE 21--Continued Number of Pluses Hostile Sociopath Simple Sociopath Variable: (n=47) (n=23) d-1 N3 z 39. Social Introversion (Si) Subscale 9 29 19 38 3.082** *signi£icant at .05 level of significance. **significant at .01 level of significance. N represents the number of comparisons on which there is some difference; on comparisons in which there is no difference (i.e., the correlations are the same), the N is reduced by the number of tied comparisons. 85 of the MMPI, significant differences between correlations as measured by the sign test emerged. These sign tests lend further support to the contention that the hostile sociopaths are indeed very different from the simple sociopaths. Anomie and the Criminality Level Index While this biosocial study was basically a replication of the Schachter and Latane* study of the cardiovascular hyper-reactivity of the anti-social sociopath, two specific hypotheses were made about the attitudes of the sociopath. Specifically, it was first hypothesized that sociopaths, feeling less able to deal effectively with the official agents of society, would be more alienated from society. Therefore, it was predicted that anti-social sociopaths would be more anomic than other incarcerated felons. Data on this hypothesis are displayed in Table 22. No significant differences between any groups were found, and thus the hypothesis is rejected. Secondly, it was hypothesized that the anti-social sociopath would have less favorable attitudes toward legal agents--the law, the police, and courts--than would subjects in the other population groups. Thus, it was predicted that sociopaths would score higher (have more unfavorable attitudes toward the legal agents) on the Criminality Level Index than would non-sociopaths. Data on this second hypothesis are displayed in Table 22. Hostile sociopaths are significantly different from the simple sociopaths and from the other two groups (see Table 102 in Appendix B for the exact t-values and levels of significance). The fact that the most extreme mean differences occur between the hostile TABLE 22 SUMMARY TABLE OP ANOMIE SCALE AND CRIMINALITY LEVEL INDEX SCORES OF THE 277 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Hostile Sociopath Simple Sociopath Mixed Non-Sociopath Group Variable: (n=47) (n=23) .... (n=66) (n=141) (N=277) Anomie Scale Score* 15.3 14.4 15.3 15.8 15.5 Criminality Level Index** 85.2 74.1 78.9 74.1 77.7 *This scale consisted of five items, each scored one to five, with high score reflecting greater anomie. **This scale consisted of 24 items, each scored one to five, with high score reflecting greater hostility (less favorable attitudes). 87 (85.2) and the simple (74.1) sociopaths further reinforces the pre ponderance of evidence that the two groups of sociopaths are entirely different. In summary, the evidence obtained from the study of 277 consecu tive admissions--demographic, military history, criminal history, psychological and attitudinal--indicates that differences exist between the hostile and simple sociopaths, although only nine out of 39 measures were statistically significant. These ex post facto findings justify the previous division of the 19 experimental sociopaths into eight hostile and 11 simples. On the basis of the findings, it is not unreasonable to suggest that researchers do not necessarily need the physiological data (such as epinephrine administration and galvanic skin reponse) to identify reasonably well a sociopath, and to separate hostile sociopaths from simple sociopaths. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This study began as an attempt to replicate the very provoca tive findings of Schachter and Latane* to the effect that anti-social sociopaths in correctional institutions show hyper-reactivity to epinephrine. Further, they found that learning in sociopaths, by which they meant the ability to master a maze and avoid shock, was facilitated by epinephrine. In order to conduct this replication, an interdisciplinary team of researchers decided to study all recent admissions to the Ohio Peni tentiary. The procedure used in selecting experimental subjects and the learning program to which they were subjected were identical to those used by Schachter and Latane^ in their earlier work. During the course of the study, 1,375 inmates were screened at the Ohio Penitentiary. Each of these new inmates was screened by the Psychological Services staff to determine their eligibility for in clusion as experimental subjects. After eliminating inmates on the bases of age (over 35), I. Q. (under 100 on the OPCT), and the Cleckley Checklist (scoring between 5 and 12 on the 16 item checklist), and on medical examination criteria, 43 subjects were left. Presented in flow chart form, of the 1,375 new admissions sub jects, half were lost to the age requirement; of the 685 who remained eligible, about two-thirds were lost to the I. Q. requirement. This 88 89 left 200 eligibles; of these, roughly two-thirds did not score either over 12 (sociopath) or under five (non-sociopath) on the Cleckley criteria. Approximately 70 inmates remained. The health screen elimina ted 22 more, or 31 percent, and consent refusals accounted for five others. Of the 1,375, then, 43 were actually studied on all levels-- organic, psychological, and sociological. These 43 inmates were subjected to a double-blind experimental procedure consisting of two conditions--drug and placebo-~randomly assigned, under which they were asked to perform a learning task under a program identical to that of Schachter and Latane*. Simply stated, after injection--placebo or drug--they were required to master a maze so as to minimize the number of shocks following errors. The subjects were constantly monitored for heart rate and skin resistance. Subjects were subjected to these procedures on two separate occasions occurring a week apart. On one, they were injected with epinephrine and on the other, a saline solution. Only the author knew which subjects belonged in what group. The physician-colleague randomized the order of presen tation of drug and placebo; even he, however, did not know the order of presentation of the learning-task program. In addition to the physiologic data obtained through monitoring, and the number of shock and errors also obtained through monitoring, all 43 subjects were administered a battery of tests, including the .Lykken Scale of 33 items, Srole's Anomie Scale, the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Test, and the Criminality Level Index. In addition, two other sources of data were tapped. These included the evaluations of the psychological treatment staff, and the case history materials on each 90 subject; the latter included demographic variables, criminal history, ■ military history, and the corrected subscale scores of the 1MMPI. The 43 experimental subjects were initially divided into three major categories--sociopath, mixed, and non-sociopath~-on the basis of the diagnostic criteria used by Schachter and Latane. Since it was impossible to replicate precisely his classification scheme, we modi fied one criterion used in classification. The character of the Ohio Penitentiary, expecially its large population, made it impossible to obtain clinical judgements based on depth interview of new admissions. As a consequence, clinical impressions were replaced by a combination of three other selection criteria: Cleckley Checklist scores, MMPI Pd minus Pt subscale scores, and number of recorded escapes. In addition to these criteria, which when combined weighted 25 percent in the final classification, three other criteria accounted for the other 75 percent. These criteria consisted of number of arrests since age 18 which were not cleared by dismissal, the percentage of time incarcerated in penal institutions since age 18, and most significant of all, the Lykken Scale score. The 19 inmates designated as sociopaths fulfilled the require ments of at least three of these four criteria. The mixed group of 10 subjects met two of the criteria; the 14 non-sociopaths met no more than one of the criteria. In looking at the findings, it was discovered that Schachter and Latane1s thesis of increased cardiovascular reactivity to epinephrine, so clearly evident in his charts and tables, could not be replicated to the point of statistical significance in the experimental group of 43 91 prisoners, although the test data were in the same direction as the Schachter and Latane/ findings. In other words, while it was clear that there was increased cardiovascular reactivity, the intra-group variances were so great, particularly among the sociopaths, that the differences were significant only at a level of confidence above .10. The excessive variance within the sociopath category of the 43 subjects suggested that this group of 19 sociopathic subjects was, in fact, not homogeneous. A number of hypotheses presented themselves but, following Lykken, it seemed reasonable to divide the sociopaths into high and low scorers on the Lykken Scale. To avoid confusion, these high and low-Lykken Scale scorers were labeled hostile (more aggressive) and simple (less aggressive) sociopaths. When this was done, the increased cardiovascular responsitivity to epinephrine was characteristic only of the simple sociopaths. This group of 11 subjects experienced an increased heart rate of 12.3 beats per minute, as measured by the difference of the heart rate following epinephrine injection minus that following saline injection. The other three groups--hostile sociopaths, mixed, and non-sociopath--only averaged an increase of about six beats per minute. On the other hand, no significant intergroup differences could be demonstrated in the mean palmar skin response to epinephrine. That the eight hostile and the 11 simple sociopaths were indeed different is evident from their background characteristics and psycho logical test data. The eight hostile sociopaths averaged two years younger than either the 11 simple sociopaths or the 24 mixed and non sociopath inmates. They were very different also in marital status 92 from any other group, most being either divorced, separated, or never . married. More often, they came from smaller families than did the simple sociopaths. Very few of the hostile sociopaths came from intact families as contrasted Ttfith the simple sociopaths. In general, the hostile sociopaths were nearly always rejected by the armed services despite their intellectual qualifications. Those few who were inducted invariably received less than honorable dis charges. In this respect, they differed only slightly from the simple sociopaths, but markedly from the mixed and non-sociopathic groups. Their prison records were also different. Hostile sociopaths experienced an average of more than five arrests each; simple sociopaths of more than six arrests each. In contrast, non-sociopaths were arrested an average of 2.8 times. Looking at the data of total months spent in penal institutions since age 18, the hostiles averaged 55 months, the simples 81 months, and the non-sociopaths only 16 months. In percentage terms, the hostiles spent 53 percent of their adult lives in prison, the simples over 61 percent, the mixed 41 percent, and the non-sociopaths 13 percent. With regard to MMPI subscales, the Pd and Ma subscale scores of the hostiles were significantly higher than those of the simple socio paths, and even more so in comparison to the non-sociopaths. On the other hand, the two groups of sociopaths showed identical profiles on the Pt subscale, which was much lower than that of either the mixed or the non-sociopath subjects. The two groups of sociopaths were much alike in the area of previous anti-social behavior, especially in contrast with the mixed 93 and non-sociopath groups, but were different from each other in num ber of arrests, counts on conviction and crimes against the person (when corrected for age), months and percentage of life incarcerated since age 18, number of parole violations, and number of escapes. With regard to specific criminal acts leading to imprisonment, the hostile group seemed to specialize in crimes against the person much more than the simple sociopaths, whose criminal acts were more concen trated in burglary and grand larceny. The non-sociopaths, on the other hand, exhibited a much broader spectrum of criminal behavior, ranging all the way from murder in the 2nd degree to the more 69 numberous cases of forgery and non-support. As indicated above, two principal findings emerged from our ex perimental work. These were: (1) sociopaths differed from non sociopaths in cardiovascular reactivity to epinephrine, and (2) most importantly, within the sociopath group there emerged two very distinct subtypes, consisting of eight so-called hostile sociopaths, and 11 who were labeled as simple sociopaths. The legitimacy of this typology which emerged, based on empirical evidence, was confirmed on every level--physiolgoic, psychological, criminal history, and demographic as well as in clinical evaluations. Independent veri fication was later obtained by submitting MMPI profiles to two clinical psychologists specializing in such evaluation. It should be 69 While the results presented here obviously indicate the existence of two types of sociopaths, one member of the research team suspects that the hostile sociopaths are pseudo-sociopathic schizo phrenics. The preponderance of evidence, however, supports the separation of the sociopath groups into the hostile and simple socio path categories. 94 added that the MMPI evaluations were made by the psychologists without- any knowledge of our previous classification. The emergence of this typology was felt to be so important that additional corroboration for the existence of these sub-types of socio paths was sought. This was done by applying the multiple classification criteria to the 277 consecutive admissions to the Ohio Penitentiary. When this was done, 70 subjects were categorized as sociopaths, of which 47 were categorized as hostile sociopaths, and 23 as simple sociopaths, based on the application of the Lykken Scale. Except for the cardiovascular and learning task measures, all data used in the analysis of the experimental subjects were likewise available for the 277 consecutive admissions. The results of the latter analysis using these variables confirmed the distinctiveness of the two categories of sociopaths. These groups differed in age, family size, socio-economic status, education, occupation, and other background variables to approximately the same degree and in the same direction as the two groups of experimental sociopaths. They differed on almost every single item related to previous criminal history, e. g., arrests, incarcerations, percentage of time spent in institutions, and previous parole violations. They also differed on the same MMPI subscales, especially the psychopathic deviation (Pd) and hypomania (Ma), as well as schizophrenia (Sc), social introversion (Si), and psychasthenia (Pt). Attitudinally, no differences were found among any of the groups in the consecutive admissions population on the anomie scale; all groups were elevated above non-incarcerated populations. On the other hand, significantly different levels of hostility toward legal agents--the 95 law, courts and police--were found not only between the two types of sociopaths, but also between the hostile sociopaths and the mixed and non-sociopath groups. Intercorrelation matrices and sign tests of the intercorrelations by variables further supported and confirmed the existence of these two distinct types of anti-social sociopaths. Discussion Before launching into the interpretation, it is necessary to bear in mind that this research was interdisciplinary in character. The dissertation primarily has emphasized the sociological parameters, while underplaying the clinical, physiological, and psychological parameters, except as the latter were needed to elucidate the sociological aspects. Thus, the interpretation and discussion of these data will also be rather limited in scope. Sociopathy as a Disorder. Even a cursory review of the literature will reveal that the definition of sociopathy and its specific symptom and behavioral mani festations have been the subject of considerable debate and dispute through the years. At one time or another, this disorder was referred to as "moral insanity," "moral imbecility," manie sans delire, "moral alienation," and still more recently as psychopathy, constitutional psychopathology, and constitutional inferiority (atavism). It was Partridge who first used the term sociopath and described this disorder as a pathology related to normative standards, rather than as a series of intrapsychic symptoms. At one time or another, also, sociopaths have 96 been described as evidencing a wide variety of symptoms about which different clinicians were in disagreement. Generally speaking, however, the 16 symptoms listed by Cleckley and presented in Chapter I are broad enough to embrace most of these descriptions. This study has clearly demonstrated that whatever sociopathy may b e , it is not a single entity. Much of the confusion in the fieId derives from the failure to recognize this relatively elementary empirical fact. Specifically, the present study has shown the inadequacy of clinical judgement alone, the inadequacy of trying to use a substance such as epinephrine alone in classification, the inadequacies of social background characteristics along, and the inadequacy of psychological tests alone. While admittedly the two best indicators were the social history and the two psychological tests (hypomania and social intro version subscales of the MMPI, and Lykken Scale), it seems far more reasonable to utilize all of the above four indicators, and perhaps others not yet delineated, in classification. In many ways, Robins has already used a large number of specific variables in her 30-year follow-up of sociopaths. Unfortunately, she lumped all sociopaths together. Her results might have been even more striking if she could have differentiated them. Despite this weakness, many of the findings of the present study closely parallel the results of Robin's 30-year longitudinal study. This is especially obvious in regard to her findings that chiId-guidance clinic patients later diag nosed as sociopathic personality show a poor work history, multiple arrests, high death rate, more frequent household mobility, more divorce, 97 lowest rate of induction into the armed forces, aborted periods of time in military service, and absence of father not preventing the development of sociopathy. With the exception of the high death rate, her findings tend to apply, in general, more to the simple than the hostile sociopath isolated in this study. Future research utilizing the typology suggested in this dissertation might further clarify this point. Operationalizing Sociopathy. The work of Schachter and Latane*, of Lykken, Lippert and others, as well as the results of this investigation strongly suggest the need for operationalizing the concept of sociopathy, so that it can be empirically assessed by using the multiple criteria suggested above. The introduction of the physiologic parameters is especially important in this regard, since these may provide clues to organic concomitants which have rarely been sought in previous research on sociopathy. Although the galvanic skin response did not differentiate between the sociopaths and non-sociopaths in the experimental group, and although the administration of epinephrine only raised the heartbeat of the simple sociopaths, further physiological experiments, especially with other techniques and drugs, should be encouraged. It should be noted that these physiologic parameters, such as autonomic nervous system functioning, are independent, at least as far as measurement goes, of the behavioral and clinical indicators. The utilization of such parameters should prevent the development of unilateral and basically untestable conceptions of these sociopathic disorders from emerging in the future. This is not to argue for the superiority of 98 the physiologic measures, but only to suggest again the possibility of utilizing this long-neglected level for the testing and elaboration of theoretical conceptions of etiology. Consistency of Parameters. One of the most significant findings in this study was the remarkable consistency in the physiological, psychological and socio logical parameters in differentiating the two major types of sociopaths. This certainly attests to the desirability, indeed the necessity of using multi-disciplinary approaches in the study of deviant behavior. Perhaps even more than that, such interdisciplinary efforts should prevent a limited and atomistic view of deviance, and convince investi gators in the field of behavioral science that interdisciplinary efforts, however difficult to mount, are rewarding if only because they tend to broaden the perspectives of individual investigators and help modify the trained incapacity of specialists in this field to take a broader view. Etiology and Treatment. The development of multiple criteria for operationalizing the concept of sociopathy and determining its sub-types holds out the dis tinct possibility for the study of various etiology conceptions and the effectiveness of different treatment modalities. Whatever the etiologic conception one favors--autonomic system lesions, delayed maturation, genetic transmission, interpersonal difficulties exper ienced in an impoverished context, (jt cetera--it has long been apparent that these could not be tested unless the nature of the disorder was 99 first operationalized. To the extent that preliminary steps in this direction have now been taken, the possibilities for research on etiology are much improved. For example, one of the most significant implications of this study is to be found in the marked differences in the early family constellations of our two groups of sociopaths. Family deprivation seems, for example, much more characteristic of the hostile than of the simple sociopath. Similarly, autonomic malfunctioning appears much more tenable as an explanation for the simple than for the hostile sociopath. Lastly, to the extent that further refinement occurs in the meas urement of the multiple criteria involved, leading to the isolation of possibly even more sub-types of sociopaths, experimental treatment procedures can be introduced and their effectiveness evaluated. It is commonly agreed by nearly all clinicians as well as by other correc tional personnel that institutionalized sociopaths seem incapable of learning very much from experience or conditioning. Schachter and Latane were convinced that such was not the case under conditions of the administration of epinephrine. This study, although not so con vincing on this point, nevertheless holds out the possibility of verifying these and related possibilities. Similarly, while the setting of firm limits is suggested by nearly everyone as the treatment of choice, it may well be that this approach is effective with only a very special subtype of sociopath. The present study has opened new vistas for further research in the field of sociopathic behavior. A refinement and elaboration of more precise techniques and instruments, and the expansion of the present 100 research design to include females, juveniles, and other population groups, should yield important insights into the nature, etiology, and treatment of this long recognized and yet inadequately understood disorder. For the non-experimental studies of the involvement of socio paths and non-sociopaths in criminal or deviant behavior, however, it appears that the Lykken Scale, supplemented with certain MMPI subscales, and perhaps the Mylonas Criminality Level Index, affords a valid measure of sociopathy, and a valid separation of the two types of sociopaths--hostile and simple. APPENDIX A 102 TABLE 23 MEAN AGE OF FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 25.88 1.177 .591 .730 (n=8) 2. Simple Sociopath 28.09 .617 .517 (n=ll) 3. Mixed 27.00 .125 (n=10) 4 . Non-Sociopath 27.21 (n=14) Mean (N=43) 27.14 TABLE 24 RACIAL DISTRIBUTION OF FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP (IN PERCENTAGES) Total Group: White Ne gro Percent 1. Hostile Sociopath 62.5% 37.5% 100.0% (n=8) 2. Simple Sociopath 63.6 36.4 100.0 (n=ll) 3. Mixed 70.0 30.0 100.0 (n=10) 4. Non-Sociopath 78.6 21.4 100.0 (n=14) Mean (N=43) 69.8 30.2 100.0 TABLE 25 RURAL-URBAN BACKGROUND OF FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP (IN PERCENTAGES) Total Group: Rural-Urban Background Percent ■p 3 PQ 4J 03 •H U cu u U cu i>0 1 t C3 COrrt e 3 U i—i >\ CO H 3 co r-C g j i ■ i CO O fit •rC O •rl to fa O i t > H J u ti o d d c 0 o <§ H IS H M l-l H 25 1. Hostile Sociopath 0.0% 12.5% 25.0% 0.0% 12.5% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0% (n=8) 2. Simple Sociopath 0.0 0.0 18.2 18.2 9.1 54.5 0.0 100.0 (n=ll) 3. Mixed 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 100.0 (n=10) 4. Non-Sociopath 7.1 0.0 14.2 28.5 21.4 18.6 0.0 100.0 (n=14) Mean (N=43) 2.3 2.3 18.6 18.6 18.6 37.2 2.4 100.0 103 104 TABLE 26 MEAN FAMILY OF PROCREATION SIZE OF FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Group: Mean t'-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 4.38 .714 .281 .448 (n=8) 2. Simple Sociopath 5.27 .522 .462 (n=ll) 3. Mixed 4.67 .153 (n=10) 4. Non-Sociopath 4.79 (n=14) Mean (N=43) 4.81 TABLE 27 FAMILY INTACTNESS OF FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP (IN PERCENTAGES) Reared By Two Parents Until Age 10 Total Group: Yes No No Data Percent 1. Hostile Sociopath 25.0% 75.0% 0.0% 100.0% (n=8) 2. Simple Sociopath 72.7 27.3 0.0 100.0 (n=ll) 3. Mixed 40.0 50.0 10.0 100.0 (n=10) 4. Non-S oc iopath 42.9 50.0 7.1 100.0 (n=14) Mean (N=43) 46.5 48.8 4.7 100.0 TABLE 28 MARITAL STATUS OF FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP (IN PERCENTAGES) Marital Status Total Group: Married Divorced Separated Single No Data Percent I. Hostile Sociopath 25.0% 25.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0% (n-8) 2. Simple Sociopath 54.5 27.3 0.0 18.2 0.0 100.0 (n=ll) 3. Mixed .50.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 10.0 100.0 4. Non-Sociopath 35.7 21.4 21.4 21.4 0.0 100.0 (n=14) Mean (N=43) 41.9 18.6 7.0 30.2 2.3 100.0 106 TABLE 29 MEAN NUMBER OF TIMES WED FOR FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath .63 1.943* .086 1.037 (n=8) 2. Simple Sociopath 1.46 2.239* 1.373 (n=ll) 3. Mixed .60 1.482 (n=10) 4 . Non-Sociopath .93 (n=14) Mean (N=43) .93 ‘•^significant at .05 level. TABLE 30 MEAN NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN FAMILY OF ORIENTATION OF FOUR POPULATIONS OF EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath .75 .772 .720 1.576 (n=8) 2. Simple Sociopath 1 .1 8 .123 .893 (n=ll) 3. Mixed 1.11 1.044 (n=10) 4. Non-Sociopath 1.86 (n=14) Mean (N=43) 1.31i n 107 TABLE 31 MEAN LAST GRADE COMPLETED IN SCHOOL OF FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 9.2 .393 .357 2.198* (n=8) 2. Simple Sociopath 9.5 .686 1.624 (n=ll) 3. Mixed 9.0 2.388* (n=10) 4. Non-Sociopath 10.9 (n=14) Mean (N=43) 9.8 ‘^significant at .05 level. TABLE 32 MEAN SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS SCORES OF FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Group;______Mean______t-values______ 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 20.75 .740 .862 .796 2. Simple Sociopath 24.46 1.107 .170 (n=ll) 3. Mixed 17.20 1.526 (n=10) 4. Non-Sociopath 25.50 (n=14) _____ Mean (N=43) 22.42 108 TABLE 33 MEAN NUMBER OF JOBS SINCE AGE 18 OF FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 4.25 .668 1.639 .214 (n=8) 2. Simple Sociopath 3.55 1.112 .. .930 (n-11) 3. Mixed 2.17 1.963* (n=10) 4. Non-Sociopath 4.50 (n=14) - Mean (N=43) 3.81 "'significant at .05 level. TABLE 34 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF FOUR POPULATIONS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP (IN PERCENTAGES) Religious Affiliation Total Group:______Protestant Catholic Other No Data Percent 1. Hostile Sociopath 50.0% 37.5% 12.5% 0.0% 100.0% (n=8) 2. Simple Sociopath 54.5 36.4 0.0 9.1 100.0 (n=ll) 3. Mixed 70.0 20.0 0.0 10.0 100.0 (n=10) 4. Non-Sociopath 85.7 14.3 0.0 0.0 100.0 (n=14) ______Mean (N=43) 67.4 25.4 2.4 4.8 100.0 TABLE 35 TERMINATION OF MILITARY SERVICE OF FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP (IN PERCENTAGES) Total Group; Termination of Service Percent CD T3 CD 4J (U ft o > 2. Simple Sociopath 0.0 9.1 18.2 9.1 0.0 63.6 0.0 100.0 (n=ll) 3. Mixed 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 50.0 10.0 100.0 (n=10) 4. Non-Sociopath 42.9 0.0 0.0 14.2 0.0 42.9 0.0 100.0 (n-14) ______Mean (N=43) 16.3 2.3 9.3 18.6 4.7 46.5 2.3 100.0 110 TABLE 36 MEAN NUMBER OF MONTHS SERVED IN MILITARY SERVICE OF FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 17.37 1.760* .880 .530 (n=8) 2. Simple Sociopath 6.72 .703 2.067* ( n = H ) 3. Mixed 11.22 1.287 (n=10) 4. Non-Sociopath 21.43 (n=14) Mean (N=43) 14.62 *significant at .05 level. TABLE 37 MEAN NUMBER OF ARRESTS NOT CLEARED BY DISMISSAL OF FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 5.25 .887 1.635 1.995* (n=8) 2. Simple Sociopath 6.36 3.200** 3.352** (n=U) 3. Mixed 3.50 .789 (h=10) 4. Non-Sociopath 2.86 (n=14) Mean (N=43) 4.35 ^■significant at .05 level. **significant at .01 level. Ill TABLE 38 MEAN NUMBER OF INCARCERATIONS INCLUDING CURRENT INCARCERATION OF FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 2.75 2.270* .263 2.227* (n=8) 2. Simple Sociopath 4.09 3.414** 6.626** (n=ll) 3. Mixed 2.60 2.946** (n=10) 4. Non-Sociopath 1.57 (n=14) Mean (N=43) 2.67 ^'significant at .05 level. ’’^significant at .01 level. TABLE 39 MEAN NUMBER OF MONTHS INCARCERATED OF FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 55.00 1.688 .124 2.794** (n=8) 2. Simple Sociopath 81.00 1.803* 6.753** (n=ll) 3. Mixed 52.70 2.565* (n=10) 4. Non-Sociopath 16.42 (n=14) Mean (N=43) 48.56 *significant at .05 level. **significant at .01 level. 112 TABLE 40 MEAN NUMBER OF MONTHS INCARCERATED SINCE AGE 18 OF FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 49.50 1.426 .297 2.953** (n=8) 2. Simple Sociopath 69.64 1.705 6.113** (n=ll) 3. Mixed 44.50 2.408* (n=10) 4. Non-Sociopath 13.20 (n=14) Mean (N=43) 41.67 *significant at .05 level. **significant at .01 level. TABLE 41 MEAN PERCENTAGE OF LIFE INCARCERATED SINCE AGE 18 OF FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 53.00% .692 .939 3.678** (n=8) 2. Simple Sociopath 61.18 1.858* 5.705** (n=ll) 3. Mixed 41.00 2.846* (n=10) 4 . Non-Sociopath 13.57 (n=14) Mean (N=43) 39.47 *significant at .05 level. **significant at .01 level. 113 TABLE 42 MEAN NUMBER OF PAROLE VIOLATIONS OF FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath .63 1.813* 1.048 2.019** (n=8) 2. Simple Sociopath 1.36 .749 2.980** < n = U ) 3. Mixed 1.00 2.361* (n=10) 4. Non-Sociopath .21 (n=14) ____ Mean (N=43) .76 *significant at .05 level. **significant at .01 level. TABLE 43 MEAN NUMBER OF ESCAPES AND PERCENTAGE OF ESCAPISTS OF FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Mean Number of Mean Percentage of Group: Escapes______Escapists_____ 1. Hostile Sociopath .50 12.57o (n=8) 2. Simple Sociopath .18 18.2 (n=ll) 3. Mixed .20 20.0 (n=10) 4. Non-Sociopath .00 00.0 (n=14) ______Mean (N=43) .19 11.6 114 TABLE 44 MEAN I. Q. SCORE OF FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 121.9 1.532 2.035* 1.226 (n=8) 2. Simple Sociopath 120.0 .269 .328 (n=ll) 3. Mixed 111.6 .646 (n=10) 4. Non-Sociopath 114.4 (h=14) Mean (N=43) 114.4 ^significant at .05 level. TABLE 45 MEAN CLECKLEY CHECKLIST SCORE OF FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 11.88 .291 .241 .989 (n=8) 2. Simple Sociopath 11.64 .554 .884 (n=ll) 3. Mixed 12.10 1.103 (n=10) 4. Non-Sociopath 10.00 (n=14) Mean (N=43) 11.26 115 TABLE 46 MEAN TAYLOR MANIFEST ANXIETY SCALE SCORE OF FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 5.75 1.660 1.440 2.532** (n=8) 2. Simple Sociopath 10.20 .247 .330 (n=10) 3. Mixed 11.30 .017 (n=10) 4. Non-Sociopath 11.23 (n=13) _____ Mean (N=4l) 9.93 **significant at .01 level. TABLE 47 MEAN LIE (L) SUBSCALE SCORES OF MMPI OF FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Group: Mean t-values 2 3 • 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 2.86 1.165 1.705 1.724 (n=7) 2. Simple Sociopath 3.82 ,681 .642 (n=ll) 3. Mixed 4.50 .067 (n=10) 4. Non-Sociopath 4.43 (n=14) Mean (N=42) 4.02 116 TABLE 48 MEAN INFREQUENCY (F) SUBSCALE SCORES OF MMPI OF FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Group: Mean t-values• 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 5.14 1.174 .517 .817 (n=7) 2. Simple Sociopath 3.73 1.673 .099 (n=ll) 3. Mixed 5.90 1.315 (n=10) 4. Non-Sociopath 3.86 (n=14) - Mean (N=42) 4.52 TABLE 49 MEAN CORRECTION (K) SUBSCALE SCORES OF MMPI OF FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 17.71 .729 1.109 1.234 (n=7) 2. Simple Sociopath 16.27 .284 .449 (n=ll) 3. Mixed 15.60 .186 (n=10) 4. Non-Sociopath 15.14 (n=l4) Mean (N=42) 15.98 117 TABLE 50 MEAN HYPOCHONDRIASIS (Hs) SUBSCALE SCORES OF MMPI OF FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 11.00 0.000 2.325* 2.067* (n=7) 2. Simple Sociopath 11.00 1.281 1.226 (*=11) 3. Mixed 12.80 .014 (n=10) 4. Non-Sociopath 12.79 (n=14) Mean (N=42) 12.02 '^significant at .05 level. TABLE 51 MEAN DEPRESSION (D) SUBSCALE SCORES OF MMPI OF FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Group: Mean t-values 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 18.43 ,667 ,257 1.613 (n=7) 2. Simple Sociopath 19.36 .783 .939 (n=ll) 3. Mixed 18.00 1.564 (n=10) 4. Non-Sociopath 20.86 (n=14) _____ Mean (N=42) 19.38 118 TABLE 52 MEAN HYSTERIA (Hy) SUBSCALE SCORES OF MMPI OF FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 18.14 1.072 1.279 1.287 (n=7) 2. Simple Sociopath 19.91 .006 .096 (n=ll) 3. Mixed 19.90 .120 (n=10) 4. Non-Sociopath 20.07 (n=14) Mean (N=42) 19.67 TABLE 53 MEAN PSYCHOPATHIC DEVIATE (Pd) SUBSCALE SCORES OF MMPI OF FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 31.43 1.195 2.149* 2.796*“ (n=7) 2. Simple Sociopath 28.91 .448 1.164 (n=ll) 3 . Mixed 28.10 1.102 (n=10) 4 . Non-Sociopath 26.64 (n=14) Mean (N=42) 28.38 ^significant at .05 level. **significant at .01 level. TABLE 54 MEAN MASCULINITY-FEMINITY (Mf) SUBSCALE SCORES OF MMPI OF FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 23.14 1.123 .215 .209 2. Simple Sociopath 20.55 .983 .990 (n=ll) 3 . Mixed 22.70 .008 4. Non-Sociopath 22.71 (n=14) Mean (N=42) 22.21 TABLE 55 MEAN PARANOIA (Pa) SUBSCALE SCORES OF MMPI OF FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 8 .5 7 1.028 .018 1.203 (n=7) 2. Simple Sociopath 10.18 1.039 .076 (ri=ll) 3 . Mixed 8 .6 0 1.225 (ri=10) 4 . Non-Sociopath 10.29 (n=I4) Mean (N=42) 9.57 1 2 0 TABLE 56 MEAN PSYCHASTHENIA (Pt) SUBSCALE SCORES OF MMPI OF FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 24.29 .284 1.198 2.952*5 (n~7) 2. Simple Sociopath 24.82 .606 1.741* ( n = U ) 3. Mixed 26.20 1.244 (n=10) 4. Non-Sociopath 28.64 (n=14) Mean (N=42) 26.33 ’•significant at .05 level. **significant at .01 level. TABLE 57 MEAN SCHIZOPHRENIA (Sc) SUBSCALE SCORES OF MMPI OF FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 27.00 1.410 .966 .326 (n=7) 2. Simple Sociopath 24.18 .677 1.606 (n=ll) 3. Mixed 25.50 1.223 (n=10) 4. Non-Sociopath 27.57 (n=14) Mean (N=42) 26.10 121 TABLE 58 MEAN HYPOMANIA (Ma) SUBSCALE SCORES OF MMPI OF FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 26.43 4.763** 2.210* 3.611*• 2. Simple Sociopath 18.91 1.870* 1.614 (n=ll) 3. Mixed 22.10 .743 (n=10) 4. Non-Sociopath 20.86 (n=14) Mean (N=42) 21.57 •'significant at .05 level. **significant at .01 level. TABLE 59 MEAN SOCIAL INTROVERSION (Si) SUBSCALE SCORES OF MMPI OF FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 19.00 1.805* .562 1.814* (n=7) 2. Simple Sociopath 24.00 1.104 .949 (ri=ll) 3. Mixed 20.60 1.504 (n=10) 4. Non-Sociopath 29.71 (n=14) Mean (N=42) 24.26 •'significant at .05 level. TABLE 60 LEVEL OF CUSTODY ASSIGNMENT OF FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP (IN PERCENTAGES) Total Group: Level of Custody Percent t-values3 0 4-1 o ^ 6 I 61 3I § § i *rl ■H .H •H •H I x X -o -a T3 G c — m o O -H 2 3 4 2 £ £ s s is 1. Hostile Sociopath 12.5% 50.0% 25.0% 12.5% 0.0% 100.0% .991 .791 1.897* (ri=8) 2. Simple Sociopath 0.0 36.4 54.5 9.1 0.0 100.0 2.488* 1.309 (n=ll) 3. Mixed 10.0 70.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 3.057** (n=10) 4. Non-Sociopath 7.1 21.4 25.1 14.2 21.4 100.0 (n=14) Mean (N=43) 7.0 . 41.9 34.9 9.2 7.0 100.0 *significant at .05 level. **significant at .01 level. In computing t-tests, maximum custody received a score of 1; maximum to median, 2; medium, 3; medium to minimum, 4; and minimum, 5. TABLE 61 LEVEL OF SUPERVISION OF FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP (IN PERCENTAGES) Total a Group: Level of Supervision Percent t-values 0) § ■U M •rl O T5 ei) ight ed ium ed aximum aximum to .52 edium to •1-1 2 3 4 u IS J .J 1. Hostile Sociopath 12.5% 25.0% 62.5% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% .399 .622 2.110* (n=8) 2. Simple Sociopath 18.0 0.0 81.8 0.0 0.0 100.0 .206 1.802* (n=ll) 3. Mixed 10.0 10.0 80.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.714* (n=10) 4. Non-Sociopath 7.1 0.0 71.4 0.0 21.4 100.0 (n=14) Mean (N-43) 11.6 7.0 74.4 0.0 7.0 100.0 *significant at .05 level. **significant at .01 level. aIn computing t-tests, close supervision received a score of 1; maximum to medium, 2; medium, 3; medium to light, 4; and light, 5. TABLE 62 DESIGNATED PSYCHOLOGICAL DIAGNOSIS OF FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP (IN PERCENTAGES) Sociopath Total Group: Anti-Social Dvssocial Other Percent 1. Hostile Sociopath 25.07, 12.5% 62.5 % 100.0% (n=8) 2. Simple Sociopath 18.2 9.1 72.7 100.0 (n=ll) 3. Mixed 30.0 20.0 50.0 100.0 (n=10) 4. Non-Sociopath 14.2 0.0 85.7 100.0 (n=14) Mean (N=43) 20.9 9.3 69.8 100.0 TABLE 63 PSYCHOLOGICAL PROGNOSIS OF ADJUSTMENT ON THIS COMMITMENT OF FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN THE EXPERIMENTAL GROUP (IN PERCENTAGES) Total Group: Prognosis Percent t-values 2 3 4 ! Poor Good Satisfactory Questionable Routine I. Hostile Sociopath 25.0% 37.5%, 12.5% 25.0% 0.0% 100.0% 1.013 .365 1.462 (n=8) 2. Simple Sociopath 36.4 36.4 27.2 0.0 0.0 100.0 .797 .624 (n=ll) 3. Mixed 20.0 50.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 100.0 1,358 (n=10) 4. Non-Sociopath 14.2 14.2 50.0 14.2 7.1 100.0 (n=l4) Mean (N=43) 23.3 32.6 30.2 11.6 2.3 100.0 aIn computing t-tests, good prognosis received a socre of 1; satisfactory, 2; routine, 3; questionable, 4; and poor, 5. TABLE 64 DRUG ADDICTIONS OF FOUR POPULATION GROUPS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP (IN PERCENTAGES) Total Group: Drugs Alcohol None No Data Percent 1. Hostile Sociopath 12.5% 37.5% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0% (n=8) 2. Simple Sociopath 9.1 18.2 72.7 0.0 100.0 (n=ll) 3. Mixed 0.0 10.0 80.0 10.0 100.0 (n=10) 4. Non-Sociopath 7.1 21.4 71.5 0.0 100.0 (n=14) Mean (N=43) 7.0 20.9 69.8 2.3 100.0 APPENDIX B TABLE 65 MEAN AGE OF THE 277 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Group: Mean t-values 1. Hostile Sociopath 30.79 3.823** .609 2.743** (n=47) 2. Simple Sociopath 39.70 3.362** 2.236** (n=23) 3. Mixed 31.82 2.012* (n=66) 4. Non-Sociopath 39.70 (n=141) Mean (N=277) 33.82 ^significant at the .05 level. **significant at the .01 level. TABLE 66 Total Chi- P is C is Group: White Negro Percent square less than ad i 1. Hostile Sociopath 66.0 % 34.0% 100.0% .559 .80 .051 (n=47) 2. Simple Sociopath 69.6 30.4 100.0 (n=23) 3. Mixed 62.1 37.9 100.0 (n=66) 4. Non-Sociopath 66.4 33.6 100.0 (n=141) (Mean) (N=277) 65.3 34.7 100.0 129 TABLE 67 RURAL-URBAN BACKGROUND OF 277 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS (IN PERCENTAGES) Total Group: Rural-Urban Background -Percent. c CO 0) ■M 4 J bO •H eg >-e (0 O B eg CO CO 1. Hostile Sociopath 34.04% 14.36% 51.60% 100.0% (n=47) 2. Simple Sociopath 26.08 8.70 65.21 100.0 (n=23) 3. Mixed 42.42 12.12 45.45 100.0 (n=66) 4. Non-Sociopath 58.16 12.75 29.09 100.0 (n=141) Mean (N=277) 47.65 12.64 39.71 100.0 Chi-square is 14.737 P is less than .01 TABLE 68 MEAN FAMILY OF PROCREATION SIZE OF 277 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 5.11 .540 .058 .198 (n=47) 2. Simple Sociopath 5.44 .629 .824 (n-23) 3. Mixed 5.08 .149 (n=66) 4. Non-Sociopath ' 5.44 (n=140) Mean (N=276) 5.08 131 TABLE 69 FAMILY INTACTNESS OF 277 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS (IN PERCENTAGES) Reared by Two Parents until Age 10 Total Chi- P is C a(J is Group: Yes No Percent square less than 1. Hostile Sociopath 46.80% 53.20% 100.00% 8.014 .05 .192 (n=47) 2. Simple Sociopath 60.00 40.00 100.00 (n=20) 3. Mixed 72.72 27.28 100.00 (n=66) 4. Non-Sociopath 63.57 36.43 100.00 (n=140) Mean (N=273) 62.53 37.47 100.00 132 TABLE 70 MARITAL STATUS OF 277 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS (IN PERCENTAGES) Marital Status Total Group: Married Divorced Separated Single Percent I. Hostile Sociopath 25.53% 23.40% 10.64% 40.43% 100.00% (n=47) 2. Simple Sociopath 34.78 26.08 17.40 21.74 100.00 (n=23) 3. Mixed 34.84 28.79 7.58 28.79 100.00 (n=66) 4. Non-Sociopath 44.68 21.98 12.77 28.79 100.00 (n-141) Mean (N=277) 38.27 24.19 11.55 25.99 100.00 Chi-square is 12.206 P is less than .30 C .. is .237 adj 133 TABLE 71 MEAN NUMBER OF TIMES WED OF 277 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath .77 1.922* 1.031 2.657** (n=47) 2. Simple Sociopath 1.22 1.295 .459 (n=23) 3. Mixed .92 1.672* (n=66) 4. Non-Sociopath 1.12 (n=141) Mean (N=277) 1.02 ^significant at the .05 level. **significant at the .01 level. TABLE 72 MEAN NUMBER OF CHILDREN OF 277 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath .79 1.096 2.066* 6.666** (n=23) 2. Simple Sociopath 1.17 .439 3.147** (n=23) 3. Mixed 1.35 3.356** (n=66) 4. Non-Sociopath 2.35 (n=141) Mean (N=277) 1.75 *significant at the .05 level. **signi£icant at the .01 level. 135 / 136 TABLE 73 MEAN LAST GRADE COMPLETED IN SCHOOL OF 277 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 9.70 3.738** .564 1.245 (n=47) 2. Simple Sociopath 8.09 3.893** 2.793** (n=23) 3. Mixed 9.89 1.636 (n=66) 4. Non-Sociopath 9.32 (n=141) Mean (N=277) 9.42 *significant at the .05 level, **significant at the .01 level. TABLE 74 i MEAN SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS SCORES OF 277 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 16.40 .895 .354 1.729* (n=47) 2. Simple Sociopath 14.74 1.414 2.908** (n=23) 3. Mixed 17.06 1.559 (n=66) 4. Non-Sociopath 19.72 (n=141) Mean (N=277) 18.11 *significant at the .05 level. **significant at the .01 level. TABLE 75 MEAN NUMBER OF JOBS OF 277 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 I. Hostile Sociopath 3.96 1.025 1.368 .304 (n=47) 2. Simple Sociopath 3.39 .093 .926 (n=23) 3. Mixed 3.44 1.412 (n=66) 4. Non-Sociopath ' 3.85 (n=l41) Mean (N=277) 3.73 137 TABLE 76 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF 211 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS (IN PERCENTAGES) Religious Affiliation Total Group: Protestant Catholic Other Percent 1. Hostile Sociopath 70.21% 19.15% 10.64% 100.0% (n=47) 2. Simple Sociopath 69.56 30.44 0.00 100.0 (n=23) 3. Mixed ■ 77.27 19.69 3.04 100.0 (n=66) 4. Non-Sociopath 85.00 11.42 3.58 100.0 (n=140) Mean (N=276) 79.06 16.61 4.33 100.0 Chi-square is 12.66 P is less than .05 C adj is *241 138 TABLE 77 TERMINATION OF MILITARY SERVICE OF 277 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS (IN PERCENTAGES) Total Chi- P is is Group: ______Termination, of Service______Percent_____ square Less Than_____ ^ U co co h co co no H X H C CO) o u w o o 0> > C co co C w > M xO a *i-t CV OS -rlQ CO Hcn 1. Hostile Sociopath 14.90% 29.79% 55.31% 100.00% 10.803 .10 .224 (n=47) 2. Simple Sociopath 26.09 26.09 47.82 100.00 (n=23) 3. Mixed 27.27 21.22 51.51 100.00 (n=66) 4. Non-Sociopath 35.71 14.29 50.00 100.00 (n=141)______Mean (N=277) 29.24 23.47 47.29 iOO.OO TABLE 78 MEAN MONTHS OF MILITARY SERVICE OF 277 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 8.92 .667 1.916* 2.980** (n=47) 2. Simple Sociopath 11.39 .960 1.689* (n=23) 3. Mixed 15.22 .736 (n=65) 4. Non-Sociopath 17.61 (n=141) Mean (N=276) 15.05 *significant at the .05 level. **significant at the .01 level. 141- TABLE 79 MEAN NUMBER OF ARRESTS NOT CLEARED BY DISMISSAL OF 277 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 4.55 .716 2.271* 8.127** (n=47) 2. Simple Sociopath 5.26 1.770* 3.892** (n=23) 3. Mixed 3.56 7.090** (n=66) 4. Non-Sociopath 1.65 (n=141) Mean (N=277) 2.90 -'significant at the .05 level, **significant at the .05 level. TABLE 80 MEAN NUMBER OF INCARCERATIONS OF 277 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 3.36 .898 2.829** 8.895** (n=47) 2. Simple Sociopath 3.65 3.603** 9.041** (n=23) 3. Mixed 2.62 7.611** (n=66) 4. Non-Sociopath 1.41 (n=141) Mean (N=277) 2.22 ‘^significant at the .01 level. 142 TABLE 81 MEAN NUMBER OF MONTHS INCARCERATED OF 277 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 66.17 3.283** 1.768* 8.768** (n=47) 2. Simple Sociopath 140.04 3.937** 5.824** (n=23) 3. Mixed 51.42 6.294** (n=66) 4. Non-Sociopath 13.29 (n=141) Mean (N=277) 41.98 - *significant at the .05 level, **significant at the .01 level. TABLE 82 MEAN NUMBER OF MONTHS INCARCERATED SINCE AGE 18 OF 277 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 61.87 3.264** 1.770* 8.111** (n=47) 2. Simple Sociopath 134.74 3.935** 5.693** (n=23) 3. Mixed 47.35 6.175** (n=66) 4. Non-Sociopath 12.19 (n=139) Mean (N=275) 39.37 ^significant at the .05 level. **significant at the .01 level. 143 TABLE 83 MEAN PERCENTAGE OF LIFE INCARCERATED SINCE AGE 18 FOR 277 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 44.55 .874 3.742** 10.673** (n=47) 2. Simple Sociopath 49.39 3.539** 7.925** (n=23) 3. Mixed 30.74 7.507** (n=66) 4. Non-Sociopath 10.15 (n=141) Mean (N=277) 24.15 ''significant at the .05 level, **significant at the .01 level. TABLE 84 MEAN PAROLE VIOLATIONS OF 277 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath .787 1.622 1.375 5.458** (n=47) 2. Simple Sociopath 1.261 2.368* 4.093** (n=23) 3. Mixed .576 3.877** (n=66) 4. Non-Sociopath .150 (n=140) Mean (N=276) .453 *significant at the .05 level. **significant at the .01 level. 144 TABLE 85 MEAN NUMBER OF ESCAPES OF 277 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath .19 3.436** 1.242 2.717** (n=47) 2. Simple Sociopath .78 4.062** 4.623** (n=23) 3. Mixed .11 1.859* (n=66) 4. Non-Sociopath .03 (n=140) Mean (N=276) .28 *significant at the .05 level, **significant at the .01 level. TABLE 86 MEAN INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENT SCORES OF 277 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 104.26 .043 .370 1.996* (n=47) 2. Simple Sociopath 104.44 .306 1.386 (n=23) 3. Mixed 103.24 1.907* (n=66) 4. Non-Sociopath 99.25 (n=141) Mean (N=277) 101.48 *significant at the .05 level. TABLE 87 MEAN CLECKLEY CHECKLIST SCORES OF 277 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 10.26 .555 2.719** 4.087** (n=47) 2. Simple Sociopath 9.96 1.758* 2.632** (n=23) 3. Mixed 8.97 .750 (n=66) 4. Non-Sociopath 8.65 (n=141) Mean • (N=277) 9.11 *significant at the .05 level, ^significant at the .01 level. 146 TABLE .88 MEAN LIE (L) SUBSCALE SCORES OF 219 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 5.10 .184 .248 .545 (n=4l) 2. Simple Sociopath 5.33 .616 1.027 (n=18) 3. Mixed 4.83 .816 (n=59) 4. Non-Sociopath 4.52 (n=100) Mean (N=219) 4.78 TABLE 89 MEAN INFREQUENCY (F) SUBSCALE SCORES OF 219 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 6.31 1.252 .265 1.851** (n=42) 2. Simple Sociopath 5.06 1.589 .471 (n=18) 3. Mixed 6.59 2.285* (n=59) 4. Non-Sociopath 4.71 (n=100) Mean (N=219) 5.55 *significant at the .05 level. **significant at the .01 level. 147 TABLE 90 MEAN CORRECTION (K) SUBSCALE SCORES OF 219 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 18.19 .767 1.435 1.851* (n=42) 2.. Simple Sociopath 16.56 1.123 1.922* (n=18) 3. Mixed 15.31 .995 (n~59) 4. Non-Sociopath 14.53 (n=100) _____ Mean (N=219) 15.61 •Significant at the .05 level. TABLE 91 MEAN HYPOCHONDRIASIS (Hs) SUBSCALE SCORES OF 219 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 13.05 .401 1.528 .331 (n=42) 2. Simple Sociopath 13.50 .869 .180 (n=18) 3. Mixed 14.54 1.384 (n=59) 4. Non-Sociopath 13.31 (n=10Q) _____ Mean (N=219) 13.61 148 TABLE 92 MEAN DEPRESSION (D) SUBSCALE SCORES OF 219 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 20.29 .101 2.196* 1.282 (n=42) 2. Simple Sociopath 20.44 1.416 .753 (n=18) 3. Mixed 22.56 1.215 (n=59) 4. Non-Sociopath 21.54 (n=100) Mean (N=219) 21.48 *significant at the .05 level. TABLE 93 MEAN HYSTERIA (Hy) SUBSCALE SCORES OF 219 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 19.43 1.292 3.013** 1.769* (n=42) 2. Simple Sociopath 21.28 .713 .208 (n=18) 3. Mixed 22.25 1.595 (n=59) 4. Non-Sociopath 21.00 (n=100) Mean (N=219) 21.06 *significant at the .05 level. **significant at the .01 level. 149 TABLE 94 MEAN PSYCHOPATHIC DEVIATE (Pd) SUBSCALE SCORES OF 219 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 31.62 1.303 2.240* 3.841** (n=42) 2. Simple Sociopath 29.50 .728 2.523** (n=18) 3. Mixed 28.64 3.045** (n=59) 4. Non-Sociopath 26.58 (n=100) Mean • (N=219) 28.34 *significant at the .05 level. **significant at the .01 level. TABLE 95 MEAN MASCULINITY-FEMINITY (Mf) SUBSCALE SCORES OF 219 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Group;______Mean______t-values______ 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 22.79 .170 .503 .336 (n=42) 2. Simple Sociopath 22.56 .189 .338 (n=18) 3. Mixed 22.29 .846 (n=59) 4. Non-Sociopath 23.06 (n=100) _____ Mean (N=219) 22.76 150 TABLE 96 MEAN PARANOIA (Pa) SUBSCALE SCORES OF 219 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 10.88 .872 .332 .503 (n=42) 2.. Simple Sociopath 9.67 1.156 .756 (n=18) 3, Mixed 10.42 .377 (n=59) 4. Non-Sociopath 10.18 (n=100) Mean (N=219) 10.34 - TABLE 97 MEAN PSYCHASTHENIA (Pt) SUBSCALE SCORES OF 219 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 27.95 1.499 .045 .964 (n=42) 2. Simple Sociopath 25.17 2.719** 1.148 (n=18) 3. Mixed 23.03 2.057** (n=59) 4. Non-Sociopath 26.26 (n=100) Mean (N=219) 26.97 **significant at the .01 level. 151 TABLE 98 MEAN SCHIZOPHRENIA (Sc) SUBSCALE SCORES OF 219 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 28.52 1.564 .728 1.305 (n=42) 2. Simple Sociopath 25.39 1.294 .563 (n=18) 3. Mixed 27.00 .881 (n=59) 4. Non-Sociopath 25.96 (n=100) Mean (N=219) 26.69 TABLE 99 MEAN HYPOMANIA (Ma) SUBSCALE OF 219 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 22.74 1.873* 2.525** 3.559** (n=42) 2. Simple Sociopath 20.56 .336 .934 (n=18) 3. Mixed 20.19 .691 (n=59) 4. Non-Sociopath 20.56 (n=100) Mean (N=219) 20.46 *significant at the .05 level. **significant at the .01 level. 152 TABLE 100 MEAN SOCIAL INTROVERSION (Si) SUBSCALE SCORES OF 219 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 20.88 1.038 3.269** 3.007** (n=42) 2. Simple Sociopath 23.33 1.481 1.074 (n=18) 3. Mixed 26.85 .710 (n=59) 4. Non-Sociopath 25.70 (n=100) Mean (N=219) 24.88 **signif icant at the .01 level. TABLE 101 MEAN ANOMIE SCALE SCORES OF 277 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 15.26 .806 .000 .875 (n=43) 2. Simple Sociopath 14.44 .819 1.484 (n=23) 3. Mixed 15.26 .900 (n=66) 4. Non-Sociopath 14.44 (n=141) Mean (N=277) 15.48 153 TABLE 102 MEAN CRIMINALITY LEVEL INDEX SCORES OF 277 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 85.17 2.959** 2.041* 3.835** (n=47) 2. Simple Sociopath 74.13 1.325 .314 (n=23) 3. Mixed 78.94 1.535 (n=66) 4. Non-Sociopath 75.16 (n=141) Mean (N=277) 77.67 ^significant at the .05 level, **significant at the .01 level. TABLE 103 MEAN LEVEL OF CUSTODY ASSIGNMENT OF 277 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 2.70 .597 3.388** 4.231** (n=46) 2. Simple Sociopath 2.83 1.990* 2.400** (n=23) 3. Mixed 3.24 .384 (n=66) 4. Non-Sociopath 3.29 (n=141) Mean (N=276) 3.14 *significant at the .05 level, ^significant at the .01 level. 154 TABLE 104 MEAN LEVEL OF SUPERVISION ASSIGNMENT OF 277 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 3.00 .428 .799 2.268** (n=46) 2. Simple Sociopath 2.96 1.201 2.621** (n=23) 3. Mixed 3.08 1.446 (n=66) 4. Non-Sociopath 3.20 (n=141) Mean (N=276) 3.12 **significant at the .01 level. TABLE 105 DESIGNATED PSYCHOLOGICAL DIAGNOSIS OF 277 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS (IN PERCENTAGES) Sociopath a Total Group: Anti-social Dyssocial Other Percent 1. Hostile Sociopath 10.64% 36.17% 53.19% 100.00% 2. Simple Sociopath 21.74 8.70 69.56 100.00 (n=23) 3. Mixed 7.58 27.27 65.15 100.00 (n=66) . 4. Non-Sociopath 1.42 9.93 88.65 100.00 (n=141) Mean (N=277) 6.14 18.41 75.45 100.00 aChi-square could not be computed on this variable due to the excess of expected frequencies that were less than 5. 155 TABLE 106 MEAN PSYCHOLOGICAL PROGNOSIS OF ADJUSTMENT SCORES OF 277 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 3.30 .336 1.449 2.540** (n=46) 2. Simple Sociopath 3.22 .730 1.470 (n=23) 3. Mixed 3.05 1.267 (n=66) 4. Non-Sociopath 2.89 (n=141) Mean (N=276) 3.02 **significant at the .01 level. TABLE 107 DRUG ADDICTIONS OF 277 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS (IN PERCENTAGES) Total Group: Drugs Alcohol None Percent 1. Hostile Sociopath 8.51% 29.78% 61.70% 100.00% (n=47) 2. Simple Sociopath 0.00 31.81 68.19 100.00 (n=23) 3. Mixed 4.61 29.79 61.70 100.00 (n=66) 4. Non-Sociopath 4.96 24.82 70.22 100.00 (n=141) ____ Mean (N=277) 5.05 24.55 70.40 1 0 0 .0 0 156 TABLE 108 MEAN HOUSEHOLD MOBILITY FREQUENCY OF 277 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 2.72 2.004* .277 1.828* (n=47) 2. Simple Sociopath 1.74 2.121* .473 (n=23) 3. Mixed 2.58 1.953* (n=66) 4. Non-Sociopath 1.88 (n=141) Mean (N=277) 2.18 *significant at the .05 level. TABLE 109 MEAN LYKKEN SCALE SCORES OF 277 CONSECUTIVE ADMISSIONS Group: Mean t-values 2 3 4 1. Hostile Sociopath 16.85 10.189** 7.705** 9.890** (n=47) 2. Simple Sociopath 10.00 2.677** 1.834* (n=23) 3. Mixed 11.76 1.224 (n=66) 4. Non-Sociopath 11.06 (n=141) Mean (N=277) 12.12 ^significant at the .05 level. **significant at the .01 level. TABLE 110 SIGN TEST COMPARISONS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON VARIABLE 1 (AGE) Comparison of £ between Sociopath Comparison of £ between Sociopath Variable 1 and Variable; Hostile Simple Variable 1 and Variable: Hostile Simple 2 + - 21 - 4- 3 + - 22 - + 4 + - 23 4- - 5 - + 24 + - 6 - 4- 25 + - 7 4- - 26 - 4- 8 + - 27 - + 9 - • + 28 - 4* 10 - 4- 29 - + 11 - 4- 30 - 4- 12 - 4- 31 - 4" 13 4* - 32 - + 14 4* - 33 - + 15 H* - 34 - 4- 16 + - 35 - 4* 17 + - 36 - + 18 - 4- 37 - 4- 19 - 4- 38 - + 20 + - 39 - 4- Total Pluses 14 24 Minuses 24 14 TABLE 111 SIGN TEST COMPARISONS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON VARIABLE 2 (NUMBER OF TIMES WED) Comparison of r between Sociopath Comparison of r between Sociopath Variable 2 and Variable:_____ Hostile Simple_____ Variable 2 and Variable:_____ Hostile_____ Simple 1 + - 21 - + 3 - + 22 - + 4 - + 23 - + 5 + - 24 + ‘ 6 - + 25 + - 7 - + 26 - + 8 + - 27 - + 9 + - 28 - + 10 + - 29 - + 11 + - 30 - + 12 - + 31 - + 13 + - 32 - + 14 - + 33 + - 15 - + 34 - + 16 - + 35 - + 17 + - 36 - + 18 + - 37 - + 19 + - 38 + - 20 - + 39 - + Total Pluses 14 24 24 14 TABLE 112 SIGN TEST COMPARISONS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON VARIABLE 3 (NUMBER OF CHILDREN) Comparison of r between Sociopath Comparison of r between Sociopath Variable 3 and Variable: Hostile Simple Variable 3 and Variable: Hostile Simple 1 + 21 . + 2 , + 22 - + 4 - + 23 + . - 5 + - 24 - + 6 - + 25 - + 7 - + 26 - + 8 + - 27 + - 9 + - 28 + - 10 - + 29 + - 11 - 30 + - 12 - + 31 - + 13 - + 32 - + 14 + - 33 - + 15 + - 34 + - 16 - + 35 + - 17 + - 36 - + 18 + - 37 + - 19 + - 38 + - 20 + 39 + Total Pluses 19 19 Minuses 19 19 159 TABLE 113 SIGN TEST COMPARISONS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON VARIABLE 4 (NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN FAMILY OF ORIENTATION Comparison of r between Sociopath Comparison of r between Sociopath Variable 4 and Variable:_____ Hostile Simple_____ Variable 4 and Variable;_____ Hostile_____ Simple 1 + 21 - + 2 - + 22 - + 3 + - 23 + - 5 + - 24 + - 6 - + 25 - + 7 - + 26 - + 8 + - 27 + - 9 + - 28 + - 10 - + 29 + - 11 - + 30 + - 12 - + 31 - + 13 - + 32 - + 14 + - 33 - + 15 + - 34 + - 16 - + 35 + - 17 + - 36 - + 18 + - 37 + - 19 + - 38 + - 20 + - 39 - + Total Pluses 21 17 • Minuses 17 21 TABLE 114 SIGN TEST COMPARISONS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON VARIABLE 5 (SIZE OF FAMILY OF ORIENTATION) Comparison of r between Sociopath Comparison of r between Sociopath Variable 5 and Variable: Hostile Simple Variable 5 and Variable: Hostile Simple 1 + 21 + 2 + - 22 - + 3 + - 23 - + 4 - + 24 - + 6 - + 25 - + 7 0 0 26 + - 8 - + 27 - + 9 + - 28 - + 10 + - 29 - + 11 + - 30 + - 12 + - 31 + - 13 - + 32 + - 14 - + 33 + - 15 - + 34 - + 16 - + 35 - + 17 + - 36 + - 18 + - 37 + - 19 + - 38 - + 20 + 39 + Total Pluses 17 20 Minuses 20 17 161 TABLE 115 SIGN TEST COMPARISONS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON VARIABLE 6 (LAST GRADE COMPLETED IN SCHOOL) Comparison of r between Sociopath Comparison of jc between Sociopath Variable 6 and Variable: Hostile Simple Variable 6 and Variable: Hostile Simple 1 + 21 + 2 + 22 - + 3 - + 23 - + 4 - + 24 + - 5 - + 25 + - 7 + - 26 + - 8 - + 27 + - 9 - + 28 + - 10 - + 29 - 4- 11 - + 30 - + 12 + - 31 - + 13 - + 32 - + 14 - + 33 - + 15 + - 34 - + 16 + - 35 - + 17 + - 36 - + 18 + - 37 - + 19 - + 38 - + 20 + 39 + Total Pluses 13 25 Minuses 25 13 162 TABLE 116 SIGN TEST. COMPARISONS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON VARIABLE 7 (I. Q.) Comparison of r between Sociopath Comparison of r between Sociopath Variable 7 and Variable:_____ Hostile Simple_____ Variable 7 and Variable:_____ Hostile_____ Simple 1 + - 21 - + 2 - + 22 + - 3 - + 23 - + 4 0 0 24 - + 5 + - 25 - + 6 - + 26 - + 8 - + 27 - + 9 + - 28 + - 10 - + 29 - + 11 -h - 30 + - 12 - + 31 + - 13 - + 32 - + 14 - + 33 - + 15 + - 34 + - 16 + - 35 - + 17 - + 36 - + 18 + - 37 - + 19 + - 38 - + 20 + - 39 + - Total Pluses 15 22 Minuses 22 15 TABLE 117 SIGN TEST COMPARISONS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON VARIABLE 8 (RURAL-URBAN BACKGROUND) Comparison of r between Sociopath Comparison of r between Sociopath Variable 8 and Variable:_____ Hostile Simple_____ Variable 8 and Variable:_____ Hostile Simple 1 + - 21 + - 2 + - 22 - + 3 + - 23 - + 4 - + 24 + - 5 - + 25 - + 6 - + 26 - + 7 - + 27 + - 9 - + 28 - + 10 - + 29 - + 11 - + 30 - + 12 - + 31 + - 13 - + 32 - + 14 - + 33 - + 15 - + 34 + - 16 - + 35 + - 17 + - 36 - + 18 - + 37 - + 19 - + 38 - + 20 + 39 + • Total Pluses 10 28 Minuses 28 10 TABLE 118 SIGN TEST COMPARISONS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON VARIABLE 9 (SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS) Comparison of r between Sociopath Comparison of r between Sociopath Variable 9 and Variable: Hostile Simple Variable 9 and Variable: Hostile Simple 1 + 21 _ + 2 + - 22 - + 3 + - 23 - + 4 + - 24 + - 5 - + 25 - + 6 + - 26 - + 7 - + 27 + - 8 + - 28 - + 10 - + 29 + 11 + - 30 + - 12 - + 31 + - 13 - + 32 ■ + - 14 - + 33 + - 15 - + 34 + - 16 - + 35 + - 17 - + 36 + - 18 - + 37 - + 19 - + 38 - + 20 + 39 + Total Pluses 17 21 Minuses 21 17 165 TABLE 119 SIGN TEST COMPARISONS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON VARIABLE 10 (HOUSEHOLD MOBILITY) Comparison of r between Sociopath Comparison of r between Sociopath Variable 10 and Variable: Hostile Simple_____ Variable 10 and Variable: Hostile Simple 1 - + 21 - + 2 + - 22 - + 3 - + 23 + - 4 + - 24 + - 5 - + 25 - + 6 - + 26 + - 7 - + 27 + - 8 - + 28 - + 9 - + 29 + 11 + - 30 + - 12 - + 31 - + 13 + - 32 + - 14 - + 33 + - 15 - + 34 + - 16 + - 35 + - 17 + - 36 + - 18 + - 37 + - 19 + - 38 + - 20 - + 39 - + Total Pluses 21 17 Minuses 17 21 TABLE 120 SIGN TEST COMPARISONS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON VARIABLE 11 (PSYCHOLOGICAL PROGNOSIS OF ADJUSTMENT ON THIS COMMITMENT) Comparison of r between Sociopath Comparison of r between Sociopath Variable 11 and Variable: Hostile Simple_____ Variable 11 and Variable: Hostile_____ Simple 1 - + 21 - + 2 + - 22 + - 3 - + 23 - + 4 + - 24 - + 5 - + 25 - + 6 + - 26 + - 7 - + 27 - + 8 + - 28 - + 9 + - 29 - +' 10 + - 30 - + 12 - + 31 - + 13 + - 32 - + 14 - ■ + 33 - + 15 - + 34 - + 16 - + 35 + - 17 - + 36 + - 18 - + 37 - + 19 - + 38 - + 20 - + 39 - + Total Pluses 11 27 Minuses 27 11 TABLE 121 SIGN TEST COMPARISONS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON VARIABLE 12 (LEVEL OF CUSTODY ASSIGNMENT) Comparison of r between Sociopath Comparison of _r between Sociopath Variable 12 and Variable: Hostile Simple Variable 12 and Variable: Hostile Simple 1 + 21 + 2 - + 22 - + 3 - + 23 + - 4 + - 24 - + 5 + - 25 - + 6 - + 26 + - 7 - + 27 - + 8 - + 28 + - 9 - + 29 - +• 10 - + 30 - + 11 - + 31 - + 13 + - 32 - + 14 ■ - ■ + 33 - + 15 + - 34 - + 16 + . - 35 - + 17 - + 36 - + 18 - + 37 - + 19 - + 38 - + 20 - + 39 - + Total Pluses 9 29 Minuses 29 9 168 TABLE 122 SIGN TEST COMPARISONS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON VARIABLE 13 (LEVEL OF SUPERVISION ASSIGNMENT) Comparison of r between Sociopath Comparison of r between Sociopath Variable 13 and Variable: Hostile Simple Variable 13 and Variable: Hostile . Simple _ 1 + 21 + 2 + - 22 + - 3 - + 23 - + 4 - + 24 + - 5 - + 25 - + 6 - + 26 - + 7 - + 27 - + 8 - + 28 + - 9 + - 29 - +• 10 + - 30 + - 11 + - 31 + - 12 + - 32 + - 14 + - 33 - + 15 - + 34 + - 16 + - 35 - + 17 + - 36 + - 18 - + 37 + - 19 - + 38 - + 20 - + 39 + - Total Pluses 20 18 Minuses 18 ' 20 169 TABLE 123 SIGN TEST COMPARISONS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON VARIABLE 14 (NUMBER OF ESCAPES) Comparison of r between Sociopath Comparison of _r between Sociopath Variable 14 and Variable: Hostile Simple_____ Variable 14 and Variable:____ Hostile_____ Simple 1 + - 21 - + 2 - + 22 - + 3 + - 23 - + 4 - + 24 - + 5 - + 25 - + 6 - + 26 + - 7 - .+ 27 - + 8 - + 28 - + 9 - + 29 - +• 10 - + 30 - + 11 - + 31 - + 12 + - 32 - + 13 - + 33 - + 15 - + 34 + - 16 + 35 - + 17 - + 36 - + 18 + - 37 - + 19 + - 38 - + 20 + 39 + Total Pluses 9 29 Minuses 29 9 TABLE 124 SIGN TEST COMPARISONS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON VARIABLE 15 (NUMBER OF MONTHS IN MILITARY SERVICE) Comparison of r between Sociopath Comparison of r between Sociopath Variable 15 and Variable: Hostile Simple Variable 15 and Variable: Hostile Simple 1 + 21 + 2 - + 22 + - 3 + - 23 - + 4 - + 24 + - 5 + - 25 - + 6 + - 26 - + 7 - + 27 + - 8 - + 28 + - 9 - + 29 - +• 10 - + 30 - + 11 + - 31 - + 12 - ■f 32 - + 13 - + 33 - + 14 - + 34 - + 16 + - 35 - + 17 + - 36 - + 18 - + 37 - + 19 - + 38 - + 20 - + 39 + - Total Pluses 13 25 Minuses 25 13 171 TABLE 125 SIGN TEST COMPARISONS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON VARIABLE 16 (NUMBER OF PAROLE VIOLATIONS) Comparison of r between Sociopath Comparison of r between Sociopath Variable 16 and Variable:____ Hostile Simple Variable 16 and Variable_____ Hostile_____ Simple 1 + - 21 - + 2 - + 22 - + 3 - + 23 + - 4 - + 24 - + 5 + - 25 - + 6 + - 26 + - 7 - + 27 - + 8 - + 28 0 0 9 + - 29 - + 10 - + 30 + - 11 + - 31 - + 12 + - 32 - + 13 - + 33 - + 14 + - 34 - + 15 - + 35 + - 17 - + 36 + - 18 - + 37 - + 19 - + 38 - + 20 + 39 + Total Pluses 12 25 Minuses 25 12 TABLE 126 SIGN TEST COMPARISONS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON VARIABLE 17 (NUMBER OF ARRESTS NOT CLEARED BY DISMISSAL) Comparison of r between Sociopath Comparison of r between Sociopath Variable 17 and Variable:____ Hostile Simple_____ Variable 17 and Variable:____ Hostile_____ Simple 1 + - 21 + - 2 + - 22 + - 3 + - 23 + - 4 + - 24 + - 5 + - 25 + - 6 - + 26 - + 7 + - 27 - + 8 - + 28 + - 9 + - 29 + 10 + - 30 - + 11 - + 31 - + 12 + - 32 + - 13 - + 33 - + 14 + - 34 - + 15 - + 35 + - 16 + - 36 + - 18 + - 37 + - 19 + - 38 + - 20 + - 39 + - Total Pluses 27 11 Minuses 11 27 TABLE 127 SIGN TEST COMPARISONS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON VARIABLE 18 (HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON NUMBER OF INCARCERATIONS) Comparison of .r between Sociopath Comparison of r between Sociopath Variable 18 and Variable: Hostile Simple Variable 18 and Variable: Hostile Simple 1 + 21 + 2 + - 22 + - 3 + - 23 + - 4 + - 24 - + 5 + - 25 - + 6 + - 26 - + 7 - + 27 - + 8 - + 28 + - 9 + - 29 - +• 10 - + 30 - + 11 - + 31 - + 12 - + 32 - + 13 + - 33 - + 14 - + 34 - + 15 - + 35 - + 16 + - 36 - + 17 + - 37 + - 19 + - 38 - + 20 - + 39 - + Total Pluses 14 24 Minuses 24 14 174 TABLE 128 SIGN TEST COMPARISONS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON VARIABLE 19 (LENGTH OF TIME INCARCERATED) Comparison of r between Sociopath Comparison of r between Sociopath Variable 19 and Variable: Hostile Simple_____ Variable 19 and Variable: Hostile_____ Simple 1 - + 21 - + 2 + - 22 - + 3 + - 23 + - 4 + - 24 + - 5 - + 25 - + 6 + - 26 + - 7 - + 27 - + 8 - + 28 - + 9 + - 29 - +• 10 - + 30 - + 11 - + 31 - + 12 - + 32 - + 13 + - 33 - + 14 - + 34 - + 15 - + 35 - + 16 + - 36 - + 17 + - 37 - + 18 - + 38 - + 20 - + 39 - + Total Pluses 11 27 Minuses 27 11 TABLE 129 SIGN TEST COMPARISONS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON VARIABLE 20 (LENGTH OF TIME INCARCERATED SINCE AGE 18) Comparison of r between Sociopath Comparison of r between Sociopath Variable 20 and Variable: Hostile Simple_____ Variable 20 and Variable: Hostile_____ Simple 1 + - 21 - + 2 - + 22 - + 3 + - 23 + - 4 - + 24 + - 5 + - 25 - + 6 + - 26 + - 7 - + 27 - + 8 + - 28 - + 9 - + 29 - +■ 10 - + 30 - + 11 - + 31 - + 12 - + 32 - + 13 + 33 - + 14 - + 34 - + 15 - + 35 - + 16 + - 36 - + 17 + - 37 - + 18 - + 38 - + 19 - + 39 - + Total Pluses 11 27 Minuses 27 11 TABLE 130 SIGN TEST COMPARISONS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON VARIABLE 21 (PERCENTAGE OF LIFE INCARCERATED SINCE AGE 18) Comparison of x between Sociopath Comparison of _r between Sociopath Variable 21 and Variable: Hostile Simple Variable 21 and Variable: Hostile Simple 1 + 20 + 2 - + 22 + - 3 - + 23 - 4* 4 - + 24 + - 5 + - 25 + - 6 - + 26 + - 7 + - 27 - 4* 8 - + 28 - 4* 9 - + 29 - 4-' 10 - + 30 - 4- 11 + - 31 - 4- 12 + - 32 - + 13 - + 33 - + . 14 + - 34 + - 15 - + 35 - + 16 + - 36 - 4* 17 - + 37 - + 18 - + 38 - 4- 19 - + 39 - 4- Total Pluses 12 26 Minuses 26 12 177 TABLE 131 SIGN TEST COMPARISONS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON VARIABLE 22 (CLECKLEY CRITERIA) Comparison of r between Sociopath Comparison of r between Sociopath Variable 22 and Variable: Hostile Simple Variable 22 and Variable: Hostile Simple 1 _ + 20 + 2 - + 21 - + 3 - + 23 + - 4 - + 24 - + 5 - + 25 - + 6 + - 26 + - 7 - + 27 + - 8 - + 28 - + 9 - + 29 - + 10 - + 30 - + 11 - + 31 + - 12 + - 32 - + 13 - + 33 - + 14 + - 34 - + 15 - + 35 - + 16 + - 36 - + 17 + - 37 - + 18 - + 38 + - 19 - + 39 + - Total Pluses 12 26 Minuses 26 12 178 TABLE 132 SIGN TEST COMPARISONS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON VARIABLE 23 (PSYCHOPATHIC DEVIATE MINUS PSYCHASTHENIA SUBSCALE) Comparison of r between Sociopath Comparison of r between Sociopath Variable 23 and Variable: Hostile Simple_____ Variable 23 and Variable: Hostile_____ Simple 1 + - 20 - + 2 - + 21 + - 3 + - 22 + - 4 - + 24 + - 5 - + 25 - + 6 - + 26 - + 7 - + 27 + - 8 - + 28 - + 9 + - 29 + -■ 10 - + 30 + - 11 - + 31 + - 12 - + 32 + - 13 - + 33 + - 14 - + 34 - + 15 + - 35 + - 16 + - 36 + - 17 + - 37 + - 18 + - 38 - + 19 + 39 + Total Pluses 20 18 Minuses 18 20 TABLE 133 SIGN TEST COMPARISONS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON VARIABLE 24 (LYKKEN SCALE) Comparison of r between Sociopath Comparison of r between Sociopath Variable 24 and Variable: Hostile Simple_____ Variable 24 and Variable: Hostile_____ Simple 1 + - 20 + - 2 + - 21 + - 3 + - 22 + - 4 - + 23 - + 5 + - 25 - + 6 - + 26 - + 7 + - 27 - + 8 + - 28 - + 9 + - 29 - +- 10 - + 30 - + 11 - + 31 - + 12 + - 32 + - 13 - + 33 - ■ + 14 + - 34 + - 15 - + 35 + - 16 + - 36 - + 17 + - 37 + - 18 - + 38 + - 19 - + 39 + - Total Pluses 20 18 Minuses 18 20 TABLE 134 SIGN TEST COMPARISONS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON VARIABLE 25 (ANOMIE SCALE) Comparison of r between Sociopath Comparison of r between Sociopath Variable 25 and Variable: Hostile Simple Variable 25 and Variable: Hostile Simple 1 + 20 + 2 + - 21 + - 3 - + 22 - + 4 - + 23 - + 5 + - 24 + - 6 - + 26 + - 7 - + 27 - + 8 - + 28 - + 9 - + 29 - + • 10 - + 30 - + 11 - + 31 - + 12 - + 32 - + 13 - + 33 - + 14 - + 34 - + 15 - + 35 - + 16 + - 36 - + 17 - + 37 - + 18 - + 38 - + 19 - + 39 - + Total Pluses 7 31 Minuses 31 7 181 TABLE 135 SIGN TEST COMPARISONS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON VARIABLE 26 (CRIMINALITY LEVEL INDEX) Comparison of r between Sociopath Comparison of _r between Sociopath Variable 26 and Variable: Hostile Simple Variable 26 and Variable: Hostile Simple 1 + 20 + . 2 - + 21 + - 3 - + 22 - + 4 + - 23 + - 5 + - 24 + - 6 - + 25 - + 7 - + 27 - + 8 - + 28 + - 9 + - 29 - +• 10 + - 30 - + 11 + - 31 - + 12 - + 32 - + 13 + - 33 - + 14 - + 34 - + 15 + - 35 - + 16 - + 36 - + 17 - + 37 - + 18 + - 38 - + 19 + - 39 + - Total Pluses 15 23 Minuses 23 15 182 TABLE 136 SIGN TEST COMPARISONS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON VARIABLE .27 (LIE SCALE) Comparison of r between Sociopath Comparison of r between Sociopath Variable 27 and Variable: Hostile Simple_____ Variable 27 and Variable: Hostile_____ Simple 1 - + 20 - + 2 - + 21 + - 3 + - 22 + - 4 - + 23 + - 5 + - 24 - + 6 - + 25 - + 7 + - 26 + - 8 + - 28 - + 9 + - 29 + -• 10 + - 30 + - 11 - + 31 - + 12 - + 32 + - 13 - + 33 + - 14 + - 34 - + 15 - + 35 + - 16 - + 36 + - 17 - + 37 + - 18 - + 38 + - 19 - + 39 - + Total Pluses 19 19 Minuses 19 19 TABLE 137 SIGN TEST COMPARISONS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON VARIABLE 28 (INFREQUENCY SUBSCALE) Comparison of r between Sociopath Comparison of r between Sociopath Variable 28 and Variable: Hostile Simple Variable 28 and Variable: Hostile Simple 1 + 20 _ + 2 - + 21 - + 3 + - 22 - + 4 - + 23 + - 5 + - 24 - + 6 + - 25 + - 7 - + 26 - + 8 - + 27 - + 9 - + 29 + -• 10 - + 30 - + 11 + - 31 - + 12 + - 32 - + 13 - + 33 + - 14 + - 34 - + 15 0 0 35 + - 16 + - 36 + - 17 + - 37 + - 18 - + 38 - + 19 - + 39 - + Total Pluses 15 22 Minuses 22 15 184 TABLE 138 SIGN TEST COMPARISONS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON VARIABLE 29 (CORRECTION SUBSCALE) Comparison of r between Sociopath Comparison of r between Sociopath Variable 29 and Variable: Hostile Simple_____ Variable 29 and Variable: Hostile_____ Simple 1 - + 20 - + 2 - + 21 - + 3 + - 22 + - 4 - + 23 - + 5 - + 24 - + 6 - + 25 - + 7 - + 26 + - 8 + - 27 + - 9 + - 28 - +• 10 - + 30 - + 11 - + 31 - + 12 - + 32 - + 13 - + 33 + - 14 - + 34 - + 15 - + 35 - + 16 + - 36 - + 17 - + 37 + - 18 - + 38 - + 19 + 39 + Total Pluses 9 29 29 9 TABLE 139 SIGN TEST COMPARISONS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON VARIABLE 30 (HYPOCHONDRIASIS SUBSCALE) Comparison of r between Sociopath Comparison of v between Sociopath Variable 30 and Variable: Hostile Simple Variable 30 and Variable: Hostile Simple 1 + 20 + 2 - + 21 - + 3 + - 22 + - 4 + - 23 - + 5 - + 24 - + 6 + - 25 - + 7 - + 26 + - 8 + - 27 - + 9 + - 28 - +- 10 - + 29 - + 11 - + 31 - + 12 + - 32 - + 13 - + 33 - + 14 - + 34 - + 15 + - 35 + - 16 - + 36 - + 17 - + 37 - + 18 - + 38 - + 19 - + 39 - + Total Pluses 10 28 Minuses 28 . 10 186 TABLE 140 SIGN TEST COMPARISONS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON VARIABLE 31 (DEPRESSION SUBSCALE) Comparison of r between Sociopath Comparison of r between Sociopath Variable 31 and Variable: Hostile Simple_____ Variable 31 and Variable; Hostile_____ Simple 1 - + 20 - + 2 - + 21 - + 3 - + 22 - + 4 + - 23 - + 5 - + 24 - + 6 + - 25 - + 7 + - 26 + - 8 + - 27 + - 9 - + 28 - +• 10 - + 29 - + 11 - + 30 - + 12 + - 32 - + 13 - + 33 - + 14 - + 34 - + 15 - + 35 - + 16 - + 36 - + 17 - + 37 - + 18 - + 38 - + 19 - + 39 - + Total Pluses 7 31 Minuses 31 7 TABLE 140 SIGN TEST COMPARISONS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON VARIABLE 32 (HYSTERIA SUBSCALE) Comparison of r between Sociopath Comparison of r between Sociopath Variable 32 and Variable: Hostile Simple_____ Variable 32 and Variable: Hostile_____ Simple 1 - + 20 - + 2 - + 21 - + 3 - + 22 + - 4 + - 23 - + 5 - + 24 - + 6 - + 25 - + 7 - + 26 + - 8 + - 27 - + 9 + - 28 - +■ 10 + - 29 - + 11 - + 30 - + 12 + - 31 - + 13 - + 33 + - 14 - + 34 - + 15 - + 35 - + 16 + - 36 - + 17 - + 37 - + 18 - + 38 - + 19 - + 39 - + Total Pluses 9 29 Minuses 29 9 TABLE 142 SIGN TEST COMPARISONS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON VARIABLE 33 (HYSTERIA SUBSCALE) Comparison of r between Sociopath Comparison of r between Sociopath Variable 33 and Variable: Hostile Simple_____ Variable 33 and Variable: Hostile_____ Simple 1 - + 20 - + 2 + - 21 - + 3 - + 22 + - 4 + - 23 - + 5 - + 24 - + 6 - + 25 - + 7 - + 26 + - 8 + - 27 + - 9 + - 28 + -■ 10 - + 29 - + 11 - + 30 - + 12 - + 31 + - 13 - + 32 - + 14 - + 34 - + 15 - + 35 - + 16 - + 36 - + 17 - + 37 - + 18 - + 38 - + 19 + 39 + Total Pluses 9 29 Minuses 29 9 TABLE 143 SIGN TEST COMPARISONS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON VARIABLE 34 (MASCULINITY-FEMINITY SUBSCALE) Comparison of r between Sociopath Comparison of z between Sociopath Variable 34 and Variable: Hostile Simple Variable 34 and Variable: Hostile Simple 1 + 20 + _ 2 - + 21 - + 3 + - 22 - + 4 - + 23 - + 5 - + 24 - + 6 + - 25 - + 7 + - 26 - + 8 + - 27 - + 9 + - 28 - +• 10 - + 29 - + 11 - + 30 - + 12 + - 31 - + 13 + - 32 - + 14 - + 33 - + 15 - + 35 - + 16 - + 36 - + 17 - + 37 - + 18 - + 38 - + 19 - + 39 - + Total Pluses 8 30 Minuses 30 8 190 TABLE 144 SIGN TEST COMPARISONS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON VARIABLE 35 (PARANOIA SUBSCALE) Comparison of r between Sociopath Comparison of r between Sociopath Variable 35 and Variable: Hostile Simple Variable 35 and Variable: Hostile Simple 1 + 20 . + 2 - + 21 - + 3 + - 22 + - 4 - + 23 - + 5 - + 24 - + 6 - + 25 - + 7 + - 26 + - 8 + - 27 + - 9 + - 28 - +■ 10 - + 29 + - 11 - + 30 - + 12 - + 31 - + 13 - + 32 - + 14 - + 33 - + 15 + - 34 - + 16 + - 36 - + 17 - + 37 - + 18 - + 38 - + 19 - + 39 - + Total Pluses 10 28 Minuses 28 10 191 TABLE 145 SIGN TEST COMPARISONS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON VARIABLE 36 (PSYCHASTHENIA SUBSCALE) Comparison, of r between Sociopath Comparison of t between Sociopath Variable 36 and Variable: Hostile Simple Variable 36 and Variable_____ Hostile_____ Simple 1 - + 20 - + 2 - + 21 - + 3 - + 22 + - 4 + - 23 - + 5 - + 24 - + 6 - + 25 - + 7 - + 26 + - 8 + - 27 + - 9 + - 28 - +• 10 - + 29 - + 11 - + 30 » - + 12 + - 31 _ + 13 - + 32 - + 14 - + 33 - + 15 + - 34 - + 16 + - 35 - + 17 - 4* 37 - + 18 - + 38 - + 19 - + 39 - + Total Pluses 9 29 Minuses 29 9 TABLE 146 SIGN TEST COMPARISONS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON VARIABLE 37 (SCHIZOPHRENIA SUBSCALE) Comparison of r between Sociopath Comparison of r between Sociopath Variable 37 and Variable: Hostile Simple Variable 37 and Variable: Hostile Simple 1 - + 20 - + 2 - + 21 - + 3 + - 22 + - 4 + - 23 + - 5 - + 24 - + 6 ■ - + 25 - + 7 - + 26 + - 8 - + 27 - + 9 + - 28 + 10 - + 29 - + 11 - + 30 - + 12 + - 31 - + 13 - T 32 - ■ + 14 - + 33 - + 15 - + 34 - + 16 + - 35 - + 17 - + 36 - + 18 - + 38 - + 19 + 39 + Total Pluses 9 29 Minuses 29 9 TABLE 147 SIGN TEST COMPARISONS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON VARIABLE 38 (HYPOMANIA SUBSCALE) Comparison of £ between Sociopath Comparison of r between Sociopath Variable 38 and Variable: Hostile Simple Variable 38 and Variable: Hostile Simple 1 - + 20 - + 2 + - 21 + - 3 + - 22 - + 4 - + 23 - + 5 - + 24 - + 6 - + 25 - + 7 - + 26 + 8 - + 27 - + 9 + - 28 - +’ 10 - + 29 - + 11 - + 30 - + 12 - + 31 - + 13 - + 32 - + 14 - + 33 - + 15 - + 34 - + 16 + - 35 - + 17 + - 36 - + 18 - + 37 - + 19 + 39 + • Total Pluses 7 31 Minuses 31 7 TABLE 148 SIGN TEST COMPARISONS OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HOSTILE AND SIMPLE SOCIOPATHS ON VARIABLE 39 (SOCIAL INTROVERSION SUBSCALE) Comparison of r between Sociopath Comparison of r between Sociopath Variable 39 and Variable: Hostile Simple Variable 39 and Variable: Hostile Simple 1 - + 20 - + 2 - + 21 + - 3 - + 22 - + 4 + - 23 + - 5 - + 24 - + 6 + - 25 + - 7 - + 26 - + 8 - + 27 - + 9 - + 28 - + 10 - + 29 - + 11 - + 30 - + 12 + - 31 - + 13 + - 32 - + 14 + - 33 - + 15 - + 34 - + 16 + - 35 - + 17 - + 36 - + 18 - + 37 - + 19 + 38 + Total Pluses 9 29 Minuses 29 9 APPENDIX C 197 ACTIVITY PREFERENCE QUESTIONNAIRE Directions: In each item below, there are two activities or occurrences listed. Many of them are more or less unpleasant. Imagine that, under normal circumstances, you were forced to do one or the other of each pair. Which one would you choose? Choose the one of each pair that you would rather do or have happen and write its letter (a or b) in the parentheses beside that item. Example: 0. (a) Hitting your thumb with a hammer; (b) Being run over by a train. 1. (a) Having a gabby old woman sit down next to you on the bus; (b) Going out to dinner with someone for the first time. 2. (a) Cleaning up a spilled bottle of syrup; (b) Knocking over a glass in a restaurant. 3. (a) Having to cancel your vacation; (b) Standing on a ledge of the 25th floor of a building. 4. (a) Having to "go out" with a visiting relative; (b) Having to introduce someone whose name you've forgotten. 5. (a) Getting up to go to work in the morning; (b) Getting a Christmas present from someone you didn't give one to. 6. (a) Spending a week in solitary on bread and water; (b) Being broke and having to beg money on the street for a meal. 7. (a) Spending an evening with some boring people; (b) Being seen naked by a neighbor. 8. (a) Reading a dull book for a school report; (b) Getting a threatening letter, 9. (a) Losing some money through a hole in your pocket; (b) Being bawled out by a teacher. 10. (a) Whitewashing a long board fence; (b) Being called on in school. 11. (a) Putting 1000 names in alphabetical order; (b) Getting caught at something. 198 12. (a) Cleaning out a cess-pool; (b) Having an accident with a borrowed car. 13. (a) Having to stay home every night for two weeks with a sick relative; (b) Falling down and breaking your arm. 14. (a) Being bossed around by someone for a full day; (b) Being in an air raid. 15. (a) Getting up to answer the phone and finding it's a wrong number; (b) Having to ask where the bathroom is at a party. 16. (a) Getting stuck in traffic when you're in a hurry; (b) Finding you've lost your bus-fare when it's time to pay and get off. 17. (a) Washing the dinner dishes; (b) Walking alone late at night. 18. (a) Just sitting around with nothing to do on Sunday after noon; (b) Being introduced to some new people. o 19. (a) Working all day when it's 90 in the shade; (b) Asking someone to pay you money that he owes you. 20. (a) Having to walk five miles for gas; (b) Having a tooth pulled by the dentist. 21. (a) Waiting for an over-due bus; (b) Having to complain to the neighbors about being too noisy. 22. (a) Carrying a ton of coal from the backyard into the base ment; (b) Finding a dead body in an alley. 23. (a) Having a sick headache; (b) Having your name in the papers for drunken driving. 24. (a) Sewing on a button; (b) Being interviewed for a job. 25. (a) Memorizing something for a test in school; (b) Being sent to the principal's office when you were in school. 26. (a) Banging your head on a cabinet door; (b) Going to work or to school with a black eye. 27. (a) Changing a baby's diaper; (b) Going to a doctor for a physical. 28. Digging a big rubbish pit; (b) Making a parachute jump. 199 ) 29. (a) Having a friendly dog jump up on you with wet and muddy feet; (b) Bringing home a bad report card. ) 30. (a) Run a steam presser in a laundry for a week; (b) Break ing a lamp at someone else's home. ) 31. (a) Walking a mile when it's 15 degrees below zero; (b) Swimming where sharks have been reported. ) 32. (a) Having the phone ring when you're taking a bath; (b) Having a barking dog run after you while you are walking along the street. ) 33. (a) Wanting to go out some night and not having any money; (b) Telling a lie to somebody. j 2 0 0 PART B Now we come to some items where you must indicate how much you agree or how much you disagree with the statement. Agree means that you think the statement is true; disagree means that you think the statement is false or not true. If you feel very strongly that the statement is true put an X mark in the space by the side of strongly agree. If you feel very strongly that the statement is false or not true, then put an X mark by the side of strongly disagree. If you have no feeling one way or the other and are undecided which way, put an X mark in the space next to undecided. If you feel that the statement is true, without having any strong opinion on the subject, then put an X mark in the space next to agree. If you feel the statement is false or not true, without feeling very strong on the matter put an X mark in the space next to disagree. 34. In spite of what some people say, the lot of the average men is getting worse. Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree___ Strongly Disagree__ 35. I wouldn't take a promotion, no matter how big an improvement it was for me, if it meant endangering my health. Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree____ Strongly Disagree__ 36. I'd probably turn down a substantial advancement if it involved being away from the family a good deal. Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree___ 37. It’s hardly fair for adults to bring children into the world the way things look for the future. Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree____ Strongly Disagree__ 38. Nowadays a person has to live'pretty much for today and let tomorrow take care of itself. Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree____ Strongly Disagree__ 39. I’d be all in favor of staying with a job that might never get me much prestige as a "big shot" but was a good bet as far as peace of mind is concerned. Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree____ Strongly Disagree__ 40. These days a person doesn't really know whom he can count on. Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree____ Strongly Disagree__ 41. There's little use for anybody to complain to public officials because often they aren't really interested in the problems of the average man. Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree____ Strongly Disagree__ 2 0 1 PART C The statements in this part represent experiences, ways of doing things, or beliefs or preferences that are true of some people but are not true of others. You are to read each statement and decide whether or not it is true with respect to yourself. If it is true or mostly true, circle the T; if the statement is not usually true or jLs not true at all, encircle the F. You must answer the statements as carefully and honestly as you can. There are no correct or wrong answers; we are interested in the way you work and in the things you believe. TF 42. I do not tire quickly. TF 43. I am troubled by attacks of nausea. T F 44. I believe I am no more nervous than most others. T ' F 45. I have very few headaches. T F 46. I work under a great deal of tension. T F 47. I cannot keep my mind on one thing. T F 48. I worry over money and business. T F 49. I frequently notice my hand shakes when I try to do some thing. T F 50. I blush no more often than others. TF 51. I have diarrhea once a month or more. T F 52. I worry quite a bit over possible misfortunes. T F 53. I practically never blush. T F 54. I am often afraid that I am going to blush. T F 55. I have nightmares every few nights. TF 56. My hands and feet are usually warm enough. T F 57. I sweat very easily on cool days. T F 58. Sometimes when embarrassed, I break out in a sweat which annoys me greatly. T F 59. I hardly ever notice my heart pounding and I am seldom short of breath. 2 0 2 T F 60. I feel hungry almost all the time. T F 61. I am very seldom troubled by constipation. TF 62. I have a great deal of stomach trouble. TF 63. I have had periods in which I lost sleep over worry. T F 64. My sleep is fitful and disturbed. TF 65. I dream frequently about things that are best kept to myself. I- F 66. I am easily embarrassed. T F 67. I am more sensitive than most other people. TF 68. I frequently find myself worrying about something. TF 69. I wish I could be as happy as others seem to be. TF 70. I am usually calm and not easily upset. T F 71. I cry easily. TF 72. 1 feel anxiety about something or someone almost all the time. TF 73. I am happy most of the time. TF 74. It makes me nervous to have to wait. TF 75. I have periods of such great restlessness that I cannot sit long in a chair. TF 76. Sometimes I become so excited that I find it hard to get to sleep. TF 77. I have sometimes felt that difficulties were piling up so high that I could not overcome them. TF 78. I must admit that I have at times been worried beyond reason over something that really did not matter. TF 79. I have very few fears compared to my friends. T F 80. I have been afraid of things or people that I know could not hurt me. T F 81. I certainly feel useless at times. 203 T F 82. I find it hard to keep my mind on a task or job. T F 83. I am unusually self-conscious. TF 84. I am inclined to take things hard. T F 85. I am a high-strung person. TF 86. Life is a strain for me much of the time. T F 87. At: times I think I am no good at all. T F 88. I am certainly lacking in self-confidence. T F 89. I sometimes feel that I am about to go to pieces T F 90. I shrink from facing a crisis or difficulty. TF 91. I am entirely self-confident. 204 Marital Status: (Check One) Religion: (Check one) Married Catholic _Divorced _____ Protestant Separated Jewish _S ingle None Last grade completed in school In what state were you born? In what year were you born? Type of place you grew up in as a boy: (Check one) On a farm _____ In a town (2,500- In the country but not fanners 10,000) In a village (under 2,500 people) _____ In a small city (10,000 - 50,000) In a city (50,000 and bigger) How many times have you changed the place where you lived in the last 5 years? What kind of job did you have before you came here? 205 PART D The following pages contain a number of statements about which there is no general agreement. People differ widely in the way they feel about each item. There are no right answers. The purpose of the survey is to see how different groups feel about each item. We should like your honest opinion on each of these statements. Read each item carefully and circle the answer which best expresses your feeling about the statement. Circle SA if you STRONGLY AGREE with the statement, circle A if you AGREE, circle U if you are UNDECIDED, circle D if you DISAGREE with the statement, and circle SD if you STRONGLY DISAGREE. SA A U D SD 92. The law protects property rights at the expense of human rights. SA A U D SD 93. It is all right to evade the law if you do not actually violate it. SA A U D SD 94. A person should obey the laws no matter how much they interfere with his personal ambitions. SA A U D SD 95. Personal circumstances should never be considered an excuse for law-breaking. SA A U D SD 96. A person who reports minor law violations is only a trouble maker. SA A U D SD 97. A hungry man has a right to steal. SA A U D SD 98. All laws should be strictly obeyed because they are laws. SA A U D SD 99. Laws are so often made for the benefit of small selfish groups that a man cannot respect the law. SA A U D SD 100. Violators of the law are nearly always detected and punished. SA A U D SD 101. It is all right for a person to break the law if he doesn't get caught. SA A U D SD 102. We would have less crime if our laws were more strict. SA A U D SD 103. The law does not benefit the common man. SA A U D SD 104. Our laws should be greatly revised. 206 SA A U DSD 105. If a person tries to be honest, he will never get anywhere in business. SA A U D SD 106. Most people have to do something dishonest every day. SAA U D SD 107. In order to get ahead these days, one has to realize that the laws are made to be broken. SA A U D SD 108. We have too many laws. SA A u DSD 109. The law as a whole is sound. SAA u DSD 110. I believe in the use of force to get rid of laws. SA A u D SD 111. Men are not all equal before the law. SA A u DSD 112. It is more wrong to get caught than it is to steal. SA A u DSD 113. The law is made in response to pressure of private interests. SA A u DSD 114. Nearly all laws deserve our respect. SA A u D SD 115. Crooks often hide behind the law. SA A u D SD 116. Law is the enemy of freedom. SAA u D SD 117. Individual laws are frequently unjust. SAA u DSD 118. Some parts of the law are bad. SAA u DSD 119. It is our duty to obey all laws. SAA u DSD 120. The individual who refuses to obey the law is a menace to civilization. SA A u D SD 121. The law is for the poor to obey, and for the rich to ignore. SA A u DSD 122. All laws should be overthrown. SA A u DSD 123. The law enslaves the majority of people for the benefit of a few. SA A u DSD 124. Laws are usually bad. SA A u D SD 125. We should obey the law even though we criticize it. SA A u DSD 126. The law is rotten to the core. 207 SA AU D SD 127. The judges' sentences are determined by their prejudices. SAAUD SD 128. On the whole, judges are honest and kind-hearted. SAAUD SD 129. Almost any jury can be fixed. SAAU DSD 130. Court decisions are almost always just. SA A UDSD 131. In the courts a poor man will receive as fair treat ment as a millionaire. SAA UD SD 132. My trial was a farce. SA AUD SD 133. A man should tell the truth in a court, regard less of the consequences. SAA UD SD 134. A person is justified in giving false testimony to protect a friend on trial. SAA UDSD 135. Almost anything can be fixed in courts if you have enough money. SAA UDSD 136. My trial was a fair one. SAA UD SD 137. You can't get justice in court. SAAU D SD 138. My trial did not get at all the truth. SAAUD SD 139. The big criminal always has a good chance to escape conviction in court. SAA u D SD 140. For the most part, police and the courts are just. SAA u D SD 141. A judge is a good man. SAA u D SD 142. Juries seldom understand a case well enough to make really just decisions. SAA u D SD 143. Most juries are fixed. SA A u D SD 144. Many of the people in prisons are actually innocent of the crime for which they were convicted. SAA u D SD 145. On the whole, lawyers are honest. SAA u D SD 146. Prosecutors are nothing but politicians. SAA u D SD 147. No decent lawyer would ever be a prosecutor. 208 SA A U DSD 148. Fake witnesses are often produced by the prose cutor. SAAU D SD 149. On the whole, policemen are honest. SA AU D SD 150. A cop is friend to people in need. SA AU DSD 151. Cops often carry a grudge against men who get in trouble with the law and treat them cruelly. SA AU DSD 152. Police arrest only the poor man. SAA U D SD 153. The big-time crooks never get arrested, it is just the little guy that gets caught. SAAU D SD 154. Police put on a show by arresting people. SAAU D SD 155. A policeman usually judges you as guilty. SA A U D SD 156. Police hound ex-convicts. SAAU D SD 157. Police work rests mainly upon information given by stool pigeons. SAAU D SD 158. The policeman's standing in his Department depends upon the number of arrests he makes. SAAU DSD 159. Police often use the third degree to secure confessions. SAA U D SD 160. Without the third degree the police would be helpless in combating crime. SA A UDSD 161. The police departments do not use humane methods in obtaining confessions. SA AU DSD 162. Policemen are more loyal to the. police than to the citizens. SA AU DSD 163. Influential or rich suspects are not given the third degree; it is restricted to petty or non- influential cases. SA AU DSD 164. Our society would be better off if there were more policemen. SA A U D SD 165. Policemen are seldom selected for personal merit and ability. SA AU D SD 166. Policemen are mostly poorly trained for their job. 209 SAA U DSD 167. Policemen show favoritism to politicians. SAA U DSD 168. Police rarely get their man in difficult cases. SA A U D SD 169. Police are careful not to arrest innocent persons. SA A U D SD 170. Police seldom treat suspected criminals courteously. SAA U D SD 171. Police disregard constitutional rights in the interest of efficiency. SAA U DSD 172. Police usually apprehend criminals in difficult cases. SA A U D SD 173. Policemen are mostly selected for personal merit and ability. SA A U DSD 174. You can seldom find a policeman who doesn't take bribes. SAA U DSD 175. Policemen are just as crooked as the people they arrest. SAA U D SD 176. Police rarely try to help people. SAA U D SD 177. Policemen should be paid more for their work. SA A u DSD 178. Police almost never treat suspected criminals brutally. SA A u D SD 179. Life would be better with fewer policemen. SAA u D SD 180. Police almost always respect constitutional rights of suspected criminals. 210 Marital Status: (Check One) Religion: (Check one) Married Catholic ______Divorced Protestant Separated Jewish Single None Last grade completed in school In what state were you born? In what year were you born? Type of place you grew up in as a boy: (Check one) On a farm _____ In a town (2,500- In the country but not farmers 10,000) In a village (under 2,500 people)______In a small city (10,000 - 50,000) In a city (50,000 and bigger) How many times have you changed the place where you lived in the last 5 years? What kind of job did you have before you came here? BIBLIOGRAPHY 212 Books American P s y c h i a t r i c Association. D i a gnosti c and Statistical Handbook of M e n t a l Disorders. W a s h i n g t o n , D. C.: American Psychi atric Association, 1952. Cleckley, H e r v e y . The Mask of S a n i t y . St. Louis: C. V. Mosby Company, 1950. ______. " P s y c h o p a t h i c States,M A m e r i c a n Handbook of Psychiatry. E d i t e d B y Silvano Arieti. ISIew York-: Basic Books, 1962. Garofalo, R a f f a e l e . Criminology. B o s t o n : Little, Brown and Company, 1914. Gregory, Ian. P s y c h i a t r y . Phi lade lp>hia: W . B. Saunders, 1961. Henderson, P. 1C - Psychopathic S t ates . New York: Norton, 1939. Kaelbling, Ri.ctia.-rc3 and Patterson, R a lp h . Eclectic Psychiatry. Spring field, Illinois: Charles Thomas, 1966. Kahl, Joseph A . T h e American Class Structure. New York: Rinehart, 1957 - Komarovs Icy, M i r r a . . Bitie-Collar M a r r i a g e . New York: Random House, 1964 . Lombroso, C e s a r e . C r i m e : Its C a n s e s and Remedies. Boston: Little, Brown a n d Company, 1911. Matza, David. ’’P o v e r t y and Disrepute, " Contemporary Social Problems. E d i t e d B y Robert Merton a n d Robert Nisbet. New York: Harcourt, Brace, e n d World, 1966. McCarthy, D. J - e n d Corrin, K. M. M e d i c a l Treatment of Mental Disease. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1955. McCord, W i l l i a m a n d McCord, Joan. Psychopathy and Delinquency. New York: G r e e n e a n d Stratton, 1956. Mead, G- H. M i n d , S e l f . and So ci e t y . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934. Merton, R o b e r t K . "Anomie, Anomia, a n d Social Interaction: Contexts of D e v i a n t Behavior,” Anomie a n d Deviant Behavior. Edited by Marslna 11 B. Clinard. New Y o r k : Free Press of Glencoe, 1964. 213 Noyes, Arthur and Kolb, Lawrence. Modern Clinical Psychiatry. Phila delphia: W. B. Saunders, 1963. Reckless, Walter C. "The Development of a Criminality Level Index," Interdisciplinary Problems in Criminology. Edited by Walter C. Reckless and Charles Newman. Columbus, Ohio: College of Commerce and Administration, The Ohio State University, 1965. Redl, Fritz and Wineman, David. Children Who Hate. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1951. Reiss, Albert J., Jr. Occupation and Social Status. New York: Free Press of Glencoe,- 1964. Robins, Eli. "Personality Disorders, II: Sociopathic Types: Anti- Social Disorders and Sexual Deviations," Comprehensive Text book of Psychiatry. Edited by Alfred Freeman and Harold Kaplan. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1967. Robins, Lee. Deviant Children Grown Up. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1966. Sarbin, T. R. "Role Theory," Handbook of Social Psychology. Edited by Gardner Lindzey. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1954. Schachter, Stanley and Latane, Bibb. "Crime, Cognition, and the Auto nomic Nervous System," Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Edited by D. Levine. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1964. U. S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1965. Yablonsky, Lewis. The Violent Gang. New York: Macmillan, 1962. Articles and Periodicals Eriksen, C. W. and Davis, Anthony. "The Meaning and Clinical Validity of the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale and the Hysteria-Psychas- thenia Scales from the MMPI."- Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 50, pp. 135-317. Funkenstein, D. H., Greenblatt, M., and Solomon, H. C. "Psychophysio- logical Study of Mentally 111 Patients." American Journal of Psychiatry. (1949), 106, pp. 16-28. Gough, Harrison. "A Sociological Theory of Psychopathology," American Journal of Sociology, (March, 1948), 53, pp. 359-366. 214 Labovitz, Sanford. "Criteria for Selecting a Significance Level: A Note on the Sacredness of the .05," The American Sociologist, (August, 1968), 3, pp. 220-222. Lykken, David T. "A Study of Anxiety in Sociopathic Personality," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. (1957), 55, pp. 6- 10. Maughs, Sydney. "A Concept of Psychopathy and Psychopathic Personality: Its Evolution and Historical Development," Journal of Criminal Psychopathology, (April, 1941), 2, pp. 465-499. Pescor, J. "The Psychopath,11 Federal Probation, (January, 1945), 4, pp. 28-32. Taylor, Janet A. "A Personality Test of Manifest Anxiety," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, (April, 1953), 48, pp. 285-290. Thompson, G. N. "Psychopathy," Archives of Criminal Psychodynamics. (Spring, 1961), 4, pp. 736-749. Unpublished Material Albrecht, Ruth and Sarbin, T. R. "Contributions to Role-Taking Theory: Annoyability as a Function of the Self." Unpublished manu script, 1954. Mimeographed. Baker, B. "Accuracy of Social Perceptions of Psychopathic and Non- Psychopathic Prison Inmates." Unpublished manuscript, 1954. Mimeographed. Clark, John P. "Blame Acceptance Among Ohio Prisoners." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1961.