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.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata


831-UBC_1971_A8 N45.pdf [ 3.98MB ]
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

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 present ing th i s thes i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i lmen t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Un iver s i t y of Br i t i sh•Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary sha l l make i t f r e e l y ava i l ab le for reference and study. I fu r ther agree that permission for extens ive copying of th i s thes i s f o r s cho la r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s representat ives . It i s understood that copying or pub l i c a t i on o f th i s thes i s f o r f i nanc i a l gain sha l l not be allowed without my wr i t ten permiss ion. Depa rtment The Un iver s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada 11 Abstract Delinquency is examined in groups of young female offenders from two different cultures: Brit ish Columbia Indians and the larger White society. Socialization (Gough and Peterson 1952) is the focus of the study, due to i ts universal nature. Facets and dimensions of social ization are examined s ta t i s t i ca l l y and qual itat ively for Indian-White differences in the expression and significance of delinquency for each culture. Several s ignif icant findings emerge. Speci f ica l ly , the r e l i ab 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 their 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. i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I THEORETICAL BASIS OF THE STUDY 1 Introduction 1 Measures of Socialization and i ts Dimensions 2 The Socialization of the Indians of Brit ish Columbia and i t s Role in Delinquency 5 Profi le of the Indian Delinquent Girl 12 II HYPOTHESES 15 III METHOD Subjects 19 Data 21 Procedure 23 Analyses 23 IV RESULTS Group Profiles on Life 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 Ab i l i ty 54 iv V DISCUSSION Methods of Study Used: their Suitabi l i ty for Indians 58 1. Stat ist ica 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 68 1. Item Analyses 68 2. Inverse Factor Analyses 70 VI CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY 71 VII BIBLIOGRAPHY 76 VIII APPENDIX 81 1968 and 1970 Population Comparisons 81 V LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Listing of Analyses and Subject Groups Used 2 Group Profiles - Life Data 28 3 Psychometric Adequacy of Data: Indian and White Groups 32 4 Test and Factor Scale Comparisons - Indian and White Groups 37 5 Results of Hotelling on Five Factor Means 37 2 6 Hotelling T Stat ist ics and F Values - Indian and White Groups 40 2 7 Most Discriminating Items: Twenty-five Item Hotelling T 42 8 Individual Item Mean Differences: Fourteen-Item Hotel l -ing T*. 43 9 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 Ab i l i ty Indians and Total Indians 55 18 Hotelling Stat ist ics and F Values: Higher Ab i l i ty Indians and White Groups 56 vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would particularly l ike to thank my advisor, Dr. Susan Butt, for the time and effort she spent in helping me to prepare this thesis. Her suggestions and advice at every stage of i ts development were greatly appreciated, and her moral support was instrumental to i ts completion. I would also l ike to thank Dr. Tom Storm for the ideas and criticisms he offered in his capacity as my second advisor. His comments gave me valuable direction and counsel, particularly in the development of the thesis in its f inal stages. Thanks are also due to the staff of the Social Sciences s ta t i s t i ca l centre at the University, and to Miss Irene Schlosser, who typed the f inal manuscript. This study was supported by Grant 26-9671 from the University Research Committee to Dr. Susan Butt. C H A P T E R O N E THEORETICAL BASIS OF THE STUDY Introduction Cavan and Cavan (1968) and Gough (1968) have indicated that crime and delinquency are universal in mankind. They also state that manifestation of these asocial behavioral patterns is intimately linked to fa i lure of social ization in any culture. In short, delinquency represents a fa i lure of a society to social ize i t s members to support and internalize i ts 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 wi l l vary between cultures, according to cultural differences in the values stressed during socia l izat ion. Vedder & Somerville (1970) support this view, stating that delinquency dif fers in form, and meaning, in different societies. DeFleur (1969) also warns against the incautious cross-cultural 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: the Indian and non-Indian populations of Brit ish Columbia. It assumes that fa i lure of social ization is a universal factor in delinquency. Given this common basis i t explores the psychological t ra i ts emerging as residuals of social ization in each group. These tra i ts are termed facets or dimensions of socia l izat ion. The assumption is made that cultural differences in the meaning and expression of overt delinquent 2 behavior wi l l be reflected in these dimensions, because each culture has stressed different values in the social ization process. Both groups of delinquents exhibit asocial behavior attributable to under-socialization. However, the personality traits which accrue from the social ization process and give r ise to delinquency wi l l d i f fer between the cultures as a function of the different values and norms. Measures of Socialization and Its Dimensions The measure of social ization employed is Gough's Socialization (So) Scale, (Gough and Peterson 1952), which later became a sub-test of the Cal ifornia Personality Inventory (Gough 1964). This 64-item questionnaire is a personality assessment device, based on Mead's ro le-taking theory, and is designed to y ie ld predictions regarding the probability of delinquent behavior in terms of social izat ion. Social ization, defined as an understanding and internalization of society's rules, is viewed as largely dependent on social interaction, 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 inabi l i ty to sustain, organize, and integrate knowledge gained in interaction. Conflicts in social ization necessarily interfere with the process, of acquiring these ab i l i t i e s as the role demands become vague or contradictory (Gough 1952). Gough (1960) conceives of individuals as fa l l ing along a continuum of social izat ion. 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 differentiating delinquents from non-delinquents with greater than 90% accuracy, has been widely validated on a variety of populations (Gough 1960). Its correlation with intel l igence, socio-economic status, and race is "essentially zero" (Gough 1968), and i t is also capable of f iner distinctions within a pop-ulation of delinquents. Donald (1955), for example, found that those delinquents convicted of misdemeanors of a social nature, such as intoxication, 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 ts well-established cross-cultural va l id i ty . Gough (1966, 1968) views social ization as a "folk concept", or a dimension of inter-personal behavior that is cultural ly universal. He theorizes that " . . .the goal... is to measure those traits of character which arise direct ly 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 culture." (Gough and Sandhu 1968, p.544). Its ab i l i ty to differentiate delinquents from non-delinquents has been confirmed in eight languages and ten countries to the .001 leve 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 Brit ish Columbia, Donald (1955) and Peterson, Quay and Anderson (1959) found no rel iable differences on So scores of Negro and White delinquents. The second reason for using the So scale is i ts dimensional aspect, which provides a means of detecting cultural differences in the 4 psychological constructs underlying the social ization measure. In his original development of the scale, Gough recognized that the items used could be broken down into at least four dist inct ive clusters, these being; 1. role-taking deficiencies, 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 under-standing of tHe So scale by breaking the molar construct into i ts 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 tab i l i ty versus waywardness and family dissat isfact ion, optimism versus distrust and al ienation, and control versus asocial roles and attitudes. Using a population of male university students, Butt (1970a) found f ive functional factors, which she developed more fu l l y in a later study using a population of female juvenile delinquents and non-delinquents (1970b). Termed dimensions of social ization they are l isted below along with the highest loading item for each: Factor I - Emotional Fragmentation versus Emotional Focus "I have used alcohol excessively" (True) Factor II - Negative Social Identity versus Social (Family) Stabi l i ty "My home l i f e was always happy" (False) Factor III - Self-defeatism and Blame versus Self-confidence "I don't think I'm quite as happy as others seem to be" (True) Factor IV - Fl ight from Family Tension versus Family Stabi l i ty "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 ive factors represent the psychological traits which accrue during the social ization process. Scores on these dimensions are expected to vary between Indian and White delinquents because of the differences in the nature of social ization each experiences in her own culture. 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 social ization dimensions. These included examination of Indian and White response patterns to individual items of the So scale, and collection of qual itat ive, projective, and demographic data. The Socialization of the Indians of Br it ish  Columbia and i ts Role in Delinquency The Indian people of Brit ish Columbia have characterist ical ly l ived in scattered tr ibes, separated both geographically and cultural ly. In spite of this diversity the s imi lar i ty of the conditions facing a l l tribes in their present adaption to White society enables treatment of a l l Indians in the province as a homogeneous group for the purpose of this discussion (Hawthorne, Belshaw, and Jamieson 1958). A high rate of delinquency is characteristic of young Indian females in the province. While the Indian population comprises 2.2% of Br it ish 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 figures, 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 their male counterparts. Perhaps this is due to the greater number and severity of offences commited by the latter (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 their socia l izat ion. Delinquents from any culture are assumed to be undersocialized, partly because role confl icts encountered during social izat ion retard the process. The purpose of this section is to present the rationale for considering social ization and i ts residuals to d i f fer between Indians and Whites, in terms of the confl icts each encounters in the process. The young delinquents from both cultures share the confl icts 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 confl icts by virtue of their ethnic status. The main source of social ization confl icts 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, irreversible process, pervading a l l aspects of Indian l i f e (Hawthorne et. a l . 1958). In the ensuing conf l ict of old versus new, or Indian versus White ways, the Indians have become both legally and psychologically dependent on the White society. As a result the White people are regarded 7 with ambivalence and distrust by the Indians, and their values and accompanying l i f e style are both envied and resented (Hawthorne 1966). In terms of social ization theory, the Indian's roles have become increasingly confused and disorganized with the advent of White society. His traditional roles are inadequate and even wrong for a satisfactory l i f e in modern White society, and yet his Indian background makes the new roles demanded incomprehensible and unattainable. For example, Indian economy is tradit ional ly 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 tua l ly unknown (Reifel 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 cont-emporary society. Indian concepts of family l i f e are also at odds with White ideals, the most notable difference being the extensive Indian kinship system as opposed to the conjugal unit common in traditional 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, particularly in the face of economic hardship. Commonlaw unions abound, often due to the legal, f inanc ia l , or religious d i f f i cu l t i e s connected with marriage for those of Indian status (Lewis, 1970). Children 8 are highly valued and their upbringing is characterized by a f l e x i b i l i t y and freedom seldom seen in White families. The parent-child bond is less intense for Indians, since chi ld-rais ing duties are shared by members of the extended family, with the grandparents, part icular ly, playing a major role. Two main themes dominate early childhood: development of a strong sense of sel f -suff ic iency and a knowledge of one's functional position as a member of the family. The result is an independence which complements a strong feeling of family cohesion (Shriver & Leacock 1963). Children are treated as small adults and accorded the same dignity and share in family responsibi l i t ies and experiences. Discipline is minimal and affection is open and abundant and in no way contingent upon achievement outside the home. The oft-neglected appearance of Indian children, by White standards, gives no indication of a lack of love at home (Lewis 1970). For many young Indians school represents their f i r s t major encounter with formal White society. Here social ization confl icts become severe and they are confronted with a problem that reaches to the roots of their personal identity. 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 ts d i sc ip l ine, 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 lives by at home. When he does manage to assimilate some of the White goals, i t is often only to accept their unreality for him in the face of the rea l i t ies of his minority status in the larger society. The school seldom wins over family and early drop-outs are common. The Indian child returns home where he is needed and his personal worth and identity are more secure (Hawthorne 1966; Woodward 1949). A f inal area of Indian-White conf l ict l ies in social organ-ization and government. Histor ica l ly, 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). Theft was theoretically non-existent, since a l l was shared. Status was like-wise shared according to clan, and measured in terms of generosity and hospitality (Oberg 1966). To the extent that this orientation has been retained, White government and law is incom-prehensible to the Indian. The result is a paternalistic theme to the Indian policy 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 result of such value confl icts and acculturation strain 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 Brit ish Columbia due to the inevitable inconsistencies and confusion inherent in adjusting to new ways. Its primary source l ies in the fa i lure of the new culture to offer suff ic ient impetus for change through viable alternatives, prestige and satisfaction 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 sat i s factor i ly 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 result is that the Indians cl ing to the old ways as a source of real i ty and security in the face of new ways they do not comprehend (Woodward 1949). Beneath their outward conformity to White society l ies a set of different 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 (Govern-ment of Canada 1969a). The Indians also add to their own d i f f i cu l t i e s through their apathy. In the course of their begrudging acceptance of the government's paternalism, they have relinquished much of their own responsibi l ity and their traditional forms of social organization have det-eriorated to petty family r iva l r ies which prevent effective 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 indicative 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 different routes. This is particularly true with regard to viable alternatives. 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 fe - s ty les 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 security, 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). Within the family network he is guided and respected, his needs and desires are met, and his responsibi l i t ies 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 different meaning for the Indian and are tied to the more pervasive problem of his status in White society (Hawthorne 1966). Their characteristic f l e x i b i l i t y and growing lack of personal responsibi l ity make the Indian society more tolerant of deviant behavior as a means of tension ,..'".;V-! reduction, rather than a source of stigma and shame for the individual. Lewis (1970) maintains there is a personal s tab i l i ty and logic beneath the overt disorder that the White society f a i l s to recognize. Common!aw unions for example, which are loose by White stand-ards represent a deep t ie to Indian couples who are l iv ing 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 their problems, but serves other functions as well. The beer parlours represent an opportunity for social interhcnage, hospital ity, and r iva l ry. 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 society, i t wi l l most commonly be a result of the more severe problem of social disorganization. It appears that the Indians of Brit ish Columbia are characterized by a low rate of individual disturbance in view of the social ization confl icts they encounter. This is largely due to the support they receive from their old traditions and particularly from the extensive kinship system which s t i l l operates in Indian culture. Prof i le of the Indian Delinquent Girl In the light of the foregoing information i t is possible to hypothesize a prof i le of the Indian juvenile delinquent female which di f fers from that of her White counterpart in several ways. Gir ls from both cultures share the social ization confl icts connected with adolescence and female status in Western society. However, for the Indian g i r l s , additional confl icts are inherent in their ethnic status and ongoing accul-turation. In terms of social ization 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 their delinquent behavior should ref lect the differences in social ization confl icts faced by members of each culture. Indian juvenile delinquents show the same negative contrib-uting factors as Whites: poor parental supervision, disorganized family setting, lack of participation in and satisfaction with social inst i tut ions, a dearth of recreational outlets, and poor interpersonal s k i l l s . However, Hawthorne et. a l . (1958) maintain these factors must be interpreted in a different way for the Indian g i r l s because they are interconnected with the frustration 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 their situation with realism and pessimism: White attitudes are non-supportive, Indian models are weak or absent and social disorganization surrounds them. The result is depression, low aspiration, poor self-image, and unattainable goals. Disenchanted and b i t ter , they are immobilized between the two cultures. With few alternatives from which to choose, juvenile delinquency often becomes an accepted expression of combined imitation of and rebell ion against White society. Few offences committed by young Indian females come under the criminal code. The most common pattern is consumption of alcohol, unmanagability, running away, and sexual immorality in short, a soc ia l ly -oriented model (B.C. Indian Advisory Committee 1953-1969). The Indians also d i f fer in their attitude towards delinquent behavior. There is ( ^ l i t t l e stigma attached, due to the lack of viable alternatives, and the fact that the laws broken are those of the White society, and therefore not fu l l y comprehended or trusted. Nor does the delinquent's family feel any shame or responsibil ity for her misdemeanors. Civic responsibi l ity in terms of White standards is foreign to them and an incorrigible chi ld is not their fau l t , but merely an unfortunate occurrence (Woodward 1949). As a result, the Indian delinquent remains loved and wanted in her home, and at the same time demonstrates a loyalty, respect, and affection for her family which is usually not seen in White delinquents (Lewis 1970). Unlike the la t ter , the source of most of her social ization confl icts has been outside her home and connected with experiences in White society. The emerging theme in the portrait of the Indian delinquent is 14 rebell ion 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 Brit ish 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 their degree of individual disturbance is not as severe as that of the White g i r l s . In addition their families show less rejection of the g i r l s . The staff 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 ke ly to disparage their families or rationalize their asocial behavior through the situation at home. The Indian mothers who are in contact with the school emphasize that they want their daughters to "Learn some nice things" while at the school, but also say that no disc ipl ine awaits the g i r l s at home, where they are missed and needed. F inal ly, a study by Kulik, Stein, & Sarbin (1968), carried out on White and Negro delinquents in the United States offers an interesting para l le 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 T W O HYPOTHESES In an area of research such as Indian delinquency which has been relat ively 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 levels, through diverse methods. One central hypothesis was delineated regarding differences in family-society orientations, and the social ization dimensions were used to explore i t . Other data was collected to substantiate the central findings, and to offer further means of exploring Indian and White differences. This included data on mode of response, demographic data and qualitative and projective measures. It was assumed that any differences between the two groups reflected in the data would be of interest. However, the formal hypotheses were developed along the lines discussed in the previous section, that Indian delinquency would emerge as an expression of host i l i ty 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 attitudes and a higher degree of personal disorganization. I. Socialization Measures Speci f ica l ly , i t is expected that examination and comparison of social ization and i ts underlying facets in Indian and White delinquent 16 females wi l l y ie ld the following results: 1. Overall So Score: The scale has previously been validated on a Willingdon school population which was s ignif icantly differentiated from a normal control group (Butt 1970b). Further revalidation on an Indian population would provide information on an overall Indian distr ibution. However, in view of the widespread cross-cultural validation of the scale (Gough 1965b), i t was hypothesized there should be no signif icant Indian-White differences on overall scores, inasmuch as both racial groups were tota l ly comprised of delinquents. 2. Dimensions of Social ization: It is these underlying psychological constructs which are expected to ref lect culturally-oriented differences in the profi les of the subjects. a) Factor I - Emotional Fragmentation versus Emotional Focus This factor reflects an inab i l i ty to participate in social ly productive act iv i ty due to lack of a satisfactory focus for the energies of the individual. It is coupled with feelings of i rresponsibi l i ty and pessimism (Butt 1970b). It was hypothesized the Indians would score higher on this factor, in view of their negative experiences in White society. b) Factor II - Negative Social Identity versus Social (Family) Stabi l i ty This factor reflects 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 tab i l i ty may not be synonomous for Indian subjects, who might exhibit a negative social ' identity in spite of family s tab i l i ty . 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 is seen as a losing batt le, 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 - Flight from Family Tension versus Family Dependence This factor encompasses a desire to f lee the home, and a tendency to form quick and impermanent attachments to others. The reason for these behaviors is not specified (Butt 1970b). 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 fa i lure to respond to the environment, and lack of concern over typical ly stressful situations. The characteristic 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 ra i t and not merely a defence. 3. Stat ist ica 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 characterist ical ly d ist inct patterns. Spec i f ica l ly , 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 ref lect greater host i l i ty toward the home and less pessimism regarding the future. 18 II. Life Data, Qualitative Data, and Projective Data These data were collected to gain a greater depth of understanding by adding a further dimension, beyond socia l izat ion, to the study. No specif ic hypotheses were made. However, the l i f e data were expected to add to the descriptive portraits of the two delinquent populations. The qualitative and projective data were used to provide possible support for the results on the social ization measures and to explore areas of differences between the two populations which although not direct ly related to socia l izat ion, might suggest avenues for further study. C H A P T E R T H R E E METHOD Subjects The subjects were inmates of Willingdon School for G i r l s , a provincial training school in Br it ish Columbia under the authority of the Federal Juvenile Delinquent Act, and the Brit ish Columbia Training School Act. Data were collected from the total school population, on two occasions, in Apri l 1968 and November 1970. Changes in legis lat ion altered the committal procedure between these two dates. In 1968 the school represented the " last 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 referral asking the school Superintendent to accept the g i r l . Thus the school can presently be more selective 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 val id i ty 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 sacr i f ice of va l id i ty 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 ignif icant 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 affect both Indian and White subjects to a similar degree. Thus i t was concluded that combining the 1968 and 1970 subjects was valid for the purpose of this study. A complete account of these analyses is given in t n e Appendix' . E ighty-f ive subjects were included in the 1968 group, a n c l there were 94 subjects in the 1970 group. Fourteen questionnaires were arb i t rar i l y eliminated by the author as invalid protocols, due to lack of cooperation or fa i lure to comprehend the question asked. A total population of 165 subjects was l e f t . These were separated into Indian and White groups. A g i r l was c lass i f ied 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 verif ied 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 ignif icant. 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 inal substudy, several of the analyses were repeated on 34 Indian subjects who demonstrated average or above average educational records and ab i l i t y . This involved the removal of 18 Indian subjects who had fa i led to attain a Grade Seven level of schooling or who had attained i t only with great d i f f i cu l t y , on the basis of information from their 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: questionnaire data, l i f e data, and test reactions data. The major part of the questionnaire data was the 64 item version of the Gough Socialization 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 social izat ion. Twenty-five of the items,five to each factor, were seen as contributing to the f ive 22 factors previously discussed to a s ignif icant degree, on the basis of their factor loadings. The items were keyed in both directions, with three response alternatives: "true" "uncertain" and " fa l se" , scored 1,2, and 3 respectively. The remaining questionnaire data consisted of several subtests: an affect scale developed by Bradburn and Caplovitz (1965) and three subscales from the Host i l i ty 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 direction. The subject endorses the number of happy or unhappy emotions he has experienced in the course of the last month and the two scales are combined for a "total affect" score. The host i l i ty subscales used were physical assault, host i l i ty through negativism, and verbal host i l i ty . Subjects answered "true" or " fa l se " , scored 1 and 2, to the items, which were keyed in both directions. A "total host i l i ty " 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 rel igion and tendency to take r isks. 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 participation in i t . The structured interview provided a source of qualitative and 23 projective data on subjects in the 1970 population. It consisted of two parts: a series of questions related to aspects of the subjects interests, attitudes, and behavior considered relevant to the study, and presentation of four TAT cards: 2, 3BM, 8BM, and 13MF. The rationale for using these four cards was as follows: 2-to obtain information pertaining to family relationships, 3BM-to gain perceptions of depression and i ts causes, 8BM-to achieve indices of host i l i ty and i ts direct ion, 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, finishing the task within an hour. Each was assigned a number, to maintain con-f ident ia l i ty . Individual help was given to subjects i f they had d i f f i cu l t y 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 later. Only one subject was total ly unco-operative, and three Indian g i r l s admitted to the school after 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 different levels. The following section describes the analyses used 24 and the rationale for each. Due to the exploratory nature of the study, s ta t i s t i ca l methods chosen tended to be those lending themselves to descriptive interpretation. As a result, more theoretical speculation was possible, although sometimes at the expense of precision. This was judged to be a valid procedure in an unexplored area. Following the preliminary procedures involving subject c las s i f i ca t ion, outlined above, treatment of the data proceeded in several steps. 1. Group Profi les - Life Data Demographic material was collected to provide a descriptive portrait 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 distributions for each of f ive groups: 1968 subjects, 1970 subjects, White A, White B, and total Indians. The f i r s t two of these groups were compared with each other as were the last three groups. Several t-tests and Chi-square s tat i s t ics were used on the variables as a rough index of their probability distribution (Bjerring, Boyer, Campbell, and Starkey 1970; Bjerring and Seagraves 1970). 2. Psychometric Adequacy of Scales Before analysis of social ization 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-tests 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 host i l i ty and affect scales (Bjerring and Seagraves 1970). A hotelling T s ta t i s t i c was used for a factor subscale analysis to determine whether the groups had different mean scores on the social ization dimensions. 4. Item Analyses of So Scale These analyses were designed to test whether signif icant differences existed in the direction 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 s ta t i s t i c (Bjerring & Seagraves 1970). 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 analysis, the 25 items contributing to the f ive social ization factors were employed. In the other, items were selected by the writer on the basis of their 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 ieu of a straight factor analysis, due to lack of suff ic ient subjects for the latter. In this case, the matrix is inverted, so that subjects become variables and 26 vice versa, the result being a set of subject factors (Halm 1970). The purpose of i ts use in this study was to determine whether Indian subjects would load on the same factor(s), indicating a different response pattern on the So scale from that of White subjects. This was replicated on two parallel groups of 64 subjects each, both groups con-taining 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 arbitrary system of numerical codification 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 ta 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 ng information related to the hypotheses. Indian and White protocols were not separated until c lass i f icat ion of story content had been made. 7. Addendum In l ight of results from the previous analyses, i t was decided to redo some of the stat i s t ics on a modified group of Indian subjects. This involved elimination of those 18 Indian g i r l s of lower ab i l i ty as previously mentioned. The homogeneity analysis, hotelling T s ta t i s t i c and t-tests 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 their category and number of subjects. 28 TABLE 1 LIST OF ANALYSES AND SUBJECT GROUPS USED Analysis 1900 '68 '70 White A White B Total Indians U Indians R A N 74 83 52 52 52 18 34 34 t-tests on l i f e data X X X X X X Homogeneity analysis X X X X X X X X Tests of significance 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 Chi square-qualitative data X (1970) (1970) X (1970) TABLE 2 GROUP PROFILES - LIFE DATA Direction of t Probability Variable Indian Response White A & Indians White B & Indians Number of siblings High .000 .000 Degree of risk taking Low .002 .003 Rural/urban background Rural .000 /.000 C H A P T E R F O U R RESULTS The following results are presented in the same order in which they were introduced in the preceeding section. They represent varying levels of exploration from s t r i c t l y s tat i s t ica l (homogeneity analysis) to purely descriptive (projective data). Due to the lack of research in the area i t was thought a valid approach. Al l s ignif icant differences found were considered interesting, and are reported here, including some not direct ly relevant to the main hypotheses. Group Profi les on Li fe 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. This was done to c la r i fy the g i r l s ' situations through some background information. The results are presented in Table 2. Indian delinquents had more siblings and were more l ike ly to come from a rural background than both groups of White delinquents. They were less l ike ly to take risks than their White counterparts. Unfortunately, i t was not possible to obtain accurate information regarding reasons for the g i r l s ' committal to Willingdon from their questionnaires. They were unco-operative in replying to this question. When their f i l e s were consulted, the verdict of "unmanag-ab 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. Therefore, they are included in the results section. Fiske, (1966a, 1966b, 1971 pp. 137-163) has described in detail 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 ^ ) or r e l i a b i l i t y was computed. 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). Inter-item correlations (r^-) and interperson cor-relations (r ) were also computed. The former index gives an additional r r 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 reflects the degree to which items are consistently measuring the desired construct or quality in a group of subjects (see Fiske references). The r index ref lects the s imilar ity of response r r 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 inal index used in the present study. This yields a measure of the amount of variance l e f t over in a test after that variance attributable to both subject and item distributions 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. In fact, most personality scales f a l l short of this model and error variance typical ly is much higher (.70's, .80's). Sta t i s t i ca l l y , a high r.. is related to high person variance, and a high rpp t 0 i t e m v a r i a n c e - Cr i t i ca l levels for r.^ and r are judged re lat ive ly , on the basis of past scale evaluations. 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 Standard Rel iabi l i ty Inter-item Inter-person Error Subtest N Group Steps Mean Deviation Coefficient Correlations Correlations Variance 52 White A 137.54 11.30 .68 .03 .22 .74 Social- 52 White B 133.88 11.62 .69 .03 .20 .75 ization 52 Total Ind. 64 137.08 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 Test 52 White B 8.96 2.04 .77 .36 -.01 • .53 Reaction 52 Total Ind. 6 8.73 1.74 .62 .22 .01 .64 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 White B 7.54 1.46 .60 .23 .16 .54 Affect 52 Total Ind. 5 6.77 1.10 .21 .05. .13 .67 18 Indian U 6.78 1.44 .62 .24 .09 .55 34 Indian R ,-6776 .88 -.35 -.05 .14 .72 Subtest N Group # of steps Mean Standard Deviation Rel iabi l i ty Coefficient Inter-item Correlations Inter-person Correlations Error Variance 52 White A 8.79 1.26 .62 .25 .19 .52 Negative 52 White B 8.42 1.35 .61 .24 .20 .52 Affect 52 Total Ind. 5 8.77 1.15 .48 .16 .15 .60 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 Assault 52 White B 14.33 2.57 .73 .21 .09 .65 52 Total Ind. 10 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 Verbal Host i l -i ty 52 52 White B Total Ind. 6 9.98 9.96 1.54 1.31 .54 .31 .17 .07 .03 .05 .67 .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 White B 8.10 1.24 .38 .11 .10 .65 ism 52 Total Ind. 5 8.13 1.21 .28 .07 .02 .72 18 Indian U 8.00 1.25 .21 .05 -.04 .75 34 Indian R 8.15 1.24 .34 .09 .02 .70 Subtest N Group # of Steps Mean Standard Deviation Rel iabi l i ty Coefficient Inter-item Correlations Inter-person Correlations Error Variance 52 White A 12.02 3.00 .78 .42 .16 .42 Emotion- 52 White B 11.33 2.89 .70 .32 .23 .46 al 52 Total Ind. 5 11.79 2.41 .53 .18 .10 .60 Fragmen-.61 tation 18 Indian U 12.17 2.36 .54 .19 .02 34 Indian R 11.59 2.41 .52 .18 .13 .59 52 White A 11.50 2.96 .75 .37 .13 .46 Negat- 52 White B 11.50 2.87 .73 .35 .10 .49 ive Social 52 Total Ind. 5 11.15 2.54 .55 .20 .01 .63 Ident- 18 Indian U 11.17 2.71 .60 .23 -.03 .61 ity 34 Indian R 11.15 2.44 .53 .18 .01 .64 52 White A 11.00 2.13 .34 .09 .16 .63 Self 52 White B 10.35 2.60 .59 .23 .11 .57 Defeat-ism 52 Total Ind. 5 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 Flight 52 White B 13.77 1.38 .12 .03 .09 .71 from Family 52 Total Ind. 5 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 # of Standard Rel iabi l i ty Inter-item Inter-person Error Subtest N Group Steps Mean Deviation Coefficient Correlations Correlations Variance 52 White A 7.25 2.24 .56 .21 • 12 .57 Emotion- 52 White B 7.88 2.18 .49 .16 .16 .59 al Indif-52 Total Ind. 5 8.79 2.38 .50 .17 .05 .64 ference 18 Indian U 8.83 2.09 .19 .05 .05 .70 34 Indian R 8.74 2.55 .60 .23 .03 .59 to 36 The consistent trend emerging for a l l tests, with the exception of Factor III - Self defeatism, is less r e l i a b i l i t y of the measures for the Indian groups. This is reflected in the comparatively low r e l i a b i l i t y coefficients and high error variances demonstrated by these groups, and is particularly evident in the Indian-R population. In terms of the correlational indices, the majority of the tests showed higher inter-item correlations than inter-person correlations. This trend was less consistent in the Indian groups than the White groups. The Indians as a whole show comparatively higher inter-person correlations, although this was seldom repeated across a l l three Indian groups on the same subtest. This type of var iab i l i ty 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 wi l l show considerable attenuation due to data unre l iab i l i ty . However, most of the indices are suff ic ient for research purposes in that s ignif icant effects can occur. As wi l l be discussed later, the foregoing data demonstrate c lear ly, especially 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-tests and hotel l ing T' which showed signif icant 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 Indians Indians R U Direction of N=52 N=24 N=18 Indian Results Positive Affect White A .006 .005 .076 Low White B .003 .002 .057 Assault White A .014 High White B .000 Self Defeatism White A .053 .007 High (Factor III) White B .003 .0005 Flight from Family White A .116 .079 Low (Factor IV) White B. .021 .013 Emotional Indiff White A .001 .005 High (Factor V) White B .038 .094 TABLE 5 RESULTS OF HOTELLING ON FIVE FACTOR MEANS* Factor Diff. b/w Diff. b/w Indian # White A & Ind. White B & Ind. Score Factor Name 1 .462 -.231 Emotional Fragmentation 2 -.346 -.346 Low Negative Social Identity 3 1.481 .827 High Self-defeatism 4 -.712 -.538 Low Flight from Family Tension 5 .904 1.538 High Emotional Indifference *White A & Indians - Hotelling T2= 18.24 F = 3.504 p < .01 White B & Indians - Hotelling t 2 = 19.23 F = 3.696 p < .01 38 are presented in Table 4. A few cases are presented in which a test approached, but did not reach s tat i s t ica l significance, in order to demon-2 strate the direction of some of the weaker results. A hotelling T s ta t i s t i c was used on the factor means to c la r i fy the results of the i n i t i a l t tests. If ordinary t tests were rel ied upon, the large number which would have to 2 be performed would produce misleading probabil it ies. The hotelling 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 signif icant differences in So scores between the two ethnic groups. One of the subtests unrelated to total soc ia l izat ion, Positive Affect, 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 leve l . Assault, another subtest unrelated to total soc ia l izat ion, showed a s ignif icant difference between the Indians U and the White groups. The total Indian and Indian R groups differed s ignif icantly from White groups in the hypothesized directions on three of the f ive social ization factors. On Factor III, Self-Defeatism, these Indians scored s ignif icantly higher than both groups of White subjects. On Flight from Family, Factor IV, they scored s ignif icant ly lower than the White B group, and comparison with the White A group closely approximated the level of significance. These trends were particularly strong for the Indians R. The same two groups scored s ignif icantly higher on Factor V, Emotional Indifference. Significant differences were not obtained on Factor I, Emotional Fragmentation, or Factor II, Negative Social Identity, although a l l three groups scored 39 s l ight ly lower i .e . in the hypothesized direct ion, on the latter. The results of the t tests are confirmed by the hotelling 2 T 's done on the f ive factor scale means. Table 5 shows Indian and White differences on the hotelling of the f ive factor scale means, and indicates the direction of the Indians response. Factor V appears to contribute most to the signif icant differences between the two groups, followed closely by Factor III. Factors II and IV contribute somewhat less, while Factor I presents contradictory findings across the two comparisons. With the exception of Factor I, the direction of the results are a l l in accordance with the original hypotheses made on Indian and White differences in Factor Scores. Item Analyses Item analyses were carried out on three versions of the 2 social ization scale using a hotelling T s ta t i s t i c . A l l three analyses were planned in advance. The purpose of the hotelling analyses was to provide information on the direction of response to So items by the White and Indian groups. The hotelling s ta 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 variables, 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 ive social ization 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 reflecting attitudes toward family and society. 2 The hotelling T stat i s t ics and overall F values for these analyses are presented in Table 6. Indian and White subjects did not d i f fer 40 TABLE 6 HOTELLING T 2 STATISTICS AND F - VALUES: INDIAN AND WHITE GROUPS Hotelling T 2 Groups Stat i s t ic 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 52.145 1.595 (p<.07) (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 ignif icant ly in the direction of their responses to the total So scale. However, the overall F was signif icant 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 analysis, carried out on the items reflecting attitudes toward family and society, showed the greatest s ignif icant differences between Indian and White subjects and was replicated across both comparisons. No single items demonstrated discriminatory ab i l i ty to a s ignif icant degree in either the 25 item or 14 item analysis. However, those items which had the best discriminating ab i l i ty 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 direction. While she sees her home l i f e as basically happy, she also states that she was punished unfairly and does not form stable relationships with others. It is also signif icant that items 21, 22, and 38 are three of the f ive items that contribute most direct ly to Factor V, Emotional Indifference. Table 8 presents the discriminatory ab i l i ty of the 14 items used in the third item analysis. Indian responses to the majority of items ref lect 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 isc ip l ine. It appears that while homelife was generally happy, the Indian g i r l s f e l t restrict ions 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 2 Direction of Item Difference between Means Indian No. White A - Ind. White B - Ind. Response 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 th r i l l ed . 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 fr iend. 49 .154 .346 F I know who is responsible for most of my troubles. 63 -.192 -.212 T I was often punished unfairly as a chi ld. 43 TABLE 8 INDIVIDUAL ITEM MEAN DIFFERENCES - 14 ITEM HOTELLING T 2 Dir. of Ind. Item Difference between Means No. White A ,~ Ind. White B "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 Li fe usually hands me a pretty raw deal. .9 .135 .038 F Sometimes I used to feel l ike leaving home. 13 -.346 -.212 F My parents were too s t r i c t with me when I was a ch i ld. 15 .096 0.000 F My parents never real ly understood me. 16 .058 .212 F My homelife as a child was less peaceful than most peoples ch i ld -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 ts pretty hard to keep up hope of amounting to something. 62 0.000 -.038 F My parents generally let me make my own decisions. 44 TABLE 8 (Cont'd) Dir. of Ind. Item Difference between Means No. White A - Ind. White B - . Ind. Response Item Content 63 -.192 -.212 f I was often punished unfairly as a ch i ld. 64 .192 .096 T My home l i f e was always very happy. 45 would load on the same subject factors, which would d i f fer 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 hotelling provides data on direction 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 for 42.7% and 44.4% of the variance respectively. Table 10 reports the subject loadings on each factor in terms of their highest, or lowest, score with + .35 chosen as an arbitrary cutoff. In both comparisons, almost twice as many White loadings as Indian loadings would be.expected on each factor, 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 factor, almost twice as many Indians as White subjects showed low loadings. However, this finding is merely descriptive, 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 for def in i t ive statements to be made. Qualitative & Projective Data This data was gathered through the structured interviews held with the 1970 subjects. Perhaps the most s ignif icant trend emerging was the Indian g i r l s ' characteristic silence and the obvious d i f f i cu l t y they had 46 TABLE 9 INVERSE FACTOR ANALYSIS: SUBJECT FACTORS AND EIGENVALUES Cumulative Proportion Subject Factor Eigenvalue of Eigenvalues I White A + Indians 14.55 .23 White B + Indians 13.92 .22 I I 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 IV white A + Indians 2.88 .39 White B + Indians 3.03 .41 V : White A + Indians 2.77 .43 White B + Indians 2.52 .45 White A + Indians ) 42.7% White B + Indians \ T o t a l A A A 0 / TABLE 10 FACTOR LOADINGS OF INDIAN AND WHITE SUBJECTS White A - Indians White B - Indians Subject Factor 1st Scores 1st Scores 1st Scores 1st Scores > + .35 <-.35 >+.35 <-.35 I Indians 4 0 7 0 Whites 8 0 15 0 II Indians 0 6 0 2 Whites 0 2 0 11 III Indians 2 0 3 0 Whites 8 0 7 0 IV Indians 3 0 4 0 Whites 15 o 5 0 V Indians 0 6 0 6 Whites 0 4 0 3 Note: (White A, White B n=42) (Indians n=22) TABLE 11 QUANTIFICATION OF QUALITATIVE DATA FROM INTERVIEWS 47 Percentage of Subjects Responding Indian White Significant Levels 1. What are the things you l ike to do? a) physical act iv i t ies 63.33 b) mental act iv i t ies 20.00 c) arts, crafts 23.33 d) passive 3.33 e) asocial- drugs, alcohol, etc. 6.67 f) social - fr iends, parties, etc. 26.67 92.31 33.33 51.28 15.38 23.08 38.46 p< .01 p 4.05 2. What would you do i f you weren't here -i f you could do anything you wanted? a) be at home, have a family, etc. 43.33 b) school 23.33 c) work 16.67 d) asocial 10.00 e) t rave l , be on my own 13.33 f) social 13.33 23.08 23.08 28.21 15.38 48.72 28.21 p <.01 3. Whom do you real ly trust? a) parents b) siblings c) extended family d) friends e) social worker, teacher, etc. 36.67 6.67 26.67 33.33 16.67 35.90 28.21 5.31 66.67 56.41 p < .05 p<c .05 p< .05 p <.01 4. Of the people you know who has had the most influence on you? a) parents b) siblings c) extended family d) friends e) social worker, teacher, etc. 30.00 13.33 26.67 46.67 13.33 20.51 25.64 2.56 35.90. 25.64 <.01 48 Percentage of Subjects Responding Significant Indian White Levels 5. What is your real mother like? a) predominantly positive desc-r ipt ion 50.00 43.59 b) predominantly negative desc-ription 23.33 38.46 c) ambivalent 26.67 17.95 | d) alcohol mentioned in | | description 23.33 .00 j 6. Who do you l ike 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 7. Have you ever used drugs? Alcohol? a) predominantly drugs 50.00 84.62 p4.01 b) predominantly alcohol 46.67 10.26 p .01 c) neither 3.33 5,13 Extent of drug use (# of drugs per week) 3.7 4.6 8. How did you start using drugs (alcohol)? a) family 26.67 2.56 p <.01 b) friends 60.00 79.49 c) alone or with strangers 6.67 7.69 9. How do drugsC(alcohol) make you feel? a) positive 56.67 69.23 b) negative 13.33 7.69 c) ambivalent 26.67 12.82 49 Percentage of Subjects • Responding Indian White Significant Levels 10. What is your worst problem? A. What B running alcohol drugs sex theft fighting miscellaneous or general trouble family interpersonal self-image, personality Willingdon none s the best way to solve i t? 5 5 2 2 1 2 2 6 3 2 0 1 a) rea l i s t i c solution b) unrealist ic or asocial solution c; don-;t know d) being in Willingdon (Answers to 10.(A) too spread out for accurate to be performed data presented in raw form). 40.00 10.00 26.67 20.00 2 6 1 2 1 1 0 3 8 3 11 6 1 33.33 28.21 30.77 5.13 p <.05 Thus. TABLE 12 DEPRESSION INDICES ON FOUR TAT CARDS WITH OUTCOMES Card 3BM Card 2 Card 8BM Card 13MF totals I W I W I W I W I W Total Depression 20 27 11 11 8 8 9 6 48 52 Outcome-favourable 7 7 2 1 1 1 1 2 11 11 Outcome-unfavourabl e 1 11 2 3 3 3 T 2 7 19 Ou tcome-i nde termH nate 12 9 7 8 4 4 7 2 30 23 Indian n=31 White n=34 50 verbalizing their 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 is evident. Levels of significance are indicated next to responses which differed s ignif icantly between the two groups when the Chi square analyses for proportions were carried out. More White g i r l s indicated a preference for physical act iv i ty (sports etc.) and handicrafts (p C.01), although this may be merely a function of the comparative ease with which they vocalized their responses. Some support was found for the original hypotheses, for example, the tendency of more White g i r l s to want to travel or be on their own (question two-p <?.01) and to trust s ibl ings, friends, and outside authorities to a greater degree than the Indians (p^.05). This trend was also ref lected, though not as s igni f icant ly, 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 their extended family. Other trends in attitudes toward family were evident in question f ive where more White delinquents see their mothers in an unfavourable l ight. However, seven Indian g i r l s mention alcohol in describing their mothers and 13 (as opposed to eight White g i r l s ) had d i f f i cu l t y in deciding which parent they l ike better. Other signif icant differences occurred in degree of involve-ment 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 signif icant factor in their delinquency (p <.01). Signif icantly more Indian g i r l s were introduced to either drugs or alcohol by members of their family. 51 In question 10A, the White delinquent demonstrated a greater degree of sophistication, or perhaps insight, by perceiving her problems as lying within herself, rather than in the overt asocial behavior manifested. However, they have a greater tendency to turn to unreal ist ic and asocial solutions for these problems. It is interesting to note that six White g i r l s saw being at Willingdon as their 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 their problems. Analysis of the four TAT cards showed few differences between Indian and White subjects. The only signif icant trend noticed was again that of the Indian g i r l s to give shorter, less well-defined stories. These subjects clearly had a great deal of trouble expressing themselves imag-inatively and the result was a set of relat ively superf ic ia l , halting responses to the cards. 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 their 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 cu l t y they had in expressing themselves during the test. 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 ts causes. Here, the only area on which Indian and White subjects differed 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 ir l s gave s l ight ly more self-destructive TABLE 13 MAIN THEME ON TAT CARD 3BM Theme Indian White Loneliness 2 4 Self-destructive (suicide,drugs, alcohol) 10 8 Asocial (prison, crime, aggression, other) 7 12 Family problems 4 7 Sleeping 2 0 Praying 1 1 Other 5 2 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) affection 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 White Aggression Total 20 19 Object: a) family 6 6 b) friend 2 2 c) stranger 12 11 Death Total 9 12 Object: a) family 2 5 b) friend 1 0 c) stranger 6 7 Indian n=31 White n=34 TABLE 16 PERCEPTION OF RELATIONSHIP ON TAT CARD 13MF Nature of Relationship Indian Whi te Close Relationship 16 16 Aggression 6 6 Rej'ecti on 4 4 Affection 6 6 Strangers 9 11 Aggression 5 8 Rejection 4 2 Affection 0 1 54 responses than expected on the basis of the sample numbers. Card 2 was administered to gain information regarding subjects' perceptions of family relations. The results are shown in Table 14. Over one third of the Indian subjects did not identify family relationships in their stories. This was due in large part to their lack of specif ication in te l l ing stories; often, family ties were implied, but not direct ly 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 ted by the card 8BM. There were no striking differences between the groups. Card 13MF was used to ^elicit subjects' perceptions of an intimate relationship. The results appear in Table 16, and showed a remarkable s imi lar i ty. Analyses on Indians of Higher Ab i l i ty In l ight of some of the preceding results, 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 hotelling s tat i s t ics 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) Standard Rel iabi l i ty Inter-item Interperson Error More Subtest Mean Deviation Coefficient Correlation Correlation Variance Adequate Socialization 136.41 10.25 .65 .03 .21 .74 Intel!. (137.08) (9.53) (.57) (.02) (.19) (.78) Ind. Test Reactions 8.62 1.75 .63 .22 -.02 .65 (8.73) (1.74) (.62) (.22) (.01) ( i 64) Positive Affect 6.88 .99 -.06 .01 .12 .71 Total (6.77) (1.10) (.21) (.05) (.13) (.67) Ind. Negative Affect 8.68 1.32 .62 .25, . .12 .55 Intel!. (8.77) (1.15) (.48) (.i6|c; (.15) (.60) Ind. Assault 15.74 2.13 .61 .14 .17 .65 (16.02) (2.21) (.62) (.14) (.11) (.69) Verbal Host i l i ty 9.71 1.36 .33 .08 .04 .73 Intel 1. (9.96) (1.31) (.31) (.07) (.05) (.73) Ind. Negativism 8.00 1.26 .34 .09 .02 .70 Intel!. (8.13) (1.21) 028) (.07) !(.02) (.72) Ind. Emotional Fragmen- 12.26 1.96 .30 .08 .11 .66 Total tation (11.79) (2.41) (.531 (.18) .(•10) (.60) Ind. Negative Social 10.82 2.59 .61 .24 .03 .59 Intel 1. Identity (11.15) (2.54) (.55) (.20) (.01) (.63) Ind. Self-defeatism 11.56 2.45 .65 .27 .21 .50 Intel!. (11.83) (2.25) (.57) (.21) (.21) (.53) Ind. Flight from Family 13.21 1.60 .28 .07 .21 .60 (13.06) (1.74) (.32) (.09) (.15) (.64) Emotional Indiff- 8.41 2.17 .43 .13 .07 .65 Total erence (8.79) (2.38) (.50) (.17) (.05) (.64) Ind. 56 TABLE 18 HOTELLING STATISTICS AND F VALUES HIGHER ABILITY INDIANS AND WHITE GROUPS T 2 Hotelling i[ Groups Stat i s t ic . F Value 64 item 1) White A + Intelligent Indians 368.011 1.438 2) White B + Intelligent Indians 282.278 1.103 25 item 1) White A + Intelligent Indians 48.078 1.374 2) White B + Intelligent Indians 42.731 1.221 14 item 1) White A + Intelligent Indians 26.565 1.604 2) White B + Intelligent 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 coefficients and lower levels of error variance. However, on three others, the measures become less adequate. There is no appreciable change between the two groups on the remaining three tests. Positive affect particularly shows extremely low r e l i a b i l i t y for Indians A. . The results of the hotelling analyses are presented in Table 18. This group of Indians A did not differentiate from the White subjects in their pattern of responses to the same extent as did the total Indian group. Only one 14-item analysis was s ignif icant, 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 ignif icantly lower than both White A and White B on Positive Affect, at the .02 and .01 level of probability respectively. Results of l i f e data comparisons showed 3 signif icant differences across both comparisons. Like the total Indian group, Indians A had more siblings and were less l ike ly to take risks than the White delinquents. They also were more l ike ly 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 results, while the third interprets the more detailed analyses of item groupings and the inverse factor analysis. Methods of Study Used: Their Suitabi l i ty for Indian Subjects 1. Stat ist ica l Measures The homogeneity analyses done on the subtests indicated lower r e l i a b i l i t y for a l l Indian groups particularly those from a rural background. The Indians R appeared to respond to the items as a group, as indicated by their higher inter-person correlations. However, the low inter-item correlations they demonstrate suggest that the items do not differentiate 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. The major exception lay in Factor III: Self-Defeatism. This test appears to measure Indians more re l i ab i l y than Whites. To a lesser extent, the negative Affect and Assault subtests also showed a more even spread of Indian subjects across item and person corre l -ative indices. The items in these three tests can therefore be assumed to be more easily 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 Host i l i ty, and Factor IV - Flight from Family. The items in these tests were extremely inadequate for Indians, probably due to misinterpretation and resulting confusion in responding to them. It is important to consider why some of the s tat i s t ica 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 teracy 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 particularly evident on the Positive Affect items, indicating perhaps that i t is the more educated Indians who are most unhappy, or that their 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 their more extensive experiences in the White educational system, and their continued exposure to the unattainable goals of the White culture. This might indicate that delinquents as a whole, and Indians in particular rep-resent a heterogeneous group of individuals, whose complexity goes unnoticed when this type of mass s tat i s t ica l study is used. An individual-oriented approach might be more informative, perhaps keyed to level of assimilation into White society, 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 scale, the tests are short with only f ive 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 indices, until they can be confirmed by more conclusive measures. Regarding the So scale, the low inter-item correlations on i t for a l l groups indicate that i t does not f i t Fiske's (1966) ideal cumulative homogeneity model. WhijU i t may f i t a less adequate s tat i s t ica l model, i t is possible that some of i ts items are losing their discriminatory power with social changes that have occurred since i ts development in 1952. The scale should perhaps be re-examined in l ight of such recent trends as the drug culture, or the tendency towards passive withdrawal from rather than overt rebellion against noxious social norms. In conclusion i t can be said that the s tat i s t i ca 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 attribute inherent in their Indian cultural background. The poss ib i l i ty remains that the inadequacy l ies 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 different means of gathering data from Indian subjects. In responding to the direct questions and TAT cards by the interviewer, the Indians again demonstrated a unique style. They tended to be much less verbose than the White delinquents, particularly in response to the projective material which demanded spontaneous and imaginative expression, they responded most easily to the structured questions demanding 61 mutually exclusive answers, such as "Whom do you l ike 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 ike to do?", are merely the result 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 indifferent to interrogation, and attributed this to a cultural t ra i t linked with the Indian tradition of taking pride in showing no emotion. Drucker (1966) mentions mildness and lack of display of strong feelings as Indian ideals. When consulted on this matter the staff at Willingdon also reported reticence in the Indian g i r l s during their f i r s t contacts with the school social workers. Often their 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 istening. However, given time and the development of trust, the school's staff observe that the Indian g i r l s are able to express themselves and talk freely with the social workers. Thus, in studying Indians their characteristic stoicism must be considered. However, i t is not an insurmountable barrier. In this study, i t was f e l t that the brevity of Indian answers did not affect their va l id i ty , 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 Results 1. Subtest and Factor Scores Hypothesis One, that the cross cultural va l id i ty of the So scale would result in no differences in overall score of White and Indian delinquents, was confirmed. Further information on the overall Indian distribution of scores did not l i e within the bounds of this study. However, in view of the widespread cross cultural validation of the scale, i ts basic va l id i ty may be well documented and supported. Hypothesized differences in Factors III, IV and V were also confirmed. The total and rural Indian groups displayed a higher degree of self-defeatism and pessimism regarding the future than the White g i r l s . On Factor IV, Indians scored low, indicating a tendency towards family dependence rather than f l i ght from family tension, although this conclusion is weakened somewhat by the fa i lure to replicate to a s ignif icant level over both comparisons with White groups. This may be due to the fact 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 staff of Willingdon, who state that while their Indian g i r l s demonstrate an emotional bond with their famil ies, i t is not necessarily accompanied by a sense of responsibi l ity. Indians also scored higher on Factor V, Emotional Indifference, as was hypothesized on the basis of their characteristic stoicism. Coupled with their high scores on Factor III, this suggests the stoicism is more than a t r a i t and is related to attitudes of resignation and apathy as a result of 63 their situational circumstances. There is also support for the general hypothesis that Indians display more positive attitudes towards their families in the results on Factor IV. The hypothesized results on Factors I and II were not obtained. Indians did not demonstrate higher scores on Emotional Frag-mentation, nor did they have lower scores on Negative Social Identity, which would have indicated high family s tab i l i ty . This suggests that these were inappropriate measures of the hypotheses. In fact, in the case of ' Factor II i t was recognized that a bi-polar factor might not emerge for the Indian subjects. Some theoretical specualtion may also be entertained in terms of complexities of the Indian situation which the hypotheses on these two factors fa i led to recognize. Butt (1970b) has suggested that emot-ional fragmentation (Factor I) arises from lack of early affectional support, and unmet dependency as a chi ld. If the account of Indian family l i f e described ear l ier is correct, then Indian g i r l s would not have exper-ienced these precipitating conditions. While they may display emotional fragmentation, i t arises from different sources and is possibly based in experiences outside the family. Thus i t is not measured by this factor. A more precise measure might reveal s ignif icant Indian-White differences in terms of a more complex underlying structure. Similarly the fa i lure to achieve s ignif icant differences on Factor II could be attributed to an inherent paradox in the measure for Indian subjects. The Indians score in the hypothesized direction on family s tab i l i ty . However, fa i lure to attain an accepted level of significance could be due to the fact that 64 negative social identity and family s tab i l i ty do not necessarily represent the polar opposites which the factor implies for Indian subjects. An Indian g i r l may characterist ical ly experience both at the same time in terms of her security at home and her d i f f i cu l t y in attaining positive identif icat ion in White society. On tests unrelated to social ization the Indian U were the only group that demonstrated s ignif icantly higher scores on the Assault subtest than the White groups. An explanatory hypothesis may be that their wider exposure to White society has led to more frustration, and consequently more overt hos t i l i t y , than is demonstrated by their more insulted rural counterparts. A l l four groups of Indians demonstrated s ignif icant ly less Positive Affect than the White delinquents. It remains to be explained whether these low scores are actually due to the extreme misery of the Indians, or part ia l ly attributable to a misinterpretation of the items on their 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 fact, unhappier than White delinquents. Different trends between the groups of Indians emerged. Those demonstrating the greatest number of s ignif icant differences from the White subjects were the Indians R, while the Indians U and A demonstrated the fewest differences. This possibly indicates the isolation of the rural subjects, in terms of less association with White culture, and more intensive experiences with their 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 ike that of the White delinquents as they assimilate aspects of asocial behavior 65 along with the other elements of White culture. In conclusion, Indian and White differences on subtest and item means indicate there is va l id i ty in the general family-society hypothesis which is the focal point of this study. In terms of Factor scales, there is some support for more positive family attitudes in Indian than in 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 : in the form of defeatism and dejection rather than expressing the overt host i l i ty versus society original ly hypothesized. The greatest support for these conclusions was found in the group of Indians R, presumably due to their greater immersion in their own culture, 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 ng 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 this. Alcohol has tradit ional ly been used by the Indians to celebrate or forget problems for many years (Government of Canada 1969a; Lewis 1970), and i t is unlikely that drugs wi l l rapidly replace i t . This is particularly true in view of the fact that Indian delinquents are often introduced to stimulants by older members of the family who, l ike the majority of the middle-aged population of any group, wi 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, wi l l more l ike ly be introduced to these elements by their peers, in an age group which is more familiar with drugs. The financial 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 culture, 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, their eventual equal participation in the drug scene seems to be an inevitable result. 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. The White delinquents showed a preference for the mother. However, the Indians generally gave more positive portraits in describing their mothers. Seven of them mentioned alcohol in their 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. The Indians also demonstrated a closer relat ion-ship to extended family members and named this group most often as people they trust, or by whom they are most influenced. They did not speak of parents in this context, perhaps because more extensive Indian family ties drain intensity from the parent-child relationship (Lewis 1970). White delinquents,on the other hand, demonstrated more trust and s tab i l i ty in l i f e outside their homes. They said that ideally they would l ike to be on their own or travel. Friends, s ibl ings, and outside authorities such as teachers and social workers were the people deemed most trustworthy or inf luential in their l ives, and older family 67 figures were conspicuously absent from these categories. The two groups also differed in their attitudes toward and perceptions of Willingdon i t se l f . The Indians showed less overt rebellion or resentment against being in the school and some even viewed i t as a solution to their problems. Although homesick, their attitude towards their term at the school seemed to be one of passive acceptance and of seeing i t as an inevitable end to their 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 anticipation of future rejection by family or friends. 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 ina l ly, 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 ro le, and see the school as a solution to their problems. In view of the Indians' d i f f i cu l t with the TAT, l i t t l e can be concluded from the projective results. However, there does seem to be support for a self-destructive, negativistic response to l i f e in Indian g i r l s , as opposed to the overt asocial expressions of White g i r l s , depicted on card 3BM. 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 signif icant differences in their response directions on the So scale as a whole, nor did the significance of these comparisons increase when they were repeated with the Indian A and White groups. This might be taken to indicate that, in fact, there are no differences in Indian and White responses to the test. However, since hotelling s tat i s t ics carried out on smaller numbers of selected items from the scale were s ignif icant, this is unlikely. A more plausible explanation is that the Gough scale in to ta l , is too broad an instrument for differentiat ing 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, differentiat ion of two dist inct directions of response became evident. Caution must be exercised lest these results be merely an art i fact 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 results. The closer approximation of the Indians A to the White patterns of response may again be explained by their wider experiences and assimilation into White society, particularly through the educational system. They appear to give more precise responses, but in an idiosyncratic direction that f a l l s somewhere between the White and total Indian responses, as does their own l i f e style. The picture arising 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 particularly receive strong support as successful distinguishers between White subjects and Indians, the latter scoring higher on this scale. Indian subjects strongly endorse three of the f ive items considered to contribute most s ignif icantly to this scale. Emotional indifference, defined in the context of stoicism for 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 direction that showed positive attitudes toward the home, a trend particularly evident on the 14-item analysis. The only consistent exception to these pleasant family perspectives was their avowal that they had often been punished unfairly 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, disc ipl ine in Indian homes is often slack, i t is possible that when i t does occur, i t comes as a shock to the child and he over reacts to i t . The observations of staff at Willingdon, that discipl inary measures taken with Indian g i r l s often result in tantrums, supports this idea. On the other hand, punishment in the Indian home when i t does occur may have heightened significance for the child 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 their own frustrations on the chi ld. The apathy and lack of consistency in applying discipl ine (Woodward 1949), as well as a generation gap enchanced by the children's greater contact with White society (Indian-Eskimo Association 1966, Lewis 1970), may also lead to the Indian chi ld ' s misperception and resentment of 70 punishment he receives at home. Whatever her views of d i sc ip l ine, the Indian chi ld ' s perceptions of home and family remain basically posit ive, in contrast to those of her White counterpart. Attitudes towards society which arise from item content are more hopeless than host i le, as hypothesized. The Indians demonstrate a lack of s tab i l i ty and trust in their environment, with low self-confidence, and l i t t l e insight into how they arrived at their unhappy situation. Again, observation of Indian g i r l s by Willingdon staff bears this out. They find that while these delinquents demonstrate super-f i c i a l fr iendl iness, their relationships with others are basically inconsis-tent, and a long period of time is required to build a trusting relationship. Indian delinquents appear to be less rebels against, and more victims of, their 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 ignif icant d i f -ferences in direction of response. 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 dist inct ive response pattern on the factor analyses. The Indian subjects did show low loadings on subject Factor V. This is probably related to their tendency to endorse items contributing to one of the social ization factors, Emotional Indifference, which was discussed previously. C H A P T E R S I X CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF STUDY It may be concluded that differences exist in the attitudes and behavior of Indian and White delinquents. There was evidence in support of the primary hypothesis: that while Indian delinquency is a response to social ization confl icts encountered in White society, White delinquents are reacting more against social ization pressures from within their families. It also became evident that the situation was more complex than the original hypotheses suggested. Indian delinquents demonstrate more positive attitudes towards family and home. However, some apparent paradoxes prevent straight-forward interpretation of this finding. "Family" for the Indian g i r l s is more l ike ly to include extended family members and not merely an intense nuclear unit. They perceive themselves as having been unfairly punished at home. 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 ts meaning. The Indian g i r l s also showed a different attitude toward society at large than the Whites. Rather than the host i l i ty hypothesized, their orientation seemed to be one of dejection and self-defeatism. The Indian delinquents appear as victims of their circumstances whose reaction to their misery is to turn their host i l i ty inward rather than exhibit outward rebel l ion. Faced with a lack of viable alternatives, delinquency and its 72 implications are accepted passively as a way of l i f e . There is mistrust and conf l ic 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 dist inct differences from the White groups. This is probably due to their 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 host i l i ty toward White society. Perhaps their close contact with the White culture in the c i t ies leads to more frus-tration and subsequent outward host i l i ty . Indians of higher ab i l i ty showed the fewest differences from the White groups probably because of their greater assimilation through educational experiences. The fact 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 characteristics 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 rel iably than Indians. Rel iab i l i ty did not improve to a signif icant degree when tests were redone on the Indians demonstrating a higher degree of intel lectual capabil ity. Thus the explanation for the differences must l i e elsewhere. It is possible that the measures used were inappropriate. While social ization is a universal phenomenon, this study may have demanded too much from the So scale. The scale has been primarily used to differentiate delinquents and non-delinquents. Here, i t was required to make cultural distinctions within a group of 73 delinquents on the basis of i ts dimensions. Assumptions made for a total population of delinquents may not hold true when they are broken into groups for the purpose of examining their cultural complexities. In this sense the So scale proved too narrow for this study as i t gave no freedom for dis -covering complexities lying beyond i t s immediate scope. This was particularly true of two of i ts factor scales (I and II) where the ends of the continuum used seemed to have different 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 tat i s t ica l studies of total delinquent populations such as Butt's (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 interactions, forming act iv i ty groups, or using art 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 direct questions with mutually exclusive answers would be most functional. 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 profitably 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 ir l s experience the same social ization confl icts as the Indian delinquents, they have managed to resolve them, while their delinquent counterparts are the ones l e f t in limbo with cultural confl icts unresolved. A study of Indian and White delinquency and i ts meaning from the viewpoint of the family would be an interesting complement to this study. The most profitable approach to this might be a f i e ld 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 rejection directed towards the g i r l by her family as a result of her delinquency. Presumably, Indian families would show more acceptance. A f inal 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 cu l t i e s that confront her in society, while the White delinquent is a product of an unhappy home. Two treatment programs could be developed, one oriented towards social rehabi l i tat ion, and the other or-ganized more along an interpersonal therapeutic scheme. It would be hypo-thesized that Indian delinquents would benefit more from the former, while the latter would offer more for White delinquents. In conclusion, i t appears that valid differences do exist between Indian and White female delinquents. Hopefully these wi 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 taciturnity 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 fa i r direction and discipl ine so they can develop trust and a sense of s tab i l i ty in their surroundings. F inal ly, they should be given support in their search for self-worth and identity between their own traditional culture and the rea l i ty of the pervasive White society in which they must l i ve . 76 C H A P T E R S E V E N BIBLIOGRAPHY Bjerring, J . , Boyer, S., Campbell, J . , Starbey, G. U.B.C. MVTAB, Multivariate Contingency Tabulations, U.B.C. Computing Centre, Vancouver, B.C., October, 1970. Bjerring, J.H. & Segraves, P. Triangular regression package Computing Centre, U.B.C, Vancouver, B.C., November 1970. Bradburn, N. & Caplovitz, D. Reports on happiness Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1965. Brit ish Columbia Indian Adivsory Committee, Annual Reports, 1953-1969. Buss, A.H. & Durkee, A. An inventory for assessing different kinds of host i l i ty . Journal of Consulting Psychology 1957, 21 , 343-349. Butt, S. Socialization dimensions and their correlates, American  Psychological Association Proceedings, September 1970(a), 475-476. Butt, S. Psychological facets of delinquency in g i r l s . Unpublished manuscript, University of Brit ish Columbia, 1970(b). Cardinal, H. The unjust society: The tragedy of Canada's Indians. Edmonton: N.G. Hurtig Ltd. , 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 thesis, 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  Pacif ic Coast. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1966. Fine, R. Manual for scoring scheme for verbal projective techniques. Los Angeles University of Southern California Press, 1948. Fiske, D.W. Homogeneity and variation in measuring personality. American  Psychologist 1966, 18, (10), 643-652. ~ ~ 77 Fiske, D.W. Some hypotheses concerning test adequacy. Educational -Psychologica l Measurement 1966(b), 26, 69-88. Fiske, D.W. Measuring the concepts of personality. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co. 197t: Gough, H.G. A sociological theory of Psychopathy. American Journal of Sociology. 1948, 53, 359-366. Gough, H.G. Theory and measurement of social izat ion. Journal of  Consulting Psychology, 1960, 24, 23-30. 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 behavior. Psychological Reports, 1965, 1_7, 379-387. 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 identif icat ion and measurement of pred-ispositional factors in crime and delinquency. Journal of Consulting  Psychology, 1952, J6_ 207-212. Gough, H.G. and Sandhu, H.S. Validation of the C.P.I, social ization 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 Immigration-Indian Af fa i r s , Branch, The Canadian Indian: A reference paper. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1963. Government of Canada, Department, of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Canadian Corrections Association. Indians and the law. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1969. Government of Canada, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian policy. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1969. Government of Canada, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Indian Af fa i r s : facts and figures. Ottawa: Queen's Printer: 1970. 78 Government of the Province of Brit ish Columbia, Department of Social Welfare, Annual Report-T967. Victor ia: A. Sutton, 1968. Gronek, T. & Tyler, T. UCSL-602-D, University of Chicago Program Library, "Computation Centre, University of Chicago, Chicago, I l l i no i s , 60637. (Adapted by U.B.C. Social Sciences Program Library). 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 Printer, 1966. Hawthorne, H.B., Belshaw, C.S., and Jamieson, S.M. The Indians of Brit ish Columbia: a study of contemporary social adjustment. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1958. Indian-Eskimo Association of Canada, Brit ish Columbia Interim Committee. Conference on concerns of Indians in Br i t i sh Columbia, 1966. Jaf fe, E.D. Family anomie and delinquency: development of the concept and some empirical findings. Brit ish Journal of Criminology, 1969, 9, 376-388. Konopka, Gisela. The adolescent g i r l in conf l ic t . Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1966. Kulik, J .A. , Stein, K.B. and Sarbin, T.R. Dimensions and patterns of adolescent antisocial behaviour. Journal of Consulting and Cl in ical  Psychology, 1968, 32, 375-382. Laing, The Honourable A., Minister of Indian Affairs 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 Br i t i sh Columbia. Department of University Extension, University of Brit ish Columbia, 1963. Lewis, C. Indian families of the northwest coast: The impact of change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970. McFeat, T. (Ed.) Indians of the North Pacif ic Coast. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1966. 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 Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1943. Oberg, K. Crime and punishment in T l ing i t society. In T. McFeat (Ed.) Indians of the North Pacif ic 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 va l id i ty of a social ized scale. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1959, 23, 182. Ravenhill, A. The native tribes of Br i t i sh Columbia. V ictor ia: C F . Banfield, 1938. Reed, C F . and Cuadra, C A . The, role-taking hypothesis in delinquency. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1957, 21_, 386-390. Re i fe l , B. Cultural factors in the social adjustment of Indians. In J . Willmott, (Ed.) The Indians of Br i t i sh Columbia, Department of University Extension, University of Brit ish Columbia, 1963. Sarbin, T.R., A l len, V.L., and Rutherford, E.E. Social reinforcement, soc ia l izat ion, and chronic delinquency. Brit ish Journal of Social and  C l in ica l Psychology, 1965, 4, 179-184. Schriver, J . and Leacock, E. Harrison Indian childhood. In J . Willmott (Ed.), The Indians of Brit ish Columbia. Department of University Extension, University of Brit ish Columbia, 1963. Stein, K.B., Gough, H.G., and Sarbin, T.R. The dimensionality —^> of the C.P.I, social ization scale and an empirically derived typology among delinquent and non-delinquent boys. Multivariate Behavioral  Research, 1966, 1_, 207-208. Taylor, L.J. Al ienation, anomie, and delinquency. Brit ish Journal of  Social and Cl in ica l Psychology, 1968, 7_, 93-105. Trese, L.J. 101 delinquent g i r l s . Notre Dame: Fides Publishers, 1962. United States of America, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Rubenfeld, S. Typological approaches and delinquency control: A status report. Washington: United States Government Printing Off ice, 1970. Vedder, C B . and Somerville, D. The delinquent g i r l . Springfield, I l ln . : C.C. Thomas, 1970. 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 Brit ish Columbia. Department of University Extension, University of Brit ish Columbia, 1963. Woodward, M. Juvenile delinquency among Indian g i r l s . Unpublished Master's thesis, School of Social work, University of Br it ish 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 ta t i s t i c on the total So scale to examine the direction of responses to the items for each population. The results of these two analyses are presented in Tables 1, 2, and 3. T-tests were done on subtest and factor scores and on l i f e data for the two populations to determine whether signif icant differences existed on these variables. The homogeneity analysis revealed few differences bet-ween the groups in terms of psychometric adequacy. The standard deviations were s l ight ly greater for the 1970 group on most of the subtests, and the r e l i a b i l i t y coeff icient for test reactions was higher for the 1970 group. The subtest showing the greatest var iab i l i ty between the two populations was Factor IV, Flight from Family, which was less rel iable for the 1970 group. The only signif icant 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 testing. The overall F value for the item analysis on the total So scale was highly s ignif icant. This cast most doubt upon the va l id i ty of combining the two populations for the Indian-White analyses. However, upon closer examination, i t became evident that the items with the best discrim-inating ab i l i t y i .e . that contributed'most to this difference, were TABLE 1 HOMOGENEITY ANALYSIS: 1968 and 1970 POPULATIONS Subtest No. of Items Mean Standard Rel iabi l i ty Inter-item Deviation Coefficient Correlation Inter-person Correlation Error Variance Socialization 1968 1970 64 Test Reactions Positive Affect Negative Affect Assault Verbal Host i l i ty Negativism Factor 1 Emotional Fragmentat-ion 1968 1970 1968 1970 1968 1970 1968 1970 1968 1970 1968 1970 1968 1970 10 136.50 136.12 7.47 10.25 7.12 7.43 8.81 8.52 15.55 15.06 10.16 10.16 8.15 8.29 11.97 11.52 10.28 11.60 1.19 1.43 1.41 1.38 1.19 1.30 2.68 2.40 1.43 1.27 1.22 1.25 2.76 2.81 .63 .68 .36 .51 .60 .54 .58 .56 .76 .68 .48 .29 .31 .37 .71 .68 .03 .03 .05 .08 .16 .10 .08 .15 .23 .19 .22 .20 .24 .17 .13 .06 .21 .18 .12 .05 .20 .18 .22 .14 .10 .10 .03 .03 .05 .03 .12 .19 .76 .78 .68 .68 .53 .56 .53 .57 .63 .68 .70 .75 .70 .69 .50 .49 Subtest No. of Items Standard Rel iabi l i ty Inter-item Inter-person Error Mean Deviation Coefficient Correlation Correlation Variance Factor II 1968 5 11.19 2.64 .64 .08 .10 .55 Negative l g 7 0 1 1 > 5 8 2 8 g 7 Q e l l - 0 5 .53 Social Identity Factor III 1968 5 11.23 2.30 .57 .21 .20 .54 Self-Defeat- l g 7 Q 1 Q g 2 2 A 8 5 2 1 8 > 1 3 > 5 9 ism Factor IV 1968 5 13.23 1.96 .56 .20 .20 .55 Flight from l g 7 0 1 3 > 6 9 1 > 3 4 > 0 2 . 0 0 .10 .72 Family Factor V 1968 5 7.78 2.32 .59 .23 .17 .54 Emotional l g 7 0 8 l g 2 4 0 .49 ,16 .05 .64 Indifference CO CO 84 TABLE 2 HOTELLING ON 64-ITEM GOUGH SCALE - 1968 AND 1970 POPULATIONS Hotelling Stat i s t ic F Value 283.074 2.625* * p .0000 TABLE 3 ITEMS OF GREATEST SIGNIFICANCE IN HOTELLING ANALYSIS 1968-1970 GROUPS Item Differences 1970 Number between Means Item Content 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 31 -.362 When I meet a stranger I often think that he is better than I am. F 43 .339 I have often gone against my parents' wishes. F 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 56 -.251 I used to steal sometimes when I was a youngster. T 58 .273 I never cared much for school. F 


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



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"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items