INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “target'* for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)’*. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning** the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy. University. MiaOTlms International 300 N ZEEB ROAD. ANN ARBOR. Ml 48106 18 BEDFORD ROW, LONDON WC 1 R 4EJ. ENGLAND 8107375 Owens -Lane , Janice THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF CONCEPT, HOSPITAL ADJUSTMENT, TYPE FAMILY SETTING, AND RACE OF MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS The Ohio State University PH.D. 1980 University Microfilms International300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor,MI 48106 Copyright 1980 by Owens-Lane, Janice All Rights Reserved PLEASE NOTE: In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark ■ 1. Glossy photographs________ 2. Colored illustrations________ 3. Photographs with dark background________ 4 . Illustrations are poor copy________ 5. Dr1nt shows through as there is text on both sides of page__________ 6. Indistinct, broken or small print onseveral pages ^ 7. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine 8. Computer printout pages with indistinct print________ 9. Page(s) _____ lacking when material received, and not available from school or author 10. Page{s) ________seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows 11. Poor carbon copy_________ 12. Not original copy, several pages with blurred type_____ 13. Appendix pages are poor copy_________ 14 . Original copy with light type_________ 15. Curling and wrinkled pages_________ 16. Other _______________________________________________ University Microfilms International 300 N ZS = = SO ANN AR3QR Nil J8106'31 3) 761-4700 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF CONCEPT, HOSPITAL ADJUSTMENT, TYPE FAMILY SETTING, AND RACE OF MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Janice Owens-Lane, B.A., M.S.W. * * ★ * ★ The Ohio State University 1980 Reading Committee: Approved By Andrew Schwebel, Ph.D. Linda Myers, Ph.D. John Behling, Ph.D. Adviser Department of Psychology ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS To undertake the writing of a dissertation requires dedication and perserverance. Several people who I feel very close to have pro­ vided much support and encouragement. Before giving thanks to these individuals, I want to first give thanks to God. I wish to sincerely thank my advisor, Dr, Andrew Schwebel for his time and painstaking effort in supervising this research. My appreciation is extended to Jean Capuano and Jinunie Phillips of the Ohio Division of Forensic Psychiatry for their support. Special thanks to Dr. Linda James Myers and Dr. John Behling for serving on my General Exam Committee and Dissertation Committee. Also special thanks to Patti Watson whose superb typing skills produced this document. And to my husband, Bernie, whose constant patience and support has been invaluable, I express my deep appreciation and love. ii VITA January 11, 1949........... Bom - Winterhaven, Florida 1971........................ B*A., Wilberforce University, Wilber- force, Ohio 1973........................ M.S.W., University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1973-1974 ................. Psychiatric Social Worker, Hillsborough County Hospital, Tampa, Florida 1974-1977 ................. Social Worker, Spinal Cord Services, Moss Rehabilitation Hospital, Philadel­ phia, Pennsylvania 1977-1980 ................. Researcher I, Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, Division of Forensic Psychiatry, Columbus, Ohio FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Clinical Psychology Forensic Psychiatry. Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................. ii VITA........................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES................................................ vii LIST OF FIGURES .............................................. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ....................................... 1 Hypotheses....................... 5 II. SELF CONCEPT ....................................... 8 Parental Influence on Self Concept. ...... 8 Others* Influence on Self Concept ............. 11 Self Concept of the Mentally 111............... 14 Self Concept of Prisoners .......... 20 III. LITERATURE REVIEW................................... 26 Mentally 111 Population ....... ......... 26 Prison Population ............... 34 Mentally 111 Offender Population. ....... 39 Issue of Dangerousness.......................... 47 IV. M E T H O D .............................................. 53 Participants. ................... 53 Procedure ................... 53 Instruments..................................... 55 Tennessee Self Concept Scale. ............. 56 Katz Adjustment Scale .« ...... ..... 60 Crawford Psychological Adjustment Scale .... 62 Family Contact Interview Index. ........ 63 iv Page V. RESULTS................................................ 65 Hypothesis One..................................... 66 Hypothesis Two. ................. 66 Hypothesis Three................................... 77 Hypothesis Four ................... 79 Hypothesis F i v e ................................... 79 Correlations Between the Tennessee Self Concept Scale and the Crawford Psychological Adjustment Scale ................. 89 Correlations Bet' /een the Tennessee Self Concept Scale and the Katz Adjustment Scales (Subject Rating Scale 1 and Subject Rating Scale 3). 94 Correlations Between the Tennessee Self Concept Scale and Age, Education, and the Institution­ al Variables........ ............... 96 Correlations Between the Tennessee Self Concept Scale and the Family Contact Interview Index. 96 Essay Responses on the Family Contact Inter­ view Index.......... ............. ...............101 VI. DISCUSSION....................105 Race............................................. 114 Significant Correlations........................116 Self Concept and Hospital Adjustment . ........... 116 Self Concept, Symptom Discomfort, and Level of Expectations. ................. 117 Self Concept, Age, Education, and the Institu­ tional Variables. ......... ............ 119 Self Concept and Family Contacts............... 119 Written Responses on The Family Contact Inter­ view Index.....................................120 Problems with Data Collection................. 122 Suggestions for Future Research ......... 123 REFERENCES....................................................126 APPENDICES A. Analysis of Variance Tables............ 136 B. Face-to-Face Interview with Mentally 111 Offenders . 145 C....................... Consent Forms................... 148 D. Questionnaires ................... 151 v LIST OF TABLES age Means of the Tennessee Self Concept Subscale, Moral- Ethical Self, by Race................................ 67 Main Effects and Interactions of Type Family and Race on the Tennessee Self Concept Scale and its Subscales.................» . ........................ 68 Means of the Crawford Psychological Adjustment Scale (Total Score) by Type Respondent ................... 70 Main Effects and Interactions of Type Respondent, Type Family, and Race on the Crawford Psychological Adjustment Scale ..................................... 71 Means of Derangement of Thought Process and Physical Behavior (Subscales of the Crawford Adjustment Scale) by Type Respondent ..... ........................ 74 Means of Three Crawford Psychological Adjustment Subscales by Type Respondent ........................ 75 Main Effects of Type Family and Race on the Katz Adjustment Scale, Symptom Discomfort ............... 78 Main Effects of Type Family and Race on the Katz Adjustment Scale, Level of Expectations for Perfor­ mance of Social Activities ........ ......... 80 Means of