Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Moral development and moral action : a study of youthful offenders Moran, Thomas 1987

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1988_A1 M67.pdf [ 5.12MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0098150.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0098150-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0098150-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0098150-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0098150-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0098150-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0098150-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0098150-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0098150.ris

Full Text

Moral Development and Moral A c t i o n : A Study o f Youthful Offenders By THOMAS MORAN B.A., U n i v e r s i t y o f Nebraska, 1974 M.S., Oregon State U n i v e r s i t y , 1977 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department o f Psychology) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard.  UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA November 1987 ( c ) Thomas Moran, 1987  In  presenting  degree freely  at  this  the  available  copying  of  department publication  of  in  partial  fulfilment  University  of  British  Columbia,  for  this or  thesis  reference and  thesis by  this  for  his  scholarly  or  thesis  for  her  Department  V6T  Date  DE-6(3/81)  Columbia  1Y3  NlovK  Zto  ,  \<ib"h  I  I further  purposes  gain  the  shall  requirements  agree  that  agree  may  representatives.  financial  permission.  T h e University of British 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada  study.  of  be  It not  that  the  Library  permission  granted  is  by  understood be  for  allowed  an  advanced  shall for  the that  without  make  it  extensive  head  of  my  copying  or  my  written  ii ABSTRACT T h i s study was designed t o explore p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s between moral m a t u r i t y and moral a c t i o n by e v a l u a t i n g groups o f d e l i n q u e n t and non-delinquent youth, and examining t h e i r r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n on m u l t i p l e measures o f moral maturity and c r i m i n a l i t y .  Subjects were 60 male  a d j u d i c a t e d j u v e n i l e o f f e n d e r s between the ages o f 14 and 17, and 20 non-delinquent c o n t r o l s . A l l youth p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a s e r i e s o f s t r u c t u r e d i n t e r v i e w s used as a way o f a s s e s s i n g t h e i r a b i l i t i e s on Kohlberg's moral reasoning, T u r i e l ' s s o c i a l convention understanding, and Selman's s o c i a l p e r s p e c t i v e t a k i n g measures, and were administered Hogan's s o c i a l i z a t i o n , empathy, and autonomy s c a l e s . The delinquent youth were assigned immorality r a t i n g s and f u r t h e r c l a s s i f i e d according t o l e g a l c a t e g o r i e s . Ratings f o r Hare's Psychopathy C h e c k l i s t were obtained from primary t h e r a p i s t s f o r the d e l i n q u e n t s and from school counselors f o r the non-delinquent comparison  group.  The r e s u l t s r e v e a l e d that as a group, delinquent s u b j e c t s showed s u b s t a n t i a l developmental delays i n t h e i r performances on measures o f moral reasoning, s o c i a l convention understanding, i n t e r p e r s o n a l awareness and i n d i c e s o f s o c i a l i z a t i o n and autonomy. Hogan's empathy measure a l s o showed a trend i n the same d i r e c t i o n .  The m a j o r i t y o f the d e l i n q u e n t  youth were found t o score at a p r e c o n v e n t i o n a l - c o n c r e t e reasoning l e v e l and showed a general l a c k o f s o c i a l - m o r a l c h a r a c t e r . Tests o f communality among the s i x moral maturity measures produced d i s t i n c t and i n t e r n a l l y c o n s i s t e n t c o g n i t i v e reasoning ( i . e . , moral reasoning, i n t e r p e r s o n a l  iii awareness, and s o c i a l convention understanding) and moral c h a r a c t e r ( i . e . , s o c i a l i z a t i o n , empathy, and autonomy) c l u s t e r s which lend support t o the claims o f Brown, Harre', and Hogan r e g a r d i n g the m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l i t y o f moral development.  There was an expected i n v e r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p between  immorality and moral m a t u r i t y f o r the low and moderate s e r i o u s n e s s groups, and an i n c o n s i s t e n t p a t t e r n f o r the high group.  T h i s l a t e r f i n d i n g was  i n t e r p r e t e d as an a r t i f a c t o f the f a c t t h a t those d e l i n q u e n t s whose c r i m i n a l a c t s were judged most immoral were p a r t i c u l a r l y g u i l t y o f v a r i o u s sexual o f f e n s e s . The psychometric p r o p e r t i e s o f the Psychopathy C h e c k l i s t c o n f i r m i t s u s e f u l n e s s with adolescent p o p u l a t i o n s . Three i n t e r n a l l y c o n s i s t e n t f a c t o r s c a l e s emerged ( i . e . , m o t i v a t i o n a l d e f i c i t , l a c k o f ego s t r e n g t h , and b e h a v i o r a l d e v i a t i o n ) .  While psychopathy was found t o s i g n i f i c a n t l y  c o r r e l a t e with immorality r a t i n g s , an unexpected p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p was a l s o found between psychopathy and moral reasoning f o r the sex o f f e n d e r group. Taken t o g e t h e r , a l l o f these r e s u l t s were i n t e r p r e t e d i n terms o f Heider's theory o f the psychology o f a c t i o n , which views behavior, i n t h i s case moral behavior, as a combination o f "can" ( i . e . , moral reasoning competency) and " t r y " ( i . e . , moral c h a r a c t e r ) .  iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT  i i  TABLE OF CONTENTS  iv  LIST OF TABLES  vi  DEDICATION ACKNOWLEDGMENT  viii ix  CHAPTER 1 1.1. I n t r o d u c t i o n  1  1.1.1. A c r i t i q u e o f previous research  2  1.1.2. A survey o f a l t e r n a t i v e accounts o f moral m a t u r i t y  5  1.1.3. General Hypotheses  9  CHAPTER 2 2.1. Theories o f Moral M a t u r i t y  12  2.1.1. Kohlberg: J u s t i c e p r i n c i p l e s and moral development  12  2.1.2. T u r i e l : S o c i a l convention understanding  15  2.1.3. Non-cognitive p e r s p e c t i v e s on moral m a t u r i t y  17  2.1.4. Psychopathy  18  2.1.5. Selman: Stages o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l awareness  21  2.2. Taxonomy o f the Immorality o f Delinquent Acts  23  2.2.1. D i r e c t r a t i n g s o f the immorality o f d e l i n q u e n t acts 2.3. Summary o f t h e Methodology  24 25  2.3.1. Subject s e l e c t i o n  25  2.3.2. Stimulus m a t e r i a l s  25  2.3.3. Procedure  26  2.3.4. S c o r i n g and r e l i a b i l i t y  27  2.3.5. Summary o f hypotheses  28  V  CHAPTER 3 Results  29  3.1. Moral M a t u r i t y : A Comparison o f Delinquents and Non-delinquents.  29  3.1.1. P r i n c i p a l components a n a l y s i s o f moral m a t u r i t y measures. 34 3.2. Comparisons w i t h i n the Delinquent Sample  38  3.2.1. Immorality r a t i n g s  39  3.2.2. Seriousness l e v e l r a t i n g s  40  3.2.3. I n t e r r e l a t i o n s between p e r c e i v e d immorality and seriousness  42  3.3. The R e l a t i o n s h i p Between Moral M a t u r i t y and the Seriousness and Immorality o f Delinquent Acts  46  3.3.1. C o r r e l a t i o n a l analyses r e l a t i n g immorality r a t i n g s to moral m a t u r i t y measures  52  3.3.2. S p e c i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n v o l v i n g the j u v e n i l e sex o f f e n d e r s  53  3.4. Psychopathy  61  3.4.1. P r i n c i p a l Components o f the Psychopathy 3.4.2. Psychopathy  Checklist  61  and moral maturity  63  3.4.3. C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of psychopaths and non-psychopaths  66  CHAPTER 4 Discussion  70  4.1. Delinquents versus non-delinquents  71  4.2. R e l a t i o n s h i p between moral m a t u r i t y measures and the seriousness and immorality of d e l i n q u e n t acts 4.3. L i m i t a t i o n s and f u t u r e d i r e c t i o n s REFERENCES  74 79 83  vi APPENDICES A. Kohl berg's Moral Reasoning  88  B. T u r i e l ' s S o c i a l Convention Understanding  94  C. Hogan's S c a l e s o f Moral Development  99  D. Selman's I n t e r p e r s o n a l Awareness  101  E. Hare's Measure o f Psychopathy  105  F. Delinquency Rating Scale  107  G. Consent Forms  112  vi i LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: D i s c r i m i n a n t Function A n a l y s i s : C l a s s i f y i n g Delinquents and Non-delinquents  31  TABLE 2: A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e : Delinquents versus Non-delinquents ... 32 TABLE 3: F a c t o r A n a l y s i s o f Moral M a t u r i t y Measures  35  TABLE 4: C o r r e l a t i o n M a t r i c e s o f Moral M a t u r i t y Measures: Delinquents and Non-delinquents  37  TABLE 5: Mean Immorality Ratings  41  TABLE 6: C r o s s - C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f Legal and Immorality Rating Systems TABLE 7: D i s c r i m i n a n t Function A n a l y s i s : C l a s s i f y i n g Delinquents and Non-delinquents According to Immorality Ratings TABLE 8: A n a l y s i s o f Variance: Levels o f Immorality and Moral M a t u r i t y Measures TABLE 9: Pearson C o r r e l a t i o n s Between the P e r c e i v e d Immorality o f Delinquent Acts and Moral M a t u r i t y Measures TABLE 10: A n a l y s i s o f Co-Variance: J u v e n i l e Sex Offenders, Non-sex Offenders, and Non-delinquents by Moral M a t u r i t y TABLE 11: Stage D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Moral Reasoning, I n t e r p e r s o n a l Awareness, and S o c i a l Convention Understanding by Group TABLE 12: C o r r e l a t i o n M a t r i c e s o f Moral M a t u r i t y Measures: J u v e n i l e Sex Offenders and Delinquent Non-sex Offenders TABLE 13: F a c t o r A n a l y s i s o f Hare's Psychopathy C h e c k l i s t TABLE 14: C o r r e l a t i o n s Between the Psychopathy Factor S c a l e s and Measures o f Moral M a t u r i t y TABLE 15: D i s c r i m i n a n t Function Analyses: C l a s s i f y i n g Psychopaths and Non-psychopaths  44 48 50 54 56 57 59 62 65  1  68  viii  ACKNOWLEDGMENT I would l i k e t o express my h e a r t - f e l t g r a t i t u d e t o Michael Chandler, my t h e s i s s u p e r v i s o r , f o r h i s s t e a d f a s t support, t h e o r e t i c a l and emperical c o n t r i b u t i o n s , and s e n s i t i v i t y during my graduate work a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia and t h e production o f t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n . A p p r e c i a t i o n i s expressed t o Lawrence Walker and Robert Hare f o r t h e i r c o n t r u c t i v e suggestions t o e a r l i e r v e r s i o n s o f t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n and f o r t h e i r a c t i v e r o l e s as t h e s i s committee members. I extend a s p e c i a l warm thanks t o Nancy Benson, who provided me unconditional support throughout the d i s s e r t a t i o n process, and without whose c a r i n g would have been d i f f i c u l t to achieve. The cooperation o f Orin Bolstad o f t h e Morrison Center, P a t r i c i a Sawyer and B i l l Maddex o f t h e Gresham P u b l i c Schools, David Dougher o f t h e C h i l d r e n ' s Farm Home, B i l l Morris o f t h e Multnomah County J u v e n i l e Court, and t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e s t a f f s i s g r a t e f u l l y acknowledged. F i n a l l y , I would l i k e t o thank those youth who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s research p r o j e c t .  IX  DEDICATION  to the memory o f H i l d a MacLeod  1 CHAPTER 1 1.1. I n t r o d u c t i o n The purpose o f t h i s study was to explore p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s between the commission o f i l l e g a l and sometimes immoral a c t s on the p a r t o f young persons and t h e i r progress toward the achievement o f moral m a t u r i t y . T h i s work was p r e d i c a t e d on the broadly shared assumption t h a t e x i s t i n g research i n t o the normative course o f moral development may have d i r e c t r e l e v a n c e t o our understanding of other l e s s t y p i c a l youth, d i s t i n q u i s h e d by having been a d j u d i c a t e d as d e l i n q u e n t . Over the past s e v e r a l decades numerous i n v e s t i g a t o r s (see B l a s i , 1980; Jennings, Kilkenny, and Kohlberg, 1983; and J u r k o v i c , 1980 f o r recent reviews) have sought to demonstrate such a r e l a t i o n between delinquency or c r i m i n a l i t y and d e v i a t i o n s i n the a c q u i s i t i o n o f age-appropriate moral m a t u r i t y . The study r e p o r t e d here extends t h i s research t r a d i t i o n by going beyond the more usual c a t e g o r i c comparison o f d e l i n q u e n t and non-delinquent samples t o a more d e t a i l e d examination o f the moral m a t u r i t y of j u v e n i l e o f f e n d e r s d i f f e r e n t i a t e d i n terms o f the degree to which t h e i r s e r i o u s i l l e g a l acts a l s o represent o f f e n s e s a g a i n s t commonly held standards of m o r a l i t y . The i n t u i t i o n which guided t h i s research was t h a t the problematic r e l a t i o n s t h a t others ( i . e . , Jennings, K i l k e n y , and Kohlberg, 1983) have r e p o r t e d between measures o f moral m a t u r i t y and d e l i n q u e n t s t a t u s may have been a r e s u l t o f the f a c t that not a l l a c t s which are i l l e g a l are a l s o n e c e s s a r i l y immoral.  Clear  r e l a t i o n s between delinquency and measures o f moral m a t u r i t y , i f they e x i s t , should be expected only to the degree t h a t the law v i o l a t i o n s under study d i r e c t l y c o n t r a d i c t some g e n e r a l l y recognized moral p r o h i b i t i o n . The c e n t r a l hypotheses, t e s t e d i n t h i s study were, then, t h a t : 1) measures o f moral m a t u r i t y would p r e d i c t to d e l i n q u e n t acts only i n so f a r as such  2 o f f e n s e s a l s o c o n s t i t u t e departures from recognized moral codes; and 2) t h a t the s e r i o u s n e s s of such moral lapses would i n c r e a s e i n d i r e c t p r o p o r t i o n to the degree t h a t those r e s p o n s i b l e f o r them f a l l short of acceptable standards o f age-appropriate moral m a t u r i t y . 1.1.1. A c r i t i q u e o f previous research While previous research has succeeded i n demonstrating some real but modest r e l a t i o n between c r i m i n a l i t y and moral immaturity, these f i n d i n g s have been both more mixed and c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s impressive than the c l a r i t y o f the conceptual r e l a t i o n between these two c l a s s e s o f v a r i a b l e s would l e a d one to a n t i c i p a t e (Hudgins & P r e n t i c e , 1973; Fodor, 1972).  Two  p o s s i b l e reasons suggest themselves as ways o f understanding t h i s f a i l e d expectation.  F i r s t , the c l e a r m a j o r i t y o f these previous s t u d i e s  (Haviland, 1977; Fodor, 1972, 1973) have t r e a t e d j u v e n i l e d e l i n q u e n t s as a homogeneous group, and without regard to the c a s e - s p e c i f i c d e t a i l s o f t h e i r i l l e g a l a c t s . By batch p r o c e s s i n g d e l i n q u e n t s o f every s t r i p e such i n v e s t i g a t i o n s have r i s k e d d i l u t i n g whatever r e l a t i o n might a c t u a l l y e x i s t between moral m a t u r i t y and s p e c i f i c o f f e n s e c a t e g o r i e s . As Quay and h i s c o l l e a g u e s (Quay, Peterson, & C o s a l v i c , 1960) and others ( i . e . , Hetherington, Stouwic, & Ridberg, 1971) have demonstrated,  legal  d e f i n i t i o n s o f t e n mask the enormous d i v e r s i t y which i s present i n a c t u a l d e l i n q u e n t a c t s , and obscures the f a c t t h a t while some young o f f e n d e r s have acted i n ways t h a t would l i k e l y be seen as c r i m i n a l i n any context, others appear to be g u i l t y o f l i t t l e more than becoming well s o c i a l i z e d i n t o a system o f temporarally s p e c i f i c s u b - c u l t u r a l values t h a t happens to be at v a r i a n c e with e x i s t i n g c o d i f i e d law.  A few i n v e s t i g a t o r s have  pursued a more d i f f e r e n t i a t e d research s t r a t e g y by f u r t h e r s u b - d i v i d i n g t h e i r study p o p u l a t i o n s according to standard l e g a l o f f e n s e c a t e g o r i e s ( J u r k o v i c & P r e n t i c e , 1977; and Campagna & Harter, 1976) or i n terms o f  3  v a r i o u s p e r s o n a l i t y d e s c r i p t o r s (Hawk & Peterson, 1974; Hetherington et a l . , 1971;  Quay et a l . , 1959), but these i n v e s t i g a t i o n s continue to  represent the exception r a t h e r than the r u l e . Despite t h e i r more d i f f e r e n t i a t e d c h a r a c t e r , s t u d i e s o f the s o r t j u s t o u t l i n e d n e v e r t h e l e s s s t i l l continue t o be i l l - s u i t e d i n b r i n g i n g to the s u r f a c e whatever r e l a t i o n s might p o t e n t i a l l y e x i s t between m o r a l i t y and criminality.  T h i s i s t r u e f o r the important reason t h a t while c o d i f i e d  laws have as one o f t h e i r purposes the defense o f p u b l i c m o r a l i t y , they o b v i o u s l y serve other and l e s s morally r e l e v a n t purposes as w e l l . Many e x i s t i n g laws, which i f broken, would r e s u l t i n one's being l a b e l e d a j u v e n i l e d e l i n q u e n t , have l i t t l e to do with m o r a l i t y as g e n e r a l l y conceived, and, i n s t e a d , serve to help r e g u l a t e c i v i c l i f e , preserve convention, or f a c i l i t a t e the smooth working o f commercial  and  b u r e a u c r a t i c e n t e r p r i s e s . Consequently, many youth who are a d j u d i c a t e d as d e l i n q u e n t , have won t h i s s t a t u s as a consequence o f running a f o u l o f such s t a t u t o r y laws, and are not g u i l t y o f anything t h a t c o u l d be construed e a s i l y as a moral o f f e n s e , at l e a s t by those who do not a u t o m a t i c a l l y equate immorality with any law v i o l a t i o n .  To mix such " s t a t u s " o f f e n d e r s  in with others whose i l l e g a l acts represent more or l e s s b l a t a n t v i o l a t i o n s o f usual moral p r o h i b i t i o n , and to hope f o r any c l e a r r e l a t i o n to emerge with measures o f moral maturity, i s to be o p t i m i s t i c at best. From the p e r s p e c t i v e adopted here, any c o n c e p t u a l l y compelling r e l a t i o n between measured delays i n moral development and delinquency could only be expected i n those instances i n which r e a l v i o l a t i o n s o f usual moral p r o h i b i t i o n are at stake.  S i m i l a r l y , not every act t h a t can  be r e l i a b l y counted as a c l e a r o f f e n s e a g a i n s t moral p r i n c i p l e i s a u t o m a t i c a l l y equal i n immorality to other o f f e n s e s t h a t a l s o unambiguously  v i o l a t e other and perhaps more s e r i o u s moral p r o h i b i t i o n s .  4  For example, b a l d - f a c e d l i e s t h a t serve one's own i n t e r e s t s at the expense of innocent others t y p i c a l l y q u a l i f y as immoral acts by most e t h i c a l standards, but are r a r e l y seen t o be as m o r a l l y r e p r e h e n s i b l e as i s robbery o r murder. Developing some m e t r i c which permitted the s c a l i n g o f d e l i n q u e n t o f f e n s e s i n terms o f how much they are i n v i o l a t i o n o f usual moral standards, holds out the prospect o f a i d i n g i n the making o f such d i s c r i m i n a t i o n s , and, consequently, was one o f the procedural goals o f this research. A second p o t e n t i a l e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the modest c o r r e l a t i o n s which p r e v i o u s l y have been reported between moral m a t u r i t y and j u v e n i l e c r i m i n a l i t y l i e s i n the f a c t t h a t the authors o f the few s t u d i e s which do explore t h i s r e l a t i o n have tended t o approach the task o f a s s e s s i n g moral m a t u r i t y i n ways which have been r e s t r i c t e d by t h e i r s p e c i a l a l l e g i a n c e s to one o r another o f a s e t o f p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e t h e o r e t i c a l accounts o f moral development.  T h i s s t a t e o f a f f a i r s i s an understandable  consequence  of the f a c t t h a t the m a j o r i t y o f such s t u d i e s are the outgrowth o f e f f o r t s to demonstrate the p o t e n t i a l s o c i a l relevance o f some p a r t i c u l a r t h e o r e t i c a l account o f moral development.  From the more f u n c t i o n a l  p e r s p e c t i v e adopted i n t h i s present study, however, such narrowly t h e o r y - d r i v e n s t u d i e s were seen t o be dangerously p a r o c h i a l . Real r e l a t i o n s between moral maturity and c e r t a i n c a t e g o r i e s o f c r i m i n a l i t y might well e x i s t , but f a l l o u t s i d e o f the o r b i t o f any p a r t i c u l a r theory. For t h i s reason the present study attempted t o be more e c l e c t i c and t o draw upon a range o f a v a i l a b l e t h e o r i e s and measures o f moral  development,  each o f which appears t o hold out some separate promise o f informing our understanding o f p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s between j u v e n i l e delinquency and moral maturity. A b r i e f o u t l i n e o f those t h e o r i e s considered i s d e t a i l e d below.  This  5 survey begins with an account o f Kohlberg's theory o f moral reasoning, precedes to a d i s c u s s i o n of T u r i e l ' s model o f s o c i a l convention understanding and then turns to a d e s c r i p t i o n o f Hogan's theory o f moral character.  F i n a l l y , the relevance o f Selman's theory o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l  awareness and Hare's account o f psychopathy are d i s c u s s e d . 1.1.2. A survey of a l t e r n a t i v e accounts o f moral m a t u r i t y Unquestionably, the e l a b o r a t e account o f moral m a t u r i t y provided by Kohlberg (1969, 1976) and h i s c o l l e a g u e s (e.g., Colby, Kohlberg, Gibbs, & Lieberman, 1983) over the l a s t quarter o f a century must occupy some c e n t r a l p l a c e i n any proposed a n a l y s i s o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p between lawlessness and moral maturity.  T h i s same c o n c l u s i o n i s endorsed by the  work o f several other i n v e s t i g a t o r s who themselves have set out to study p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between c r i m i n a l i t y and Kohlbergian measures o f moral m a t u r i t y  (Campagna & Harter, 1975; J u r k o v i c & P r e n t i c e , 1977).  The  present research e f f o r t undertook to p a r t i a l l y r e p l i c a t e aspects o f c e r t a i n o f these e a r l i e r s t u d i e s , with the important p r o v i s i o n t h a t a t t e n t i o n should a l s o be d i r e c t e d t o the moral relevance o f the p a r t i c u l a r offenses perpetrated. What i s p e r c e i v e d here as the short f a l l o f any study which r e l i e s e x c l u s i v e l y upon a Kohlbergian account o f the moral developmental  process  i s t h a t Kohlberg, or at l e a s t c e r t a i n of h i s i n t e r p r e t e r s , have tended to equate the whole o f m o r a l i t y with the c o g n i t i v e task o f making judgments r e g a r d i n g the j u s t i c e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f a l t e r n a t i v e courses m o r a l l y r e l e v a n t a c t i o n ( T u r i e l , 1983).  While t h i s d e o n t i c approach (Walker, 1980) to  matters o f moral reasoning may be a d e f e n s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e i n the p u r s u i t of e t h i c a l philosophy, as a p s y c h o l o g i c a l theory, i t i n t e n t i o n a l l y leaves out, among other t h i n g s , a range of t e l e o l o g i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , r e f e r r e d to p e j o r a t i v e l y by Kohlberg (1971) as a "bag of v i r t u e s " , which are of major  6 t h e o r e t i c s i g n i f i c a n c e to some ( i . e . , Harre', 1983), and may have c o n s i d e r a b l e p r a c t i c a l relevance i n any attempt to understand j u v e n i l e delinquency. In response to the argument t h a t the moral judgment process i s only a p a r t o f the l a r g e r domain of moral development, other i n v e s t i g a t o r s have centered research a t t e n t i o n upon those a l t e r n a t i v e developmental  processes  by means o f which young persons acquire an understanding o f what s o c i e t y holds out to be the r i g h t and wrong t h i n g to do ( T u r i e l , 1978,  1983).  From the more problem-focussed p e r s p e c t i v e adopted i n t h i s study, any complete accounting o f the moral m a t u r i t y s t a t u s o f both d e l i n q u e n t and non-delinquent youth n e c e s s a r i l y must make r e f e r e n c e to t h i s range o f more t e l e o l o g i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n s by attempting to assess the degree to which i n d i v i d u a l s understand such matters of s o c i a l convention.  To t h i s end, an  important goal o f t h i s proposed research was to b r i n g i n t o p l a y procedures which measure awareness and understanding o f what s o c i e t y holds out to be the " r i g h t " and "wrong" t h i n g s t o do. F i n a l l y , as Hogan (Hogan, 1982; Hogan & Busch, 1984) pointed out, moral m a t u r i t y e n t a i l s more than a grasp o f j u s t i c e p r i n c i p l e s (as emphasized by Kohl berg) or knowledge o f s o c i a l conventions (as s t r e s s e d by T u r i e l ) , and must be understood a l s o to hinge, i n important p a r t , upon one's a b i l i t y to b r i n g o n e s e l f to s a c r i f i c e apparent personal advantage i n the p u r s u i t o f what one knows or .judges to be the m o r a l l y r i g h t t h i n g to do.  I t f o l l o w s , then, from Hogan's argument, t h a t any  comprehensive  assessment of moral m a t u r i t y must n e c e s s a r i l y i n c l u d e some attempt to measure the c h a r a c t e r s t r e n g t h which i n d i v i d u a l s b r i n g to bear i n o b l i g a t i n g themselves to undertake what they take to be the r i g h t t h i n g to do. For these reasons the present study a l s o i n c l u d e d , among i t s l i s t o f measures o f moral m a t u r i t y , those p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s which Hogan (1982)  7 and others (e.g., Harre', 1983), have earmarked as being o f c e n t r a l importance to the achievement o f moral m a t u r i t y . In p a r t i a l summary, then, the primary purpose o f t h i s research was to explore the r e l a t i o n between several aspects o f the developing moral m a t u r i t y process and d e l i n q u e n t a c t i v i t i e s o f v a r i o u s degrees o f immorality.  It was assumed here t h a t the problematic c h a r a c t e r o f much of  the e x i s t i n g research concerned with these r e l a t i o n s h i p s i s a j o i n t by-product o f the f a c t s t h a t i n s u f f i c i e n t a t t e n t i o n has been p a i d : 1) to the f u l l range o f ways i n which v a r i o u s delinquent acts a c t u a l l y represent v i o l a t i o n s of usual moral standards, and 2) to the f u l l scope o f the process o f moral development.  The research plan f o l l o w e d i n t h i s study  was intended to serve as a p a r t i a l c o r r e c t i v e f o r these shortcomings included e f f o r t s :  and  1) to develop a typology f o r c l a s s i f y i n g the degree o f  immorality o f v a r i o u s delinquent o f f e n s e s ; 2) to extend the range o f measures o f moral m a t u r i t y under c o n s i d e r a t i o n to i n c l u d e the f u l l compliment o f v a r i a b l e s proposed by Kohlberg (1976), T u r i e l (1983) and Hogan (Hogan & Busch, 1984; Hogan, Johnson, & Emler, 1978); and 3) to reexamine the p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s between m o r a l i t y and c r i m i n a l i t y i n l i g h t of these more d i f f e r e n t i a t e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . Beyond t h i s l i s t o f primary v a r i a b l e s , t h i s study was f u r t h e r expanded to i n c l u d e two other sets of measures which hold out the promise o f deepening our understanding o f any r e l a t i o n t h a t might emerge between measures o f moral m a t u r i t y and types o f delinquent o f f e n s e s .  In  p a r t i c u l a r , the v a r i a b l e s of i n t e r p e r s o n a l awareness and psychopathy were i n c l u d e d f o r study.  While other v a r i a b l e s and d i f f e r e n t measures might  have been chosen, these p a r t i c u l a r a d d i t i o n s were seen to be e s p e c i a l l y j u s t i f i e d by the f a c t t h a t both have been r e g u l a r l y i m p l i c a t e d i n matters of moral m a t u r i t y and have been shown to be a s s o c i a t e d with v a r i o u s  8 i n d i c e s o f a n t i s o c i a l behavior. In p a r t i c u l a r , numerous t h e o r i s t s (e.g., Selman, 1980, Walker, 1980) have argued t h a t s p e c i f i c l e v e l s o f p e r s p e c t i v e - t a k i n g competence are p r e r e q u i s i t e t o given l e v e l s o f moral maturity.  Others (Chandler, 1972; 1973; Chandler, Greenspan, & Barenboim,  1973, Gough, 1957, 1948; Selman, 1980) have presented evidence which d i r e c t l y l i n k s developmental d e l a y s i n such competencies t o v a r i o u s measures o f a n t i s o c i a l behavior. In l i g h t o f these p r i o r f i n d i n g s , any attempt to d i r e c t l y c o r r e l a t e moral development and c r i m i n a l i t y without a l s o e x p l o r i n g the p o s s i b l e p a r t which p e r s p e c t i v e t a k i n g might p l a y i n t h i s r e l a t i o n would have been incomplete. The r e l a t i o n between psychopathy and c r i m i n a l i t y i s a l l but d e f i n i t i o n a l , and has been well documented i n a long s e r i e s o f s t u d i e s by C l e c k l y (1976), Hare (1980, 1983, 1985; Hare & McPherson, 1984), and others ( J u r k o v i c & P r e n t i c e , 1977).  There are a l s o c o m p e l l i n g t h e o r e t i c a l  reasons t o a n t i c i p a t e t h a t psychopathy, l i k e r o l e - t a k i n g , may p r o v i d e a conceptual b r i d g e l i n k i n g c r i m i n a l i t y and moral m a t u r i t y . In p a r t i c u l a r , the work o f Hogan (1982) and T u r i e l (1983), which s t r e s s e s the r o l e o f s o c i a l i z a t i o n i n the achievement o f moral m a t u r i t y , suggests such a bridge to the work o f Hare (1983) and o t h e r s , t h a t p o r t r a y s psychopathy as a p a r t i a l symptom o f s o c i a l i z a t i o n f a i l u r e s or a c o l l a p s e o f w i l l .  On these  grounds i t was seen t o be e s s e n t i a l to i n c l u d e i n t h i s study a measure o f psychopathy as a means o f e v a l u a t i n g i t s p o t e n t i a l p a r t i n e x p l a i n i n g any observed r e l a t i o n between m o r a l i t y and c r i m i n a l i t y . On the s t r e n g t h o f the preceding arguments, methods f o r i n d e x i n g both psychopathy and p e r s p e c t i v e - t a k i n g competence were added t o the l i s t o f measures t o be employed i n t h i s study. A l t o g e t h e r , then, these seven moral m a t u r i t y d e s c r i p t o r s , i n c l u d i n g those o f Kohlberg, T u r i e l , and the t h r e e measures proposed by Hogan, along with Selman's measure o f  9 i n t e r p e r s o n a l awareness, and Hare's Psychopathy C h e c k l i s t , together c o n s t i t u t e d the set of p r e d i c t o r v a r i a b l e s to be placed in r e l a t i o n to the c r i t e r i o n measures of delinquency  status.  F i n a l l y , because several and perhaps a l l of the measures already d i s c u s s e d could or have already been shown to covary with general i n t e l l i g e n c e , i t was decided to include a b r i e f IQ measure as a check on the p o s s i b i l i t y that other d i f f e r e n c e s that might be observed could be explained as an a r t i f a c t of p o t e n t i a l i n t e l l e c t u a l d i f f e r e n c e s .  The  S h i p l e y I n s t i t u t e of L i v i n g Scales was chosen f o r t h i s purpose. In b r i e f o u t l i n e then, t h i s study set out t o : 1) i d e n t i f y a d i v e r s e group of youthful offenders and an a p p r o p r i a t e l y matched sample of non-delinquent  c o n t r o l s ; 2) assess the l e v e l of moral maturity,  i n t e r p e r s o n a l awareness, psychopathy, and i n t e l l i g e n c e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of these s u b j e c t s ; 3) s c a l e the offenses of the delinquent group i n terms of the degree to which t h e i r i l l e g a l a c t i v i t i e s a l s o c o n s t i t u t e v i o l a t i o n s of l e g a l and moral p r o h i b i t i o n s ; and 4) examine the r e l a t i o n s between these p r e d i c t i v e and c r i t e r i a l measures i n l i g h t of the various hypotheses d e t a i l e d below. 1.1.3. General Hypotheses The c e n t r a l hypothesis that guided t h i s study was that young persons who commit acts that are i n s e r i o u s v i o l a t i o n of accepted moral  standards  w i l l tend to be those whose moral development i s a l s o delayed or a r r e s t e d r e l a t i v e to t h e i r non-delinquent  or l e s s delinquent peers.  thought to be immoral a l s o tend to be i l l e g a l , t h i s general  Because acts hypothesis  t r a n s l a t e s i n t o the j o i n t expectations t h a t : 1) as a group, adjudicated delinquents w i l l demonstrate l e s s moral maturity than t h e i r  non-delinquent  age mates; and 2) that among delinquents, those r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the most morally r e p r e h e n s i b l e offenses w i l l a l s o be those whose moral development  10 i s most i n a r r e a r s . Because moral m a t u r i t y l e v e l was indexed s e p a r a t e l y in t h i s study i n ways c o n s i s t e n t with the t h e o r i e s o f Kohlberg, T u r i e l , and Hogan, both of the hypotheses above were t e s t e d three times.  Beyond  these primary hypotheses, a secondary set o f e x p e c t a t i o n s were formulated having to do with the c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f both i n t e r p e r s o n a l awareness psychopathy.  and  With r e f e r e n c e t o the f i r s t of these measures i t was  a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t because advancement i n p e r s p e c t i v e - t a k i n g competence i s widely held to be a p r e c o n d i t i o n f o r progress toward moral m a t u r i t y , measures o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l awareness would covary with moral competence and show an i n v e r s e r e l a t i o n to c r i m i n a l i t y .  In a d d i t i o n , i t was hypothesized  that psychopathy r a t i n g s would covary, not only with the degree o f immorality o f known d e l i n q u e n t a c t s , but a l s o with v a r i o u s i n d i c e s o f moral m a t u r i t y and i n t e r p e r s o n a l awareness.  These e x p e c t a t i o n s were  grounded i n the common r o l e which s o c i a l i z a t i o n i s s a i d to p l a y i n each of these measures (Hare, 1985; T u r i e l , 1983). Having introduced the study problem, o u t l i n e d the v a r i o u s independent and dependent v a r i a b l e s considered, and d e t a i l e d the nature o f t h e i r hypothesized r e l a t i o n s h i p , s e v e r a l a d d i t i o n a l matters remain.  Important  among these are the tasks o f d e s c r i b i n g i n d e t a i l the exact nature o f the assessment procedures employed and of f u r t h e r warranting the d e c i s i o n to i n c l u d e these r a t h e r than other a v a i l a b l e c o n s t r u c t s and procedures. Beyond these procedural j u s t i f i c a t i o n s , which w i l l make up the bulk o f the d e t a i l e d methods s e c t i o n t h a t f o l l o w s , i t a l s o w i l l be necessary t o o u t l i n e p r e c i s e l y how the o f f e n s e s o f the d e l i n q u e n t sample were to be s c a l e d f o r l e v e l s o f immorality. The f o l l o w i n g methods s e c t i o n consequently ends with the p r e s e n t a t i o n of a s e r i e s o f converging c l a s s i f i c a t o r y and judgment procedures by means o f which such rankings of o f f e n s e s was  accomplished.  11 CHAPTER 2 2.1. Theory Based Measures o f Moral M a t u r i t y The d e s c r i p t i o n o f methods and procedures d e t a i l e d below goes beyond the scope o f the usual s k e l e t o n i z e d l i s t i n g common to j o u r n a l length a r t i c l e s , and i n c l u d e s , i n a d d i t i o n , a d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n o f the c o n s i d e r a t i o n s which l e d to the s e l e c t i o n o f the p a r t i c u l a r procedures adopted.  A t t e n t i o n f i r s t w i l l be turned to the v a r i o u s ways i n which  moral m a t u r i t y was assessed i n the context o f t h i s study.  F o l l o w i n g these  accounts o f the s p e c i f i c measures drawn from the work o f Kohlberg, T u r i e l , and Hogan, a t t e n t i o n w i l l be turned to the assessment o f p e r s p e c t i v e t a k i n g competence and a r a t i o n a l e f o r the s e l e c t i o n o f Selman's (1980, 1981) t e s t of i n t e r p e r s o n a l awareness as a measure o f the c o n s t r u c t w i l l be provided.  Next, arguments are o f f e r e d to j u s t i f y the adopting of  Hare's (1985) procedures as a means o f indexing psychopathy and the S h i p l e y I n s t i t u t e o f L i v i n g Scales as a means o f measuring general intelligence.  The l a s t major s e c t i o n i n t h i s general l i s t i n g o f methods  d e a l s with a d e s c r i p t i o n o f procedures used i n the s c a l i n g o f d e l i n q u e n t offenses.  F i n a l l y , a summary w i l l be o f f e r e d i n the form o f a t r a d i t i o n a l  methods s e c t i o n . Here, a d e s c r i p t i o n of the s u b j e c t p o p u l a t i o n and the phrasing o f the proposed assessment process i s presented, along with a d e t a i l e d l i s t i n g o f the hypotheses to be evaluated. 2.1.1. Kohlberg: J u s t i c e p r i n c i p l e s and moral development Three decades of research by Kohlberg and h i s c o l l e a g u e s (Colby et a l . 1983; Kohlberg, 1976) have served to make the study o f moral reasoning a l l but synonymous with the developmental study o f moral m a t u r i t y . Consequently, no study intended as a broad e x p l o r a t i o n of the r e l a t i o n between moral development and delinquency could a f f o r d to ignore t h i s body o f important work.  In a d d i t i o n to the theory's more general relevance to  12 the present research problem, several s t u d i e s by Kohlberg (1969; 1976; Colby e t a l . 1983; Jennings & Kohlberg, 1983) and others ( J u r k o v i c & P r e n t i c e , 1977), which hinge upon t h i s theory, have been d i r e c t l y concerned with t h e r o l e which moral reasoning m a t u r i t y might p l a y i n the c a r e e r s o f y o u t h f u l and a d u l t o f f e n d e r s . Kohlberg's theory, which i s too well known t o r e q u i r e d e t a i l e d treatment here, i s , i n the most general sense, a d e s c r i p t i v e account o f the ways i n which s t i l l deeper s t r u c t u r a l changes i n o v e r a l l c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g are r e f l e c t e d i n the modes o f conceptual r e s o l u t i o n o f c o n f l i c t s engendered by the need t o r e s o l v e competing human i n t e r e s t s . His account d e t a i l s a sequence o f s i x such stages and three general l e v e l s o f moral reasoning m a t u r i t y .  The f i r s t o r preconventional l e v e l ,  r e f e r e n c e s an e s s e n t i a l l y h e d o n i s t i c o r i e n t a t i o n toward s o c i a l and moral i n t e r a c t i o n s and i s marked by a f a i l u r e t o adequately understand p o i n t s o f view.  competing  Conventional m o r a l i t y , the second l e v e l i n Kohlberg's  h i e r a r c h y , centers upon the c l a r i f i c a t i o n and endorsement o f r o u t i n e s o c i a l values ( i . e . , c o n f o r m i t y ) .  F i n a l l y , p r i n c i p l e d reasoning, which  tempers such conventional c o n s i d e r a t i o n s with an i n t e r e s t i n u n i v e r s a l j u s t i c e p r i n c i p l e s and transcends s o c i a l standards, r e p r e s e n t s the t h i r d and highest o f Kohlberg's moral l e v e l s . While the p r e c i s e r o l e o f moral reasoning m a t u r i t y i n determining the outcome o f concrete behavioral choices i s not, and i n p r i n c i p l e could not be, e n t i r e l y s p e c i f i e d by Kohlberg's theory ( B l a s i , 1980; Colby e t a l . , 1983; Kohlberg, 1976), there i s , w i t h i n t h i s account, the general e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t more m o r a l l y mature i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l be l e s s l i k e l y t o behave i n ways which v i o l a t e " u n i v e r s a l " moral standards than w i l l l e s s m o r a l l y mature persons.  On the s t r e n g t h o f such reasoning, several  i n v e s t i g a t o r s have s e t out t o determine whether, as the theory would  13 suggest, known c r i m i n a l s evidence lower l e v e l s o f moral reasoning m a t u r i t y than do matched groups o f n o n - c r i m i n a l s .  Recent reviews o f t h i s s c a t t e r e d  l i t e r a t u r e ( B l a s i , 1980; Jennings et a l . , 1983; J u r k o v i c , 1980) i n d i c a t e t h a t , even i n the absence o f any attempt to d i s c o u n t those cases i n which the o f f e n s e s i n question had l i t t l e or nothing to do with v i o l a t i o n o f moral norms, there, n e v e r t h e l e s s , i s a s u r p r i s i n g l y strong r e l a t i o n between m o r a l i t y and delinquency.  Across the 15 s t u d i e s reviewed by B l a s i  (1980), f o r example, approximately 80% o f the y o u t h f u l o f f e n d e r s s t u d i e d were shown to employ age i n a p p r o p r i a t e preconventional reasoning i n t h e i r responses to Kohlberg's moral dilemmas. Despite the wide v a r i a t i o n present i n the kinds o f delinquent o f f e n d e r s s t u d i e d , there appears to be, then, evidence o f an unexpectedly strong a s s o c i a t i o n between delinquency and moral  immaturity.  From the p e r s p e c t i v e adopted i n t h i s study, these e a r l i e r research e f f o r t s f a l l s h o r t o f f u l l y i l l u m i n a t i n g the extent to which moral reasoning m a t u r i t y might a c t u a l l y govern conduct i n m o r a l l y hazardous s i t u a t i o n s p r i m a r i l y because no e f f o r t s were made to order the samples o f y o u t h f u l o f f e n d e r s s t u d i e d i n terms o f the degree to which t h e i r i l l e g a l behavior a l s o represents e x p l i c i t v i o l a t i o n s o f moral standards.  The  present research e f f o r t undertook to go beyond these e a r l i e r , more c a t e g o r i c e f f o r t s by not only determining the Kohlbergian stage of moral m a t u r i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f members of the delinquent study sample, but by a l s o s c a l i n g the degree to which t h e i r d e l i n q u e n t o f f e n s e s a c t u a l l y represent v i o l a t i o n s of usual moral standards.  Consequently, i t was  hypothesized not only t h a t d e l i n q u e n t s would again be shown to be l e s s m o r a l l y mature than non-delinquent c o n t r o l s , but t h a t , among the d e l i n q u e n t sample, there would be a s i g n i f i c a n t i n v e r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p between moral m a t u r i t y l e v e l and any metric which ordered these d e l i n q u e n t  14 o f f e n s e s i n terms o f t h e i r moral r e p r e h e n s i b i l i t y .  More s p e c i f i c a l l y , i t  was expected t h a t those d e l i n q u e n t i n d i v i d u a l s whose known o f f e n s e s were a l s o c l e a r l y "immoral" would evidence lower l e v e l s o f moral reasoning i n response to Kohlberg's standard moral dilemmas than would d e l i n q u e n t s whose crimes were l e s s at v a r i a n c e with usual moral norms. Form B o f Kohlberg's standard t e s t o f moral m a t u r i t y was u t i l i z e d f o r t h i s measurement purpose.  Appendix A d e t a i l s the s p e c i f i c moral dilemmas  employed, the order of t h e i r p r e s e n t a t i o n , and r e f e r e n c e s the stage mode on which the s c o r i n g procedures are based (Colby & Kohlberg 1987). 2.1.2. T u r i e l ' s theory o f s o c i a l knowledge development In c o n t r a s t to the work of Kohlberg (1976) and h i s co-workers (e.g., Colby et a l . , 1983), which has focused a t t e n t i o n almost e x c l u s i v e l y upon the study of the moral reasoning process, T u r i e l (1977, 1978, 1983) has maintained t h a t moral maturity, taken i n the broadest sense, a l s o r e q u i r e s the a c q u i s i t i o n o f a c l e a r knowledge o f those s p e c i f i c behaviors which one's s o c i e t y deems to be r i g h t or wrong. T u r i e l does not take i s s u e with the importance which Kohlberg attached to the changing ways i n which developing persons reason about moral matters.  What he does i n s i s t upon,  however, i s t h a t a c q u i r i n g such mature moral reasoning s t r a t e g i e s c o n s t i t u t e s only a part o f the developmental agenda f a c i n g c h i l d r e n . Of equal importance, he argues, i s the t a s k o f a c q u i r i n g s p e c i f i c knowledge r e g a r d i n g those s o c i a l conventions which set l i m i t s on how persons "ought" to behave i n any given s o c i a l context.  I t i s T u r i e l ' s c o n t e n t i o n , now  backed by a s e r i e s o f e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s ( G r e i g e r & T u r i e l , 1983; Nucci, 1981; T u r i e l & Smetana, 1984) t h a t , from a very young age, c h i l d r e n are able t o r e l i a b l y d i s t i n g u i s h matters of m o r a l i t y and c o n v e n t i o n a l i t y .  He  a l s o maintains t h a t the developmental course by means o f which young persons a c q u i r e a mature understanding o f these separate moral domains i s  15 demonstratably d i f f e r e n t from the development o f moral reasoning competencies, and r e q u i r e s separate measurement. To demonstrate t h i s p o i n t T u r i e l (1978, 1983) has developed a set o f procedures meant to index the more or l e s s s o p h i s t i c a t e d ways i n which s o c i a l conventions are commonly understood.  On the b a s i s o f an a n a l y s i s  o f responses to these measures he has d i s t i n g u i s h e d seven l e v e l s or steps d i v i d i n g the l e a s t and most mature comprehensions o f such conventional matters.  T h i s p r o g r e s s i o n i s understood to depend upon: 1) where the  a u t h o r i t y which supports such conventions i s seen to r e s i d e ; and 2) how a r b i t r a r y such claims to a u t h o r i t y are judged to be.  In sequence, young  persons are d e s c r i b e d as l o c a t i n g such a u t h o r i t y i n e m p i r i c a l r e g u l a r i t i e s , r u l e systems, and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e s . At l e a s t at the e a r l i e r o f these l e v e l s such claims are understood by T u r i e l to e v e n t u a l l y c o l l a p s e i n the face of a growing sense t h a t the standards upon which they r e s t are u l t i m a t e l y a r b i t r a r y .  With continued developmental progress  these a c t s o f negation are understood by T u r i e l to sponsor the d i s c o v e r y o f new and b e t t e r r a t i o n a l i z e d reasons f o r behaving i n accordance with the e x p e c t a t i o n s o f one's own s o c i e t y . Because each o f T u r i e l ' s subsequent stages i s meant to warrant conformity to l e g i t i m a t e a u t h o r i t y on grounds t h a t are p r o g r e s s i v e l y more a b s t r a c t and consequently "moral" i n c h a r a c t e r , there i s reason to hypothesize an i n v e r s e r e l a t i o n between h i s l e v e l s o f conventional understanding and the degree to which one's behavior i s at v a r i a n c e with usual moral standards.  Some support f o r t h i s  l a t e r hypotheses i s provided by a recent study by Geiger and T u r i e l (1983) in which they demonstrated t h a t : 1) students who were d i s r u p t i v e i n the classroom were c l a s s i f i e d as occupying lower l e v e l s i n t h i s seven stage developmental sequence; and 2) low and unchanging scores were a l s o a s s o c i a t e d with c h r o n i c d i s r u p t i v e n e s s , as measured at the time of a one-  16 year follow-up. T u r i e l ' s procedures f o r measuring l e v e l s o f understanding o f s o c i a l convention make use of a s e r i e s of s t o r y problems and i n t e r v i e w probes which permit the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f respondents i n t o one o f h i s seven levels.  Appendix B contains a set of s t o r y problems and i n t e r v i e w probes  developed by T u r i e l , along with a f u l l e r d e s c r i p t i o n o f the s o c i a l convention l e v e l s used i n a s s i g n i n g responses to s c o r i n g c a t e g o r i e s . 2.1.3. Non-cognitive p e r s p e c t i v e s on moral m a t u r i t y Outside the i n t i m a t e c i r c l e o f cognitive-developmental theory, numerous other i n v e s t i g a t o r s , whose work u s u a l l y has been rooted i n a t r a d i t i o n o f p e r s o n a l i t y assessment, a l s o have s t r u g g l e d with the question o f p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s between moral m a t u r i t y and c r i m i n a l i t y .  In c o n t r a s t  to t h e o r i s t s such as Kohlberg (1976) and T u r i e l (1983), who tend to see p r o s o c i a l behavior as contingent upon the developing c a p a c i t y to reason about the j u s t or conventional t h i n g to do, r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f t h i s second and somewhat orthogonal t r a d i t i o n have l a i d s t r e s s upon the f a c t t h a t more i s i n v o l v e d i n behaving p r o s o c i a l l y than simply knowing what should be done. By t h i s account, at l e a s t h a l f of the moral b a t t l e i n v o l v e s having the s t r e n g t h of c h a r a c t e r , will-power, courage, or i n c l i n a t i o n to do what i s a l r e a d y acknowledged to be the r i g h t t h i n g . Among such t h e o r i s t s , Robert Hogan (Hogan & Busch, 1984) has been e s p e c i a l l y outspoken i n s t r e s s i n g the d i s t i n c t i o n between knowing and b r i n g i n g one's s e l f to do the r i g h t t h i n g , and has o f f e r e d a model meant to account f o r the development o f such a b i l i t i e s .  Hogan's model proposes  a t h r e e step developmental process which: 1) begins with the achievement o f e a r l y s o c i a l i z a t i o n s k i l l ; 2) moves on, i n middle c h i l d h o o d , to the development o f empathic s e n s i t i v i t i e s ; 3) and ends i n adolescence with the accomplishment o f newly-won c a p a c i t i e s o f personal r e f l e c t i v e n e s s and  17 autonomy. He argues t h a t " s o c i a l i z a t i o n " implies more than a simple c o g n i t i v e understanding o f what i s u s u a l l y judged t o be r i g h t and wrong, and s t r e s s e s , i n a d d i t i o n , t h a t w e l l - s o c i a l i z e d i n d i v i d u a l s a r e p e r s o n a l l y committed t o a c t u a l l y upholding such s o c i e t a l e x p e c t a t i o n s .  Similarly,  "empathy", by Hogan's account, implies more than simply knowing what others might f e e l , but a l s o i n c l u d e s a readiness t o care about such f e e l i n g s and t o take them i n t o account i n g u i d i n g one's own a c t i o n . C o n s i s t e n t with the p e r s o n a l i t y assessment t r a d i t i o n w i t h i n which h i s work has evolved, Hogan's assessment s t r a t e g y focuses upon t h e d i r e c t measurement o f these t r a i t s o f s o c i a l i z a t i o n , empathy and autonomy, o p e r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d by sets o f items drawn from the C a l i f o r n i a P e r s o n a l i t y Inventory (CPI) and Minnesota M u l t i p h a s i c P e r s o n a l i t y Inventory (MMPI). The p a r t i c u l a r CPI and MMPI items i s o l a t e d by Hogan f o r t h i s measurement purpose a r e i l l u s t r a t e d i n Appendix C. By Hogan's account, low scores on such measures a r e i n d i c a t i v e o f poor s o c i a l i z a t i o n o r l a c k o f empathy o r autonomy and, consequently, are taken t o be i n d i c a t i v e o f moral immaturity.  Drawing upon t h i s  i n t e r p r e t i v e framework, i t was hypothesized t h a t : 1) delinquents would prove t o be more morally immature on Hogan's measures o f s o c i a l i z a t i o n , empathy, and autonomy, than would non-delinquent  c o n t r o l s ; and 2) that  among the delinquent subjects s t u d i e d , those whose crimes were rated as more morally r e p r e h e n s i b l e would a l s o score more n e g a t i v e l y on Hogan's measures. 2.1.4. Psychopathy In a d d i t i o n t o the various s o c i a l i z a t i o n and empathic s e n s i t i v e problems j u s t mentioned, Hogan a l s o might have l i s t e d a v a r i e t y o f other c h a r a c t e r ! o g i c f a c t o r s g e n e r a l l y thought t o be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r preventing persons from a c t i n g on the basis o f what they "know" t o be r i g h t .  18 E s p e c i a l l y obvious i n any such l i s t o f p o t e n t i a l p e r s o n a l i t y a t t r i b u t e s would be a l l p r o p e n s i t i e s on the part o f s u b j e c t s to leap before they look, to act i m p u l s i v e l y , or to behave without s u f f i c i e n t care f o r the consequences of t h e i r a c t i o n s . S i m i l a r l y , f a i l u r e i n the a b i l i t y to delay g r a t i f i c a t i o n , a l s o could serve e a s i l y to make non-operative whatever moral knowledge one might possess or be able to b r i n g to bear i n more r e f l e c t i v e moments. What seemed r e q u i r e d , then, i n order to f l e s h out the range o f p e r s o n a l i t y f e a t u r e s which might compliment and extend the l i s t o f measures purposed by Hogan, was some scheme f o r indexing the extent to which the s u b j e c t s o f t h i s research are i n c l i n e d to act i m p u l s i v e l y , to show l a c k o f f o r e s i g h t , or concern f o r the consequences o f t h e i r behavior.  Taken as a group, t h i s symptom c l u s t e r can be seen to be  e s s e n t i a l l y co-extensive with what other i n v e s t i g a t o r s (Cleckey, 1976; Hare, 1985; Quay et a l . , 1960) have chosen to l a b e l as  "psychopathy."  While i t i s recognized t h a t the p o s s i b l e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f psychopathy as a c l i n i c a l syndrome may go beyond those intended here, i t i s assumed, n e v e r t h e l e s s , t h a t t h i s dimension does r e f e r e n c e much o f what Hogan and others (Harre', 1983) regard as e s s e n t i a l i n s u c c e s s f u l l y t r a n s l a t i n g moral knowledge i n t o moral a c t i o n . On these grounds, i t was judged to be important to supplement the CPI and MMPI measures proposed by Hogan with another procedure capable of indexing the extent to which the s u b j e c t s of t h i s study share the r o s t e r o f t r a i t s or a t t r i b u t e s commonly a s s o c i a t e d with  psychopathy. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , f o r present purposes, the bulk of a v a i l a b l e research  concerned with the measurement o f psychopathy has focussed upon a d u l t samples.  There are, i n f a c t , some (e.g., DSM-III-R, 1986) who maintain  t h a t young adolescents l a c k a s u f f i c i e n t l y well-formed c h a r a c t e r to  19 j u s t i f y t h e i r being l a b e l e d as psychopaths at a l l .  Such c l a i m s are based  at l e a s t i n p a r t , on the f a c t t h a t some o f the d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f psychopathy, e s p e c i a l l y those t h a t concern f a i l u r e s t o s u s t a i n human r e l a t i o n s and an i n a b i l i t y t o make long-ranged l i f e p l a n s , i n v o l v e matters which are not e s p e c i a l l y d i s c r i m i n a t i n g f o r a d o l e s c e n t s . D e s p i t e these r e a l concerns, many contemporary p e r s o n a l i t y t h e o r i s t s (e.g., Robins, 1966) presuppose t h a t psychopathy i n v o l v e s a t t r i b u t e s which are formed d u r i n g the e a r l y s o c i a l i z a t i o n p e r i o d and, i n p r i n c i p l e , c o u l d be measured during adolescence. On these grounds i t was seen t o be a reasonable undertaking t o determine the degree t o which the s u b j e c t s o f t h i s study share some o f the usual f e a t u r e s o f a d u l t psychopaths. Among the a v a i l a b l e measures f o r indexing psychopathy, the procedure which has the most complete r e s e a r c h h i s t o r y i s the r a t i n g s c a l e developed by Hare (Hare, 1985; Schroeder, Schroeder, & Hare, 1983).  This revised  20-item Psychopathy C h e c k l i s t (PCL) procedure i s t y p i c a l l y f i l l e d out by persons who are f a m i l i a r with the t a r g e t i n d i v i d u a l s , and u s u a l l y i s completed f o l l o w i n g a d e t a i l e d c l i n i c a l i n t e r v i e w . In t h i s procedure, the degree o f psychopathy i s measured as a d i r e c t f u n c t i o n o f the number o f hallmark behaviors t h a t are i d e n t i f i e d as c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f the s u b j e c t i n question.  In the present study, a s l i g h t l y m o d i f i e d v e r s i o n o f t h i s  procedure was employed.  Hare's psychopathy r a t i n g s were secured from  p r o f e s s i o n a l persons who served as t h e r a p i s t s f o r and who had f a m i l i a r i t y with the v a r i o u s members o f the d e l i n q u e n t sample.  In the case o f the  non-delinquents, s i m i l a r r a t i n g s were obtained from school c o u n s e l o r s or a d v i s o r s f a m i l i a r with each student who served as a c o n t r o l s u b j e c t . The m o d i f i c a t i o n s t o Hare's e x i s t i n g procedures c o n s i s t e d o f e l i m i n a t i n g t h r e e items which were e i t h e r c l e a r l y i n a p p r o p r i a t e f o r persons o f the age o f t h i s study group ( i . e . , m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p ) , or  20 redundant ( i . e . , j u v e n i l e d e l i n q u e n c y ) . The t h i r d item, "revokation o f c o n d i t i o n a l r e l e a s e " was excluded from the present analyses because i t had l i t t l e relevance to the study p o p u l a t i o n i n q u e s t i o n . The r e s u l t i n g l i s t of the r a t i n g s c a l e items (Adolescent Behavior C h e c k l i s t ) i s contained i n Appendix  D.  The hypotheses r e l a t e d to t h i s measure i n c l u d e d the e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t youth who r e c e i v e higher r a t i n g s on the psychopathy c h e c k l i s t are a l s o more l i k e l y to o b t a i n lower moral m a t u r i t y s c o r e s . S i m i l a r l y , i t was a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t the more morally r e p r e h e n s i b l e a d e l i n q u e n t ' s i l l e g a l a c t i o n , the more l i k e l y he would be to o b t a i n a higher psychopathy rating.  F i n a l l y , i t was expected t h a t j u v e n i l e o f f e n d e r s would r e c e i v e  higher psychopathy r a t i n g s than non-delinquent c o n t r o l s . 2.1.5. Selman's stages of i n t e r p e r s o n a l awareness Beyond the index of psychopathy j u s t d i s c u s s e d and the l i s t o f f i r s t order measures d i r e c t l y concerned with moral m a t u r i t y , there are a v a r i e t y of other second order v a r i a b l e s t h a t might be expected to mediate any observed r e l a t i o n between moral m a t u r i t y and delinquency.  The dimension  of p e r s p e c t i v e t a k i n g i s an e s p e c i a l l y obvious candidate i n t h i s l i s t , i n t h a t i t has been held out by Kohlberg (1976), Selman (1980), and others (Chandler, 1972, 1973) as c o n s t i t u t i n g a necessary but not s u f f i c i e n t c o n d i t i o n f o r moral maturity, and has been l i n k e d d i r e c t l y to delinquency and other forms o f a n t i s o c i a l behavior (Chandler, 1972, 1973; Gough, 1948).  On these grounds a d e c i s i o n was reached to i n c l u d e Selman's  measure o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l awareness i n t h i s study as an index to p e r s p e c t i v e t a k i n g competence. Of the many a v a i l a b l e models o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l awareness, t h a t put forward by Selman (1980, 1981) provides the g r e a t e s t range and most d e t a i l e d d i s c r i m i n a t i o n s and, consequently, was judged to be best s u i t e d  21 the purpose o f t h i s study. In p a r t i c u l a r , Selman's developmental model i n c l u d e s several stages o f p e r s p e c t i v e t a k i n g r e l e v a n t to the a d o l e s c e n t period.  In a d d i t i o n ,  Selman's (1980, 1981) model has conceptual r o o t s  that reach i n t o the e a r l y accounts o f i d e n t i t y development proposed by James (1898), Baldwin (1906) and o t h e r s (Mead, 1934), has a r i c h h i s t o r y o f use w i t h t r o u b l e d youth (Selman, 1980, 1981), and has been e x p l i c i t l y r e l a t e d t o Kohlberg's stages o f moral development (Chandler, 1972, 1973; Selman, 1980, 1981; Walker, 1980). T h i s model d e f i n e s r o l e t a k i n g as "the a b i l i t y t o understand the s e l f and the o t h e r as s u b j e c t , t o r e a c t t o others l i k e the s e l f , and t o r e a c t t o the s e l f ' s behavior from the o t h e r ' s point o f view"  (Selman & Byrne, 1974, p. 803). Selman p o r t r a y s s o c i a l  p e r s p e c t i v e t a k i n g as a t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t f o r which measures o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l awareness serve t o o p e r a t i o n a l i z e the "developing c o n c e p t i o n o f the s t r u c t u r e o f the r e l a t i o n between the s e l f and o t h e r " (Selman, 1979). On these grounds Selman d e p i c t s the development o f s o c i a l p e r s p e c t i v e - t a k i n g competence as a progression through f i v e stages o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l understanding, c u t t i n g across f o u r s o c i a l domains: the i n d i v i d u a l , f r i e n d s h i p , peer group, and p a r e n t - c h i l d (Selman, 1980). Among the several procedures proposed by Selman, h i s " f r i e n d s h i p s t o r y " was chosen f o r i n c l u s i o n i n t h i s study because o f i t s s p e c i a l r e l e v a n c e to concerns common i n t h i s age group. A d e t a i l e d l i s t i n g o f Selman's stages and domains i s presented i n Appendix E, along with the p a r t i c u l a r s t o r y dilemma and q u e s t i o n probes used i n t h i s study. Hypotheses concerning the development o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l awareness and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o moral m a t u r i t y were as f o l l o w s : 1) non-delinquents would show h i g h e r l e v e l s o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l awareness than d e l i n q u e n t s (Chandler, 1972, 1973); 2) among the d e l i n q u e n t s those whose o f f e n s e s were r a t e d as being l e s s immoral would show h i g h e r i n t e r p e r s o n a l awareness; 3)  22 there should be a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n between i n t e r p e r s o n a l awareness and a l l d i r e c t measures o f moral maturity ( i . e . , Kohlberg, 1976; T u r i e l ,  1983;  Hogan, 1980; Walker, 1980); and 4) there should be an i n v e r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p between i n t e r p e r s o n a l awareness and psychopathy r a t i n g s (Gough, 1948; Hare, 1985). 2.2. Taxonomies o f the Seriousness and  Immorality  o f Various Delinquent Offenses T h i s s e c t i o n d e s c r i b e s how the i l l e g a l acts committed by the d e l i n q u e n t members of t h i s study were r a t e d as being more or l e s s s e r i o u s v i o l a t i o n s o f moral p r o h i b i t i o n s . Several p o t e n t i a l schemes f o r developing such a response measure were a v a i l a b l e , a l l o f which f a l l i n t o one or another o f two general c a t e g o r i e s . The f i r s t concerns the d i f f e r e n t ways i n which e x i s t i n g l e g a l d i s t i n c t i o n s and d e f i n i t i o n s of d e l i n q u e n t a c t i v i t i e s might be taken as proxy i n d i c a t o r s o f immorality. The second concerns a l t e r n a t i v e schemes f o r r a t i n g v a r i o u s i l l e g a l or a n t i s o c i a l acts i n terms o f the degree to which they v i o l a t e e x i s t i n g moral standards.  In the f i r s t instance, a case can be made f o r u t i l i z i n g  e x i s t i n g l e g a l d i s t i n c t i o n s between what are commonly regarded as more or l e s s s e r i o u s delinquent o f f e n s e s , and employing these standards as a rough index of the degree to which the behaviours i n question c o n s t i t u t e v i o l a t i o n s o f conventional moral standards.  For example, crimes against  property, ( i . e . , b u r g l a r y ) , are t y p i c a l l y regarded as l e s s s e r i o u s than are crimes against persons, and both of these broad o f f e n s e c a t e g o r i e s are widely viewed as i n v o l v i n g acts t h a t are more s e r i o u s than " s t a t u s " o f f e n s e s such as truancy or underage d r i n k i n g , that become d e l i n q u e n c i e s only because of the tender age o f those t h a t commit them. Numerous i n v e s t i g a t i o n s (e.g., Thornton & Reid, 1982) have made use o f l e g a l d i s t i n c t i o n s i n developing an index of the " s e r i o u s n e s s " o f the  23 d e l i n q u e n c i e s they have s t u d i e d . A s i m i l a r course was followed i n t h i s study and the most s e r i o u s o f f e n s e s of a l l o f the d e l i n q u e n t members o f the study sample were c a t e g o r i z e d as e i t h e r : 1) s t a t u s ; 2) property; or 3) person crimes. The obvious problem with the use of the above o f f e n s e c a t e g o r i e s as proxy i n d i c a t o r s o f immorality i s that there are numerous acts t h a t are commonly regarded as immoral but only sometimes i l l e g a l ( i . e . , l y i n g ) and o t h e r s , t h a t while i l l e g a l , are r a r e l y seen as immoral ( i . e . , school refusal).  What was seen to be r e q u i r e d i n s t e a d o f or i n a d d i t i o n to any  such imperfect category scheme was some more d i r e c t and continuous measure i n d i c a t i v e of the l e v e l o f immorality r e f l e c t e d i n the d e l i n q u e n c i e s o f which the s u b j e c t s o f t h i s study had been c o n v i c t e d . 2.2.1. D i r e c t r a t i n g s of the immorality o f various d e l i n q u e n t a c t s Over and above the three l e v e l seriousness index d e t a i l e d iri the preceeding s e c t i o n , an e f f o r t was made to o b t a i n expert r a t i n g s o f the moral seriousness o f the delinquent behaviors o f the s u b j e c t s o f t h i s study.  These e f f o r t s proceeded i n two steps.  F i r s t , a review o f the  records o f the Oregon J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e System was undertaken, and a l i s t was drawn up o f the most common crimes c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f the p o p u l a t i o n o f y o u t h f u l o f f e n d e r s from which the present sample was drawn. T h i s l i s t was then c u l l e d f o r redundencies i n an attempt to produce a complete d i s t i n c t l i s t o f demonstrably d i f f e r e n t delinquent o f f e n s e s .  but  T h i s process  r e s u l t e d i n a l i s t o f 50 crimes h i g h l y s i m i l a r to those i d e n t i f i e d by other i n v e s t i g a t o r s ( R o s s i , Waite, Bose, & Berk, 1974; S e l l i n & Wolfgang, 1964; Wadsworth, 1979; and Walker, 1978). This l i s t was then submitted to a panel o f 102 teachers, p r i n c i p a l s , and student teachers (71% were female).  These persons were asked to r a t e a l l 50 o f f e n s e s along a  dimension r e f l e c t i n g what they judged to be the degree of immorality  24 expressed by each.  The r e s u l t s o f t h i s process y i e l d e d a g l o s s a r y o f  j u v e n i l e crimes and a s s o c i a t e d r a t i n g s that was used as a r e f e r e n c e source f o r indexing the degree o f perceived immorality o f the most s e r i o u s i l l e g a l acts committed by each member o f t h e d e l i n q u e n t sample.  While  other methods o f delinquency c l a s s i f i c a t i o n were considered (e.g., composit p r o f i l e s ) , i t was decided that the most s e r i o u s o f f e n s e provided the most r e l i a b l e and consequently the most adequate index o f these youth's c r i m i n a l behavior.  A copy o f t h i s Delinquency Rating S c a l e , along  with an a s s o c i a t e d l i s t o f the means and standard d e v i a t i o n s f o r each o f the 50 d e l i n q u e n t acts r a t e d , i s presented i n Appendix F. In summary, then, the crimes o f the d e l i n q u e n t sample were c l a s s i f i e d twice: f i r s t , according t o whether they c o n s t i t u t e d s t a t u s crimes (category 1), crimes against property (category 2 ) , o r persons  (category  3) and second, i n terms o f the degree t o which they represented o f f e n s e s a g a i n s t p u b l i c m o r a l i t y as determined by a panel o f judges. 2.3. Summary o f Methods 2.3.1. Subjects S e l e c t i o n Subjects f o r t h i s study were 60 male j u v e n i l e o f f e n d e r s between the ages o f 14 and 17 and 20 non-delinquent c o n t r o l s . The d e l i n q u e n t sample c o n s i s t e d o f youth who had been adjudicated as d e l i n i q u e n t and who were c u r r e n t l y under the s u p e r v i s i o n and c o n t r o l o f the j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e system o f the s t a t e o f Oregon.  In p a r t i c u l a r , cooperative r e l a t i o n s were  e s t a b l i s h e d with the j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e component o f the Morrison Center f o r Youth and Family S e r v i c e s , an agency s e r v i n g a c r o s s - s e c t i o n o f a d j u d i c a t e d y o u t h f u l offenders i n the g r e a t e r Portland area, and a subset o f those d e l i n q u e n t s i n v o l v e d i n i t s o u t p a t i e n t and day treatment programs were s o l i c i t e d f o r p o s s i b l e i n c l u s i o n i n the study.  Professional,  p a r e n t a l , and youth consent was a l s o obtained as a p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r  25 inclusion for testing.  These consent forms are i n c l u d e d as Appendix G.  Three p o t e n t i a l p a r t i c i p a n t s (one d e l i n q u e n t and two non-delinquents) were not t e s t e d because o f p a r e n t a l r e f u s a l to provide consent. Members o f the c o n t r o l sample were youth drawn from a working c l a s s neighborhood high school who had no p r i o r r e c o r d o f j u v e n i l e o f f e n s e s and who were s e l e c t e d to match as c l o s e l y as p o s s i b l e members o f the d e l i n q u e n t group i n terms o f age, race, socio-economic l e v e l ( G o t t f r i e d , 1985; H o l l i n g s h e a d , 1975), and e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l . 2.3.2. Stimulus M a t e r i a l s The v a r i o u s t e s t i n g m a t e r i a l s used i n a s s e s s i n g moral m a t u r i t y , i n t e r p e r s o n a l awareness, and psychopathy can be found i n Appendices A through E (A=Kohlberg; B=Turiel, C=Hogan; D=Hare; and E=Selman).  Moral  reasoning m a t u r i t y was evaluated by employing the three Form B dilemmas from Kohlberg's procedure.  T h i s choice was based on the f a c t t h a t c e r t a i n  other o f the a l t e r n a t i v e forms developed by Kohlberg i n c l u d e items d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to c r i m i n a l acts and thus might have produced spurious r e s u l t s when employed with a d e l i n q u e n t sample.  Each moral  dilemma  presented was f o l l o w e d by an abridged v e r s i o n o f Kohlberg's standard set o f i n t e r v i e w probes.  The omitted items were among those i n d i c a t e d as  acceptable d e l e t i o n s by Colby and Kohlberg (1987). Each s u b j e c t ' s knowledge and understanding o f conventional s o c i e t a l values was evaluated using a s e r i e s o f s t o r y problems developed by T u r i e l (1978).  The v a r i a b l e s o f r u l e atunement, s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n , and i d e n t i t y  s t r e s s e d i n Hogan's account of moral m a t u r i t y were indexed by the s o c i a l i z a t i o n , empathy, and conformity s c a l e s of the C a l i f o r n i a P e r s o n a l i t y Inventory (CPI; Gough, 1953; Hogan, 1970, 1969; Hogan & Busch, 1984).  The m o d i f i e d index o f psychopathy developed by Hare (1985) was  employed to e v a l u a t e the degree to which s u b j e c t s d i s p l a y e d psychopathic  26 behaviors or d i s p o s i t i o n s .  F i n a l l y , Selman's (1980) f r i e n d s h i p s t o r y was  used to assess l e v e l o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l awareness. A d d i t i o n a l l y , The S h i p l e y I n s t i t u t e o f L i v i n g Scale (Zachary,  1986)  was i n c l u d e d as an estimate of i n t e l l e c t u a l f u n c t i o n i n g . T h i s procedure was f o l l o w e d because several i n v e s t i g a t o r s (e.g., Rutter, 1984) have suggested t h a t there i s a strong r e l a t i o n s h i p between s o c i e t a l and i n t e l l i g e n c e .  misconduct  The S h i p l e y has been found to h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e with the  Weschler A d u l t I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale (WAIS; r = .79 t o .90; Bartz & Loy, 1970). 2.3.3. Procedure Two separate t e s t i n g s e s s i o n s were scheduled f o r each s u b j e c t , one f o r the v a r i o u s i n t e r v i e w s and one f o r q u e s t i o n n a i r e completion. A l l adolescents were t e s t e d i n d i v i d u a l l y with h a l f given the paper-and-pencil and h a l f the three i n t e r v i e w measures f i r s t . s c a l e s were randomly ordered.  Items from Hogan's three  The i n t e r v i e w p r o t o c o l c o n s i s t e d o f f i r s t  Kohlberg's moral reasoning, then Selman's i n t e r p e r s o n a l awareness, and f i n a l l y T u r i e l ' s s o c i a l convention understanding measures administered i n t h a t order.  The i n t e r v i e w s and t e s t i n g s e s s i o n both l a s t e d from one and  one-half to two and one-half hours.  Responses to Kohlberg's and Selman's  dilemmas and T u r i e l ' s v i g n e t t e s were tape-recorded to expediate the t e s t i n g procedure and to allow f o r l a t e r t r a n s c r i p t i o n and scoring.  subsequent  Primary t h e r a p i s t s or school counselors completed the r a t i n g s on  each s u b j e c t ' s l e v e l o f psychopathy. 2.3.4. S c o r i n g and R e l i a b i l i t y A second r a t e r scored a subsample. of 16 cases f o r the Kohlberg, T u r i e l , and Selman procedures to determine the l e v e l o f i n t e r r a t e r reliability.  Global stage scores were computed on the b a s i s o f the  dominant stage o f reasoning f o r the chosen i s s u e i n the Kohlberg moral  27 reasoning measure, and across a l l three o f T u r i e l ' s v i g n e t t e s , and Selman's s i x f r i e n d s h i p t o p i c s . Weighted average stage scores, which represent the product o f the sum o f d i f f e r e n t i a l weights assigned to the r e s p e c t i v e stages, were computed f o r these measures a l l o w i n g f o r parametric s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s . On the Kohlberg measure there was 92% agreement w i t h i n o n e - t h i r d o f a stage on the assignment o f moral reasoning major-minor stage s c o r e s . S i m i l a r l y , the i n t e r p e r s o n a l awareness i n t e r v i e w was scored w i t h i n a t h i r d o f a stage 93% o f the time. T u r i e l ' s measure o f s o c i a l convention understanding was l e s s p r e c i s e with only 67% of the i n t e r v i e w p r o t o c o l s scored w i t h i n a t h i r d o f a l e v e l .  Given the  f a c t t h a t t h i s s c o r i n g scheme i n v o l v e s seven l e v e l s , however,  little  i n t e r p r e t i v e relevance i s attached to w i t h i n stage d i f f e r e n c e s . Thus, the f a c t t h a t 100% o f the p r o t o c o l s were scored w i t h i n two-thirds o f a l e v e l suggests t h a t the r e s u l t o f t h i s measure could be scored with s u f f i c i e n t p r e c i s i o n f o r the purpose o f t h i s study.  Due to the absence o f a second  judge with the r e q u i s i t e information, i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y f o r the Psychopathy C h e c k l i s t was not assessed i n t h i s study, but has been found to range between .80 and .85 i n s i m i l a r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s (Hart, 1987). 2.3.5. Summary o f Hypotheses In view o f the f a c t t h a t seven d i f f e r e n t i n d i c e s o f s o c i a l and moral m a t u r i t y and two separate c r i t e r i o n measures are employed, i t w i l l prove h e l p f u l to l i s t i n summary form the v a r i o u s hypotheses e v a l u a t e d .  For the  six primary measures o f moral maturity ( i . e . , Kohlberg's moral reasoning dilemmas, T u r i e l ' s s o c i a l convention v i g n e t t e s , Selman's i n t e r p e r s o n a l awareness s t o r y , and Hogan's measures o f s o c i a l i z a t i o n , empathy, and autonomy) i t was hypothesized 1) t h a t d e l i n q u e n t s u b j e c t s would evidence l e s s moral m a t u r i t y than non-delinquents; 2) t h a t , among the d e l i n q u e n t s u b j e c t s , those whose offenses were more s e r i o u s or immoral would show  28 lower l e v e l s o f moral m a t u r i t y than those whose crimes were l e s s s e r i o u s or l e s s immoral.  Because numerous items from Hare's Psychopath C h e c k l i s t  are d i r e c t l y concerned with the commission o f c r i m i n a l a c t s , no hypotheses regarding a n t i c i p a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s between d e l i n q u e n t and non-delinquent s u b j e c t s was a p p r o p r i a t e . I t was hypothesized, however, t h a t h i g h e r psychopathy r a t i n g s would be assigned t o those whose d e l i n q u e n c i e s were more s e r i o u s or more immoral, and that these r a t i n g s would be n e g a t i v e l y a s s o c i a t e d with a l l s i x primary measures o f moral m a t u r i t y . Previous r e s e a r c h and theory support a v a r i e t y o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s regarding p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the v a r i o u s moral m a t u r i t y measures o u t l i n e d above.  While no s p e c i f i c hypotheses were formulated i n  advance, several analyses were conducted i n an e f f o r t t o e x p l o r e these possible inter-relationships.  In p a r t i c u l a r , i t was f e l t to be o f  i n t e r e s t to determine the extent to which the s i x primary measures formed a s i n g l e u n i f i e d p i c t u r e o f moral m a t u r i t y and to i d e n t i f y the extent to which these measures d i s c r i m i n a t e d non-delinquents from more or l e s s s e r i o u s d e l i n q u e n t groups.  To t h i s end, a s e r i e s o f e x p l o r a t o r y f a c t o r  and d i s c r i m i n a n t analyses were undertaken.  29 CHAPTER 3 Results T h i s study was i n i t i a t e d i n an e f f o r t to examine p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s between delinquency and moral m a t u r i t y from two viewing d i s t a n c e s : f i r s t , by c o n t r a s t i n g d e l i n q u e n t and non-delinquents i n terms o f a m a n i f o l d o f measures o f moral development; and second, through a more f i n e g r a i n e d a n a l y s i s o f the d e l i n q u e n t s u b j e c t s alone. The r e s u l t s presented below f o l l o w t h i s same order, and begin with an account o f the d i f f e r e n c e s between the d e l i n q u e n t and non-delinqent samples on the s i x dependent measures of moral development.  The subsequent s e c t i o n r e p o r t s the r e s u l t s  between v a r i o u s subgroups of the d e l i n q u e n t sample c o n t r a s t e d i n terms o f the degree o f s e r i o u s n e s s or immorality o f t h e i r most s e r i o u s o f f e n s e s . F i n a l l y , because the psychopathy measure employed can be viewed a l t e r n a t i v e l y as e i t h e r an a d d i t i o n a l dependent v a r i a b l e or as a f u r t h e r method o f c l a s s i f y i n g the d e l i n q u e n t p o p u l a t i o n , r e s u l t s generated through the use o f the Pschopathy C h e c k l i s t are presented s e p a r a t e l y i n a t h i r d and f i n a l s e c t i o n . 3.1. Moral m a t u r i t y : A comparison o f d e l i n q u e n t and non-delinquent s u b j e c t s P r e l i m i n a r y analyses of the demographic v a r i a b l e s i n d i c a t e d t h a t the d e l i n q u e n t and non-delinquent s u b j e c t s d i d not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n socio-economic s t a t u s (F(2,77) = 2.833, p=.07). Lower i n t e l l e c t u a l scores were observed (F(2,77) = 4.725, D<.01) f o r the d e l i n q u e n t sample on the S h i p l e y I n s t i t u t e o f L i v i n g S c a l e s , (non-delinquent M = 104, SD = 9.07, d e l i n q u e n t s M = 96, SD = 8.87), however, and consequently t h i s i n t e l l i g e n c e q u o t i e n t estimate (IQest) was i n c l u d e d as a c o v a r i a t e i n a l l subsequent a n a l y s e s . There were too few r a c i a l m i n o r i t y s u b j e c t s ( i . e . , n=4 f o r non-delinquents, n=6 f o r d e l i n q u e n t s ) to analyze p o t e n t i a l race  30 differences. To determine the o v e r a l l a b i l i t y of these s i x moral maturity measures to d i s c r i m i n a t e the study sample i n t o t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e delinquent non-delinquent  and  s t a t u s e s , and to assess the r e l a t i v e degree to which each  of these measures c o n t r i b u t e to such group assignment, a d i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t i o n a n a l y s i s was performed. The r e s u l t s of the d i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t i o n a n a l y s i s , based upon a d i r e c t method of v a r i a b l e entry, i n d i c a t e an o v e r a l l main e f f e c t , F(1,78) = 14.700, p. < .001.  The t e s t f o r homogeneity  was n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t , i n d i c a t i n g that c o n d i t i o n s r e q u i r e d f o r the i n c l u s i o n of t h i s a n a l y s i s had been met.  The derived canonical c o e f f i c i e n t  generated by the d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s a l s o revealed t h a t 89% of the subjects could be c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f i e d as e i t h e r delinquent or non-delinquent  on the basis of t h e i r performance on these various t e s t s of  moral maturity.  As can be seen in Table 1, which d e t a i l s these r e s u l t s ,  only Kohlberg's moral reasoning measure and Hogan's s o c i a l i z a t i o n s c a l e made s i g n i f i c a n t independent c o n t r i b u t i o n s to t h i s o v e r a l l p r e d i c t i o n formula.  The set of within-group  c o r r e l a t i o n s with t h i s standardized  f u n c t i o n do i n d i c a t e , however, moderate to high r e l a t i o n s h i p s between f i v e of these s i x measures. The empathy v a r i a b l e was the only exception to t h i s general  pattern.  Given the o v e r a l l s i g n i f i c a n c e of the m u l t i v a r i a t e F - t e s t i n the d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s , u n i v a r i a t e analyses of variance could be and were computed on each of the moral maturity measures. As hypothesized,  these  i n i t i a l f i n d i n g s , d e t a i l e d i n Table 2, show that across a l l v a r i a b l e s , with the s i n g l e exception of Hogan's measure of empathy (which i n d i c a t e d only a trend toward s i g n i f i c a n c e ) , the non-delinquent  sample evidenced  s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher l e v e l s of moral maturity than d i d the d e l i n q u e n t s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , these r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e that delinquents were l e s s able: 1)  31 TABLE 1 D i s c r i m i n a n t Function A n a l y s i s : C l a s s i f y i n g Delinquents and Non-delinquents Standardized Canonical Coefficients  Pooled within-group Correlation  Variable  .79  Socialization  .79  .62  Moral Reasoning  .57  .11  Autonomy  .43  .00  S o c i a l Convention  .36  -.05  I n t e r p e r s o n a l Awareness  .35  -.05  Empathy  .28  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Summary Table P r e d i c t e d Group Delinquent Actual Group  Non-delinquent  n  Delinquent  60  54 (90%)  6 (10%)  Non-delinquent  20  3 (15%)  17 (85%)  32  TABLE 2 (  A n a l y s i s o f Co-Variance: Delinquents versus Non-delinquents by Moral M a t u r i t y  Del inauent (n=60)  Control s (n=20)  F  Moral Reasoning  M=246 SD=29.9  M=290 SD=35.4  19.292 p<.001  Interpersonal Awareness  M=251 SD=43.1  M=287 SD=42.3  4.854 p<.03  S o c i a l Convention Understanding  M=339 SD=88.6  M=414 SD=74.2  8.049 p<.006  Empathy  M=32 SD=5.0  M=36 SD=5.5  2.791 p<.10  Socialization  M=31 SD=9.9  M=51 SD=12.7  44.663 p<.001  Autonomy  M=28 SD=11.0  M=50 SD=9.6  9.252 p<.003  33 to reason through matters i n v o l v i n g competing moral i s s u e s ; 2) to understand usual standards o f s o c i a l convention; 3) to take the viewpoints of o t h e r s ; and were 4) l e s s autonomous; and 5) l e s s s o c i a l i z e d than t h e i r non-delinquent peers. Although s t r a i g h t forward and consequently presented i n minimal d e t a i l , these i n i t i a l r e s u l t s lend d i r e c t support to f i v e o f the hypotheses summarized i n the s e c t i o n 2.3.5. In b r i e f these r e s u l t s show t h a t , on the average, the d e l i n q u e n t s u b j e c t s occupied d i f f e r e n t stages or l e v e l s of moral m a t u r i t y than non-delinquents, with the d e l i n q u e n t s l a g g i n g behind t h e i r non-delinquent c o u n t e r p a r t s by approximately one-half of a f u l l stage i n moral reasoning, o n e - t h i r d o f a stage i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l awareness and t w o - t h i r d s o f a l e v e l in s o c i a l convention understanding.  These r e s u l t s imply t h a t , as a group,  the non-delinquents responded to Kohlberg's measure i n ways t h a t d e f i n e d r i g h t and wrong p r i m a r i l y i n terms o f general s o c i e t a l e x p e c t a t i o n s ; valued t r u s t , l o y a l t y and m u t u a l i t y i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s ; and gave as reasons for doing what i s r i g h t , a d e s i r e to maintain r u l e s and r e s p e c t authority.  These non-delinquents were a l s o more l i k e l y to d e s c r i b e s o c i a l  conventions as open to n e g o t i a t e d change, and gave s o c i a l p e r s p e c t i v e t a k i n g responses t h a t suggested that f r i e n d s h i p was understood to be contingent upon mutual intimacy and support.  By c o n t r a s t , the d e l i n q u e n t  group more o f t e n tended to see r i g h t and wrong i n r e l a t i o n to t h e i r own c u r r e n t i n t e r e s t s , and to i n t e r p r e t e d any a c t i o n t h a t served t h e i r own needs as a u t o m a t i c a l l y s e l f - j u s t i f y i n g .  S i m i l a r l y , these d e l i n q u e n t youth  t y p i c a l l y understood s o c i a l conventions i n more f i x e d and c o n c r e t e terms and viewed f r i e n d s h i p as a l e s s a b i d i n g , f a i r w e a t h e r arrangement of convenience.  Taken alone or together, these f i n d i n g s suggest t h a t the  d e l i n q u e n t sample i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y delayed i n t h e i r a b i l i t y to reason about r i g h t and wrong, to take the p o i n t s o f view o f o t h e r s , or to  34 understand s o c i e t a l conventions. The same p i c t u r e i s r e p l i c a t e d with regard to the components o f the second more t r a i t - l i k e measures o f moral m a t u r i t y indexed by Hogan's p e r s o n a l o g i c s c a l e s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , the t y p i c a l d e l i n q u e n t youth scored two standard d e v i a t i o n s below the mean o f the present non-delinquent s u b j e c t s and o f Gough's (1957) s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n sample on both the s o c i a l i z a t i o n and autonomy s c a l e s . According to Gough, young persons who score i n t h i s extreme range on these v a r i a b l e s are t y p i c a l l y under-motivated, l a c k a sense of personal independence, s e l f - u n d e r s t a n d i n g and s e l f - i n s i g h t . 3.1.1. P r i n c i p a l components a n a l y s i s o f moral m a t u r i t y measures In an attempt to examine r e l a t i o n s h i p s among these s i x measures o f moral m a t u r i t y , a p r i n c i p a l components a n a l y s i s was conducted.  Here, as  elsewhere, the d e l i n q u e n t and non-delinquent samples were combined whenever a reasonable c l a i m could be made t h a t these two groups c o n s t i t u t e d a continuum running from no delinquency involvement through s e r i o u s delinquency involvement.  Results from the orthogonal (varimax)  r o t a t i o n o f t h i s matrix (unforced number o f f a c t o r s ) , i n d i c a t e a two-factor s o l u t i o n , accounting f o r a t o t a l 67% o f the v a r i a n c e (see Table 3).  The f i r s t f a c t o r suggests a c o g n i t i v e reasoning dimension c o n s i s t i n g  of the weighted average scores from Kohlberg's moral reasoning measure, T u r i e l ' s measure of s o c i a l convention understanding and Selman's i n t e r p e r s o n a l awareness task. Hogan's t h r e e p e r s o n a l o g i c s c a l e s (empathy, s o c i a l i z a t i o n , and autonomy) a l l c o n t r i b u t e d to the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f the second f a c t o r , l a b e l e d here as moral c h a r a c t e r . A very s i m i l a r f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e was found when only the d e l i n q u e n t s u b j e c t s ' responses were analysed, with a s i m i l a r two-factor s o l u t i o n accounting f o r only a s l i g h t l y s m a l l e r p o r t i o n of v a r i a n c e ( i . e . , 60%).  35 TABLE 3 Factor A n a l y s i s o f Moral M a t u r i t y Measures  Cognitive Reasoning  Moral Character  Factor 1  Factor 2  Moral Reasoning  .830  .087  Interpersonal Awareness  .850  .236  S o c i a l Convention  .718  .326  Autonomy  .138  .860  Empathy  .194  .769  Socialization  .234  .670  Eigen Values  2.924  1.065  49%  67%  Cumulative Variance  36 While the sample s i z e o f the non-delinquent group d i d not allow f o r a comparible f a c t o r a n a l y s i s , a f u r t h e r assessment o f the i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y o f these f a c t o r s by groups, computed s e p a r a t e l y f o r the d e l i n q u e n t and non-delinquent samples, c o n t r i b u t e s to the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t a s i m i l a r f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e may hold f o r the non-delinquents as w e l l .  The  Cronbach alphas o f these d e r i v e d f a c t o r s c a l e s were, i n f a c t , higher f o r the non-delinquent ( i . e . , c o g n i t i v e reasoning = .74,  moral c h a r a c t e r =  .60) than the d e l i n q u e n t sample ( i . e . , c o g n i t i v e reasoning = .55, moral c h a r a c t e r = .51). The c o r r e l a t i o n matrix upon which the p r i n c i p a l components a n a l y s i s was based i s presented as a means o f f u r t h e r unpacking and c l a r i f y i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p s observed between the v a r i o u s moral m a t u r i t y measures.  As  can be seen from an i n s p e c t i o n of t h i s matrix, d e t a i l e d i n Table 4, several c l u s t e r s o f r e l a t e d and u n r e l a t e d measures can be i d e n t i f i e d . F i r s t , as a l r e a d y confirmed by the p r i n c i p a l components a n a l y s i s , scores from the s c a l e s t h a t make up both the c o g n i t i v e reasoning and moral c h a r a c t e r f a c t o r s show c l o s e agreement, but there was s u r p r i s i n g l y l i t t l e r e l a t i o n s h i p between s c a l e s s i t u a t e d w i t h i n one or the other o f these two d i f f e r e n t f a c t o r s . Because these r e s u l t s argue a g a i n s t any easy assumption t h a t moral m a t u r i t y i s a monolith, f u r t h e r a t t e n t i o n w i l l be focussed upon the apparent independence o f these two c l a s s e s of measures in the subsequent d i s c u s s i o n s e c t i o n . In summary, the r e s u l t s reported above provide strong support f o r the key hypothesis r e g a r d i n g a n t i c i p a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s between the d e l i n q u e n t and non-delinquent samples.  The s i n g l e exception to t h i s general p a t t e r n  was Hogan's empathy s c a l e . Otherwise the d e l i n q u e n t s u b j e c t s evidence s t a t i s t i c a l l y and p s y c h o l o g i c a l i n t e r p r e t a b l e delays across a l l o f the remaining moral m a t u r i t y measures.  O v e r a l l , these r e s u l t s are c o n s i s t e n t  37  TABLE 4 C o r r e l a t i o n M a t r i c e s o f Moral M a t u r i t y Measures: Delinquents and Non-delinquents+ MR  SConv  IA  Emp  Soc  Aut  Delinquents (n=60) Moral Reasoning (MR) Interpersonal Awareness (IA) S o c i a l Convention (SConv) Empathy (Emp) Socialization (Soc) Autonomy (Aut)  .50***  \  ,54  **  .67 *** .31 -.10 ,26  \ \  51** ,20 .38" ,25  \  .40***  .17  .00  16  .35  ,15  .00  .06  ,13  17  17  ,55  **  \ \  .45' .04 .39"  .32 \  **  \ \  \  ,24 .27  \ \  .53  **  ,22" \  \  Non-delinquents (n=20) + Note t h a t the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix f o r the d e l i n q u e n t sample i s i n the upper t r i a n g l e and i n the lower t r i a n g l e f o r the non-delinquents. A l l s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l s are r e p o r t e d as o n e - t a i l e d t e s t s . * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001  38 with f i n d i n g s s e p a r a t e l y reported by other i n v e s t i g a t o r s (see S e c t i o n 1.1), i n d i c a t i n g s i m i l a r r e l a t i o n s between one or another o f these s i x measures o f moral m a t u r i t y and the presence or absence o f delinquency. S p e c i f i c a l l y , here and elsewhere, measures t h a t most c l e a r l y have as t h e i r purpose the assessment o f an i n d i v i d u a l ' s c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y to judge and reason about m o r a l l y hazardous s i t u a t i o n s , to grasp s o c i e t a l standards r e g a r d i n g the appropriateness o f morally r e l e v a n t behaviors, to be p e r s p e c t i v a l and autonomous, and to endorse s o c i a l l y a p p r o p r i a t e behaviors a l l count as s i g n i f i c a n t d i s c r i m i n a t o r s of delinquency i n t h i s study. 3.2. Comparisons Within the Delinquent Sample As o u t l i n e d i n s e c t i o n 2.2.1, the great bulk of previous developmental research i n t o p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s between moral m a t u r i t y and c r i m i n a l i t y has r e s t r i c t e d a t t e n t i o n to the question of whether samples o f d e l i n q u e n t and non-delinquent youth d i f f e r i n t h e i r l e v e l s o f moral development.  A  major goal o f the present i n v e s t i g a t i o n was to go beyond t h i s " e i t h e r - o r " o r i e n t a t i o n i n an e f f o r t to determine whether moral m a t u r i t y scores are a l s o capable o f f u r t h e r d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g more from l e s s immoral d e l i n q u e n t offenders.  Once t h i s prospect i s r a i s e d i t becomes immediately  apparent  t h a t there i s no one r o u t i n i z e d , unequivocal or s e l f - e v i d e n t way i n which known d e l i n q u e n t o f f e n d e r s might be shown t o d i v i d e themselves i n terms of the depth or degree of t h e i r immorality or the s e r i o u s n e s s o f t h e i r c r i m i n a l involvement. t h i s study.  As noted e a r l i e r , two such measures were adopted i n  The f i r s t i n v o l v e d a d i r e c t attempt to r a t e each o f the  s u b j e c t s i n terms o f the l e v e l of immorality judged to c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e i r most s e r i o u s d e l i n q u e n t o f f e n s e , and the second c o n s i s t e d o f l o c a t i n g the most s e r i o u s o f f e n s e o f each of the delinquent s u b j e c t s w i t h i n a more conventional t h r e e - f o l d category system o f s t a t u s , property, and person crimes.  By t h i s l a t t e r standard, d i r e c t a s s a u l t upon persons are seen as  39 a l t o g e t h e r worse than c r i m i n a l acts d i r e c t e d against t h e i r p o s s e s s i o n s , and acts t h a t are i l l e g a l only because o f the y o u t h f u l s t a t u s o f the o f f e n d e r s who commit them were judged to be l e s s s e r i o u s s t i l l .  This  measure, r e f e r e d to here as an index o f " s e r i o u s n e s s " , was expected to covary with, but not be e n t i r e l y redundant with more d i r e c t immorality ratings. In subsequent paragraphs, data r e s u l t i n g from the a p p l i c a t i o n to these two standards o f measurement are d e s c r i b e d . While these measurement d e t a i l s might have made up a part of the e a r l i e r methods s e c t i o n , i t was f e l t t h a t the n o v e l t y o f the procedures u t i l i z e d to o b t a i n these immorality r a t i n g s warranted the f i n d i n g s based on t h i s method being i n c l u d e d i n the r e s u l t s s e c t i o n . Following t h i s summary, the s i x measures of moral m a t u r i t y p r e v i o u s l y employed i n the comparison o f the d e l i n q u e n t and non-delinquent s u b j e c t s were again evaluated i n terms o f t h e i r a b i l i t y , s i n g u l a r l y or i n combination, to p r e d i c t both o f these outcome measures. 3.2.1. Immoralitv r a t i n g s The p r i n c i p a l hypothesis under study here was t h a t s u b j e c t s who showed delays i n the achievement o f age a p p r o p r i a t e l e v e l s o f moral m a t u r i t y not only would be more l i k e l y to be d e l i n q u e n t , but t h a t the l e v e l s o f the p e r c e i v e d immorality o f t h e i r offenses would a l s o vary i n v e r s e l y with t h e i r l e v e l o f moral development.  In order to t e s t t h i s hypothesis a  panel o f 102 judges, chosen from the ranks o f p r i n c i p a l s , school t e a c h e r s , and student teachers i n the g r e a t e r P o r t l a n d area, were presented s h o r t d e s c r i p t i o n s o f those 50 crimes most commonly committed by y o u t h f u l offenders.  Judges were asked to r a t e these offenses from zero to f i v e on  a s c a l e intended to express the degree to which each was understood to stand i n v i o l a t i o n of usual standards o f m o r a l i t y . By and l a r g e these  40 judges were i n c l o s e agreement (Cronbach alpha = .96) regarding the degree to which each o f these delinquent acts c o n t r a d i c t e d usual moral standards.  A l i s t i n g o f these t a r g e t crimes, t h e i r mean immorality  r a t i n g , and the v a r i a t i o n o f these judgments are l i s t e d i n Appendix F. Using these r a t i n g s as a standard, the most s e r i o u s crimes o f which each o f the delinquent subjects had been c o n v i c t e d was assigned an immorality r a t i n g by matching t h a t o f f e n s e with i t s c l o s e s t counterpart from t h e g l o s s a r y o f d e l i n q u e n c i e s and a s s o c i a t e d immorality r a t i n g s compiled by the procedures d e s c r i b e d above. Table 5 d e p i c t s the range and f r e q u e n c i e s o f o f f e n s e s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f the present study sample, along with b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n s i n d i c a t i n g the general types o f d e l i n q u e n t acts r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f these d i f f e r e n t immorality r a t i n g s . As can be seen from an i n s p e c t i o n o f t h i s t a b l e , the delinquent acts o f which the present study sample had been c o n v i c t e d , v a r i e d widely i n the degree t o which they were seen t o be immoral, with various s t a t u s v i o l a t i o n s being regarded as the l e a s t immoral, and crimes i n v o l v i n g sexual v i o l e n c e r e c e i v i n g p a r t i c u l a r l y high immorality r a t i n g s . These immorality r a t i n g s , along with the second and more conventional metric o f " s e r i o u s n e s s " , t o be d e s c r i b e d below, were employed s e p a r a t e l y i n a l l subsequent  analyses.  3.2.2. Seriousness l e v e l r a t i n g s The most s e r i o u s offense o f each delinquent subject was a l s o c l a s s i f i e d as a s t a t u s o f f e n s e (category 1), a crime against property (category 2 ) , o r a crime against persons (category 3 ) . While assigment o f p a r t i c u l a r d e l i n q u e n c i e s t o l e v e l s w i t h i n t h i s category system was p r i m a r i l y c l e r i c a l , a spot check i n v o l v i n g 20% o f the d e l i n q u e n t sample demonstrated  t h a t t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n could be made with e s s e n t i a l l y  p e r f e c t accuracy.  Table 6 d i s p l a y s the frequency with which the o f f e n s e s  o f the s u b j e c t s o f the present sample f e l l i n t o each o f these c a t e g o r i e s .  TABLE 5 Mean Immorality Ratings n  Mean Ratinq  10  4.94  .10  Molestation  8  4.81  .10  Armed Robery  5  4.44  .26  Burglary  14  3.85  .30  S h o p l i f t / V a n d a l ism  17  3.60  .22  6  2.03  .75  60  3.96  .87  Offense Rape  Status A l l Offenses  Standard Deviation  42 As can be seen from an i n s p e c t i o n o f t h i s t a b l e , e a r l i e r e f f o r t s to s e l e c t s u b j e c t s i n such a way as to cover the f u l l spectrum o f p o s s i b l e o f f e n s e c a t e g o r i e s was reasonably s u c c e s s f u l , although few s u b j e c t s were a v a i l a b l e who had committed only s t a t u s o f f e n s e s .  F o r t y - f i v e percent o f the sample  f e l l i n t o each o f the property and person c a t e g o r i e s , and only 10% i n t o the s t a t u s o f f e n s e category.  P a r e n t h e t i c a l l y , i t should be noted that  t h i s method o f c l a s s i f y i n g d e l i n q u e n c i e s (and perhaps the immorality r a t i n g s d e t a i l e d above) y i e l d e d d i s t r i b u t i o n s that do not a u t o m a t i c a l l y represent the base-rate o f such crimes i n the p o p u l a t i o n o f d e l i n q u e n t s as a whole.  In f a c t the actual p r o p o r t i o n o f s t a t u s , property, and person  o f f e n s e s committed by a d j u d i c a t e d delinquents i n the g r e a t e r P o r t l a n d area d u r i n g the 1983 calander year (the l a s t year f o r which such s t a t i s t i c s were a v a i l a b l e ) are 30%, 62%, and 8% r e s p e c t i v e l y . S i m i l a r comparison f i g u r e s are not a v a i l a b l e f o r the immorality r a t i n g s . Given these sampling c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , the actual a b i l i t y to p r e d i c t e i t h e r the s e r i o u s n e s s or immorality o f other delinquent acts on the b a s i s o f the moral maturity measures u t i l i z e d i n t h i s study may not be the same as reported f o r the present sample. 3.2.3. I n t e r r e l a t i o n s between perceived immorality and seriousness In the process o f developing the two methods o f c a t e g o r i z i n g the d e l i n q u e n t sample o u t l i n e d above i t was recognized t h a t the panel of judges who c a r r i e d out the task o f generating the immorality r a t i n g s were l i k e l y to employ standards that p a r a l l e l e d , to some degree, those already contained w i t h i n the more customary l e g a l c a t e g o r i e s o f s t a t u s , property, and person crimes.  This f o l l o w s from the f a c t t h a t our e x i s t i n g j u d i c i a l  system i s , to a c e r t a i n degree, s e l f - c o n s c i o u s l y intended as a t e c h n i c a l expression o f the moral standards o f the s o c i e t y that i t serves. Consequently a high l e v e l o f overlap between these two c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  ,  43 systems was not unexpected.  S t i l l , i t was not s e l f - e v i d e n t l y the case  t h a t any c a t e g o r i z a t i o n o f crimes i n t o the usual c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f s t a t u s , property, and person crimes would n e c e s s a r i l y m i r r o r group judgments as to the l e v e l o f p e r c e i v e d immorality implied by i n such o f f e n s e s .  In an  e f f o r t to determine the degree to which these two c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  systems  a c t u a l l y o v e r l a p , the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f the more continuous immorality r a t i n g s were d i v i d e d i n t o rough t h i r d s and r e c a s t i n t o high, medium, and low l e v e l s .  These c a t e g o r i c scores were then c r o s s - c l a s s i f i e d with the  s e r i o u s n e s s dimension o f s t a t u s , property, and person crimes (see Table 6). As can be seen from an i n s p e c t i o n of t h i s t a b l e , the dimensions o f s e r i o u s n e s s and p e r c e i v e d immorality are l a r g e l y o v e r l a p p i n g , with the bulk (82%)  o f the person o f f e n s e s a l s o being judged to be the most  immoral, and a l l o f the s t a t u s o f f e n s e s being c h a r a c t e r i z e d as acts o f low immorality.  Cohen's Kappa (Cohen, 1960), a measure o f agreement between  such c l a s s i f i c a t o r y systems, was c a l c u l a t e d on these data and y i e l d e d a concordance index o f .62, d e s c r i b e d by Cohen as "moderate". On the b a s i s o f these f i n d i n g s , i t appeared l i k e l y t h a t any tendency present i n the data f o r the v a r i o u s measures of moral m a t u r i t y to p r e d i c t the immorality o f d e l i n q u e n t o f f e n s e s a l s o would apply i n some degree to the more conventional l e g a l i s t i c c a t e g o r i e s o f s e r i o u s n e s s .  Subsequent  analyses l a r g e l y confirmed t h i s e x p e c t a t i o n (see s e c t i o n 3.3.1).  At the  same time, however, the l a c k o f a complete o v e r l a p between these two measures, and t h e i r d i f f e r e n t conceptual r o o t s , recommended t h e i r j o i n t use.  In a d d i t i o n , the continuous c h a r a c t e r of the immorality r a t i n g s made  i t p o s s i b l e to undertake c e r t a i n more powerful parametric analyses, f u r t h e r recommending the i n c l u s i o n of both of these outcome measures. Before proceding f u r t h e r with an a n a l y s i s o f p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s between the s u b j e c t s ' moral m a t u r i t y scores and the l e v e l o f p e r c e v i e d  44  Table 6 C r o s s - C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f Legal and Immorality Rating Systems Immorality Level Legal Categories  Low  Moderate  Status  6 100%  Property  10 37%  17 63%  1 4%  4 15%  Person Column Totals  17 28%  High  Row Totals 6 10%  21 35%  27 45% 22 82% 22 37%  27 45%  45 immorality o f t h e i r d e l i n q u e n t a c t s , an attempt was made to s y s t e m a t i c a l l y survey e x a c t l y what s o r t s o f behaviors had been l a b e l e d most and l e a s t immoral i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r sample. To t h i s end, the low, medium, and high l e v e l s o f p e r c e i v e d immorality generated f o r the preceding comparison with s e r i o u s n e s s were again considered and the s p e c i f i c d e l i n q u e n c i e s t h a t f e l l i n t o these c a t e g o r i e s were l i s t e d and s c r u t i n i z e d f o r p o s s i b l e common content.  The u n a n t i c i p a t e d r e s u l t o f t h i s d e s c r i p t i v e a n a l y s i s was to  draw to the s u r f a c e the f a c t t h a t 18 o f the 22 s u b j e c t s c a t e g o r i z e d as having committed h i g h l y immoral d e l i n q u e n c i e s had a l l been c o n v i c t e d of sexual crimes o f some d e s c r i p t i o n . Otherwise put, t h i s f i n d i n g represents the c o n j o i n t f a c t s t h a t , 1) the panel of judges who had c o n t r i b u t e d the immorality r a t i n g s c o n s i s t e n t l y saw sexual crimes along with other a s s a u l t i v e but non-sexual o f f e n s e s , as being h i g h l y m o r a l l y r e p r e h e n s i b l e ; and 2) w i t h i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r sample, the frequency o f such sexual crimes was much higher than t h a t o f a l l other e q u a l l y m o r a l l y r e p r e h e n s i b l e but non-sexual o f f e n s e s . The upshot o f these f a c t s was t h a t i n t h i s sample, to be c a t e g o r i z e d as having p e r p e t r a t e d a delinquency high i n p e r c e i v e d immorality was a l l but co-extensive with having p e r p e t r a t e d a sexual crime.  There i s no formal reason t h a t t h i s should have been the case i n  t h a t the sample o f s u b j e c t s i n the high immorality group might j u s t as well have been c o n v i c t e d o f murder, arson, or a v a r i e t y o f other heinous but non-sexual o f f e n s e s . That t h i s was not so may r e f l e c t the r e a l but undocumented base r a t e s o f such sexual o f f e n s e s w i t h i n the general d e l i n q u e n t p o p u l a t i o n or, l e s s i n t e r e s t i n g l y , might be an a r t i f a c t o f unknown and n o n - g e n e r a l i z a b l e sampling biases unique to the p o p u l a t i o n under treatment at the Morrison Center from which the s u b j e c t s were drawn.  In e i t h e r case, i t became apparent t h a t , i n t h i s sample, to be  judged to have committed a h i g h l y immoral delinquency was tantamount  to  46 being known to have committed a sexual o f f e n s e o f almost any d e s c r i p t i o n . V i o l e n t rapes and apparently n o n - a s s a u l t i v e sexual a c t s , f o r example, commonly r e c e i v e d the same high immorality r a t i n g . For t h i s reason, the s e r i o u s prospect was r a i s e d t h a t what was o r i g i n a l l y intended as a s c o r i n g category reserved f o r s e r i o u s l y immoral o f f e n s e s o f a wide v a r i e t y o f s o r t s had i n a d v e r t e n t l y become a proxy i n d i c a t o r o f sexual d e l i n q u e n c i e s in t h i s study.  On t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y , and i n an e f f o r t to avoid c o n f u s i n g  the general meaning o f immorality with matters s p e c i f i c to sexual o f f e n d e r s , i t was judged to be a p p r o p r i a t e to t e s t c e r t a i n o f the o r i g i n a l hypotheses, not only with the e n t i r e d e l i n q u e n t sample as o r i g i n a l l y planned, but a l s o to repeat c e r t a i n o f these analyses with the subsample of sexual o f f e n d e r s removed. The e f f e c t s o f t h i s post-hoc d e c i s i o n to sometimes t a b l e those s u b j e c t s who had s e x u a l l y offended was seen as c o n s e r v a t i v e , i n t h a t i t not only reduced the s i z e o f the study group, but a l s o r e s t r i c t e d the range o f the immorality r a t i n g s . Any r e l a t i o n between moral m a t u r i t y scores and immorality r a t i n g s t h a t might emerge w i t h i n t h i s r e s t r i c t e d i n t e r p r e t i v e context was consequently a n t i c i p a t e d to be both v a l i d and p o t e n t i a l l y more i n t e r p r e t a b l e . 3.3. The R e l a t i o n s h i p between Moral M a t u r i t y and the Seriousness and Immorality o f Delinquent Acts The p l a c e o f the non-delinquent c o n t r o l group i n any examination o f the r e l a t i o n between moral m a t u r i t y and the seriousness or immorality o f d e l i n q u e n t acts i s open to m u l t i p l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .  On the one hand they  c o u l d be viewed as i r r e l e v a n t to any such a n a l y s i s because, having committed no known o f f e n s e , they l i t e r a l l y f a l l o f f of any continuous measure o f the seriousness or immorality of d e l i n q u e n t a c t s , and t h e i r law a b i d i n g behavior could be viewed as having no p l a c e i n any category scheme i n v o l v i n g immoral or s t a t u s , property, and person crimes.  From another  47 p e r s p e c t i v e , however, these same c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s m e a n i n g f u l l y anchor the dimensions o f seriousness and immorality and t h e i r i n c l u s i o n i n r e l e v a n t comparisons can be regarded as c r u c i a l .  To t h i s end c e r t a i n comparisons  were made e i t h e r i n c l u d i n g or e x c l u d i n g the non-delinquent s u b j e c t s . The f i r s t question to be addressed i n t h i s s e c t i o n was a determination of the degree to which the dimensions o f p e r c e i v e d immorality and s e r i o u s n e s s vary i n some meaningful manner across the s i x measures o f moral m a t u r i t y .  As an i n i t i a l means o f c o n s i d e r i n g such p o s s i b l e  r e l a t i o n s , d i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t i o n analyses were computed using both immorality and seriousness r a t i n g s as outcome measures. Table 7 d i s p l a y s the summary c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n s o f these actual and the p r e d i c t e d group memberships f o r the immorality l e v e l s , i n c l u d i n g the non-delinquents as a zero-order immorality group. R e s u l t s from the d i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t i o n a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e an o v e r a l l s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e among the four immorality l e v e l s , F(3, 76) = 4.669, p_ < .001, with 65% of the e n t i r e sample being s u c c e s s f u l l y c l a s s i f i e d i n t o t h e i r a p p r o p r i a t e immorality l e v e l s .  T h i s r e s u l t could be viewed as  somewhat i n f l a t e d , however, i n l i g h t o f the f a c t t h a t a d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e number o f those c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f i e d belonged to the non-delinquent group.  Here again, as was the case i n e a r l i e r r e s u l t s based upon d i r e c t  comparisons between d e l i n q u e n t and non-delinquent s u b j e c t s , Hogan's s o c i a l i z a t i o n s c a l e and Kohlberg's moral reasoning measure were the only v a r i a b l e s c o n t r i b u t i n g s i g n i f i c a n t l y to the p r e d i c t i o n equation.  As  before, a l l moral maturity measures, with the s i n g l e exception o f empathy, c o r r e l a t e d e i t h e r moderately or h i g h l y with the standardized canonical f u n c t i o n , again suggesting t h a t other o f the c o g n i t i v e and c h a r a c t e r o l o g i c measures c o u l d have played a s i m i l a r r o l e i n the d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s .  48 TABLE 7 D i s c r i m i n a n t Function Analyses: C l a s s i f y i n g Delinquents and Non-delinquents According to Immorality Ratings Standardized Canonical Coefficients  Pooled within-group Correlation  Variable  .796  Socialization  .82  .532  Moral Reasoning  .56  .101  Autonomy  .42  .049  S o c i a l Convention  .39  -.013  Interpersonal Awareness  .36  -.045  Empathy  .28  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Summary Table P r e d i c t e d Group Actual Group Control  Control  Low  17 (85%) 3 (18%) 0 (0%) 2 (9%)  1 (5%) 8 (47%) 4 (19%) 1 (5%)  Moderate  High  (5%) 3 (18%) 12 (57%) 4 (18%)  1 (5%) 3 (18%) 5 (24%) 15 (68%)  n 20  Low  17  Moderate  21  High  20  1  49 A p a r a l l e l d i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t i o n a n a l y s i s intended to determine the e f f i c i e n c y with which the s i x moral maturity measures c o u l d be employed to p r e d i c t the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f a l l s u b j e c t s i n t o the l e g a l c a t e g o r i e s o f no o f f e n s e , s t a t u s , property, and person offenses was a l s o planned.  The t e s t  o f homogeneity o f variance (Box's M = 87.166, F = 1.815, p_ < .001) f o r t h i s a n t i c i p a t e d a n a l y s i s was s i g n i f i c a n t , however, rendering the r e s u l t s uninterpretable.  In an attempt to reduce t h i s heterogeneity the  non-delinquent s u b j e c t s were dropped i n a second a n a l y s i s , but again a s i m i l a r r e s u l t was obtained (Box's M = 60.533, F = 2.524, p_ < .001). F i n a l l y , i t was reasoned that the p o s s i b l e source o f t h i s heterogeneity might be due e i t h e r to the small sample s i z e of the s t a t u s o f f e n d e r group, or the minor nature o f t h e i r delinquent s t a t u s . The r e s u l t s o f a f i n a l d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s that excluded these s i x s t a t u s o f f e n d e r s but i n c l u d e d the non-delinquents d i d produce a n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t t e s t o f homogeneity o f v a r i a n c e .  The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n t a b l e based on the  d i s c r i m i n a n t f u n t i o n a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d o v e r a l l s i g n i f i c a n c e , F(6, 70) = 3.298, p_ < .001, and shows that o v e r a l l , 72% o f the s u b j e c t s c o u l d be s u c c e s s f u l l y placed i n t o t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e o f f e n s e c a t e g o r i e s . Because the number o f l e v e l s o f seriousness i s d i f f e r e n t , however, these r e s u l t s are d i f f i c u l t t o compare to the counterpart a n a l y s i s i n v o l v i n g immorality ratings.  I f the immorality r a t i n g l e v e l s are s i m i l a r l y reduced to two  l e v e l s , however, a c r o s s t a b u l a t i o n r e v e a l s that there i s a 93% o v e r l a p between these two metrics and consequently suggests that they are h i g h l y redundant. Results o f an a n a l y s i s of variance e x p l o r i n g the r e l a t i o n between the s i x moral maturity measures and the four l e v e l s o f immorality assigned to d e l i n q u e n t and non-delinquent s u b j e c t s are presented i n Table 8.  Tests  f o r homogeneity o f variance were n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t across a l l measures o f  50 TABLE 8 A n a l y s i s o f Variance: Levels o f Immorality and Moral M a t u r i t y Measures Immorality Level NonLow Moderate Delinquent (ND) (L) (M) (n=20) (n=17) (n=21)  High (H) (n=22)  F Ratio  Notes  Moral Reasoning  M=290 SD=35.4  M=239 SD=36.6  M=241 SD=29.6  M=255 SD=22.6  10.866 p<.001  ND>L,M,H  Interpersonal Awareness  M=287 SD=42.4  M=255 SD=38.2  M=237 SD=51.4  M=260 SD=36.2  4.702 p<.005  ND>M  Social Convention  M=414 SD=74.2  M=345 SD=96.9  M=298 SD=75.2  M=374 SD=80.8  7.317 p<.001  ND>M H>M  Empathy  M=36 SD=5.5  M=32 SD=5.6  M=31 SD=3.6  M=33 SD=5.8  2.809 p<.05  ND>M  Socialization  M=51 SD=12.7  M=35 SD=7.7  M=29 SD=10.9  M=28 SD=13.5  20.802 p<.001  ND>L,M,H  Autonomy  M=50 SD=9.6  M=39 SD=7.7  M=38 SD=10.9  M=38 SD=13.5  5.318 p<.002  ND>L,M,H  51 moral m a t u r i t y .  Once again main e f f e c t s were found f o r f i v e o f the s i x  moral m a t u r i t y measures a f t e r per comparison e r r o r r a t e was adjusted to p < .008.  Tukey's post hoc analyses were used to f u r t h e r assess p o s s i b l e  d i f f e r e n c e s between groups.  For three o f these measures ( i . e . , moral  reasoning, s o c i a l i z a t i o n , and autonomy) the non-delinquents were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more m o r a l l y mature than were the d e l i n q e n t s r e g a r d l e s s of t h e i r immorality l e v e l s .  On these measures no other d i f f e r e n c e s between  the d e l i n q u e n t groups were observed.  For the remaining three v a r i a b l e s  ( i . e . , i n t e r p e r s o n a l awareness, s o c i a l convention understanding, and empathy) the planned comparisons r e v e a l e d a p a t t e r n o f both a n t i c i p a t e d and u n a n t i c i p a t e d r e s u l t s . In every case where the non-delinquents were c o n t r a s t e d s e p a r a t e l y with each o f the other groups only those d e l i n q u e n t s in the "moderate" l e v e l of immorality proved to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the non-delinquent s u b j e c t s . While the f a c t t h a t the non-delinquents were s t a t i s t i c a l l y i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from the "low" immorality group was not e s p e c i a l l y s u r p r i s i n g , the opposite r e s u l t had been expected with the "high" immorality s u b j e c t s . A f u r t h e r e x p l o r a t i o n o f these counteri n t u i t i v e f i n d i n g s i s taken up i n f u r t h e r analyses i n which those d e l i n q u e n t s whose offenses were sexual i n nature are examined s e p a r a t e l y . Among the remaining comparisons the only a d d i t i o n a l f i n d i n g to emerge was t h a t , again s u r p r i s i n g l y , the high immorality group r e c e i v e d b e t t e r s o c i a l convention scores than d i d the moderate immorality group.  The  i n t e r p r e t i v e d i f f i c u l t i e s presented by t h i s unexpected f i n d i n g are a l s o f u r t h e r addressed i n s e c t i o n 3.3.2, where other comparisons i n v o l v i n g the sex o f f e n d e r group are taken up. The r e s u l t s of p a r a l l e l analyses of v a r i a n c e , t h i s time concerned the r e l a t i o n between the seriousness measure ( i . e . , no o f f e n s e , s t a t u s , property, and person) and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to the s i x moral m a t u r i t y  52  measures, showed a l l t e s t s o f homogeneity o f v a r i a n c e as n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t . Since the r e s u l t s show c o n s i d e r a b l e overlap with those presented i n Table 7, they are not presented i n a separate t a b l e . Although there were again main e f f e c t s f o r the same f i v e moral m a t u r i t y measures a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n o f r e s u l t s emerged than was r e p o r t e d with the immorality measures. Only on Kohlberg's measure o f moral reasoning d i d the non-delinquents do b e t t e r than a l l c l a s s e s o f s t a t u s , property, and person o f f e n d e r s c o n s i d e r e d s e p a r a t e l y . Once again, i n every other case the non-delinquents were i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from the s t a t u s o f f e n d e r s , but evidenced g r e a t e r moral m a t u r i t y than the property o f f e n d e r s . non-delinquents out-performed  The  the person o f f e n d e r s only on the  s o c i a l i z a t i o n and autonomy s c a l e s . As before, the non-delinquents and the most s e r i o u s d e l i n q u e n t s were not d i f f e r e n t on the i n t e r p e r s o n a l awareness task, s o c i a l convention understanding, or empathy s c a l e . Among the remaining comparisons c o n t r a s t i n g the seriousness c a t e g o r i e s , the o n l y a d d i t i o n a l f i n d i n g to emerge was t h a t the s t a t u s o f f e n d e r s obtained s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher s o c i a l i z a t i o n scores than e i t h e r the property or person o f f e n d e r s . 3.3.1. C o r r e l a t i o n a l analyses r e l a t i n g immorality r a t i n g s to moral m a t u r i t y measures In the d i s c r i m i n a n t analyses d e s c r i b e d i n the previous s e c t i o n , i t was necessary to f o r c e the continuous immorality r a t i n g s i n t o three c a t e g o r i c l e v e l s r e p r e s e n t i n g low, moderate, and high degrees o f p e r c e i v e d immorality.  What was l o s t i n t h i s process was the o p p o r t u n i t y to  c a p i t a l i z e upon the continuous c h a r a c t e r of these r a t i n g s .  Consequently,  in a f u r t h e r attempt to e v a l u t e the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the r a t e d immorality o f d e l i n q u e n t acts and moral maturity, c o r r e l a t i o n s were computed between these measures w i t h i n the d e l i n q u e n t sample. The r e s u l t s  53 o f t h i s a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d t h a t o f the s i x moral m a t u r i t y measures, only Hogan's s o c i a l i z a t i o n s c a l e c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y with p e r c e i v e d immorality, r(60) = -.46, p<.01. I f the d e l i n q u e n t s are f u r t h e r sub-divided i n t o those who were and were not c o n v i c t e d o f sexual o f f e n s e s , however, d i f f e r e n t and i n t e r e s t i n g p a t t e r n s o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s emerge.  An  examination o f these c o r r e l a t i o n s presented i n Table 9 shows t h a t among the non-sexual o f f e n d e r group a l l three o f Hogan's p e r s o n a l i t y s c a l e s were i n v e r s e l y r e l a t e d to the immorality r a t i n g s . That i s , s u b j e c t s who were the l e a s t empathic, well s o c i a l i z e d and the l e a s t autonomous tended to commit acts t h a t were r a t e d as most immoral.  S u r p r i s i n g l y , however,  w i t h i n the sex o f f e n d e r group, there was a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between both Kohlberg's  measure of moral reasoning and Selman's measure of  i n t e r p e r s o n a l awareness, Hogan's measure o f autonomy, and r a t e d l e v e l s of immorality.  I f per comparison e r r o r r a t e s are c a l c u l a t e d f o r both o f  these s e t s o f s i x comparisons, with a r e s u l t i n g alpha l e v e l o f .008, only the negative c o r r e l a t i o n between s o c i a l i z a t i o n and immorality r a t i n g s f o r the non sex-offender group i s s i g n i f i c a n t .  If a less conservative  approach i s taken to these data and c o r r e l a t i o n s t h a t reach the .05 l e v e l are i n t e r p r e t e d , then these r e s u l t s suggest t h a t while members o f the non-sex o f f e n d e r group l a c k the empathy, s o c i a l i z a t i o n s k i l l s and autonomy to put t h e i r l i m i t e d moral reasoning competences i n t o p r a c t i c e , very d i f f e r e n t processes are at work with the sexual o f f e n d e r s who, p a r a d o x i c a l l y show a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n between moral reasoning, i n t e r p e r s o n a l awareness and autonomy, and the p e r c e i v e d immorality of their acts. 3.3.2. S p e c i a l C o n s i d e r a t i o n I n v o l v i n g the J u v e n i l e Sex Offenders Based on the analyses j u s t reported showing d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n s o f r e s u l t s f o r sex o f f e n d e r and non-sex o f f e n d e r s and given the f a c t t h a t sex  54  TABLE 9 Pearson C o r r e l a t i o n s Between the Immorality o f Delinquent Acts and Moral M a t u r i t y Measures  All Delinquents (n=60)  Sex Offenders (n=18)  Non-Sex Offenders (n=42)  Moral Reasoning  .15  .46*  .01  Interpersonal Awareness  .06  .50*  -.11  S o c i a l Convention  .13  -.02  Empathy  .03  .19  -.29*  Socialization  -.46**  .09  -.63***  Autonomy  -.09  .48*  -.29*  -.25  O n e - t a i l e d t e s t s o f s i g n i f i c a n c e ; * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001  55 o f f e n s e s were c o n s i s t e n t l y assigned very high immorality r a t i n g s , a reworking o f many o f the e a r l i e r analyses seemed c a l l e d f o r . In p a r t i c u l a r , i t seemed a p p r o p r i a t e to re-examine a l l those  hypotheses  concerning a n t i c i p a t e d r e l a t i o n s between immorality and s e r i o u s n e s s r a t i n g s and the s i x moral maturity measures. Under t h i s c o n s t r u c t i o n i t was hoped t h a t the o r i g i n a l l y hypothesized r e l a t i o n s h i p s between immorality and the s i x measures o f moral m a t u r i t y would be even more s t r o n g l y supported.  The r e s u l t s of a M u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e  i n c l u d i n g these s i x measures o f moral maturity y i e l d e d a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t , F (6,71) = 3.640, p_ < .003, warranting the computation o f i n d i v i d u a l F - t e s t s o f the v a r i a b l e s . Table 10 presents the r e s u l t s o f ANOVA's, with IQ estimate as a c o v a r i a t e , c o n t r a s t i n g sex o f f e n d e r s , non-sex o f f e n d e r d e l i n q u e n t s and non-delinquents across these s i x measures. T h i s approach proved only reasonably p r o d u c t i v e . B a r t l e t ' s t e s t o f homogeniety was n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t across a l l measures o f moral m a t u r i t y and the Tukey ranges t e s t was used to evaluate d i f f e r e n c e s between these three groups.  Even a d j u s t i n g the s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l to  account f o r per comparison e r r o r r a t e (p<.008), a l l f i v e o f the moral m a t u r i t y measures, with the usual exception o f the empathy s c a l e , once again proved to s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e the non-delinquent and d e l i n q u e n t s u b j e c t s where offenses were non-sexual.  Tukey post hoc  comparisons i n d i c a t e t h a t there were no s t a t i s t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s between the sex o f f e n d e r s and the non-delinquent samples on i n t e r p e r s o n a l awareness, understanding of s o c i a l convention, or empathy. Table 11 p o r t r a y s a more d e t a i l e d breakdown f o r the performances f o r the c o g n i t i v e reasoning measures across the three groups.  This table  shows t h a t while the sex offenders were o n e - t h i r d o f a stage behind the non-delinquents, the delinquents whose o f f e n s e s were non-sexual i n nature  56 TABLE 10 A n a l y s i s o f Co-Variance: J u v e n i l e Sex O f f e n d e r s , Non-Sex Offenders, and Non-delinquents by Moral M a t u r i t y  Moral Reasoning  Sex Offenders (n-18) (SO) M=255 SD=21.97  Non-sex NonOffenders Delinquents (n-20) (n-42) INDJ. (NS01 M=242 M=290 SD=32.24 SD=35.36  F-ratios  Notes  15.696 p<.001  ND>S0,NS0  Interpersonal Awareness  M=261 SD=38.67  M=246 SD=44.60  M=287 SD=42.37  6.099 p<.005  ND>NS0  Social Convention  M=392 SD=72.65  M=317 SD=85.83  M=414 SD=74.22  11.972 p<.001  ND>NS0 S0>NS0  Empathy  M=31 SD=5.65  M=31 SD=4.58  M=36 SD=5.48  5.537 p<.01  ND>NS0  Socialization  M=29 SD=9.57  M=31 SD=10.1  M=51 SD=12.7  27.796 p<.001  ND>S0,NS0  Autonomy  M=40 SD=13.8  M=38 SD=9.8  M=50 SD=9.6  8.127 p<.001  ND>S0,NS0  57 TABLE 11 Stage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Moral Reasoning, Interpersonal Awareness, and S o c i a l Convention Understanding by Group Moral Reasoning Global Stage Score 2(1)  2  2(3)  Non-Delinquents  0  Non-Sex Offenders  3 7% 0  1 5% 8 19% 1 6%  1 5% 8 19% 7 39%  Sex Offenders  2/3  3(2)  3 15% 11 26%  1 5% 6 14% 4 22%  2 11%  3  3(4)  12 60%  2 10% 1 2% 0  5 12% 4 22%  Interpersonal Awareness Global Stage Score 1  1(2)  2(1)  2  2(3)  3(2)  3  3(4)  Non-Delinquents  0  0  0  12 60%  1 2% 0  1 2% 0  0  1 5% 9 21% 4 22%  2 10%  Non-Sex Offenders  2 10% 6 14% 4 22%  14 33% 2 11%  11 26%  3 15% 0  Sex Offenders  0  8 44%  0  S o c i a l Convention Understanding Level 1  2  Non-Delinquents  0  0  Non-Sex Offenders  1 2% 0  8 19% 0  Sex Offenders  3  4  5  6  4 20% 18 42%  9 45%  7 35%  0  13 31%  0  5 28%  10 56%  2 5% 2 11%  1 6%  58 were one-half a stage below. S i m i l a r l y , on the i n t e r p e r s o n a l awareness t a s k , sex o f f e n d e r s scored one-quarter o f a stage below the nond e l i n q u e n t s while the d e l i n q u e n t s other than sexual o f f e n d e r s scored t w o - f i f t h s o f a stage lower.  F i n a l l y , with regards t o s o c i a l convention  l e v e l , the sex o f f e n d e r s were approximately equal to the non-delinquents whereas the the remaining group of d e l i n q u e n t s scored a f u l l stage below the non d e l i n q u e n t s . C o n s i s t a n t with previous i n v e s t i g a t o r s (e.g., Walker, 1980) t h a t s o c i a l p e r s p e c t i v e t a k i n g as o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d by i n t e r p e r s o n a l awareness, was found to be a necessary but not s u f f i c i e n t c o n d i t i o n f o r moral reasoning f o r the non-delinquents.  This relation,  however, d i d not hold t r u e f o r the delinquent sample, who scored 25% higher stage attainment i n the moral maturity task than i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l awareness. In an attempt to f u r t h e r c l a r i f y these r e s u l t s and to evaluate the c o n s i s t e n c y across measures w i t h i n each group, Cronbach alpha c o e f f i c i e n t s were computed on the d e r i v e d f a c t o r s c a l e s of the moral m a t u r i t y measures (see Table 3 ) . The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t members o f the sex o f f e n d e r group showed poor i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y f o r both the c o g n i t i v e reasoning f a c t o r (alpha=.32) and Hogan's moral p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r (alpha=.42) i n d i c a t i n g u n r e l i a b l e measurement. The non-sex o f f e n d e r d e l i n q u e n t s , however, generated higher alpha c o e f f i c i e n t s (alpha=.58 and .57 respectively).  T h i s f i n d i n g suggests t h a t , i n c o n t r a s t to the sexual  o f f e n d e r group, members o f the non-sex o f f e n d e r sample were reasonably c o n s i s t e n t i n t h e i r response p a t t e r n s across a l l the moral m a t u r i t y measures. These f i n d i n g are l e n t a d d i t i o n a l meaning when a more d e t a i l e d i n s p e c t i o n o f the i n t e r - v a r i a b l e c o r r e l a t i o n matrix i s c a r r i e d out.  The  c o r r e l a t i o n matrix, presented as Table 12, shows t h a t on the c o g n i t i v e reasoning measures the non-sex o f f e n d e r s have a p a t t e r n of r e l a t i o n s h i p s  59 TABLE 12 C o r r e l a t i o n M a t r i c e s o f Moral M a t u r i t y Measures: J u v e n i l e Sex Offenders and Delinquent Non-Sex Offenders+ IA  MR  SConv  Emp  Soc  Aut  Delinquent (Non-sex offenders)(n=42) Moral Reasoning (MR) \  Interpersonal Awareness (IA) S o c i a l Convention (SConv) Empathy (Emp) Socialization (Soc) Autonomy (Aut)  ,58 ,24 19 .23 ,28  .46 ***  40**  ,11  -.03  11  .40  ,07  .06  .03  ,27"  ,21  19  ,27"  .48  ***  ,33  **  \  **  \  .04 ,21 10 .09  \  **  \ \  ,20 .16 .12  \  \  \  \  .07 .67***  \ \  \  .05  J u v e n i l e Sex Offenders (n=18) + Note t h a t the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix f o r the n o n - j u v e n i l e sex o f f e n d e r s i s i n the upper t r i a n g l e and the i n the lower t r i a n g l e f o r the j u v e n i l e sex o f f e n d e r s . A l l s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l s are o n e - t a i l e d t e s t s . * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001  60 s i m i l a r to those o f the non-delinquent sample (see Table 4 ) . S p e c i f i c a l l y , there are s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among the c o g n i t i v e reasoning measures and among Hogan's moral c h a r a c t e r s c a l e s , but not between these two moral m a t u r i t y domains. The r e s u l t s f o r the sex o f f e n d e r group were considerably different.  Only two r e l a t i o n s h i p s were s i g n i f i c a n t , t h a t  between moral reasoning and i n t e r p e r s o n a l awareness and between empathy and autonomy. In summary, the r e s u l t s reported i n t h i s s e c t i o n provide mixed support f o r the s e r i e s of hypotheses t h a t p r e d i c t e d t h a t the s i x measures of moral m a t u r i t y would d i s c r i m i n a t e among more or l e s s immoral and s e r i o u s offenders.  C o n s i s t e n t with these e x p e c t a t i o n s , non-delinquents d i d prove  to be more empathic, b e t t e r able to take the p e r s p e c t i v e s o f others and more competent i n understanding s o c i a l conventions than d e l i n q u e n t s at every l e v e l o f immorality and s e r i o u s n e s s . Contrary to e x p e c t a t i o n , however, the measures o f moral reasoning, s o c i a l i z a t i o n , and autonomy d i d not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i s c r i m i n a t e these groups i n any s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d way. Here the usual p a t t e r n was t h a t the non-delinquents: 1) were not meaningfully d i f f e r e n t from the s t a t u s o f f e n d e r or low immorality groups; 2) were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the property o f f e n d e r and moderate immorality groups, but, p a r a d o x i c a l l y , 3) were i n d i s t i n q u i s h a b l e from the most immoral, person o f f e n d e r d e l i n q u e n t groups.  A partial explanation  f o r t h i s l a s t u n a n t i c i p a t e d f i n d i n g i s to be found i n the f a c t t h a t those d e l i n q u e n t s who had offended against persons and who were r a t e d as most immoral proved, i n 18 cases out o f 20, to have been c o n v i c t e d o f a sexual crime.  When, t h i s sexual o f f e n d e r group was t e m p o r a r i l y removed from the  sample some a d d i t i o n a l support f o r a subset o f the o r i g i n a l hypotheses  was  obtained, along with a s e r i e s o f p o t e n t i a l l y i n f o r m a t i v e f i n d i n g s about the sexual o f f e n d e r group i t s e l f .  These i n t e r p r e t i v e matters are taken up  61 in d e t a i l i n the d i s c u s s i o n s e c t i o n . 3.4.  Psychopathy  The concept o f psychopathy, as a r t i c u l a t e d by C l e c k l y (1976) and o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d by Hare (1980), has become a l l but synonymous with s e r i o u s and c h r o n i c d i s r e g a r d f o r s o c i e t a l values and, consequently, o f f e r s the prospect o f an a l t e r n a t i v e approach i n d i m e n s i o n a l i z i n g d e l i n q u e n t conduct.  On the s t r e n g t h o f t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y , a l l o f the d e l i n q u e n t and  non-delinquent s u b j e c t s o f t h i s study were r a t e d using Hare's  Psychopathy  C h e c k l i s t (PCL) with the i n t e n t i o n o f t r e a t i n g these r a t i n g s as an outcome measure to which the v a r i o u s i n d i c e s o f moral m a t u r i t y might be r e l a t e d . Because at the time t h a t t h i s research was formulated the PCL has not p r e v i o u s l y been employed with adolescents, an e v a l u t i o n o f i t s psychometric p r o p e r t i e s as they s p e c i f i c a l l y p e r t a i n to t h i s sample were c a r r i e d out.  These f i n d i n g s are presented f i r s t , f o l l o w e d by r e s u l t s  which o u t l i n e the r e l a t i o n s h i p between moral m a t u r i t y and psychopathy. 3.4.1. P r i n c i p a l components s t r u c t u r e o f the Psychopathy C h e c k l i s t A p r i n c i p a l components a n a l y s i s was undertaken to assess the degree to which the u n d e r l y i n g f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e f o r the r a t i n g s assigned to t h i s sample reproduced item c o n s t e l l a t i o n s s i m i l a r to those found by Hare and Harper (1987).  The r e s u l t s o f t h i s a n a l y s i s , presented i n Table 13,  suggest the presence o f three orthogonal f a c t o r s . A t o t a l o f 63% o f the v a r i a n c e was accounted f o r i n t h i s a n a l y s i s and item communalities ranging from .43 (bored) to .76 ( i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ) .  The items i n the f i r s t f a c t o r  d e p i c t v a r i o u s aspects o f m o t i v a t i o n a l d i s p o s i t i o n , where a l a c k o f w i l l i n g n e s s to accept personal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r one's behavior and a p e r c e p t i o n of one's l i f e as b o r i n g , e t c . appear to c o n t r i b u t e to a p r o p e n s i t y to act i n a n t i s o c i a l ways. The second f a c t o r , l a b e l e d moral sentiment, c o n t a i n s a group o f items i n d i c a t i v e o f an emotional  62 TABLE 13 Factor A n a l y s i s of Hare's Psychopathy C h e c k l i s t Motivational Deficit Communalitv Factor 1  Moral Sentiment Factor 2  Behavioral Deviance Factor 3  Irresponsibility  .763  .853  .189  Lack of r e a l i s t i c goals  .655  .780  .214  No r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a c t i o n s  .638  .712  .294  .212  Impulsivity  .678  .705  .162  .393  Poor Behavioral c o n t r o l s  .690  .699  .437  Proneness to boredom  .437  .600  .235  Lack remorse or g u i l t  .728  C a l l o u s , l a c k of empathy  .725  Grandiose s e l f worth  .684  Shallow a f f e c t  .624  .362  .695  G l i b , s u p e r f i c i a l charm  .574  .215  .655  .313  Promiscuous sex behavior  .650  .152  .792  Pathological lying  .640  .388  .265  .647  Conning, manipulative  .665  .265  .473  .609  Criminal v e r s a t i l i t y  .577  .514  E a r l y behavior problems  .498  .357  .368  .485  Parasitic l i f e s t y l e  .528  .417  .365  .470  7.749  1.792  1.213  46%  56%  63%  Eigen values Cumulative Variance  .236  .803  .274  .799  .175  .705  .424  .548  63 shallowness and a general d i s r e g a r d f o r the f e e l i n g s , p e r s p e c t i v e s , or f e e l i n g s o f o t h e r s . The t h i r d f a c t o r focuses on a n t i s o c i a l behaviors and d e s c r i b e s young persons exploitive.  whose behaviors tend to be c r i m i n a l and  These f i n d i n g s , although m a r g i n a l l y d i f f e r e n t than those  presented by Hare and Harper, are not at s e r i o u s v a r i a n c e with them.  Hare  and Harper i d e n t i f i e d a 2 - f a c t o r s o l u t i o n with an o b l i q u e r o t a t i o n , made up o f a p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r ("Poverty o f a f f e c t and verbal d u p l i c i t y " ) and a b e h a v i o r a l ("Chronic a n t i s o c i a l behavior") f a c t o r . E s s e n t i a l l y , the m o t i v a t i o n f a c t o r obtained i n the present study i s made up o f items t h a t were spread across both o f Hare and Harper's f a c t o r s . One t e c h n i c a l reason f o r these minor d i f f e r e n c e s may be t h a t the analyses i n t h i s study were conducted on a 17-item v e r s i o n o f Hare's o r i g i n a l 22-item s c a l e . To f u r t h e r e v a l u a t e these d e r i v e d f a c t o r s , Cronbach alpha c o e f f i c i e n t s were computed to determine i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y among the items forming each of the sub-scales as well as the o v e r a l l 17-item s c a l e . The alpha c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r the m o t i v a t i o n a l , moral sentiment, and behavioral s c a l e s were .88, .85, and .84, r e s p e c t i v e l y . The t o t a l PCL s c a l e alpha was  .92.  These Cronbach alpha c o e f f i c i e n t s are q u i t e high, i n d i c a t i n g both i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y between items w i t h i n the o v e r a l l PCL s c a l e , and w i t h i n the items o f the three d e r i v e d s u b s c a l e s . The i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s between the three subscales were moderate, ranging from r=.52 ( m o t i v a t i o n with moral sentiment) to .68 (moral sentiment with b e h a v i o r ) . 3.4.2. Psychopathy and moral m a t u r i t y Because so many items on the PCL concern the presence or absence of a c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y , i t was e s s e n t i a l l y t r u e by d e f i n i t i o n t h a t the d e l i n q u e n t and non-delinquent s u b j e c t s would d i f f e r on t h i s measure. T h i s e x p e c t a t i o n was c l e a r l y confirmed, with the non-delinquents r e c e i v i n g a mean psychopathy r a t i n g o f 3 (SD = 4.8) and the d e l i n q u e n t s r e c e i v i n g an  64 average r a t i n g o f 26 (SD = 11.4).  Because o f heterogeneity o f v a r i a n c e ,  ( B a r t l e t - B o x F = 15.123, p_ < .001), no v a l i d t e s t s o f t h i s obvious d i f f e r e n c e c o u l d be conducted. As p r e d i c t e d , however, there was a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n ( r (60) = .41, p_ < .001) between psychopathy and immorality r a t i n g s . In view o f these and e a r l i e r r e s u l t s i n d i c a t i n g a strong r e l a t i o n between immorality r a t i n g s and the commission o f sexual crimes, a f u r t h e r attempt was a l s o made t o determine whether there was a l s o a r e l a t i o n between psychopathy and t h e presence o r absence o f such sexual o f f e n s e s .  In f a c t only s i x o f the s u b j e c t s c a t e g o r i z e d as  psychopathic had a l s o s e x u a l l y offended and an a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e r e v e a l e d t h a t sex o f f e n d e r and non-sex offenders d i d not o b t a i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t psychopathy scores, F(l,58) = 2.887, p_ = .09. When a t t e n t i o n was turned t o the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s between t h e t o t a l Psychopathy C h e c k l i s t scores and t h e s i x moral maturity measures, only Hogan's s o c i a l i z a t i o n measure was shown t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d (see Table 14). When s i m i l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p s were computed s e p a r a t e l y f o r the sex o f f e n d e r and non-sex o f f e n d e r groups the only new f i n d i n g was a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between psychopathy and autonomy f o r t h e sex o f f e n d e r s u b j e c t s . The p r e v i o u s l y reported s i g n i f i c a n t negative r e l a t i o n s h i p between psychopathy and s o c i a l i z a t i o n a l s o p e r s i s t e d f o r t h e non-sex o f f e n d e r d e l i n q u e n t s , but not f o r the sex o f f e n d e r group.  This  and other n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t may be an a r t i f a c t , however, o f t h e reduced range o f immorality r a t i n g s among t h e sex o f f e n d e r group. Given t h e general absence o f low r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the o v e r a l l index o f psychopathy and t h e moral maturity measures, a d d i t i o n a l Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n s were computed between each o f the three d e r i v e d f a c t o r s c a l e s o f psychopathy and the moral maturity measures (See Table 14). For  65 TABLE 14 C o r r e l a t i o n s between the Psychopathy Factor Scales and Measures o f Moral M a t u r i t y Psychopathy M o t i v a t i o n a l Checklist Deficit  Factor Scales Moral Sentiment  Behavioral Deviance  A l l Delinquents (n=60) Moral Reasoning  -.25*  .08  .08  Interpersonal Awareness -.03  -.16  .00  .08  S o c i a l Convention  .11  -.03  .17  .15  Empathy  .01  -.14  .08  .08  Socialization Autonomy  -.04  -.47*** .07  -.37** -.02  -.38*** .05  _ ^ 47***  .14  Non-Sex Offenders (n=42) Moral Reasoning  -.30*  -.12  .03  Interpersonal Awareness -.16  -.22  -.20  .00  S o c i a l Convention  -.02  -.09  -.02  .07  Empathy  -.20  -.23  -.14  -.14  Socialization  -.46***  -.33*  _ ^ 47***  -.43**  Autonomy  -.08  -.07  -.12  -.03  -.15  Sex Offenders (n=18) Moral Reasoning Interpersonal Awareness  .25 .29  .00  .56**  .08  .11  .45*  .17  S o c i a l Convention  .23  .22  .32  .05  Empathy  .34  .12  .29  .39  -.47*  -.56**  -.03  -.53**  .39*  .11  .37  .46*  Socialization Autonomy  O n e - t a i l e d t e s t s o f s i g n i f i c a n c e ; * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<. 001  66 reasons s i m i l a r to those o u t l i n e d e a r l i e r , these c o r r e l a t i o n s are a l s o r e p o r t e d s e p a r a t e l y f o r a l l d e l i n q u e n t s combined, non-sex o f f e n d e r d e l i n q u e n t s , and sex o f f e n d e r s . These r e s u l t s show t h a t Hogan's s o c i a l i z a t i o n s c a l e continued to show a moderately high c o r r e l a t i o n with a l l three psychopathy f a c t o r s c a l e s w i t h i n most o f these groups.  comparison  The s i n g l e exception to t h i s occured with the sex o f f e n d e r group  where moral sentiment f a c t o r scores d i d not c o r r e l a t e with s o c i a l i z a t i o n . A new f i n d i n g to emerge i n t h i s more d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s was t h a t with the sex o f f e n d e r group an unexpected p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n was observed between the moral sentiment f a c t o r and both moral reasoning and i n t e r p e r s o n a l awareness.  In other words, among the sex o f f e n d e r group the b e t t e r t h e i r  reasoning about moral dilemmas and the g r e a t e r t h e i r a b i l i t y to take the p e r s p e c t i v e o f others, the l e s s l i k e l y they are to show remorse, g u i l t , empathy, and the other d e s c r i p t o r s t h a t make up what has been l a b e l e d here the moral sentiment s c a l e . Although t h i s r e s u l t appears counteri n t u i t i v e , i t could be seen as c o n s i s t e n t with the view t h a t what psychopathic i n d i v i d u a l s l a c k are not so much s o c i a l c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s , but an i n t e r e s t i n applying these a b i l i t i e s f o r a l t r u i s t i c or p r o s o c i a l ends. The only other s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n observed was an o v e r a l l negative r e l a t i o n s h i p between moral reasoning and the f i r s t f a c t o r s c a l e , l a b e l e d m o t i v a t i o n a l d e f i c i e n c y . T h i s f i n d i n g suggests t h a t across the d e l i n q u e n t p o p u l a t i o n , or as a whole, those i n d i v i d u a l s who were r a t e d more h i g h l y on items a s s o c i a t e d with poor m o t i v a t i o n ( i . e . , proneness to boredom, i r r e s p o n s i b l e , etc.) c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y achieved lower moral reasoning scores. 3.4.3. C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f psychopaths and  non-psychopaths  I f the standard s c o r i n g convention recommended by Hare i s adopted, 16 youth from the sample o f 60 d e l i n q u e n t s would be c l a s s i f i e d as  67 psychopathic.  Using t h i s as a grouping f a c t o r , f u r t h e r i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s  were sought between t h i s dependent measure and the s i x moral maturity measures. There was a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t f o r the d i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t i o n a n a l y s i s , F (6, 72) = 5.832, p. < .001.  Table 15 h i g h l i g h t s the  r e s u l t s of t h i s a n a l y s i s which i n d i c a t e s that 70% o f the cases can be s u c c e s s f u l l y c l a s s i f i e d as psychopathic or non-psychopathic based on the d i r e c t method approach that includes a l l v a r i a b l e s i n t o the formula.  The  a b i l i t y to c l a s s i f y these youth was l a r g e l y determined, however, by Hogan's s o c i a l i z a t i o n and autonomy s c a l e s .  More s p e c i f i c a l l y , the  standardized f u n c t i o n i n d i c a t e s that a high autonomy l o a d i n g combined with negative s o c i a l i z a t i o n produce the l a r g e s t weights. Although much smaller in magnitude, the moral reasoning measure a l s o makes some c o n t r i b u t i o n to t h i s o v e r a l l formula.  S i m i l a r l y the pooled within-group  c o r r e l a t i o n s show  that only Hogan's three personologic or moral c h a r a c t e r s c a l e s r e l a t e d to the standardized f u n c t i o n , while the three c o g n i t i v e reasoning measures showed c o r r e l a t i o n s c l o s e to zero. In summary, the Psychopathy C h e c k l i s t when a p p l i e d to t h i s sample of youthful offenders showed strong psychometric  properties, divided into  three e a s i l y i n t e r p r e t a b l e c l i n i c a l s c a l e s ( i . e . , motivation, moral sentiment,  and behavior), and y i e l d e d high i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t a n c i e s  complete c h e c k l i s t and f o r the separate f a c t o r e d s c a l e s .  f o r the  The r e s u l t s  presented i n t h i s s e c t i o n do not lend support to f i n d i n g s reported by some i n v e s t i g a t o r s ( i . e . , J u r k o v i c , 1980) suggesting that psychopaths are delayed i n t h e i r moral reasoning competence compared to non-psychopathic delinquents.  The only s i n g l e moral maturity measure s i g n i f i c a n t l y  a s s o c i a t e d with psychopathy was Hogan's index of s o c i a l i z a t i o n . Here, those subjects who r e c e i v e d high psychopathy r a t i n g s were a l s o shown to be  TABLE 15 D i s c r i m i n a n t Function Analyses: C l a s s i f y i n g Psychopaths and Non-psychopaths Standardized Canonical Coefficients  Pooled within-group Correlation  Variable Autonomy  .89  .64  Socialization  -.77  -.50  .00  Empathy  .33  .13  S o c i a l Convention  .08  .15  Interpersonal Awareness  .07  Moral Reasoning  -.33  -.05  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Summary Table P r e d i c t e d Group Actual Group  Non-psychopaths  Psychopaths  31 (71%)  13 (30%)  n  Non-psychopaths  44  Psychopaths  16  5 11 (31%) (69%) 70% o f case were c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f i e d  69  more p o o r l y s o c i a l i z e d .  More d e t a i l e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the f a c t o r s c a l e s  r e v e a l e d t h a t f o r non-sex o f f e n d e r d e l i n q u e n t s , low l e v e l s o f moral reasoning were a s s o c i a t e d with low l e v e l s o f m o t i v a t i o n . Two o f Hogan's moral c h a r a c t e r v a r i a b l e s ( i . e . , autonomy and s o c i a l i z a t i o n ) served as the c h i e f p r e d i c t o r s i n c l a s s i f y i n g d e l i n q u e n t s i n t o the psychopathic and non-psychopathic groups while the three c o g n i t i v e reasoning v a r i a b l e s appeared to have l i t t l e p r e d i c t i v e u t i l i t y .  70  CHAPTER 4 Discussion The goal o f t h i s study was to explore p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s between moral m a t u r i t y and moral a c t i o n by comparing v a r i o u s i n d i c a t o r s o f moral development d e s c r i p t i v e o f young persons p o s i t i o n e d along dimensions o f i n c r e a s i n g lawlessness and p e r c e i v e d immorality.  The c o a r s e s t cut through  these data y i e l d e d r e s u l t s t h a t m i r r o r s c a t t e r e d f i n d i n g s r e p o r t e d by other i n v e s t i g a t o r s demonstrating d i f f e r e n c e s between d e l i n q u e n t and nond e l i n q u e n t s on one or another measure o f moral m a t u r i t y .  The present  f i n d i n g s d i f f e r e d from p r e v i o u s l y r e p o r t e d r e s u l t s gleaned from e a r l i e r u n i v a r i a t e s t u d i e s p a r t i a l l y as a consequence of the f a c t t h a t a broader manifold o f moral m a t u r i t y measures was c o n s i d e r e d .  The general p i c t u r e  t h a t emerged was t h a t , by almost every standard o f measurement evaluated, the non-delinquent s u b j e c t s showed more evidence o f moral m a t u r i t y than d i d t h e i r d e l i n q u e n t c o u n t e r p a r t s . Here, the n o v e l t y o f the present r e s u l t s l i e , not so much i n once again demonstrating the i n d i v i d u a l e f f i c a c y o f c e r t a i n o f these separate p r e d i c t o r v a r i a b l e s , but i n the aggregate p i c t u r e t h a t emerged from t h e i r simultaneous c o n s i d e r a t i o n . Subsequent to these " e i t h e r - o r " comparisons, a f u r t h e r s e r i e s of analyses was undertaken i n an e f f o r t to determine the extent to which these same i n d i c a t o r s o f moral maturity were p r e d i c t i v e o f the degree to which p a r t i c u l a r adolescents had strayed from usual moral or l e g a l standards.  Here, the u n a n t i c i p a t e d f a c t t h a t almost a l l of the d e l i n q u e n t  s u b j e c t s whose o f f e n s e s were r a t e d as most m o r a l l y r e p r e h e n s i b l e a l s o proved to have been c o n v i c t e d o f sexual crimes intruded i n t o the  71 p r e v i o u s l y planned comparisons, and f o r c e d c e r t a i n m o d i f i c a t i o n s i n the a n t i c i p a t e d data a n a l y s i s s t r a t e g y .  Despite t h i s e v e n t u a l i t y , two major  c l a s s e s o f f i n d i n g s s t i l l emerged. F i r s t , as a n t i c i p a t e d , a l l but one o f the moral maturity measures d i d prove t o p r e d i c t t o the degree o f seriousness and immorality, as well as the simple presence o r absence o f delinquent a c t s .  Further, other o f these r e s u l t s went some d i s t a n c e  toward e s t a b l i s h i n g that adolescents convicted o f sexual o f f e n s e s  possess  a unique, but s t i l l i n t e r p r e t a b l e , pattern o f moral development difficulties.  F i n a l l y , the r e s u l t s are seen t o make some c o n t r i b u t i o n t o  f u r t h e r i n g our understanding interpreting juvenile  o f the s t r u c t u r e and place o f psychopathy i n  delinquency.  In the pages that f o l l o w each o f these matters are taken up i n f u r t h e r d e t a i l and e f f o r t s are made t o d i s c u s s t h e i r p o t e n t i a l relevance, both as a means o f b e t t e r understanding  delinquent behavior and as a t o o l i n  d e c i p h e r i n g the t h e o r e t i c place o f moral development i n accounting f o r a n t i s o c i a l behavior.  Following a f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f these  matters,  a t t e n t i o n i s turned t o a f i n a l d i s c u s s i o n o f some o f the perceived l i m i t a t i o n s o f the present study and an e x p l o r a t i o n o f the relevance o f these f i n d i n g s as a guide t o f u t u r e research. 4.1. Delinquents versus Non-Delinquents: A c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f c a t e g o r i c f i n d i n g s and t h e i r relevance f o r the moral developmental process As d e t a i l e d i n s e c t i o n 1.1.1, previous research i n t o the p o t e n t i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n o f measures o f moral maturity t o an understanding o f delinquent behavior has tended t o be u n i v a r i a t e i n i t s conception, s e p a r a t e l y t r a c i n g out the p o s s i b l e p r e d i c t i v e or t h e o r e t i c a l relevance o f i n d i v i d u a l d e s c r i p t o r s o f moral maturity.  What i s o b v i o u s l y l o s t i n a l l  such s i n g l e focus i n q u i r i e s i s a broader conception o f the i n t e r a c t i o n and r e l a t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f the several d i f f e r e n t dimensions that together  72 c o n s t i t u t e the present f u l l e r manifold o f moral m a t u r i t y i n d i c a t o r s . The multidimensional approach to the measurement o f moral m a t u r i t y adopted i n t h i s study provides a p a r t i a l c o r r e c t i v e to such more narrowly conceived efforts.  In p a r t i c u l a r , i t i s p l a i n from an examination o f the r e s u l t s o f  t h i s study t h a t the d e f i c i t s i n moral development c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f the present d e l i n q u e n t sample tend to be broadly based and evident i n e s s e n t i a l l y a l l o f the dimensions o f measurement c o n s i d e r e d .  That i s ,  whether one c o n s i d e r s knowledge o f s o c i a l convention, i n t e r p e r s o n a l awareness, moral reasoning maturity, s o c i a l i z a t i o n or i n d i c e s o f autonomy, the d e l i n q u e n t s u b j e c t s o f t h i s study were found to be c o n s i s t e n t l y i n developmental  a r r e a r s . These d i f f e r e n c e s were a l l found to p e r s i s t , even  when the IQ d i f f e r e n t i a l t h a t a l s o c h a r a c t e r i z e d these groups  was  s t a t i s t i c a l l y c o n t r o l l e d . Only the empathy measure f a i l e d to s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i s c r i m i n a t e the d e l i n q u e n t and non-delinquent groups, but even t h i s v a r i a b l e showed a trend toward s i g n i f i c a n c e , suggesting what amounts to an across-the-board d e f i c i t i n moral m a t u r i t y f o r the delinquent subjects. When e f f o r t s were made to explore the i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s among these separate moral m a t u r i t y measures, the p i c t u r e t h a t emerged, from both the d i s c r i m i n a n t and p r i n c i p a l components analyses, was t h a t two  independent  c l u s t e r s o f measures d i f f e r e n t l y c h a r a c t e r i z e these s u b j e c t s .  In the  f i r s t i n s t a n c e , a l l o f the more c o g n i t i v e l y o r i e n t e d measures ( i . e . , Kohlberg's moral reasoning measure, T u r i e l ' s measure o f conventional s o c i a l knowledge, and Selman's i n t e r p e r s o n a l awareness) t i g h t l y co-varied.  These same r e l a t i o n s appear to hold whether one c o n s i d e r s a l l  s u b j e c t s simultaneously, or examines the d e l i n q u e n t and groups s e p a r a t e l y .  non-delinquent  Results based upon t h i s c o g n i t i v e f a c t o r i n d i c a t e  t h a t , i n comparison to t h e i r non-delinquent age mates, the d e l i n q u e n t  73 s u b j e c t s s u f f e r e d a g e n e r a l i z e d i n a b i l i t y t o reason about matters r e l e v a n t to the making o f moral d e c i s i o n s . The second f a c t o r , comprised o f Hogan's s o c i a l i z a t i o n , empathy and autonomy measures, p o i n t s to a separate f a i l i n g on the p a r t o f the d e l i n q u e n t s u b j e c t s to achieve what Hogan and others have d e s c r i b e d as a robust "moral c h a r a c t e r . " That i s , as a group, the d e l i n q u e n t s u b j e c t s f e l l d e c i d e d l y below p u b l i s h e d normative standards and the present non-delinquent comparison group i n t h e i r concerns f o r the f e e l i n g s o f o t h e r s , t h e i r commitment to commonly shared s o c i a l v a l u e s , and t h e i r sense o f s e l f - u n d e r s t a n d i n g and personal autonomy. The t i g h t c l u s t e r i n g of these two separate s e t s o f p r e d i c t o r v a r i a b l e s was evidenced not only by t h e i r high l o a d i n g s on the separate f a c t o r s to which they r e l a t e , but a l s o i n t h e i r e s s e n t i a l i n t e r c h a n g e a b i l i t y as d i s c r i m i n a t o r s o f the d e l i n q u e n t and non-delinquent subgroups.  A l l of  these f i n d i n g s speak a g a i n s t the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t moral m a t u r i t y i s best viewed as being o f a s i n g l e p i e c e and are understood i n s t e a d to be more c o n s i s t e n t with the c l a i m o f i n v e s t i g a t o r s such as B l a s i (1983, 1980), Brown (1965), Hogan (1982), J u r k o v i c (1980), and others who argue f o r the multidimensional nature o f moral development and the n e c e s s i t y o f adopting m u l t i v a r i a t e approaches to i t s assessment. One important note o f c a u t i o n i s r e q u i r e d , however, before too much confidence i s placed i n the two-factor s o l u t i o n t h a t emerged from these data.  In a d d i t i o n to whatever actual communalities might hold between the  three c o g n i t i v e and the three p e r s o n a l i t y measures s t u d i e d , i t i s a l s o t r u e t h a t Kohlberg's, T u r i e l ' s , and Selman's c o g n i t i v e measures a l l r e l y upon d e t a i l e d c l i n i c a l i n t e r v i e w procedures, while Hogan's measures o f s o c i a l i z a t i o n , empathy and autonomy are a l l based upon paper-and-pencil s c a l e s composed of simple t r u e - f a l s e statements.  As was made c l e a r i n the  c l a s s i c paper by Campbell and F i s k e (1959), under such measurement  74  c o n d i t i o n s r e s p o n s i b l i t y f o r the appearance o f separate f a c t o r s o r c l u s t e r s o f s c a l e s sometimes can be t r a c e d t o the presence o f common method v a r i a n c e r a t h e r than any t r u e r e l a t i o n between the d i f f e r e n t t r a i t s or a b i l i t i e s under study.  A f u l l t e s t o f t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y would r e q u i r e  access t o c u r r e n t l y u n a v a i l a b l e measures which used i n t e r v i e w techniques f o r a s s e s s i n g Hogan's p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t v a r i a b l e s and paper and p e n c i l t e s t s f o r indexing the more c o g n i t i v e dimensions o f moral m a t u r i t y . Unless o r u n t i l such measures are a v a i l a b l e , any attempt t o i n t e r p r e t the r e l a t i o n s o f the s i x measures employed i n t h i s study must be viewed with extreme c a u t i o n . 4.2. R e l a t i o n s h i p between the moral maturity measures and the seriousness and immorality o f delinquent acts A second major goal o f t h i s study was t o attempt t o determine the extent t o which the measures already shown t o d i s c r i m i n a t e d e l i n q u e n t from non-delinquent subjects could a l s o serve t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e those d e l i n q u e n t s who had committed more and l e s s s e r i o u s o f f e n s e s .  This  i n q u i r y was undertaken i n two d i s t i n c t but r e l a t e d ways, r e l y i n g i n one case upon conventional d i s t i n c t i o n s between s t a t u s , property, and person o f f e n d e r s and i n the other by undertaking t o develop a d i r e c t index o f the p e r c e i v e d immorality o f various delinquent o f f e n s e s .  While s u c c e s s f u l  o v e r a l l , these e f f o r t s proved t o be l e s s s t r a i g h t forward than a n t i c i p a t e d f o r two d i f f e r e n t s e t s o f reasons.  F i r s t , while a l a r g e panel o f judges  apparently understood the task o f r a t i n g d e l i n q u e n c i e s i n terms o f t h e i r l e v e l o f perceived immorality, and were able t o make such judgments i n h i g h l y c o n s i s t e n t ways, they tended, i n the end, t o use only a p o r t i o n o f the f i v e - p o i n t r a t i n g s c a l e provided, ranking most o f the o f f e n s e s i n question as q u i t e high on the dimension o f immorality.  The v a r i a n c e o f  these judgments would have been increased a u t o m a t i c a l l y i f a f o r c e d  75 d i s t r i b u t i o n had been imposed on the r a t e r s . For the present e x p l o r a t o r y purpose, however, i t was f e l t more a p p r o p r i a t e to permit the judges to employ the s c a l e as they saw f i t and to allow the immorality r a t i n g assigned to each o f these o f f e n s e s to f i n d i t s own p l a c e w i t h i n the f i v e p o i n t s c a l e . The consequence o f t h i s d e c i s i o n was to f o r c e the search f o r d i s c r i m i n a t i n g p r e d i c t o r v a r i a b l e s to operate w i t h i n a dense and t i g h t l y packed s e t o f r a t i n g s o f o f f e n s e c a t e g o r i e s only minimally separated from one another.  The f a c t t h a t strong c o v a r i a t i o n s were s t i l l  observed  between t h i s immorality measure and f i v e o f the s i x moral m a t u r i t y measures suggests t h a t the small d i f f e r e n c e i n immorality t h a t d i v i d e these v a r i o u s o f f e n s e s are p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y r e a l .  At the same time,  however, the present f i n d i n g s might have proved even more compelling e i t h e r i f there had been more v a r i a b i l i t y i n the immorality r a t i n g s , or i f a f u l l e r compliment o f more and l e s s immoral acts had been i n c l u d e d . Secondly, as was already d e s c r i b e d i n d e t a i l i n s e c t i o n 3.3.2, the present subset o f d e l i n q u e n t youth whose o f f e n s e s were r a t e d as most immoral proved to be made up almost e x c l u s i v e l y of young persons whose crimes were sexual i n nature.  While c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e  s t a t i s t i c s do not make i t p o s s i b l e to determine the exact base r a t e o f such sexual o f f e n s e s i n the p o p u l a t i o n of d e l i n q u e n t s from which t h i s sample was drawn, i t i s l i k e l y the case t h a t such o f f e n s e s do not t y p i c a l l y represent a t h i r d o f any randomly s e l e c t e d group o f young offenders.  The most l i k e l y reason f o r t h e i r o v e r - r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n the  present sample i s t h a t the Morrison Center, under whose auspices these s u b j e c t s were secured, i s mandated to provide p s y c h o l o g i c a l treatment to those d e l i n q u e n t youth judged most l i k e l y to p r o f i t from t h e r a p e u t i c interventions.  Youthful o f f e n d e r s whose crimes are seen to be r i c h i n  psychodynamic i m p l i c a t i o n s are consequently l i k e l y to be e n r o l l e d i n t h i s  76 program. Sexual crimes e s p e c i a l l y f i t t h i s b i l l o f p a r t i c u l a r s , l e a d i n g to what i s assumed to be an o v e r - r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f such o f f e n d e r s i n the present sample. Had i t proved to be the case t h a t t h i s s p e c i a l group o f d e l i n q u e n t s , whose crimes ranged from n o n - v i o l e n t sexual acts to f o r c i b l e rape, were broadly d i s t r i b u t e d across the range o f immorality r a t i n g s , then the impact o f t h i s l i k e l y sampling b i a s might have proved to be minimal. i t was, however, t h i s group was uniformly r a t e d as having  As  committed  e s p e c i a l l y "immoral" o f f e n s e s . The e f f e c t o f t h i s r a t i n g p r a c t i c e was to r e s e r v e the upper end o f the immorality r a t i n g s c a l e f o r t h i s sex o f f e n d e r group, producing what could have proven to be a s e r i o u s confound. end, the e a r l y d i s c o v e r y of t h i s sampling anomaly, and the  In the  subsequent  d e c i s i o n o f s e p a r a t i n g out the sex o f f e n d e r group f o r independent analyses, made i t p o s s i b l e to both t e s t c e r t a i n of the o r i g i n a l  hypothses  in a s l i g h t l y modified form and, s e r e n d i p t i o u s l y , to g a i n some i n s i g h t s i n t o t h i s s p e c i a l p o p u l a t i o n o f sexual o f f e n d e r s . Two general c l a s s e s o f f i n d i n g s emerged from these analyses: 1) as hypothesized, d e l i n q u e n t s whose o f f e n s e s were not o f a sexual nature showed delays on most measures of moral development,  and these moral  m a t u r i t y problems proved to be r e l a t e d to the p e r c e i v e d immorality o f t h e i r o f f e n s e s ; whereas 2) the sex o f f e n d e r group evidenced no such delays on the c o g n i t i v e measures o f moral reasoning but, l i k e t h e i r other d e l i n q u e n t c o u n t e r p a r t s d i d show s p e c i a l impairments on measures of socialization. These and other o f the present f i n d i n g s can be l e n t a d d i t i o n a l i n t e r p r e t i v e meaning by s e t t i n g the c o g n i t i v e and p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s i d e n t i f i e d i n t o rough correspondence to Heider's (1958) c l a s s i c accounts o f "can" and " t r y . "  According to Heider, every a c t i o n (and here the focus  77 i s upon morally r e l e v a n t action) can be understood as the m u l t i p l i c a t i v e product o f the c a p a c i t y or a b i l i t y to perform that act (can) and the w i l l i n g n e s s or preparedness to set such c a p a c i t i e s i n t o motion ( t r y ) .  In  t h i s study, i t w i l l be argued, the c o g n i t i v e f a c t o r (defined by Kohlberg's, T u r i e l ' s , and Selman's measures) can be taken as a rough moral proxy f o r Heider's c a p a c i t y dimension, and the p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r (defined by Hogan's three p e r s o n a l i t y s c a l e s ) can be viewed as an i n d i c a t o r o f "try".  Under t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n , and c o n s i s t e n t with present f i n d i n g s , the  non-delinquent  subjects have both the c a p a c i t y and the w i l l i n g n e s s to  proceed morally, and thus remain on the r i g h t side of the law.  By  c o n t r a s t , garden-variety delinquents -- that i s , those whose offenses are non-sexual i n nature -- were found to show d e f i c i t s i n both of these c o n s t i t u e n t components of morally r e l e v a n t a c t i o n , by l a c k i n g both the c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y and the strength of moral c h a r a c t e r to s y s t e m a t i c a l l y f o l l o w s o c i a l l y p r o s c r i b e d courses of a c t i o n . Those delinquents whose offenses were sexual i n nature, however, appeared to have no d i f f i c u l t y i n understanding  the p e r s p e c t i v e s of others, i n r e c o g n i z i n g s o c i a l  conventions, or i n reasoning i n an age appropriate f a s h i o n about moral matters, but d i d appear to l a c k those commitments to " t r y " to behave w i t h i n the confines of ususal moral p e r s c r i p t i o n s . In short, non-delinquents  can and t r y to behave morally,  sexual  offenders can do so but seem not to t r y , and other delinquents appear to f a i l by both measures. Roger Brown (1965) a l l u d e s to a s i m i l a r d i s t i n c t i o n in h i s account of moral sentiment as opposed to moral knowledge. Romm Harre' (1983) a l s o has o f f e r e d a s i m i l a r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the j o i n t workings of "can" and " t r y " by r e p o r t i n g upon the formulation of moral a c t i o n s i n s o c i e t i e s which he c h a r a c t e r i z e d as abiding by "honor moralities".  By t h i s account, c e r t a i n s o c i e t i e s leave l i t t l e room f o r  78 debate about what one should and should not do, and a l l o f the v a r i a n c e i n m o r a l l y hazardous s i t u a t i o n s i s consequently taken up by the question o f whether one i s s u f f i c i e n t l y committed to such commonly understood values, to g i v e them one's best " t r y " .  Under the present i n t e r p r e t a t i o n something  l i k e t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n may be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the d i f f e r e n c e between the non-delinquent and sex o f f e n d e r groups.  Both seem to have l i t t l e doubt  about what others expect o f them. Where they part company i s along t h a t dimension o f " t r y " indexed by the s o c i a l commitments and sense o f personal autonomy t h a t Hogan d e s c r i b e s as moral c h a r a c t e r . As i s pointed out below, t h i s same p a t t e r n o f adequate s o c i a l knowledge and an absense o f m o t i v a t i o n to apply i t may a l s o help to e x p l a i n the s p e c i a l c h a r a c t e r of those d e l i n q u e n t s high i n psychopathy. To the extent t h a t such an i n t e r p r e t i v e a n a l y s i s i s supported by the present or f u t u r e data, d i f f e r e n t e t i o l o g i e s and d i f f e r e n t s o r t s o f treatment programs ( i . e . , Arbuthnot & Gordon, 1986; Gibbs, A r n o l d , Chessman, & Ahlborn, 1984) may suggest themselves as a p p r o p r i a t e to d e l i n q u e n t s c o n v i c t e d o f sexual and non-sexual crimes.  For the more  t y p i c a l d e l i n q u e n t there would appear to be developmental room f o r f u r t h e r growth  along the dimensions indexed by both the c o g n i t i v e and p e r s o n a l i t y  f a c t o r s i d e n t i f i e d i n t h i s study.  By c o n t r a s t , o f those d e l i n q u e n t s who  s e x u a l l y offended, many would appear to have l i t t l e to l e a r n about the c o g n i t i v e dimension o f moral reasoning.  Here, " t r y i n g " to put i n t o  p r a c t i c e what i s already known would seem to be the problem t h a t needs f u r t h e r work. The preceding conceptual account a l s o has apparent r e l e v a n c e to t h a t aspect o f the present data set t h a t a p p l i e s to the Psychopathy C h e c k l i s t (PCL).  The p a t t e r n o f obtained r e l a t i o n between t h i s measure and the  remaining s e t o f moral maturity i n d i c a t o r s suggest t h a t , l i k e the sexual  79  o f f e n d e r group, those r a t e d high on psychopathy a l s o showed developmental delays on Hogan's s o c i a l i z a t i o n s c a l e , the p r i n c i p a l c o n t r i b u t o r to the " t r y " as opposed to the "can" f a c t o r d e t a i l e d above. Despite t h i s s i m i l a r i t y to the sex o f f e n d e r s , there was l i t t l e a c t u a l o v e r l a p i n the membership o f these groups.  Only s i x o f the psychopathic s u b j e c t s had  committed sexual crimes and i n general the sex-offenders obtained n e i t h e r higher nor lower psychopathy scores than d i d other d e l i n q u e n t s . What i s implied i n t h i s p a t t e r n i n g o f s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s i s t h a t being c o g n i t i v e l y capable o f f u n c t i o n i n g i n morally mature ways (can), but p o o r l y prepared c h a r a c t e r o l o g i c a l l y to apply t h a t knowledge ( t r y ) , has more than one p o s s i b l e consequence,  and i s e q u a l l y d e s c r i p t i v e o f the  otherwise u n r e l a t e d psychopathic and sex o f f e n d e r group.  What i s not  apparent from the data c u r r e n t l y i n hand i s how these two groups d i f f e r i n other aspects o f t h e i r c u r r e n t p s y c h o l o g i c i a l development,  or t h e i r f u t u r e  prospects. 4.3. L i m i t a t i o n s and f u t u r e d i r e c t i o n s While the f o r e g o i n g d i s c u s s i o n has touched upon c e r t a i n o f the procedural l i m i t a t i o n s of t h i s study, along with suggestions as to how these shortcomings might be c o r r e c t e d i n f u t u r e r e s e a r c h , these c a u t i o n s and f u t u r e prospects need to be drawn together and l i s t e d out as a guard a g a i n s t any p o t e n t i a l misreading o f what has been and what s t i l l needs to be accomplished. The f i r s t s e r i o u s l i m i t a t i o n o f t h i s study arose as a f u n c t i o n o f the f a c t t h a t the d e l i n q u e n t sample proved to c o n t a i n r e l a t i v e l y few s u b j e c t s who had committed s e r i o u s crimes a g a i n s t persons t h a t were other than sexual i n nature.  The p o t e n t i a l relevance of t h i s e v e n t u a l i t y was f u r t h e r  compounded by the f a c t t h a t the sex o f f e n d e r group proved to be unique i n ways other than the r a t e d seriousness or immorality of t h e i r crimes,  80 r e q u i r i n g t h a t they be i s o l a t e d and t r e a t e d s e p a r a t e l y i n c e r t a i n o f the a n a l y s e s . One consequence o f the separate treatment o f t h i s sex o f f e n d e r group was to c u r t a i l the range o f the seriousness and immorality r a t i n g s . Despite t h i s f a c t , most o f the hypothesized r e l a t i o n s between these i n d i c e s o f moral m a t u r i t y and the c r i t e r i a l measures were supported.  It  seems reasonable to assume, however, t h a t these r e l a t i o n s would have gained i n s t r e n g t h and c l a r i t y had a l a r g e r sample o f d e l i n q u e n t s been i n c l u d e d whose o f f e n s e s were judged to be immoral without a l s o being sexual i n nature.  A f u r t h e r t e s t o f t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y c o n s t i t u t e s one  clear d i r e c t i o n for future research. A second aspect o f the f i n d i n g s reported here t h a t r e q u i r e s a d d i t i o n a l a t t e n t i o n i s the two-factor s o l u t i o n t h a t emerged from the p r i n c i p a l components a n a l y s i s o f the s i x moral m a t r u i t y measures. The i n t e r p r e t i v e problem a s s o c i a t e d with t h i s r e s u l t centers on the p o t e n t i a l confound produced by the f a c t t h a t the v a r i o u s s c a l e s t h a t compose the c o g n i t i v e and c h a r a c t e r o l o g i c f a c t o r s t h a t emerged were not o n l y c o n c e p t u a l l y but m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y r e l a t e d . What i s not known i s whether a s i m i l a r f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e would r e s u l t i f whatever method v a r i a n c e t h a t was present could be d i s a s s o c i a t e d from the c o n s t r u c t s o f i n t e r e s t . Accomplishing t h i s purpose would r e q u i r e the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f pencil-and-paper measures o f c o g n i t i v e reasoning competencies and s t r u c t u r e d c l i n i c a l i n t e r v i e w methods capable o f q u a l i t a t i v e l y a s s e s s i n g moral c h a r a c t e r . Although there have been attempts to develop more o b j e c t i v e measures Kohlberg' stages o f moral reasoning ( i . e . , Rest, 1979; Gibbs & Widaman, 1982), these procedures have evidenced only moderate concurrent v a l i d i t y .  No s i m i l a r attempts have  been made to develop paper-and-pencil measures o f s o c i a l r o l e - t a k i n g or s o c i a l convention understanding, or to produce i n t e r v i e w measures o f a s s e s s i n g moral c h a r a c t e r t r a i t s o f i n t e r e s to Hogan.  In the absence of  81 such assessment t o o l s the p o s s i b i l i t y remains t h a t the c l e a r breakdown of moral m a t u r i t y i n t o the dimensions o f "can" and " t r y " observed i n t h i s study may prove to be an a r t i f a c t o f measurement c o n s t r a i n t s . T h i r d , i t i s important to work to f u r t h e r extend the e f f o r t s i n i t i a t e d in t h i s study to develop procedures f o r e v a l u a t i n g the immorality o f v a r i o u s d e l i n q u e n c i e s and, i f p o s s i b l e , to draw out the d i f f e r e n c e s t h a t d i v i d e such r a t i n g s from any simpler measure o f s e r i o u s n e s s .  In the  c u r r e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n , the data showed t h a t the immorality r a t i n g s obtained were c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d with s e r i o u s n e s s . While i t may prove to be the case t h a t conventional l e g a l c a t e g o r i e s o f s e r i o u s n e s s are " n a t u r a l l y t i e d " to perceptions of the immorality o f such crimes, i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t the apparent redundancy of these measures i s an a r t i f a c t o f certain  measurement r e s t r i c t i o n s i n t h i s study.  A l t e r n a t i v e designs  engineered to t e s t t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y could e a s i l y be implemented.  The use  of Q-sort or p a i r e d comparison s t r a t e g i e s , f o r example, would n e c e s s a r i l y extend the v a r i a b i l i t y o f obtained immorality r a t i n g s , i n c r e a s i n g the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h i s m e t r i c might depart from simpler s e r i o u s n e s s . A l t e r n a t i v e l y , without i n t e n d i n g to f a u l t the r a t e r s who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s study, i t may have been the case t h a t the teachers and counselors who provided the immorality r a t i n g s were p o o r l y prepared to maintain a c l e a r conceptual d i s t i n c t i o n between how i l l e g a l and how immoral any p a r t i c u l a r d e l i n q u e n t act might be.  Some other panel o f "experts" b e t t e r schooled i n  what c o n s t i t u t e s c l e a r d e f i n i t i o n s o f immorality, might succeed where others have f a i l e d i n d i s c r i m i n a t i n g these c o n c e p t u a l l y separate but p r a c t i c a l l y r e l a t e d matters.  In any case, the i n i t i a l promise shown by  these f i r s t e f f o r t s to array d e l i n q u e n c i s along a dimension o f immorality suggests the merits o f devoting a d d i t i o n a l research e f f o r t s to f u r t h e r developing such measures.  82 F i n a l l y , the data produced by Hare's Psychopathy C h e c k l i s t was i n t e r p r e t i v e l y r i c h , but somewhat at v a r i a n c e with the f i n d i n g s o f other studies.  In p a r t i c u l a r the Psychopathy C h e c k l i s t was found to be  n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d to Hogan's s o c i a l i z a t i o n s c a l e and n e g a t i v e l y a s s o c i a t e d with general immorality r a t i n g s . The p r i n c i p a l components a n a l y s i s computed on these data d i d , however, y i e l d a t h r e e - f a c t o r s o l u t i o n , d i f f e r e n t than t h a t r e p o r t e d by Hare and Harper (1987). f a c t s may be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r these d i f f e r e n c e s .  Two  F i r s t , i n s p i t e o f the  c l e a r c l i n i c a l i n t e r p r e t a b i l i t y o f the d e r i v e d f a c t o r s c a l e s and t h e i r high i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y , r e s t r i c t i o n s i n the present sample s i z e , the p o t e n t i a l h e t e r o g e n e i t y of the d e l i n q u e n t sample, and p o t e n t i a l r a t i n g bias by the t h e r a p i s t s may have r e s u l t e d i n a f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e unique to t h i s sample.  Forth (1987), f o r example, was unable to o b t a i n the  i d e n t i c a l f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e with another s l i g h t l y l a r g e r sample o f i n c a r c e r a t e d youth.  Future research which employed l a r g e r sample s i z e s  and had a broader compliment o f d e l i n q u e n t subtypes would be r e q u i r e d to f u l l y t e s t the s t a b i l i t y o f the present f i n d i n g s . A l l o f the above l i m i t a t i o n s a s i d e , the r e s u l t s o f the present study are seen to go some important d i s t a n c e toward demonstrating t h a t knowledge r e g a r d i n g an i n d i v i d u a l ' s progress toward moral m a t u r i t y i s a powerful p r e d i c t o r , not only o f the prospect o f d e l i n q u e n t behaviors, but a l s o o f the degree to which such d e l i n q u e n c i e s depart from commonly accepted standards o f morality.  83 References American P s y c h i a t r i c A s s o c i a t i o n . (1986). D i a g n o s t i c and s t a t i s t i c a l manual 111-R. Washington D.C.: American P s y c h i a t r i c A s s o c i a t i o n . Arbuthnot, J . , & Gordon, D. A. (1986). Behavioral and c o g n i t i v e e f f e c t s of a moral reasoning developmental i n t e r v e n t i o n f o r h i g h - r i s k behaviord i s o r d e r e d adolescents. Journal o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 54> 208-216. Baldwin, J . M. (1906). Mental development i n the c h i l d and the race. (3d ed., r e v i s e d ) , New York: MacMillan. Bartz, W. R., & Loy, D. L. (1970). The S h i p l e y - H a r t f o r d as a b r i e f I.Q. screening d e v i c e . Journal o f C l i n i c a l Psychology, 26, 74-75. B l a s i , A. (1980). B r i d g i n g moral c o g n i t i o n and moral a c t i o n : A review o f the l i t e r a t u r e . Psychological B u l l e t i n . 88. 1-45.  critical  B l a s i , A (1983). Moral c o g n i t i o n and moral a c t i o n : A t h e o r e t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e . Developmental Review. 3, 178-210. Brown, R. (1965). S o c i a l psychology. New York: Free Press. Campagna, H. F., & Harter, S. (1975). Moral judgment i n s o c i o p a t h i c and normal c h i l d r e n . Journal o f P e r o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 31, 199-205. Campbell, D. T., & F i s k e , D. W. (1959). Convergent and d i s c r i m i n a n t v a l i d a t i o n by m u l t i t r a i t - m u l t i m e t h o d matix. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 56, 81-105. Chandler, M. J . (1972). Egocentrism i n normal and p a t h o l o g i c a l childhood development. In F. Monks, W. Hartup, & J . DeWitt (Eds.) Determinants o f behavioral development. New York: Academic Press. Chandler, M. J . (1973). Egocentrism and a n t i s o c i a l behavior: The assessment and t r a i n i n g o f s o c i a l p e r s p e c t i v e - t a k i n g s k i l l s . Developmental Psychology. 9, 326-332. Chandler, M. J . , Greenspan, S., & Barenboim, C. (1974). Assessment and t r a i n i n g o f r o l e - t a k i n g and r e f e r e n t i a l communication s k i l l s i n i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d emotionally d i s t u r b e d c h i l d r e n . Developmental Psychology. 10, 546-553. C l e c k l y , H. (1976). The mask o f s a n i t y . (5th ed.). St L o u i s : Mosby. Cohen, J . (1960) A c o e f f i c i e n t o f agreement f o r nominal s c a l e s . Eduactional and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46. Colby, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1987). The measurement o f moral judgment ( V o l s . 1-2). New York:Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press.  84 Colby, A., Kohlberg, L., Gibbs, J . , & Lieberman, M. (1983). A l o n g i t u d i n a l study o f moral development. Monographs o f the S o c i e t y f o r the Research in C h i l d Development. 48(200). Fodor, E. M. (1972). Delinquency and s u s c e p t a b i l i t y t o s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e among adolescents as a f u n c t i o n o f l e v e l o f moral development. Journal o f S o c i a l Psychology. 86, 257-260. Fodor, E. M. (1973). Moral development and parent behavior antecedents i n adolescent psychopaths. Journal o f Genetic Psychology. 122, 37-43. Forth, A. (1987). The contingent negative v a r i a t i o n i n t h e psychopath. Unpublished masters t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia. Gibbs, J . C , A r n o l d , K. D., Cheesman, F. L., & Ah 1 born, H. H. (1984). F a c i l i t a t i o n o f sociomoral reasoning i n d e l i n q u e n t s . Journal o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 52, 37-45. Gibbs, J . C , & Wideman, K.F. (1982) S o c i a l i n t e l l i g e n c e : Measuring the development o f sociomoral r e f l e c t i o n . Englewood C l i f f s , NJ: P r e n t i c e Hall. G o t t r e i d , A. W. (1985). Measures o f socioeconomic s t a t u s i n c h i l d development r e s e a r c h : Data and recommendations. M e r r i l l - P a l m e r Q u a r t e r l y . 31, 85-92. Gough, H. G. (1948). A s o c i o l o g i c a l theory o f psychopathy. American Jounal o f S o c i o l o g y . 53, 359-366. Gough, H. G. (1953). What determines the academic achievement o f high school students? Journal o f Educational Research. 46, 321-331. Gough, H. G. (1957). Manual f o r the C a l i f o r n i a P e r s o n a l i t y Inventory. Palo A l t o : C o n s u l t i n g P s y c h o l o g i s t s Press. G r e i g e r , K. M., & T u r i e l , E. (1983). D i s r u p t i v e school behavior and concepts o f s o c i a l convention i n e a r l y adolescence. Journal o f Educational Psychology. 75, 667-685. Hare, R. (1980). A research s c a l e f o r the assessment o f psychopathy i n c r i m i n a l p o p u l a t i o n s . P e r s o n a l i t y and I n d i v i d u a l D i f f e r e n c e s . 1, 111-119. Hare, R. (1983). Diagnosis o f a n t i s o c i a l p e r s o n a l i t y d i s o r d e r i n two p r i s o n p o p u l a t i o n s . American Journal o f P s y c h i a t r y . 140. 887-890. Hare, R. (1985). Comparison o f procedures f o r the assessment o f psychopathy. Journal o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 53, 7-16. Hare, R., & Harper, T. (1987) Assessment o f psychopathy. Paper presented at the annual meeting o f the Canadian P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , Vancouer. Hare, R., & McPherson, L. M. (1984). V i o l e n t and a g g r e s s i v e behavior by c r i m i n a l psychopaths. I n t e r n a t i o n a l Journal o f Law and P s y c h i a t r y . 7, 35-50.  85 Harre', R. (1983). Personal being: A theory f o r i n d i v i d u a l psychology. Oxford: B l a c k w e l l . Hart, S. (1987). Diagnosis o f psychopaths i n a f o r e n s i c p s y c h i a t r i c s e t t i n g . Unpublished masters t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia. Haviland, J . M. (1977). The p u n i t i v e b e l i e f s and behaviors o f adolescent d e l i n q u e n t boys. Developmental Psychology. 13, 677-678. Hawk, S., & Peterson, R. A. (1974). Do MMPI psychopathic deviancy scores r e f l e c t psychopathic deviancy or j u s t deviancy? Journal o f P e r s o n a l i t y Assessment. 38, 362-368. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s . H i l l d a l e , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s . Hetherington, E. M., Stouwie, R., & Ridberg, E. H. (1971). P a t t e r n s o f f a m i l y i n t e r a c t i o n and c h i l d r e a r i n g a t t i t u d e s r e l a t e d to three dimensions o f j u v e n i l e delinquency. Journal o f Abnormal Psychology. 77, 160-176. Hogan, R. (1969). Development o f an empathy s c a l e . Journal o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 33. 307-316. Hogan, R. (1970). A dimension o f moral judgment. Journal o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 35, 205-212. Hogan, R. (1982). A s o c i o a n a l y t i c theory o f p e r s o n a l i t y . In M. M. Page (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on M o t i v a t i o n ( V o l . 25). New York: Praeger. Hogan, R., & Busch, C. (1984). Moral a c t i o n as a u t o i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . In W. M. K u r t i n e s & J . L. Gewirtz, M o r a l i t y , moral behavior and moral development. New York: Wiley. Hogan, R., & Johnson, J . A., & Emler, N. P. (1978). A s o c i o a n a l y t i c theory of moral development. New D i r e c t i o n s f o r C h i l d Development, 2, 1-18. Holland, J . L. (1973). Making v o c a t i o n a l c h o i c e s : A theory o f c a r e e r s . Edgewood C l i f f s , NJ: P r e n t i c e - H a l l . H o l l i n g s h e a d , A. B. (1975). F o u r - f a c t o r index o f s o c i a l s t a t u s . Unpublished manuscript. Yale U n i v e r s i t y . Department o f S o c i o l o g y , New Haven. Hudgins, W., & P r e n t i c e , N. M. (1973). Moral judgment i n d e l i n q u e n t and nondelinquent adolescents and t h e i r mothers. Journal o f Abnormal Psychology. 82, 145-152. James, W. (1898). P r i n c i p l e s o f psychology. New York: H o l t Jennings, W. S., Kilkenny, R., & Kohlberg, L. (1983). Moral development theory and p r a c t i c e f o r y o u t h f u l and a d u l t o f f e n d e r s . In W. S. Laufer & J . M. Day ( E d s . ) , P e r s o n a l i t y theory, moral development, and c r i m i n a l behavior. Toronto: Lexington Books.  86 Jennings, W. S., & Kohlberg, L. (1983). E f f e c t s o f a j u s t community programme an the moral development o f y o u t h f u l o f f e n d e r s . Journal of Moral Education. 12, 33-50. J u r k o v i c , G. J . (1980). The j u v e n i l e d e l i n q u e n t as moral p h i l o s o p h e r : A s t r u c t u r a l - d e v e l o p m e n t a l p e r s p e c t i v e . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n . 88, 709-727. J u r k o v i c , G. J . , & P r e n t i c e , N. M. (1977). R e l a t i o n o f moral and c o g n i t i v e development to dimensions o f j u v e n i l e delinquency. Journal o f Abnormal Psychology. 86, 414-420. Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The c o g n i t i v e developmental approach to s o c i a l i z a t i o n . In D. A. G o s l i n (Ed.) Handbook o f s o c i a l i z a t i o n , theory, and r e s e a r c h . Chicago: Rand McNally. Kohlberg, L. (1971). From i s to ought: How to commit the n a t u r a l i s t i c f a l l a c y and get away with i t i n the study o f moral development. In T. Mischel (Ed.), Psychology and g e n e t i c epistomology. New York: Academic Press. Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and m o r a l i z a t i o n : The cognitive-developmental approach. In T. Lickona (Ed.) Moral development and behavior: Theory, r e s e a r c h , and s o c i a l i s s u e s . New York: H o l t , Rinehart, & Winston. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, s e l f , and s o c i e t y . Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago Press. Nucci, L. (1981). Conceptions o f personal i s s u e s : A domain d i s t i n c t from moral and s o c i e t a l concepts. C h i l d Development. 52, 114-121. Quay, H. C , Peterson, D. R., & C o n s a l v i , C. (1960). The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of three p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s i n j u v e n i l e delinquency. Journal o f C o n s u l t i n g Psychology. 24, 555. Rest, J . (1979). Development i n j u d g i n g moral i s s u e s . M i n n e a p o l i s : U n i v e r s i t y o f Minnesota Press. Robbins, L. N. (1966). Deviant c h i l d r e n grown UP. B a l t i m o r e : W i l l i a m s and Wilkins. R o s s i , P. H., Waite, E., Bose, C. E., & Berk, R. E. (1975). The s e r i o u s n e s s o f crimes: Normative s t r u c t u r e s and i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s . American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. 39, 224-237. Rutter, M. (1984). J u v e n i l e delinquency: Trends and p e r s p e c t i v e s . New York: G u i l f o r d . Schroeder, M. L., Schroeder, K. G., & Hare, R. D. (1983). G e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y o f c h e c k l i s t f o r assessment o f psychopathy. Journal o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 51, 511-516. S e l l i n , J . T., & Wolfgang, M. E. (1964). The measurement o f delinquency. New York: Wiley.  87 Selman, R. (1979). A s s e s s i n g i n t e r p e r s o n a l understanding: An i n t e r v i e w and s c o r i n g manual. Harvard-Judge Baker S o c i a l Reasoning P r o j e c t , Boston. Unpublished manuscript. Selman, R. (1980). The growth o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l understanding: Developmental and c l i n i c a l a n a l y s i s . New York:Academic Press. Selman, R. (1981). The development o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l competence: The r o l e o f understanding i n conduct. Developmental Review. 1, 401-422. Selman, R. & Byrne, D. (1974). A s t r u c t u r a l - d e v e l o p m e n t a l a n a l y s i s o f l e v e l s o f r o l e - t a k i n g i n middle c h i l d h o o d . C h i l d Development, 45, 803-806. Selman, R., L a v i n , D., & B r i o n - M e i s e l s , S. (1984). Troubled c h i l d r e n ' s use o f s e l f - r e f l e c t i o n . In F. S e r a f i c a (Ed.), S o c i a l - c o g n i t i v e development in c o n t e x t . New York: G u i l f o r d Press. Thornton, D., & Reid, R. L. (1982). Moral reasoning and type o f c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e . B r i t i s h Journal of S o c i a l Psychology. 21, 231-238. T u r i e l , E. (1977). C o n f l i c t and t r a n s i t i o n i n adolescent moral development I I : The r e s o l u t i o n o f d i s e q u i l i b r i u m through s t r u c t u r a l r e o r g a n i z a t i o n . C h i l d Development. 48, 634-637. T u r i e l , E. (1978). The development o f concepts o f s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e : S o c i a l concention. In J . G l i c k & A. Clarke-Stewart (Eds.), The development of s o c i a l understanding. New York: Gardner Press. T u r i e l , E. (1983). The development o f s o c i a l knowledge. New York: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press. T u r i e l , E., & Smetana, J . G. (1984). S o c i a l Knowledge and a c t i o n : The c o o r d i n a t i o n o f domains. In W. M. K u r t i n e s s & J . L. Gewirtz (Eds.), M o r a l i t y , moral behavior, and moral development. New York: Wiley. Wadsworth, M. (1979). Roots o f delinquency: Infancy, adolescence and crime. Walker, L. J . (1980). C o g n i t i v e and p e r s p e c t i v e - t a k i n g p r e r e q u i s i t e s f o r moral development. C h i l d Development, 51, 131-139. Walker, M. A. (1978). Measuring the s e r i o u s n e s s o f crimes. B r i t i s h Journal o f Criminology. 18, 346-364. Zachary, R. A. (1986). S h i p l e y I n s t i t u t e o f L i v i n g S c a l e : Revised manual. Los Angeles: Western P s y c h o l o g i c a l S e r v i c e s .  Appendix A  Kohlberg's Moral Reasoning . Stages o f Moral Development B. H y p o t h e t i c a l Dilemmas and Question Probes C. S c o r i n g Sheet  Kohlberg's Stages o f Moral Development  89  Level I Preconventional Stage 1: "Heteronomous M o r a l i t y " What i s Right: To avoid breaking the r u l e s backed by punishment, obedience f o r i t s own sake, and a v o i d i n g p h y s i c a l damage to persons and p r o p e r t y . Reasons f o r doing r i g h t : Avoidance o f punishment, and the s u p e r i o r power o f a u t h o r i t i e s . Stage 2: " I n d i v i d u a l i s m , Instrumental Purpose, and  Exchange"  What i s Right: Following r u l e s only when i t i s to someone's immediate i n t e r e s t ; a c t i n g to meet one's own i n t e r e s t s and needs and l e t t i n g others do the same. Right i s a l s o what's f a i r , what's an equal exchange, a d e a l , an agreement. Reasons f o r doing r i g h t : To serve one's own needs or i n t e r e s t s i n a world where you have to recognize t h a t other people t h e i r i n t e r e s t s , too. Level II  Conventional  Stage 3: "Mutual Interpersonal Expectations, R e l a t i o n s h i p s , and Interpersonal Conformity" What i s Right: L i v i n g up what people g e n e r a l l y brother, f r i e n d , e t c . good motives, showing mutual r e l a t i o n s h i p s , gratitude.  to what i s expected by people c l o s e to you or expect of people i n your r o l e as son, "Being good" i s important and means having concern about o t h e r s . I t a l s o means keeping such as t r u s t , l o y a l t y , r e s p e c t and  Reasons f o r doing r i g h t : The need to be a good person i n your own eyes and those o f o t h e r s . Your c a r i n g f o r o t h e r s . B e l i e f i n the Golden Rule. D e s i r e to maintain r u l e s and a u t h o r i t y which support s t e r e o t y p i c a l good behavior. Stage 4: " S o c i a l Systems and Conscience" What i s r i g h t : F u l f i l l i n g the actual d u t i e s to which you have agreed. Laws are to be upheld except i n extreme cases where they c o n f l i c t with other f i x e d s o c i a l d u t i e s . Right i s a l s o c o n t r i b u t i n g to s o c i e t y , the group, or i n s t i t u t i o n . Reasons f o r doing r i g h t : To keep the i n s t i t u t i o n going as a whole, to avoid the breakdown i n the system " i f everyone d i d i t , " or the imperative of conscience to meet one's d e f i n e d o b l i g a t i o n s .  90 Level I I I Postconventional o r P r i n c i p l e d Stage 5: " S o c i e t a l Contract o r U t i l i t y and Individual  Rights"  What i s Right: Being aware that people hold a v a r i e t y o f values and opinions, that most values and r u l e s are r e l a t i v e t o your group. These r e l a t i v e r u l e s should u s u a l l y be upheld, however, i n the i n t e r e s t o f i m p a r t i a l i t y and because they are the s o c i a l c o n t r a c t . Some n o n r e l a t i v e values and r i g h t s l i k e l i f e and l i b e r t y , however, must be upheld i n any s o c i e t y and regardless o f majority opinion. Reasons f o r doing r i g h t : A sense o f o b l i g a t i o n t o law because o f one's s o c i a l c o n t r a c t t o make and abide by laws f o r the w e l f a r e o f a l l and f o r the p r o t e c t i o n o f a l l people's r i g h t s . A f e e l i n g o f contractual commitment, f r e e l y entered upon, t o family, f r i e n d s h i p , t r u s t , and work o b l i g a t i o n s . Concern that laws and d u t i e s be based on r a t i o n a l c a l c u l a t i o n o f o v e r a l l u t i l i t y , "the g r e a t e s t good f o r the g r e a t e s t number." Stage 6: "Universal  Ethical Principles"  What i s Right: Following self-chosen e t h i c a l p r i n c i p l e s . P a r t i c u l a r laws o r s o c i a l agreements are u s u a l l y v a l i d because they r e s t on such p r i n c i p l e s . When laws v i o l a t e these p r i n c i p l e s , one acts i n accordance with the p r i n c i p l e . P r i n c i p l e s are u n i v e r s a l p r i n c i p l e s of j u s t i c e : the e q u a l i t y o f human r i g h t s and respect f o r the d i g n i t y o f human beings as i n d i v i d u a l persons. Reasons f o r doing r i g h t : The b e l i e f as a r a t i o n a l person i n the v a l i d i t y o f universal moral p r i n c i p l e s , and a sense o f personal commitment t o them.  Note. From Kohlberg, 1976, pp.34-35.  HYPOTHETICAL DILEMMAS  91  FORM B There was a woman who had very bad cancer, and there was no treatment known t o medicine t h a t would save her. Her d o c t o r , Dr. J e f f e r s o n , knew t h a t she had only about 6 months t o l i v e . She was i n t e r r i b l e p a i n , but she was so weak t h a t an overdose o f a p a i n - k i l l e r would make h e r d i e sooner. She was almost c r a z y with p a i n , and i n h e r calm p e r i o d s she would ask Dr. J e f f e r s o n t o g i v e her enough o f the drug t o k i l l her. She s a i d she c o u l d n ' t stand t h e pain and was going t o d i e i n a few moths anyway. Although he knows t h a t m e r c y - k i l l i n g i s a g a i n s t t h e law, t h e d o c t o r t h i n k s about g r a n t i n g her request.  1. What do you t h i n k i s the problem i n t h i s s t o r y ? 2. Should Dr. J e f f e r s o n g i v e r her t h e drug t h a t would make her d i e ? Why o r why not? 3. Should t h e woman have t h e r i g h t t o make the f i n a l d e c i s i o n ? Why o r why not? 4. Is there any way a person has a duty o r an o b l i g a t i o n t o l i v e when he or she does not want t o , when the person wants t o commit s u i c i d e ? Why o r why not? 5. I t i s a g a i n s t t h e law f o r t h e d o c t o r t o g i v e the woman t h e drug. t h a t make i t m o r a l l y wrong? Why o r why not?  Does  6. In g e n e r a l , should people t r y t o do e v e r y t h i n g they can t o obey the law? Why o r why not? How does t h i s apply t o what Dr. J e f f e r s o n should do?  92 Mr. J e f f e r s o n d i d perform the m e r c y - k i l l i n g by g i v i n g the woman the drug. Passing by at the time was another d o c t o r , Dr. Togers, who knew the s i t u a t i o n Dr. J e f f e r s o n was i n . Dr. Rogers thought o f t r y i n g t o stop Dr. J e f f e r s o n , but the drug was a l r e a d y administered.  1. What do you t h i n k the problem i s i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n ? 2. Should Dr. Rogers r e p o r t Dr. J e f f e r s o n ? Why o r why not? 3. The d o c t o r does r e p o r t Dr. J e f f e r s o n . Dr. J e f f e r s o n i s brought t o court and a j u r y f i n d s Dr. J e f f e r s o n g u i l t y . I t i s up t o the judge t o determine the sentence. Should the judge g i v e Dr. J e f f e r s o n some punishment o r should he suspend the sentence and l e t Dr. J e f f e r s o n go f r e e ? Why o r why not? 4. T h i n k i n g i n terms o f s o c i e t y , should people who break t h e law be punished? Why o r why not? How does t h i s apply t o how the judge should decide?  5. The j u r y found Dr. J e f f e r s o n l e g a l l y g u i l t y o f murder. Would i t be wrong o r r i g h t f o r the judge t o g i v e him the death sentence? Why o r why not?  6. Is i t ever r i g h t t o g i v e the death sentence? Why o r why not? What are the c o n d i t i o n s when the death sentence should be given ( i f ever) i n your o p i n i o n ? Why are these c o n d i t i o n s important?  7. Dr. J e f f e r s o n was doing what h i s conscience t o l d him when he gave the woman the drug. Should a lawbreaker be punished i f he i s a c t i n g out o f conscience? Why or why not?  93 Judy was a 12-year-old g i r l . Her mother promised her t h a t she c o u l d go t o a s p e c i a l rock c o n c e r t coming t o t h e i r town i f she earned the money t o by a t i c k e d t o the c o n c e r t . She managed t o save up the $15 the t i c k e t c o s t , plus another $3. But then her mother changed her mind and t o l d Judy t h a t she had t o spend her money on new c l o t h e s f o r s c h o o l . Judy was d i s a p p o i n t e d and decided t o go t o the c o n c e r t anyway. She bought a t i c k e t and t o l d her mother t h a t she was spending the day with a f r i e n d . A week passed without her mother f i n d i n g out. Judy then t o l d her o l d e r s i s t e r , Louise, t h a t she had gone t o the concert and l i e d t o her mother about i t .  1. What do you t h i n k i s the problem i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n ? 2. Should Louise, the o l d e r s i s t e r , t e l l t h e i r mother t h a t Judy had l i e d about the money or should she keep q u i e t ? Why o r why not? 3. In wondering whether t o t e l l , Louise t h i n k s o f the f a c t t h a t Judy i s her s i s t e r . Should t h a t make a d i f f e r e n c e i n Louise's d e c i s i o n ? 4. Is the f a c t t h a t Judy earned the money h e r s e l f important i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n ? Why o r why not?  5. The mother promised Judy t h a t she c o u l d go t o the c o n c e r t i f she earned the money. Is the f a c t t h a t the mother promised important i n the the situation? Why o r why not? 6. Why i n general should a promise be kept? 7. What do you t h i n k i s the most important t h i n g a mother should be concerned about i n her r e l a t i o n s h i p t o her daughter? Why i s t h a t the most important thing? 8. What do you t h i n k i s the most important t h i n g a daughter should be concerned about i n her r e l a t i o n s h i p t o her mother? Why i s t h a t the most important t h i n g ?  Appendix B  T u r i e l ' s S o c i a l Convention Understanding A. Levels o f S o c i a l Convention B. V i g n e t t e s  TURIEL'S DEVELOPMENTAL LEVELS OF SOCIAL CONVENTION  95  Approximate Level Age 1. Convention as d e s c r i p t i v e o f s o c i a l u n i f o r m i t y . 6-7 Convention viewed as d e s c r i p t i v e o f u n i f o r m i t i e s i n behavior. Convention i s not conceived as p a r t o f s t r u c t u r e o f f u n c t i o n as s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . Convention u n i f o r m i t i e s are d e s c r i p t i v e o f what i s assumed t o e x i s t . Convention maintained t o avoid violation of empirical uniformities. 2. Negation o f convention as d e s c r i p t i v e s o c i a l u n i f o r m i t y Empirical u n i f o r m i t y not a s u f f i c i e n t b a s i s f o r m a i n t a i n i n g conventions. Conventional a c t s regarded as a r b i t r a r y . Convention i s not conceived as p a r t o f s t r u c t u r e o r f u n c t i o n of social interaction. 3. Convention as a f f i r m a t i o n o f r u l e system: e a r l y c o n c r e t e conception o f s o c i a l system. Convention seen as a r b i t r a r y and changeable. Adherence to convention based on concrete r u l e s and a u t h o r i t a t i v e e x p e c t a t i o n s . Conception o f conventional a c t s not coordinated with conception o f r u l e .  8-9  10-11  4. Negation o f convention as p a r t o f r u l e system. Convention now seen as a r b i t r a r y and changeable r e g a r d l e s s o f r u l e . E v a l u a t i o n o f r u l e p e r t a i n i n g t o conventional a c t i s c o o r d i n a t e d with e v a l u a t i o n o f the a c t . Conventions are "nothing but" s o c i a l e x p e c t a t i o n s .  12-13  5. Convention as mediated by s o c i a l system. The emergence o f systematic concepts o f s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . Convention as normative r e g u l a t i o n i n system with u n i f o r m i t y , f i x e d r o l e s and s t a t i c h i e r a r c h i c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n .  14-16  6. Negation o f convention as s o c i e t a l standards. Convention regarded as c o d i f i e d s o c i e t a l standards. U n i f o r m i t y i n convention i s not considered t o serve t h e f u n c t i o n o f m a i n t a i n i n g s o c i a l system. Conventions are "nothing but" s o c i e t a l standards t h a t e x i s t through h a b i t u a l use.  17-18  7. Conventions are c o o r d i n a t i o n o f s o c i e t a l i n t e r a c t i o n s . Conventions as u n i f o r m i t i e s t h a t are f u n c t i o n a l i n c o o r d i n a t i n g s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n s . Shared knowledge, i n the form o f conventions, among members o f s o c i a l groups f a c i l i t a t e i n t e r a c t i o n and o p e r a t i o n o f the system.  .19-25  Source: T u r i e l (1978).  96  STORY A  Peter has been brought up i n a f a m i l y i n which a l l t h e members c a l l each other by t h e i r f i r s t names. In h i s f a m i l y , i t had been acceptable f o r the c h i l d r e n t o address t h e i r parents by t h e i r f i r s t names, r a t h e r t h a t by t h e i r t i t l e s o f Mother and Father. Upon h i s a r r i v a l i n s c h o o l , he d i s c o v e r s t h a t people address teachers by t h e i r t i t l e s o r Mr. and Mrs. He decides t h a t he w i l l c a l l teachers by t h e i r f i r s t names anyway. But t h e teachers i n t h e school f e e l s t r o n g l y about being addressed f o r m a l l y and b e l i e v e t h a t t h e r u l e s should be s t r i c t l y enforced. The p r i n c i p a l t e l l s Peter t h a t he must stop c a l l i n g teachers by t h e i r f i r s t names. Peter r e f u s e s t o do so. 1.  Do you t h i n k Peter was r i g h t o r wrong t o continue c a l l i n g h i s teachers by t h e i r f i r s t names? Why?  la.  Who should g i v e i n Peter o r t h e teachers?  lb.  Is i t important t o show r e s p e c t t o teachers?  2.  Why a r e people c a l l e d by t i t l e s ? Do you t h i n k i t matters whether people a r e c a l l e d by t h e i r t i t l e s ?  3.  Why do r u l e s about t i t l e s e x i s t i n schools?  4.  Which do you t h i n k i s b e t t e r ? Which do you p r e f e r ? To c a l l people by t h e i r f i r s t names o r by t i t l e s ?  5.  Is swearing t h e same o r d i f f e r e n t as c a l l i n g a teacher by h i s f i r s t name?  6.  Is breaking a r u l e about cheating t h e same o r d i f f e r e n t as breaking a school r u l e about using t i t l e s t o address teachers? How and why?  Why? Why?  STORY B  97  Joe was a s e n i o r i n high school who was i n the process o f d e c i d i n g what he wanted t o do a f t e r graduation. In s p i t e o f h i s parents' and r e l a t i v e s ' o b j e c t i o n s , he f e l t he would most enjoy t a k i n g care o f new born i n f a n t s i n a h o s p i t a l s e t t i n g . Joe enjoyed c a r i n g f o r babies, and f e l t t h a t t h i s j o b would provide him with t h e g r e a t e s t s a t i s f a c t i o n . H i s f a t h e r objected very s t r o n g l y , saying t h a t t h i s was a c a r e e r f o r a woman and t h a t Hoe would be laughed a t by everyone i f he became an i n f a n t nurse. So h i s f a t h e r d i d not want him t o do t h i s . Nevertheless, Joe went ahead and e n r o l l e d i n a course t h a t would t r a i n him t o become an i n f a n t nurse. 1.  Do you t h i n k Joe was r i g h t o r wrong i n t a k i n g t h e j o b as an i n f a n t nurse? Why?  2.  Why do you t h i n k h i s parents see t h a t j o b as a p p r o p r i a t e f o r women only?  3.  Does h i s f a t h e r have t h e r i g h t t o t e l l Hoe t h a t he can't go i n t o a c a r e e r as an i n f a n t nurse? Why?  4.  Is there any d i f f e r e n c e between breaking a custom l i k e going i n t o a t r a d i t i o n a l l y female j o b and breaking a r u l e the p r o h i b i t s s t e a l i n g ?  5.  Does f o l l o w i n g t h e career as an i n f a n t nurse have anything t o do with being a good o r bad son? Why?  STORY C  98  Bob and Ken were two lawyers who had been i n business together f o r f i v e y e a r s . They had been classmates i n c o l l e g e , and had remained good f r i e n d s ever s i n c e . Recently, however, Ken had decided t h a t he wanted t o wear casual c l o t h e s t o t h e o f f i c e , and he made up h i s mind t h a t he would do i t . Bob decided t o t a l k t o him about t h i s because he thought i t was wrong to dress i n s p o r t s c l o t h e s while being a member o f a p r o f e s s i o n a l f i r m . Bob f e l t very s t r o n g l y t h a t Ken should always wear a s u i t and t i e t o the o f f i c e , even i f he p r e f e r r e d t h e more casual s t y l e o f d r e s s . Ken i n s i s t e d t h a t he shouldn't have t o wear anything he d i d n ' t want t o . So t h i s disagreement l e d t o a very d i f f i c u l t s i t u a t i o n , s i n c e they had t o remain i n business together i n s p i t e o f t h e i r strong disagreement about dress i n in t h e o f f i c e . 1.  Do you t h i n k Ken was r i g h t o r wrong i n h i s d e c i s i o n t o continue wearing s p o r t s c l o t h e s t o t h e o f f i c e ? Why?  2.  Was i t r i g h t o r wrong f o r Bob t o expect Ken t o dress i n a p a r t i c u l a r way? Why?  3.  Is i t r i g h t o r wrong f o r people i n general t o expect others t o dress in a p a r t i c u l a r way? Why?  4.  What i f i t ' s an o f f i c e r u l e t o wear a s u i t and t i e t o t h e o f f i c e ? Was Ken r i g h t o r wrong i n breaking the r u l e ? Is i t t h e same o r d i f f e r e n t as breaking a custom?  5.  Bob argued t h a t a lawyer has c e r t a i n o b l i g a t i o n t o h i s c l i e n t s , - one i s t h a t t h e lawyer be honest and f a i r i n h i s d e a l i n g s with t h e c l i e n t , and t h e other i s t h a t the lawyer should a c t p r o f e s s i o n a l l y by wearing a s u i t and t i e t o the o f f i c e . Do you see these two o b l i g a t i o n s as e q u a l l y important? Why?  6. Do you t h i n k a person could be a good lawyer, even i f he doesn't f o l l o w t h e custom o f d r e s s i n g i n what most people regard as r i g h t f o r a p r o f e s s i o n a l ? Why?  99  Appendix C  Hogan's Scales o f Moral Development Examples o f Items C o n s t i t u t i n g the S o c i a l i z a t i o n , Empathy, and Autonomy Scales  >  100 Examples o f Hogan's moral m a t u r i t y s c a l e s Socialization 1. I t h i n k I am s t r i c t e r about r i g h t and wrong than most people. 2. I am somewhat a f r a i d o f t h e dark. 3. My home l i f e was always happy. 4. My parents o f t e n disapproved o f my f r i e n d s . 5. I o f t e n t h i n k about how I look and what impression I am making upon o t h e r s . Empathy 1. I t bothers me when something unexpected i n t e r r u p t s my d a i l y r o u t i n e . 2. I don't r e a l l y care whether people l i k e me o r d i s l i k e me. 3. I have a n a t u r a l t a l e n t t o i n f l u e n c e people. 4. Often I can't understand why I have been so c r o s s o r grouchy. 5. I l i k e t o be with a crowd p l a y jokes on one another. Autonomy 1. I l i k e t o plan out my a c t i v i t i e s i n advance. 2. I always t r y t o do a t l e a s t a l i t t l e b e t t e r than what i s expected of me. 3. I o f t e n g e t d i s g u s t e d with myself. 4. I don't seem t o care what happens t o me. 5. I t h i n k I would l i k e t o be a school teacher. D e r i v a t i o n o f s c a l e s . The s o c i a l i z a t i o n and autonomy s c a l e s were taken from t h e CPI and the empathy s c a l e c o n s i s t s o f 31 items from the CPI, 25 items from the MMPI, and 6 a d d i t i o n a l items adopted from I n s t i t u t e o f P e r s o n a l i t y Assessment and Research (IPAR).  Appendix D  Selman's S o c i a l P e r s p e c t i v e Taking A. Stages of Interpersonal Awareness B. F r i e n d s h i p Story and Question Probes D. Scoring Sheet  102 STAGES OF INTERPERSONAL AWARENESS Conceptions o f Close Dyadic F r i e n d s h i p s Stage 0 - Momentary p h y s i c a l i s t i c playmates. Dyadic f r i e n d s h i p r e l a t i o n s are based on t h i n k i n g which focuses upon p r o p i n q u i t y and p r o x i m i t y ( i . e . , p h y s i c a l i s t i c parameters) t o the i n c l u s i o n o f o t h e r s . A c l o s e f r i e n d i s someone who l i v e s c l o s e by and with whom the s e l f happens t o be p l a y i n g with a t the moment. F r i e n d s h i p i s more a c c u r a t e l y playmateship. Issues such as j e a l o u s y o r the i n t r u s i o n o f a t h i r d p a r t y i n t o a p l a y s i t u a t i o n are c o n s t r u c t e d by the c h i l d at Stage 0 as s p e c i f i c f i g h t s over s p e c i f i c toys o r space r a t h e r than as f i g h t s which i n v o l v e personal f e e l i n g s . Stage 1 - One-way a s s i s t a n c e . F r i e n d s h i p conceptions a t Stage 1 are i n way i n the sense t h a t a f r i e n d i s seen as important because he o r she performs s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s which the s e l f wants doe or accomplished. In other words, one person's a t t i t u d e i s u n r e f l e c t i v e l y s e t up as a standard, and the f r i e n d s ' a c t i o n s must match the standard thus formulated. A c l o s e f r i e n d i s someone with more than Stage 0 demographic c r e d e n t i a l s (e.g., l i v e s c l o s e b y ) . A c l o s e f r i e n d i s someone who one knows b e t t e r than other f r i e n d s , i n terms o f one-way knowledge o f other's l i k e s and dislikes. Stage 2 - Fairweather c o o p e r a t i o n . The advance o f Stage 2 f r i e n d s h i p s over the p r e v i o u s stages i s based on the new awareness o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l p e r s p e c t i v e s as r e c i p r o c a l . The two-way nature o f f r i e n d s h i p s i s e x e m p l i f i e d by concerns f o r c o o r d i n a t i n g and approximating through adjustment by both s e l f and other, the s p e c i f i c l i k e s and d i s l i k e s o f s e l f and o t h e r , r a t h e r than matching one person's a c t i o n s t o the o t h e r ' s f i x e d standard o f e x p e c t a t i o n . The l i m i t a t i o n o f t h i s l e v e l i s t h e d i s c o n t i n u i t y o f these r e c i p r o c a l e x p e c t a t i o n s . F r i e n d s h i p at Stage 2 i s f a i r w e a t h e r -- s p e c i f i c arguments are seen as s e v e r i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p although a t t i t u d e s at the moment d e f i n e s the r e l a t i o n . No u n d e r l y i n g c o n t i n u i t y e x i s t s which maintains the r e l a t i o n and allows f o r a conception o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p d u r i n g the p e r i o d o f c o n f l i c t o r adjustment. Stage 3 - Intimate and mutually shared r e l a t i o n s h i p s . At Stage 3 t h e r e i s the awareness o f both a c o n t i n u i t y o r r e l a t i o n and a f f e c t i v e bonding between c l o s e f r i e n d s . The importance o f f r i e n d s h i p does not r e s t o n l y upon t h e f a c t t h a t the s e l f i s bored o r l o n e l y as a t p r e v i o u s stages; at stage 3, f r i e n d s h i p s are seen as a b a s i c means o f d e v e l o p i n g mutual intimacy and mutual support. F r i e n d s share personal problems; the occurrence o f c o n f l i c t s between f r i e n d s does not mean the suspension o f the r e l a t i o n i t s e l f , because the u n d e r l y i n g c o n t i n u i t y between the p a r t n e r s transcends s p e c i f i c and minor foul weather i n c i d e n t s . The l i m i t a t i o n o f Stage 3 a r i s e from the overemphasis o f the two person c l i q u e , and the p o s s e s s i v e n e s s t h a t a r i s e out o f the r e a l i z a t i o n t h a t c l o s e r e l a t i o n s are d i f f i c u l t t o form and t o maintain i n t h a t t h y take constant e f f o r t .  103 Stage 4 - Autonomous interdependent f r i e n d s h i p s . The interdependence which c h a r a c t e r i z e s Stage 4 i s a sense t h a t a f r i e n d s h i p continues to grow and be transformed through each p a r t n e r ' s a b i l i t y to s y n t h e s i z e f e e l i n g s o f independence and dependence. Independence means t h a t each person accepts the other's need to e s t a b l i s h r e l a t i o n s with others and to grow through such e x p e r i e n c e s . Dependence r e f l e c t s the awareness t h a t f r i e n d s must r e l y on each other f o r p s y c h o l o g i c a l support, and to g i v e a sense of s e l f - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n through i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with other as a s i g n i f i c a n t person whose r e l a t i o n to the s e l f i s q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i s t i n c t from l e s s meaningful r e l a t i o n s . Source: Selman (1979).  104 FRIEND DILEMMA Charlene and Joanne have been good f r i e n d s since they were f i v e . Now they were i n high school and Joanne was t r y i n g out f o r the school p l a y . As usual she was nervous about how she had done, but Charlene was there t o t e l l her she was very good and t o give her moral support. S t i l l Joanne was worried that a newcomer i n school would get the p a r t . The new g i r l , T i n a , came over t o congratulate Joanne on her performance and then asked i f she could j o i n the g i r l s f o r a snack. Right away Charlene and T i n a seemed t o h i t i t o f f very w e l l . They t a l k e d about where T i n a was from and the kinds o f things she could do i n her new s c h o o l . Joanne on the other hand, d i d n ' t seem t o l i k e T i n a very w e l l . She thought T i n a was a l i t t l e push, and maybe she was a b i t j e a l o u s over a l l t h e a t t e n t i o n Charlene was g i v i n g T i n a . When T i n a l e f t the other two alone, Joanne and Charlene arranged t o get together on Saturday, because Joanne had a problem that she would l i k e t o t a l k over with Charlene. But l a t e r that day T i n a c a l l e d Charlene and asked her t o go t o see a play on Saturday. Charlene had a dilemma. She would have jumped at the chance t o go with T i n a , but she had already promised t o see Joanne. Joanne might have understood and been happy that Charlene had the chance t o go, o r she might f e e l l i k e she was l o s i n g her best f r i e n d when she r e a l l y needed her. 1. What do you t h i n k the problem i s i n t h i s story? 2. What do you t h i n k Charlene w i l l do, choose t o be with her o l d f r i e n d Joanne o r go with the new g i r l Tina? Why? 3.  Which do you t h i n k i s more important, t o be with an o l d f r i e n d o r make a new f r i e n d ? Why?  4. Do you have a best f r i e n d ? What kind o f f r i e n d s h i p do you have with that person? What makes that person your best f r i e n d ? 5.  Why are f r i e n d s important?  What kind o f person makes a good f r i e n d ?  6. What's the d i f f e r e n c e between the kind o f f r i e n d s h i p Joanne and Charlene have and Charlene and Tina's f r i e n d s h i p ? 7. Which i s b e t t e r t o have or be with, one c l o s e f r i e n d o r a group o f r e g u l a r f r i e n d s ? Why? 8.  Is i t important t o do things f o r each other f o r a good f r i e n d s h i p ? Why?  9. Do you t h i n k t r u s t i s important f o r a good f r i e n d s h i p ?  Why?  10. How do you t h i n k Joanne f e e l s about the new f r i e n d s h i p ? 11. What does i t mean t o be j e a l o u s i n a f r i e n d s h i p ? do t o a f r i e n d s h i p ?  What does j e a l o u s y  12. Can people be f r i e n d s even i f they are having arguments? Why? 13. How should arguments be s e t t l e s between good f r i e n d s ? 14. What makes f r i e n d s h i p s breakup?  Appendix E  Hare's Measure o f Psychopathy Psychopathy C h e c k l i s t (PCL) Revised f o r A d o l e s c e n t s  106 ADOLESCENT BEHAVIOR CHECKLIST O=does not occur, not a problem; l=occurs i n f r e q u e n t l y , s l i g h t problem 2=occurs sometimes or o c c a s i o n a l l y , moderate problem 3=occurs f r e q u e n t l y , s e r i o u s problem 0  1 2 3  1. Glibness, s u p e r f i c i a l charm  0  1 2 3  2. Grandiose sense of self-worth  0  1 2 3  3. Need f o r s t i m u l a t i o n , proneness to boredom  0  1 2 3  4. P a t h o l o g i c a l l y i n g  0  1 2 3  5. Conning, manipulative  0  1 2 3  6. Lack of remorse or g u i l t  0  1 2 3  7. Shallow a f f e c t  0  1 2 3  8. C a l l o u s , l a c k of empathy  0  1 2 3  9. P a r a s i t i c l i f e s t y l e  0  1 2 3  10. Poor behavioral c o n t r o l s  0  1 2 3  11. Promiscuous sexual  0  1 2 3  12. E a r l y behavioral problems  0  1 2 3  13. Lack of r e a l i s t i c , long-term  0  1 2 3  14. I m p u l s i v i t y  0  1 2 3  15. I r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  0  1 2 3  16. F a i l u r e to accept r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r own  0  1 2 3  17. Revocation of c o n d i t i o n a l r e l e a s e  0  1 2 3  18. Criminal v e r s a t i l i t y  behavior goals  actions  107  Appendix F  Delinquency Rating Scale A. Delinquency Rating Scale B. Item Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s  108 JUVENILE DELINQUENCY RATING SCALE Male  Female  Occupation  Age The purpose o f t h i s study i s t o o b t a i n r a t i n g s by i n d i v i d u a l s about the r e l a t i v e seriousness o f c e r t a i n delinquent acts committed by j u v e n i l e s ( i n d i v i d u a l s 18 years and younger). The f o l l o w i n g l i s t o f crimes are arranged i n random order. For each crime, please i n d i c a t e how s e r i o u s i t i s t o you. The seriousness o f each delinquent a c t i s t o be judged according t o t h e f o l l o w i n g s c a l e from 0 t o 5: 0 NOT IMMORAL  1  2  3  4  5 EXTREMELY IMMORAL  1. Burglary o f a home, s t e a l i n g a stereo and c o l o r TV. 2. S e l l i n g marijuana t o high school peers. 3. Fondling g e n i t a l s o f c h i l d . 4. Forgery o f a stranger's check. 5. T h e f t o f a c a r f o r j o y - r i d i n g . 6. Repeated running away from home. 7. Planned k i l l i n g o f a parent. 8. Defacing a p u b l i c b u i l d i n g with p a i n t . '  9. S h o p l i f t i n g c l o t h e s over $100 i n value. 10. F o r c i b l e rape o f a stranger i n a park. 11. S e t t i n g f i r e i n a waste basket i n an occupied s c h o o l . 12. Beating up a stranger i n a f i s t f i g h t . 13. D r i v i n g parents c a r without a l i c e n s e o r permission. 14. Attempted rape (no use o f a weapon). 15. Making obscene phone c a l l s . 16. Possession o f cocaine 17. Harassment o f a mentally retarded neighbor. 18. Break-in and entry o f s t o r e , s t e a l i n g several s t e r e o s . 19. Repeated truancy from s c h o o l .  21. L o i t e r i n g 22. Behaving beyond parental c o n t r o l / r e f u s a l t o obey p a r e n t s . 23. Engaging i n p r o s t i t u t i o n . 24. Armed hold-up o f a convenience s t o r e . 25. Being drunk i n a p u b l i c p l a c e . 26. Impulsive k i l l i n g o f an acquaintance over an argument. 27. Using LSD. 28. S t e a l i n g a b i l l f o l d from a s t r a n g e r at k n i f e - p o i n t . 29. S e t t i n g f i r e t o a garage not attached t o a house. 30. Being out past curfew. 31. B r i b e s younger n i e c e t o g i v e him oral sex. 32. I l l e g a l possession o f a f i r e a r m . 33. F o r c i b l e rape a f t e r breaking i n t o a home. 34. Mugging and s t e a l i n g a purse with $200 i n i t . 35. Minor i n possession o f a l c o h o l i c beverages. 36. D i s o r d e r l y conduct. 37. B u r g l a r y o f a house t a k i n g $50 i n cash. 38. A s s a u l t with a k n i f e . 39. Demolishing a s t a t u e i n a c i t y park. 40. Using s t o l e n c r e d i t c a r d s . 41. S h o p l i f t i n g $30 worth o f c a s s e t t e tapes. 42. Exposes g e n i t a l s t o a c h i l d i n a park. 43. I n t i m i d a t i o n o f a neighbor. 44. T r e s p a s s i n g i n a r a i l r o a d y a r d . 45. R e s i s t i n g a r r e s t by a p o l i c e o f f i c e r . 46. Breaking i n t o a school causing over $10,000 worth o f damage 47. Spray-paining a swastika on a Jewish temple door. 48. T o r t u r i n g animals. 49. Making rude and obscene comments t o s t r a n g e r s on the s t r e e t  110 Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s o f Immorality Ratings Mean  Stnd. Dev.  10. F o r c i b l e rape o f a s t r a n g e r i n a park.  4.98  .14  20. B a b y s i t t i n g , f o r c i n g boy t o have anal sex.  4.91  .29  33. F o r c i b l e rape a f t e r breaking i n t o a home.  4.91  .38  4.89  .42  31. Bribes younger niece t o g i v e him oral sex.  4.85  .38  26. Impulsive k i l l i n g acquaintance argument.  4.75  .61  14. Attempted rape (no use o f a weapon).  4.70  .56  4.69  .77  48. T o r t u r i n g animals.  4.67  .63  38. A s s a u l t with a k n i f e .  4.55  .57  28. S t e a l i n g b i l l f o l d s t r a n g e r k n i f e - p o i n t .  4.46  .67  42. Exposes g e n i t a l s t o a c h i l d i n a park.  4.46  .66  24. Armed hold-up o f a convenience s t o r e .  4.37  .73  34. Mugging and s t e a l i n g purse with $200.  4.24  .79  46. Breaking i n t o a school $10,000 damage.  4.18  .79  17. Harassment o f a mentally r e t a r d e d neighbor.  4.06  .91  47. Spray-paining a swastika Jewish temple door.  4.04  .93  29. Set f i r e garage not attached t o a house.  3.99  .97  12. Beating up a s t r a n g e r i n a f i s t f i g h t .  3.96  1.04  18. Break-in s t o r e , s t e a l i n g s e v e r a l s t e r e o s .  3.94  .90  11. S e t t i n g f i r e waste basket occupied s c h o o l .  3.86  1.06  3.83  .85  40. Using s t o l e n c r e d i t c a r d s .  3.80  .87  23. Engaging i n p r o s t i t u t i o n .  3.73  1.25  3.70  .87  7. Planned k i l l i n g o f a parent.  3. Fondling g e n i t a l s o f c h i l d .  1. Burglary home, s t e a l i n g a stereo/TV.  4. Forgery o f a s t r a n g e r ' s check.  Ill Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s o f Immorality Continued  Ratings  Mean  Stnd. Dev.  50. S t e a l i n g a stereo from a parked c a r .  3.70  .91  37. Burglary o f a house t a k i n g $50 i n cash.  3.68  .97  2. S e l l i n g marijuana t o high school peers.  3.67  1.23  5. T h e f t o f a c a r f o r j o y - r i d i n g .  3.63  .98  39. Demolishing a statue i n a c i t y park.  3.56  1.00  41. S h o p l i f t i n g $30 worth o f c a s s e t t e tapes.  3.49  .94  9. S h o p l i f t i n g c l o t h e s over $100 i n value.  3.46  .94  43. I n t i m i d a t i o n o f a neighbor.  3.43  1.08  49. Making rude and obscene comments s t r a n g e r s .  3.40  .91  32. I l l e g a l possession o f a f i r e a r m .  3.21  1.32  16. Possession o f cocaine  3.20  1.41  27. Using LSD.  3.18  1.49  15. Making obscene phone c a l l s .  3.14  1.05  45. R e s i s t i n g a r r e s t by a p o l i c e o f f i c e r .  3.06  1.17  2.87  1.12  13. D r i v i n g parents c a r no l i c e n s e / p e r m i s s i o n .  2.43  1.06  22. Behaving beyond parental c o n t r o l .  2.42  1.18  35. Minor i n possession a l c o h o l i c beverages.  2.37  1.20  25. Being drunk i n a p u b l i c p l a c e .  2.32  1.25  36. D i s o r d e r l y conduct.  2.22  1.17  19. Repeated truancy from s c h o o l .  2.10  1.19  2.07  1.35  44. T r e s p a s s i n g i n a r a i l r o a d y a r d .  1.71  1.19  30. Being out past curfew.  1.38  1.12  21. L o i t e r i n g  1.12  1.07  8. Defacing a p u b l i c b u i l d i n g with p a i n t .  6. Repeated running away from home.  APPENDIX G  Consent Forms A. Parental B. P r o f e s s i o n a l C. Youth  115  To be read to the youth: The s t a f f here as well as your parent(s) have given t h e i r permission f o r you to p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s study but i t i s important t h a t you y o u r s e l f decide whether you want to p a r t i c i p a t e . I f you decide to be p a r t of t h i s study, you may s t i l l withdraw your consent at any time. That means t h a t i f you decide, f o r any reason, t h a t you do not want to continue you can stop without any problem at a l l . Let me d e s c r i b e to you what t h i s study i n v o l v e s . We are i n t e r e s t e d i n the d i f f e r e n t ways t h a t young people t h i n k about c e r t a i n s o c i a l i s s u e s and problems. In order to f i n d t h i s out, we are i n t e r v i e w i n g people i n d i v i d u a l l y f o r about one hour. In t h i s i n t e r v i e w , we would be asking you to l i s t e n to a s e r i e s o f short s t o r i e s about people who have d i f f i c u l t d e c i s i o n s to make and then to g i v e us your thoughts about these s t o r i e s by answering a s e r i e s o f questions about them. We a l s o have a q u e s t i o n n a i r e on a t t i t u d e s and values we would l i k e you to read and mark down whether they are t r u e or f a l s e f o r you. There are no r i g h t or wrong answers to any o f these questions - we are simply i n t e r e s t e d i n what you t h i n k about these items. As we s a i d , these i n t e r v i e w s w i l l take about an hour. To help us i n g e t t i n g a l l o f your comments down, we would l i k e to tape r e c o r d the whole i n t e r v i e w . When we are f i n i s h e d we w i l l type up your answers and erase the tape. Your name w i l l not appear anywhere on the typed r e c o r d , so a l l comments w i l l be kept s t r i c t l y c o n f i d e n t i a l - n e i t h e r your parents, or the s t a f f here w i l l see your answers. There are no t r i c k questions i n t h i s study so i f something does not make sense or i s not c l e a r , or i f you would r a t h e r not answer t h a t q u e s t i o n , j u s t say so. When we are f i n i s h e d I w i l l be prepared to answer any questions you may have about t h i s study or about any o f the questions you have answered. I f you are w i l l i n g to p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s study please read and s i g n t h i s consent form below. I have heard the summary d e s c r i p t i o n o f the adolescent development study and I understand the nature and extent o f my p a r t i c i p a t i o n . I am aware t h a t my p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s s t r i c t l y v o l u n t a r y and t h a t I may withdraw from the study at any time. In view of these c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , I agree ( ) do not agree ( ) to p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s study. Name ( P r i n t ) : Signature: Date:  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0098150/manifest

Comment

Related Items