Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

M. M. P. I. characteristics of chronic criminal offenders Gardy, Terry Tyrone 1971

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
UBC_1971_A8 G37_2.pdf [ 3.82MB ]
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0102203.json
JSON-LD: 1.0102203+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0102203.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0102203+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0102203+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0102203+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0102203 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0102203.txt
Citation
1.0102203.ris

Full Text

M.M.P.I. CHARACTERI STICS OF CHRONIC CRIMINAL OFFENDERS by TERRY TYRONE GARDY B.A., University of British Columbia, 1963 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN.PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of Psychology We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August, 1971 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and Study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Psychology The University of British Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date August 31, 1971 ABSTRACT An exploratory study was conducted among inmates of a Canadian peni tentiary to determine MMPI characteristics associated with chronic crimin ality. A criterion group of-chronic offenders was compared to a randomly derived group, and significant differences were obtained on three MMPI scales. These differences ceased to become significant in deriving sub groups and applying covariate adjustments in attempting to control for the Influence of differences in age and Incarceration. Reduction in sample sizes appeared to contribute towards the absence of significant differences among five scales which appeared to differentiate Ss who had low Incarcer ation Indices, compared to S_s who had high Incarceration Indices. Although trends were suggested which may relate to chronic criminality, the Incid ence of violence appeared to follow a similar trend. In the absence of statistical control, no conclusions were drawn regarding the trends in the scales. The MMPI profile characteristics of the present groups were com pared to other criteria groups of psychiatric and prison subjects and the relationships of various scales were examined. Criminal and social char acteristics were explored, and Chronic Offenders were found to differ in criminal patterns, place of childhood residence, education, marital status, and empioyabi Iity. Difficulties in the present study were explored and suggestions made for further research. i i i Abstract i i List of Tables v List of Figures vi Acknowledgment viIntroduction 1 Problem 8 Method 18 Results 27 Chronic versus Random Offender 2Chronic versus Potential Chronic 7 Matched Chronic versus Potential Chronic 33 Potential Chronic versus Random Control 9 Discussion 46 Summary & Conclusions 65 References 69 Appendix 72 Page Table 1 Summary Table for Analysis of Variance of MMPI Scales and Control Variables Between Chronic and Random Offender Groups 28 Table 2 Contingency Table for Socioeconomic Status Between Chronic and Random Offender Groups 31 Table 3 Summary Table for Analysis of Variance of MMPI Scales and Control Variables Between the Chronic Offender Group and the Potential Chronic Offender Subgroup 32 Table 4 Contingency Table for Socioeconomic Status Between the Chronic Offender Group and the Potential Chronic Offender Subgroup 34 Table 5 Summary Table for Analysis of Variance of MMPI Scales and Control Variables Between the Matched Chronic and Potential Chronic Subgroups 36 Table 6 Summary Table for Analysis of Covarlance of MMPI Scales Between the Matched Chronic and Potential Chronic Subgroups 40 Table 7 Summary Table for Analysis of Variance of MMPI Scales and Control Variables Between the Potential Chronic Offender and Random Control Subgroups 41 Table 8 Contingency Table for Socioeconomic Status Between the Potential Chronic and Random Control Subgroups 43 LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd) Page Table 9 Summary Table for Analysis of Covariance of MMPI Scales Between the Potential Chronic Offender and Random Control Subgroups 44 Figure I The profiles of the Chronic and Random Offender Groups reflecting the mean elevations for each of the MMPI scales, non-corrected for K, and non-adjusted for the effect of age or incarceration 29 Figure 2 The profiles of the Matched Chronic, and Random Offender Subgroups reflecting the mean elevations for each of the MMPI scales, non-corrected for K, and non-adjusted for the effect of incarceration 37 The author wishes to acknowledge the contributions and support of Dr. E. I. Signori and Dr. R. D. Hare In the completion of this thesis. The counsel of Dr. G. J. Johnson, and the assistance of Virginia Green Is also gratefully acknowledged. The author also wishes to thank the Regional Director (Western) and the Chief of Classification and Psychological Services of the Canadian Penitentiary Service in allowing the study to be conducted. Mr. J. M. Murphy, Warden, and Mr. D. R. McGregor, Superintendent of MatsquI Institution warrant special thanks In accommodating the author's absence to complete the study. Finally, the Inmate Records, Classification, and Psychology Departments of British Columbia Penitentiary were Invaluable in providing the facilities and Information needed in conducting this study. DEDICATION The author wishes to dedicate this thesis to his mother, whose greatest pride was her son's academic and professional achievements, and whose passing on September 1, 1969 will be long remembered. During the year 1967,' 1,249,454 offences (excluding traffic) were re ported in Canada. This represents a crime rate of approximately 6,858.4 actual offences per 100,000 population (age seven and over), and further re flects a 5.2$ increase in the previous year's (1966) rate. The greatest number of indictable offences were committed py persons between the ages of 16 and 19. In British Columbia, the crime rate for this age group is approximately 2,876.2 per 100,000 population. The rate decreases rapidly from ages 20 to 29, but tends to level off between the ages of 30 to 49 (figures and rates from selected tables of "Crime Statistics," 1967). In a survey (Gardy, 1966) of 424. inmates in British Columbia Penitentiary (B.C.P.), the frequency of inmates in similar age groups (adjusted to general population characteristics) demonstrated a similar decreasing function as related in the crime rates. However, the decrease occurred commencing with the 30 to 34 age group, and began to.level'off after the age of 40. The average number of previous gaol or penitentiary commitments for the sample was 4.5 and 25% had eight or more previous commitments. It would appear that a trend towards potential or actual chronic criminaIity • is evident among the general inmate population of B.C.P., and that this trend should be explored further. A. Chroni c crimi naIity and Crimi nology. The recidivist is defined by the Concise Oxford Dictionary as "one who relapses into crime." The term as a concept has a wide divergency of interpretation and definition which tends to vary among different authors. However, when referring to "persistent offender," "persistent recidivist," "habitual criminal," or "chronic offender," there is some general agreement that the minimal criteria involve three or more previous convictions for a felony or indictable offence. Criminology has treated the problem of recidivism as following upon the same influences underlying etiology. However, when referring to a persistent pattern of criminality, most authors regard the problem as In volving a process of maturation and generally quote the studies conducted by the Gluecks (1937) and Sell in (1958). The Gluecks Initially regarded the age of 35 as being critical in an offender's rehabilitation. They suggested that If rehabilitation had not occurred by the time an offender reached the age of 35, that there would be less likelihood of his ever being rehabilitated. However, In further studies, they suggested that it was not purely a chronological factor, but Involved "the achievement of adequate maturation" which could be delayed by abnormal physical, emotional, Intellectual, and social aspects of the offender's personality (Glueck and Glueck, 1940). In addition, the Gluecks and Sell in noted that early onset of a delinquent pattern of behaviour was an important factor in the duration of the maturation process. Persistent offenders In England are liable to a sentence of five to fourteen years of preventive detention, If they are age 30 or more and have a previous record of three or more convictions after age 17. Three studies have dealt with persistent offenders serving sentences of preventive detention between 1946. and 1956 (Morris, 1951; West, 1963; Hammond and Chayen, 1963). Each of the studies Is primarily empirical, and has focused on social factors and criminal histories. The studies indicate that the preventive detainees tended to be petty offenders, with a mean number of previous convictions ranging from 13.8 to 16.5; having a pattern of crimes primarily committed against property rather than people; and a mean number of previous Imprisonments ranging from 8.8 to 10.2. Although most of the subjects In each of the studies had been brought up by both parents, the authors generally noted unsatisfactory, early upbringing and environmental influences. Most subjects were single, and those who had been married, reflected unsatisfactory family relationships, and were mostly separated or divorced. The sample groups largely represent unskilled labourers with no significant periods of employment. The mean period of time at liberty prior to their conviction ranged from 9.0 to 10.9 months. Morris further noted that the length of the previous sentence did not correlate with the post-release period of freedom, and concluded that punishment appeared to have a negligable influence. Each of the studies noted that the preventive detainees' conduct In prison was generally quite co-operative, and few represented acting-out problems. The studies differ In evaluating the onset of serious criminality but report the mean ages on first conviction ranging from age 17 to 18.5. However, Hammond and Chayen report that the ages between 14 and 17 were critical among the 178 subjects In their study, as indicating the beginning of the samples' criminal history. B. Chronic crimlnaIity and Persona Iity. With the exception of West, the English studies only summarily report personality variables among their subjects. Based upon a classification system introduced by Henderson (1939), West found that preventive detainees reflected a "personality deviation" which appeared predominantly more "passive-Inadequate" as opposed to "actlve-aggresslve." Abrahamsen (I960) and Glover (I960) regard chronic offenders within a psychoanalytic frame of reference as largely occurlng among psychoneurotic and personality dis orders. More recent Interest In the area of chronic criminality has been stimulated by a number of studies conducted by Cormier (summarized In Cormier, 1966). Following upon the Gluecks' (1937) concept of maturation and further Influenced by Klein and psychoanalytic theory, Cormier regards criminality as an ego activity capable of growth and transformation. Per sistent adult criminality, is suggested to result from persistent compul sive antisocial behaviour during a child's latency period (age six to physical puberty). An Individual's future criminal career has predlsposi-tlonal determinants involving the age at onset of del 1nquency and the depth of criminal Involvement. Whether the onset occurred during the latency period or during adolescence determines the degree of ego arrest or incom plete ego development. Cormier Indicates that the earlier the onset, the more primitive are the ego defense mechanisms, and the delinquent must resolve his problems and conflicts a I loplastlcaIly by acting-out behaviour. Cormier notes that during subject's twenties, the persistent offender begins to lose his sense of achievement through criminal pursuits, and en^ counters feelings of frustration. He discovers that his acting-out drives no longer offer gratification, and begins to experience anxiety and de pression. Cormier suggests that the Individual has reached a "saturation point," and that this marks the beginning of a process of abatement In which the offender must deal with feelings of guilt, self-reproach, grief, and the need for atonement.. Cormier proposes that those Individuals having'*the earliest onset of persistent Juvenile delinquency will take longer to reach the saturation point, will have the poorest ego structure to deal with his Internalized feelings, and will consequently reflect the longest criminal process. Although some Individuals may fall to resolve their conflicts and return to criminality, Cormier regards their having had to evaluate their antisocial positions for the first time as significant, as further re-evaIuatlons will recur. Some persistent offenders have been noted by Cormier to experience acute schizophrenic reactions during this stage of the process. In summary, Cormier emphasizes depression as a prerequisite to criminal abatement in that it reflects the IneffectuaIness of the offender's pathological defense mechanism of acting-out. C. M.M.P.I. studies. Many articles have appeared In the literature that relate to the practical applications and research utility of various personality tests in studying patterns of criminality. The continuous growth In the use of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory or MMPI (Hathaway and McKInley, 1951) in Clinical Psychology has also been evident In the area of Correction al Psychology, and most studies have adopted this test measure In approaching research problems. Generally these studies have tended to focus upon prob lems of Identification and prediction of specific offender groups or criminal behavioural patterns. However, few studies have attempted to adequately deal with recidivism, and habitual or chronic criminality. An initial attempt to Identify recidivists commenced with a study by Clark (1948), who compared 55 A.W.O.L. recidivists to 45 single offenders. Although tetrachorlc correlations among each of the scales revealed no differences between the groups, an "item analysis" produced 24 Items which Clark Incorporated Into his Recidivism Scale (Rc). Clark noted that more of the Items were derived from the Psychopathic Deviate (Pd) and Hypomanlc (Ma) scales than from the other standard scales. In a descriptive study Involving 300 penitentiary Inmates, Levy et al. (1952) noted higher elevations In the Pd and Depression scales respec tively for 169 "repeaters" compared to 131 "first time offenders." A further study (Freeman and Mason, 1952) emerged from this preliminary work, which was an attempt to cross-validate Clark's findings. However, Freeman and Mason were unable to successfully employ Clark's Rc scale to differ entiate between 60 inmates having one or more previous convictions for a felony, from 40 inmates admitted to the penitentiary for the first time. The authors then constructed a 14 Item key from Items that showed tetra chorlc correlations of .40 or greater with recidivism on a second group of 50 recidivists and 50 first admissions. However, they were unable to cross-validate this key when applied to the next group of consecutive admissions. A further attempt to derive another key Involving 43 items through adjusting their criteria also failed to cross-validate. Dunham (1954) noted significantly higher elevations on the Pd and D scales among a recidivist group of 85 inmates compared to 149 nonrecld-Ivlsts. He also obtained biserial correlations of -.195 and -.185 for these scales respectively. Panton (1962a) noted that Freeman and Mason's "first offender" groups would Involve a proportion of "recldlvlsts-to-be" relative to the recidivist rate. Thus, he conducted a study which employed a more repre sent I ve sample of first offenders. Fifty first offenders who were 40 years of age or more, and had a history of 20 or more years of employment, were matched for age and I.Q. with 50 habitual criminals who had served three or more felon sentences prior to their admission. Significant t-test differences were found among the means for the Pd and Ma scales, and also among Clark's Rc scale and an Adjustment to Prison (Ap) scale devised by Panton (1958). Panton then examined the raw score distributions of the Pd, Ma and Ap scales for both groups, and arrived at the most effective differentiation by combining the Pd and Ap Items Into a single scale. By eliminating overlapping Items which were scored In opposite directions, he was able to devise a 77 Item scale called the Habitual Criminal (HC) scale. The mean difference between the original groups was found to be significant beyond the ,01 level. Panton cross-validated the scale among recidivists grouped by age (20-29, 30-39, and 40-above) and by three, two, and one prior sentences, compared to two normal groups of Job applicants, and two groups of first offenders. Mandel and Barron (1966) were unable to cross-validate Clark's Rc and Panton's HC scales on a group of 50 parole violators and 50 non-violators. They then conducted an Item analysis on 229 recidivist and 143 non-recldlvlst MMPIs obtained on admission, and a second Item analysis on 126 recidivist and 84 non-recldlvlst MMPIs obtained on release from prison. Each analysis yielded 19 significant Items with three Items duplicated. They then com bined the two sets of Items Into a 35 Item scale. However, an attempt to cross-validate this scale among 50 parole violators and 50 non-violators (after one year of their release) divided evenly between "youthful" and "adult" offenders was unsuccessful. Chapter 11 PROBLEM It would appear that efforts to develop an MMPI scale to identify recidivists and habitual or chronic offenders that would stand up to cross-validation have met with limited success. Several factors may have contributed to the problems encountered which relate to differences in the selection of criterion groups, differences in the characteristics of the populations from which the groups were derived, the statistical designs employed, and the failure to provide further Information on the dependent measures for con sideration by other researchers. A. Selection of criterion groups. Although the experimental groups have been designated as "recidivists," "parole-violators," or "habitual criminals," selection appears to have been, based upon classification procedures without an accurate accounting of social or criminal histories. The Institutions In which these studies have been conducted also differ In the types and ages of offenders which constitute their populations. Thus, failure to replicate findings may be due to the variable treatment of the term "recidivist." Clark's study was conducted at a V.A. Guidance Center and employed military subjects. Recidivists were those who "had been A.W.O.L. more than once" (total nor average number were not mentioned). Although the sample appeared to reflect behaviour problems, Clark failed to Indicate If any of the subjects had previous Juvenile or adult criminal records. Levy et aj_. selected subjects from Washington State Penitentiary and refer to their groups as "repeaters" (no mention of the average number of previous convictions nor admissions) and "first time offenders." Freeman and Mason selected recidivists from the same Institution on the basis of one or more convictions for a felony compared to first admissions. Panton (1962a) has noted that In the selection of first offenders as a control group, a significant number may be judged to have commenced their criminal careers and may be considered "recidivists-to-be" based upon recidivism rates. Thus Levy et aj_., and Freeman and Mason's first offender groups may have Included a significant proportion of future recidivists. Dunham's study was conducted in San Quentin Prison, and the recidivist group was not defined by previous history nor admission. No criteria was Included to Indicate how the nonrecidivlst group was selected, nor was their status defined. Panton has been more selective In choosing his experimental group. The "habitual criminal" group was selected on the basis of being over 40 years of age (matched with the ages of the first offenders), and having served three or more prior felon sentences. However, he has not Indicated the mean number, nor the amount of time previously served. The study was conducted at the North Carolina Reception Center. Mandel and Barron's study Initially Involved 372 Inmates released from the Minnesota State Reformatory for Men. Recidivists were defined as those who "continued to be a chronic lawbreaker or commits one or more serious offences" based upon a five year follow-up. The non-reeldIvlst was regarded as "an Individual who Is released from the Institution and has no record of an offence, or who commits one or more minor offences such as any ordinary citizen might commit." Although both groups were drawn from the same sample of releases, the previous histories of neither group were Indlc-ated, nor was there mention that It had been equated or even considered. Recidivists In the cross-valIdatlonal sample were those who had violated parole within a year of their release. No studies have employed a randomly selected group of offenders from the general Inmate population of the Institution. In Panton's habit ual criminal study, high elevations were noted In the D scale for the habitual group and non-habitual group (means of 71.6 and 71.5, respectively). In another study (Panton, 1962b), the mean profile of 2,198 consecutive admissions to the same Institution reflects an elevation of approximately 64.0 on the same scale (estimated on the basis of an Illustrated figure). It Is suggested that Panton may have obtained a significant difference on the D scale between the habitual criminal group and a randomly selected group from these 2,198 consecutive admissions. Similar differences In elevations were also noted on the two other "neurotic" scales, Hypochondrias (Hs) and Hysteria (Hy). By comparing habitual offenders whose mean age was 46.02 to comparably aged first offenders, failure to obtain significant differences among the "neurotic" scales (Hs, D, and Hy), could reflect the symptoms of Internalization associated with the process of abatement, as suggested by Cormier, as operating among the habitual offenders contrasted from acting-out features (less neurotic control) among the younger (mean age 24.2) admission sample. B. Control IIng for the InfIuence of age and criminalIzatlon. In addition to the failure of mentioning previous criminal histories of their subjects, the ages of the comparison groups have not been given nor controlled In most of the studies. Although Clark did not Include the ages of his samples, the subjects would probably fall within the age range of draftees conscripted Into military service. Levy et aj_. examined the In fluence of age and MMPI differences among various samples from the total group, subgrouped by age, but the ages of the first time offenders and repeaters were not given, nor did Freeman and Mason Indicate the ages of their selected samples. The mean ages of the populations from which the comparison groups in Dunham's study were derived were mentioned, but not given for the samples. Mandel and Barron also failed to report the ages of their original criterion groups, but did divide the cross-valIdational sample Into "youthful" and "adult" parolees. By failing to mention previous criminal histories and the ages of the subjects, it would appear that the studies have not regarded their subjects as being at some stage in a criminal and behavioural process. Differences may have occurred among some samples In which a significant number of experimental subjects have progressed further into the process of criminal abatement as theorized by Cormier, whereas cross-valIdational samples or control groups may not have reached Cormier's "saturation point" in their criminal careers. Only Panton has given serious consideration to the factor of age, and has controlled for Its possible Influence through a matching procedure. C. Statistical treatment of the problem. The statistical analyses -l'n these studies have relied primarily on non-parametric techniques. Levy et aj_. conducted a purely descriptive study and employed no statistical tests. Clark employed an "Item analysis" In volving the frequency of deviant.responses obtained on each Item by both groups and retaining those Items In which the frequency of the recidivist group exceeded the non-recldlvlst group by 10, thus arriving at 24 Items. Dunham computed the differences between means of each of the scales (two differences were computed on the basis of medians due to skewness of the distribution: Hypochondrias and Schizophrenic) for his comparison groups and used the Critical Ratio. He then computed biserial correlations on the two scales having the largest deviation In the direction of abnormality. Freeman and Mason's 14 Item and Mandel and Barron's 35 Item scales employed 2x2 Chl-square tests In their Item analyses. As the MMPI con sists of 566 Items, 550 of which are undupIIcated, a separate analysis for each Item could result In approximately 27 Items being significant by chance at the .05 level. The shrinkage occurring In their cross-validation attempts could have resulted from the omission of the "chance" Items of their original scale. Panton employed single-scale t-tests In his analysis and arrived at two scales (Pd and Ap) significant at the .01 level, and two other scales (Ma and Rc) significant at the .05 level. He then combined the Pd and Ap scales Into his HC scale, but failed to state how the predictive validity Improved addltlvely as opposed to using only one of the scales alone to identify his subjects. D. Failure to provide a basis for further research. Difficulty In examining the previous studies have been further com-plIcated by the failure of the various researchers (with the exception of Dunham and Panton) to Indicate the means and standard deviations on each of the MMPI scales for their comparison groups. The apparent focus has been upon creating an empirical scale without examining for possible differences or relationships among the standard scales. They have also failed to Indicate (with the exception of Clark) which of the standard scales load the heaviest on Items from their empirical scales. Thus, comparisons Involving group profiles among each of the studies have not been possible in assisting others in researching this problem. Dunham's findings suggest a relationship between the D and Pd scales with recidivism, while Panton's sample reflects the Pd and at a lesser significance, the Ma scales. Clark's Rc scale contained more Pd and Ma Items. Levy et aj_. noted, nonstatIsticaIIy, higher elevations in the Pd and Ma scales among their repeater group. Although the scales mentioned may reflect characteristics relative to the samples rather than to the process of recidivism and chronic criminality, and as the offender groups may differ in the extent of their criminal histories, the relationship of these and other possible scales of the MMPI should be explored further on we II defined" criteria groups. E. The present study. The shortcomings suggested In the previous studies reflect the need to adequately define and derive a criterion group of chronic criminal offenders and an appropriate comparison group, In order to examine MMPI characteristics which may be associated with persistent criminality. Further, there is also a need for more conservative and powerful statistical analyses in examining for differences between criterion groups, and con trolling for the possible influence of concomitant variables such as age and the process of criminal abatement as suggested by Cormter. The following will be an exploratory study to attempt to adequately deal with problems suggested. British Columbia Penitentiary Is a federal reception center for offenders, who have been convicted of an indictable offence, and who have been sentenced to two years or more. Thus, those Individuals who have committed serious crimes, and/or have a previous history of convictions with lesser terms are likely to receive a sentence of two or more years, which Is required to be served In a federal Institution. Few Inmates admitted to B.C.P. are first offenders, as these Individuals are more likely to receive probation, fines, or short sentences which may be served In a provincial Institution. Only more serious offences would result In a first offender being sentenced to B.C.P. Thus, first offenders would not con stitute an adequate control group further to the difficulties previously mentioned. Most Inmates admitted to B.C.P. are under the age of thirty, and have had previous convictions for Indictable offences. Therefore, the majority may be regarded as recidivists. As the average number of previous gaol or penitentiary commitments Is approximately 4.5, most could come under the legal definition of persistent recidivist or habitual criminal. Although chronic criminal offenders may be Identified by their age, the number of previous convictions, and proportion of their adult lives spent In Incarceration (Incarceration index); a select group who tend to reflect these characteristics the greatest are those who have been convicted under the Habitual Criminal Act. Therefore a basic criterion group of chronic criminal offenders will be selected from Inmates of B.C.P. who have been sentenced under the Habitual Criminal Act. It Is assumed that among the general population of Inmates at B.C.P., each will vary randomly In the proportion of time that they have previously served. Those Individuals who possess greater persistent criminal tendencies, are expected to also have greater Incarceration Indices. Thus, these In dividuals may be regarded as potential chronic offenders, who although being younger and having fewer convictions than the criterion group of chronic offenders, share the same degree of persistent criminality as reflected In similar incarceration Indices. A randomly selected sample of Inmates will contain a portion of potential chronic offenders as well as offenders having smaller Incarceration Indices. The number falling Into each subgroup will be a relative function of the recidivist rate, and as the rate tends to be quite high It will favour the potential chronic offender. F. Hypotheses. It Is hypothesized that In the absence of control for the factors of age and Incarceration, a criterion group of chronic criminal offenders will differ In personality characteristics as measured by the MMPI to a randomly derived sample of offenders In B.C.P., and that these differences may be associated with persistent criminality. Within the randomly derived sample of Inmates, It Is hypothesized that those Individuals having greater incarceration indices, represent potential or actual chronic offenders, and that they will possess similar personality characteristics, as measured by the MMPI to a criterion group of chronic offenders. It is further hypothesized, that the groups differ only in respect to age, and that by controlling statistically for the possible Influence of this difference In the MMPI, no differences will occur among the MMPI scales. In addition, it Is hypothesized that the groups will not differ In respect to their Incarceration Indices, level of intelligence, or socioeconomic status. It Is hypothesized that those Individuals having greater incarcer ation Indices, represent potential or actual chronic offenders, and will differ in personality characteristics, as measured by the MMPI, from in dividuals within the random sample who have lesser Incarceration Indices. It Is further hypothesized that the MMPI differences are associated with persistent criminality, and not with the differences In Incarceration, and that by statistically controlling for the possible Influence of Incarceration, the differences in the MMPI will still occur. In addition, It Is hypothesized that no differences will occur with respect to age, level of Intelligence, or socioeconomic status. In summary, the purpose of this exploratory study will be to examine MMPI characteristics which may be associated with chronic criminality. Although the general population of Inmates at B.C.P. Includes both recid ivists and persistent offenders, they also provide a more suitable criterion group of chronic offenders. By demonstrating similarities In personality characteristics as measured by the MMPI of this criterion group with a group of inmates Identified as potential chronic offenders, and controlling for the differences between groups in age, it may be possible to identify personality variables associated with persistent criminality and incarceration. By demonstrating differences in personality characteristics as measured by the MMPI between potential chronic offenders and a comparably aged group of offenders who have lesser incarceration indices, and controlling for the difference in incarceration, it may be possible to demonstrate personality characteristics which may be associated with persistent criminality and not with Incarceration. Subjects Samples were selected from Inmates who had been sentenced to terms of two or more years, and had been admitted to British Columbia Penitentiary. Upon their admission or during the course of their subsequent incarceration, every Inmate completes an MMPI and Revised Beta I .Q. Test (Under and Gurvltz, 1946) as part of their psychological assessment. All subjects In this study were Included on the basis of having a valid MMPI protocol (less than 30 Items unanswered; an L score of nine or less; and an F score of 15 or less); a Revised Beta I.Q. score of 85 or greater; a grade five education or better; were 50 years of age or younger; Canadian born; and of Caucaslon racial origin. B. ChronIc Offender Group. The Chronic Offender Group was selected on the basis of the first 30 consecutive admissions to B.C.P., who had been sentenced to a term of Preventive Detention as Habitual Criminals, and who met the basic criteria for selection. Section 660 of the Canadian Criminal Code deals with the Habitual Criminal Act. The accused may be judged as an Habitual Criminal If, "...he has previously, since attaining the age of eighteen years, on at least three separate and independent occasions been convicted of an Indictable offence for which he was liable to Imprisonment for five years or more and Is leading persistently a criminal life..." (Office Consolidation of the Criminal Code, 1962, page 248) Further, he may be sentenced to a term of preventive detention In lieu of a sentence Imposed for another Indictable offence, If the Court deems It "expedient for the protection of the public." Although a majority of Inmates at B.C.P. are liable to be proceeded under the Act, only 69 cases were convicted and sentenced between 1961 and 1967. The present group averaged 39.5 years of age (standard deviation, 4.57 years), and subsequent to the age of 18 had a mean of 21.7 previous convictions for Indictable offences and 11.97 previous admissions to either a provincial gaol or a federal penitentiary. As a group, they had been sentenced to approximately 1084 years imprisonment on 750 Indictable offences and offences punishable on summary conviction. They had served an average of 151.83 months, or approximately 61$ of their adult lives in Incarceration prior to being sentenced to preventive detention. C. Random Offender Group. A Random Offender Group was selected at random from the general population of 494 Inmates at B.C.P. until a group of 30 subjects were ob tained who satisfied the basic criteria for selection. The group averaged 27.5 years of age (standard deviation, 7.38 years), and subsequent to the age of 18, had a mean of 10.57 convictions for indictable offences and 3.83 previous admissions to either a provincial gaol or federal penitentiary. They had previously served an average of 38.67 months prior to their admis sion, which represented approximately 25$ of their adult lives. D. Designation of Random Offender Subgroups. Examination of the proportion of time spent In Incarceration for each of the random subjects revealed two diverse distributions. Each had either served under \0% or over 25% of their adult lives in Incarceration. Random subjects who had served under \0% were subgrouped and designated as the "Random-Control Subgroup." This subgroup was comprised of I I Ss whose average age was 25.25 years (standard deviation, 3.96 years); and subsequent to the age of 18, had a mean of 5.09 convictions for Indictable offences; were serving their first penitentiary sentence; and had an average of 1.09 previous admissions to a provincial Institution. They had previously served an average of 5.18 months prior to their admission which represented approx imately 4.5% of their adult lives. Random subjects who had served over 25% of their adult lives In Incarceration were subgrouped and designated as the "Potential Chronic Offender" Ss. This subgroup was comprised of 19 Ss whose average age was 28.63 years (standard deviation, 8.67 years); and subsequent to the age of 18, had a mean of 12.95 convictions for indictable offences, and 4.95 previous admissions to a provincial gaol or federal penitentiary. As a subgroup, they had previously served an average of 58.05 months prior to their admission, which represented 43% of their adult lives. Measures. A. M.M.P.I. Valid MMPI protocols were obtained for each subject from the files of the Psychology Department at B.C.P. The MMPI Is group-admlnlstered to Inmates within a month of their admission to B.C.P. as part of their Initial classification. It should be noted that the Interval of time from the subject's commission of the offence, his arrest, conviction, and possible appeal, and his eventual admission to B.C.P. varies widely among the sample and could not be controlled. Recidivists with previous test results on file were not readmln-Istered the MMPI If the retest interval did not exceed three years. Thus the protocols of one chronic and four random Ss were obtained from their previous admissions. Further, the protocols of three chronic Ss were ob tained as part of a psychological assessment for parole application, as they had been admitted prior to the Introduction of the MMPI as part of the psychological test battery at B.C.P. Thus the writer was not Initially involved In obtaining the data, nor were the subjects aware that their MMPI protocols would be used In a future study. The MMPI Is a well known and widely used personality test. However, the "short" version of the test was used. This involved the first 366 Items of the 566 Item standard test. Administering the short version has been generally accepted as an approved practise In order to reduce the amount of testing time. It Is especially appropriate for this type of subject, who encounters difficulty In sustaining motivation for any length of time. This procedure resulted In omitting one validity measure (the K scale) and one clinical measure (the Sl scale) from being used In the study. Raw scores were obtained from the MMPI protocols on file for those Ss which satisfied the basic criteria for selection. These scores were then converted Into standard scores (T-scores) without K-correctlons according to Table 3 in Dahlstrom and Welsh (I960, pages 439 and 440). B. Revised Beta IntelIIgence Test. In addition to the MMPI, Revised Beta Intelligence Tests are also group-adm!nlstered to each Inmate within a month of his admission, and were available for each subject from the files in the Psychology Department. The Revised Beta is a paper and pencil test of intellectual ability in volving both verbal and printed Instructions for the subject. The test is considered to be primarily a performance measure of mental ability, and relatively free from the influence of low education. C. Measures of criminalIty and incarceration. An adult criminal record for each subject was obtained from the Criminal Identification Branch of the R.C.M.P. This reflects any arrests, convictions, and dispositions imposed In an adult court for Indictable offences and offences punishable on summary conviction. It was possible to employ these records to establish periods spent In incarceration. Juvenile records were not available for any of the subjects, but owing to the seriousness of some offences, a juvenile (person under the age of 18) may have been referred to an adult court and this will have been noted in his adult record. The number and types of convictions were recorded for each subject. The proportion of time spent In incarceration compared to periods of freedom was computed for each subject from the age of 18 to the age upon admission, and will be referred to as the "Incarceration Index." The proportion for each subject was transformed using an Arcs In Transform ation (Kirk, 1968, page 539) to permit statistical comparison. D. Socioeconomic status and social data. In addition to being tested and Interviewed by a Psychologist upon his admission to B.C.P., each Inmate Is also Interviewed by a Social Worker. A social history Is obtained and reported as part of an Inmate training pro cedure, and an inmate file Is prepared. Information contained In this file was used to establish each subject's socioeconomic background. The Hollings head Two Factor Index of Social Position (Hollingshead and Redllch, 1958) was employed to assign one of five, ordinal social classes for each subject. Assignment of any one class depended upon a weighted combination of the subject's father's, or surrogate head of the subject's household's level of education and occupation. Further Information was obtained from the Inmate files which related to early upbringing, educational background, employment history, and marital status. Most of the Information was provided by the Inmates, and may not have been cross-validated through community Investigation. Procedure. A. Chronic versus Random Offender. A simple one-way analysis of variance was conducted between the Chronic Offender Group and the Random Offender Group for the II MMPI scales and the variables of age, intelligence, and Incarceration. F Ratios were obtained and entered Into an F Distribution Table with I and 58 degrees of freedom. Thus, it was established that differences could be obtained on some MMPI scales, and that concomitant differences also occur with regard to age and Incarceration which required further attention. Possible differences between groups in socioeconomic status was tested for significance by com bining classes Into a 2 x 2 contingency table and employing a Chi-square test with one degree of freedom (SiegeI, 1956, pages 104 to 110). B. Chronic versus PotentiaI ChronIc. In order to test the hypothesis that Individuals having greater In carceration Indices represent potential or actual chronic offenders with personality characteristics associated persistent criminality, a one-way analysis of variance was conducted for each of the MMPI scales between the Chronic Offender Group and the Potential Chronic Offender Subgroup. F Ratios were obtained and entered Into an F Distribution Table with I and 47 degrees of freedom. One-way analyses of variance with the same degrees of freedom were also conducted between these two groups to test for possible differences In age, Intelligence, and Incarceration. Differences In socio economic status was tested for significance using a 2 x 2 contingency table and the Chl-square test with one degree of freedom. C. Matched Chronic versus Potential Chronic. Failure to meet the assumption that the Chronic and Potential Chronic Ss would not differ In their mean Incarceration Indices required that Ss from both groups be matched on the variable of Incarceration to control for this difference. A one-way analysis of variance was then conducted for each of the MMPI scales and the variables of age, Intelligence, and incar ceration between the Matched Chronic and the Potential Chronic Offender Subgroups. F Ratios were obtained and entered Into an F Distribution Table with I and 36 degrees of freedom. Thus differences In the original com parisons could be examined for the failure to control for differences In Incarceratlon. Although It was assumed that no differences In the MMPI scales would occur between the Matched Chronic and Potential Chronic Offenders, It was necessary that the differences In ages be statistically controlled for their possible Influence on the MMPI scales. An analysis of covarlance (Kirk, 1968, Chapter 12) with age as the covarI ate was performed for each of the MMPI scales between the Matched Chronic and Potential Chronic Offender Subgroups. The Between Groups Sum of Squares and the Within Groups Sum of Squares (with one less degree of freedom) were adjusted for the con comitant variable age, and the Mean Squares Between Groups and Mean Squares Within Groups was obtained by dividing by their respective degrees of freedom (I and 35). F Ratios were then obtained In the usual manner and entered Into an F Distribution Table with I and 35 degrees of freedom. The analysis of covarlance permitted the calculation of an adjusted mean for each of the MMPI scales for each group, and It was possible to examine differences In the scale elevations that could be attributed to age by comparing the adjusted to the non-adjusted means. D. Potentla I Chronic versus Random Control. In order to test the hypothesis that the Potential Chronic Offender Subgroup differ In personality characteristics from the Random Control Subgroup, a one-way analysis of variance was computed for each of the MMPI scales, between these two subgroups. F Ratios were obtained and entered Into an F Distribution Table with I and 28 degrees of freedom. Additional one-way analyses were computed with the same degrees of freedom for the variables of age, Intelligence, and incarceration. The variable of socio economic status was tested for significance using a 2 x 2 contingency table and the Chi-square test with one degree of freedom. In order to statistically control for the Influence of the expected differences In Incarceration on the MMPI scales, an analysis of covarlance with Incarceration as the covariate was performed for each of the MMPI scales. Thus any significant differences occurring In the original analyses could be retested by equating the two groups on the Influence of Incarceration. By testing all the scales, adjusted MMPI means could be obtained and compared to the original means, non-adjusted for the Influence of Incarceration. F Ratios for each of the scales were obtained and entered Into an F Distrib ution Table with I and 27 degrees of freedom. A. Chronic versus Random Offender. A summary of the means and standard deviations for each of the MMPI scales and control variables, and the analysis of variance comparisons for the Chronic Offender Group and Random Offender Group Is included in Table 1. The MMPI mean scale elevations for the Random Ss appear more elevated than for the Chronic Ss, as reflected in Figure 1, with exception of the Pd, Mf, and Ma scales. However, of the scales, only the L, Pt, and Sc scales were found to be significantly higher for the Random Offender Group In the analyses of variance as summarized by Table 1. The L and Pt scales were significant at the .05 level, and the Sc scale was significant at the .01 level with 1 and 58 degrees of freedom in each comparison. Among the con trol variables, the Chronic Offender Group was significantly older (at the .001 level), and had spent significantly more time In incarceration (at the .001 level) than the Random Offender Group. The groups were not found to differ along the variable of Intelligence. When Chronic Offenders were compared to Random Offenders along the variable of socioeconomic status, as reflected In Table 2, the obtained Chi-square value was non-significant with one degree of freedom. Thus the groups did not differ along this con trol variable. B. Chronic versus PotentiaI Chronic Offenders. A summary of the means and standard deviations for each of the MMPI scales and control variables, and the analysis of variance comparisons for the Chronic Offender Group and Potential Chronic Offender Subgroup Is Included In Table 3. The mean MMPI scale elevations for the Potential Chronic Offender Summary Table for Analysis of Variance of MMPI Scales and Control Variables Between the Chronic and Random Offender Groups Groups Chronic Offender Random Offender Scale Mean S.D. Mean S.D. F Ratio L 46.73 5.39 49.97 6.92 4.08* F 60.53 7. 13 63.23 8.18 i 1.86 Hs 55.33 12.44 56.53 1 1.90 0.15 D. 65.57 14. 19 68.53 12.83 0.72 Hy 57.43 8.92 59.53 10.93 0.66 Pd 76.33 10. 14 76.60 1 1.86 0.01 Mf 58.50 10.24 58.07 9.38 0.03 Pa 58.20 10.53 62.07 12.17 1.73 Pt 57.43 10.55 65.60 14.67 6.13* Sc 55.93 9.56 64.97 12.73 9.65** Ma 63.43 12.10 63.47 12.03 0.00 Variable Age 39.50 4.57 27.50 7.38 57.39*** 1 .Q. 106.50 8.80 105.40 9.91 0.23 Incarc. 1.78 0.28 1.06 0.54 41.31*** * p<.05 ** p<.0l *** p<.00l Fig. I. The profiles of the Chronic and the mean elevations for each of for K, and non-adjusted for the Random Offender Groups reflecting the MMPI scales, non-corrected effect of age or incarceration. T SCORES Contingency Table for Socioeconomic Status Between Chronic and Random Offender Groups Group Hoi 1Ingshead 1ndex 1 - IV V Chronic Offender 9 21 Random Offender 13 17 Note: x2 = I-79 and .20 > p > .10 with 1 df. Summary Table for Analysis of Variance of MMPI Scales and Control Variables Between the Chronic Offender Group and the Potential Chronic Offender Subgroup Group or Subgroup Chronic Offender Potential Chronic Offender Sea le Mean S.D. Mean S.D. F Ratio , L 46.73 5.39 48.53 6. 10 1.16 F 60.53 7.13 63.26 .' 7.81 1 .58 Hs 55.33 12.44 55.63 1 1.04 0.01 D 65.57 14. 19 66.42 12.88 0.05 Hy 57.43 8.92 59.90 9.01 0.88 Pd 76.33 10.14 77.68 10.31 0.20 Mf 58.50 10.24 59.00 9.77 0.03 Pa 58.20 10.53 59.79 12.22 0.23 Pt 57.43 10.55 62.79 13. 16 2.47 Sc 55.93 9.56 62.68 13.26 4.28* Ma 63.43 12.10 63.90 12.34 0.02 Variable Age 39.50 4.57 28.63 8.67 32.95*** 1 .Q. 106.53 8.80 105.47 9.83 0.05 1ncarc. 1.78 0.28 1.43 0.23 . 20.58*** * p<.05 *** p<.00l Subgroup as compared to the Chronic Offender Group follows a similar pattern to Figure 1. However, differences in elevations among the L, D, Pa, Pt, and Sc scales are notably reduced in the Potential Chronic Offender Subgroup as compared to their original source group of Random Offenders. Although, still more elevated in the scales previously mentioned, the Potential Chronic Offenders were significantly higher only on the Sc scale (at the .05 level• with 1 and 47 degrees of freedom) as summarized by the F Ratios in Table 3. Although the Potential Chronic S_s were slightly older than the Random Offender Group, they were still significantly younger (at the .001 level) than the Chronic Offender Ss. No difference was. noted for the variable of intelligence. When Chronic Offender Ss were compared to Potential Chronic Offender Ss along the variable of socioeconomic status, as shown on Table 4, the obtained ChI — square value was non-sign If leant with one degree of freedom. Thus the groups did not differ along this control variable. Although previously assumed and hypothesized that the two groups would not differ In the proportion of time spent in incarceration, the Chronic Offender Group still spent a greater proportion (significant at the .001 level) of their adult lives in incarceration compared to the Potential Chronic Offender Ss. In order to control for the possible Influence of this differ ence, a subgroup of Chronic Ss were selected from the Chronic Offender Group which provided the best match for Ss in the Potential Chronic Offender Sub group along the variable of incarceration. C. Matched Chronic versus Potential Chronic Offenders. The means and standard deviations for each of the MMPI scales and control variables for the subgroup of Chronic Offenders which were designated Contingency Table for Socioeconomic Status Between the Chronic Offender Group and Potential Chronic Offender Subgroup Group Hoi 1Ingshead 1ndex 1 - IV V Chronic Offender 9 21 Potential Chronic Offender 8 II Note: x2 = 1.38 and .30 > p > .20 with 1 df As the Matched Chronic Offender Subgroup, and those previously obtained for the Potential Chronic Ss are summarized In Table 5. The matching procedure resulted In a subgroup which differed from the original group by having slightly higher elevations on the D, Mf, Pa, Pt, and Sc scales. The matched Chronic Offender Subgroup obtained higher mean elevatlons'on the D and Mf scales, whereas the Potential Chronic Offenders obtained higher mean ele vations on the L, Pt, and Sc scales as reflected in Figure 2. With the exception of the D and Pa scales, the profiles of the Matched Chronic Ss compared to the Potential Chronic ^s follows a similar pattern to the original group of Chronic Offenders compared to the Potential Chronic Offender Subgroup. As a result of the matching procedure and the higher elevations In some of the scales, the F Ratios in Table 5 tended to be generally smaller than when Chronic Offenders were used in the comparisons (Table 3). Whereas the previous comparison revealed a significant differ ence between the Chronic Offender Ss and the Potential Chronic Offender S_s on the Sc scale, no difference occurred when the Matched Chronic Ss were used as the comparison group. The Matched Chronic Offenders were slightly older than their source group of Chronic Offenders, and were older (significant at the .001 level) than the Potential Chronic Offender Ss. The groups did not differ along the variable of intelligence. Al though the matching procedure reduced the between groups source of vari ation for the variable of incarceration, the Matched Chronic Offender Ss were still found to have spent a greater proportion (significant at the .01 level) of their adult lives in incarceration. Thus, It was not possible to control for differences in the variable in Incarceration between these Summary Table for Analysis of Variance of MMPI Scales and Control Variables Between the Matched Chronic and Potential Chronic Subgroups Subgroups Matched Chronic Offender Potent!a 1 Chronic Offender Sea le Mean S.D. Mean S.D. F Ratio L 45.63 5.70 48.53 6.10 2.28 F 61.95 6.25 63.26 7.81 0.33 Hs 56.37 13.02 55.63 1 1.04 0.04 D 68. 16 14.75 66.42 12.88 0. 15 Hy 57.58 9.94 59.90 9.01 0.57 Pd 76.58 9.66 77.68 10.31 0.12 Mf 60.79 8.33 59.00 9.77 0.37 Pa 59.53 10.76 59.79 12.22 0.00 Pt 59.21 9.82 62.79 13. 16 0.90 Sc 57.79 10.08 62.68 13.26 1 .64 Ma 63.37 13.47 63.90 12.34 0.02 Variable Age 40.58 5.01 28.63 8.67 27.01*** I.Q. 106.90 9.89 105.47 9.83 0.20 1ncarc. 1.61 0.17 1.43 0.23 8.00** ** p<.0l *** p<.00l Fig. 2. The profiles of the Matched Chronic and Random Offender Subgroups reflecting the mean elevations for each of the MMPI scales, non-corrected for K, and non-adjusted for the effect of incarceration. T SCORES o cn O O o oo O oh 2 3"-CO o 03 4% :-W> • \ \ • \ 0 V 0 0 irj> • o • • ! 1 * I I * • v> 6 30 "0 <» o> oO o> oz izj I-l ZO DOS 30O zjo o± oi 30^ 2— Zm I— 0|— o two groups. As no significant differences were obtained on any of the MMPI scales between the subgroups, failure to control for the differences in incarceration may have had a negligible effect. The results of exploring for the possible influence of the differ ences in the age on the MMPI scales through an analysis of covariance between the Matched Chronic and Potential Chronic Offender Subgroups are summarized in Table 6. By equating for the concomitant variable of age, the adjusted mean elevations for the Matched Chronic Ss increases on the Pt, Sc, and Ma scales, and decreases slightly on the Hy and Pd scales. The adjusted mean elevations for the Potential Chronic Ss reflects a reversal in that the de creases occur on the Pt, Sc and Ma scales and there are slight increases on the Hy and Pd scales. By comparing the adjusted mean elevations for both groups, the Potential Chronic Offender Ss have higher elevations on the L, Hy, and Pd scales, whereas the Matched Chronic Offender Ss only have a higher elevation on the Ma scale. Although the largest between-groups source of variation occurred on the Pt and Sc scales in the original analyses of variance, by equating for age, the largest between-groups source of variation occurred on the Hy, Pd, and Ma scales in the analysis of covariance. However, no significant differences were obtained on these, or the other MMPI scales. D. Potentia I Chronic versus Random Control. The means and standard deviations for each of the MMPI scales and control variable- for the subgroup of Random Offenders which were designated as the Random Control Subgroup are summarized in Table 7. Compared to their original source group of Random Offenders (see Table 1), Random Control Ss tend to have higher mean elevations on the L, D, Pa, Pt, and Sc scales. As Summary Table for Analysis of Covariance of MMPI Scales Between the Matched Chronic and Potential Chronic Subgroups Subgroups Adjusted Mean Sum of Squares Matched Chronic Offender Potent!a 1 Chron i c Offender Sea le Adjusted Means Between a Within, b .'.F Ratio L 45.04 49.1 1 89.90 35.36 2.54 F 62.87 62.24 1 .54 50.27 0.03 Hs 55.95. ; 56.05 0.06 I49.7F 0.00 D 67.20 ' 67.38 • 0.19 195.89 0.00 Hy 55.67' 61.81 ' 204.82 87.23 2.35 Pd 74.80 79.46 ; i I8.M 98. 18 1.20 Mf 60.26 ' 59.53 2.94 84.38 0.03 Pa 59.54 . ; 59.78 0.32 136.34 . 0.00 Pt 61.60 ' 60.40.' 7.73 130.40 ' 0.06 Sc 60.43. ' 50.04 . 0.81 I32.63: 0.01 Ma 66.43 60.83 ; 170.27 158.08 1 .08 a Mean sum of square values Between Groups were obtained by.dividing the Between Groups Sum of Squares by the degrees of freedom (1). b Mean sum of square values Within Groups were obtained by dividing the Within Groups Sum of Squares by the degrees of freedom (35). Summary Table for Analysis of Variance of MMPI Scales and Control Variable Between the Potential Chronic Offender and Random Control Subgroups Subgroups Potential Chronic Offender Random Contro1 Scale Mean S.D. Mean S.D. F Ratio L 48.53 6.10 52.46 7.83 2.35 F 63.26 7.81 63.18 9.19 0.00 Hs 55.63 ' 1 1 .04' 58>. 09 • 13.96 0.29 D 66.42 '. ' 12.88 72.18 12.46 1.43 Hy 59.90 9.01 58.91 14.29 0.05 Pd 77.68 10.31 74.73 14.53 0.42 Mf 59.00 9.77 56.46 9.06 0.50 Pa 59.79 ; 12.22 66.00 1 1 .63 1.87 Pt 62.79 \ 13.16 70.46 16.77 1.97 Sc ; 62.68 13.26 68.91 11.27 1 .71 Ma 63.90 • ; 12.34 62.73 13.41 0.06 Vari able Age 28.63 8.67 25.55 • 3.96 1.23 I.Q. 105.47 9.83 ; 105.18 10.59 0.01 1ncarc. 1 .43 0.23 0.43 0.24 130.49*** Note: significance values for a I I comparisons are based upon 1 and 28 df. *** p<.00l further noted by Table 7, their counterpart subgroup, the Potential Chronic Offender Ss had lower elevations on these scales. The relative elevations for both groups are also reflected by Figure 2. However, the analysis of variance between the Potential Chronic Offenders and Random Controls pro duced no significant differences between the groups on any of the scales as shown by the F Ratios in Table 7. Further, no significant differences occurred between the two groups on the control variables of age, and intelligence (Table 7), nor was the Chi-square value significant for the variable of socioeconomic status (Table 8). The Potential Chronic Offender Ss spent'a greater proportion (significant at the .001 level) of their adult lives in incarceration. The results of exploring for the possible influence of the differ ences in incarceration on the MMPI scales through an analysis of covariance between the Potential Chronic Offender and Random Control subgroups are summarized in Table 9. By equating for the concomitant variable of in—' carceration, the adjusted mean scale elevations for the Potential Chronic Offender Ss shows a marked decrease on the D and Pd scales, a lesser de crease in the F, Pa, and Pt scales, and a slight increase in the Hy and Mf scales. The adjusted mean elevations for the Random Control Ss reflects a reversal in the same scales in that the D and Pd scales reflect a marked increase; the F, Pa, and Pt scales, a lesser increase;'and-the'Hy and Mf scales, a decrease. Although the largest between-groups source of variation occurred on the L, D, Pa, Pt, and Sc scales in the original analyses of variance, by equating for incarceration, the between-groups source of variation in the analysis of covariance reflects.a marked decrease in the Contingency Table for Socioeconomic Status Between the Potential Chronic and Random Control Subgroups' Group Hoi 1i ngshead 1ndex 1 - IV . v Potential Chronic Offender 8 II Random Control 5 6 Note: x2 = 0.31 and .70- > p > .50 with 1 df. Summary Table for Analysis of Covariance of MMPI Seales Between the Potential Chronic Offender and Random Control Subgroups Subgroups Adjusted Mean Sum of Squares Potential Chronic Offender Random Control Sea 1 e Adjusted Means Between a Within. •. b . F Ratio L 48.68 52.18 15.09 47.45. 0.32 F 60.77 67.49 55.58 69.34 . 0.80 Hs 55.79 ; 57.81 5.04 150.41 0.03 D 59.03 ; 84.95 ; 827.14 145.65 5.68* Hy 63.30 ; 53.03 ; 129.96 123.40 1.05 Pd 72.68 ; 83.37 : ; 140.79 138.43. 1.02 Mf 60.02 ' 54.70 34.88 92.49 0.38 • Pa 57.51 ' 69.95 •• ; 190.52 147.08 • 1.30 Pt 60.63 74.19 ; 226.49 • 213.92 1.06 Sc 62.06 ". 69.99 • 77.42 164.02 . 0.47 Ma 64.28. ; 62.06 6.05 • 154.90 ' 0.04' a Mean sum of square vaIues Between Groups were obtained by.dividing the Between Groups Sum of Squares by the degrees of freedom (1). b Mean sum of square vaIues Withih Groups were obtained by dividing the Within Groups Sum of Squares by the degrees of freedom (27). L, Pa, Pt, and Sc scales, and a marked.increase in the D, Hy, andPd scales. However, as the within-groups source of variation was also quite large for each of the scales, only the D scale differed significantly (at the .05'. I eve I). Chapter V DISCUSSION A. Absence of significant differences, Interpretation of present fIndings,  and trends suggested by the data. The results Indicate that the L, D, Pa, Pt, and Sc scales of the MMPI tend to vary In elevation among the study groups. Significant differences were obtained only on the L, Pt, and Sc scales among the original criterion groups of Chronic and Random Offenders. These differences lost their signi ficance through deriving subgroups and in applying covariate adjustments, in attempting to control for the Influence of the concomitant variables of age and incarceration. As hypothesized, those Ss within a randomly derived sample, who had greater incarceration indices, possessed similar personality characteristics as measured by the MMPI to a criterion group of chronic offenders, with the exception of the Sc scale. However, these same Ss designated as Potential Chronic Offenders, did not differ significantly along the same personality characteristics from their counterpart subgroup of Ss who had low Incarcer ation indices. In the absence of significant differences, the Potential Chronic Offenders occupied a "middle" position among the L, Pt, and Sc scales which were found to be significant between the original criterion groups. When the D and Pa scales are also considered, these elevations would suggest that the Potential Chronic Offenders tend to be more like the criterion group of Chronic Offenders In their MMPI profile characteristics than the subgroup with the lower incarceration Indices designated as Random Controls. As noted, the Potential Chronic Offenders differed significantly from the Chronic Offenders on the Sc scale. When the subgroup of Matched Chronic was selected and compared to the Potential Chronic Offenders, this difference lost It's significance. Through the matching procedure, the Matched Chronic Ss had lower Incarceration indices than their original source group. As the Matched Chronic Ss had higher elevations on the Sc scale than their original source group, It would appear that Sc scale elevations among Chronic Ss may be Inversely related to Incarceration. When the two subgroups are equated for age by the analysis of covariance, the difference In elevation Is virtually removed. Therefore, it would also appear that Sc scale ele vations among the Potentially Chronic Ss may be more Inversely related to age. However, other factors may contribute to the respective elevations of this scale among the subgroups. In addition to containing Items that relate to the classic description of schizophrenia, Lingoes (I960) reports several clusters or groupings of items within this scale. Two of the clusters relate to social alienation, and lack of ego mastery through defect of in hibition and control. Endorsing items which relate to social alienation could occur among the Potential Chronic Ss, who may tend to become more concerned about their lack of meaningful relationships and absence of rapport with other people. As this subgroup also commits significantly (p<.001) more crimes of violence than the Chronic Ss, they would more likely feel and re port a defect of Inhibition and control over their impulses. As a further note, the Chronic Offender Ss may be regarded as "prison wise" and realize the possible consequences In terms of obtaining parole or a transfer to a minimum security Institution, If they were to admit to more serious pathology or impulsivity. As a result, Chronic Offender Ss may be more guarded in their responses to such Items as are contained In the Sc scale, may be less likely to admit to symptoms which would suggest treatment, and may be giving a more favourable Impression of their personality functioning. When the analysis of covariance with age as the covariate was conducted between the Matched Chronic and Potential Chronic subgroups, the difference in the adjusted means between the two groups on the Pt scale was also virtually removed. Thus this scale may also tend to vary Inversely with Increasing age among the Potential Chronic Ss, as was suggested with the Sc scale. The Pt scale as described by Dahlstrom and Welsh (I960) includes items which relate to "anxiety and dread, low self-confidence, doubts about one's competence, undue sensitivity, moodiness, and immobilization [p. 70]." It may suggest that with Increasing age, the Potential Chronic Ss may become less sensitized to anxiety through alternate modes of adjustment such as reverting to alcohol or drugs. Further, they may, with increasing age and institutional experience, become more "prison wise" as was suggested with Chronic Ss, and therefore less likely to endorse items which relate to mentaI or emotional pathology rather than behavioural difficulties. As a further result of the analysis of covariance between the Matched Chronic and Potential Chronic subgroups, the adjusted means on the L, Hy, and Pd scales increased among the Potential Chronic Ss, while the Ma scale in creased among the Matched Chronic Ss. However, as the subgroups still differed significantly (p<.0l) with respect to incarceration, further investigation would be warranted to determine whether the differences in the adjusted means were the result of differences In Incarceration, or through equating for age, or as a result of some other variable which did not come under examination nor control. The Random Control Subgroup was found to have the highest mean ele vations on the L, D, Pa, Pt, and Sc scales among all of the samples. However, no significant differences were obtained when compared to their counterpart subgroup, the Potential Chronic Offender Ss. It would appear that through deriving these subgroups, the reduction in sample sizes may have resulted in the commission of more Type II errors. If the differences in the ele vations on these scales represent true differences between the subgroups, by setting the power of the test at .80 and the probability of a Type I error at .05, and by employing estimates of the population error variance from those obtained in the present study, sample sizes of approximately 30 to 40 Ss would be required to reject the null hypothesis. Thus, failure to demonstrate significant differences in personality characteristics reflected by elevations on the L, D, Pa, Pt, and Sc scales found among the Potential Chronic Ss, and which also may be associated with persistent criminality; compared to Random Control Ss, who have lower elevations on these scales and low incarceration indices; may have occurred as the result of inadequate power in the statistical comparisons conducted in this study. Further, in conducting the analysis of covariance between these subgroups with incar ceration as the covariate, the regression equations for each group, and for both groups combined were derived from a smalI number of Ss. The F Ratio between the subgroups on this variable was the largest obtained in the study, which would also suggest the difficulty in equating for the influence of this difference between both groups. Thus, in attempting to fit the best regression equation to the data, the adjusted sources of variation between-and within-groups are spuriously large. Although only the difference on the D scale was found to be significant, all differences that were suggested in the adjusted means (Table 9) should be further investigated using larger samples. In summary, the results indicated that the L, D, Pa, Pt, and Sc scales varied in elevation among the study groups. In the absence of significant differences in the present study, trends in the elevation among these scales would appear to have some relationship to the influence of age and incarcer ation, or some other variable or variables which differentiates the groups and did not come under examination nor control. B. MMPI profi le characteristics among samp Ie groups. The original Chronic Offender Group, and the Matched Chronic and Potential Chronic Offender subgroups have similar MMPI configural profile patterns in which the Pd scale reflects a peaked elevation in comparison to other scales. It is the only scale whose elevation exceeds two standard deviations (20 standard score points) from the population mean (50). Thus, by exceeding a standard score of 70, it is designated as a "high point 4" or coded as "4' ", where the number "four" stands for the fourth clinical scale, the Pd scale. Dahlstrom and Welsh (I960) suggest that elevations in the Pd scale appear in many profiles in both normal and psychiatric populations, and in creases markedly in prison groups. In a summary of the research (I960), they indicate that peak scores on this scale, even when the elevation does not exceed a standard score of 70, "provided evidence of lack of social conform ity or self-control, and a persistent tendency to get into scrapes [p. 188]." Guthrie (Welsh and Dahlstrom, 1956) found that among 25 V.A. patients, ele vation on this scale was associated with a history of minor delinquency, un-steady work, poor home relations, and a poor response to treatment. His study group was diagnosed as "Psychopathic Personality, Asocial Type," and had been hospitalized for reasons which included alcoholism, court referrals, and anxiety complaints. Gilberstadt and Duker (1965) found peak Pd elevations among 17 male veteran patients, whose primary diagnosis was "Personality Trait Disturbance, Passive-Aggressive Personality, Aggressive Type." In reviewing the case histories, they described the complaints, traits, symptoms, and cardinal features of this group as immature, childish, impulsive and emotionally unstable to the extent of being assaultive; having severe marital conflicts through eliciting a succorant, motherly attitude of forebearance from their wives; reflecting sexual maladjustments including perverse sexual behaviour and acting-out; and becoming tense, moody, guilt-ridden, and de pressed because of low frustration tolerance. They further note that suicide attempts, aggressive outbursts towards wives, and alcoholism were the most frequent causes for admission. The trait descriptions, clinical features, and diagnoses primarily available in the literature to describe subjects with peak elevations on the Pd scale have been largely based upon V.A. patients in hospital settings. However, Panton (Dahlstrom and Welsh, I960) noted that the Pd scale was the most frequent high point or second high point scale among 2551 prison inmates. Further, the populations studied by Levy et aj_. (1952), Panton (1958, 1959, and 1962b), and Dunham's (1954) recidivist group all reflect a high point or peak elevation on this scale. The Chronic Offender Group, and Matched Chronic and Potential Chronic subgroups compare with Levy et a I.'s repeater group. Dunham's recidivist group reflected a similar profile pattern, although the elevations in each of the scales were notably lower. Panton's (1959) recidivist group and (1962a) habitual criminal group tended to have higher elevations on the Hs, D, and Hy scales, although the rest of the profile is compatible. As the profiles in Panton's groups correspond to Levy et a I.'s subgroups who were age 41 to 45, 46 to 50, and 50 and over; it would appear that the higher elevations in the Hs, D, and Hy scales may be the result of differences in age from the samples in this study. In summary, peak elevations on the Pd scale have appeared in general prison samples and the present chronic offender samples may therefore reflect a feature of antisocial behaviour common to criminal offenders. This would tend to support Guthriels (1956) reference to the Pd peak as being associated with the "Psychopathic Personality, Asocial Type." However the features suggested by Gilberstadt and Duker relating to the "Passive-Aggressive, Personality - Aggressive Type" may require modification when applied to criminal offender groups, as an aggressive history was not supported among the Chronic Offender samples in this study. The MMPI profiles of the Chronic Offender Group, and Matched Chronic and Potential Chronic subgroups appear more similar to Panton's (1962b) group of 2198 consecutive admissions, than the original Random Offender group in this study. In addition, the Random Offender Group's profile appears more elevated than Panton's (1958, 1959) other total sample groups with the exception of the Hy scale. When further compared to a similarly aged sub group of recidivists in Panton's (1959) and Levy et al.'s study, the Random Offender Group in this study continues to have a higher elevated profile. This may indicate a greater incidence of pathology among the general population of inmates in B.C.P. compared to inmates in State institutions or reception centers, and would suggest the need to include inmates from a provincial institution in future comparison studies. The Random Control Subgroup has a mean MMPI profile which follows a configural pattern designated as "2-7-4" by Gilberstadt and Duker, and by Marks and Seeman (1963). This refers to the D, Pt, and Pd scales respectively, as having elevations which exceed a standard or T score of 70, irrespective of the order of magnitude. Marks and Seeman noted that among a criteria group of 21 patients having this profile pattern, most were diagnosed as "Psychoneurotic Disorders, Depressive Reaction" or "Personality Trait Dis turbance, Passive-Aggressive Personality." Generally, the most descriptive Q sort of features of this group included a vulnerability to real or fancied threat; the presence of fears or phobias; being nervous or anxious to the degree that minor matters are treated as if they were emergencies; an in ability to express emotions in any variable, adaptive manner; and a tendency to under-control impulses and act with insufficient thought. Gilberstadt and Duker's criteria group of 27 patients, who reflected this pattern were primarily diagnosed as "Anxiety Reaction with Alcoholism In a Passive-Aggressive Personality." The case histories of this group reflected complaints, traits, symptoms, and cardinal features of severe alcoholism and personality defects associated with anxiety, tension, inferiority feelings, and guilt; and passive-aggressive features in which aggression was expressed by such measures as stubbornness, procrastination, inefficiency, and passive obstruc-Although the D, Pd, and Pt represent the highest scale elevations among the Random Control Subgroup, the Sc scale approaches the level of the Pt scale and therefore warrants comment. In arriving at the profile dis crimination rules regarding the "2-7-4" configural pattern or type, both Gilberstadt and Duker, and Marks and Seeman suggest that the Pt scale ele vation should exceed the Sc scale elevation by at least five standard score. Although this difference between the Pt and Sc scales among the Random Control Ss violates this rule, Marks and Seeman suggest that a slight vio lation of this rule may not make that much difference, and one could accept the "2-7-4" actuarial description with some modifications. Gilberstadt and Duker advise that the rules were devised for selecting "classical" psychia tric cases, and where an individual's profile does not precisely fit the set of rules, the potential cookbook description should be checked with outside information or other testing, and the description be modified by the available information. Configural patterns designated as "8-2-4" found among 20 patients in Marks and Seeman's study were primarily diagnosed as "Schizophrenic Reaction, Paranoid Type," although a few cases were diagnosed as "Sociopathic Personality Disturbance." Nine patients in Gilberstadt and Duker's sample, who reflected this pattern, were primarily diagnosed as "Personality Pattern Disturbance, Paranoid Type," and the alternate diagnosis was "Schizophrenic Reaction, Paranoid Type." Although both the "2-7-4" and "8-2-4" profile types would suggest developmental defects or pathological trends in the personality structure; the "8-2-4" pattern would appear to indicate a level of psychopathology which may proceed to an actual psychosis; whereas the "2-7-4" pattern would suggest a possible regression to a lower level of personality organization and functioning without developing into a psychosis. It would appear that the descriptions associated with the "2-7-4" pattern may provide a better "fit" in describing the Random Control Ss. How ever, the description could be modified to account for the influence of the Sc scale elevation. Dahlstrom and Welsh (I960) note that paired elevations on the Pd and Sc scales are associated with individuals who are described as "unpredictable." "impulsive," and frequently referred to as having a "Schizoid Personality." They further note that crimes committed by persons with this profile are often "senseless, poorly planned, and poorly executed, and may include some of the most savage and vicious forms of sexual and homicidal assault [pp. 191-192]." Dahlstrom and Welsh also note that the Pd and Pt scale elevations tend to be related to phases of behaviour in which there are periods when individuals may act out with little control or forethought; and following such a period, may then show guilt, remorse, and deep regret, and may appear overly control led and contrite. The Pd and D scale combination is suggested by dahlstrom and Welsh (I960) to be associated with "long standing behavioural patterns such as alcoholism, where the de pressive features are situationaI ly produced [p. 192.;]". Thus, the descriptions and diagnoses presented by Marks and Seeman, and Gilberstadt and Duker could be modified to reflect a pattern more characteristic of the "Personality Trait Disturbance, Passive-Aggressive Personality, Aggressive Type." However, the pathology related to this disorder should be explored further in a psychiatric interview with additional Ss who reflect the "2-7-4" pattern with additional elevation on the Sc scale. This may help to further differentiate from the pattern of aggressive behaviour suggested by Gilberstadt and Duker to be associated with Pd peak elevations. Some of the MMPI scales would appear to have little value in differ entiating between the groups in this study. The L or Lie scale differentiated significantly between the Chronic and Random Offenders. This scale contains items which relate to "aggressive feelings, bad thoughts, temptations, and lack of control or conformity (Dahlstrom and Welsh, I960, p. 49)." However, there are only 15 items on the scale, and significant differences may have occurred as a result of a difference of only two or three items. It is there fore suggested that this scale be used only as a validity measure in future studies. Leary (1957) has suggested that elevations on the F scale in addition to the Pd and Ma scales reflect a pattern of adjustment through aggression. However, the F scale did not vary significantly between the groups, nor was it highly elevated among the Random Control Ss who reflected the greatest incidence of violence. As previously mentioned, the Hs and Hy scales may appear to older inmate groups, and were not prominent within the present samples. The Mf scale did not discriminate between the groups, nor did it appear to be related to the other scales. The significance of the Pd and Ma elevations in relation to recidivism as suggested by Levy et aj_. and Panton (1959, 1962a) was not evident among the Chronic Offender nor Potential Chronic Offender Ss. However, the Chronic Offender Group did include 18 heroin addicts, seven alcoholics, and three "admitted" problem drinkers, and the relative elevations on the Pd and Ma scales of this group are compatible with the alcoholics in Guthrie's study and the heroin addicts in Olson's (1964) study. C. Criminal and sociaI characteristics among samp Ie groups. The Chronic Offender Group was found to have a background of crimes primarily committed against property as opposed to persons, and a fewer incidence of crimes of violence as would occur among offenders in general. This type of pattern is consistent with the preventive detainees studied by Morris, West and Hammond and Chayen. As the Chronic Offender sample also included 18 heroin addicts, they also tended to have more convictions for drug offences than would be expected to occur among offenders in general. Random Offenders tended to have a background which reflected more crimes of violence and fewer crimes involving property than would be expected to occur among offenders in general. This was especially evident in the Random Control Subgroup. As the percentage of convictions for crimes in volving the possession of stolen goods and theft is 53.1 compared to 10.3 for crimes of violence (D.B.S., 1967), the low incarceration index occurring among the Random Control Subgroup may be a function of the frequency of violent criminal acts rather than the incidence of general criminality among these Ss. Further, the trends suggested in the MMPI scales may relate to the propensity towards violent behaviour, rather than the absence of per sonality characteristics associated with persistent or chronic criminality. The Potential Chronic Offender Subgroup had a significantly (p<.001) higher indicence of crimes involving violence, and crimes committed against persons compared to the Chronic Offender Group. This may be a function of the differences in ages between the two groups as it would relate to changes in criminal patterns that could occur with increasing age. Thus, the Potential Chronic Ss may be progressing from an initial pattern of crimes against per sons, which would incur more serious penalities and more immediate police action; towards crimes against property, which receives less severe penalties and police detection. Juvenile histories were not available which would permit a basis for exploring Cormier's theory among the Ss. However, no differences were noted between the groups in the proportion of Ss who received adult convictions prior to the age of 18, which would suggest the onset of serious criminality. This may be a characteristic of the samples studied and differences may have occurred using a random sample of inmates from a provincial institution. In the two year period preceeding their present admission to B.C.P., Chronic Offenders spent significantly (p<.OI) more of the preceeding period in incarceration compared to the Random Offenders. However, no differences were noted when compared to the Potential Chronic Ss. Further, the Potential Chronic Ss were found to have spent significantly (p<.01) more of the pre ceeding period in incarceration compared to their counterpart subgroup of Random Controls. Significantly (p<.05) more Chronic Offenders compared to Random Offenders were born and raised in Vancouver. As Vancouver tends to have the highest incidence of heroin addiction, this may account for the large proportion of drug addicts in the sample. No differences were noted when the rest of the province was included in the comparison. Although there was a tendency for the Chronic Offenders to have been raised in larger centers, the difference approached but did not exceed significance. Although no information was available regarding the quality of parental upbringing, most Ss in each of the sample groups were raised by both parents This was,consistent with the findings of Morris, West, and Hammond and Chayen, although comparison groups were not used in their studies. Although the number of Ss' siblings did not differ between the Chronic and Random Groups, the proportion of Ss in both groups who were raised in large families is notably large, and corresponds to the findings of West. However, it is also inconsistent with Dunham's findings that non-recidivists tended to have more siblings than recidivists. No differences were noted in birth order between Chronic and Random Offender Ss, which tends to support the findings of West and Dunham. Educational level did not appear to discriminate between recidivists and non-recidivists in Dunham's nor Mandel et a I.'s (1965) study. However, in the present study, Chronic Offender Ss had significantly lower educational levels than the Random Offender.Ss (p<.001), and the Potential Chronic Offender Ss <p<.01). Although the age differences between the groups may suggest differences in the standards of acceptable education, the Chronic Offender Ss may have had their educations interrupted by placement in an institution. The younger sample of Potential Chronic Offender Ss, however, may have come under supervision through probation, and thus allowed to further their schooling as an alternative to an institutional commitment. No differences were noted within the Random subgroups. It should be noted that the education al grades used in these comparisons was obtained from information provided by the inmates contained in the files. As this information was not cross-validated with school records, it may be subject to distortion, and should therefore be interpreted with caution. Although intellectual ability was primarily used as a control variable in the present study, it should be noted that most Ss fell within the normal range and bordered upon the bright normal range of intellectual ability. Further, no differences occurred between the groups. This was consistent with the findings of Dunham, and Mandel et al. As a final note to the previous social background of the Ss in this study, most Ss tended to have Hollingshead Indices representing the lowest social class. No differences occurred between the groups with respect to this control variable, and would suggest that lack of economic opportunity tended to affect each group equally. Most preventive detainees in the studies by Morris, West, and Hammond and Chayen were found to be bachelors, and suggested evidence of long-standing social isolation. However, the present sample of Chronic Offenders contained more Ss who were married, who had been married, or had common-law relation ships. Further, there were significantly (p<.0l) fewer single Ss among the Chronic Offenders compared to the Random Ss and the Potential Chronic Ss. The ages at which the Chronic Offenders married should be explored in further evaluating this difference. Morris, West, Hammond and Chayen, and Mandel et_ aj_. noted the high incidence of unskilled or general .labourers in their samples. The Chronic Offender Group in the present study contained significantly (p<.0l) more subjects who were unskilled compared to the Random Offender Ss. Chronic Offender Ss would probably be more dependent upon seasonal work upon re lease from prison, and would be less likely to qualify for membership and support of a trade union in order to maintain significant periods of employ ment. Although Chronic Offender S_s had comparable periods of freedom from incarceration to Potential Chronic Ss during the two years prior to their admission, they were employed significantly (p<.05) fewer months during that period. Although consistent with the lack of employment skills, or motivation towards legal employment, it would appear that these individuals would resort to illegal activities to maintain themselves during this interval. In summary, Chronic Offenders were found to differ in their patterns of criminality, place of childhood residence, level of education, marital status, and employabiIity in addition to the trends suggested in some of the MMPI scales. These factors may also relate to chronic criminality, and should be explored further to determine whether they are consistent among additional samples. D. Shortcomi nqs of present study. Although possible trends were suggested in the data with respect to the D, Pa, Pt, and Sc scales of the MMPI, it was not possible to control for the influence of age and incarceration in making comparisons among the groups. Thus, it was not possible to determine whether elevations in these scales were inversely related to personality characteristics associated with chronic criminality, or some other variable such as the lack of test-taking sophis tication ("faking good"), and the incidence of violence, which did not come under control. Although the small numbers of Ss in the subgroups contributed towards failure to control for these concomitant variables, employing larger samples may produce similar results, if drawn from the same population of inmates at B.C.P. The samples obtained in this study represent fairly select groups, and characteristics associated with these groups may differ from other prison populations. The criterion group of Chronic Offenders were not drawn at random, and one may not be justified in generalizing from the findings. In deriving the subgroups from the Random Offender Group, these subgroups fail to retain their random characteristics. Thus, one may not be justified in generalizing from the findings associated with these sub groups, especially as the findings were obtained from such small numbers. Although first offenders were suggested to be an unsuitable comparison group in researching chronic criminality, the Random Control Subgroup may also represent an unsuitable comparison group as they reflect a greater incidence of violent crimes than would occur among general offenders. However, this may have theoretical implications in relating the frequencies of types of crimes and the propensities towards persistent criminality; and may there fore be of further research interest. Reduction in sample size among the Random Offender subgroups was suggested to have resulted in more Type II errors being committed in evaluating scale differences. Although previous studies were criticized for employing less conservative statistical analyses, the analyses of variance in this study may have been too conservative in rejecting differences which would be of statistical significance. Although appropriate for an exploratory study, especially with small samples, further research should employ a statistical design which would provide a better estimate of group differ ences and a smaller error term. Difficulties were encountered in relating the profile characteristics of the sample groups to other criteria groups. As the MMPI is primarily used in psychiatric settings, most of the available literature has been derived from, and is more applicable to psychiatric subjects rather than prison groups. Constructs related to social and emotional alienation, and loss of inhibition or control may have different implications for a psychiatric population compared to a behavioural disorder group. The MMPI has been criticized (Berg, 1959) on the basis of being too threatening in it's item content. This may support the suggestion that the Chronic Offender Ss may have been more guarded in their responses to items on the Sc scale. However, the primary problem in evaluating the usefulness of the MMPI within this study relates to the absence of an adequate theory regarding patterns of criminality and personality functioning. The MMPI provides a diverse sample of behaviour and experience in it's item content to contribute towards a theory through further research. Additional psychological tests- may be inclu such as the California Psychological Inventory (Gough, 1957), to supplement or cross-validate theoretical constructs regarding chronic criminality. E. ProposaI for further research. Further research should be primarily directed towards exploring the possible trend suggested in the D, Pa, Pt, and Sc scales of the MMPI. Random samples should be drawn from the general populations of B.C.P. and a provin cial institution and administered the MMPI. Subjects within each of the two random samples should be paired for age, and the subject in each pair having the higher incarceration index be assigned to one subgroup, and his partner to the other. Thus, the B.C.P. random sample would be divided into high and low incarceration subgroups, as would the provincial institution random sample, and subjects would be matched for age within their respective groups. Based upon the estimated population error variances obtained in the present study, the subgroups should be comprised of at least 47 Ss in order to detect a difference of five standard scores between the means at the .05 level of significance. An analysis of covariance for the four subgroups could be performed for the D, Pa, Pt, and Sc scales to equate the groups for the differences in incarceration. This would provide adjusted means for each of the scales and an adjusted population error variance. Orthogonal com parisons could then be employed among the adjusted scale means using a standard error derived from the adjusted population error variance. Ortho gonal comparisons could be made between the subgroups of B.C.P. inmates; the subgroups of provincial institution inmates; and finally between the com bined subgroups of B.C.P. inmates versus the combined subgroups of pro vincial institution inmates (in effect, the random samples of both institu tions). The first two comparisons would employ directional hypotheses in which the subgroups having the lower incarceration indices would be pre dicted to have higher elevations on the D, Pa, Pt, and Sc scales, and would therefore involve one tailed t-tests of significance. However, the last comparison would employ non-directional hypotheses and therefore involve a two tailed t-test (in addition, the F, Hs, Hy, Pd, and Ma scales might be explored in this set of comparisons). Thus, all comparisons would there fore be planned comparisons, be orthogonal to each other, employ better estimates of group differences, and employ a smaller error term in deter mining significant differences. By including inmates from a provincial institution MMPI's of Ss whose incarceration indices fall between those of the Potential Chronic and Random Control subgroups in this study could be explored. In addition, Ss con victed of lesser offences involving aggressive behaviour which would re ceive sentences of under two years, could be compared in the MMPI profile characteristics and frequency of criminal behaviour to the Random Control Subgroup in this study. Chapter VI SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS The problem of chronic criminality has generally been regarded by most criminologists as involving a delay in the process of adequate maturation. Criminal and social factors of the process have been reflected by the studies of preventive detainees in England. Few studies have adequately dealt with the personality variables associated with chronic criminal offenders. A re view of the research attempts employing the MMPI suggested methodological problems related to variability in the selection of criterion groups, failure In deriving more appropriate comparison groups, and the failure to incorporate better statistical designs in examining for differences and controlling for concomitant variables. An exploratory study to examine MMPI characteristics associated with chronic criminality was proposed among inmates at B.C.P., where persistent recidivism may be regarded as a general characteristic. A basic criterion group of 30 Habitual Criminals was hypothesized to differ in personality characteristics measured by the MMPI from a random sample of 30 inmates, and that these differences were associated with chronic criminality. As the Chronic Offender Group (the Habitual Criminals) also differed in age and proportion of time spent in incarceration, a subgroup of 19 Ss in the random sample having greater incarceration indices were selected and designated as Potential Chronic Offenders. It was hypothesized that this subgroup would have similar person ality characteristics to the Chronic Offenders and these characteristics would stand up to statistical control for differences in age, and would therefore be associated with persistent criminality and incarceration. It was hypothesized that the Potential Chronic Offenders would differ in personality characteristics from a counterpart subgroup of I I Ss derived from the random sample, who had lesser incarceration indices, and were designated as Random Controls. As the subgroups were of comparable age, by statistically controlling for the differ ences in incarceration, it was hypothesized that MMPI differences would still occur, and that these differences would suggest personality characteristics which may be associated with persistent criminality and not with incarceration. One-way analyses of variance between groups and subgroups for each of the MMPI scales and the control variables of age, incarceration, and intelli gence were conducted to test for differences. Possible differences between groups on the control variable of socioeconomic status were tested by the Chi — square test. As the Chronic and Potential Chronic Ss differed significantly (p<.00l) on the variable of incarceration, a subgroup of 19 Chronic Offender Ss having lesser incarceration indices and designated as Matched Chronic were matched with the Potential Chronic Ss. Differences in age between the Matched Chronic and Potential Chronic Offender subgroups were controlled by an analysis of covariance with age as the covariate for each MMPI scale. Differences in incarceration between the Potential Chronic and Random Control subgroups were also controlled by an analysis of covariance, but with incarceration as the covariate. The Random Offender Ss were found to have significantly higher elevations on the L and Pt scales (p<.05), and the Sc scale (p<.OI) compared to the Chronic Offender Ss. Significant differences (p<.00l) also occurred with respect to age and incarceration. The Potential Chronic Ss had a significantly (p<:.05) higher elevation on the Sc scale than Chronic Offender Ss, but this difference was removed when compared to the Matched Chronic Ss. A significant difference (p<.OI) occurred on the variable of incarceration between the Potential and Matched Chronic subgroups, and thus it was not possible to control for this variable. No significant differences occurred between the Potential Chronic and Random Control subgroups for any of the MMPI scales, and only the variable of incarceration differentiated the two subgroups significantly (p<.001). Although Potential Chronic ^s did not differ significantly from the Random Control S_s on any of the MMPI scales, their MMPI profile characteristics tended to be more like the criterion group of Chronic Offenders. Failure to obtain significant differences between the Potential Chronic and Random Control subgroups was suggested to have possibly resulted from the loss of power to reject the null hypotheses through the reduction in sample sizes in deriving the subgroups. The results suggested a trend in the elevation of the L, D, Pa, Pt, and Sc scales among the groups, with the Random Control Ss having the highest elevations. In the absence of statistical control for the influ ence of age and incarceration, it was not possible to determine whether the trend was related to personality characteristics associated with chronic criminality or some other variable which did not come under examination nor control. Differences in the incidence of violence among the groups, and the possible tendency among Chronic Offender Ss to become more guarded in responding to items suggesting serious pathology or impulsivity were also noted as pos sibly contributing to the trend in scale elevations. The MMPI profile characteristics among the sample groups were examined with reference to other criteria groups of psychiatric and prison samples. The Chronic Offender Group and the Matched Chronic and Potential Chronic sub groups reflected the characteristic peak Pd profile, which was suggested to be a common feature among general prison samples. The Random Offender Group appeared to have a higher elevated profile than general prison samples re ported in the literature. The Random Control Ss reflected a profile char acteristic designated as "2-7-4". The additional elevation of the Sc scale suggested a modification of the actuarial description associated with this type to reflect a personality trait disturbance involving more aggressive behaviour. Criminal and social factors were also explored between groups. Chronic Offenders were found to have committed significantly (p<.00|) fewer crimes against persons or crimes involving violence. More (p<.05) Chronic Ss were born in Vancouver, and had a lower level of education. In contrast to the English studies, fewer (p<.OI) Chronic Ss were found to be bachelors when com pared to Potential Chronic and Random Offender Ss. Chronic Offender Ss tended to have fewer employable skills and periods of previous employment. The shortcomings of the present study were reviewed, and a further study employing larger sample sizes of randomly selected inmates from both a provincial institution and B.C.P. was suggested. Planned, orthogonal com parisons among means adjusted by an analysis of covariance was suggested to provide a better estimate of group differences, and a smaller error term in the statistical comparisons. Abrahamsen, D. The psychology of crime. New York: John Wiley & Sons, I960. Berg, I. A. Cited in Bass, B. M. & Berg, I. A. Objective approaches to  personality assessment. Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1959. Clark, J. H. Application of the MMPI in differentiating A.W.O.L. recidivists. Journal of Psychology, 1948, 26, 229-234. Cormier, B. M. Depression and persistent criminality. Canadian Psychiatric  Association Journal, 1966, J_l_, 208-220. Cormier, B. M. Cited in Slovenko, R. Crime, law and corrections. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, 1965. Cormier, B. M., Sangowicz, J. M., Boyer, R., Thiffault, A., Kennedy, M., & Obert, A. The persistent offender. Canadian Journal of Corrections, 1964, 5, 253-261. Cormier, B. M., Sangowicz, J. M., Kennedy, M., & Galardo, A. T. Episodic recidivism. Proceedings: 4th Research Conference on Delinquency and Criminology, Montreal, 1964. Quebec Society of Criminology, 1964, 171-193. Cormier, B. M., Sangowicz, J. M., Kennedy, M., Obert, A., Washbrook, R. A., Galardo, A. T., Boyer, R., & Thiffault, A. L. The persistent offender and his sentences. Canadian Psychiatric Association Journal, 1964, 9_, 462-480. Cormier, B. M., Washbrook, R. A., Kennedy, M., & Obert, A. A study of fifty young penitentiary delinquents from age 15 to 25. Reprinted from: Proceedings: 4th Research Conference on Delinquency and Criminology, Montreal, 1964. Les Presses Sociales, 1964, 77-113. Cormier, B. M., Kennedy, M., Sangowicz, J.M., Boyer, R., Thiffault, A. L., & Obert, A. Criminal process and emotional growth. InternationaI  Psychiatric CIinics, 1965, 2, 3-41. Crime Statistics (Pol ice) 1967, Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Ottawa: The Queen's Printer, 1967. Dahlstrom, W. G., & Welsh, G. S. An MMPI handbook. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, I960. Dunham, R. E. Factors related to recidivism in adults. Journal of Social  Psychology. 1954, 39, 77-91. Freeman, R. A., & Mason, H. M. Construction of a key to determine recidivists from non-recidivists using the MMPI. Journal of CIinicalPsychology, 1952, 8, 207-208. Gardy, T. T. Survey of 424 B.C.P. Inmates conducted May/June, 1966. (Unpublished data), 1966). Gilberstadt, H., & Duker, J. A handbook for clinical and actuarial MMPI  interpretation. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1965. Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. Later criminal careers. New York: The Commonwealth Fund, 1937. Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. Juvenile delinquents grown up. New York: The Commonwealth Fund, 1940. Glover, E. The roots of crime. New York: International Universities Press, I960. Gough, H. Manual for the California Psychological Inventory. Pa Io AI to: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1957. Guthrie, G. M. Article 41. Six MMPI diagnostic profile patterns. 368-373. Cited in Welsh, G. S., & Dahlstrom, W. G. Basic readings on the MMPI  in Psychology and Medicine. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1956. Hammond, W. H., & Chayen, E. Persistent criminals. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1963. Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Invent  ory, ManuaI (Revised 1951). New York: The Psychological Corporation, 1951. Hathaway, S. R., & Monachesi, E. D. (Eds.). Analyzing and predicting .juvenile  delinquency with the MMPI. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1953. Henderson, D. K. Psychopathic personalities. London: Oxford University Press, 1959. Hollingshead, A. B., & Redlich, F. C. Social class and mental illness. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1958. Kirk, R. E. Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Belmont: Brooks/Cole, 1968. Leary, T. InterpersonaI d iagnos is of persona Iity: A^ functional theory and methodology for personality evaluation. New York: RonaId,Press, 1957. Levy, S., Southcombe, R. H. Cranor, J. R., & Freeman, R. A. The outstanding personality factors among the population of a state penitentiary: A preliminary report. Journal of CIinical, Experimental Psychopathology, 1952, _L3, I 17-128. Linder, R. M., & Gurvitz, M. Revised Beta Examination. New York: The Psychological Corporation, 1946. Lingoes, J. C. MMPI factors of the Harris and Wiener subscales. Journal of  Consulting Psychology, I960, 24, 75-83. Mandel, N. G., Collins, B. S., Moran, M. R., Barron, A. J., Gelbmann, F. J., Gadbois, C. B., & Kaminstein, P. Recidivism studied and defined. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology & Police Science, 1965, 56_, 59-66. Marks, P. A., & Seeman, W. The actuarial description of abnormal personality. Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkens Co., 1963. Morris, N. The habitual criminal. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1951. Office Consolidation of the Criminal Code. Ottawa: The Queen's Printer, 1962. Olson, R. W. MMPI sex differences in narcotic addicts. Journal of General  Psychology, 1964, 7J_, 257-266. Panton, J. H. Predicting prison adjustment with the MMPI. Journal of CIinical  Psychology, 1958, \±, 308-312. Panton, J. H. Inmate personality differences related to recidivism, age, and race as measured by the MMPI. Journal of Correctional Psychology, 1959, 4, 29-35. Panton, J. H. The identification of habitual criminalism with the MMPI. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1962, M3, 133-136. (a) Panton, J. H. Use of the MMPI as an index to successful parole. Journal of  Criminal Law, Criminology, & Pol ice Science, 1962, 53, 484-488. (b) Sell In, T. Recidivism and maturation. National Probation & Parole Association  Journal, 1958, 4, 241-250. Siegel, S. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956. Stanton, J. M. Group personality profile related to aspects of antisocial behavior. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, & Police Science, 1956, 47, 340-349. Statistics of crimi naI and other offences, 1967. Domi nion Bureau of Statistics. Ottawa: The Queen's Printer, 1963. West, D. J. The habitual prisoner. London: MacMillan, 1963. List of Tables Table Page A. Summary of Adult Convictions from Age 18 and Nature of the Offence "73 B. Number of Offences Involving Violence Against Persons 74 C. Number of Offences Committed Against Persons 75 D. Number of Adult Convictions Received as a Juvenile 76 E. Place of Childhood Residence 77 F. Type of Parental Upbringing 8 G. Number of Subject's Siblings 79 H. Birth Order of SubjectsI. Summary Table for the Analysis of Variance for the Variable of Education 80 J. Marital Status of Subjects 81 K. EmployablIIty of Subjects 2 L. Summary Table of Analysis of Variance for Periods of Employ ment, Unemployment, and Incarceration for the 24 months Proceeding Admission to the Penitentiary 83 Summary of Adult Convictions from Age 18 and Nature of the Offence Nature of Indictable Offence Group or Subgroups Chronic Offender Potential Ch ronIc Offender Random Contro1 Total Number Against the Person: Assault 17 9 8 Murder 0 1 2 Sexua1 1 8 5 Other offences 3 4 5 Against Property with Violence: Breaking and Entering 155 63 3 Robbery and Robbery while Armed 16 9 7 Against Property without Violence: Possession of Stolen Property 58 20 1 Theft 156 34 3 False Pretences 107 50 6 Forgery and Offences related to Currency: 17 31 7 Federal Statutes: Possession of Narcotics 58 8 0 Trafficking In Narcotics 13 1 2 Other Indictable Offences: 51 23 7 Number of Offences Involving Violence Against Persons Group or Subgroup Chronic Offender Random Offender Potential Chronic Offender Random Control 1 2 3 4 Offence Total Number Violence against the person, 21 42 22 20 Other Offences 631 275 239 36 Ch -square Comparisons 1 vs 2 • •• 1- vs 3 3 vs 4 Chi-square value 36.9* 12.45* 55.03* Note: This table Is adapted and abridged from Table A. a Includes all indictable offences committed against the person. * p<.00l with 1 df Group or Subgroup Chronic Offender Random Offender Potential Chronic Offender Random Control 1 2 3 4 Offence Total Number Crimes against the persona 174 155 113 42 Other Offences 478 162 . 148 14 Chi-•square Comparisons 1 vs 2 1 vs 3 3 vs 4 Chi-square value 47.90* 24.21* 54.68* Note: This table is adapted and abridged from Table A. a Includes all Indictable Offences committed against the person, Robbery and Robbery while Armed, False Pretences, Forgery, and Trafficking in Narcotics. * p<.00l with 1 df Number of Adult Convictions Received as a Juvenile Group or Subgroup Chronic Offender Random Offender Potential Chronic Offender Random Control 1 2 3 4 Status Total Number of Subjects Adult conviction as a juvenile 11 13 10. 3 No adult convictions prior to 18 19 17 9 8 Chi-square Comparisons 1 vs 2 1 vs 3 3 vs 4 Chi-square value 1.07 a 1.95b 0.93 c a p = .30 with 1 df b .20 > p > .10 with 1 df c .50 > p > .10 with 1 df Group or Subgroup Chronic Offender Random Offender Potential Chronic Offender Random Control 1 2 3 4 Place of Residence Total Number of Subjects Vancouver 12 4 2 2 British Columbia 3 8 7 1 Pralries 7 5 3 2 Ontario, Quebec 8 6 2 4 Maritlmes 0 7 5 2 Chl-square Comparisons Places Compared 1 vs 2 3 vs 4 Chi-square Values Vancouver vs other 4. 18* Vancouver & B.C. vs. other 0.27 0.48 Large cities (50,000) vs. sma1 I towns 3.33 0.3I * .05 > p > .02 with 1 df Group or Subgroup Chronic Offender Random Offender Potential Chronic Offender Random Control 1 2 3 4 Upbringing Total Number of Subjects Both Parents 14 16 11 5 Single Parent 7 5 2 3 Single parent & step-parent 2 0 0 0 Blood Relative 1 2 1 1 Parental adoption or foster parent 2 3 2 1 Institution 2 1 1 0 Chi-square Comparisons Classes compared 1 vs 2 3 vs 4 Chi-square Values Raised by both parents vs. others 0.92 0. 12 Note: Both Chl-square values non-significant with 1 df. Number of Subject's Siblings Number of Siblings Group 0 1 2 3 4 5-9 10+ Chronic Offenders 1 4 5 2 7 9 1 Random Offenders 2 1 5 5 7 3 3 Note: When 0-2, 3-4, and 5-10 are combined, Chi-square is equal to 1.54 and .50 > p > .30 with 2 df; and the Contingency Coefficient equals 0.17. Table H Birth Order of Subjects Birth Order Group Oldest Top Third Mid Third Bottom Third Youngest Chronic Offenders 3 1 10 2 8 Random Offenders 9 2 9 0 4 Note: When the classes are combined as follows: Oldest and Top Third, Mid Third, and Bottom Third and Youngest; the obtained Chi-square value is equal to 5.88 and .10 > p > .05; and the Contingency Coefficient is equal to 0.33. Summary Table for the Analysis of Variance for the Variable of Education Group or Subgroup Ch ron i c Offender Matched Ch ron i c Offender Random Offender Potentia 1 Ch ron i c Offender Random Control 1 2 3 4 5 Means 7.40 7.57 9.07 8.74 9.64 Standard Deviations 1.33 1.38 1.78 1.69 1.89 Analysis of Variance 1 vs 3 a 1 vs 4, D 2 vs 4 c 4 vs 5 , a F Ratios 16.89*** 9.50** 5.31* 1.83 a 1 and 58 df b 1 and 47 df c 1 and 36 df d 1 and 28 df * p<.05 ** p<.0l *** p<.00l Marital Status of Subjects Group or Subgroup Chronic Offender Random Offender Potential Chronic Offender Random Control 1 2 3 4 Marital Status Total Number of Subjects Single 10 19 13 6 Common-1 aw 5 4 1 3 Married 7 2 1 1 Separated, Divorced, Wi dowed 8 5 4 1 Chi-square Comparisons Classes Compared 1 vs 2 1 vs 3 3 vs 4 Chi-square Values Single vs Other 6.67 a 7 •24b 0.14 c a .01 > p > .001 with 1 df b .01 > p > .001 with 1 df c .30 > p > .20 with 1 df Group Employment Level Ch ron i c Offender Random Offender Unskilled or general labourer 18 7 Semi-ski 1 led or Ski 1 led 12 23 Note: Chi-square is equal to 6.86 and .01 > p > .001 with 1 df. Summary Table of Analysis of Variance for Periods of Employment, Unemployment, and Incarceration for the 24 Months Preceeding Admission to the Penitentiary Group or Subgroup Ch ron i c Offender 1 Random Offender 2 Potential Chronic Offender 3 Random Control 4 Number of Months Employed Means 2.75 10.67 7.41 16.00 F Ratios Compari sons 1 vs 2 a 1 vs 3. 3 vs 4 c 20.80** 7.07* 12.35** Number of Months Unemployed Means 6.46 3.78 2.97 6.0 F Ratios Comparisons 1 vs 2 a 1 vs 3b 3 vs 4 c 5.35* 9.54** 8.26** .'. .. Number of Months 1ncarcerated Means 14.78 9.38 13.65 2.0 F Ratios Comparisons 1 vs 2 . d 1 vs 3 e 3 vs 4f 7.90** 0.32 28.63** a 1 and 56 df d 1 and 58 df * p<.05 b 1 and 45 df el and 46 df ** p<-01 c 1 and 27 df f 1 and 28 df 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 10 1
Canada 3 0
France 2 0
Japan 2 0
China 1 0
Portugal 1 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 4 1
Ashburn 3 0
Vegreville 3 0
Mountain View 3 0
Tokyo 2 0
Honolulu 1 1
Sunnyvale 1 0
Shenzhen 1 0
Braga 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

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.831.1-0102203/manifest

Comment

Related Items