UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The delinquency of Indian girls on British Columbia : a study in socialization Neilson, Kathryn Elizabeth 1971

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1971_A8 N45.pdf [ 3.98MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093348.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093348-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093348-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093348-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093348-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093348-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093348-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093348-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093348.ris

Full Text

THE DELINQUENCY OF INDIAN GIRLS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA: A STUDY IN SOCIALIZATION by KATHRYN ELIZABETH NEILSON B.A., University of Manitoba, 1969  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of Psychology  We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1971  In  presenting this  thesis  an advanced degree at the L i b r a r y s h a l l I  f u r t h e r agree  in p a r t i a l  fulfilment of  the requirements  the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h • C o l u m b i a ,  make i t  freely available  that permission  for  I agree  r e f e r e n c e and  f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f  this  of  this  written  representatives. thesis  It  for financial  thesis or  i s understood that copying o r p u b l i c a t i o n gain shall  permission.  Depa rtment The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Vancouver 8, Canada  that  study.  f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head of my Department by h i s  for  Columbia  not be allowed without my  11 Abstract  Delinquency is examined in groups of young female offenders from two d i f f e r e n t cultures: the larger White society.  B r i t i s h Columbia Indians and  S o c i a l i z a t i o n (Gough and Peterson 1952) is the  focus of the study, due to i t s universal nature.  Facets and dimensions  of s o c i a l i z a t i o n are examined s t a t i s t i c a l l y and q u a l i t a t i v e l y for IndianWhite differences in the expression and significance of delinquency for each c u l t u r e .  Several s i g n i f i c a n t findings emerge.  S p e c i f i c a l l y , the  r e l i a b i l i t y of measures used is consistently poorer for Indian subjects. Indian delinquents show more positive attitudes toward family and more pessimism rega'rding l i f e in general than do t h e i r White counterparts. The methods used do not permit adequate exploration of the complexities of Indian-White differences.  The implications of the study for future research  and for treatment of Indian delinquents are discussed.  iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I  Page THEORETICAL BASIS OF THE STUDY  1  Introduction  1  Measures of S o c i a l i z a t i o n and i t s Dimensions  2  The S o c i a l i z a t i o n of the Indians of B r i t i s h Columbia and i t s Role in Delinquency  5  P r o f i l e of the Indian Delinquent G i r l  II  III  IV  HYPOTHESES  12  15  METHOD Subjects  19  Data  21  Procedure  23  Analyses  23  RESULTS Group P r o f i l e s on L i f e Data  29  Psychometric Adequacy of Data  30  Test and Factor Scale Comparisons  36  Item Analyses  39  Inverse Factor Analysis  v  41  Qualitative and Projective Data  45  Analyses on Indians of Higher A b i l i t y  54  iv V  DISCUSSION Methods of Study Used: Indians  t h e i r S u i t a b i l i t y for  1. S t a t i s t i c a l Measures  58  2. Qualitative and Projective Measures  60  Interpretation of Substantive Results  62  1. Subtest and Factor scores  62  2. Interview Data  65  Comparison of Indian and White Direction of Response Patterns on the So Scale  VI  VII VIII  58  68  1. Item Analyses  68  2. Inverse Factor Analyses  70  CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY  71  BIBLIOGRAPHY  76  APPENDIX  81 1968 and 1970 Population Comparisons  81  V LIST OF TABLES Table  Page  1  L i s t i n g of Analyses and Subject Groups Used  2  Group P r o f i l e s - L i f e Data  3  Psychometric Adequacy of Data:  4  Test and Factor Scale Comparisons - Indian and White Groups  37  5  Results of Hotelling on Five Factor Means  37  6  2 Hotelling T S t a t i s t i c s and F Values - Indian and White Groups  40  2 Most Discriminating Items: Twenty-five Item Hotelling T  42  Individual ing T*.  43  7 8 9  28 Indian and White Groups  32  Item Mean Differences: Fourteen-Item H o t e l l -  Inverse Factor Analyses - Subject Factors and Eigenvalues  46  10  Factor Loadings of Indian and White subjects  46  11  Quantification of Qualitative Data from Interview  47  12  Depression Indices on Four TAT Cards with Outcome  49  13  Main Theme on TAT Card 3BM  52  14  Family Themes on TAT Card 2  52  15  Aggression and Death Themes with Objects on TAT Card 8BM  53  16  Perception of Relationship on TAT Card 13MF  53  17  Homogeneity Analysis of Higher A b i l i t y Indians and Total Indians  55  Hotelling S t a t i s t i c s and F Values: Indians and White Groups  56  18  Higher A b i l i t y  vi  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  I would p a r t i c u l a r l y l i k e to thank my advisor, Dr. Susan Butt, for the time and e f f o r t she spent in helping me to prepare this thesis. suggestions and advice at every stage of i t s development were greatly appreciated, and her moral support was instrumental to i t s completion. I would also l i k e to thank Dr. Tom Storm for the ideas and c r i t i c i s m s he offered in his capacity as my second advisor.  His  comments gave me valuable d i r e c t i o n and counsel, p a r t i c u l a r l y in the development of the thesis in i t s f i n a l stages. Thanks are also due to the s t a f f of the Social statistical  Sciences  centre at the University, and to Miss Irene Schlosser, who  typed the f i n a l manuscript. This study was supported by Grant 26-9671 from the University Research Committee to Dr. Susan Butt.  Her  C H A P T E R  ONE  THEORETICAL BASIS OF THE STUDY  Introduction Cavan and Cavan (1968) and Gough (1968) have indicated that crime and delinquency are universal manifestation of these asocial  in mankind.  They also state  that  behavioral patterns is intimately linked to  f a i l u r e of s o c i a l i z a t i o n in any culture.  In short, delinquency represents  a f a i l u r e of a society to s o c i a l i z e i t s members to support and i n t e r n a l i z e i t s values and norms.  This under-socialization represents a constant under-  lying contributor to the development of delinquency.  The same authors  recognize that the overt delinquent behavior which results w i l l vary between cultures, according to cultural differences in the values stressed during socialization. Vedder & Somerville (1970) support this view, stating delinquency d i f f e r s in form, and meaning, in d i f f e r e n t s o c i e t i e s . (1969) also warns against the incautious cross-cultural  that DeFleur  application of  theories of delinquency, without proper consideration for differences in interpretation of asocial  behavior.  This thesis is an exploratory study of young female delinquents from two cultures: Columbia.  the Indian and non-Indian populations of  British  It assumes that f a i l u r e of s o c i a l i z a t i o n is a universal  in delinquency.  factor  Given this common basis i t explores the psychological  t r a i t s emerging as residuals of s o c i a l i z a t i o n in each group. are termed facets or dimensions of s o c i a l i z a t i o n .  These t r a i t s  The assumption is made  that cultural differences in the meaning and expression of overt delinquent  2 behavior w i l l be r e f l e c t e d in these dimensions, because each culture has stressed d i f f e r e n t values in the s o c i a l i z a t i o n process.  Both groups of  delinquents exhibit asocial behavior attributable to under-socialization. However, the personality t r a i t s which accrue from the s o c i a l i z a t i o n process and give r i s e to delinquency w i l l d i f f e r between the cultures as a function of the d i f f e r e n t values and norms. Measures of S o c i a l i z a t i o n and Its  Dimensions  The measure of s o c i a l i z a t i o n employed is Gough's S o c i a l i z a t i o n (So) Scale, (Gough and Peterson 1952), which l a t e r became a sub-test of the C a l i f o r n i a Personality Inventory (Gough 1964).  This 64-item  questionnaire is a personality assessment device, based on Mead's r o l e taking theory, and is designed to y i e l d predictions regarding the probability of delinquent behavior in terms of s o c i a l i z a t i o n .  S o c i a l i z a t i o n , defined  as an understanding and i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n of s o c i e t y ' s r u l e s , is viewed as largely dependent on social i n t e r a c t i o n , in which the individual achieves self-understanding and knowledge of the social  implications of his acts  through learning to assume the roles of others and see himself as an object (Gough 1948).  Thus delinquency represents a deficiency in role-taking  capacity, in the form of an i n a b i l i t y to sustain, organize, and integrate knowledge gained in i n t e r a c t i o n .  Conflicts in s o c i a l i z a t i o n necessarily  i n t e r f e r e with the process, of acquiring these a b i l i t i e s as the role demands become vague or contradictory (Gough 1952). Gough (1960) conceives of individuals as f a l l i n g along a continuum of s o c i a l i z a t i o n .  In the original scale (1952) used in this  study,  those exhibiting delinquent behavior are polarized at the high end of the  3 scale.  The existence of such a continuum, capable of d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g  delinquents from non-delinquents with greater than 90% accuracy, has been widely validated on a variety of populations (Gough 1960).  Its  correlation  with i n t e l l i g e n c e , socio-economic status, and race is " e s s e n t i a l l y zero" (Gough 1968), and i t is also capable of f i n e r d i s t i n c t i o n s within a population of delinquents.  Donald (1955), f o r example, found that those  delinquents convicted of misdemeanors of a social nature, such as i n t o x i c a t i o n , scored higher on the So scale than those convicted of offences of a more serious asocial nature. The Gough So scale was chosen for this study for two reasons. The f i r s t of these is i t s well-established cross-cultural v a l i d i t y . Gough (1966, 1968) views s o c i a l i z a t i o n as a " f o l k concept", or a dimension of inter-personal behavior that is c u l t u r a l l y universal.  He theorizes that  " . . . t h e g o a l . . . i s to measure those t r a i t s of character which a r i s e d i r e c t l y and necessarily from interpersonal l i f e and which should therefore be relevant to the understanding and prediction of social behavior in any and a l l situations and in any c u l t u r e . " (Gough and Sandhu 1968, p.544).  Its  a b i l i t y to d i f f e r e n t i a t e delinquents from non-delinquents has been confirmed in eight languages and ten countries to the .001 l e v e l , with subjects matched on age, education, and economic background (Gough 1965b.).  Working  in the United States with sub-cultures that more closely approximate the Indian-White situation in B r i t i s h Columbia, Donald (1955) and Peterson, Quay and Anderson (1959) found no r e l i a b l e differences on So scores of Negro and White delinquents. The second reason for using the So scale is i t s dimensional aspect, which provides a means of detecting cultural differences in the  4 psychological constructs underlying the s o c i a l i z a t i o n measure.  In his  original development of the s c a l e , Gough recognized that the items used could be broken down into at least four d i s t i n c t i v e c l u s t e r s , these being; 1. role-taking d e f i c i e n c i e s , 2. resentment against family, 3. alienation and lack of self-confidence, and 4. poor school achievement and rebelliousness (Gough & Peterson 1952).  More recently, three studies have been carried  out with the aim of attaining more precise measurement and theoretical understanding of tHe So scale by breaking the molar construct into i t s underlying substructures by cluster and factor analysis (Stein, Gough, & Sarbin 1966, Butt 1970a, 1970b).  Stein et. a l . found three meaningful dimensions, which  they labelled s t a b i l i t y versus waywardness and family  dissatisfaction,  optimism versus d i s t r u s t and a l i e n a t i o n , and control versus asocial and a t t i t u d e s .  roles  Using a population of male university students, Butt (1970a)  found f i v e functional f a c t o r s , which she developed more f u l l y in a l a t e r study using a population of female juvenile delinquents and non-delinquents  (1970b).  Termed dimensions of s o c i a l i z a t i o n they are l i s t e d below along with the highest loading item for each: Factor  I - Emotional Fragmentation versus Emotional Focus "I  Factor  II  have used alcohol excessively"  - Negative Social  Identity versus Social  "My home l i f e was always happy" Factor III  (Family)  Stability  (False)  - Self-defeatism and Blame versus Self-confidence "I  Factor  (True)  don't think I'm quite as happy as others seem to be" (True)  IV - F l i g h t from Family Tension versus Family S t a b i l i t y "I  sometimes wanted to run away from home" (True)  5 Factor  V - Emotional Indifference and Low Arousal versus Emotional Responsiveness "I  often think about how I look and what impression I am  making on others"  (False)  In the following study these f i v e factors represent the psychological  t r a i t s which accrue during the s o c i a l i z a t i o n process.  Scores  on these dimensions are expected to vary between Indian and White delinquents because of the differences in the nature of s o c i a l i z a t i o n each experiences in her own c u l t u r e .  These differences are described in the following  section. Several other sources of data were used to augment and expand the findings resulting from the comparisons on the s o c i a l i z a t i o n dimensions.  These included examination of Indian and White response  patterns to individual items of the So s c a l e , and c o l l e c t i o n of q u a l i t a t i v e , p r o j e c t i v e , and demographic data. The S o c i a l i z a t i o n of the Indians of B r i t i s h Columbia and i t s Role in Delinquency The Indian people of B r i t i s h Columbia have c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y l i v e d in scattered t r i b e s , separated both geographically and c u l t u r a l l y . In spite of this d i v e r s i t y the s i m i l a r i t y of the conditions facing a l l in t h e i r present adaption to White society enables treatment of a l l in the province as a homogeneous group for the purpose of this  tribes  Indians  discussion  (Hawthorne, Belshaw, and Jamieson 1958). A high rate of delinquency is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of young Indian females in the province.  While the Indian population comprises 2.2% of  B r i t i s h Columbia residents, Indian g i r l s have regularly accounted for 25 to 33% of the admissions to the provincial training school for delinquent females since 1953 (B.C. Indian Advisory Committee Reports 1953-1969).  In spite  6 of the disproportionate f i g u r e s , l i t t l e research has been done on the problem, the exceptions being one Master of Social Work thesis  (Woodward  1949) and passing mention in reports of concerned government agencies. The dearth of knowledge in the area is compounded by the lack of research on female offenders in general when compared with t h e i r male counterparts. Perhaps this is due to the greater number and severity of offences commited by the l a t t e r (Trese 1962; Knopka 1966). This study represents an attempt to gain further knowledge of the area, by comparing Indian and White delinquent females in terms of t h e i r s o c i a l i z a t i o n .  Delinquents from any culture are assumed to  be undersocialized, partly because role c o n f l i c t s encountered during s o c i a l i z a t i o n retard the process.  The purpose of this section is to present  the rationale for considering s o c i a l i z a t i o n and i t s residuals to d i f f e r between Indians and Whites, in terms of the c o n f l i c t s each encounters in the process.  The young delinquents from both cultures share the c o n f l i c t s  inherent in being an adolescent and a female in contemporary society. However, for the Indian g i r l s , these are compounded with additional  conflicts  by virtue of t h e i r ethnic status. The main source of s o c i a l i z a t i o n c o n f l i c t s for the Indian in contemporary society arises from the ongoing acculturation process.  The  White society is too powerful to ignore, and acculturation has become a continuing, i r r e v e r s i b l e process, pervading a l l aspects of Indian l i f e (Hawthorne et. a l . 1958).  In the ensuing c o n f l i c t of old versus new, or Indian  versus White ways, the Indians have become both l e g a l l y and psychologically dependent on the White society.  As a r e s u l t the White people are regarded  7 with ambivalence and d i s t r u s t by the Indians, and t h e i r values and accompanying l i f e s t y l e are both envied and resented (Hawthorne 1966).  In  terms of s o c i a l i z a t i o n theory, the Indian's roles have become increasingly confused and disorganized with the advent of White society.  His t r a d i t i o n a l  roles are inadequate and even wrong for a satisfactory l i f e in modern White s o c i e t y , and yet his Indian background makes the new roles demanded incomprehensible and unattainable. For example, Indian economy is t r a d i t i o n a l l y oriented towards seasonal and temporary employment, determined by environmental conditions. Their concept of time is vague and present-oriented and schedules, clocks, and long-term saving are v i r t u a l l y unknown ( R e i f e l  1963).  This f l e x i b i l i t y  represents the antithesis of the highly-regulated, future-oriented White economy in which they must now participate to upgrade themselves in contemporary society. Indian concepts of family l i f e are also at odds with White i d e a l s , the most notable difference being the extensive Indian kinship system as opposed to the conjugal unit common in t r a d i t i o n a l White society. (Hawthorne et. a l . 1958; Lewis 1970, Willmott 1963).  Crowded, camp-like,  communal dwellings being the norm of the past, contemporary Indians show l i t t l e concern for the presence of these same conditions in the shabby structures they inhabit today (Hawthorne 1966).  There is no status connected with good  housekeeping, p a r t i c u l a r l y in the face of economic hardship. unions abound, often due to the l e g a l , f i n a n c i a l , or r e l i g i o u s  Commonlaw difficulties  connected with marriage for those of Indian status (Lewis, 1970).  Children  8 are highly valued and t h e i r upbringing is characterized by a f l e x i b i l i t y and freedom seldom seen in White f a m i l i e s .  The parent-child bond is  less  intense for Indians, since c h i l d - r a i s i n g duties are shared by members of the extended family, with the grandparents, p a r t i c u l a r l y , playing a major role.  Two main themes dominate early childhood:  development of a strong  sense of s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y and a knowledge of one's functional position as a member of the family.  The r e s u l t is an independence which complements  a strong f e e l i n g of family cohesion (Shriver & Leacock 1963).  Children are  treated as small adults and accorded the same dignity and share in family r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and experiences.  D i s c i p l i n e is minimal and a f f e c t i o n is  open and abundant and in no way contingent upon achievement outside the home.  The oft-neglected appearance of Indian c h i l d r e n , by White standards,  gives no indication of a lack of love at home (Lewis 1970). For many young Indians school represents t h e i r f i r s t major encounter with formal White society.  Here s o c i a l i z a t i o n c o n f l i c t s become  severe and they are confronted with a problem that reaches to the roots of their personal i d e n t i t y .  The values learned at home:  independence, f l e x i -  b i l i t y , and co-operation are inappropriate and unwanted by the White school system with i t s d i s c i p l i n e , schedules, and competitive orientation (Hawthorne 1966).  The Indian must learn a new set of values already ingrained  in his White classmates and diametrically opposed to those he l i v e s by at home.  When he does manage to assimilate some of the White goals, i t  is  often only to accept t h e i r unreality for him in the face of the r e a l i t i e s of his minority status in the larger society. family and early drop-outs are common.  The school seldom wins over  The Indian c h i l d returns home where  he is needed and his personal worth and i d e n t i t y are more secure (Hawthorne 1966; Woodward 1949). A f i n a l area of Indian-White c o n f l i c t l i e s in social organi z a t i o n and government.  H i s t o r i c a l l y , the Indian ideal was mildness and  co-operation, with social structure operating along kinship lines (Drucker 1966).  For example crimes were committed against a clan rather than an  individual and penalties were shared, usually in the form of payment of goods (Ravenhill 1938). was shared.  Theft was t h e o r e t i c a l l y non-existent, since a l l  Status was like-wise shared according to c l a n , and measured  in terms of generosity and h o s p i t a l i t y (Oberg 1966).  To the extent that  this orientation has been retained, White government and law is incomprehensible to the Indian.  The r e s u l t is a p a t e r n a l i s t i c theme to the  Indian p o l i c y of the White government which is met by an ambivalent dependence and apathy on the part of the Indians (Indian Eskimo Association 1966). The common r e s u l t of such value c o n f l i c t s and acculturation s t r a i n is a high degree of both social and personal disorganization among the minority involved (Hawthorne et. a l . 1958).  Social disorganization  is  evident among the Indians of B r i t i s h Columbia due to the inevitable inconsistencies and confusion inherent in adjusting to new ways.  Its  primary  source l i e s in the f a i l u r e of the new culture to o f f e r s u f f i c i e n t impetus for change through viable a l t e r n a t i v e s , prestige and s a t i s f a c t i o n provided by the old Indian culture.  White society has tended to present the Indians  with a new l i f e - s t y l e without consistently granting them the equal status and opportunity needed to function s a t i s f a c t o r i l y within i t (Lewis 1970). For example, while the Canadian Criminal Code treats Indian offenders on the  10 same basis as Whites, the Indian Act i t s e l f denies equality by creating a separate legal status for Indians (Government of Canada 1969a).  The  r e s u l t is that the Indians c l i n g to the old ways as a source of r e a l i t y and security in the face of new ways they do not comprehend (Woodward 1949). Beneath t h e i r outward conformity to White society l i e s a set of d i f f e r e n t values, leading to a state of social disorganization.  The situation  is  compounded by the prejudice of the Whites toward Indians which leads to further withdrawal from and disregard for the White values and laws (Government of Canada 1969a). t h e i r apathy.  The Indians also add to t h e i r own d i f f i c u l t i e s through  In the course of t h e i r begrudging acceptance of the  government's paternalism, they have relinquished much of t h e i r own r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and t h e i r t r a d i t i o n a l forms of social organization have deteriorated to petty family r i v a l r i e s which prevent e f f e c t i v e community interest and organization (Government of Canada 1969a; Hawthorne 1966). Surprisingly,  Indian society is not characterized by as  high a degree of personal disorganization.  While the usual indices of  disorganization, such as poverty, unemployment, promiscuity and loose marital unions, alcoholism, and crime are a l l present in abundance in Indian society, they appear to be tied to the more general social problems and are not necessarily i n d i c a t i v e of severe disturbance in individuals.  (Hawthorne  et. a l . 1958). Hawthorne et. a l . (1958) states that on these grounds, contemporary Indian culture cannot be equated with a disorganized White urban poverty culture.  While i t may exhibit the same symptoms they are  arrived at via d i f f e r e n t routes. viable a l t e r n a t i v e s .  This is p a r t i c u l a r l y true with regard to  The reason for the low rate of personal  disorganization  11 seems to be the same as that for the high social disorganization:  the  retention of old l i f e - s t y l e s in the face of undesirable new ones.  Aspects  of the old Indian culture compensate for the anxiety and stress of acculturation. Among his own people, the Indian retains his status and s e c u r i t y , and his sense of personal worth.  The kinship system has remained least amenable  to change and provides the individual with his greatest support  (Hawthorne  1966; Lewis 1970; Vogt 1967). W i t h i n the family network he is guided and respected, his needs and desires are met, and his r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and problems are shared.  Societal i l l s do not break, but rather test and strengthen, the  family (Hawthorne et. a l . 1958).  Where indices of personal disorganization, as  defined by White society, do occur, they often have a d i f f e r e n t meaning for the Indian and are tied to the more pervasive problem of his status in White society (Hawthorne 1966).  Their c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f l e x i b i l i t y and growing lack  of personal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y make the Indian society more tolerant of deviant behavior as a means of tension  ,..'".;V-  !  stigma and shame for the i n d i v i d u a l .  reduction, rather than a source of  Lewis (1970) maintains there is a personal  s t a b i l i t y and logic beneath the overt disorder that the White society to recognize.  fails  Common!aw unions for example, which are loose by White stand-  ards represent a deep t i e to Indian couples who are l i v i n g together because they wish to and not for the security of a home or marital status.  For the  Indians alcohol is not merely a means of forgetting t h e i r problems, but serves other functions as w e l l .  The beer parlours represent an opportunity for  social interhcnage, h o s p i t a l i t y , and r i v a l r y .  Intoxication has deeper meaning  as an attempt to establish equality and to show defiance and aggression toward the White society.  Criminal offences are usually of a social nature  and often represent hasty and impulsive attacks on society, connected with alcohol intake and the strains of acculturation (Government of Canada 1969a).  12 In summary, where personal disorganization does appear in Indian s o c i e t y , i t w i l l most commonly be a r e s u l t of the more severe problem of social disorganization.  It appears that the Indians of B r i t i s h  Columbia are characterized by a low rate of individual disturbance in view of the s o c i a l i z a t i o n c o n f l i c t s they encounter.  This is largely due to  the support they receive from t h e i r old traditions and p a r t i c u l a r l y from the extensive kinship system which s t i l l operates in Indian c u l t u r e . P r o f i l e of the Indian Delinquent G i r l In the l i g h t of the foregoing information i t is possible to hypothesize a p r o f i l e of the Indian juvenile delinquent female which d i f f e r s from that of her White counterpart in several ways.  G i r l s from  both cultures share the s o c i a l i z a t i o n c o n f l i c t s connected with adolescence and female status in Western society.  However, for the Indian g i r l s ,  additional c o n f l i c t s are inherent in t h e i r ethnic status and ongoing a c c u l turation.  In terms of s o c i a l i z a t i o n theory, both groups of g i r l s should be  undersocialized, but i t is expected that the underlying significance and overt expression of t h e i r delinquent behavior should r e f l e c t the differences in s o c i a l i z a t i o n c o n f l i c t s faced by members of each culture. Indian juvenile delinquents show the same negative c o n t r i b uting factors as Whites:  poor parental supervision, disorganized family  s e t t i n g , lack of p a r t i c i p a t i o n in and s a t i s f a c t i o n with social  institutions,  a dearth of recreational o u t l e t s , and poor interpersonal s k i l l s .  However,  Hawthorne et. a l . (1958) maintain these factors must be interpreted in a d i f f e r e n t way for the Indian g i r l s because they are interconnected with the f r u s t r a t i o n associated with the more general social problems facing them  13 such as poverty, poor housing, unemployment, and discrimination.  He  believes that the Indian youth see t h e i r situation with realism and pessimism:  White attitudes are non-supportive, Indian models are weak or  absent and social disorganization surrounds them.  The r e s u l t is depression,  low a s p i r a t i o n , poor self-image, and unattainable goals. and b i t t e r , they are immobilized between the two cultures.  Disenchanted With few  alternatives from which to choose, juvenile delinquency often becomes an accepted expression of combined imitation of and r e b e l l i o n against White society.  Few offences committed by young Indian females come under the  criminal code.  The most common pattern is consumption of a l c o h o l ,  unmanagability, running away, and sexual immorality in short, a s o c i a l l y oriented model (B.C.  Indian Advisory Committee 1953-1969).  The Indians also d i f f e r in t h e i r attitude towards delinquent behavior.  There is ( ^ l i t t l e  stigma attached, due to the lack of viable  a l t e r n a t i v e s , and the fact that the laws broken are those of the White society, and therefore not f u l l y comprehended or trusted.  Nor does the  delinquent's family feel any shame or r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for her misdemeanors. C i v i c r e s p o n s i b i l i t y in terms of White standards  is foreign to them and an  i n c o r r i g i b l e c h i l d is not t h e i r f a u l t , but merely an unfortunate occurrence (Woodward 1949).  As a r e s u l t , the Indian delinquent remains loved and wanted  in her home, and at the same time demonstrates a l o y a l t y , respect, and a f f e c t i o n for her family which is usually not seen in White delinquents (Lewis 1970).  Unlike the l a t t e r , the source of most of her s o c i a l i z a t i o n  c o n f l i c t s has been outside her home and connected with experiences in White society.  The emerging theme in the p o r t r a i t of the Indian delinquent is  14 r e b e l l i o n against society,not against her family.  Therefore there is a  lack of personal disorganization accompanying the asocial behavior, due to the security and prupose she finds in her own culture and home. Support for this assumption regarding Indian and White differences comes from several sources.  The annual reports of the  Indian Advisory Committee of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1953-1969, describe Indian inmates of the provincial g i r l s '  training school over the years.  They state  that the Indian g i r l s are usually more homesick and that t h e i r degree of individual disturbance is not as severe as that of the White g i r l s . addition t h e i r families show less rejection of the g i r l s .  In  The s t a f f of  Willingdon School for g i r l s , where the present study was carried out, also confirmed these observations by stating that the Indian delinquents are less l i k e l y to disparage t h e i r families or r a t i o n a l i z e t h e i r asocial behavior through the s i t u a t i o n at home.  The Indian mothers who are in  contact with the school emphasize that they want t h e i r daughters to "Learn some nice things" while at the school, but also say that no d i s c i p l i n e awaits the g i r l s at home, where they are missed and needed.  Finally, a  study by Kulik, S t e i n , & Sarbin (1968), carried out on White and Negro delinquents in the United States offers an interesting p a r a l l e l .  They  found that the Caucasian delinquents were over-represented in delinquent typologies that stressed parental defiance, while the Negro delinquents T" were under-represented on these typologies.ijhat i s , Negro delinquency appeared to be less centered around the home.  C H A P T E R  TWO  HYPOTHESES  In an area of research such as Indian delinquency which has been r e l a t i v e l y unexplored, i t is often d i f f i c u l t to delineate an area of primary interest within which to formulate hypotheses.  It  is  important  at this point to stress the exploratory and descriptive anture of this study.  It was designed to examine Indian-White differences in delinquency  at several l e v e l s , through diverse methods.  One central hypothesis was  delineated regarding differences in family-society orientations, and the s o c i a l i z a t i o n dimensions were used to explore i t .  Other data was collected  to substantiate the central findings, and to o f f e r further means of exploring Indian and White differences.  This included data on mode of response,  demographic data and q u a l i t a t i v e and projective measures.  It was assumed  that any differences between the two groups reflected in the data would be of i n t e r e s t .  However, the formal hypotheses were developed along the  lines discussed in the previous s e c t i o n , that Indian delinquency would emerge as an expression of h o s t i l i t y toward the larger society accompanied by comparitively positive family attitudes and a low level of individual disturbance.  White delinquents, on the other hand, would be characterized by  negative family I.  attitudes and a higher degree of personal  disorganization.  S o c i a l i z a t i o n Measures S p e c i f i c a l l y , i t is expected that examination and comparison  of s o c i a l i z a t i o n and i t s underlying facets in Indian and White delinquent  16 females w i l l y i e l d the following  results:  1. Overall So Score:  The scale has previously been validated  on a Willingdon school population which was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from a normal control group (Butt 1970b).  Further revalidation on an  Indian population would provide information on an overall Indian d i s t r i b u t i o n . However, in view of the widespread cross-cultural validation of the scale (Gough 1965b), i t was hypothesized there should be no s i g n i f i c a n t  Indian-  White differences on overall scores, inasmuch as both r a c i a l groups were t o t a l l y comprised of delinquents. 2. Dimensions of S o c i a l i z a t i o n : psychological  It  is these underlying  constructs which are expected to r e f l e c t c u l t u r a l l y - o r i e n t e d  differences in the p r o f i l e s of the subjects. a) Factor I - Emotional Fragmentation versus Emotional Focus This factor r e f l e c t s an i n a b i l i t y to participate in s o c i a l l y productive a c t i v i t y due to lack of a s a t i s f a c t o r y focus for the energies of the individual. (Butt 1970b).  It  is coupled with feelings of i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and pessimism It was hypothesized the Indians would score higher on this  f a c t o r , in view of t h e i r negative experiences in White society. b) Factor II  - Negative Social  Identity versus Social  (Family)  Stability  This factor r e f l e c t s an unhappy early home l i f e (Butt 1970b). Thus, the hypothesis was that Indians would score low on this factor.  However  i t was also recognized that a paradox existed in that social and family s t a b i l i t y may not be synonomous for Indian subjects, who might exhibit a negative social 'identity in spite of family s t a b i l i t y .  Thus this dimension may not  emerge as a bipolar factor for the Indian subjects.  17 c) Factor III  - Self-defeatism and Blame versus Self-confidence  High scores on this factor indicate that l i f e i s seen as a losing b a t t l e , with no hope for improvement in the future.  The individual  has an impoverished sense of self-worth and relates to the environment in a defensive manner (Butt 1970b).  It was hypothesized that the Indians  experiences in White society would lead to higher scores on this factor. d) Factor IV - F l i g h t from Family Tension versus Family Dependence This factor encompasses a desire to f l e e the home, and a tendency to form quick and impermanent attachments to others. for these behaviors is not s p e c i f i e d (Butt 1970b).  The reason  The hypothesis was that  the Indian subjects would score lower, as they see the family and home as a source of security and positive experiences. e) Factor V - Emotional Indifference and Low Arousal versus Emotional  Responsiveness  This factor represents a f a i l u r e to respond to the environment, and lack of concern over t y p i c a l l y stressful s i t u a t i o n s .  The  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c stoicism of Indians (Indian-Eskimo Association 1966; Woodward 1949) led to a hypothesis of high scores on this factor for Indians, to the extent that this tendency not to respond is a true t r a i t and not merely a defence. 3. S t a t i s t i c a l Analyses of Individual  Items of the So Scale:  It was hypothesized that Indian and White subjects would respond to the individual items of the So scale in two c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y d i s t i n c t patterns. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the Indian subjects would endorse items indicating positive attitudes toward family and negative attitudes towards society at large. The pattern of the White subjects, on the other hand, would r e f l e c t greater h o s t i l i t y toward the home and less pessimism regarding the future.  18 II.  L i f e Data, Qualitative Data, and Projective Data These data were collected to gain a greater depth of  understanding by adding a further dimension, beyond s o c i a l i z a t i o n , to the study.  No s p e c i f i c hypotheses were made.  However, the l i f e data  were expected to add to the descriptive portraits of the two delinquent populations.  The q u a l i t a t i v e and projective data were used to provide  possible support for the results on the s o c i a l i z a t i o n measures and to explore areas of differences between the two populations which although not d i r e c t l y related to s o c i a l i z a t i o n , might suggest avenues for further study.  C H A P T E R  THREE  METHOD  Subjects The subjects were inmates of Willingdon School for G i r l s , a provincial training school in B r i t i s h Columbia under the authority of the Federal Juvenile Delinquent Act, and the B r i t i s h Columbia Training School Act.  Data were collected from the total school population, on  two occasions, in A p r i l 1968 and November 1970.  Changes in  altered the committal procedure between these two dates.  legislation  In 1968 the  school represented the " l a s t resort" for asocial young females in the province, and the g i r l s were committed by court order.  Legislation in early  1970 changed this process so that g i r l s were committed to an agency by the court.  Now the agency must make a written r e f e r r a l asking the  school Superintendent to accept the g i r l .  Thus the school can presently  be more s e l e c t i v e in choosing the g i r l s who can presumably benefit from their program.  The change in committal procedure, as well as more general  social changes between 1968 and 1970 (notably the growth of the drug element in delinquency), raised questions about the v a l i d i t y of combining the subjects from both populations and treating them as one.  However, preliminary  analyses indicated that a l l data could be combined with minimal s a c r i f i c e of v a l i d i t y in other areas of the study. The two populations were compared in terms of a homogeneity analysis and an item analysis on the total Gough scale,  t tests and Chi -  squares were run on l i f e data, subtest, and factor scales to determine whether s i g n i f i c a n t differences existed between the groups on these indices.  20 The few differences found between them were attributed to broad social changes in contemporary society over the two year period which would a f f e c t both Indian and White subjects to a s i m i l a r degree.  Thus i t was  concluded that combining the 1968 and 1970 subjects was v a l i d for the purpose of this study. Appendix'  A complete account of these analyses is given in  t  n  e  . E i g h t y - f i v e subjects were included in the 1968 group,  there were 94 subjects in the 1970 group.  a n c  l  Fourteen questionnaires were  a r b i t r a r i l y eliminated by the author as i n v a l i d protocols, due to lack of cooperation or f a i l u r e to comprehend the question asked. population of 165 subjects was l e f t . and White groups.  A total  These were separated into Indian  A g i r l was c l a s s i f i e d as an Indian i f she had some  Indian blood and had spent the greater part of her l i f e in an Indian home, as opposed to White foster homes.  Eight g i r l s who had Indian ancestry, but  had been raised in White homes, were eliminated from the study, leaving 105 White subjects and 52 Indian subjects.  There were 51 White and 24  Indian subjects in the 1968 group, and 54 White and 28 Indian subjects in the 1970 group. In the process of the analyses, these groups were broken down further in the following ways: 1. One white subject was discarded and the remaining 104 were randomly divided into two groups of 52 subjects each, labelled White A and White B.  This was done to attain greater breadth and precision by allowing  the results of Indian-White comparisons to be v e r i f i e d across two independent White groups.  21 2. Indian subjects were divided according to whether they had a predominantly urban (Indian U) or rural (Indian R) background.  The basis  for examining these groups separately was that the urban Indian's greater contact with White society might prove to be s i g n i f i c a n t .  They were  18 subjects in the Indian U group, designated as coming from towns with more than 10,000 inhabitants, and 34 in the Indian R group. 3. In a f i n a l substudy, several of the analyses were repeated on 34 Indian subjects who demonstrated average or above average educational records and a b i l i t y .  This involved the removal of 18 Indian subjects who  had f a i l e d to a t t a i n a Grade Seven level of schooling or who had attained i t only with great d i f f i c u l t y , on the basis of information from t h e i r f i l e s . This group was labelled Indians A.  Twelve of the Indians in this group  were from an urban background, and twenty-two were from a rural background. Data The data were from two main sources:  administration of a  written questionnaire through group testing of each population, and structured interviews conducted with subjects from the 1970 population. The questionnaire was identical to that used by Butt (1970b) and consists of three parts: reactions data.  questionnaire data, l i f e data, and test  The major part of the questionnaire data was the 64 item  version of the Gough S o c i a l i z a t i o n Scale developed in 1952.  The items  are designed to measure the extent to which the respondent has internalized and understands the social mores and values of his society through the role-playing experiences encountered during his s o c i a l i z a t i o n .  Twenty-five  of the items,five to each f a c t o r , were seen as contributing to the f i v e  22 factors previously discussed to a s i g n i f i c a n t degree, on the basis of their factor loadings.  The items were keyed in both d i r e c t i o n s , with  three response a l t e r n a t i v e s : 1,2,  "true" "uncertain" and " f a l s e " , scored  and 3 respectively. The remaining questionnaire data consisted of several  subtests:  an a f f e c t scale developed by Bradburn and Caplovitz (1965)  and three subscales from the H o s t i l i t y scales published by Buss and Durkee (1957).  The former was composed of two five-item scales, answered "yes"  or "no" and keyed 2 and 1 in the affirmative d i r e c t i o n .  The subject  endorses the number of happy or unhappy emotions he has experienced in the course of the l a s t month and the two scales are combined for a "total a f f e c t " score.  The h o s t i l i t y subscales used were physical assault, h o s t i l i t y  through negativism, and verbal h o s t i l i t y .  Subjects answered "true" or  " f a l s e " , scored 1 and 2, to the items, which were keyed in both d i r e c t i o n s . A "total h o s t i l i t y " score was obtained by combining the subscale scores. The l i f e data were obtained from a series of questions regarding the subjects' past history.  Most questions were s t r i c t l y objective,  asking for information such as height, weight, and age.  A few  required more evaluative information such as those rating degree of r e l i g i o n and tendency to take r i s k s .  Responses to a l l l i f e data questions were  categorized and numerically coded. Test reaction data consisted of answers to a series of short questions directed at the subjects feelings and attitudes towards the research and her p a r t i c i p a t i o n in i t . The structured interview provided a source of q u a l i t a t i v e and  23 projective data on subjects in the 1970 population. parts:  It consisted of two  a series of questions related to aspects of the subjects  interests,  a t t i t u d e s , and behavior considered relevant to the study, and presentation of four TAT cards:  2, 3BM, 8BM, and 13MF.  these four cards was as follows:  The rationale for using  2-to obtain information pertaining to  family r e l a t i o n s h i p s , 3BM-to gain perceptions of depression and i t s  causes,  8BM-to achieve indices of h o s t i l i t y and i t s d i r e c t i o n , and 13MF-to determine how a portrayal of an intimate interpersonal scene is handled. Procedure The questionnaire data was gathered in two large group testing sessions, arranged by the administrators of Willingdon School and held in the school gymnasium.  The subjects were informed that the questionnaire was  to be used for research purposes and they were generally co-operative, f i n i s h i n g the task within an hour.  Each was assigned a number, to maintain con-  fidentiality.  help was given to subjects i f they had d i f f i c u l t y  Individual  comprehending some of the questions. The structured interviews were held with 66 subjects from the 1970 group.  The rest were unavailable due to AWOL's or to having been  discharged between administration of the group testing and the interviews, held one month l a t e r .  Only one subject was t o t a l l y unco-operative, and three  Indian g i r l s admitted to the school a f t e r the group testing were interviewed to increase the Indian sample, giving interview data for 34 White and 31 Indian delinquents. Analyses Several analyses were carried out to enable examination of the data at d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s .  The following section describes the analyses used  24 and the rationale for each.  Due to the exploratory nature of the study,  s t a t i s t i c a l methods chosen tended to be those lending themselves to descriptive i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .  As a r e s u l t , more theoretical speculation was  possible, although sometimes at the expense of p r e c i s i o n .  This was judged  to be a v a l i d procedure in an unexplored area. Following the preliminary procedures involving subject c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , outlined above, treatment of the data proceeded in several  steps. 1. Group P r o f i l e s - L i f e Data Demographic material was collected to provide a descriptive  p o r t r a i t of each group in terms of l i f e data such as age, height, weight and birthplace.  Following categorization, the data was converted to  frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s for each of f i v e groups: subjects, White A, White B, and total Indians.  1968 subjects, 1970 The f i r s t two of these groups  were compared with each other as were the l a s t three groups.  Several  t - t e s t s and Chi-square s t a t i s t i c s were used on the variables as a rough index of t h e i r p r o b a b i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n (Bjerring, Boyer, Campbell, and Starkey 1970; Bjerring and Seagraves 1970). 2. Psychometric Adequacy of Scales Before analysis of s o c i a l i z a t i o n measures and other subtests were carried out several homogeneity analyses were performed in order to establish the psychometric adequacy and r e l i a b i l i t y of the tests for the Indian and White samples and the 1968 and 1970 groups (Gronek and Tyler 1967). This involved calculation of item means and standard deviations, test-item correlations and homogeneity indices such as interperson correlations and interitem correlations as described by Fiske (1966).  These analyses were  25 performed on the 1968 group, 1970 group, total Indian sample, Indian-U sample, Indian-R sample, White A, and White B. 3. Test and Factor Scale Comparisons Several t - t e s t s were computed between the 1968-1970 groups and the total Indians - White A - White B - Indian U - Indian R groups, to examine the data for differences on the overall So score, and the h o s t i l i t y and a f f e c t scales  (Bjerring and Seagraves 1970).  A hotelling T  statistic  was used for a factor subscale analysis to determine whether the groups had d i f f e r e n t mean scores on the s o c i a l i z a t i o n dimensions. 4. Item Analyses of So Scale These analyses were designed to test whether s i g n i f i c a n t differences existed in the d i r e c t i o n in which Indian and White subjects responded to the items on the So scale.  Three variations of an item 2  analysis were planned using a Hotelling T 1970).  s t a t i s t i c (Bjerring & Seagraves  The f i r s t of these included the 64 items of the So scale and was  carried out comparing 1968 with 1970 subjects, total Indians with White A, and total Indians with White B.  On the smaller groups of items,  only total Indians and White A and total Indians and White B were compared. In one a n a l y s i s , the 25 items contributing to the f i v e s o c i a l i z a t i o n factors were employed.  In the other, items were selected by the writer on the  basis of t h e i r relationship to the hypotheses formulated.  Fourteen items  whose content involved attitudes towards the family and society were used in this  analysis. 5. Inverse Factor Analysis This analysis was performed in l i e u of a straight  factor a n a l y s i s , due to lack of s u f f i c i e n t subjects f o r the l a t t e r .  In  this case, the matrix is inverted, so that subjects become variables and  26 vice versa, the r e s u l t being a set of subject factors (Halm 1970). The purpose of i t s use in this study was to determine whether Indian subjects would load on the same f a c t o r ( s ) , indicating a d i f f e r e n t response pattern on the So scale from that of White subjects.  This was  replicated on two p a r a l l e l groups of 64 subjects each, both groups containing 42 White subjects 8 Indian-U subjects, and 14 Indian-R subjects from the data. 6. Qualitative and Projective Data Comparisons Questions asked during the interview were designed to explore the delinquents feelings about her family and her environment, the things she liked to do or wished to do, and the extent of involvement in the drug culture.  Qualitative data from the questions were examined  and an a r b i t r a r y system of numerical c o d i f i c a t i o n was established guided by those responses occurring most frequently and the experimental hypotheses. Answers were then transferred to proportions for the purpose of comparing Indian-White subjects, and a chi-sqUare s t a t i s t i c used (Bjerring et. a l . 1970). TAT stories were analyzed by the writer according to a system based on that of Fine (1948).  The categories used were much  condensed and aimed at e l i c i t i n g information related to the hypotheses. Indian and White protocols were not separated u n t i l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of story content had been made. 7. Addendum In l i g h t of results from the previous analyses, i t was decided to redo some of the s t a t i s t i c s  on a modified group of Indian subjects.  This involved elimination of those 18 Indian g i r l s of lower a b i l i t y as previously mentioned.  The homogeneity analysis, hotelling T  s t a t i s t i c and  t - t e s t s were carried out on the remaining 34 Indian subjects (Indians and the results compared with those of the other groups. Table 1 presents a l i s t of the analyses and the groups used in each in terms of t h e i r category and number of subjects.  28 TABLE 1 LIST OF ANALYSES AND SUBJECT GROUPS USED Analysis '68  1900 '70  White A  White B  Total Indians  74  83  52  52  52  t - t e s t s on l i f e data  X  X  X  X  X  Homogeneity analysis  X  X  X  X  X  Tests of s i g n i f i c a n c e on test + factor scales  X  X  X  X  X  X  64-item analysis  X  X  X  X  X  X  24-item analysis  X  X  X  X  14-item analysis  X  X  X  X  Inverse Factor Analysis  X  X  X  N  Chi square-qualitative data  X (1970)  (1970)  U 18  Indians R A 34  34  X X  X  X  X (1970)  TABLE 2 GROUP PROFILES - LIFE DATA  Variable  Direction of Indian Response  t Probability White A & Indians White B & Indians  Number of s i b l i n g s  High  .000  .000  Degree of r i s k taking  Low  .002  .003  Rural/urban background  Rural  .000  /.000  C H A P T E R  FOUR  RESULTS  The following results are presented in the same order in which they were introduced in the preceeding section. varying levels of exploration from s t r i c t l y s t a t i s t i c a l analysis) to purely descriptive (projective data).  They represent (homogeneity  Due to the lack of  research in the area i t was thought a v a l i d approach.  All  significant  differences found were considered i n t e r e s t i n g , and are reported here, including some not d i r e c t l y relevant to the main hypotheses. Group P r o f i l e s on L i f e Data Obtaining descriptive portraits of the g i r l s in terms of l i f e history variables was the f i r s t step in the analyses. done to c l a r i f y the g i r l s '  This was  situations through some background information.  The results are presented in Table 2.  Indian delinquents had more s i b l i n g s  and were more l i k e l y to come from a rural background than both groups of White delinquents.  They were less l i k e l y to take r i s k s than t h e i r White  counterparts. Unfortunately, i t was not possible to obtain accurate information regarding reasons for the g i r l s ' their questionnaires. question.  committal to Willingdon from  They were unco-operative in replying to this  When t h e i r f i l e s were consulted, the verdict of "unmanag-  a b i l i t y " accounted for the majority of committals from the court.  This  term was f e l t too vague to be meaningful in view of the complexity of the situation which had led to the assignment of this label to each individual  30 Psychometric Adequacy of the Data Although no original  hypotheses were made regarding the  psychometric adequacy of the data, the results of the comparisons on measurement adequacy between Indian and White subjects are central to further study of Indian delinquency. results section.  Therefore, they are included in the  Fiske, (1966a, 1966b, 1971 pp. 137-163) has described  in d e t a i l the cumulative homogeneity model as a means of evaluating scale adequacy and the various indices used to do so.  Several of these indices  were used in the present study. F i r s t , a standard measure of internal consistency ( r ^ ) r e l i a b i l i t y was computed.  or  This was the well-known Chronbach alpha  r e l i a b i l i t y index (or the Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 when used on dichotomous items). relations (r  Inter-item correlations (r^-) and interperson cor-  ) were also computed.  The former index gives an additional  rr  indication of scale r e l i a b i l i t y which is unaffected by number of items. In this model i t r e f l e c t s the degree to which items are consistently measuring the desired construct or quality in a group of subjects Fiske references).  The r  (see  index r e f l e c t s the s i m i l a r i t y of response rr  pattern between a l l possible pairs of subjects and therefore may be used as a measure of subject homogeneity.  The error variance of scales is the  f i n a l index used in the present study.  This y i e l d s a measure of the amount  of variance l e f t over in a test a f t e r that variance attributable to both subject and item d i s t r i b u t i o n s in the original data matrix have been removed (see Fiske 1971, p. 155).  Ideally, the sources of variance in a  scale (which sum to one) should be equally spread, and account for 33% of the variance each. model  In f a c t , most personality scales f a l l short of this  and error variance t y p i c a l l y is much higher (.70's,  .80's).  S t a t i s t i c a l l y , a high r.. r  pp  t  0  i  t  e  m  v  a  r  i  a  n  c  e  -  is related to high person variance, and a high C r i t i c a l levels for r.^ and r  r e l a t i v e l y , on the basis of past scale evaluations.  are judged  Generally, i t may  be stated that an equal spread with indices of around .10 indicates psychometric adequacy.  The results of the homogeneity analyses carried  out on White A, White B, Total Indian, Indian U, and Indian R groups are presented in Table 3.  (See pages 32-35)  TABLE 3 INDIAN AND WHITE GROUPS PSYCHOMETRIC ADEQUACY OF DATA # of Steps  Reliability Coefficient  Inter-item Correlations  Inter-person Correlations  Error Variance  N  Group  52  White A  137.54  11.30  .68  .03  .22  .74  52  White B  133.88  11.62  .69  .03  .20  .75  52  Total  137.08  9.53  .57  .02  .19  .78  18  Indian U  136.33  10.65  .64  .03  .15  .77  34  Indian R  137.47  8.93  .52  .02  .20  .76  52  White A  9.00  2.01  .75  .76  .00  .54  52 Test Reaction 52  White B  8.96  2.04  .77  .36  -.01 •  .53  8.73  1.74  .62  .22  .01  .64  Subtest  Socialization  Total  Ind.  Ind.  64  6  Mean  Standard Deviation  18  Indian U  8.83  1.89  .72  .30  .03  .55  34  Indian R  8.62  1.70  .59  .19  -.02  .67  52  White A  7.50  1.50  .68  .30  .28  .45  Positive 52 Affect 52  White B  7.54  1.46  .60  .23  .16  .54  6.77  1.10  .21  .05.  .13  .67  Total  Ind.  5  18  Indian U  6.78  1.44  .62  .24  .09  .55  34  Indian R  ,-6776  .88  -.35  -.05  .14  .72  N  Group  52  White A  Negative 52 Affect 52  White B  Subtest  Total  Ind.  # of  steps  5  Inter-item Correlations  Inter-person Correlations  Error Variance  Standard Deviation  Reliability Coefficient  8.79  1.26  .62  .25  .19  .52  8.42  1.35  .61  .24  .20  .52  8.77  1.15  .48  .16  .15  .60  Mean  18  Indian U  8.61  1.21  .57  .21  .24  .51  34  Indian R  8.85  1.11  .43  .13  .09  .64  52  White A  15.54  2.63  .75  .23  .11  .63  52  White B  14.33  2.57  .73  .21  .09  .65  52  Total  16.02  2.21  .62  .14  .11  .69  18  Indian U  16.89  1.66  .34  .05  .07  .76  34  Indian R  15.59  2.33  .66  .16  .12  .67  52  White A  10.54  1.08  .10  .02  .02  .79  52  White B  9.98  1.54  .54  .17  .03  .67  52  Total  9.96  1.31  .31  .07  .05  .73  18  Indian U  10.39  1.50  .62  .22  .07  .60  34  Indian R  9.74  1.15  .01  .00  .06  .77  52  White A  8.42  1.23  .40  .12  .04  .68  Negativ- 52 ism 52  White B  8.10  1.24  .38  .11  .10  .65  8.13  1.21  .28  .07  .02  .72  Assault  Verbal Hostility  Total  Ind.  Ind.  Ind.  10  6  5  18  Indian U  8.00  1.25  .21  .05  -.04  .75  34  Indian R  8.15  1.24  .34  .09  .02  .70  # of Steps  Mean  Standard Deviation  Reliability Coefficient  Inter-item Correlations  Inter-person Correlations  Error Variance  N  Group  52  White A  12.02  3.00  .78  .42  .16  .42  Emotion- 52 al 52 Fragmen18 tation  White B  11.33  2.89  .70  .32  .23  .46  11.79  2.41  .53  .18  .10  .60  Indian U  12.17  2.36  .54  .19  .02  .61  34  Indian R  11.59  2.41  .52  .18  .13  .59  52  White A  11.50  2.96  .75  .37  .13  .46  52  White B  11.50  2.87  .73  .35  .10  .49  52  Total  11.15  2.54  .55  .20  .01  .63  18  Indian U  11.17  2.71  .60  .23  -.03  .61  34  Indian R  11.15  2.44  .53  .18  .01  .64  52  White A  11.00  2.13  .34  .09  .16  .63  52  White B  10.35  2.60  .59  .23  .11  .57  52  Total  11.83  2.25  .57  .21  .21  .53  18  Indian U  11.06  2.59  .65  •27  .16  .50  34  Indian R  12.25  1.93  .45  .14  .22  .56  52  White A  13.60  1.78  .56  .20  .20  .54  52  White B  13.77  1.38  .12  .03  .09  .71  52  Total  13.06  1.74  .32  .09  .15  .64  18  Indian u  13.33  1.60  .47  .15  .29  .51  34  Indian R  12.91  1.79  .26  .06  .10  .68  Subtest  Negative Social Identity  Self Defeatism  Flight from Family  Total  Ind.  Ind.  Ind.  Ind.  5  5  5  5  Subtest  # of Steps  Mean  Standard Deviation  Reliability Coefficient  Inter-item Correlations  Inter-person Correlations  Error Variance  N  Group  52  White A  7.25  2.24  .56  .21  • 12  .57  Emotion- 52 al 52 Indifference 18  White B  7.88  2.18  .49  .16  .16  .59  8.79  2.38  .50  .17  .05  .64  Indian U  8.83  2.09  .19  .05  .05  .70  Indian R  8.74  2.55  .60  .23  .03  .59  34  Total  Ind.  5  to  36 The consistent trend emerging for a l l t e s t s , with the exception of Factor III  - S e l f defeatism, is less r e l i a b i l i t y of the  measures for the Indian groups.  This is r e f l e c t e d in the comparatively  low r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s and high error variances demonstrated by these groups, and i s p a r t i c u l a r l y evident in the Indian-R population.  In terms  of the correlational i n d i c e s , the majority of the tests showed higher inter-item correlations than inter-person c o r r e l a t i o n s . consistent in the Indian groups than the White groups.  This trend was less The Indians as  a whole show comparatively higher inter-person c o r r e l a t i o n s , although this was seldom repeated across a l l three Indian groups on the same subtest. This type of v a r i a b i l i t y was less evident in the White sample, where both groups (White A and B) showed higher inter-item correlations on eight of the 12 subtests.  The lower r e l i a b i l i t y of the measures for the Indian  subjects much be kept in mind while reviewing the subsequent sections.  It  may be expected that some results w i l l show considerable attenuation due to data u n r e l i a b i l i t y .  However, most of the indices are s u f f i c i e n t  for research purposes in that s i g n i f i c a n t effects can occur.  As w i l l be  discussed l a t e r , the foregoing data demonstrate c l e a r l y , e s p e c i a l l y in the Indian R group, that measurements must be directed at and refined in terms of the subject group in which they are to be used, i f optimum measurement precision is to be obtained. . Test and Factor Scale Comparisons Total  Indian, Indian R and Indian U groups were each compared  with both the White A and White B groups on test and factor scale means. 2 The results of the t - t e s t s and hotel l i n g T' which showed s i g n i f i c a n t differences beyond the .05 level across comparisons with both White groups  37 TABLE 4 TEST AND FACTOR SCALE COMPARISONS INDIAN AND WHITE GROUPS  Test  Total Indians N=52  Indians R N=24  Indians U N=18  Direction of Indian Results  Positive A f f e c t  White A White B  Assault  White A White B  S e l f Defeatism (Factor III)  White A White B  .053 .003  .007 .0005  High  F l i g h t from Family (Factor IV)  White A White B.  .116 .021  .079 .013  Low  Emotional I n d i f f (Factor V)  White A White B  .001 .038  .005 .094  High  .006 .003  .005 .002  .076 .057  Low  .014 .000  High  TABLE 5 RESULTS OF HOTELLING ON FIVE FACTOR MEANS* Factor #  D i f f . b/w White A & Ind.  D i f f . b/w White B & Ind.  1  .462  -.231  2  -.346  -.346  3  1.481  .827  4  -.712  5  .904  Indian Score  Factor Name Emotional Fragmentation  Low  Negative Social  High  Self-defeatism  -.538  Low  F l i g h t from Family Tension  1.538  High  Emotional  *White A & Indians - Hotelling T = 18.24 2  White B & Indians - Hotelling t = 2  19.23  F = 3.504  p < .01  F = 3.696  p < .01  Identity  Indifference  38 are presented in Table 4.  A few cases are presented in which a test  approached, but did not reach s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e , in order to demon2 strate the d i r e c t i o n of some of the weaker r e s u l t s .  A hotelling T  statistic  was used on the factor means to c l a r i f y the results of the i n i t i a l t tests. If ordinary t tests were r e l i e d upon, the large number which would have to 2 be performed would produce misleading p r o b a b i l i t i e s .  The h o t e l l i n g T  is  more adequate to test the assumption that populations have the same means on a given set of variables. As predicted, there were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences in So scores between the two ethnic groups.  One of the subtests unrelated to  total s o c i a l i z a t i o n , Positive A f f e c t , showed the greatest differences between Indian and White subjects.  Both Indian groups, as well as the combined  group of Indians scored lower on this test than the White groups although the Indians U difference did not quite reach the significance l e v e l .  Assault,  another subtest unrelated to total s o c i a l i z a t i o n , showed a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the Indians U and the White groups. The total Indian and Indian R groups d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from White groups in the hypothesized directions on three of the f i v e socialization factors.  On Factor III,  Self-Defeatism, these Indians scored  s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than both groups of White subjects.  On F l i g h t from  Family, Factor IV, they scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than the White B group, and comparison with the White A group closely approximated the level of significance.  These trends were p a r t i c u l a r l y strong for the Indians R.  The  same two groups scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher on Factor V, Emotional Indifference. S i g n i f i c a n t differences were not obtained on Factor I, or Factor II,  Negative Social  Emotional Fragmentation,  Identity, although a l l three groups scored  39 s l i g h t l y lower i . e . in the hypothesized d i r e c t i o n , on the l a t t e r . The results of the t tests are confirmed by the hotelling 2 T 's done on the f i v e factor scale means.  Table 5 shows Indian and White  differences on the hotelling of the f i v e factor scale means, and indicates the d i r e c t i o n of the Indians response.  Factor V appears to contribute most  to the s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the two groups, followed closely by Factor III.  Factors II  and IV contribute somewhat l e s s , while Factor I  presents contradictory findings across the two comparisons. exception of Factor I,  With the  the d i r e c t i o n of the results are a l l in accordance with  the o r i g i n a l hypotheses made on Indian and White differences in Factor Scores. Item Analyses Item analyses were carried out on three versions of the 2 s o c i a l i z a t i o n scale using a hotelling T planned in advance.  statistic.  A l l three analyses were  The purpose of the hotelling analyses was to provide  information on the d i r e c t i o n of response to So items by the White and Indian groups.  The hotelling s t a t i s t i c answers the question "Do the two  samples come from populations with the same means on a given set of variables?"  In this case, the So items are the v a r i a b l e s , and the mean  response values of Indians are compared with those of White A and White B. The f i r s t Hotelling was done on a l l 64 items in the So scale. A second analysis was performed on the twenty-five items contained in the f i v e s o c i a l i z a t i o n factor scales.  A fourteen-item hotelling was done on those  items selected by the author as c r i t i c a l  to the central hypothesis i . e .  with content r e f l e c t i n g attitudes toward family and society. 2 The hotelling T  s t a t i s t i c s and overall F values for these  analyses are presented in Table 6.  Indian and White subjects did not d i f f e r  40  TABLE 6  HOTELLING T  2  STATISTICS AND F - VALUES:  INDIAN AND WHITE GROUPS  Groups  Hotelling T Statistic  2  F Value  64 item (1) White A - Indians  217.34  1.298  (2) White B - Indians  269.64  1.611  25 item (1) White A - Indians  (p<.07)  52.145  1.595  (2) White B - Indians  56.28  1.722 *  14 item (1) White A - Indians  42.83  2.669 * *  (2) White B - Indians  41.33  2.576 * *  *  p<:.05  * * p < .01  41 s i g n i f i c a n t l y in the d i r e c t i o n of t h e i r responses to the total So scale. However, the overall F was s i g n i f i c a n t for one comparison and almost reached the c r i t i c a l  level on the second 25 item analysis.  A 14-item  a n a l y s i s , carried out on the items r e f l e c t i n g attitudes toward family and society, showed the greatest s i g n i f i c a n t differences between Indian and White subjects and was replicated across both comparisons. No single items demonstrated discriminatory a b i l i t y to a s i g n i f i c a n t degree in either the 25 item or 14 item analysis.  However, those  items which had the best discriminating a b i l i t y in terms of absolute differences between means, in the 25-item series are presented in Table 7. The picture emerging from the content of these items is that of a confused and depressed Indian g i r l , lacking self-esteem and a sense of d i r e c t i o n . While she sees her home l i f e as b a s i c a l l y happy, she also states that she was punished u n f a i r l y and does not form stable relationships with others. It  is also s i g n i f i c a n t that items 21, 22, and 38 are three of the f i v e items  that contribute most d i r e c t l y to Factor V, Emotional Indifference. Table 8 presents the discriminatory a b i l i t y of the 14 items used in the t h i r d item analysis.  Indian responses to the majority of  items r e f l e c t a favourable attitude towards home and family, and dejection and resentment regarding l i f e as a whole.  The chief exceptions to this are  items 13 and 63, which deal with parental d i s c i p l i n e .  It appears that  while homelife was generally happy, the Indian g i r l s f e l t r e s t r i c t i o n s placed on them there were unduly narrow and punishment often unjust. Inverse Factor Analysis The inverse factor analysis was performed to examine the data for differences in response patterns of Indian and White subjects on the So scale.  By inverting the matrix, i t was hypothesized that the Indians  42  TABLE 7 MOST DISCRIMINATING ITEMS - 25-ITEM HOTELLING T  Item No.  Difference between Means White A - Ind. White B - Ind.  Direction of Indian Response  2  Item Content  18  -.385  -.346  T;  I often feel I'm not getting anywhere in l i f e .  21  -.577  -.442  T  I never worry about my looks.  22  -.288  -.269  T  I hardly ever get excited or t h r i l l e d .  25  .288  .288  T  My home l i f e was always happy.  32  -.212  -.173  T  It is pretty easy for people to win arguments with me.  38  -.442  -.442  T  I find i t easy to drop or break with a friend.  49  .154  .346  F  I know who is responsible for most of my troubles.  63  -.192  -.212  T  I was often punished u n f a i r l y as a c h i l d .  43 TABLE 8 INDIVIDUAL ITEM MEAN DIFFERENCES - 14 ITEM HOTELLING T Dir. of Item No.  Difference between Means White A ,~ Ind. White B "Ind.  2  Ind.  Response  Item Content  4  -.250  -.442  T  I would have been more successful i f people had given me a f a i r chance.  6  -.423  -.673  T  L i f e usually hands me a pretty raw deal.  .9  .135  .038  F  Sometimes I used to feel l i k e leaving home.  13  -.346  -.212  F  My parents were too s t r i c t with me when I was a c h i l d .  15  .096  0.000  F  My parents never r e a l l y understood me.  16  .058  .212  F  My homelife as a c h i l d was less peaceful than most peoples c h i l d hood.  18  -.385  -.346  T  I often feel I'm not getting anywhere in l i f e .  24  .058  -.058  -  My parents have often disapproved of my friends.  25  .288  .288  T  My home l i f e was always happy.  59  .481  .385  T  The members of my family were always very close to each other.  61  .192  -.250  -  With things going as they are, i t s pretty hard to keep up hope of amounting to something.  62  0.000  -.038  F  My parents generally l e t me make my own decisions.  44  TABLE 8 (Cont'd)  Dir. of Item No.  Difference between Means White A - Ind. White B - . Ind.  Ind.  Response  Item Content  63  -.192  -.212  f  I was often punished unfairly as a child.  64  .192  .096  T  My home l i f e was always very happy.  45 would load on the same subject f a c t o r s , which would d i f f e r from those of the White subjects.  Five factors were extracted.  The conceptual  basis duplicates that of the hotelling analysis to a certain extent. However, the inverse factor analysis obtains information on the overall pattern of response of the subject groups, while the h o t e l l i n g provides data on d i r e c t i o n of response on each item for the groups. The subject factors and eigenvalues emerging from the inverse factor analyses are presented in Table 9.  The comparisons of  Indians with White A and White B accounted f o r 42.7% and 44.4% of the variance respectively. Table 10 reports the subject loadings on each factor in terms of t h e i r highest, or lowest, score with + .35 chosen as an a r b i t r a r y cutoff. In both comparisons, almost twice as many White loadings as Indian loadings would be.expected on each f a c t o r , on the basis of sample size (Indian n=22, White n=42).  On this basis, Subject Factor V appears to discriminate  Indian and White subjects consistently.  On comparisons with both White  groups on this f a c t o r , almost twice as many Indians as White subjects showed low loadings.  However, this finding is merely d e s c r i p t i v e , as the sample  numbers were too small to test the significance of this difference adequately. The analysis would have to be repeated on much larger populations f o r d e f i n i t i v e statements to be made. Qualitative & Projective Data This data was gathered through the structured interviews held with the 1970 subjects. the Indian g i r l s '  Perhaps the most s i g n i f i c a n t trend emerging was  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c silence and the obvious d i f f i c u l t y they had  46 TABLE 9 INVERSE FACTOR ANALYSIS: Subject Factor I  SUBJECT FACTORS AND EIGENVALUES Cumulative Proportion of Eigenvalues  Eigenvalue  White A + Indians  14.55  .23  White B + Indians  13.92  .22  White A + Indians  3.88  .29  White B + Indians  5.41  .31  HI".. White A + Indians  3.25  .34  . White B + Indians  3.54  .36  white A + Indians  2.88  .39  White B + Indians  3.03  .41  White A + Indians  2.77  .43  White B + Indians  2.52  .45  I  I  IV  V :  White A + Indians ) White B + Indians \  42.7% T  o  t  a  l A A  A 0 /  TABLE 10 FACTOR LOADINGS OF INDIAN AND WHITE SUBJECTS Subject Factor  I II III  White B - Indians 1st Scores 1st Scores <-.35 >+.35  Indians  4  0  7  0  Whites  8  0  15  0  Indians  0  6  0  2  Whites  0  2  0  11  Indians  2  0  3  0  Whites  8  0  7  0  3  0  4  0  15  o  5  0  Indians  0  6  0  6  Whites  0  4  0  3  IV Indians Whites V  White A - Indians 1st Scores 1st Scores > + .35 <-.35  Note: (White A, White B n=42) (Indians n=22)  47 TABLE 11 QUANTIFICATION OF QUALITATIVE DATA FROM INTERVIEWS Percentage of Subjects Responding Indian White  Significant Levels  1. What are the things you l i k e to do?  p<  a) physical a c t i v i t i e s  63.33  92.31  b) mental a c t i v i t i e s  20.00  33.33  c) a r t s , crafts  23.33  51.28  d) passive  3.33  15.38  e) a s o c i a l - drugs, a l c o h o l , etc.  6.67  23.08  f ) s o c i a l - f r i e n d s , p a r t i e s , etc.  26.67  38.46  a) be at home, have a family, etc.  43.33  23.08  b) school  23.33  23.08  c) work  16.67  28.21  d) asocial  10.00  15.38  e) t r a v e l , be on my own  13.33  48.72  f ) social  13.33  28.21  36.67  35.90  6.67  28.21  p < .05  c) extended family  26.67  5.31  p<c .05  d) friends  33.33  66.67  p< .05  e) social worker, teacher, etc.  16.67  56.41  p <.01  a) parents  30.00  20.51  b) s i b l i n g s  13.33  25.64  c) extended family  26.67  2.56  d) friends  46.67  35.90.  e) social worker, teacher, etc.  13.33  25.64  .01  p 4.05  2. What would you do i f you weren't here i f you could do anything you wanted?  3. Whom do you r e a l l y  p <.01  trust?  a) parents b) s i b l i n g s  4. Of the people you know who has had the most influence on you?  <.01  48 Percentage of Subjects Responding Indian White  Significant Levels  5. What is your real mother like? a) predominantly positive description  50.00  43.59  b) predominantly negative description  23.33  38.46  c) ambivalent  26.67  17.95  | d) alcohol mentioned in | description  23.33  | .00 j  6. Who do you l i k e better, your father or your mother? a) mother  36.67  46.15  b) father  20.00  20.51  c) both or don't know  43.33  20.51  a) predominantly drugs  50.00  84.62  b) predominantly alcohol  46.67  10.26  3.33  5,13  3.7  4.6  a) family  26.67  2.56  b) friends  60.00  79.49  6.67  7.69  a) positive  56.67  69.23  b) negative  13.33  7.69  c) ambivalent  26.67  12.82  7. Have you ever used drugs? Alcohol?  c) neither Extent of drug use (# of drugs per week) 8. How did you s t a r t using drugs  p4.01 p  .01  (alcohol)?  c) alone or with strangers 9. How do drugsC(alcohol) make you feel?  p <.01  49 Percentage of Subjects • Responding Indian White  Significant Levels  10. What is your worst problem? A.  running  5  6  alcohol  5  1  drugs  2  2  sex  2  1  theft  1  1  fighting  2  0  miscellaneous or general trouble  2  3  family  6  8  interpersonal  3  3  self-image,  2  11  0  6  1  1  40.00  33.33  10.00  28.21  26.67  30.77  personality  Willingdon What B  none s the best way to solve  it?  a) r e a l i s t i c solution b) u n r e a l i s t i c or asocial  p <.05  solution  c ; don-;t know d) being in Willingdon  5.13 20.00 2 (Answers to 10.(A) too spread out for accurate to be performed Thus. data presented in raw form).  TABLE 12 DEPRESSION INDICES ON FOUR TAT CARDS WITH OUTCOMES Card 3BM I W Total  Depression  Card 2 I W  20  27  Outcome-favourable  7  7  2  Outcome-unfavourabl e  1  11  12  9  Ou tcome-i nde termH nate Indian n=31  11 11  Card 8BM I W  Card 13MF I W  totals I W  8  8  9  6  48 52  1  1  1  1  2  11 11  2  3  3  3  T  2  7 19  7  8  4  4  7  2  30 23  White n=34  50 verbalizing t h e i r responses to the questions asked. The questions asked, with codified answers in the form of percentages used in the chi square analyses are presented in Table 11. The paucity of Indian in comparison with White responses i s evident.  Levels  of s i g n i f i c a n c e are indicated next to responses which d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y between the two groups when the Chi square analyses f o r proportions were carried out. More White g i r l s indicated a preference f o r physical a c t i v i t y (sports e t c . ) and handicrafts (p C.01), although this may be merely a function of the comparative ease with which they vocalized t h e i r responses. Some support was found f o r the o r i g i n a l hypotheses, f o r example, the tendency of more White g i r l s to want to travel or be on t h e i r own (question two-p <?.01) and to t r u s t s i b l i n g s , f r i e n d s , and outside authorities to a greater degree than the Indians ( p ^ . 0 5 ) .  This trend  was also r e f l e c t e d , though not as s i g n i f i c a n t l y , in the responses to question 4. The Indian g i r l s , on the other hand, trust (p^.05) and are influenced more by (p^.01) members of t h e i r extended family.  Other trends in attitudes  toward family were evident in question f i v e where more White delinquents see t h e i r mothers in an unfavourable l i g h t .  However, seven Indian g i r l s mention  alcohol in describing t h e i r mothers and 13 (as opposed to eight White g i r l s ) had d i f f i c u l t y in deciding which parent they l i k e better. Other s i g n i f i c a n t differences occurred in degree of involvement with drugs and alcohol.  More White g i r l s used drugs, and to a greater  extent than the Indian g i r l s , for whom alcohol s t i l l appears to be the more s i g n i f i c a n t factor in t h e i r delinquency (p <.01).  S i g n i f i c a n t l y more Indian  g i r l s were introduced to either drugs or alcohol by members of t h e i r family.  51 In question 10A, the White delinquent demonstrated a greater degree of s o p h i s t i c a t i o n , or perhaps i n s i g h t , by perceiving her problems as lying within h e r s e l f , rather than in the overt asocial manifested.  behavior  However, they have a greater tendency to turn to u n r e a l i s t i c  and asocial solutions for these problems.  It is interesting to note that  six White g i r l s saw being at Willingdon as t h e i r greatest problem, while more Indian g i r l s said that they saw their sojourn at the school as the best way to solve t h e i r problems. Analysis of the four TAT cards showed few differences between Indian and White subjects.  The only s i g n i f i c a n t trend noticed was again  that of the Indian g i r l s to give shorter, less well-defined s t o r i e s .  These  subjects c l e a r l y had a great deal of trouble expressing themselves imagi n a t i v e l y and the r e s u l t was a set of r e l a t i v e l y s u p e r f i c i a l , halting to the cards.  responses  The results of the analyses, based on a much-condensed version  of Fine's system (1948), are presented in Tables 12 to 16. Table 12 shows the total number of depression themes on a l l four cards for the two groups, and t h e i r outcomes.  The only great difference  in them appears to be the Indians' tendency to relate more indeterminate outcomes, perhaps a function of the general d i f f i c u l t y they had in expressing themselves during the t e s t . Table 13 presents the themes given in response to card 3BM. This card was included to e l i c i t stories of depression and i t s causes.  Here,  the only area on which Indian and White subjects d i f f e r e d to a large degree was on asocial behavior, which White g i r l s gave as a theme almost twice as often as the Indians.  The Indian g i r l s gave s l i g h t l y more s e l f - d e s t r u c t i v e  TABLE 13 MAIN THEME ON TAT CARD 3BM Theme  Indian  White  2  4  10  8  aggression, other)  7  12  Family problems  4  7  Sleeping  2  0  Praying  1  1  Other  5  2  Loneliness Self-destructive  (suicide,drugs,  alcohol) Asocial  (prison, crime,  Indian n=31  White n=34  TABLE 14 FAMILY THEMES ON TAT CARD 2 Theme  Indian  White  Non-family stories  11  7  Family stories  20  4  a) aggression  6  4  b) rejection  5  9  c) a f f e c t i o n  7  9  d) neutral  2  5  Indian n=31  White n=34  TABLE 15 AGGRESSION AND DEATH THEMES WITH OBJECTS ON TAT CARD 8BM Theme  Indian  Aggression Total  20  19  a) family  6  6  b) friend  2  2  12  11  Death Total  9  12  Object:  a) family  2  5  b) friend  1  0  c) stranger  6  7  Object:  c) stranger  Indian n=31  White  White n=34  TABLE 16 PERCEPTION OF RELATIONSHIP ON TAT CARD 13MF Nature of Relationship  Indian  Whi te  16  16  Aggression  6  6  Rej'ecti on  4  4  Affection  6  6  9  11  Aggression  5  8  Rejection  4  2  Affection  0  1  Close Relationship  Strangers  54 responses than expected on the basis of the sample numbers. Card 2 was administered to gain information regarding subjects' perceptions of family r e l a t i o n s . Table 14.  The results are shown in  Over one t h i r d of the Indian subjects did not i d e n t i f y family  relationships in t h e i r s t o r i e s .  This was due in large part to t h e i r lack  of s p e c i f i c a t i o n in t e l l i n g s t o r i e s ; often, family ties were implied, but not d i r e c t l y described.  The other categories were close to expectations  according to sample numbers. Table 15 presents the aggression and death themes e l i c i t e d by the card 8BM.  There were no s t r i k i n g differences between the groups.  Card 13MF was used to ^elicit subjects' perceptions of an intimate r e l a t i o n s h i p .  The results appear in Table 16, and showed a  remarkable s i m i l a r i t y . Analyses on Indians of Higher A b i l i t y In l i g h t of some of the preceding r e s u l t s , the following analyses were carried out on a subgroup of the Indians subjects.  It  was f e l t that the lower level of schooling and environmental impoverishment of many of the Indian subjects might be contributing factors to the lower r e l i a b i l i t y indices of the tests for the total group of Indians.  Thus,  a selection of the 34 best educated Indians was made on the basis of past scholastic record, and the homogeneity,analysis  and some of the h o t e l l i n g  s t a t i s t i c s were repeated on this group (Indians A). The results of the homogeneity analysis are presented in Table 17 along with those for the total Indian group.  Removing the less  educated Indians does increase the psychometric adequacy of the data on six  TABLE 17 HOMOGENEITY ANALYSIS OF HIGHER ABILITY INDIANS AND TOTAL INDIANS (in brackets) Inter-item Correlation  Mean 136.41 (137.08)  10.25 (9.53)  .65 (.57)  .03 (.02)  .21 (.19)  .74 (.78)  Test Reactions  8.62 (8.73)  1.75 (1.74)  .63 (.62)  .22 (.22)  -.02 (.01)  .65 ( i 64)  Positive A f f e c t  6.88 (6.77)  .99 (1.10)  -.06 (.21)  .01 (.05)  .12 (.13)  .71 (.67)  Total Ind.  Negative A f f e c t  8.68 (8.77)  1.32 (1.15)  .62 (.48)  .25, . (.i6|c;  .12 (.15)  .55 (.60)  Intel!. Ind.  15.74 (16.02)  2.13 (2.21)  .61 (.62)  .14 (.14)  .17 (.11)  .65 (.69)  Verbal H o s t i l i t y  9.71 (9.96)  1.36 (1.31)  .33 (.31)  .08 (.07)  .04 (.05)  .73 (.73)  Intel 1. Ind.  Negativism  8.00 (8.13)  1.26 (1.21)  .34 028)  .09 (.07)  .02 !(.02)  .70 (.72)  Intel!. Ind.  Emotional Fragmentation  12.26 (11.79)  1.96 (2.41)  .30 (.531  .08 (.18)  .11 .(•10)  .66 (.60)  Total Ind.  Negative Social Identity  10.82 (11.15)  2.59 (2.54)  .61 (.55)  .24 (.20)  .03 (.01)  .59 (.63)  Intel 1. Ind.  Self-defeatism  11.56 (11.83)  2.45 (2.25)  .65 (.57)  .27 (.21)  .21 (.21)  .50 (.53)  Intel!. Ind.  F l i g h t from Family  13.21 (13.06)  1.60 (1.74)  .28 (.32)  .07 (.09)  .21 (.15)  .60 (.64)  8.41 (8.79)  2.17 (2.38)  .43 (.50)  .13 (.17)  .07 (.05)  .65 (.64)  Subtest Socialization  Assault  Emotional I n d i f f erence  Reliability Coefficient  Interperson Correlation  Error Variance  Standard Deviation  More Adequate Intel!. Ind.  Total Ind.  56 TABLE 18 HOTELLING STATISTICS AND F VALUES HIGHER ABILITY INDIANS AND WHITE GROUPS T  2  Hotelling i[ Groups  Statistic .  F Value  64 item 1) White A + I n t e l l i g e n t Indians  368.011  1.438  2) White B + I n t e l l i g e n t Indians  282.278  1.103  25 item 1) White A + I n t e l l i g e n t Indians  48.078  1.374  2) White B + I n t e l l i g e n t Indians  42.731  1.221  14 item 1) White A + I n t e l l i g e n t Indians  26.565  1.604  2) White B + I n t e l l i g e n t Indians  32.178  1.943*  *p 4.05  57 of the subtests in terms of higher r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s and lower levels of error variance. less adequate.  However, on three others, the measures become  There is no appreciable change between the two groups on the  remaining three t e s t s .  Positive a f f e c t p a r t i c u l a r l y shows extremely low  r e l i a b i l i t y f o r Indians A. . The results of the hotelling analyses are presented in Table 18.  This group of Indians A did not d i f f e r e n t i a t e from the White  subjects in t h e i r pattern of responses to the same extent as did the total Indian group.  Only one 14-item analysis was s i g n i f i c a n t , and this was not  replicated across comparisons with both White groups. Comparison of subtest and factor means with those of the White groups revealed no differences beyond chance expectations.  This  group of Indians scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than both White A and White B on Positive A f f e c t , at the .02 and .01 level of probability respectively. Results of l i f e data comparisons showed 3 s i g n i f i c a n t differences across both comparisons.  Like the total Indian group,  Indians A had more s i b l i n g s and were less l i k e l y to take risks than the White delinquents.  They also were more l i k e l y to come from a rural background.  C H A P T E R  F I V E  DISCUSSION  As stated in Chapter IV, the measurement aspects of the present study are given equal importance with the substantive results.  Thus, this chapter contains three major sections.  The f i r s t  includes a discussion of the methods of measurement used to gather the data in the study.  The second focuses on the discussion and interpretation  of substantive r e s u l t s , while the t h i r d interprets the more detailed analyses of item groupings and the inverse factor analysis. Methods of Study Used:  Their S u i t a b i l i t y for Indian Subjects  1. S t a t i s t i c a l Measures The homogeneity analyses done on the subtests lower r e l i a b i l i t y for a l l background.  indicated  Indian groups p a r t i c u l a r l y those from a rural  The Indians R appeared to respond to the items as a group, as  indicated by t h e i r higher inter-person c o r r e l a t i o n s .  However, the  low inter-item correlations they demonstrate suggest that the items do not d i f f e r e n t i a t e between them, as they do with the White subjects. This trend towards lower r e l i a b i l i t y for Indian subjects was evident in nine of the 12 subtests. Self-Defeatism. Whites.  The major exception lay in Factor  III:  This test appears to measure Indians more r e l i a b i l y than  To a lesser extent, the negative Affect and Assault subtests  also  showed a more even spread of Indian subjects across item and person c o r r e l ative indices.  The items in these three tests can therefore be assumed to be  more e a s i l y understood and to have more meaning for the Indian subjects.  At  the opposite end of the r e l i a b i l i t y continuum for Indians were the subtests  59 measuring Negativism, Verbal H o s t i l i t y , and Factor IV - F l i g h t from Family. The items in these tests were extremely inadequate f o r Indians, probably due to misinterpretation and resulting confusion in responding to them. It is important to consider why some of the s t a t i s t i c a l measures were less adequate for the Indian g i r l s .  One hypothesis made was  that a possible lack of schooling and lower level of l i t e r a c y in the Indian subjects made i t more d i f f i c u l t for them to interpret and respond to the items accurately.  To test this hypothesis, a homogeneity analysis was  repeated on the 34 Indian g i r l s whose level of education was assumed adequate for understanding thetest items, as described above.  While r e l i a b i l i t y  indices on some of the subtests improved, the trend was not consistent, and on some tests they even dropped for this group.  This drop was p a r t i c u l a r l y  evident on the Positive A f f e c t items, indicating perhaps that i t is the more educated Indians who are most unhappy, or that t h e i r feelings are so chaotic in this area that i t was extremely d i f f i c u l t for them to answer in a consistent manner.  This might be explained in terms of t h e i r more  extensive experiences in the White educational system,  and t h e i r  continued exposure to the unattainable goals of the White culture.  This  might indicate that delinquents as a whole, and Indians in p a r t i c u l a r represent a heterogeneous group of i n d i v i d u a l s , whose complexity goes unnoticed when this type of mass s t a t i s t i c a l study is used.  An individual-oriented  approach might be more informative, perhaps keyed to level of assimilation into White s o c i e t y , in the case of Indian delinquents. An alternative explanation for some of the psychometric inadequacy observed may l i e in the format of the subtests themselves.  With  60 the exception of the So s c a l e , the tests are short with only f i v e or six items each.  Thus caution should be exercised to guard against over-  interpretation of these r e l i a b i l i t y i n d i c e s , u n t i l they can be confirmed by more conclusive measures.  Regarding the So s c a l e , the low inter-item  correlations on i t for a l l groups indicate that i t does not f i t (1966) ideal cumulative homogeneity model.  Fiske's  WhijU i t may f i t a less  adequate s t a t i s t i c a l model, i t is possible that some of i t s items are losing t h e i r discriminatory power with social changes that have occurred since i t s development in 1952.  The scale should perhaps be re-examined in l i g h t  of such recent trends as the drug c u l t u r e , or the tendency towards passive withdrawal from rather than overt r e b e l l i o n against noxious social norms. In conclusion i t can be said that the s t a t i s t i c a l measures were less adequate for Indian .delinquents than White delinquents. However, without additional study, i t is impossible to determine to what extent the lower psychometric r e l i a b i l i t y for these g i r l s is a function of an a t t r i b u t e inherent in t h e i r Indian c u l t u r a l background.  The p o s s i b i l i t y  remains that the inadequacy l i e s within the measures themselves. 2.  Qualitative and Projective Measures The structured interviews held with 65 of the 1970  subjects provided an opportunity to assess a d i f f e r e n t means of gathering data from Indian subjects.  In responding to the d i r e c t questions and  TAT cards by the interviewer, the Indians again demonstrated a unique s t y l e . They tended to be much less verbose than the White delinquents, p a r t i c u l a r l y in response to the projective material which demanded spontaneous and imaginative expression,  they responded most e a s i l y to the structured questions demanding  61 mutually exclusive answers, such as "Whom do you l i k e better, your mother or your father?" This reservation must be considered in interpreting the data from the interviews.  It is possible that apparent differences  observed between Indian and White answers, such as those made in response to the f i r s t question, "What do you l i k e to do?", are merely the r e s u l t of greater loquaciousness on the part of the White delinquents rather than actual Indian-White  differences.  Response style may be as relevant to  interpretation as response content. This reserve is by no means unique to this  study.  Woodward (1949) found Indian g i r l s to be i n d i f f e r e n t to interrogation, and attributed this to a cultural t r a i t linked with the Indian t r a d i t i o n of taking pride in showing no emotion.  Drucker (1966) mentions mildness and  lack of display of strong feelings as Indian i d e a l s .  When consulted on this  matter the s t a f f at Willingdon also reported reticence in the Indian g i r l s during t h e i r f i r s t contacts with the school social workers.  Often t h e i r  families have warned them about getting too involved with the school, and the Indian g i r l s tend to spend the f i r s t few weeks suspiciously watching and l i s t e n i n g .  However, given time and the development of t r u s t , the school's  s t a f f observe that the Indian g i r l s are able to express themselves and talk f r e e l y with the social workers. Thus, in studying Indians t h e i r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c stoicism must be considered.  However, i t is not an insurmountable b a r r i e r .  In  this  study, i t was f e l t that the brevity of Indian answers did not a f f e c t t h e i r v a l i d i t y , but given more time to develop rapport, a greater store of knowledge  62 and more accurate Indian-White comparisons would have been possible. Interpretation of Substantive 1.  Results  Subtest and Factor Scores Hypothesis One, that the cross cultural v a l i d i t y of  the So scale would r e s u l t in no differences in overall score of White and Indian delinquents, was confirmed.  Further information on the overall  Indian d i s t r i b u t i o n of scores did not l i e within the bounds of this study. However, in view of the widespread cross cultural validation of the s c a l e , i t s basic v a l i d i t y may be well documented and supported. Hypothesized differences in Factors III, were also confirmed.  IV and V  The total and rural Indian groups displayed a higher  degree of self-defeatism and pessimism regarding the future than the White girls.  On Factor IV,  Indians scored low, indicating a tendency towards  family dependence rather than f l i g h t from family tension, although this conclusion is weakened somewhat by  the f a i l u r e to r e p l i c a t e to a s i g n i f i c a n t  level over both comparisons with White groups.  This may be due to the f a c t  that Indiana g i r l s do tend to run away from home, but not as a response to unbearable family tension as the factor suggests.  Rather, as Hawthorne (1966)  pointed out, they leave home to escape the dullness and boredom of l i f e on the reservation.  This observation is confirmed by the s t a f f of Willingdon,  who state that while t h e i r Indian g i r l s demonstrate an emotional bond with t h e i r f a m i l i e s , i t is not necessarily accompanied by a sense of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Indians also scored higher on Factor V, Emotional Indifference, as was hypothesized on the basis of t h e i r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c stoicism. t h e i r high scores on Factor III,  Coupled with  this suggests the stoicism i s more than a  t r a i t and i s related to attitudes of resignation and apathy as a r e s u l t of  63 t h e i r situational circumstances.  There is also support for the general  hypothesis that Indians display more positive attitudes towards t h e i r families in the results on Factor IV. The hypothesized results on Factors I and II obtained.  Indians did not demonstrate higher scores on Emotional Frag-  mentation, nor did they have lower scores on Negative Social would have indicated high family s t a b i l i t y .  Identity, which  This suggests that these  were inappropriate measures of the hypotheses. Factor II  were not  In f a c t , in the case of '  i t was recognized that a b i - p o l a r factor might not emerge f o r the  Indian subjects. Some theoretical specualtion may also be entertained in terms of complexities of the Indian s i t u a t i o n which the hypotheses on these two factors f a i l e d to recognize. ional fragmentation (Factor I)  Butt (1970b) has suggested that emot-  arises from lack of early a f f e c t i o n a l  support, and unmet dependency as a c h i l d .  If the account of Indian family  l i f e described e a r l i e r is c o r r e c t , then Indian g i r l s would not have experienced these p r e c i p i t a t i n g conditions.  While they may display emotional  fragmentation, i t arises from d i f f e r e n t sources and is possibly based in experiences outside the family.  Thus i t is not measured by this f a c t o r .  A more precise measure might reveal s i g n i f i c a n t Indian-White differences in terms of a more complex underlying structure. achieve s i g n i f i c a n t differences on Factor II  S i m i l a r l y the f a i l u r e to  could be attributed to an  inherent paradox in the measure for Indian subjects. the hypothesized d i r e c t i o n on family s t a b i l i t y .  The Indians score in  However, f a i l u r e to  attain an accepted level of s i g n i f i c a n c e could be due to the fact that  64 negative social i d e n t i t y and family s t a b i l i t y do not necessarily represent the polar opposites which the factor implies for Indian subjects.  An  Indian g i r l may c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y experience both at the same time in terms of her security at home and her d i f f i c u l t y in attaining positive i d e n t i f i c a t i o n in White society. On tests unrelated to s o c i a l i z a t i o n the Indian U were the only group that demonstrated s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher scores on the Assault subtest than the White groups.  An explanatory hypothesis may be that t h e i r  wider exposure to White society has led to more f r u s t r a t i o n , and consequently more overt h o s t i l i t y , than is demonstrated by t h e i r more insulted rural counterparts.  A l l four groups of Indians demonstrated s i g n i f i c a n t l y less  Positive A f f e c t than the White delinquents.  It remains to be explained whether  these low scores are actually due to the extreme misery of the Indians, or p a r t i a l l y attributable to a misinterpretation of the items on t h e i r part in that although item endorsement values are very low for a l l groups the r e l i a b i l i t i e s fluctuate.  However, the levels of significance are high  enough to suggest that the Indians are in f a c t , unhappier than White delinquents. Different trends between the groups of Indians emerged. Those demonstrating the greatest number of s i g n i f i c a n t differences from the White subjects were the Indians R, while the Indians U and A demonstrated the fewest differences.  This possibly indicates the i s o l a t i o n of the rural  subjects, in terms of less association with White c u l t u r e , and more intensive experiences with t h e i r own people.  The Indian U and A, on the other hand,  represent those whom Hawthorne (1966) describes when he speaks of the pattern of Indian delinquency becoming increasingly l i k e that of the White delinquents as they assimilate aspects of asocial behavior  65 along with the other elements of White c u l t u r e . In conclusion, Indian and White differences on subtest and item means indicate there is v a l i d i t y in the general family-society hypothesis which is the focal point of this study.  In terms of Factor  scales, there i s some support for more positive family attitudes in Indian than i n White delinquents.  This is accompanied by negative feelings toward  society and l i f e as a whole, although for the most part they tend to be inner-directed i n the form of defeatism and dejection rather than :  expressing the overt h o s t i l i t y versus society o r i g i n a l l y hypothesized. The greatest support for these conclusions was found in the group of Indians R, presumably due to t h e i r greater immersion in their own c u l t u r e , and less extensive contact with White society. 2.  Interview Data Simple questions with mutally exclusive answers appeared  to be one of the best methods in this study of e l i c i t i n g information from Indian subjects.  Data gathered in this manner indicated, f i r s t , that drugs  are much less an element in Indian delinquency than in White delinquency. For the Indians alcohol appears to continue to play the predominant role as a means of escape.  There may be several reasons for t h i s .  Alcohol has  t r a d i t i o n a l l y been used by the Indians to celebrate or forget problems for many years (Government of Canada 1969a; Lewis 1970), and i t is u n l i k e l y that drugs w i l l rapidly replace i t .  This is p a r t i c u l a r l y true in view of the f a c t  that Indian delinquents are often introduced to stimulants by older members of the family who, l i k e the majority of the middle-aged population of any group, w i l l have had l i t t l e contact with the drug culture but use alcohol freely.  White delinquents, having less family contact, w i l l more l i k e l y be  introduced to these elements by t h e i r peers, in an age group which is more f a m i l i a r with drugs.  The f i n a n c i a l elements must also be considered:  alcohol is s t i l l cheaper and easier to obtain for the Indians.  It  is  also possible that passivity and "mind expansion", the themes of the drug c u l t u r e , do not appeal to the Indians as forms of pleasure comparable to those obtained through alcohol.  However, i f assimilation by the  Indians of a l l aspects of White society continues, t h e i r eventual equal p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the drug scene seems to be an inevitable r e s u l t . Questions directed at attitudes toward the family and society indicated some support for the central hypothesis.  More Indian  than White delinquents liked both parents equally, which suggested an equal affection for both. mother.  The White delinquents showed a preference for the  However, the Indians generally gave more positive p o r t r a i t s in  describing t h e i r mothers.  Seven of them mentioned alcohol in t h e i r  descriptions, while none of the Whites did so.  This was done in a neutral,  rather than judgmental context indicating alcohol to be accepted as a natural facet of existence. ship to  The Indians also demonstrated a closer r e l a t i o n -  extended family members and named this group most often as people  they t r u s t , or by whom they are most influenced.  They did not speak of  parents in this context, perhaps because more extensive Indian family t i e s drain intensity from the parent-child relationship (Lewis 1970). White delinquents,on the other hand, demonstrated more trust and s t a b i l i t y in l i f e outside t h e i r homes.  They said that  i d e a l l y they would l i k e to be on t h e i r own or t r a v e l .  Friends,  siblings,  and outside authorities such as teachers and social workers were the people deemed most trustworthy or i n f l u e n t i a l in t h e i r l i v e s , and older family  67 figures were conspicuously absent from these categories. The two groups also d i f f e r e d in t h e i r attitudes toward and perceptions of Willingdon i t s e l f .  The Indians showed less overt  r e b e l l i o n or resentment against being in the school and some even viewed i t as a solution to t h e i r problems.  Although homesick, t h e i r attitude  towards t h e i r term at the school seemed to be one of passive acceptance and of seeing i t as an inevitable end to t h e i r asocial behavior.  It  is  possible, as one government publication pointed out (Government of Canada 1969a), that because a term at Willingdon represents equality with the White g i r l s and offers better physical conditions than home, a short stay is even enjoyed to a certain extent.  Because being committed to the school does  not represent a stigma in Indian society, the g i r l s do not become embittered in a n t i c i p a t i o n of future rejection by family or f r i e n d s .  For many of the  Indian g i r l s who have run away from reservation homes to come to Vancouver, being sent to Willingdon upon apprehension represents a welcome refuge after the Skid Row l i f e many have experienced.  F i n a l l y , i t may be that since the  all-powerful White society has decreed Willingdon to be a place of reform for delinquent g i r l s , the Indians passively accept this r o l e , and see the school as a solution to t h e i r problems. In view of the Indians' d i f f i c u l t with the TAT, l i t t l e can be concluded from the projective r e s u l t s .  However, there does seem to  be support for a s e l f - d e s t r u c t i v e , n e g a t i v i s t i c response to l i f e in Indian g i r l s , as opposed to the overt asocial expressions of White depicted on card 3BM.  girls,  68 Comparison of Indian and White Direction of Response and Response Patterns on the So Scale 1.  Item Analyses The Indian and White groups demonstrated no s i g n i f i c a n t  differences in t h e i r response directions on the So scale as a whole, nor did the s i g n i f i c a n c e of these comparisons increase when they were repeated with the Indian A and White groups.  This might be taken to indicate  that, in f a c t , there are no differences in Indian and White responses to the t e s t .  However, since hotelling s t a t i s t i c s carried out on smaller numbers  of selected items from the scale were s i g n i f i c a n t , this is u n l i k e l y .  A  more plausible explanation is that the Gough scale in t o t a l , is too broad an instrument for d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g these groups, and more precise measures are needed. This hypothesis is substantiated by the significance levels obtained in the 25 and 14 item analyses.  As the number of items was  systematically decreased, d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of two d i s t i n c t directions of response became evident.  Caution must be exercised l e s t these results be  merely an a r t i f a c t of the process of decreasing the number of items. However, the facts that the significance levels are high, indicates that content differences do underly the r e s u l t s .  The closer approximation of the  Indians A to the White patterns of response may again be explained by t h e i r wider experiences and assimilation into White society, p a r t i c u l a r l y through the educational system.  They appear to give more precise responses,  but in an i d i o s y n c r a t i c d i r e c t i o n that f a l l s somewhere between the White and total Indian responses, as does their own l i f e s t y l e . The picture a r i s i n g from the patterns of the 25- and 14-item analyses lends support to the central hypotheses of the study.  The  69 items of Factor Subscale V p a r t i c u l a r l y receive strong support as successful distinguishers  between White subjects and Indians, the l a t t e r  scoring higher on this scale.  Indian subjects strongly endorse three  of the f i v e items considered to contribute most s i g n i f i c a n t l y to this scale.  Emotional i n d i f f e r e n c e , defined in the context of stoicism f o r  this study, does appear to play an important part in Indian delinquency. Different attitudes toward family and home were reflected in the response patterns of the two groups.  The Indian g i r l s  tended to endorse more family-oriented items in a d i r e c t i o n that showed positive attitudes toward the home, a trend p a r t i c u l a r l y evident on the 14item analysis.  The only consistent exception to these pleasant family  perspectives was t h e i r avowal that they had often been punished u n f a i r l y and severely at home. This apparent contradiction-a happy homelife and unjust discipline-might be explained in several ways.  If,  as stated in the  Introduction, d i s c i p l i n e in Indian homes is often slack, i t is  possible  that when i t does occur, i t comes as a shock to the c h i l d and he over reacts to i t .  The observations of s t a f f at Willingdon, that d i s c i p l i n a r y  measures taken with Indian g i r l s often r e s u l t in tantrums, supports idea.  this  On the other hand, punishment in the Indian home when i t does occur  may have heightened significance for the c h i l d as i t tends to take a physical form (Lewis 1970).  It may indeed be unjust as well i f i t occurs be-  cause the parents have been drinking, or take out t h e i r own frustrations on the c h i l d .  The apathy and lack of consistency in applying d i s c i p l i n e  (Woodward 1949), as well as a generation gap enchanced by the c h i l d r e n ' s greater contact with White society (Indian-Eskimo Association 1966, Lewis 1970), may also lead to the Indian c h i l d ' s misperception and resentment of  70 punishment he receives at home.  Whatever her views of d i s c i p l i n e , the  Indian c h i l d ' s perceptions of home and family remain b a s i c a l l y p o s i t i v e , in contrast to those of her White counterpart. Attitudes towards society which arise from item content are more hopeless than h o s t i l e , as hypothesized.  The Indians  demonstrate a lack of s t a b i l i t y and trust in t h e i r environment, with low self-confidence, and l i t t l e insight into how they arrived at t h e i r unhappy s i t u a t i o n . bears this out. ficial  Again, observation of Indian g i r l s by Willingdon  staff  They find that while these delinquents demonstrate super-  f r i e n d l i n e s s , t h e i r relationships with others are b a s i c a l l y  inconsis-  tent, and a long period of time is required to build a trusting r e l a t i o n s h i p . Indian delinquents appear to be less rebels against, and more victims  of,  t h e i r societal circumstances, and are immersed in the accompanying confusion and depression. In conclusion, i t may be said on the basis of these analyses that Indian and White delinquents do demonstrate s i g n i f i c a n t ferences in d i r e c t i o n of response.  dif-  Differences between the two groups  in the content of items endorsed support the hypotheses of the study. B.  Inverse Factor Analysis There was less evidence for a d i s t i n c t i v e response  pattern on the factor analyses. on subject Factor V.  The Indian subjects did show low loadings  This is probably related to t h e i r tendency to endorse  items contributing to one of the s o c i a l i z a t i o n f a c t o r s , Emotional which was discussed previously.  Indifference,  C H A P T E R  SIX  CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF STUDY  It may be concluded that differences exist in the attitudes and behavior of Indian and White delinquents. support of the primary hypothesis:  There was evidence in  that while Indian delinquency is a  response to s o c i a l i z a t i o n c o n f l i c t s encountered in White society, White delinquents are reacting more against s o c i a l i z a t i o n pressures from within their f a m i l i e s .  It also became evident that the s i t u a t i o n was more complex  than the o r i g i n a l hypotheses  suggested.  Indian delinquents demonstrate more positive attitudes towards family and home.  However, some apparent paradoxes prevent s t r a i g h t -  forward interpretation of this f i n d i n g .  "Family" for the Indian g i r l s  is more l i k e l y to include extended family members and not merely an intense nuclear unit. at home.  They perceive themselves as having been u n f a i r l y punished  Over-riding positive attitudes towards home do not prevent them  from running away.  Thus, this finding must be regarded in the context of  these contradictory adjuncts, and must be further explored to gain more complete understanding of i t s meaning. The Indian g i r l s also showed a d i f f e r e n t attitude toward society at large than the Whites.  Rather than the h o s t i l i t y hypothesized,  their orientation seemed to be one of dejection and self-defeatism.  The  Indian delinquents appear as victims of t h e i r circumstances whose reaction to t h e i r misery is to turn t h e i r h o s t i l i t y inward rather than exhibit outward rebellion.  Faced with a lack of viable a l t e r n a t i v e s , delinquency and i t s  72 implications are accepted passively as a way of l i f e .  There is mistrust and  c o n f l i c t in the White society but these do not precipitate delinquency as an overt attack on this society. These family-society differences varied somewhat between the Indian groups.  Rural Indians showed the most d i s t i n c t differences  from the White groups.  This is probably due to t h e i r greater insulation  from White society on the reserves.  Urban Indians showed a pattern more  closely approximating that of the White delinquents.  This was the only group  that gave any indication of overt h o s t i l i t y toward White society.  Perhaps  t h e i r close contact with the White culture in the c i t i e s leads to more f r u s tration and subsequent outward h o s t i l i t y .  Indians of higher a b i l i t y showed the  fewest differences from the White groups probably because of t h e i r greater assimilation through educational experiences.  The f a c t that this group  was the unhappiest. indicates these experiences were not always pleasant. It must be concluded that the influence of the larger society cannot be ignored in studying c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a minority group within i t . Perhaps one of the most enlightening aspects of this study was the information revealed on the adequacy of the methods used. They consistently measured White subjects more r e l i a b l y than Indians. R e l i a b i l i t y did not improve to a s i g n i f i c a n t degree when tests were redone on the Indians demonstrating a higher degree of i n t e l l e c t u a l c a p a b i l i t y . the explanation for the differences must l i e elsewhere. the measures used were inappropriate.  Thus  It is possible that  While s o c i a l i z a t i o n is a universal  phenomenon, this study may have demanded too much from the So scale.  The  scale has been primarily used to d i f f e r e n t i a t e delinquents and non-delinquents. Here, i t was required to make cultural d i s t i n c t i o n s within a group of  73 delinquents on the basis of i t s dimensions.  Assumptions made for a total  population of delinquents may not hold true when they are broken into groups for the purpose of examining t h e i r cultural complexities.  In this sense the  So scale proved too narrow for this study as i t gave no freedom for d i s covering complexities lying beyond i t s immediate scope. true of two of i t s factor scales  (I and II)  This was p a r t i c u l a r l y  where the ends of the continuum  used seemed to have d i f f e r e n t meanings for Indian and White subjects. Several implications can be drawn from these findings. F i r s t , i t is important to remember in s t a t i s t i c a l populations such as Butt's  studies of total delinquent  (1970b) that the presence of Indian delinquents  may be obscuring some results due to the inadequacy of the measure for these subjects.  Secondly, the differences found in this study should be explored  through more extensive and precise methods designed to overcome the d i f f i c u l t ies found in studying Indians.  Further confirmation and understanding of the  findings could perhaps be attempted through use of non-verbal methods such as observing i n t e r a c t i o n s , forming a c t i v i t y groups, or using a r t as a medium of Indian expression.  If there is time to develop rapport, verbal  measures may be made more productive.  If objective questionnaire methods  are developed, this study indicates a format of d i r e c t questions with mutually exclusive answers would be most f u n c t i o n a l .  Item content would best be  developed along the lines of the items in Factors III  and V, which seemed to  be most meaningful to Indian subjects. This study indicates several avenues of further research which might be p r o f i t a b l y explored.  A study of the same nature which gives  more attention to degree of assimilation into White society could be productive.  It appears that adaption to asocial as well as social norms of  74 behavior is occurring as Indians encounter White society and this affects the expression and meaning of delinquency for the Indian g i r l .  A similar  study to examine the family-society orientations of non-delinquent Indian g i r l s would also be beneficial to increased understanding.  It  is  possible  that while these Indian g i r l s experience the same s o c i a l i z a t i o n c o n f l i c t s as the Indian delinquents, they have managed to resolve them, while t h e i r delinquent counterparts are the ones l e f t in limbo with cultural c o n f l i c t s unresolved. A study of Indian and White delinquency and i t s meaning from the viewpoint of the family would be an interesting complement to this study.  The most p r o f i t a b l e approach to this might be a f i e l d study,  conducted over several years.  The fiocus would be on changes of attitude  towards and treatment of a delinquent daughter.  Hypotheses would center  on stigma and r e j e c t i o n directed towards the g i r l of her delinquency.  by her family as a r e s u l t  Presumably, Indian families would show more acceptance.  A f i n a l study might compare two treatment orientations for Indian and White delinquents.  The findings of this study suggest that the Indian's problems  l i e mainly in d i f f i c u l t i e s that confront her in society, while the White delinquent i s a  product of an unhappy home.  Two treatment programs could be  developed, one oriented towards social r e h a b i l i t a t i o n , and the other organized more along an interpersonal therapeutic scheme.  It would be hypo-  thesized that Indian delinquents would benefit more from the former, while the l a t t e r would o f f e r more for White delinquents. In conclusion, i t appears that v a l i d differences do exist between Indian and White female delinquents.  Hopefully these w i l l be  confirmed and further understanding gained in future studies.  At present  75 some practical implications for Indian delinquents arise from this study.  Their t a c i t u r n i t y and apparent indifference should not be resented  but recognized for what i t i s :  a defence against the misery and alienation  they have encountered in l i f e .  They should be given consistent and f a i r  d i r e c t i o n and d i s c i p l i n e so they can develop trust and a sense of s t a b i l i t y in t h e i r surroundings.  F i n a l l y , they should be given support in t h e i r  search for self-worth and i d e n t i t y between t h e i r own t r a d i t i o n a l culture and the r e a l i t y of the pervasive White society in which they must l i v e .  76 C H A P T E R  S E V E N  BIBLIOGRAPHY B j e r r i n g , J . , Boyer, S., Campbell, J . , Starbey, G. U.B.C. MVTAB, Multivariate Contingency Tabulations, U.B.C. Computing Centre, Vancouver, B.C., October, 1970. B j e r r i n g , J . H . & Segraves, P. Triangular regression package Computing Centre, U . B . C , Vancouver, B.C., November 1970. Bradburn, N. & Caplovitz, D. Publishing Company, 1965.  Reports on happiness Chicago:  Aldine  B r i t i s h Columbia Indian Adivsory Committee, Annual Reports, 1953-1969. Buss, A.H. & Durkee, A. An inventory for assessing d i f f e r e n t kinds of hostility. Journal of Consulting Psychology 1957, 21 , 343-349. Butt, S. S o c i a l i z a t i o n dimensions and t h e i r c o r r e l a t e s , American Psychological Association Proceedings, September 1970(a), 475-476. Butt, S. Psychological facets of delinquency in g i r l s . manuscript, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1970(b). Cardinal, H. Edmonton:  Unpublished  The unjust society: The tragedy of Canada's Indians. N.G. Hurtig L t d . , 1969.  Cavan, R. and Cavan, J . T . Delinquency and crime: Cross-cultural perspectives. New York: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1968. de Fleur, L. Alternative strategies for the development of delinquency theories applicable to other cultures. Social Problems, 1969, 17, 30-39. Donald, E. Personality scale analysis of new admission to a reformatory. Unpublished master's t h e s i s , Ohio State University, 1955. Drucker, P. Indians of the Northwest Coast. In R.C. Owen et. a l . (Eds.) The North American Indians; A sourcebook. New York: MacMillan Co., 1967. Drucker, P. The patterns of culture. In T. McFeat (Ed.) Indians of the North P a c i f i c Coast. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1966. Fine, R. Manual for scoring scheme for verbal projective techniques. Angeles University of Southern C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1948. Fiske, D.W. Homogeneity and variation in measuring personality. Psychologist 1966, 18, (10), 643-652.  Los  American ~ ~  77 Fiske, D.W. Some hypotheses concerning test adequacy. Educational - P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurement 1966(b), 26, 69-88. Fiske, D.W. Measuring the concepts of personality. Chicago: Publishing Co. 197t: Gough, H.G. A sociological theory of Psychopathy. of Sociology. 1948, 53, 359-366.  Aldine  American Journal  Gough, H.G. Theory and measurement of s o c i a l i z a t i o n . Consulting Psychology, 1960, 24, 23-30.  Journal of  Gough, H.G. Conceptual analysis of psychological test scores and other diagnostic variables. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1965, 70, 294-302. Gough, H.G. Cross-cultural validation of a measure of asocial Psychological Reports, 1965, 1_7, 379-387.  behavior.  Gough, H.G. Appraisal of social maturity by means of the C.P.I. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1966, 71, 189-195. Gough, H.G. Cross-cultural approaches to the study of delinquency. Paper presented at the 76th annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, September, 1968. Gough, H.G. and Peterson, D.R. The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and measurement of predi s p o s i t i o n a l factors in crime and delinquency. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1952, J 6 _ 207-212. Gough, H.G. and Sandhu, H.S. Validation of the C.P.I, s o c i a l i z a t i o n scale in India . Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1964, 6_8, 544-547. Gough, H.G., Wenk, E.A., and Rozynko, V. Parole outcome as predicted from the C.P.I., the M.M.P.I, and a base expectancy table. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1965, 70, 432-441. Government of Canada, Department of Citizenship and ImmigrationIndian A f f a i r s , Branch, The Canadian Indian: A reference paper. Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1963. Government of Canada, Department, of Indian A f f a i r s and Northern Development and the Canadian Corrections Association. Indians and the law. Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1969. Government of Canada, Department of Indian A f f a i r s and Northern Development. Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian p o l i c y . Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1969. Government of Canada, Department of Indian A f f a i r s and Northern Development. Indian A f f a i r s : facts and f i g u r e s . Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r : 1970.  78 Government of the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, Department of Social Welfare, Annual Report-T967. V i c t o r i a : A. Sutton, 1968. Gronek, T. & T y l e r , T. UCSL-602-D, University of Chicago Program Library, "Computation Centre, University of Chicago, Chicago, I l l i n o i s , 60637. (Adapted by U.B.C. Social Sciences Program L i b r a r y ) . Halm, J . UBC BMDX 72 Factor Analysis, Computing Centre, U.B.C., Vancouver, B.C. December 1970. Hawthorne, H.B. (Ed.) A survey of the contemporary Indians of Canada: economic, p o l i t i c a l , and educational needTi Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1966. Hawthorne, H.B., Belshaw, C.S., and Jamieson, S.M. The Indians of B r i t i s h Columbia: a study of contemporary social adjustment. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1958. Indian-Eskimo Association of Canada, B r i t i s h Columbia Interim Committee. Conference on concerns of Indians in B r i t i s h Columbia, 1966. J a f f e , E.D. Family anomie and delinquency: development of the concept and some empirical findings. B r i t i s h Journal of Criminology, 1969, 9, 376-388. Konopka, G i s e l a . The adolescent g i r l Prentice-Hall Inc., 1966.  in c o n f l i c t .  Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.:  Kulik, J . A . , S t e i n , K.B. and Sarbin, T.R. Dimensions and patterns of adolescent a n t i s o c i a l behaviour. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1968, 32, 375-382. Laing, The Honourable A., Minister of Indian A f f a i r s and Northern Development. The Indian people and the Indian Act,Address to the Ryerson Men's Club, Vancouver, 1969. Lemert, E.M. Some functions of alcohol consumption by northwest coast Indians. In J . Willmott (Ed.) The Indians of B r i t i s h Columbia. Department of University Extension, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1963. Lewis, C. Indian families of the northwest coast: Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.  The impact of change.  McFeat, T. (Ed.) Indians of the North P a c i f i c Coast. of Washington Press, 1966.  Seattle:  University  McNickle, D. Indian and European: Indian-White relations from discovery to 1887. In R.C. Owen et. a l . (Eds.) The North-American Indians: A sourcebook. New York: Macmillan Co., 1967.  79 Murray, H.A. Thematic apperception test Press, 1943.  Cambridge:  Harvard University  Oberg, K. Crime and punishment in T l i n g i t society. In T. McFeat (Ed.) Indians of the North P a c i f i c Coast. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1966. Owen, R.C., Deetz, J . J . F . , and Fisher, A.D. (Eds.) The North American Indians: J\ sourcebook. New York: Macmillan Co., 1967. Peterson, D.R., Quay, H.C. and Anderson, A.C. Extending the construct v a l i d i t y of a s o c i a l i z e d scale. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1959, 23, 182. Ravenhill, A. The native tribes of B r i t i s h Columbia. C F . Banfield, 1938.  Victoria:  Reed, C F . and Cuadra, C A . The, role-taking hypothesis in delinquency. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1957, 21_, 386-390. R e i f e l , B. Cultural factors in the social adjustment of Indians. In J . Willmott, (Ed.) The Indians of B r i t i s h Columbia, Department of University Extension, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1963. Sarbin, T.R., A l l e n , V . L . , and Rutherford, E.E. Social reinforcement, s o c i a l i z a t i o n , and chronic delinquency. B r i t i s h Journal of Social and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1965, 4, 179-184. Schriver, J . and Leacock, E. Harrison Indian childhood. In J . Willmott The Indians of B r i t i s h Columbia. Department of University Extension, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1963.  (Ed.),  S t e i n , K.B., Gough, H.G., and Sarbin, T.R. The dimensionality —^> of the C.P.I, s o c i a l i z a t i o n scale and an empirically derived typology among delinquent and non-delinquent boys. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1966, 1_, 207-208. Taylor, L . J . A l i e n a t i o n , anomie, and delinquency. B r i t i s h Journal of Social and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1968, 7_, 93-105. Trese, L . J . 1962.  101 delinquent g i r l s .  Notre Dame:  Fides Publishers,  United States of America, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Rubenfeld, S. Typological approaches and delinquency c o n t r o l : A status report. Washington: United States Government Printing O f f i c e , 1970. Vedder, C B . and Somerville, D. C.C. Thomas, 1970.  The delinquent g i r l .  Springfield,  Illn.:  Vogt, E.Z. The acculturation of American Indians, In. R.C. Owen et. a l . (Ed.) The North American Indians: A sourcebook. New York: Macmillan Co. 1967. Willmott, J . (Ed.) The Indians of B r i t i s h Columbia. Department of University Extension, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1963. Woodward, M. Juvenile delinquency among Indian g i r l s . Unpublished Master's t h e s i s , School of Social work, University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1949.  81 A P P E N D I X 1968 and 1970 POPULATION COMPARISONS  A homogeneity analysis was performed to determine whether psychometric adequacy of the measures was the same for both populations. 2 An item analysis was performed using a hotelling T  s t a t i s t i c on the total  So scale to examine the d i r e c t i o n of responses to the items for each population. 2, and 3.  The results of these two analyses are presented in Tables 1, T-tests were done on subtest and factor scores and on l i f e data for  the two populations to determine whether s i g n i f i c a n t differences existed on these variables. The homogeneity analysis revealed few differences between the groups in terms of psychometric adequacy.  The standard deviations  were s l i g h t l y greater for the 1970 group on most of the subtests, and the r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t f o r test reactions was higher f o r the 1970 group. The subtest showing the greatest v a r i a b i l i t y between the two populations was Factor IV, F l i g h t from Family, which was less r e l i a b l e for the 1970 group. The only s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the groups, on the subtest and factor scores was in the Test Reactions scale.  The 1970  group showed more negative attitudes toward the t e s t i n g . The overall F value f o r the item analysis on the total So scale was highly s i g n i f i c a n t .  This cast most doubt upon the v a l i d i t y of  combining the two populations f o r the Indian-White analyses.  However, upon  closer examination, i t became evident that the items with the best discriminating a b i l i t y i . e . that contributed'most to this d i f f e r e n c e , were  TABLE 1 HOMOGENEITY ANALYSIS: No. of Items  Subtest  Mean  Standard Deviation  1968 and 1970 POPULATIONS  Reliability Coefficient  Inter-item Correlation  Inter-person Correlation  Error Variance  136.50  10.28  .63  .03  .21  .76  1970  136.12  11.60  .68  .03  .18  .78  1968  7.47  1.19  .36  .05  .12  .68  1970  10.25  1.43  .51  .08  .05  .68  Positive Affect  1968  7.12  1.41  .60  .16  .20  .53  1970  7.43  1.38  .54  .10  .18  .56  Negative Affect  1968  8.81  1.19  .58  .08  .22  .53  1970  8.52  1.30  .56  .15  .14  .57  Assault  1968  15.55  2.68  .76  .23  .10  .63  1970  15.06  2.40  .68  .19  .10  .68  Verbal Hostility  1968  10.16  1.43  .48  .22  .03  .70  1970  10.16  1.27  .29  .20  .03  .75  Negativism  1968  8.15  1.22  .31  .24  .05  .70  1970  8.29  1.25  .37  .17  .03  .69  1968  11.97  2.76  .71  .13  .12  .50  1970  11.52  2.81  .68  .06  .19  .49  S o c i a l i z a t i o n 1968  Test  Reactions  Factor 1 Emotional Fragmentation  64  10  No. of Items  Subtest Factor II Negative Social Identity Factor III Self-Defeatism Factor IV F l i g h t from Family Factor V Emotional Indifference  1968 l  g  7  l  g  7  g  7  1968 l  g  7  5  0  1  >  5  8  5  g  2  2  3  5  >  6  2  l  9  g  g  7 Q  A  8  1  >  3  4  2.32 2  4  0  Inter-person Correlation  .08  .10 5  .55 .53  .20  .54  e  l  l  .57 5  1.96  7.78 8  8  Inter-item Correlation  .64  2.30  13.23 1  Reliability Coefficient  2.64  11.23 1 Q  0  Standard Deviation  11.19 1  Q  1968 l  5  0  1968  Mean  - 0  .21  2  1  .56  .20 . 0  .20 .10  .55 .72  .23 ,16  .17 .05  .54 .64  > 0 2  .59 .49  8  0  > 1 3  Error Variance  > 5 9  CO CO  84 TABLE 2 HOTELLING ON 64-ITEM GOUGH SCALE - 1968 AND 1970 POPULATIONS Hotelling S t a t i s t i c  F Value  283.074  2.625* * p  .0000  TABLE 3 ITEMS OF GREATEST SIGNIFICANCE IN HOTELLING ANALYSIS 1968-1970 GROUPS  Item Number  Differences between Means  Item Content  1970 more  3  -.272  I would never play cards with a stranger.  F  21  -.320  I never worry about my looks.  T  28  -.287  I would rather go without something than ask for a favour.  T  When I meet a stranger I often think that he is better than I am.  F  I have often gone against my parents' wishes.  F  31 43  -.362 .339  47  .262  Most of the time I feel happy  T  51  .277  I have used alcohol excessively  F  55  .324  I don't think I'm quite as happy as others seem to be.  F  I used to steal sometimes when I was a youngster.  T  I never cared much for school.  F  56 58  -.251 .273  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0093348/manifest

Comment

Related Items