T h is d is se r ta tio n has b een
m icr o film ed e x a c tly as r e c e iv e d
64—6923
LADWIG, Gordon W illiam , 1 9 3 3 PERSONAL, SITUATIONAL AND SOCIAL
DETERMINANTS OF PR EFERENC E FOR
DELAYED REINFORCEMENT.
The Ohio State U n iv e r sity , P h .D ., 1963
P sy ch o lo g y , c lin ic a l
University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan
F rie d la n d e r c h a ra c te riz e s th e **common o ffe n d e r*1 as s t i l l being dominated
by th e p le a su re r a th e r than th e r e a l i t y p r in c ip le .
To such a perso n ,
th e g r a t i f i c a t i o n of d e s ire s i s more im portant than Ho b j e c t- r e la t io n s • **
Mower and Ullman (1945) conceptualized general c a te g o rie s of
behavior d e v ia tio n i n le a rn in g -th e o ry term s and r e l a te d them a l l to
inadequate i n te g r a tiv e le a rn in g .
They contrived an experim ental s i t u ­
a tio n i n which r a t s were punished a t varying i n te r v a ls i f th ey did n o t
w a it f o r a few seconds b efo re securing a food p e l l e t .
Those r a t s
punished qu ick ly soon le a rn e d to w a it, w hile those r a t s punished a f t e r a
lo n g er in te r v a l tended to p e r s i s t in the behavior which r e s u lte d in
punishm ent,
Mowrer and Ullman a ttr ib u te d t h i s fin d in g to th e punishment
being r a th e r remote and th e reward im m ediate, in th e l a t t e r c a se .
They
co n ceptualized th e tim e in te r v a l as a v a ria b le exponent which changes
th e value o f th e rein fo rce m en ts, a t l e a s t in organisms lim ite d in
symbolic re s o u rc e s .
Mowrer and Ullman accounted fo r n o n -in te g ra tiv e
behavior i n humans by h y pothesizing t h a t re p re s s io n e lim in a te s th e con­
s id e ra tio n of more rem ote, u n pleasant consequence.
im m ediately rew arding by reducing th e a n x ie ty l e v e l .
to l a t e r u n p lea sa n tn e ss, however.
R epression i s th u s
Obviously i t le a d s
Mowrer and Ullman propose th e n o tio n
t h a t n e u ro tic and crim in al behavior both a re c h a ra c te riz e d by nonin te g r a tiv e le a r n in g , and consequently r e s u l t i n u ltim a te d i s a s t e r ,
Mowrer and Ullman*s c o n ce p tu a liz a tio n of n o n -in te g ra tiv e behavior
i s e s s e n t ia ll y a t r a n s la tio n of a n a ly tic in to le a rn in g -th e o ry term s.
Another sim ila r t r a n s la ti o n i s th a t of Rosenzweig (1944) who reviewed
Freud*s d i s t in c t io n between th e p le a su re and r e a l i t y p rin c ip le s and
concluded t h a t h is concept of f r u s t r a t i o n to le ra n c e shared th e common
elem ent, t h i s being th e c a p a c ity to delay g r a t i f i c a t i o n .
He s ta te d t h a t ,
u n lik e th e p le a su re and r e a l i t y p r in c ip le s , and ego s tre n g th , th e
concept o f f r u s t r a t i o n to le ra n c e i s q u a n tif ia b le .
He hypothesized th a t
n e u ro tic s would have one or more circum scribed a re a s o f low f r u s t r a t i o n
to le ra n c e , w hile p sy c h o tic s would have broader a re a s .
A c a p a c ity to
r e t a i n symbolic p ro c e sse s, i n th e i n t e l l e c t u a l sphere, and a c ap a c ity to
d elay g r a t i f i c a t i o n , i n th e m o tiv a tio n al sphere, were proposed a s a sp e c ts
o f th e concept.
Both of th e s e c a p a c itie s in c re a s e w ith m a tu ra tio n .
G enetic d iffe re n c e s and e a rly experience w ith excessive or i n s u f f i c i e n t
f r u s t r a t i o n experiences were advanced a s p o s s ib le e tio lo g ic a l f a c to r s
in the form ation of f r u s t r a t i o n to le ra n c e .
I t can be seen th a t
Rosenzweig*s fo rm u la tio n , l ik e Mowrer1s , i s e s s e n tia lly an o p e ra tio n a l­
i z a tio n o f p sy ch o an aly tic th e o ry .
The th e o r e tic a l views th u s f a r d iscu ssed have involved th e
prem ise t h a t p refe re n c e f o r immediate or delayed g r a t i f i c a t i o n i s
determ ined p rim a rily by g e n e tic and/or e a r ly developm ental f a c t o r s .
Even th e two le a rn in g th eo ry a n aly se s of th e phenomenon have p u t forw ard
th e id e a t h a t th e choice between immediate and delayed g r a t i f i c a t i o n
r e s t s upon p h y sio lo g ic a l or p rim itiv e e x p e r ie n tia l fo u n d a tio n s.
The
p sy ch o an aly tic p o s itio n i s th a t t h i s ehoice-behavior r e f l e c t s th e
s ta tu s o f th e p erso n 1s t r a n s it i o n from a p le a su re cen tered , to a r e a l i t y
c en tere d , o r ie n ta tio n .
In f a c t , Rapaport f e e l s t h a t th e d elay mechanism
i s th e c r i t i c a l fe a tu r e i n th e form ation of thought i t s e l f .
I t would
follow from a l l of t h i s t h a t th e r e l a t i v e p referen ce f o r delayed or
immediate g r a t i f i c a t i o n , once e s ta b lis h e d , c o n s titu te s an immutable
p ro p e n s ity in th e c h a ra c te r fo rm atio n .
A c o n tra stin g view of th e s o r t o f choice-behavior under d isc u ssio n
can be d eriv ed from th e S o c ial Learning Theory p o s itio n (R o tte r, 195*0•
W ithin t h i s conceptual system , th e p o te n tia l f o r a given behavior i s
seen a s a j o in t fu n c tio n o f th e value o f th e rein fo rcem en t and th e
expectancy of o b ta in in g t h a t rein fo rcem en t i n a given s i t u a t i o n .
The
r e l a t i v e p refe ren c e f o r delayed or immediate g r a t i f i c a t i o n i s th u s seen
to be a fu n c tio n of th e r e l a t i v e exp ectan cies f o r o b ta in in g th e se r e i n forcem ents, and th e value o f th e rein fo rcem en ts in a p a r t i c u l a r s i t u ­
a tio n .
For example, an in d iv id u a l would presumably make h is choice
between an immediate reward and a la r g e r b u t delayed rew ard on th e b a s is
o f h is expectancy t h a t he would g e t th e delayed rew ard, and th e d i f f e r ­
e n t i a l v alue of th e rew ards i n th e s i t u a t i o n .
He would make a s u b je c tiv e
a p p ra is a l of whether or n o t th e value, d i f f e r e n t i a l between th e immediate
and delayed rew ards was g re a t enough to o f f s e t th e chance t h a t he m ight
n o t g et th e delayed rew ard.
S itu a tio n a l f a c to r s i n h is subsequent
choice might in clu d e th e kind of agent re s p o n sib le f o r supplying th e
rew ards, and th e g e n eral s e ttin g of th e rew ard ch o ice.
W ithin t h i s b a s ic expectancy model, Mahrer (1956) c a rrie d o u t a
study aimed a t t e s ti n g th e id e a t h a t expectancy d iffe re n c e s would p r e d ic t
rew ard choice d if f e r e n c e s .
In f iv e p re lim in a ry rein fo rcem en t t r i a l s he
v a rie d th e number of tim es t h a t he, a s th e agent of rein fo rce m en t, would
supply a promised to y to groups of seven to nine y ear old school c h ild r e n .
Ey th u s m anipulating th e reinforcem ent schedule he hoped to e s ta b lis h
d i f f e r e n t le v e ls of expectancy fo r f u lf illm e n t of reward from th e ag en t
o f rein fo rc e m e n t.
Next, he o ffe re d each group th e choice o f a sm all toy
im m ediately, a s a rew ard fo r ta k in g p a r t i n th e experim ent, or a more
favored to y a f t e r a day*s tim e .
He found, a s p re d ic te d , t h a t th o se Ss
having presumably th e g r e a te s t expectancy fo r th e agent o f rein fo rcem en t
to supply th e reward—th o se who were given th e to y every tim e prom ised—
s ig n if ic a n tly more o fte n chose th e delayed rew ard.
On th e o th er hand,
those who had no t re c e iv e d th e promised to y even once i n th e f iv e
p re lim in a ry t r i a l s , chose th e imm ediate, l e s s p re fe rre d reward more
o f te n .
These d iffe re n c e s i n rein fo rcem en t choice between th e high and
low expectancy groups d id not rea ch th e le v e l of s ig n ific a n c e when a
d i f f e r e n t s o c ia l agent o ffe re d th e choice,
A female E who was p rese n te d
a s having no connection w ith th e p re lim in a ry t r i a l s d id n o t e l i c i t th e
s ig n if ic a n t d iffe re n c e s t h a t th e male E d id .
The tr e n d s , however, were
i n th e same d ir e c tio n .
The im p lic a tio n s o f t h i s study a re r a th e r c le a r .
P reference f o r
delayed o r immediate rew ard, a t l e a s t when measured by th e d e scrib e d
rein fo rcem en t choice, i s a t l e a s t p a r tly a fu n c tio n of th e expectancy
t h a t th e delayed reward w i l l be su p p lie d .
No g e n e tic or c h a ra c te ro lo g -
i c a l f a c to r s have to be considered in o rd er to make t h i s p r e d ic tio n .
F u rth e r, i t appears t h a t th e ex p ectan cies fo r reward a re f a i r l y s p e c if ic
to th e p a r t i c u l a r s o c ia l agent in v o lv e d .
The exact degree of g e n e ra liz a ­
tio n cannot be e stim ated from th e Mahrer study, however, since th e re was
no attem p t to s e t up a g e n e ra liz a tio n g ra d ie n t fo r ag en ts of rew ard .
It
i s q u ite p o ss ib le t h a t th e re would have been s ig n if ic a n t g e n e ra liz a tio n
to an o th er s o c ia l agent d if f e r in g i n fewer re s p e c ts th a n did th o se
Mahrer employed.
The g e n e ra liz a tio n tre n d s noted w ith re s p e c t to th e
fem ale E m ight have reached th e le v e l of sig n ific a n c e w ith another
male E,
Some f u r th e r in fo rm a tio n concerning th e r o le of th e s o c ia l ag en t
o f reward i n th e choice of immediate or delayed g r a t i f i c a t i o n i s a v a il­
a b le in a study by M ischel (1958)*
I t was h i s h y p o th e sis, a ls o based
upon th e S o cial Learning Theory expectancy model t h a t ex p ectan cies f o r
rein fo rcem en t from a d u lt male s o c ia l a g en ts, in t h i s case developed from
c o n ta ct w ith p a re n ta l f ig u r e s , would be r e la te d to behavior i n a reward
choice s itu a tio n w ith a d i f f e r e n t a d u lt male s o c ia l a g e n t,
M ischel, i n
e f f e c t , p re d ic te d t h a t h is Ss would respond to a g e n e ralize d v e rsio n of
th e p a te rn a l f ig u r e .
He used as Ss T rin id ad ian Negro and T rin id ad ia n
E ast In d ian c h ild re n d if f e r in g c r i t i c a l l y in th a t fa m ilie s o f th e
former fre q u e n tly had no p a te rn a l fig u re i n th e home f o r long p e rio d s of
tim e .
Presumably th e absence of a male f ig u re would allow l e s s oppor­
tu n ity f o r th e c h ild re n to develop expectancies f o r f u lf illm e n t o f
delayed g r a t i f i c a t i o n from male a d u lt s o c ia l a g e n ts .
A ccordingly i t
would seem reaso n ab le to p r e d ic t t h a t c h ild re n who have l i t t l e or no
experience w ith a f a th e r who made and kep t prom ises about fu tu re rew ards,
would choose immediate g r a t i f i c a t i o n when faced w ith a choice between a
c e r ta in , immediate b u t sm all rew ard, and an u n c e rta in , delayed b u t la r g e r
reward made by a male a d u lt s o c ia l a g e n t.
by M isc h e l^ fin d in g s .
This p re d ic tio n i s borne out
In f a c t , none of those c h ild re n —m ostly
T rin id ad ia n Negro—whose f a th e r s were g e n e ra lly ab sen t from th e home
chose th e delayed rew ard from th e male a d u lt ex p erim en ter,
M ischel,
u n fo rtu n a te ly , d id n o t determ ine th e e x te n t of th e s o c ia l agent
.10
g e n e ra liz a tio n by varying f e a tu r e s of th e experim enter even to th e
e x te n t th a t Mahrer did*
The p o s s i b i l i t y th a t any s o c ia l agent might
have e l i c i t e d sim ila r choice b ehavior, th e re fo re , cannot be excluded*
M ischel (1961c) r e p lic a te d h is study concerning th e r e la tio n s h ip
between fa th e r-a b se n c e and p referen ce f o r delayed or immediate r e i n ­
forcem ent, and h is fin d in g s tu rn ed out e s s e n tia lly th e same*
In t h i s
study he found a ls o t h a t th e Grenadian and T rinidadian c u ltu r e s ,
commonly observed, a n th ro p o lo g ic a lly , to d i f f e r in emphasis on p re s e n t
p le a su re versus concern fo r th e f u tu r e , seemed to e x e rt th e a p p ro p ria te
e f f e c t i n th e reward choice situ a tio n *
G renadians, who fo r v a rio u s
socioeconomic reaso n s have had more g r a t i f ic a t i o n in d elay s itu a tio n s
th an th e T rin id a d ia n s, chose delayed g r a t i f i c a t i o n in th e choice
s itu a tio n more freq u e n tly *
ch ildren*
The Ss were e ig h t to nine y ear old school
This fin d in g adds more w eight to th e n o tio n d eriv ed from
S o cial Learning Theory t h a t th e g r a t i f ic a t i o n p refe ren c e under d isc u ssio n
i s a fu n c tio n of le a rn in g *
S p e c ific a lly , i t i s the proposed t h e s is t h a t
g r a t i f i c a t i o n p refe re n c e i s a fu n c tio n o f th e expectancy th a t d elay w i l l
dependably le a d to g re a te r s a tis fa c tio n *
In t h i s case th e exp ectan cies
a p p a re n tly develop from experiences in c u ltu re s rew arding d e lay of
g ra tific a tio n d if f e r e n tia lly »
In th e same study, M ischel noted t h a t th e r e la tio n s h ip between
fath e r-a b se n c e from th e fam ily c o n s te lla tio n and p referen ce fo r immediate
g r a t i f i c a t i o n i n the rein fo rcem en t choice s itu a tio n d id no t hold up when
o ld e r c h ild re n —ages eleven to fo u rte e n —were used a s Ss*
M ischel
in te r p r e te d t h i s as r e f l e c t in g th e dim inished e f f e c t of th e immediate
fam ily c o n s te lla tio n upon form ation o f an old er c h ild * s e x p e c ta n c ie s.
11
He re v e ale d t h a t c h ild re n , by th e age of te n or eleven in th e se
c u ltu re s , move about f r e e l y , v i s i t o th er r e l a t i v e s and th e l i k e .
For
example, stu d e n t te a c h e rs in p u b lic schools a re o fte n th ir t e e n y e ars o ld .
Other evidence gives no support to th e a lte r n a tiv e n o tio n t h a t the
rew ard choice s itu a tio n i s m eaningless beyond e a rly childhood.
For
in sta n c e r e la tio n s h ip s between th e reinforcem ent choice and o th er v a r i ­
a b le s , to be d isc u sse d l a t e r , h eld up in d if f e r e n t age l e v e l s .
Before
th e s e are considered, however, i t may be w ell to m ention fin d in g s i n th e
l i t e r a t u r e p e rtin e n t to th e age f a c to r in reward choice.
In an e a rly study using reinforcem ent choices s im ila r to M ahrer*s,
Washburne (1929) compared th o se who chose "now" and those who chose
" la te r " on v a ria b le s o f ch ronological age, m ental age, S tan fo rd -B in et
IQ, and behavior ra tin g s o
He found t h a t "now" choices dim inished w ith
in c re a s in g m ental and ch ronological age, bu t IQ alone seemed n o t to be
r e la te d to th e c h o ic e.
The age range of h is Ss was from fo u r to seven­
te e n y e a rs , which i s broader than th a t o f any o th e r reward choice study
in th e l i t e r a t u r e .
U nfo rtu n ately , h is s t a t i s t i c s c o n sisted of only
p ercentage com parisons,
BLaler (1961) using Washburne*s rein fo rcem en t-
choice m easure, a ls o found a p o s itiv e r e la tio n s h ip between p refe ren c e
f o r delayed reinforcem ent and both in c re a s in g age and IQ,
His Ss were
re ta rd e d c h ild re n and normal c h ild re n from ages s ix to fo u rte e n , w ith
IQs ran g in g from f if ty - o n e to one-hundred and t e n .
He used a p ic tu r e -
vocabulary measure of in te l li g e n c e ,
M elikian (1959) found evidence fo r a re la tio n s h ip between
p refe ren c e fo r delayed rew ard and age.
He a ls o found a su g g estiv e
r e la tio n s h ip w ith in te llig e n c e , measured on th e Draw-A-Man Test of
12
Goodenough.
M ischel (1962) o b tain ed c o rro b o ra tiv e evidence fo r a l in e a r
r e la tio n s h ip between p refe re n c e f o r delayed rein fo rcem en t, age, and
I n te llig e n c e *
He noted an ap p aren t " c r i t i c a l " age of e ig h t y e a rs when
m ajor s h i f t s i n rein fo rcem en t p referen ce o ccurred, b u t f e l t t h a t t h i s
was fu n c tio n of th e p a r t i c u l a r p a ir of rein fo rcem en ts used*
I t does
appear t h a t rein fo rcem en t p refe ren c e v a rie s i n "meaning" w ith in c re a s in g
age, b u t no c o n tro lle d s tu d ie s have d e a lt w ith t h i s is s u e s p e c i f i c a ll y .
R o tte r (195^* P» l 6l ) c r i t ic i z e d th e t r a d i t i o n a l view t h a t a
r e l a t i v e l y lower p refe re n c e f o r delayed rein fo rcem en t i s a tt r ib u t a b le to
th e tim e v a ria b le i t s e l f .
Rather he suggested, g e n e ra liz e d or s p e c if ic
e x p ectan cies of fu tu r e rein fo rcem en t might be lower i n some in d iv id u a ls
because of le a rn in g e x p e rie n c e s.
M ah rer^ study (1956) p o in ted to th e
im portance of t h i s expectancy f a c t o r ,
M ischel and Metzner*s (1962)
study found th e d e la y in te r v a l to be a s ig n if ic a n t f a c to r i n r e in f o r c e ­
ment choice, but ex p ec ta n cie s were not c o n tro lled *
In o th e r words,
th o se Ss o ffe re d th e l a r g e s t d e lay in te r v a l chose th e delayed reward
l e a s t o fte n ; bu t t h e i r exp ectan cies fo r o b tain in g t h e i r delayed rew ard
m ight w ell have been l e s s th an those of th e s h o rte r d e lay group*
Time p e rs p e c tiv e has been r e la te d to th e a b i l i t y to d elay g r a t i ­
f i c a ti o n i n se v e ra l stu d ies*
Levine and Spivack (1959) used an ind ex of
adjustm ent to i n s t i t u t i o n a l l i f e a s a measure o f th e a b i l i t y to d elay
im pulse g r a t i f ic a t i o n by responding to d i s t a n t in c e n tiv e s .
I t was t h e i r
reaso n in g t h a t a group of c h ild re n i n a school fo r d istu rb e d and
d e lin q u e n t c h ild re n were deprived o f th e o p p o rtu n ity to g r a t i f y t h e i r
d e s ir e s im m ediately since th ey were locked i n q u a rte rs on th e weekends.
They could only behave them selves w ith th e hope of e v e n tu a lly secu rin g
weekend freedom .
They found a d iffe re n c e between those who were to work
toward th o se d i s t a n t in c e n tiv e s and th o se n o t able to , i n term s of
"tim e -sen se ,*1 They i n t e r p r e t t h a t tim e sense r e f l e c t s b e tte r d elay
fu n c tio n in g .
In o th e r s tu d ie s , Spivack, Levine and S p rig le (1959) and
Levine, Spivack, F u sc h illo and T avernier (1959) fin d a re la tio n s h ip
between th e measure of tim e sense—e stim a te s o f time i n te r v a l s —and IQ,
and conclude t h a t a R ap ap o rt-lik e conception of ego fu n c tio n in g i s
supported by th e r e s u l t s .
The Rorschach Human Movement Score has been
used as another measure of "delaying cap acity " by Singer (1955)* Spivack,
Levine and S p rig le (1959)* S in g er, Wilensky and McCraven (1956) and
L evine, Spivack and W right (1959)* and as such has been r e la te d to
g en eral in te llig e n c e , motor in h ib itio n , c o g n itiv e i n h ib i t io n , and g en eral
p la n f u ln e s s .
U nfortunately none of th e measures used i n t h i s group of
s tu d ie s has been r e la te d to a d i r e c t measure of rein fo rcem en t c h o ic e.
F u rth e r, th e w r ite r has suggestive evidence (unpublished) t h a t th e i n t e r ­
c o rre la tio n s among h is measures of tim e e stim a tio n , motor in h ib itio n , and
number of e rr o rs on re v e rse d f ig u r e s in a coding ta s k , are h ig h ly
dependent upon s i tu a tio n a l e x p e c ta n c ie s.
He found th a t th e se measures
were a l l s ig n if ic a n tly in te r c o r r e la te d when adm inistered by an a u th o r ity
E to reform atory in m ate.S s, b u t only i n s ig n if ic a n tly when ad m in istered
by an inm ate E to a comparable group o f S s.
I t seems q u ite p o ss ib le
t h a t a t l e a s t some o f th e v a ria n ce a tt r ib u t e d to "ego -fu n ctio n in g " by
Levine e t a l e i s a ls o a tt r ib u t a b le to th e S*s conforming or no t conform­
ing to what he p e rc e iv e s to be th e E*s im p lic it demands upon him.
In
th e w rite r* s ex p erim entation, th e number o f e rr o r s made on th e re v e rse d
14
d i g i t s of th e coding ta s k was p o s itiv e ly r e la te d to the number of
"an x ie ty -sta te m e n ts" marked " tru e " by th e Ss.
This was th e case w ith
th e a u th o rity Et but th e c o rr e la tio n was n eg ativ e and n o n -s ig n ific a n t
w ith a p eer E,
I t would c e r ta in ly seem l i k e l y t h a t th e S*s ex p ectan cies
about th e E1s a tt i tu d e s toward him was a f a c to r i n t h i s .
Thus f a r , re se a rc h has been reviewed r e l a ti n g p re fe ren c e f o r
delayed or immediate g r a t i f ic a t i o n to*,
c e r ta in c u ltu r a l v a ria b le s ,
presence of th e f a th e r i n the home, age, in te llig e n c e , tim e ,se n se ,
and v a rio u s o th er a sp e c ts of what i s c a lle d "ego fu n c tio n in g ."
These
v a ria b le s can be categ o rized lo o s e ly a s a n teced en t f a c to r s in re in f o r c e ­
ment p re fe re n c e .
The d isc u ssio n w ill now focus on what can be considered
b e h a v io ra l or p e rs o n a lity consequences o f t h i s p re fe re n c e .
Washburne (19^9) attem pted to r e l a t e h is measure o f rein fo rcem en t
p refe ren c e to v ario u s in d ic e s of " c h a ra c te r."
His measure of re in f o r c e ­
ment p refe ren c e c o n siste d of a h y p o th e tic a l choice of an auto immedi­
a te ly , or an au to and a m illio n d o lla r s in a y e a r; an a c tu a l choice o f a
p iec e o f chocolate im m ediately, o r f iv e p ie c e s of chocolate i n a week;
a penny im m ediately or te n cen ts in a week.
In an attem p t to r e f in e th e
measure, th e immediate reward i n th e f i n a l choice was ra is e d i n value by
a s e r ie s of ste p s u n t i l th e S chose i t r a th e r th a n th e delayed rew ard.
The t e s t s were d i f f e r e n t i a l l y w eighted on a th e o r e tic a l b a s i s .
Washburne
s e t up a very crude c a te g o riz a tio n of b ehavior, c o n sistin g of "good,
d o u b tfu l, and bad."
The r a tin g s were made of each S on th e b a s is of
r e p o r ts concerning home and school behavior by p a re n ts and te a c h e r s .
was p re d ic te d , those who chose th e delayed rew ards tended to be i n th e
"good" group.
Age was a ls o a f a c to r , such t h a t only those above e ig h t
As
PERSONAL, SITUATIONAL AND SOCIAL DETERMINANTS
OF PREFERENCE FOR DELATED REINFORCEMENT
DISSERTATION
P resented i n P a r t i a l F u lfillm e n t o f th e Requirem ents fo r
th e Degree Doctor o f Philosophy i n th e Graduate
School of The Ohio S ta te U n iv e rsity
By
Gordon W illiam Ladwig, B. A ., M, A,
********
The Ohio S ta te U n iv e rsity
1963
Approved by
r I
A dviser
[epartment o f Psychology
15
y e a rs old who chose th e immediate reward were c le a rly "bad."
th e b e s t c h ild re n were th e youngest who chose delayed rew ard.
Conversely,
As was
mentioned e a r l i e r , Washburne1s fin d in g s a re open to some q u e stio n , sin ce
no c r i t i c i a l s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s were used#
M ischel p resen te d h is rein fo rcem en t choice measure to a group of
i n s t it u t io n a l iz e d d e lin q u e n ts and to a matched group o f no n -d elin q u en ts
(19 61a).
His measure a ls o c o n sisted of a choice between a sm all imme­
d ia te , and la r g e r delayed rew ard.
He added two h y p o th e tic a l t r u e - f a l s e
q u e stio n s l a t e r , and used th e combination of th e th re e a s h is b a sic
measure, so th a t h is and W ashburne^ measures were very s im ila r .
In
t h i s p a r t i c u l a r study, Mischel found a s ig n if ic a n tly g re a te r p ro p o rtio n
o f d elay choices among th e non-delinquent group.
Also he found t h a t h is
d e la y e rs scored somewhat higher on th e H a rris S ocial R e s p o n s ib ility
Scale (H a rris , 1957)o
The Ss choosing th e delayed reward were a ls o more
a cc u ra te i n time r e c a l l , but M ischel f e l t th a t t h i s might be a t t r i b u t ­
ab le to an i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t y d if fe re n c e .
Both Washburne and M ischel
in te r p r e te d t h e i r fin d in g s as supporting th e view t h a t c e r ta in forms o f
s o c ia lly d e v ia n t behavior can be explained by an i n a b i l i t y to postpone
g ra tific a tio n .
They reaso n t h a t \ t h i s a b i l i t y to postpone g r a t i f ic a t i o n
i s necessary to work toward th e delayed reward t h a t s o c ie ty condones.
Barndt and Johnson (1955) draw th e same kind o f conclusion from t h e i r
fin d in g s t h a t d e lin q u e n ts t e l l s t o r i e s in v o lv in g sh o rte r tim e spans th an
do n o n -d elin q u en ts.
Levine and Spivack (1959) sp ecu late t h a t th e r e l a ­
tio n s h ip between low "c itiz e n sh ip * grades of an i n s t it u t io n a l iz e d group
o f d istu rb e d a d o le sc e n ts and m easures of tim e e stim a tio n and time
conception, in d ic a te th a t th e poor " c itiz e n s " respond more e a s ily to
immediate in c e n tiv e ,
Schneider and Lysgood (1953) see a d e fe rre d g r a t i ­
f ic a tio n p a tte r n a s c h a r a c te r is tic o f middle c la s s b ehavior, but n o t o f
working c la s s behavior,,
LeShan (1952), u sin g span of tim e covered i n
sto ry com pletions a s a measure of tim e o r ie n ta tio n , fin d s t h a t middle
c la s s c h ild re n have b e tte r tim e o r ie n ta tio n s than lower c la s s c h ild re n .
These fin d in g s are ty p ic a l o f th e many stu d ie s which attem p t to d e al
w ith complex s o c ia l phenomena through th e use of in d ir e c t or even
ir r e le v a n t m easures, adm inistered w ith l i t t l e or no reg ard to th e expec­
ta n c ie s involved in th e t e s tin g s i t u a t i o n ,
ty p ic a lly g e n e ra liz a tio n s
are made from a comparison of an i n s t it u t io n a l iz e d w ith a non­
i n s t it u t io n a l iz e d group.
O bviously, th e E i s seen d i f f e r e n t l y by
c h ild re n locked up i n a reform school, surrounded by p u n itiv e and
a u th o r ita r ia n procedures, th an by school c h ild re n tr e a te d p e rm issiv e ly
by te a c h e rs ty p ic a lly o f th e same s o c ia l c la s s as th e c h ild re n .
The E
h im self i s probably a middle c la s s in d iv id u a l, dressed acco rd in g ly and
seen d i f f e r e n t l y by lower and middle c la s s c h ild re n .
The d i f f e r e n t i a l
ex p ectancies f o r acceptance or p o s itiv e reinforcem ent from middle
c la s s a u th o r ity fig u re s may w e ll p la y a r o le in th e S*s t e s t b eh av io r.
The w rite r* s aforem entioned fin d in g s c e r ta in ly provide suggestive
evidence t h a t t h i s i s th e case.
Grave*s (1961) study i s an improvement i n some re s p e c ts over th e
p re v io u sly mentioned stu d ie s employing "tim e -p e rsp e c tiv e 11 and "d e fe rre d g r a t i f ic a t i o n - p a t te rn " concepts.
The l a t t e r concept p a r t i c u l a r l y was
d i r e c tl y and m eaningfully measured i n term s of o v e rt b eh av io r.
Graves*
Ss were school c h ild re n and he d efined th e g r a t i f ic a t i o n p a tte r n s i n
term s of school behavior— conform ity, p lan n in g , tru an c y , r u le break in g ,
e t c . , a s ra te d by s e l f , p e e rs , te a c h e rs and o th e rs .
He used a v a r ie ty
o f m easures o f v a ria b le s th e o r e tic a lly re le v a n t to choice of d e fe rre d or
immediate g r a t i f i c a t i o n p a tte r n , and th en determ ined i f em p iric a l r e l a ­
tio n s h ip s e x is te d .
m easure.
U nfo rtu n ately he d id no t employ a reward choice
His g en eral view was th a t sh o rt tem poral e x te n sio n , and narrow
scope and f e e lin g s o f e x te rn a l c o n tro l would be r e la te d to th e immediate
g r a t i f ic a t i o n p a tt e r n .
His measure o f th e a tt i tu d e o f e x te rn a l or
in te r n a l c o n tro l was one o r ig in a lly proposed by Phares (1957) and
re v is e d by James (1957) in to a lo n g er L ik e rt-ty p e s c a le .
L iv e ra n t,
R o tte r, Crowne, and Seeman have developed successive forms o f a fo rced
sc a le based on the Jaraes-Phares t e s t (R o tte r, Seeman & L iv e ra n t, 1962).
Graves used a form of th e sc ale developed by R o tte r, Seeman & L iv e ra n t.
He found th a t " in te r n a ls " tended to be c h a ra c te riz e d by the delayed
g r a t i f i c a t i o n , a s he p r e d ic te d .
He found in c o n s is te n t evidence r e l a ti n g
tem poral e x te n sio n , fu tu re tim e p e rs p e c tiv e , and o th er measures to
g r a t i f i c a t i o n p a tt e r n .
U nfortunately Graves d id n o t ta k e system atic
account o f d i f f e r e n t i a l in te rv ie w e r e f f e c t s upon S re sp o n se s.
The same
c r itic is m can be made of h is re se a rc h th a t was made o f o th er re se a rc h
d iscu ssed p re v io u s ly .
M ischel (1961b) has r e la te d th e reward p refe ren c e measure to need
fo r achievement as measured by th e McClelland c a rd s.
He found t h a t
T rin id ad ian c h ild re n who chose delayed reinforcem ent were h ig h er i n need
achievement th an th o se who chose immediate re in fo rce m en t.
M ischel f e l t
th a t th ese r e s u l t s bore out th e n o tio n th a t the a b i l i t y to postpone
g r a t i f ic a t i o n i n th e i n t e r e s t s of la r g e r fu tu re rew ards i s an e s s e n tia l
18
elem ent i n achievem ent m o tiv atio n a s d efin ed by McClelland (1953)*
He
c ite d Couch and K eniston’ s ( i 960) n o tio n t h a t Myea sa y e rs11 a re in d iv id u a ls
w ith weak ego c o n tro ls who acc ep t im pulses w ithout re s e rv a tio n and
e a s ily respond to s tim u li, whereas th e “naysayer** i n h i b i t s h is im p u lses.
He used t h i s as a r a tio n a le f o r h is fin d in g th a t yeasay ers tend to
p r e f e r immediate re in fo rce m en t,
B ia le r (1961) has used Washburne1s measure of rew ard-preferen ce
and found i t r e la te d to h is c h ild re n ’ s Locus of C ontrol S c a le .
Those of
h is Ss who chose delayed rein fo rcem en t tended to conceptualize ev en ts
a s in te r n a l l y c o n tro lle d .
He th e o riz e d t h a t t h i s r e la tio n s h ip occurred
because co n ce p tu a liz in g ev en ts as being p e rs o n a lly c o n tro lla b le i s
e s s e n tia l to an in d iv id u a l’ s being ab le to endure th e te n s io n accompany­
in g th e d elay of g r a t i f ic a t i o n necessary f o r c o n tro l of e v e n ts.
In
o th e r words, a c h ild has to see t h a t i t i s p o ss ib le fo r him to c o n tro l
th e outcome of e v e n ts, b efo re he i s w illin g to p u t f o r th th e e f f o r t to
c o n tro l them.
Summary and conclusions
Mahrer*s (1956) o r ig in a l fin d in g t h a t th e agent of rein fo rcem en t
seemed to be a f a c to r i n th e S’ s choice o f immediate or delayed reward
has n o t been stu d ie d f u r th e r , a t l e a s t in th e experim ental l i t e r a t u r e
review ed.
This i s r a th e r s u rp ris in g , i n l i g h t o f th e a g e n t’ s obviously
im p ortant r o le i n any choice s itu a tio n , and even i n t e s tin g s itu a tio n s
where d e la y c ap a c ity i s asse ssed i n d i r e c t l y .
The growing l i t e r a t u r e on
experim enter v a ria b le s i n experim ent outcome i t s e l f should provide
im petus f o r such an in q u iry .
T h e o re tic a lly i t would seem q u ite sound to
p r e d ic t t h a t a g e n e ra liz e d expectancy o f p o s itiv e rein fo rcem en t from one
or another c la s s of ag en ts of of reinforcem ent would p la y a r o le in
determ ining the choice between immediate and delayed g r a t i f i c a t i o n .
Delayed g r a t i f i c a t i o n in v o lv e s “t r u s t 11 t h a t th e agent w i l l p rovid e th e
reward he prom ises; immediate g r a t i f i c a t i o n does n o t.
Because th e
s o c ia l agent r e p r e s e n ts a group w ith which th e S has had fav o ra b le or
unfavorable e x p erien ces, h is choice may thereby be m o d ified .
The
w r i t e r 's c r itic is m o f some of th e review ed s tu d ie s i s based on t h i s
a n a ly s is .
These s tu d ie s f a i l to take in to account th e f a c t t h a t th e E
was probably a middle c la s s in d iv id u a l d e a lin g w ith lower c la s s
in d iv id u a ls who i n most cases have n o t had fav o ra b le ex p erien ces i n a
m iddle c la s s dominated s o c ie ty .
p re s e n t stu d y .
This i s th e p o in t of d e p a rtu re f o r th e
The c e n tra l h y p o th esis concerns th e r o le of g e n e ra liz e d
ex p ectan cies o f p o s itiv e rein fo rcem en t from d i f f e r e n t s o c ia l a g en ts o f
re in fo rce m en t.
P rio r re s e a rc h has suggested t h a t exp ectan cies o f events being
w ith in or o u tsid e o f o n e 's p erso n al c o n tro l p la y a r o le in determ ining
choice of immediate or delayed re in fo rce m en t.
fo r t h i s i s q u ite i n t e r e s t i n g .
B i a l e r 's (1961) r a tio n a le
He a s s e r ts t h a t u n t i l a c h ild f e e l s he
can c o n tro l h i s f a t e , th e re i s no reaso n fo r him to t r y to e x e rt c o n tro l
over i t .
This i s because c o n tro l n e c e s s a rily in v o lv es s e l f - d i s c i p li n e ,
p lan n in g , and eschewal of s h o rt sig h ted p le a su re seeking.
Graves ( I 9 6 l)
sees th e i n t e r n a l l y o rie n te d person a s one who i s aware of th e r e l a t i o n ­
ship between what he does and what happens e v e n tu a lly .
Thus h is
immediate goals a re seen i n l i g h t o f t h e i r even tu al consequences.
a person i s by d e f in itio n one who p la c e s a hig h er v alue on th e
Such
20
a n tic ip a tio n o f more remote events than does an e x te rn a lly o rie n te d
person*
He would th e re fo re be more l i k e l y to choose th e h ig h er v alu ed ,
delayed reward i n p re fe ren c e to a l e s s e r valued, immediate reward*
The
e x te r n a lly o rie n te d person, on the o th er hand, would be l e s s l i k e l y to
choose th e delayed reward*
Another avenue o f re s e a rc h in v o lv in g a rein fo rcem en t choice
d e te rm in a tio n has re c e iv e d only passing a tte n tio n *
The s o c ia l value
p laced upon d elay of g r a t i f ic a t i o n i s unquestionable*
A ll of th e
re s e a rc h e rs who employ th e concept i n t h e i r th e o r e tic a l s tr u c tu r e s im ply
th a t adjustm ent to s o c ie ty i s f a c i l i t a t e d by a c a p a c ity to d elay g r a t i ­
fic a tio n .
Barndt and Johnson (1955)» Graves (1961), LeShan (195^) and
o th e rs r e l a t e immediate g r a t i f ic a t i o n to delinquency, lower c la s s
i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , e tc .
They r e l a t e delayed g r a t i f ic a t i o n to th e dominant
middle c la s s society*
I t i s reaso n ab le to c o n je c tu re , th e n , t h a t th o se
in d iv id u a ls w ith a high need f o r s o c ia l approval, in t h i s m iddle c la s s
dominated so c ie ty , would choose delayed g r a t i f i c a t i o n in p re fe ren c e to
immediate g r a tif ic a tio n *
A fu r th e r g en eral fin d in g from th e re se a rc h w ith d elay of r e i n ­
forcem ent has been t h a t th e presence o f th e f a th e r i n the home stro n g ly
a f f e c t s th e r e l a t i v e p refe ren c e fo r immediate or delayed reward*
has been shown to be th e case w ith young children*
t h i s fin d in g has n o t been borne out*
This
With o ld er c h ild re n
I t i s reasoned t h a t th e presence
o f th e f a th e r i n th e home in c re a s e s th e p o s s i b i l i t y of p o s itiv e r e i n ­
forcem ent experiences w ith male a u th o rity f ig u r e s .
The f a th e r may serve
as a kind o f m ediator between so ciety * s r a th e r s tr in g e n t r e q u i s it e s fo r
21
p o s itiv e rew ard, and th e c h il d 's lim ite d reso u rce s f o r m eeting those
re q u is ite s .
But as th e c h ild grows o ld e r, h is in c re a s in g c a p a c itie s
allow him to gain g r a t i f i c a t i o n from a growing sphere of s o c ie ty .
The experim ental fin d in g s p e rtin e n t to age and in te llig e n c e have
been somewhat c o n flic tin g .
But in c re a sin g age and in te llig e n c e have
g e n e ra lly been found to be p o s itiv e ly r e la te d to frequency o f delayed
reward c h o ice.
The v a rio u s re s e a rc h e rs have employed d if f e r e n t p a ir s of
rein fo rcem en ts in d i f f e r e n t c u ltu re s , however, making comparisons
d iffic u lt.
F in a lly , M ischel (1961a ) has found t h a t h is d e lin q u e n t Ss chose
th e immediate reward more fre q u e n tly than h is matched, non-delinqu en t
Ss.
This would seem to be e x p lain ab le in term s of d i f f e r e n t i a l expect­
ancy o f p o s itiv e rein fo rcem en t, from th e m iddle c la s s E, on th e p a r t of
th e two groups of S s.
But th e fin d in g does m e rit f u r th e r in v e s tig a tio n .
CHAPTER I I
HYPOTHESES AND METHODOLOGY
The prim ary focus of th e p re s e n t study w i l l be on what th e w r ite r
f e e l s to be a n e g le cted c o n sid e ra tio n in a l l b u t Mahrer*s (1956) study—
expectancy f a c to r s r e la te d to th e agent o f.re in fo rc e m e n t.
The design of
th e proposed study w i l l be e s ta b lis h e d p r in c ip a lly to explore t h i s a r e a .
Hypotheses
(1 ) A S*s high g e n eralize d expectancy o f p o s itiv e rein fo rcem en t
from a category o f s o c ia l ag en ts w ill f a c i l i t a t e h is choice of th e
la r g e r delayed reward when he i s given a choice between a sm all immediate
and a la r g e r delayed reward by an agent w ith in t h a t category o f s o c ia l
ag ents o f re in fo rce m en t.
On th e o th er hand, a choice o f th e immediate
reward i s made more l i k e l y by a low g e n eralize d expectancy of p o s itiv e
reinforcem ent from th e general category o f s o c ia l agents re p re se n te d by
th e person o ffe rin g th e choice.
(2 ) A S 's high g en eral expectancy t h a t he can e x e rc is e c o n tro l
over ev en ts a ff e c tin g h is l i f e w ill in c re a s e th e p r o b a b ility o f h is
choosing th e la r g e r delayed rew ard.
Conversely, th e p r o b a b ility of th e
S*s choosing th e immediate reward i s in cre ased by h is expectancy th a t
ev en ts a re la r g e ly out o f h is sphere of c o n tro l.
(3) An S*s need fo r s o c ia l approval, or strong d e s ire f o r s o c ia l
a c c e p ta b ility , w ill make i t l i k e l y t h a t he w ill choose th e delayed rew ard.
22
23
(4) Ss w ith h ig h er IQ*s w ill tend more to choose th e delayed
reward th a n Ss w ith low er IQ*s.
(5) Those Ss who have had p a te rn a l f ig u re s in t h e i r home fo r th e
f i r s t tw elve y e ars o f t h e i r l i v e s w i l l choose th e delayed reward more
th an those who have n o t had p a te rn a l fig u re s in t h e i r home f o r th e f i r s t
tw elve y e a r s ,
( 6 ) Those Ss most involved in “d elin q u en t" or "crim in al" a c t i v i t y
w ill tend most to choose th e immediate rew ard.
Reinforcem ent choice measure
The general statem en ts of th e hypotheses having been made, i t i s
perhaps b e s t now to d e sc rib e i n d e t a i l th e b a sic measure in t h i s proposed
study—t h a t o f th e a b i l i t y to d elay g r a t i f i c a t i o n .
Stinger and h i s
v ario u s co -au th o rs (1952, 195^# 1955# 1956) have used th e Rorschach
Human Movement score a s t h e i r b a sic measure o f what th ey c a l l "delaying
c a p a c ity ."
I t i s a very i n d ir e c t measure, however, and in v o lv e s a
s e r ie s o f assum ptions f o r which th e re i s l i t t l e em p iric a l v e r i f i c a t i o n .
F u rth e r, th e conceptual network o f R apaport1s , which Singer e t a l . have
stu d ied ex p erim e n tally , as th e w r ite r has e x p lain ed , may n o t have as th e
c e n tra l f a c to r a d e la y in g fu n c tio n o f th e ego, b u t r a th e r expectancy
f a c to r s r e la te d to th e E.
A d i r e c t b eh av io ral measure o f g r a t i f i c a t i o n p refe ren c e i s seen
to have f a r few er d isad v an tag es, a t l e a s t as long a s th e aforem entioned
expectancy f a c to r s a re taken in to account.
Washburne*s th re e choice
measures a re in tr ig u in g , and have th e advantage of o ffe rin g a range o f
sco res from zero to seven.
They do n o t appear to be s u ita b le fo r Ss of
24
th e age th e w r ite r in ten d ed to u se .
Mahrer1s (1956) m easure, employed
w ith c o n sid erab le success by M ischel (1956, 1961a, 1961b, 1961c), and
M ischel and Metzner (1962), seemed most a p p ro p ria te i n t h i s r e s p e c t.
M ischel experim ented w ith two a d d itio n a l h y p o th e tic a l q u e stio n s and
found them u s e fu l, b u t when t h i s w r ite r p r e - te s te d th e m easures he found
no r e la tio n s h ip between th e v e rb a l and th e b e h a v io ra l c h o ic e s.
I t was
decided to drop th e v e rb a l m easures, sin ce p r e - te s tin g suggested th a t
th e re were s ig n if ic a n t r e la tio n s h ip s between th e b eh av io ral choice and
th e sc ale employed to t e s t h is f i r s t h y p o th e sis.
That i s , a sc a le
measure o f expectancy o f p o s itiv e rein fo rcem en t from c la s s e s o f s o c ia l
ag en ts s u c c e s s fu lly p re d ic te d to the reward choice m easure.
P o ssib le
contam ination of th e se r e s u l t s by o th e r experim ental f a c to r s , however,
le d to th e employment of th e methodology being o u tlin e d i n t h i s c h a p te r.
The p ro sp e c tiv e Ss being eig h tee n to tw e n ty -six year old male
inm ates i n a c o rre c tio n a l i n s t i t u t i o n , Mahrer*s and M ischel*s candy and
to y choices seemed in a p p ro p ria te f o r th e reward choice ite m s .
In the
youth p o p u la tio n of th e p re s e n t study, c ig a r e tte s ta k e on g re a t v a lu e .
One reaso n i s th a t c ig a r e tte s a re th e u n o f f ic ia l medium o f exchange,
sin ce a l l o th e r forms o f m onetary token a re fo rb id d en by th e i n s t i t u t i o n .
P r e te s tin g was c a rrie d ou t to determ ine th e r a t i o o f c ig a r e tte q u a n ti­
t i e s f a c i l i t a t i n g an approxim ately equal number of immediate and delayed
choices w ith th e d elay i n te r v a l being one week.
were employed:
Three d i f f e r e n t r a t i o s
one pack to two packs, one pack to th re e packs, and one
pack to fo u r packs.
S tra n g ely enough, th e r e l a t i v e fre q u e n c ie s of
immediate rein fo rcem en t and delayed rein fo rcem en t choices were about th e
same w ith each r a t i o .
In th e i n t e r e s t s of economy, th e re fo re , i t was
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author "wishes to express h is a p p re c ia tio n fo r th e advice,
guidance, and a s s is ta n c e of Dr, J u lia n B, R o tte r, and M essrs, H erbert
M, L efcourt and C harles H, H olland,
He a ls o wishes to thank the many
members of the s t a f f a t th e Federal Reformatory, C h illic o th e , Ohio
f o r t h e i r cooperation, which made th e p re se n t rese a rc h p o s s ib le .
ii
25
decided to use th e one pack to two pack r a tio *
Some u nsystem atic
in q u iry e s ta b lis h e d t h a t Camwl« were th e most popular c ig a r e t t e s , fo r
reaso n s u n re la te d to t h i s study*
was used fo r th e reward choice
The b a s ic procedure
This brand, i n th e r a t i o m entioned,
measure*
f o r ad m in isterin g t h i s
choice measure
wasto
have th e S f i l l out th e s c a le s to be d e scrib e d l a t e r , and th en o ff e r
him, a s a reward fo r "tak in g p a r t i n th e experim ent," a s in g le pack of
Camels "now," or two packs "next week."
e x p la n atio n t h a t the agent
This was preceded by th e
had planned to give a l l of th e Ss two
b u t only had enough on hand to give each S one*
packs,
I t was added t h a t , i f
th e S was w illin g to w a it a week, u n t i l more c ig a r e tte s had been
p ro cured, he would re c e iv e th e two packs*
Except fo r th e rew ards, th e
p rocedures a re alm ost i d e n t i c a l to th o se used by Mahrer and M ischel.
For reasons to be d isc u sse d l a t e r , t h i s rein fo rcem en t choice was
given to h a lf of th e group by an " a u th o rity f i g u r e , " and th e o th e r h a lf
by a "peer fig u re * "
I d e n tic a l wording was used by both of th e se ag en ts
o f rein fo rce m en t, however.
Measure o f g e n e ra liz e d expectancy
o f p o s itiv e rein fo rce m en t from
a u th o rity and p eer f ig u r e s
In th e p r io r d isc u ssio n of expectancy f a c to r s re le v a n t to reward
choice i t was suggested t h a t th e higher th e S*s g e n e ra liz e d expectancy
fo r p o s itiv e rein fo rcem en t from th e category of people to which th e
agent of rein fo rcem en t belonged, th e g re a te r th e tendency fo r th e S to
choose delayed rein fo rc e m e n t.
The "delinquent" p o p u latio n upon which
th e proposed study has been c a rrie d out has commonly been c h a ra c te riz e d
by i t s la c k of “i d e n tif ic a tio n " w ith , or " tr u s t" o f, m iddle c la ss
a u th o rity f ig u r e s .
On th e o th e r hand, d e lin q u e n ts, e s p e c ia lly i n s t i t u ­
tio n a liz e d d e lin q u e n ts, a re fre q u e n tly sa id to i d e n tif y w ith , or t r u s t ,
each o th e r r e l a t i v e l y more,
Redl and Wlneman (1951)» fo r in s ta n c e , have
noted th e tendency on th e p a r t o f t h e i r P ioneers to be more resp o n siv e
to peer sa n c tio n s th an to a u th o rity sa n c tio n s .
r a th e r obvious.
The b a s is fo r t h i s i s
C hildren and youths adjudged "d elin q u en t" and "crim in al"
by th e c o u rts have r a th e r commonly been deprived of fav o ra b le exp erien ces
w ith any a u th o r ity , beginning w ith n e g lig e n t and/or r e je c tin g p a re n ts ,
through h a rrie d and overworked school te a c h e rs and p r in c ip a ls , sus­
p ic io u s and unsym pathetic policem en, p u n itiv e and remote co u rt o f f i c i a l s ,
and h a rs h , d i s t a n t i n s t i t u t i o n a l a u th o r i ti e s .
I f such young people have
any ex p ectan cies fo r approval and a ffe c tio n from o th er p eo p le , th e se
ex p ectan cies do n o t l i e w ith middle c la s s a u th o rity f ig u r e s .
R ather,
th ese ex p ectan cies l i e w ith t h e i r p e e rs, w ith whom they have shared
so c iety * s w rath .
Only by a s s o c ia tio n w ith , and acceptance of v alu es
from, th e d elin q u en t su b cu ltu re can much in th e way of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n be
developed.
Thus i t i s t h a t " a u th o rity " and "peer" r e p r e s e n ta tiv e s were
chosen to p re s e n t th e reward choice m easure.
I t was assumed t h a t , even
w ith in a c o rre c tio n a l i n s t i t u t i o n p o p u latio n , th e re must be a range of
" tr u s t" o f p e e rs and a u th o r i ti e s , t h i s t r u s t being d e fin e d as expectancy
o f p o s itiv e re in fo rc e m e n t.
In term s o f h y p o th esis number one i n t h i s
c h ap ter, in d iv id u a ls tr u s tin g a u th o r itie s w ill be more lik e ly to choose
th e delayed reward from th e a u th o rity a g en t, w hile th o se d is tr u s tin g
27
a u th o r itie s w i l l be more l ik e l y to choose immediate rein fo rcem en t from
t h a t a g e n t.
S im ila rly , th o se in d iv id u a ls tr u s t in g peers w i l l be more
l i k e l y to choose delayed reinforcem ent from a p eer agent th an those
d i s t r u s t in g p e e rs .
In o rder to measure th ese ex p ectan cies or " t r u s t s , " i t was
decided to c o n stru c t an a d je c tiv e r a tin g sc ale m easure,
Gough's ( i 960)
A djective Check L is t (ACL) provided th e b a sic model fo r th e in stru m e n t,
Gough suggested t h a t p o ss ib le refinem ent of h is ACL could be accomplished
by p ro v id in g an " in te n s ity " s c a le .
This suggestion was employed by-
e s ta b lis h in g a sc a le of th e frequency of a p p lic a b ility o f each a d je c tiv e .
Gough's ACL c o n s is ts of a l i s t of 300 a d je c tiv e s
he f e e ls them to be s e lf - d e s c r ip tiv e .
which th e S checks i f
Since th e concern i n th e proposed
study i s to a s s e s s th e degree of t r u s t o f a u th o r ity and peer fig u r e s ,
th re e a u th o rity f ig u re s and th re e p eer fig u re s were se le c te d and th e
in s tr u c tio n s given to the S to in d ic a te how o fte n each fig u re a c te d i n
th e way denoted by th e a d je c tiv e .
An example of th e f i n a l form o f th e
A d jective S atin g Scale (ASS) can be seen i n Appendix I .
Each of th e six
pages c o n ta in s th e same l i s t of a d je c tiv e s and frequency s c a le s , th e
l a t t e r ran g in g from "always" to "n ev er."
E ight o f th e a d je c tiv e s a re
" n e u tra l" or non t r u s t - r e l a t e d , and a re included as b u ffe r ite m s.
E ight o f th e a d je c tiv e s p e rta in to "su p p o rt," such as " h e lp fu l" and
"generous."
E ight o f th e a d je c tiv e s p e r ta in to "c o n siste n c y ," such as
" r e lia b le " and " s ta b le ."
Each o f th e se groups of e ig h t a d je c tiv e s a re
f u r th e r subdivided i n to " p o s itiv e " and "negative" a d je c tiv e s .
shows th e breakdown o f th e ARS in to i t s components.
Table I
I t was determ ined
t h a t t r u s t or expectancy o f p o s itiv e reinforcem ent could be d efin ed both
28
TABLE I
BREAKDOWN OF ADJECTIVES IN THE ARS INTO
COMPONENT CATEGORIES
P o s itiv e
Negative
N eu tral
e n e rg e tic
a le rt
calm
happy
la z y
d u ll
weak
nervous
Support
h e lp fu l
generous
understanding
kind
mean
s e l f is h
in c o n s id e ra te
s tric t
Consistency
c o n s is te n t
sta b le
re lia b le
fa ith fu l
tw o-faced
u n p re d ic ta b le
un tru stw o rth y
undependable
in term s of degree of p o s itiv e rein fo rcem en t, and co n sisten c y o f p o s itiv e
re in fo rce m en t.
A ccordingly, both a sp e c ts of t r u s t were covered by
s e le c tio n o f a d je c tiv e s .
The a d je c tiv e s them selves were se le c te d to
f i l l th e c a te g o rie s on a r a t i o n a l b a s is ty th e w r ite r , h i s a d v is e r, and
h e lp fu l members of h i s re s e a rc h team.
No em p iric a l methods were employed.
The sco rin g f o r support, consistency and t r u s t was accom plished by adding
up th e p o s itiv e item score i n each category, w ith "never" being given a
value o f one, "seldom1* a v alue of two, e tc .
The n eg ativ e item score was
fig u re d th e same way and su b tra c te d from th e p o s itiv e item sc o re .
item s did n o t e n te r i n to th e sc o rin g .
N eu tral
An equal number of p o s itiv e and
n eg ativ e item s was in clu d ed to minimize th e e f f e c t o f response s e t
v a r ia b le s .
Since on th e s c a le s given to th e Ss th e a d je c tiv e s were i n
random o rd e r, sco rin g was aid ed by th e use of te m p la te s.
The method o f
sco rin g o u tlin e d above was based upon r a t i o n a l r a th e r th an em p irical
c o n s id e ra tio n s .
Close study o f th e ARS w ill re v e a l t h a t sco rin g i s a
v ery te d io u s procedure and i t i s suggested to anyone in te r e s te d i n
employing i t , th a t he d ev ise a sim pler form at f o r th e t e s t , or some ty p e
of machine scoring i f many Ss a re to be ru n .
The ARS c o n s is ts o f six pages, th re e devoted to peer f ig u re
a d je c tiv e r a t i n g s c a le s , and th re e devoted to a u th o rity fig u re r a tin g
s c a le s .
I d e n tic a l s c a le s and a d je c tiv e s a re used fo r each f ig u r e .
The
fig u re s were se le c te d on a r a t i o n a l b a s is by th e w r ite r , h is a d v is e r, and
members o f h is re s e a rc h team on th e b a s is of how l i k e l y th e fig u re s
would be regarded as p e e rs or a u th o r itie s by c o rre c tio n a l i n s t i t u t i o n
y o u th s.
C onsideration was given to th e y o u th 's probable lower s o c ia l
c la s s membership, and th e l i k e l y range of h is experience w ith o th er
people*
f ig u r e s .
F a th e rs , te a c h e rs and businessmen were se le c te d as th e a u th o r ity
F actory w orkers, o th er m ales o f my ( S 's ) age, and oth er
inm ates were chosen a s th e peer f ig u r e s .
In th e order m entioned, th e
fig u re s were f e l t to form some kind of continuous sc a le from "most
a u th o r ity - lik e " to "most p e e r - lik e ,"
For scoring purposes, however, th e
s p l i t i n to dichotomous groups was made.
Some un sy stem atic comparison of
t r u s t r a t i n g s between s p e c ific f ig u r e s was attem pted, and showed a good
d e a l o f prom ise f o r te s ti n g o th e r hypotheses concerning what e f f e c t
ex p eriences i n th e l i v e s of "d elin q u en ts" have had upon p re s e n t
e x p e c ta n c ie s, b u t t h i s d a ta was n o t re le v a n t to th e p re s e n t stu d y .
Some
su g g estiv e evidence o f a m eaningful continuum o f a u th o r ity - to - p e e r - lik e
i n th e f ig u re s ordered a s above was gained from comparisons of t r u s t
score means on th e e n ti r e group o f inm ates t e s t e d .
The inm ates on th e
30
whole a re very conscious o f what i s s o c ia lly d e s ira b le in the i n s t i t u ­
t io n from th e j>oint of view of th e i n s t i t u t i o n a l a u t h o r i t i e s .
The
h ig h e s t t r u s t means were fo r f a th e r s and th e low est were fo r th e o th er
inm ate f ig u r e s , and th e o th e rs follow ed a s tr a ig h t l i n e curve in th e
o rd er of m o s t-a u th o rity -lik e to l e a s t - a u t h o r i ty - l ik e .
The pages—or fig u re r a tin g sh e e ts—were randomized f o r each S
so th a t order e f f e c t s would be m inim ized.
The in s tr u c tio n s and th e
fig u r e names being p lu r a l im plied th a t " fa th e rs in gen eral" were to be
r a te d , and th e same w ith th e o th e r f ig u r e s .
I t was expected t h a t each
S*s own experience w ith persons w ith in each fig u re category would p lay a
dominant r o le in th e r a tin g s , however.
Measure o f expectancy of p erso n al
c o n tro l over ev en ts
R o tte r (195*0 proposed th e b a sic S ocial L earning Theory framework
fo r c o n sid e ra tio n of th e in te r n a l- e x te r n a l c o n tro l v a r ia b le .
This
v a ria b le i s regarded a s a g e n eralize d expectancy o f ev en ts being w ith in
or beyond one*s p erso n al c o n tro l and u n d erstan d in g .
The f i r s t attem p t
to measure t h i s g e n e ra liz e d expectancy was made by Phares (1957)*
His
t e s t was re v is e d by James (1957) in to a lo n g er L ik e rt-ty p e s c a le , and
L iv e ra n t, R o tte r, Growne, and Seeman have developed successive forms of
jt fo rc e d choice sc ale s t a r t i n g w ith th e Jam es-Phares t e s t (R o tte r,
Seeman & L iv e ra n t, 1962).
The m o d ifica tio n being employed i n th e p re s e n t
study (Appendix I I ) i s a 29 item , fo rced choice q u e stio n n a ire of which 6
a re b u ffe r ite m s .
I t i s keyed so th a t a high score in d ic a te s choice o f
e x te rn a l a l t e r n a t i v e s .
An e x te rn a l item i s p a ire d w ith an i n te r n a l
item , and th e o rd er o f th e p a ir s i s random.
The item s i n th e p re s e n t
sc ale have been se le c te d from previous forms so as to reduce th e s o c ia l
d e s i r a b i l i t y component, and to be more a p p lic a b le to th e general popu­
la tio n .
L ife philosophy, s o c ia l, and p o l i t i c a l item s have been
in clu d ed , w hile most academic achievement item s have been excluded.
Appendix I I giv es an example of th e sc a le w ith th e e x te rn a l a lt e r n a t iv e s
in d ic a te d in the n o n-buffer item p a ir s .
S o cial d e s i r a b i l i t y measure
Edwards (1957) proposed and devised a sc a le of dissem bling based
upon m easuring th e frequency to which t e s t item s judged to be s o c ia lly
d e s ira b le were a s c rib e d .
He se le c te d those item s from th e MMPI which
were unanimously agreed upon by te n judges to be s o c ia lly d e s ira b le or
u n d e s ira b le .
He has been c r i t ic i z e d on th e b a sis of h is s t a t i s t i c a l
deviance model and use of item s w ith p a th o lo g ic a l im p lic a tio n s by
Crowne and Marlowe ( i 960) who devised a sc a le w ith c u ltu r a lly sanctio n ed
b u t h ig h ly improbable ite m s.
I t i s a 33 ite m , t r u e - f a ls e q u e stio n n a ire
keyed to make a high score in d ic a te s e le c tio n o f item s of a s o c ia lly
d e s ira b le s o r t .
This M-C SDS was a ls o keyed so as to minimize the
e f f e c t of response s e t .
The sc a le i s not intended a s a measure of
d issem bling, bu t r a th e r a measure o f a need f o r s o c ia l approval and
b e lie f t h a t t h i s approval can be obtained by conform ity to c u ltu r a lly
san ctioned behavior (Marlowe and Crowne, 1961).
O btaining a high score
on th e sc a le n e c e s s ita te s a tt r i b u t i n g to o n e se lf many c h a r a c te r is tic s
and behaviors of very in fre q u e n t occurrence i n t h i s c u ltu re , i n s p ite of
the h ig h .v a lu e placed upon them.
A high score th u s im p lies a q u a lity
o f d e sp e ra tio n in th e q u est fo r s o c ia l approval, perhaps based upon a
32
low expectancy fo r o b tain in g i t w ithout untoward subm issiveness to id o ls
of th e t r i b e .
Support fo r th e view t h a t th e M-C SDS measures a need f o r
s o c ia l approval has been found i n stu d ie s by Crowne and S tric k la n d (1961)
and Marlowe and Crowne (1961),
An example of th e M-C SDS sc a le can be
found i n Appendix I I I , w ith s o c ia lly d e s ira b le responses in d ic a te d .
Measure of in te llig e n c e
F o rtu n a te ly a l l of th e Ss used in th e proposed study had been
r o u tin e ly te s te d w ith th e Revised Beta Examination (K ellogg and Morton,
1935)* a nonverbal in te llig e n c e t e s t , and th e S tanford Achievement T est
(K elly e t a l« , 1953)«
In o rder to a ssu re comprehension of th e q u e stio n ­
n a ire m easures employed in th e proposed study, i t was necessary to
e lim in a te in d iv id u a ls w ith Word Meaning scores on th e SAT (S tan fo rd
Achievement T est) below th e eig h th grade le v e l of perform ance.
Obviously
th e re should be a co n sid erab le lo s s in p re d ic tiv e power of in te llig e n c e
to th e reward choice m easure.
F ath er presence measure
Each S was asked th e q u e stio n :
you l i v e w ith your n a tu ra l f a th e r ,"
"How many y e a rs of your l i f e d id
I f l e s s th an twelve y e a rs was
in d ic a te d by th e S*s answer, in q u iry was made so a s to re v e a l th e
presence o f a p o ss ib le su rro g a te f a th e r , and th e number of y e a rs he
liv e d w ith th e S before S was tw elv e.
Two scores were th ereb y d e riv e d :
th e number o f y e a rs th e S liv e d w ith h is n a tu ra l f a th e r , and th e number
o f y e a rs th e S liv e d w ith a f a th e r fig u re of any k in d .
33
Measure of crim in al involvem ent
- Two in d ic e s of crim in al involvem ent were o btained from th e S*s
i n s t i t u t i o n a l re c o rd s .
FBI R ep o rt,
One was th e number o f a r r e s t s recorded on h is
A rre sts th e re recorded c o n s is t of any in sta n c e of th e S*s
being booked by p o lic e o f f i c i a l s .
A rre s ts can be fo r such minor th in g s
as t r a f f i c v io la tio n s or even j u s t a r r e s t s fo r in v e s tig a tio n , and a re by
no means n e c e s s a rily follow ed by judgment or c o n v ic tio n .
A second
measure was a ls o used—th e approxim ate number of months confinement in
p en al i n s t i t u t i o n s , c o rre c tio n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s , reform sch o o ls, or j a i l s
p r io r to th e im p o sitio n of h is pending se n ten ce.
I t i s obvious t h a t
both o f th e s e m easures a re su b je c t to g re a t in flu e n c e by ir r e l e v a n t
f a c to r s —v a r i a b i l i t y in p o lic e v ig ila n c e , d i s p a r i t i e s i n sentencing
p ro cedures, e t c .
The l a t t e r m easure, however, might g et a p o ss ib le
e f f e c ts of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n , i f i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n ten d s to have
an adverse in flu e n c e upon exp ectan cies of p o s itiv e rein fo rcem en t from
a u th o r ity .
I t was hoped t h a t a la r g e enough sample would serve to
randomize out extraneous v a ria n c e .
S u b jects
The Ss were e ig h ty inm ates of a medium custody c o rre c tio n a l
i n s t i t u t i o n i n th e Midwest.
s ix .
They ranged i n age from e ig h te e n to tw enty-
They were te s te d s h o rtly a f t e r t h e i r being committed to th e
in s titu tio n .
They were s t i l l housed i n an adm ission u n i t .
New a r r i v a l s
were u t i l i z e d to maximize th e p o s s ib i l i ty of tap p in g g e n eralize d
ex p ectan cies o f a u th o rity and peer f ig u r e s , by allow ing a minimum o f
tim e to form s p e c if ic exp ectan cies about o th e r inm ates and i n s t i t u t i o n a l
a u th o ritie s *
Only th o se inm ates were used a s Ss who had o b tain ed a SAT
Word Meaning score of e ig h th grade average achievement or o v e r.
th a n t h i s lim i ta t io n , th e Ss were se le c te d randomly*
Other
In f a c t , v i r t u a l l y
every e li g i b le in d iv id u a l committed to th e i n s t i t u t i o n over a two-month
p e rio d had to be in clu d ed i n th e sample to achieve th e d e sire d number of
Ss*
Some degree of g e n e ra lity o f th e r e s u l t s i s th ereb y f a c i l i t a t e d *
The lim ita tio n s re p re se n te d by th e i l l i t e r a t e and p o o r-rea d er group may
be im p o rta n t, however*
I t i s o fte n noted th a t academic r e ta r d a tio n i s
h ig h ly r e la te d to dom estic d i f f i c u l t y , a n tis o c ia l beh av io r, delinquency,
etc*
Procedures
The e li g i b le inm ates, according to t h e i r SAT Word Meaning sco re,
were se n t ro u tin e i n s t i t u t i o n a l appointm ent
s l i p s , s ta tin g th e tim e,
d a te , and p lac e o f th e " in te rv ie w ," and
th e name o f th e E* The Ss were
scheduled so as to be seen in d iv id u a lly
f o r an ex p la n atio n th a t th e
study was fo r th e Ohio S ta te U n iv e rsity
and had no rele v an c e to i n s t i t u ­
tio n a l procedures*
I t was f e l t n ecessary to s t r e s s t h i s p o in t so a s to
a ll e v i a te p o s s ib le f e a r th a t th e t e s t r e s u l t s would be placed i n th e
in s titu tio n a l file s *
Q ueries to t h i s end were answered accordingly*
It
was a ls o s tre s s e d t h a t p a r tic ip a tio n was e n ti r e l y v o lu n ta ry , and t h a t th e
Ss were f r e e to re fu s e w ith no fe a r of th e consequences.
Only two
in d iv id u a ls chose to re f u s e , suggesting t h a t th e s i t u a t i o n , in s p ite of
a l l a tte m p ts, had d e a r overtones o f com pulsoriness*
su sp ic io u sn e ss or r e s is ta n c e was v e rb a liz e d , however.
Very l i t t l e
CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. . . . .
0 ..............................................................................
ii
TABLES.....................................................................................................................
iv
Chapter
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND.......................................................... .
HYPOTHESES AND
METHODOLOGY
.....................................................
1
22
STATISTICAL RESULTS........................................
39
DISCUSSION AND
46
FURTHERANALYSIS
..............................................
SUMMARY......................................................................
54
APPENDIX
1 .............................................................................................................................
57
I I .............................................................................................................................
65
I I I .............................................
71
IV.
74
V...........................................................................................
BIBLIOGRAPHY
.,
76
.............................................................................................
AUTOBIOGRAPHY...................................................................................................
iii
78
.
82
The ARS (Appendix I ) th e I-E (Appendix U ) and th e M-C SDS
(Appendix H I ) were given to th e Ss, sta p le d i n random o rd e r.
The
in clu d ed in s tr u c tio n s were reviewed b r i e f l y by E, and th e Ss were to ld
to rea d them more thoroughly b efo re th ey began to f i l l them o u t.
Any
q u e stio n s were answered, but few were asked and alm ost no d i f f i c u l t y was
noted on th e p a r t o f th e Ss i n f i l l i n g ou t th e s c a le s .
The Ss were
seated i n p r iv a te rooms w hile th ey f i l l e d ou t th e q u e stio n n a ire s and
th ey re tu rn e d to th e E*s o f f ic e when they fin is h e d .
The tim e f o r
com pletion of th e th re e sc a le s ranged from f i f t e e n to f o r t y - f i v e m in u tes.
The E "dropped in " on th e Ss w hile th ey were f i l l i n g out th e t e s t s to
see i f ev ery th in g was " c le a r ," and to ask th e ro u tin e q u e stio n s about
p a te rn a l fig u re presence i n the home.
When the S re tu rn e d to th e E1s o f fic e h i s s c a le s were checked
b r i e f l y f o r com pleteness and he was th en thanked f o r h is cooperatio n
and to ld f o r th e f i r s t time t h a t th e re was a "reward" f o r tak in g p a r t i n
th e re s e a rc h .
He was d ire c te d to the a g e n t1s room w ith th e ex p la n atio n
t h a t "So and so i s in charge of t h a t . . .
i f you w ill go r i g h t over
th e r e , he w i l l give you your rew ard." T y p ically th e Ss were somewhat
h e s ita n t a t t h i s p o in t, p o ss ib ly wondering why th e E did no t give them
th e rew ard and g e t i t over w ith .
I t was o r ig in a lly decided t h a t i t
would be b e tt e r n o t to use th e E a s th e a u th o rity agent so as to
e q u a liz e th e le n g th of S -agent c o n ta c t.
In a p r e t e s t , th e e n tir e s e r ie s
o f procedures was c a rrie d o u t by an a u th o r ity and a peer E.
While t h i s
approach e l i c i t e d th e p re d ic te d s t a t i s t i c a l r e s u l t s , i t was observed
t h a t th e t e s t scores d if f e r e d i n v a r i a b i l i t y between th e a u th o rity E and
th e peer E groups.
I t was decided to use th e same E fo r both groups and
d i f f e r e n t ag en ts f o r th e reward choice measure a s a r e s u l t , even though
t h i s le d to th e s a c r i f i c e of much c r e d i b i l i t y o f th e reward choice
s itu a tio n .
I t i s l i k e l y t h a t some s o r t o f compromise m ight have been
b e tt e r , so th a t th e S would have g o tten to know th e agent a l i t t l e
b e tte r b efo re th e rew ard choice measure was g iv en .
But an E d i f f e r e n t
from th e ag en ts was employed i n o rd er to minimize th e growth of s p e c if ic
ex p ec ta n cie s about th e agent during prolonged c o n ta c t.
T his p o in t w i l l
be d isc u sse d f u r th e r in Chapter IV.
The 80 Ss were randomly assigned to one o f two groups.
H alf of
th e Ss were d ire c te d to a room i n which th e a u th o rity ag en t s a t a t h is
d esk.
He wore a uniform e a s ily reco g n izab le as a symbol of a u th o r ity in
th e i n s t i t u t i o n , and was addressed by th e E as ‘‘Mr, So and So," a t i t l e
re serv e d f o r i n s t i t u t i o n a l a u th o r i ti e s .
The a u th o rity ag en t then
proceeded t o o ffe r th e S th e reward choice a s d e scrib e d above.
H alf of th e Ss were d ire c te d to a room i n which th e peer agent
s a t a t h is desk.
p eer a g e n ts .
Desk and room were q u ite s im ila r fo r a u th o rity and
The p eer agent was addressed by th e E as "So and So,"
(w ith o u t th e "Mr." p r e f ix , and j u s t by h is l a s t name a s i s customary
when a d d ressin g inm ates i n th e i n s t i t u t i o n ) "the c le rk h e re ."
The peer
ag ent was d ressed i n th e ty p ic a l inm ate uniform and could n o t be
confused w ith a member o f th e s t a f f .
A c le rk p o s itio n i s one of some
p r e s tig e and r e s p o n s ib ility in th e i n s t i t u t i o n , so t h a t i t was q u ite
reaso n ab le t h a t an inmate could have had charge of d is tr ib u tin g a valued
commodity.
I t must im m ediately be recognized, however, t h a t th e c le rk
37
has some a t t r i b u t e s of an a u th o rity i n th e d e scrib e d s itu a tio n , and o f
course i s obviously under th e su p e rv isio n o f th e a u th o rity i n charg e.
His p eer s ta tu s i s somewhat q u estio n a b le as a r e s u l t .
N onetheless every
e f f o r t was made to c re a te th e im pression t h a t th e p e er agent was t r u l y
"in charge" o f th e s i t u a t i o n .
The choice was o ffe re d out o f th e h earin g
of any a u th o rity (th e o f f ic e door was closed when th e S e n te re d ) and "I"
and "my" were used w ith re fe re n c e to th e c ig a r e tte s and th e prom ise of
two packs of c ig a r e tte s i n a week.
Needless to say, th e promised delayed reward was d e liv e re d on
schedule f o r th o se who chose i t .
I t should a ls o be mentioned t h a t d u rin g
th e o ffe rin g o f th e reward choice, th e agent h e ld a sin g le pack of
c ig a r e tte s in h is hand so t h a t th e S could see i t .
There appeared to be l i t t l e communication between those te s te d a t
f i r s t and th o se te s te d l a t e r .
The Ss were te s te d over a p e rio d of
se v e ra l weeks, many came from the same l iv i n g q u a rte rs , and f o r th e most
p a r t were n o t b u s ily occupied during th e day, due to t h e i r n o t being
assig n ed to d u tie s w hile i n th e o r ie n ta tio n u n i t .
Communication about
th e reward choice, o b v io u sly , would have f a c i l i t a t e d th e development of
group a t t i t u d e s and e x p ectan cies which would have in te r f e r e d w ith th e
p u r ity of th e reward choice measure as an index of t r u s t of th e agent
categ o ry .
P r e - te s tin g techniques to avoid t h i s communication problem
took on th e form of group t e s ti n g , which a c tu a lly f a c i l i t a t e d r a th e r
th a n in h ib ite d communication, and le d to a s tr ik in g decrement i n th e
frequency o f delayed reward choice w ith both a u th o rity and peer s o c ia l
a g e n ts.
The w r ite r i s q u ite sure t h a t communication played l i t t l e p a r t
i n th e r e s u l t s —he was ab le to spot check many of th e Ss hy asking
casu al q u e stio n s i n th e process o f e x p lain in g th e purpose o f th e study
to each S, t h a t alm ost c e r ta in ly would have re v e ale d knowledge o f th e
reward choice measure and th e t e s t s .
Only a handful of Ss had any
knowledge of th e study, l e t alone d e t a i l s of th e m easures in v o lv e d .
The
w r ite r fra n k ly has no good ex p lan atio n fo r th e f a i l u r e o f in fo rm a tio n to
le a k out about what s u p e r f ic ia lly looks to be a " n a tu ra l" item o f g re a t
i n t e r e s t to every inm ate.
CHAPTER I I I
STATISTICAL RESULTS
G eneral r e s u l t s
Table I I in c lu d e s th e means and standard d e v ia tio n s of a l l o f
th e m easures employed f o r th e a u th o r ity s o c ia l agent group and th e peer
s o c ia l agent group.
Also th e freq u e n c ie s of immediate and delayed
rein fo rcem en t choice fo r each group a re in d ic a te d ,
" t" t e s t s in d ic a te
t h a t none of th e a u th o r ity group means a re s ig n if ic a n tly d i f f e r e n t from
th e p e er group means.
R e su lts p e r tin e n t to hypotheses
The d a ta re le v a n t to th e hypotheses s ta te d in th e p rev io u s
ch apter w i l l be p resen te d i n o rder of o r ig in a l p r e s e n ta tio n .
A s p e c if ic
re sta te m e n t of th e g en eral hypotheses w i l l be made, follow ed by a ta b u la r
p re s e n ta tio n o f the s t a t i s t i c a l r e s u l t s , and th en by a v e rb a l summary.
(1 )
I t i s p re d ic te d t h a t th e ARS measure of t r u s t o f a u th o r i ti e s
and p e e rs w ill be p o s itiv e ly r e la te d to incid en ce of delayed reward
choice from a u th o r ity and peer ag en ts r e s p e c tiv e ly .
As can r e a d ily be seen, a l l of th e c o rre la tio n c o e f f ic ie n ts a re
i n th e o p p o site d ir e c tio n from what was p re d ic te d .
The only ones which
reach th e le v e l of sig n ific a n c e a re th o se p re d ic tin g from expectancy of
a u th o rity support and a u th o r ity t r u s t to th e t o t a l d elay choice, however.
The p re s e n t d a ta , th en , len d no support to th e f i r s t h y p o th e s is .
39
In
40
TABLE I I
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS ON ALL OF THE MEASURES EMPLOYED
FOR THE AUTHORITY SOCIAL AGENT GROUP AND THE PEER SOCIAL AGENT
GROUP, AND FREQUENCIES OF DELAYED (D) AND IMMEDIATE ( I )
REINFORCEMENT CHOICE WITHIN EACH GROUP
A u th o rity S ocial
Agent Group (N=40)
Standard
Mean
D eviation
Peer S o cial Agent
Group (N=40)
Standard
Mean
D eviation
ARS expectancy of
a u th o rity co n sisten cy
19*850
8,196
17.550
9.537
ARS expectancy of
a u th o rity support
14.675
7.353
12.375
8.935
ARS a u th o r ity t r u s t
34.525
14.541
29,925
17.465
ARS expectancy of
p e er co n sisten cy
3.80
8,886
2.800
11.862
ARS expectancy of
p eer support
4.800
8.583
3.225
8.531
ARS peer t r u s t
8.600
16,509
6.025
19.587
I-E
7.225
3.380
8.200
3.906
17.150
7.140
16.550
6.484
107.375
9.606
106.175
10.254
SAT ave, grade a ch ,
8,990
0.930
8.715
0.899
No, y e a rs n a tu r a l
f a th e r i n home
7.850
4,725
8.450
4.410
10.550
2.801
9.900
3.338
Number of a r r e s t s
4,050
3.873
5.175
3.308
Months in c a rc e ra te d
6.450
8,649
11.300
14.866
M-C SDS
Revised Beta IQ
No. y e a rs any f a th e r
f ig u re i n home
Frequency of D choice
19
18
Frequency of I choice
21
22
TABLE I I I
POINT BISERIAL CORRELATIONS BETWEEN ARS SCORES AND CHOICE OF
DELAYED REINFORCEMENT
Peer Delay
Choice (N=40)
T o tal Delay
Choice (N=80)
ARS expectancy of
a u th o r ity co n sisten cy
-.2 2
-.1 8
- .2 0
ARS expectancy of
a u th o r ity support
-.2 9
-.2 2
-.2 5 *
ARS a u th o r ity t r u s t
-.2 7
-.2 1
- . 23*
ARS expectancy of
p eer co n sisten cy
-.1 0
-.1 7
- .1 4
ARS expectancy of
p eer support
-.2 1
-.1 9
-.1 9
ARS peer t r u s t
-.1 6
i
.
H
CO
A u th o rity Delay
Choice (N=40)
- .1 7
*
In d ic a te s t h a t P i s l e s s th an *05.
f a c t , th e d a ta ten d to suggest th a t "distrust** o f p e e rs and a u th o r i ti e s
i s r e la te d to delayed rein fo rcem en t choice from ag en ts of e ith e r c a te ­
gory.
In sp e c tio n w i l l re v e a l t h a t the c o rr e la tio n s a re about th e same
le v e l under both a u th o r ity and p eer s o c ia l agent c o n d itio n s .
(2 )
I t i s p re d ic te d t h a t th e I-E measure o f expectancy t h a t
ev en ts a re i n te r n a l l y or e x te rn a lly c o n tro lle d w i l l be r e la te d to
rew ard c h o ic e .
S p e c ific a lly i t i s p re d ic te d t h a t e x te rn a lly o rie n te d Ss
(h ig h sc o re rs on th e I-E ) w i l l tend more t o choose th e immediate rew ard,
r e g a rd le s s of ag en t of rew ard.
Again th e c o rr e la tio n s a re i n th e o p p o site d ir e c tio n from what
was p r e d ic te d .
I t i s suggested t h a t , a t l e a s t i n th e c o rre c tio n a l
TABLE IV
POINT BISERIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN I-E
(HIGH SCORES INDICATE EXTERNALITY)
AND DELAYED REWARD CHOICE
A u th o rity Delay
Choice (N=40)
I-E
Peer Delay
Choice (N=40)
.14
.37*
T otal Delay
Choice (N=80)
.24*
♦
In d ic a te s P i s l e s s than .0 5 .
i n s t i t u t i o n p o p u la tio n , using th e p a r tic u la r reward choice measure
d e sc rib e d , th o se Ss r a tin g them selves as in te r n a ls tend to s e le c t
immediate rein fo rcem en t from th e a u th o r ity f ig u r e .
Only a s l i g h t tre n d
was noted w ith re s p e c t to th e peer ag en t, however,
The d iffe re n c e
between th e a u th o rity and peer d e lay choice c o rr e la tio n s i s n o t s ig n if ­
ic a n t (P = .29 w ith a tw o - ta il t e s t ) 0
(3)
No firm h y p o th esis i s proposed fo r th e M-C SDS r e la tio n s h ip
to th e rew ard choice, b u t i t i s conjectured t h a t those in d iv id u a ls
in d ic a tin g a high need f o r s o c ia l approval w ill tend to s e le c t th e
delayed rew ard.
TABLE V
POINT BISERIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN
M-C SDS AND DELAYED REWARD CHOICE
A u th o rity Delay
Choice (N=40)
M-C SDS
*
-.3 1 *
Peer Delay
Choice (N=40)
-.1 7
I n d ic a te s P i s l e s s than a05o
T otal Delay
Choice (N = 80)
-.2 4 *
The c o rre la tio n s a re i n th e opposite d ir e c tio n from what was
c o n je c tu re d .
I t appears t h a t , a t l e a s t w ith an a u th o rity s o c ia l a g e n t,
those who choose delayed reinforcem ent have a lower need f o r s o c ia l
approval th a n do th o se who choose immediate reinforcem ent*
Although th e
p eer agent c o rr e la tio n i s low er, th e c o rre la tio n s under th e two condi­
tio n s a re not s ig n if ic a n tly d i f f e r e n t (P = ,51 w ith a tw o - ta il t e s t ) ,
(h) I t i s p re d ic te d th a t in te llig e n c e w ill be p o s itiv e ly r e la te d
to choice of delayed rew ard, r e g a rd le s s of th e agent of rew ard,
TABLE VI
POINT BISERIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN THE REVISED
BETA INTELLIGENCE TEST, THE STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST
AVERAGE GRADE ACHIEVEMENT SCORE, AND
DELAYED REWARD CHOICE
A u th o rity Delay
Choice (N=^0)
Peer Delay
Choice (N=^0)
T o ta l Delay
Choice (N=80)
Beta IQ
-.3 7 *
-.0 5
- .2 0
SAT
-.2 1
-.1 6
-.1 8
In d ic a te s P i s l e s s than ,0 5 ,
A ll of th e c o rr e la tio n c o e f f ic ie n ts a re i n th e o p p o site d ir e c tio n
from what was p re d ic te d , b u t only one o f them reached th e le v e l of
s ig n ific a n c e .
I t appears th a t th e re i s lim ite d evidence f o r th e view
t h a t d e la y e rs a re l e s s i n t e l l i g e n t th an those who choose immediate r e i n ­
forcem ent,
Again th e d is p a r ity between th e c o rre la tio n s under a u th o r ity
and peer agent co n d itio n s i s noted.
The d iffe re n c e between th e Beta
c o e f f ic ie n ts approaches s ig n ific a n c e (P = ,15 w ith a tw o - ta il t e s t ) b u t
th e d iffe re n c e between th e SAT c o e f f ic ie n ts does n o t (P = ,82 w ith a
t w o - ta il t e s t ) ,
(5 )
I t i s p re d ic te d t h a t th e presence of a p a te rn a l fig u re i n the
home during th e f i r s t tw elve y e ars of an in d iv id u a l1s l i f e w ill in c re a s e
th e p r o b a b ility o f h is choosing th e delayed reward re g a rd le s s of th e
a g e n t,
TABLE VII
PHI COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF YEARS OF
NATURAL AND SURROGATE FATHER PRESENCE IN THE
HOME, AND DELAYED REWARD CHOICE
A u th o rity Delay
Choice (N=40)
.16
.01
- .1 4
-.0 1
00
o
•
1
Number o f y e ars w ith
any f a th e r fig u re i n
th e home (12 or more
v s , 11 and l e s s )
T otal Delay
Choice (N=80)
o•
i
Number o f y e ars w ith
n a tu ra l f a th e r i n
home (12 or more v s .
11 and l e s s
Peer Delay
Choice (N=40)
I t was n e ce ssa ry to use th e p h i c o e f f ic ie n t, a non-param etric measure of
r e la tio n s h ip , because th e d is tr ib u tio n s of f a th e r and f a th e r fig u re
presence were tru n c a te d and badly skewedo
a tta in e d th e magnitude of s ig n if ic a n c e .
p re s e n t d a ta fo r th e h y p o th e sis.
None of th e c o e f f ic ie n ts
There i s no evidence in th e
The p h i c o e f f ic ie n ts a re much to o
sm all and in c o n s is te n t to serve as the b a s is fo r g e n e ra liz a tio n s .
TABLES
Table
I*
II.
III.
IV*
V.
V I,
V II.
V III,
IX.
Page
Breakdown of A d je ctiv e s i n th e ARS in to Component
C ategories . . . s . . . . . . , . . , * . * . . . . . .
28
Means and Standard D eviations on A ll of th e Measures
Employed fo r th e A u th o rity S o cial Agent Group and the
Peer S o cial Agent Group, and Frequencies of Delayed
and Immediate Reinforcem ent Choice w ith in Each Group . ,
40
P o in t B is e ria l C o rre la tio n s between ARS Scores and Choice
of Delayed Reinforcem ent •
4l
P o in t B is e r ia l C o rre la tio n C o e ffic ie n ts between I-E and
Delayed Reward Choice » • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • »
42
P o in t B is e r ia l C o rre la tio n C o e ffic ie n ts between M-C SDS
and Delayed Reward Choice • • • • • • • • • • » . • • »
42
P o in t B is e r ia l C o rre la tio n C o e ffic ie n ts between th e
Revised Beta I n te llig e n c e T e st, th e S tanford Achieve­
ment Test Average Grade Achievement Score, and
Delayed Reward Choice » • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • •
43
Phi C o e ffic ie n ts between th e Number of Years of N atural
and S urrogate F ath er Presence in th e Home, and
Delayed Reward
44
Phi C o e ffic ie n ts between In d ic e s of Criminal Involvement
and Delayed Reward Choice
45
C o rre la tio n C o e ffic ie n ts between th e I-E , M-C SDS and
th e Other Measures Employed i n the Study • • • • • • • •
47
iv
(6 )
I t i s p re d ic te d th a t in d iv id u a ls w ith th e most a r r e s t s a s
re v e a le d by t h e i r FBI r e p o rt, and those who have been in c a rc e ra te d th e
lo n g e s t, w ill tend most to choose th e immediate rew ard, re g a rd le s s of
th e agent of rew ard.
TABLE V III
PHI COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN INDICES OF CRIMINAL
INVOLVEMENT AND DELAYED REWARD CHOICE
A u thority Delay
Choice (N=40)
Peer Delay
Choice (N=40)
T otal Delay
Choice (N=80)
Number of a r r e s ts
.05
-.0 8
.00
Months of In c a rc e r­
a tio n
.05
-.1 6
-.0 1
I t was n ecessary to use th e phi c o e ffic ie n t non-param etrie measure of
r e la tio n s h ip because th e d is tr ib u tio n s of th e number of a r r e s t s and
months of in c a rc e ra tio n were bim odal.
None of th e c o e f f ic ie n ts rea ch e s
th e le v e l of s ig n ific a n c e , giving no support to th e h y p o th esis t h a t
crim inal involvem ent i s a fa c to r i n reward p re fe re n c e .
CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION AND FURTHER ANALYSIS
C ontrary to th e hypotheses th a t those p r e fe r rin g delayed r e in ­
forcem ent would be rew ard-agent t r u s tin g , i n te r n a l l y c o n tro lle d , high
need fo r s o c ia l approval in d iv id u a ls , th e r e s u l t s suggest t h a t d i s t r u s t ­
in g e x te rn a ls w ith low needs f o r s o c ia l approval a re th e d e la y e rs .
l e a s t t h i s i s th e case w ith th e a u th o r ity agent*
At
The evidence f o r th e
r e v e r s a ls on th e se hypotheses i s only in th e form of o c c a sio n a lly
s ig n if ic a n t p o in t b i s e r i a l c o rr e la tio n s , but most of th e tre n d s are
c o n s is te n t w ith th e se s ig n if ic a n t c o r r e la tio n s ,
While i t i s p o ss ib le
th a t th e o rig in a l hypotheses were in c o r r e c t, th e p r io r re s e a rc h and firm
t h e o r e tic a l s tr u c tu r e upon which th ey were based make t h i s u n lik e ly .
The rev e rse d s t a t i s t i c a l fin d in g s p e r tin e n t to th e f i r s t two
hypotheses can b e s t be d isc u sse d along w ith fin d in g s w ith re s p e c t to th e
th ir d , inasmuch a s a phenomenon common to th e th re e m easures involved
seems to account f o r th e f in d in g s .
Table IX p re s e n ts evidence r e le v a n t
to th e d isc u ssio n o f t h i s phenomenon.
The f i r s t th in g to be n o tic ed i n Table IX i s th e g e n e ra lly high
degree of a s s o c ia tio n between th e ARS, I-E , and M-C SDS,
t r u s t in d ic e s of th e ARS drop to th e ,05 l e v e l .
Only th e p eer
T h e o re tic a lly t h i s high
a degree o f i n te r c o r r e la t io n was n o t expected sin ce th e m easures were
designed to ta p r a t h e r d is c r e te sources of v a ria n c e .
The c o rr e la tio n
between th e M-C SDS and th e I-E measure i n o th er p o p u latio n s has been
46
^7
TABLE IX
CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN THE I-E , M-C SDS
AND THE OTHER MEASURES EMPLOYED IN THE uTUDYa
(N=80)
M-C SDS
(N=80)
M-C SDS
-.4 1 * *
.
ARS expectancy of a u th o r ity co n sisten cy
-.4 0 * *
.58**
ARS expectancy of a u th o r ity support
-.4 9 * *
.50**
ARS a u th o rity t r u s t
- . 47**
.53**
ARS expectancy of peer co n sisten cy
- . 23*
.41**
ARS expectancy of peer support
-.2 2 *
.41**
ARS peer t r u s t
-.37**
.43**
Revised Beta IQ
.00
.00
-.0 5
.11
Number of a r r e s t s
.14
.00
Number of months in c a rc e ra tio n
.15
1
.
o
—
<i
.
1
Number y e a rs w ith n a tu r a l f a th e r i n home
-.2 1
.05
CM
O
SAT average grade achievement
.01
Number y e a rs w ith any f a th e r su rro g a te i n home
♦
In d ic a te s P l e s s than *05*
In d ic a te s P l e s s th an ,01•
aPearson product moment c o e f f ic ie n ts a re shown f o r a l l of the
sc a le m easures, w hile p o in t b i s e r i a l c o e f f ic ie n ts a re shown f o r th e
c o rr e la tio n s between s c a le s and p a te rn a l presence and delinquency
involvem ent measures*
48
co n sid erab ly lower than t h i s .
Crowne and L iv e ra n t (19&3) r e p o r t a
Pearson r o f -.2 0 w ith 110 c o lleg e Ss between th e IE and th e M-C SDS*
The d iffe re n c e between t h i s r and th e r of - .4 1 between th ese same
s c a le s i n th e p re s e n t study bo rd ers on being s ig n if ic a n t (w ith a tw o - ta il
te s t, P
a ll).
I t appears t h a t c e rta in s itu a tio n a l f a c to r s w ith in th e i n s t i t u t i o n
may w ell have c o n trib u te d to th e magnitude o f th e c o r r e la tio n .
For one
th in g , th e c o rre c tio n a l philosophy o f th e i n s t i t u t i o n approves of th e
v e rb a liz a tio n of " in te rn a l* b e lie f s by th e in m a tes.
R e sp o n sib ility
ta k in g , a d m ittin g blame, working hard toward c e r ta in g o a ls, e t c . , a re
seen in a p o s itiv e l i g h t by th e i n s t i t u t i o n a l o f f i c i a l s , and rewarded i n
v ario u s ways.
Inm ates f i l l i n g out th e s c a le s used i n th e p re s e n t study
may w ell have been in flu e n c e d by t h i s f a c t o r , th u s d ir e c tin g those w ith
co n sid erab le need f o r middle c la s s s o c ia l approval to espouse i n s t i t u ­
t io n a l ly advocated i n te r n a l se n tim en ts.
Ely th e same token, those who
d id not claim th e im probable b u t s o c ia lly d e s ira b le t r a i t s , thereby
suggesting t h a t th ey f e e l t h a t th ey can w ell do w ith o u t m iddle c la s s
s o c ia l ap p ro v al, tend to r e j e c t in te r n a l sentim ents advocated by th e
i n s t i t u t i o n a l value system .
The p o in t has been made th a t an inm ate, i n order to be s o c ia lly
approved i n th e c o rre c tio n a l i n s t i t u t i o n , must give l i p se rv ic e to
i n te r n a l view s.
Does th e re v e rse hold tru e ?
Do those inm ates who see
them selves t r u ly i n c o n tro l of t h e i r f a te and d e s ire m astery o f event
have any reason to ex p ress im probable but s o c ia lly d e s ira b le sentim ents?
Inform al o b se rv atio n suggests t h a t such in d iv id u a ls do indeed have good
reaso n to v e rb a liz e such sen tim en ts.
I
While th e i n s t i t u t i o n advocates
r e s p o n s ib ility ta k in g , i t sim ultaneously l im i ts o p p o rtu n ity f o r t h i s
w ith in th e i n s t i t u t i o n .
Regim entation i s q u ite e x te n siv e .
A person who
i s a t a l l i n d iv i d u a li s t i c and independent ten d s to have d i f f i c u l t i e s
w ith th e v i g il a n t c u sto d ia l o f f i c i a l s .
The l e s s r i g id l y in te r n a l inm ates
e v e n tu a lly fin d th a t th e b e s t way to c o n tro l t h e i r f a te i s n o t to s tr ik e
out on t h e i r own, b u t r a th e r to m anipulate th e powers th a t be, fo r
w hatever they d e s ir e .
To do t h i s w ith o u t offending and arousing
su sp ic io n , i t i s necessary to take on th e demeanor of a very proper
person wanting only what i s due him—in o th er words, conform to what i s
s o c ia lly d e s ira b le from a middle c la s s p o in t of view.
The h ig h e r-th a n -u su a l c o rre la tio n between th e I-E and th e M-C SDS
c o rre la tio n can thus be accounted fo r in t h i s c o rre c tio n a l i n s t i t u t i o n
by p o s itin g th e e x iste n ce of what have been c a lle d " fa ls e i n t e r n a l s ,"
and by proposing a " fa ls e conformer" c ateg o ry .
The word " fa ls e " may n o t
be a p p ro p ria te —a c tu a lly s itu a tio n a l demands must be c re d ite d w ith th e
v a ria n c e .
I t would be f a r b e tte r to c a teg o rize a sp e c ts of th e s itu a tio n
which make f o r the p a r t i c u l a r r e s u l t s , r a th e r than imply th e e x iste n c e
of new in d iv id u a l ty p o lo g ie s .
The c o r re la tio n between M-C SDS and th e v a rio u s ARS sc o res can be
in te r p r e te d s im ila r ly .
A high t r u s t score on th e ARS i s obtained by
a tt r ib u t i n g d e s ira b le and n o t a tt r ib u t i n g u n d e sirab le c h a r a c te r is tic s to
a f ig u r e .
I t would be expected t h a t a person w ith a high need fo r s o c ia l
ap p roval, or a d e s ire to conform fo r whatever reason, would f e e l t h a t
saying n ice th in g s about anyone would be th e most accep tab le th in g to do.
50
In t h i s connection, i t i s w ell to note t h a t th e t r u s t of a u th o r ity and
t r u s t o f peer m easures on th e ARS are h ig h ly c o rre la te d ( r = .7 0 ) .
This
su g gests t h a t saying n ic e th in g s v s, saying in s u ltin g th in g s about people
i n g e n eral can account fo r about h a lf o f th e varian ce i n th e S 's
re sp o n se s.
The lik e lih o o d i s q u ite high o f th e s o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y
component being im p o rta n t.
I t i s a lso l i k e l y t h a t th e ARS c o rre la tio n
w ith I-E can be accounted fo r by the s o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y component i n
b o th .
I t would th u s appear q u ite p o ssib le t h a t th e ARS, I-E and M-C SDS
a re m utually in te r c o r r e la te d and c o rre la te d w ith the reward choice
v a ria b le to th e e x te n t t h a t they measure an i n s t i t u t i o n a l approval
seeking v a r ia b le .
Why then would those seeking such approval ten d to
choose immediate reward r a th e r than delayed reward?
As has been men­
tio n e d , a p i l o t study was c a rrie d out in which th e ARS measure did
p r e d ic t those who would choose th e delayed reward by high t r u s t s c o re s .
The major d iffe re n c e between t h i s study and th e p re s e n t one was t h a t th e
s o c ia l ag en t gave th e reward choice a f t e r approxim ately an hour i n which
he p e rs o n a lly te s te d each S.
The same s o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y component had
to be involved in th e ARS in both s itu a tio n s —only th e reward choice
s itu a tio n was d i f f e r e n t .
I t seems p o ss ib le th a t those Ss who were te s te d by th e s o c ia l
agent could have, in th e r a th e r long p erio d of c o n ta c t, picked up cues
t h a t th e agent more approved o f th e delayed reward c h o ice.
The Ss w ith
th e high need fo r s o c ia l approval would then choose i n accord w ith th e
a g e n t's presumed p re fe re n c e .
The b r ie f c o n ta ct the Ss had w ith the
s o c ia l agent i n th e p re s e n t study, however, allowed much l e s s o p p o rtu n ity
51
f o r p e rc e p tio n of such cu es.
P o ssib ly th e only cue f o r th e approval
seeking person would be th e n a tu ra l o b se rv atio n th a t th e s o c ia l agent
would r a th e r lo s e one than two packs o f c ig a r e t t e s .
He m ight thus
choose th e immediate reward j u s t i n order to p u t th e agent to a s l i t t l e
tro u b le and expense a s p o s s ib le .
The person not a d m ittin g to needs f o r
s o c ia l approval, on th e o th er hand, would n o t care about t h i s , and would
more probably decide on th e b a s is of h is d e s ire f o r th e g re a te r rew ard.
I t w ill be remembered t h a t none of th e m easures employed i n t h i s
study or th e e a r l i e r ones p re d ic te d to th e peer agent rew ard c h o ice.
This could be due to many th in g s —th e am biguity o f th e peer a g e n t’ s r o l e ,
th e la c k of c r e d i b i l i t y in h i s having charge of an otherw ise a u th o r ity
c o n tro lle d s i t u a t i o n , th e p e rs o n a lity of th e p e e r, e t c .
I t i s c le a r ,
however, t h a t a need fo r s o c ia l approval p la y s no p a r t i n t h i s peer
agent choice, as i t a p p a re n tly does i n th e a u th o rity ch o ice.
This f a c t ,
borne ou t i n t h i s and th e p i l o t s tu d ie s , c a s ts se rio u s doubt upon th e
easy g e n e ra liz a tio n s o fte n made about th e meaning of d elay of g r a t i f i c a ­
tio n , w ith o u t c o n sid e ra tio n o f expectancy f a c to r s and s itu a tio n a l
v a r ia b le s .
This study has borne ou t Mahrer*s (1956) fin d in g t h a t th e ag en t
o f reward i s a s i t u a t i o n a l v a ria b le which cues d i f f e r e n t ex p ectan cies
f o r need g r a t i f i c a t i o n .
VJhen the agent was an a u th o rity f ig u r e , a t
l e a s t i n th e refo rm ato ry s e ttin g , i t can be in f e r r e d t h a t e x p ectan cies
fo r f u lf illm e n t o f a need f o r s o c ia l approval p a r tly determ ined th e
reward c h o ic e.
When the agent was a p e e r, c le a r ly d i f f e r e n t ex p ectan cies
were inv o lv ed , b u t no measure employed could d e te c t what th ey w ere.
The Revised Beta p re d ic te d to th e a u th o rity reward choice i n th e
o p p o site way th an was h y p o th esized .
In hopes of fin d in g shared v arian ce
w ith another m easure, Pearson c o rre la tio n s between th e Beta and th e ARS,
I-E , and M-C SDS were c a lc u la te d .
e lim in a tin g t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y .
The h ig h e s t was r = .05, e f f e c tiv e ly
A p a r t l y fa c e tio u s e x p la n atio n m ight be
t h a t only th e l e s s i n t e l l i g e n t would t r u s t o th er people i n th e reform a­
to r y s e t t i n g .
There may be some m e rit to t h i s , b u t i t i s d o u b tfu l i f
th e Revised Beta m easures th e kind of s o c ia l p e rc ep tiv en e ss n e ce ssa ry to
make t h i s s o r t o f judgment.
Another p o s s ib le e x p la n atio n , a ls o somewhat shaky, i s t h a t
p ro fic ie n c y on th e B eta, because of th e " p u z z le -lik e " co n te n t and th e
r e l a t i v e l y im personal manner o f a d m in is tra tio n , aro u ses th e i n t e r e s t and
e f f o r t of only those in d iv id u a ls who a re prone to " s o l i ta r y , im personal
p ro b lem -so lv in g ."
These in d iv id u a ls might be thought o f as r e l a t i v e l y
d is in te r e s te d i n in te rp e r s o n a l m a tte rs, fin d in g t h e i r freedom of move­
ment r a th e r i n d e a lin g w ith m echanical, a rith m e tic , and l o g ic a l problems*
Thus th ey would p o s s ib ly have a r e l a t i v e l y lower expectancy f o r r e i n ­
forcem ent from o th e r p eo p le, than would t h e i r more s o c ia lly o rie n te d
p e e rs , and be more l i k e l y to take what fo r them was th e more c e r ta in of
th e reward a lt e r n a t iv e s .
For them t h i s would be th e immediate rew ard,
n o t in v o lv in g th e t r u s t o f anyone.
I t may w ell be t h a t , had th e lower
end o f th e IQ d i s t r ib u t i o n been in clu d ed , t h i s c o r r e la tio n might n o t
have appeared.
With what might be c a lle d "tru e i n t e l l e c t u a l d e f i c it "
l e f t o u t, th e IQ d iffe re n c e s range from average to above average—
enhancing th e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t m o tiv a tio n a l or i n t e r e s t d iffe re n c e s were
being m easured.
The Beta, l i k e most sin g le IQ m easures, i s q u ite
u n r e lia b le when m easuring th e extrem es of th e d i s t r ib u t i o n of i n t e l l i ­
gence*
The d iffe re n c e between an average score and an above average
score can be made up o f e x tra e f f o r t and in te r e s t*
The in te r p r e t a t i o n
of t h i s fin d in g i n term s of a s p e c if ic m o tiv a tio n al f a c to r r a th e r th an
g en eral in te llig e n c e can a ls o p a r t l y be based upon th e f a i l u r e of th e
SAT score to p r e d ic t s ig n if ic a n tly to th e reward choice m easure.
It
must be considered a b e tte r measure o f “g lo b al in te l li g e n c e “ a s viewed
by W echsler and others* and i s l e s s su b je c t to m o tiv a tio n a l fa c to rs*
One g eneral comment in re tr o s p e c t must be made concerning th e
p a r t i c u l a r measure o f p refe ren c e fo r immediate or delayed reward used in
t h i s stu d y .
The w rite r now f e e l s t h a t i t d id not ta p th e e s s e n tia l
v a ria b le w ith which th e study was concerned because of one u n a n tic ip a te d
flaw*
E xpectancies have to be aroused by s itu a tio n a l cues*
The rew ard
choice s itu a tio n in t h i s study was a b rie f* r a th e r form al s o c ia l
exchange between stra n g e rs o f d if f e r e n t status* h a rd ly sim ila r to th e
s itu a tio n s i n which t r u s t or d i s t r u s t of a u th o rity was formed i n t h i s
refo rm ato ry population*
These “delinquent* youths were r e je c te d and
abused i n a very p e rso n al way, by people clo se to them, a t l e a s t in
t h e i r e a rly years*
T heir “problems* stem n o t from t r i v i a l promise
breaking by p o l it e a d u lts , but from a lie n a tin g in flu e n c e s by im p o rtan t
fig u r e s i n t h e i r liv e s *
Thus, th e b r ie f view o f an unknown i n s t i t u t i o n a l
a u th o rity who promised them tw ice as many c ig a r e tte s i f th ey w aited ,
could h a rd ly have been adequate to arouse th e deeply f e l t d i s t r u s t
f i r s t experienced a t th e hands o f p a re n ta l b e tra y e rs .
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY
The f i r s t major th e o r e tic a l c o n sid e ra tio n given th e concept o f
d elay o f g r a t i f i c a t i o n was i n p sychoanalytic th e o ry .
B a s ic a lly , th e
a b i l i t y to d elay g r a t i f ic a t i o n of needs was seen by Freud a s an
im portant f a c to r i n th e development of the r e a l i t y p r in c ip le ,
Rapaport
and o th er e g o -a n a ly tic w r ite r s have given th e concept an even more
prom inent p o s itio n in th e development o f h ig h er le v e l ego fu n c tio n in g .
P sy choanalytic w r ite r s on delinquency have found an i n a b i l i t y to d e lay
g r a t i f ic a t i o n to be an im portant c h a r a c te r is tic of th e behavior of
d e lin q u e n ts .
Several le a rn in g t h e o r i s t s have o p e ra tio n a liz e d psycho­
a n a ly tic concepts b u t have no t ap p reciab ly changed th e b a sic form ula­
tio n , and s t i l l follow along w ith th e assum ptions t h a t p rim a rily chara c te ro lo g ic a l and/or g e n e tic f a c to r s determ ine t h i s kind of choice
b eh av io r•
A d if f e r e n t approach to th e id e a of d e la y of g r a t i f ic a t i o n i s
provided by S ocial Learning Theory, which views behavior a s being a
j o i n t fu n c tio n of th e expectancy fo r reinforcem ent r e s u ltin g from a
given b ehavior, and th e value of t h a t reinforcem ent i n a given s i t u a t i o n .
A ccordingly, th e p refe ren c e fo r immediate and delayed reward i s seen to
r e s t on th e r e l a ti v e expectancies and reinforcem ent valu es o f each.
54
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
In tro d u c tio n
A human being*s in c re a s in g a b i l i t y to postpone g r a t i f i c a t i o n o f
h is needs f i r s t was given th e o r e tic a l s ig n ific a n c e i n p sy c h o an a ly tic
th e o ry .
Freud and h is fo llo w e rs saw t h i s a b i l i t y a s r e f l e c t in g a
growing competence to cope w ith r e a l i t y demands.
Subsequent th eo ry and
re se a rc h has g e n e ra lly tended to follow t h i s le a d and reg a rd th e a b i l i t y
to d elay g r a t i f i c a t i o n as g e n e tic a lly determ ined an d /o r a r e l a t i v e l y
permanent s tru c tu re in th e c h a ra c te r fo rm atio n .
The p re s e n t study sp rin g s from a d i f f e r e n t t h e o r e tic a l t r a d i t i o n ,
which views behavior as being determ ined by le a rn in g e x p erie n c e s.
The
a b i l i t y t o d elay g r a t i f i c a t i o n i s seen a s a fu n c tio n of th e r e l a t i v e
ex p ectan cies fo r f u lf illm e n t o f immediate b u t l e s s e r or delayed but
g re a te r rein fo rcem en t in a given s itu a tio n , and th e r e l a t i v e r e in f o r c e ­
ment v a lu e s .
The prim ary focus o f th e p re s e n t re s e a rc h i s on c e r ta in
a sp e c ts o f th e s i t u a t i o n in which th e choice of immediate or delayed
reward i s made, and upon p e rs o n a lity and s o c ia l background v a ria b le s in
t h i s c h o ice.
The s itu a tio n a l a sp e c t being proposed fo r study i s th a t o f th e
agent o f re in fo rce m en t.
Two ag en ts of rein fo rcem en t w i l l be u t i l i z e d —
a peer a g en t, and an a u th o rity a g e n t.
1
Each of th e se w i l l be d e fin e d in
Mahrer (1956) using t h i s expectancy model and a reward choice
measure of reinforcem ent p refe ren c e, found th a t th e Ss did i n f a c t
choose i n accordance w ith t h e i r expectancies fo r reinforcem ent when
reinforcem ent value was held c o n sta n t.
He a ls o found th a t th e expect­
a n cies r e la te d to th e agent o f reward a ffe c te d th e reward c h o ice.
There
was some suggestion th a t th ese expectancies did g e n eralize to another
d if f e r in g s o c ia l agent, bu t th e tre n d s were not s ig n if ic a n t.
Michel has
followed up t h i s pioneering study by e x p lo ra tio n of v a ria b le s r e la te d to
the reinforcem ent choice.
He has found age, in te llig e n c e , the presence
o f th e f a th e r in the home in e a rly y e a rs, so c ia l r e s p o n s ib ility , need
fo r achievement, acquiescence and c u ltu ra l v a ria b le s to have an in flu e n ce
on t h i s choice.
The p resen t study was focused p rim a rily on th e p o ss ib le in flu e n c e
o f th e g en eralized expectancy o f p o s itiv e reinforcem ent from c a te g o rie s
o f s o c ia l agents—in t h i s case a u th o rity and peer agents—upon reward
choice o ffe re d by s p e c ific agents in th ese c a te g o rie s .
I t was p re d ic te d
th a t the agent would provide a s itu a tio n a l cue, s e ttin g o ff ex p ectan cies
of p o s itiv e or negative rein fo rcem en t.
A high r e l a ti v e expectancy f o r
p o s itiv e reinforcem ent was a n tic ip a te d to make choice of delayed reward
more l i k e l y from the a p p ro p ria te s o c ia l a g e n t.
I t was a ls o p re d ic te d
t h a t those in d iv id u a ls who see them selves a s m asters of t h e i r own f a t e ,
and in d iv id u a ls who have a high need fo r s o c ia l approval, would tend to
s e le c t delayed rein fo rcem en t.
Ihe Ss f o r the study were 80 inm ates of a c o rre c tio n a l i n s t i t u ­
t io n lo c a te d i n the Midwest, se le c te d from a group of th e new a r r i v a l s
only on th e b a s is of reading a b i l i t y adequate to f i l l out th e sc a le s
u sed .
The s c a le s were adm inistered in d iv id u a lly and th e reward choice
measure was th en given to. one h a lf o f th e group by an i n s t i t u t i o n a l
a u th o rity fig u re and to th e o th er h a lf by an i n s t i t u t i o n a l peer f ig u r e .
The r e s u l t s were g e n e ra lly i n l i n e w ith those of Mahrer (1956)•
The s i t u a t i o n a l cues provided by th e agents of rein fo rcem en t aroused
d i f f e r e n t e x p ec ta n cie s and consequently d i f f e r e n t choice behavior in the
a u th o r ity and peer rew ard s i t u a t i o n s .
The s p e c if ic fin d in g s , however,
were th e re v e rs e of those hypothesized w ith th e a u th o r ity a g e n t.
E x te r n a lity , low need fo r s o c ia l ap p ro v al, and d i s t r u s t of th e s o c ia l
ag en t categ o ry tended to be r e l a te d to a u th o rity delayed reward c h o ice.
F u rth e r a n a ly s is re v e a le d t h a t th e v a ria b le of need fo r s o c ia l approval
seemed to account f o r t h a t p o rtio n o f th e v a ria n ce i n th e m easures of
e x te r n a lity and t r u s t p re d ic tin g to th e a u th o rity rew ard choice m easure.
S c ru tin y o f t h i s rew ard choice s i tu a tio n suggested t h a t th o se Ss w ith a
high need f o r s o c ia l approval may have seen th e immediate reward choice
as th e s o c ia lly d e s ira b le a lte r n a tiv e i n th a t th ey would n o t tro u b le th e
ag ent a s much by t h i s choice as by th e o th e r .
None of th e measures used
p re d ic te d s i g n i f ic a n t l y to th e peer reward c h o ic e.
Also c o n tra ry to p re d ic tio n , th e more i n t e l l i g e n t Ss on th e
Revised Beta p re fe r re d immediate rein fo rcem en t, but t h i s seemed due to a
confounding o f th e measure w ith m o tiv a tio n a l f a c t o r s .
No r e la tio n s h ip
between rew ard choice and involvem ent i n delinquency or f a th e r presence
i n th e home was found.
APPENDIX I
THE ADJECTIVE RATING SCALE
57
INSTRUCTIONS
In th e follow ing six pages you w i l l be asked to d o sc rib e d i f f e r e n t
kin d s o f people on th e b a s is o f your own experience and knowledge.
You
do t h i s by t e l l i n g how o fte n you f e e l th a t th e se kinds o f people a c t in
d i f f e r e n t ways.
(
For in s ta n c e , bus d riv e rs may a c t p le a s a n t:
) Never
(
) Seldom
(
) Sometimes
(
) U sually
( ) Always
You a re to choose which one word b e s t d e sc rib e s how o fte n th e people a c t
i n th e se ways.
Each page d e a ls w ith a d i f f e r e n t kind of p erso n .
Ju st
in d ic a te how o fte n you f e e l th e given type o f person a c ts in th e ways
mentioned by p u ttin g an X in th e space a t th e l e f t of th e word you
choose.
Do n o t skip any item s or any pages.
doubt, j u s t make th e b e s t choice you can.
r e a l o p in io n s.
58
In cases where you a re i n
P lease be sure to give your
59
OTHER HALES OF MY AGE ARE:
ENERGETIC
( ) Never
( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
) Never
( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
UNPREDICTABLE
( ) Never
( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
UNDERSTANDING
( ) Never
( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
INCONSIDERATE
( ) Never
( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
RELIABLE
( ) Never
( ) Seldom (
LAZY
( ) Never
( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
KIND
( ) Never
( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
FAITHFUL
( )Never
( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
WEAK
( )Never
( ) Seldom (
CALM
( ) Never
( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
HELPFUL
( )Never
( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
MEAN
( )Never
( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
STABLE
(
) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
UNTRUSTWORTHY ( ) Never
( ) Seldom (
) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
ALERT
( ) Seldom (
) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
( )Never
UNDEPENDABLE ( ) Never
( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
SELFISH
( )Never
( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
STRICT
( )Never
( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
GENEROUS
( )Never
( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
HAPPY
( )Never
( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
DULL
( )Never
( ) Seldom (
NERVOUS
( )Never
( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
CONSISTENT
( ) Never
( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
TWO-FACED
( ) Never
( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
6o
FACTORY WORKERS AREs
ENERGETIC
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
STABLE
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
UNPREDICTABLE
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
UNDERSTANDING
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
INCONSIDERATE
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
RELIABLE
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
LAZY
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
KIND
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
FAITHFUL
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
WEAK
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
CALM
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
HELPFUL
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
MEAN
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
UNTRUSTWORTHY
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
ALERT
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
UNDEPENDABLE
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
SELFISH
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
STRICT
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
GENEROUS
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
HAPPY
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
DULL
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
NERVOUS
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
CONSISTENT
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
TWO-FACED
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
6l
FATHERS ARE;
ENERGETIC
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
STABLE
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
UNPREDICTABLE
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
UNDERSTANDING
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
INCONSIDERATE
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
RELIABLE
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
LAZY
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
KIND
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
FAITHFUL
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
'WEAK
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
CALM
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
HELPFUL
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
MEAN
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
UNTRUSTWORTHY
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
ALERT
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
UNDEPENDABLE
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
SELFISH
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
STRICT
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
GENEROUS
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
HAPPY
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
DULL
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
NERVOUS
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
CONSISTENT
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
TWO-FACED
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually
) Always
62
BUSINESSMEN ARE:
ENERGETIC
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
STABLE
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
UNPREDICTABLE
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
UNDERSTANDING
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
INCONSIDERATE
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
RELIABLE
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
«
LAZY
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
KIND
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
FAITHFUL
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
WEAK
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
CALM
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
HELPFUL
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
MEAN
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
UNTRUSTWORTHY
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
ALERT
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
UNDEPENDABLE
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
SELFISH
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
STRICT
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
GENEROUS
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
HAPPY
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
DULL
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
NERVOUS
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
CONSISTENT
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
TWO-FACED
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
63
TEACHERS ARE.;
ENERGETIC
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
STABLE
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
UNPREDICTABLE
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
UNDERSTANDING
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
INCONSIDERATE
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
RELIABLE
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
LAZY
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
KIND
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
FAITHFUL
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
WEAK
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
CALM
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
HELPFUL
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
MEAN
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
UNTRUSTWORTHY
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
ALERT
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
UNDEPENDABLE
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
SELFISH
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
STRICT
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
GENEROUS
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
HAPPY
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
DULL
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
NERVOUS
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
CONSISTENT
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
TWO-FACED
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
64
OTHER INMATES ARE:
ENERGETIC
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
STABLE
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
UNPREDICTABLE
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
UNDERSTANDING
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
INCONSIDERATE
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
RELIABLE
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
LAZY
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
KIND
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
FAITHFUL
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
WEAK
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
CALM
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
HELPFUL
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
MEAN
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
UNTRUSTWORTHY
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
ALERT
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
UNDEPENDABLE
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
SELFISH
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
STRICT
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
GENEROUS
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
HAPPY
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
DULL
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
NERVOUS
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
CONSISTENT
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
TWO-FACED
) Never ( ) Seldom ( ) Sometimes ( ) U sually ( ) Always
term s o f the general s e ttin g of th e study, a reform atory fo r male youths
convicted of crim es.
Expectancies r e l a ti v e to th e general category of s o c ia l agen t
w ill be a sse ssed , and r e la te d to the reward choice in th e a u th o rity and
peer choice s i t u a t i o n s .
This p a r tic u la r asp ec t of th e p referen ce f o r
immediate or delayed reinforcem ent has not been stu d ied in a c o n tro lle d ,
sy stem atic fashion in previous re s e a rc h .
Two p e rs o n a lity v a ria b le s w i l l be r e la te d to reinforcem ent—
p refe ren c e a ls o .
The g e n eralize d expectancy th a t ev en ts are la r g e ly
w ith in or o u tsid e o f one1s own perso n al c o n tro l has not been p re v io u sly
stu d ied as a v a ria b le i n d elay p re fe re n c e .
I t would appear th a t an
Hin te r n a lly -c o n tro lle d " person would be more l ik e l y to be able to
t o le r a t e postponement of g r a tif ic a tio n than would an " e x te rn a lly c o n tro lle d " p e rso n .
The o th er p e rs o n a lity v a ria b le proposed fo r study
i s th a t o f need fo r s o c ia l ap p ro v al.
I t would seem reasonable to
b eliev e th a t those needing s o c ia l approval the m ost, and expecting t h a t
th ey can secure t h i s through v erb al conform ity to s o c ia lly accep tab le
b eh avior, would be most l ik e l y to choose delayed rein fo rcem en t.
The p re se n t study w ill a ls o seek to corroborate or r e f u te fin d in g s
o f p revious re se a rc h concerning s o c ia l background v a ria b le s i n delay
p re fe re n c e .
The presence of th e f a th e r i n th e home during form ative
y e a rs , involvem ent i n a n tis o c ia l a c t i v i t y , and in te llig e n c e w ill be
a ssessed and r e la te d to th e p referen ce fo r immediate or delayed
rein fo rce m en t,
APPENDIX I I
THE INTERNAL-EXTERNAL SCALE
65
66
SOCIAL REACTION INVENTORY
T his i s a q u e stio n n a ire to fin d out th e way i n which c e rta in
im p o rtan t ev en ts i n our so c ie ty a f f e c t d i f f e r e n t people*
s i s t s o f a p a ir of a lte r n a tiv e s l e t t e r e d a or b*
Each item con­
P lease s e le c t th e one
statem ent o f each p a ir ( and only one) which you more stro n g ly b e lie v e to
be th e case a s f a r as you*re concerned*
Be sure to s e le c t th e one you
a c tu a lly b e lie v e to be more tru e r a th e r than th e one you th in k you should
choose or th e one you would l i k e to be t r u e .
This i s a measure of
p e rso n al b e l i e f ; obviously th e re are no r i g h t or wrong answers*
P lease answer th e s e item s cAreftill v but do no t spend to o much
tim e on any one ite m .
Be sure to fin d an answer fo r every c h o ic e .
Find
th e number o f th e item on th e answer sh eet and b la c k -in th e space under
th e number 1 or 2 which you choose a s th e statem ent most t r u e .
In some in s ta n c e s you may d isco v er t h a t you b e lie v e both s t a t e ­
ments or n e ith e r one*
In such case s, be sure to s e le c t th e one you more
stro n g ly b e lie v e to be th e case as f a r a s you*re concerned.
Also t r y to
respond to each item in dependently when making your choice; do n o t be
in flu e n c e d by your p rev io u s c h o ices.
REMEMBER
S e le c t t h a t a lt e r n a tiv e which you p e rs o n a lly b e lie v e to be more
tru e .
P lease use answer sh eet—make no marks on t h i s form .
I More S tro n g ly B eliev e T h a t: ^
1*
a.
C hildren get in to tro u b le because t h e i r p a re n ts punish them too
much*
b.
The tro u b le w ith most c h ild ren nowadays i s th a t t h e i r p a re n ts
a re to o easy w ith them,
2* (a* ) Many o f th e unhappy th in g s i n p e o p le 's l i v e s a re p a r t l y due to
bad luck*
b* People*s m isfortunes r e s u l t from th e m istakes they make,
3*
a* One of the major reasons why we have wars i s because people
don*t tak e enough i n t e r e s t in p o l i t i c s ,
( b ,) There w ill always be w ars, no m atter how hard people
prev en t them.
4,
a*
t r y to
In th e long run people get th e re sp e c t they deserve i n t h is
world*
( b ,) U nfo rtu n ately , an in d iv id u a l's worth o fte n p asses unrecognized
no m a tter how hard he t r i e s .
5* a*
The id e a t h a t te a c h e rs a re u n fa ir to stu d e n ts i s nonsense*
( b .) Most stu d e n ts d o n 't r e a liz e th e e x te n t to which t h e i r grades
a re in flu e n ce d by a c c id e n ta l happenings*
6 . (a* ) W ithout th e r i g h t breaks one cannot be an e ffe c tiv e lead er*
b.
Capable people who f a i l to become le a d e rs have n o t taken
advantage of t h e i r o p p o rtu n itie s ,
7* (a*) No m atter how hard you t r y some people j u s t d o n 't l i k e you.
b . People who c a n 't g e t o th ers to l i k e them, d o n 't understand how
to g e t along w ith others*
8 . a*
H eredity p lay s th e major ro le i n determ ining o n e 's p e rs o n a lity ,
b* I t i s o n e 's experiences in l i f e which determ ine what th e y 'r e
lik e .
9* ( a . ) I have o fte n found t h a t what i s going to happen w ill happen.
b.
T ru stin g to f a te has never tu rn ed out a s w ell fo r me a s making
a d e c isio n to take a d e fin ite course of action*
1
The p a ren th eses in d ic a te in te r n a l ch o ices.
68
I More S tro n g ly B e lie v e T h a t:
10,
a.
In th e case of th e w ell prepared stu d e n t th e re i s r a r e l y i f
ever such a th in g a s an u n fa ir t e s t ,
( b ,) Many tim es exam q u e stio n s tend to be so u n re la te d to course
work, th a t studying i s r e a l l y u s e le s s ,
11,
a.
Becoming a success i s a m atter o f hard work, lu c k has l i t t l e or
nothing to do w ith i t .
( b . ) G etting a good jo b depends m ainly on being in th e r i g h t p lac e
a t th e r i g h t tim e ,
1 2 , ( a , ) The average c itiz e n can have an in flu e n c e in government
d e c is io n s ,
b.
13, a ,
This w orld i s ru n by th e few people i n power, and th e re i s n o t
much th e l i t t l e guy can do about i t ,
Mien I make p la n s , I am alm ost c e r ta in t h a t I can makethem
work,
( b ,) I t i s n o t always wise to p la n to o f a r ahead because many th in g s
tu rn out to be a m atter o f good or bad fo rtu n e anyhow,
1^, a .
There a re c e r ta in people who a re j u s t no good,
b . There i s some good i n everybody,
15* a .
In my case g e ttin g what I want has l i t t l e or nothing to do w ith
lu c k ,
( b .) Many tim es we might j u s t as w e ll decide what to do by f lip p in g
a c o in ,
1 6 , ( a , ) Who g e ts to be th e boss o fte n depends on who was lucky enough
to be i n th e r i g h t p la c e f i r s t ,
b.
G etting people to do th e r i g h t th in g depends upon a b i l i t y , lu c k
has l i t t l e or nothing to do w ith i t ,
17* ( a , ) As f a r a s w orld a f f a i r s a re concerned, most of us a re th e
v ic tim s o f fo rc e s we can n e ith e r understand, nor c o n tro l,
b,
Efor ta k in g an a c tiv e p a r t i n p o l i t i c a l and s o c ia l a f f a i r s th e
people can c o n tro l world e v e n ts.
I More S tro n g ly B eliev e H ia tt
1 8 . ( a . ) Most people d o n 't r e a l iz e th e e x te n t to which t h e i r l i v e s a re
c o n tro lle d by a c c id e n ta l happenings*
19*
b.
There r e a l l y i s no such th in g a s Hlu ck * H
a*
One should always be w illin g to admit h i s m istakes*
b*
I t i s u s u a lly b e s t to cover up o n e 's m istakes*
20 . (a*) I t i s hard to know whether or n o t a p erso n r e a l l y H k e s you.
b*
How many f rie n d s you have depends upon how n ice a person you are*
21* (a*) In th e long run th e bad th in g s t h a t happen to us a re balanced
by th e good ones*
22.
b*
Most m isfo rtu n es a re th e r e s u l t of la c k o f a b i l i t y , ig n o ran ce,
la z in e s s , or a l l th r e e .
a*
With enough e f f o r t we can wipe ou t p o l i t i c a l c o rru p tio n .
(b*) I t i s d i f f i c u l t fo r people to have much c o n tro l over th e th in g s
p o l it i c i a n s do i n o f f i c e .
23* (a*) Sometimes I c a n 't understand how te a c h e rs a rr iv e a t th e grades
— - they g iv e .
2h*
b*
There i s a d i r e c t connection between how hard I study and th e
grades I g e t.
a*
A good le a d e r expects people to decide f o r them selves what
th ey should do*
b . A good le a d e r makes i t d e a r to everybody what t h e i r jo b s a r e .
25* (a*) Many tim es I f e e l th a t I have l i t t l e
t h a t happen to me*
b*
26.
in flu e n c e over th e th in g s
I t i s im possible fo r me to b e lie v e t h a t chance or lu ck play s
an im portant r o le i n my l i f e *
a* People a re lo n e ly because th ey d o n 't
t r y to be f r ie n d ly .
( b . ) T h e re 's not much use i n try in g too hard to p le a se people, i f
they l i k e you, th ey l i k e you.
70
I More S tro n g ly B e lie v e T h a t;
27. a .
There i s too much emphasis on a t h l e t i c s in high school,
b . Team s p o rts a re an e x c e lle n t way to b u ild c h a ra c te r.
28. a .
What happens to me i s my own doing.
( b .) Sometimes I f e e l t h a t I don’t have enough c o n tro l over the
d ir e c tio n my l i f e i s ta k in g .
29. ( a . ) Most o f th e tim e I can’ t understand why p o l it i c i a n s behave
the way th ey do.
b . In th e long run th e people a re re sp o n sib le fo r bad government
on a n a tio n a l as w ell a s on a lo c a l l e v e l .
APPENDIX I I I
THE MARLOWE-CROWNE SOCIAL DESIRABILITY SCALE
71
PERSONAL REACTION INVENTORY
L is te d below a re a number o f statem en ts concerning p erso n al
a t t i tu d e s and t r a i t s * Read each item and decide whether th e statem ent
i s tr u e or f a l s e a s i t p e rta in s to you p e rs o n a lly .
Put an X i n th e space to th e l e f t o f th e q u e stio n under True i f
you decide i t i s tr u e about you, and under F a lse , i f you decide i t i s
f a ls e about you.
Remembers
Answer each item a s i t p e r ta in s to you p e rs o n a lly .
True F alse
M
/ /
1.
Before votin g I thoroughly in v e s tig a te th e q u a lif ic a tio n s
of a l l th e c a n d id a te s.
/X /
/ /
2.
I never h e s i ta te to go out of my way to h e lp someone in
tr o u b le .
/ /
/X /
3.
I t i s sometimes hard f o r me to go on w ith my work i f I
am n o t encouraged.
/X /
/ /
4.
I have never in te n s e ly d is lik e d anyone.
/ /
/X /
5.
On occasion I have had doubts about my a b i l i t y to succeed
in l i f e .
/ /
/X /
6.
I sometimes f e e l r e s e n tf u l when I d o n 't g et my way.
/X /
/ /
7.
I am always c a re fu l about my manner of d r e s s .
/X /
/ /
8.
Ey ta b le manners a t home a re as good a s when I e a t o u t
in a r e s ta u r a n t.
/ /
/X /
9.
I f I could g e t in to a movie w ith o u t paying and be sure I
was n o t seen, I would probably do i t .
/ /
/X /
10.
On a few o ccasio n s, I have given up doing something
because I thought to o l i t t l e o f my a b i l i t y .
/ /
/X /
11.
I l i k e to go ssip a t tim e s.
/ /
/X /
12 .
There have been tim es when I f e l t l i k e r e b e llin g a g a in st
people in a u th o rity even though I knew th ey were r i g h t .
/X /
/ /
13.
No m atter who I'm ta lk in g t o , I'm always a good l i s t e n e r .
/ /
/X /
14.
I can remember "playing sick " to g e t out of som ething.
/ /
/X /
15.
There have been occasions when I took advantage o f someone
73
/ /
16.
I*m always w illin g to admit i t when I make a m istak e.
/X /
/ /
1 7.
I always t r y to p r a c tic e what I p rea ch .
/X /
/ /
/ /
/x/ 19.
/X /
/ /
CM
o
When I don*t know something I don*t a t a l l mind a d m ittin g
it.
/X /
/ /
21.
I am always courteous, even to people who a re d isa g re e a b le
/ /
/x /
22.
At tim es I have r e a l l y in s i s t e d on having th in g s my own
way.
/ /
/x /
23.
There have been occasions when I f e l t l i k e smashing
th in g s .
/X /
/ /
2^ .
I would never th in k of l e t t i n g someone e ls e be punished
f o r my wrongdoings.
/X /
/ /
25.
I never re c e n t being asked to r e tu r n a fa v o r.
/X /
/ /
26.
I have never been ir k e d when people expressed id e a s v ery
d i f f e r e n t from my own.
/X /
/ /
27.
I never make a long t r i p w ithout checking th e s a fe ty of
my c a r.
/ /
/x /
CO
CM
There have been tim es when I was q u ite je a lo u s o f th e
good fo rtu n e o f o th e r s .
/X /
/ /
29.
I have alm ost never f e l t th e urge to t e l l someone o f f .
/ /
/x /
30.
I am sometimes i r r i t a t e d by people who ask fa v o rs of me.
/X /
/ /
31.
I have never f e l t t h a t I was punished w ith o u t cause.
/ /
/x /
32.
I sometimes th in k when people have a m isfo rtu n e they
only g o t what th ey deserved.
/X /
/ /
33.
I have never d e lib e r a te ly sa id something t h a t h u rt
someone*s f e e lin g s .
•
/X /
00
True F a lse
I don*t fin d i t p a r t i c u l a r l y d i f f i c u l t to g et along w ith
loud mouthed, obnoxious p e o p le .
I sometimes t r y to g e t even r a th e r th an fo rg iv e and
f o r g e t.
•
.
APPENDIX IV
HAW SCORES ON ALL MEASURES USED FROM Ss GIVEN
THE AUTHORITY REWARD CHOICE
74
Background
The r e l a ti v e p refe ren c e fo r immediate or delayed g r a t i f i c a t i o n
o f d e s ir e s and needs was f i r s t given major t h e o r e tic a l s ig n ific a n c e by
Freud*
He saw th e v ery e a rly developm ental s h i f t i n t h i s p re fe re n c e to
r e f l e c t a t r a n s i t i o n from th e p le a su re p r in c ip le to th e r e a l i t y p r in ­
c ip le*
MUnder th e in flu e n c e of th e ego*s i n s t i n c t s of s e l f p re s e rv a tio n ,
th e p le a su re p r in c ip le i s re p la ce d by th e r e a l i t y p r i n c i p le .
This l a t t e r
p r in c ip le does not abandon th e in te n tio n o f u ltim a te ly o b tain in g
p le a s u re , b u t i t n e v e rth e le s s demands and c a r r ie s in to e f f e c t th e p o s t­
ponement o f s a t is f a c ti o n , th e abandonment of a number o f p o s s i b i l i t i e s
o f g aining s a t is f a c ti o n , and th e tem porary t o le r a t i o n o f unpleasure a s a
s te p on th e long i n d ir e c t road to p le a s u re 11 (Freud, 1955* p« 1 0 ).
P sychoanalytic th eo ry te n d s te e x p la in behavior d e v ia tio n i n
term s o f e a r ly developm ental i r r e g u l a r i t i e s .
A n aly tic t h e o r i s t s n o te
th e tendency to a cc ep t immediate g r a t i f i c a t i o n and be unable to w a it fo r
l a t e r g r a t i f i c a t i o n i n se v e ra l d iso rd ers*
For in s ta n c e , th e "im pulse-
n e u ro tic M a s d e scrib e d by F enichel (19^5, pp* 367-368) i s unable to
postpone an immediate r e a c tio n to th e experience of a d riv e s t a t e .
Im p u lse-n eu ro tics a c t in s te a d o f th in k in g and, no t being a b le to w a it,
have n o t f u l l y developed t h e i r r e a l i t y p r i n c i p le .
The m anic-depressiv e
p sy c h o tic i n a manic phase i s sa id to be i n a s ta te resem bling th e
o r ig in a l p le a su re p r in c ip le , i n which im pulses a re y ie ld e d to w ith o u t
any c o n sid e ra tio n o f r e a l i t y (F e n ich e l, 19^5* P« ^ 1 0 ).
Rapaport has e la b o ra te d upon p sy ch o an aly tic ego th e o ry , and has
given a key ro le to d e lay o f g r a t i f ic a t i o n i n th e "th eo ry o f c a th e c tic
dynam ics."
The binding of th e energy form erly expended i n immediate
\
CO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Reward
u
choice
•
I
I
D
I
D
I
D
D
D
D
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
D
I
D
D
D
I
I
D
D
D
I
D
D
I
I
I
I
I
D
D
I
D
£
X
<H ®
Ch
O-P
O-P
(0
cn g
58
11
11
33
25
21
27
24
23
5
17
16
21
36
20
16
23
22
23
18
34
23
17
11
13
10
22
24
26
29
25
26
20
22
24
19
27
4
0
24
2
G
cd
,W O
p<
■P
CO
G
£
•
<H ®
G
OS
+(0
3
3
&
0)
Pn
o+»
CO
o
©
&
&
i f 3 58 i f
13
6
20
22
13
21
16
22
6
7
13
16
30
12
11
12
21
18
12
34
13
18
9
9
9
8
12
23
30
15
13
6
19
18
5
13
5
11
25
1
CO
24
17
53
47
34
48
40
45
11
24
29
37
66
32
27
35
43
4l
30
68
36
35
20
22
19
30
36
49
59
40
39
26
41
42
24
40
9
11
49
3
CO G
rt
+»
p<
o
CO
-2
-7
-9
-2
-1
-1
11
26
15
14
18
4
-2
5
3
8
5
3
4
1
5
12
3
9
-8
-1
-7
6
11
17
-16 -13 -29
14
16
30
10
9
19
14
31
17
11
7 18
12
7
19
16
14
30
14
33
19
-6
-1
-5
32
23
55
-4
1
-3
-4
4
-8
0
-1
-1
-2
-1
-3
-2
2
0
-2
5
3
16
11
5
12
5 17
8
-5
3
14
11
25
1
6
5
11
16
5
2
-1
-3
-4
-8 -12
-2
1
-3
16
9
7
6
1
5
-19
-5 -24
12
15
27
-8 -11
-3
TJ
©
CO
CO
ffl
8
11
3
11
8
6
4
10
10
11
3
4
4
7
3
6
5
8
11
3
5
6
9
4
5
9
5
7
4
10
10
6
5
7
9
3
12
19
12
6
16
10
29
26
10
13
10
4
5
22
17
15
32
19
26
14
14
23
13
29
22
16
11
11
17
10
14
31
16
21
17
21
22
18
19
27
6
5
19
16
£
<3
12
0
12
12
0
12
2
2
4
12
11
12
6
12
4
3
12
2
12
12
12
12
9
12
12
12
12
4
4
12
2
12
4
2
12
12
11
3
0
1
12
5
4
10
12
0
12
7
4
7
12
1
3
7
2
2
12
4
12
7
4
11
12
4
12
4
12
0
4
1
12
4
12
1
0
4
12
5
12
4
12
2
2
12
12
7
12
2
12
3
12
3
12
2
2
7
12
3
12
3
12 22
2
12
10
5
12
8
0
12
12
5
11
6
3 10
12
0
10 11
18
12
0
6
23
0
0
0
3
6
1
11
12
0
12
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
5
0
6
0
0
1
0
12
24
0
8
30
0
0
24
25
0
14
112
115
111
109
109
118
97
107
110
106
117
85
100
106
115
98
127
117
109
110
121
106
111
104
115
83
103
110
118
101
98
99
110
106
125
85
106
107
100
109
APPENDIX V
RAW SCORES ON ALL MEASURES USED FROM Ss GIVEN
THE PEER REWARD CHOICE
76
77
•
X!
P
2at
<D
O
•H
O
X
t
o
&
CO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
pn
&
©
S .&
Cl
©
04
ca
23
13
5
19
18
30
18
30
16
21
15
22
23
22
20
-9
7
17
12
16
16
25
18
17
23
4
37
27
24
18
30
35
23
4
16
20
-3
24
4
2
9
7
6
16
12
22
5
1
14
18
8
17
17
32
13
5
3
24
7
15
12
11
19
17
27
-7
33
12
17
15
20
24
18
1
9
10
-8
16
-4
2
32
20
11
35
30
52
23
31
30
39
23
39
40
54
33
-4
10
41
19
31
28
36
37
34
50
-3
70
39
4l
33
50
59
41
5
25
30
-U
40
0
4
0
1
-1
-5
4
1
4
4
-1
-5
24
16
2
-4
-6
1
-7
-5
11
11
-1
-3
6
11
14
19
8
3
0
6
-21 -11
14
8
6
10
-10
-8
12
8
4
6
-2
10
-26 -12
2
-1
0
-7
-1
15
20
20
2
8
11
13
6
8
20
14
4
7
14
7
-1
-5
12
14
7
9
-21
-4
14
3
-23 -26
0
4
32
■ S 3 •§ i
2
a
a> «H
xS vi a>
O P
O P
&
©
0 °-8
Tt o P(0
w
&
w
S
at
H tH
H
*d
10
cu co eg c CO & CO04
co C
£ € 3 3 ?
3 S3 8 3 3 5j
I
D
D
I
D
I
D
I
I
I
D
I
D
I
D
I
D
I
D
I
I
I
D
D
I
I
I
I
D
I
D
D
I
D
D
I
I
I
D
D
Of
H
p
3
1
-6
5
8
-6
40
-2
-5
-12
22
-4
17
33
11
6
-32
22
16
-18
20
10
8
-38
1
-7
14
40
10
24
14
34
11
21
-6
26
16
-25
17
-49
4
5
©
©©
CO
8
«
I.
O
9
7
8
10
9
8
11
16
6
5
15
3
6
5
8
10
4
6
5
4
9
9
9
12
6
21
2
7
5
6
5
11
4
7
10
6
11
6
17
10
20
7
15
15
23
24
16
12
14
8
10
25
27
27
17
21
11
16
5
21
24
15
15
14
10
4
20
20
28
26
23
24
18
8
10
19
10
17
14
9
12
7
8
12
9
0
4
12
12
8
12
12
12
12
10
1
12
12
12
10
12
12
4
12
6
12
12
7
12
12
12
12
3
12
12
12
12
9
10
12
©
01
5
53 CH
12
7
0
12
8
0
4
12
12
5
12
12
12
1
2
1
12
12
12
0
9
7
2
12
6
12
7
7
12
12
12
12
1
12
12
12
12
9
10
12
m
■O
2
6
4
9
5
4
7
9
9
6
8
5
7
4
6
13
8
3
2
3
12
1
6
2
6
11
1
2
8
0
10
7
4
3
3
2
0
6
1
2
0
0
13
l
0
24
45
15
28
5
12
1
6
27
39
6
48
0
6
0
47
0
15
0
36
20
0
0
24
0
0
24
2
7
0
0
0
1
0
0
•
©
.
©
>© ©
H &
a
Si w
92
8.3
93
7.9
8.1
113
90
7.3
98
7 .4
100
9 .0
115
9 .5
111
9 .2
9 .2
109
106 1 0 .2
8 .4
110
120
9 .9
88
8 .3
7 .1
91
8 .8
107
101
9 .0
106
9 .4
8 .8
117
7 .0
107
114
9 .3
8 .8
119
94
8 .1
8 .0
90
130 1 0 .2
116 1 0 .8
105
8 .7
113
8.7
8 .2
115
112
8.3
120
9 .6
9 .0
113
101
8 .8
111
8.6
111
9 .5
91
7.1
111
9 .5
7 .8
95
96
8 .5
116
8 .1
100 1 0 .1
BIBLIOGRAPHY
B arndt, R. J . , & Johnson, D. M. Time o r ie n ta tio n i n delin q u en ts*
abnorm. so c . P sychol*. 1955, 2L , 343-345.
J.
B ia le r, I* C onceptualization o f success and f a i l u r e in m en tally
re ta rd e d and normal c h ild re n . J* p e r s . . 1961, 2£, 303-320.
Block, J* , & Block, Jeanne* An in te rp e rs o n a l experim ent on r e a c tio n to
a u th o rity * Human r e l a t *. 1952, 5» 91-98*
Couch, A*, & K eniston, K. Yeasayers and naysayerss Agreeing response
s e t as a p e rs o n a lity v a ria b le . J . abnorm. so c. P sychol*, i 960, 60,
151-174.
Crowne, D. P ,, & Id v e ra n t, S. Conformity under varying co n d itio n s of
p e rso n al commitment. J . abnorm. soc. P sychol. . 1963, 66, 547-555*
Crowne, D, P ., & S tric k la n d , Bonnie R* The co n d itio n in g of v e rb a l
behavior a s a fu n c tio n o f th e need fo r s o c ia l a p p ro v a l. J . abnorm.
so c. P sychol. . 1961, 62, 395-401.
Crowne, D. P ., & Marlowe, D. A new scale o f s o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y
independent o f psychopathology. J* c o n s u lt. P sychol. , i 960, 24,
349-354.
Edwards, A. L. The s o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y v a ria b le i n p e rs o n a lity a s s e s s ­
ment and re s e a rc h . New York: Dryden, 1957.
F e n ich e l, 0 ,
1945.
Freud, S.
1922 .
The p sy c h o an a ly tic th eo ry of n eu ro ses.
Beyond th e p le a su re p r i n c i p le .
New York:
New York:
Norton,
Boni & L ivew right,
F rie d la n d e r, K ate. The p sy c h o -an a ly tic approach to .juvenile d e lin ­
quency. New York: I n te r n a tio n a l U n iv e rs itie s P re ss , I960.
Gough, H. G. The a d je c tiv e check l i s t a s a p e rs o n a lity assessm ent
re s e a rc h te c h n iq u e . Psychol. R eports Monos r . . i 960 , 6, 107-122.
Graves, T. D. Time p e rs p e c tiv e and th e d e fe rre d g r a t i f i c a t i o n p a tte r n
i n a t r i - e t h n i c community. Research R eport #5. T ri-E th n ic Research
P r o je c t, Univ. o f Colorado, 1961.
78
79
H a rris , D, B. A sc a le fo r m easuring a tt i tu d e s of s o c ia l r e s p o n s i b i li t y
i n c h ild re n , J , abnorm. so c. P sychol. . 1957* 55* 322-326,
H unter, W. S, The delayed re a c tio n in anim als and c h ild re n ,
t o p e r . . 1913, 2 no. 1 ,
Behav.
James, W, H,, & R o tte r, J , B, P a r t i a l and one hundred p e rc e n t r e in f o r c e ­
ment under chance and s k i l l c o n d itio n s, J , exp. P svchol. . 1958*
5 5 , 397-^03.
James, W, H, I n te r n a l v s . e x te rn a l c o n tro l of rein fo rcem en t a s a b a sic
v a ria b le i n le a rn in g th e o ry . D octoral d i s s e r t a t io n , The Ohio S ta te
U n iv e rsity , 1957.
K ellogg, C. E ,, & Morton, N, W. The Revised Beta Exam ination.
Yorks The P sycholog ical C orporation, 1935 (1962).
New
K elly, T, L ,, Madden, Gardner, E. F ,, Terman, L , M,, & Ruch, G. M, The
Stanford Achievement T e s t. New York: World Book Company, 1953•
LeShan, L, L, Time o r ie n ta tio n and s o c ia l c la s s .
fS tS h fil.. 1952, itZ, 589-592.
J . abnorm. so c.
Levine, M., G lass, H ,, & M eltzo ff, J , The in h ib itio n p ro c e ss, Rorschach
human movement re sp o n se s, and in te llig e n c e * J . c o n s u lt. Psychol. .
1957, 21, 41-45.
L evine, M,, & Spivack, G, In c e n tiv e , tim e conception and s e l f c o n tro l
i n a group of em otionally d istu rb e d a d o le sc e n ts. J . d i n . P sychol. .
1959, 15* 110-113.
L evine, M., Spivack, G#, F u s c h illo , Jean , & T av ern ier, Ann. In te llig e n c e
and measures of i n h ib i t io n and tim e se n se . J . d i n . Psychol. . 1959,
15, 224-226.
Levine, M., Spivack, G., & W right, B. The in h ib itio n p ro c e ss , Rorschach
human movement resp o n se s, and in te llig e n c e s Some f u r th e r d a ta .
J . c o n s u lt. Psvchol. . 1959, 23, 306-312.
L iv e ra n t, S ., & Scodel, A. I n te r n a l and e x te rn a l c o n tro l a s d eterm in an ts
o f d e c is io n making under co n d itio n s o f r i s k . Psvchol. r e p o r t s .
1960, 59-67.
Mahrer, A. R. The r o le of expectancy i n delayed reinforcem ent*
P svchol. . 1956, 32, 101-106.
J . exp.
Marlowe, D ., & Crowne, D. P . S o cial d e s i r a b i l i t y and response to p e r­
ceived s i t u a t i o n a l demands. J . c o n s u lt. Psvchol. . 1 9 6 l, 25, 109-115.
M cClelland, D. C., A tkinson, J . W., C lark, R. A ., & Low ell, E. L. The
achievem ent m otive. New York: Appleton-Century C ro fts, 1953.
80
McGee, R, K. The r e la tio n s h ip between response s ty le and p e rs o n a lity
v a ria b le s : II* The p re d ic tio n o f independent conform ity b eh av io r.
J . abnorm. so c . P sv ch o l.. 1962, 65, $ 7 - 3 5 1 .
M elikian, L . P referen ce f o r delayed rein fo rcem en t: An experim ental
study among P a le s tin ia n Arab refu g ee c h ild re n . J . abnorm. soc.
£szahal., 1959. 52. 81- 86.
M eltz o ff, J*, & L evine, M* The r e la tio n s h ip between motor and c o g n itiv e
i n h ib i t io n . J . c o n s u lt. Psvchol. . 1954, 18, 355-358.
M etzner, R. P reference fo r delayed rein fo rcem en t:
Harvard P sychological C lin ic , i 960 (mimeo.)*
Some c o m p licatio n s.
M ischel, W, P referen ce f o r delayed rein fo rcem en t: An experim ental
study o f a c u ltu r a l o b se rv a tio n . J . abnorm. so c . Psychol. . 1958,
£&• 57-61.
M ischel, W.
b ility .
P referen ce f o r delayed rein fo rcem en t and s o c ia l re s p o n si­
J . abnorm. so c. Psychol. . 1961, _62, 1 -7 .
M ischel, W* F ather absence and d elay o f g r a t i f ic a t i o n : Cross c u ltu r a l
com parisons. J . abnorm. so c . Psvchol. . 1961, 62, 116-124,
M ischel, W., & M etzner, R* P referen ce f o r delayed reward a s a fu n c tio n
o f age, in te llig e n c e , and le n g th of d e lay i n t e r v a l . J . abnorm. so c .
Psychol. . 1962, 64, 425-431.
Mowrer, 0* H., & Ullman, A, D. Time as a determ inant in in te g r a tiv e
le a r n in g . P svchol. r e v .. 1945, 52 , 61-90.
Phares, E. J . Expectancy changes i n s k i l l and chance s i t u a t i o n s .
abnorm. so c. P sychol. . 1957, 54* 339-342.
R apaport, D. O rganization and pathology o f th o u g h t.
Columbia U n iv e rsity P re ss, 1951.
R edl, F ., & Wineman, D.
1951.
C hildren who h a te .
J.
New York:
Glencoe, 1 1 1 .:
Free P re ss ,
Rosenzweig, S. An o u tlin e o f f r u s t r a t i o n th e o ry . In J . Hunt (E d .),
P ersonali t y and th e behavior d is o rd e rs . New York: Ronald P re ss ,
1944.
R o tte r, J , B. S ocial le a rn in g and c li n i c a l psychology.
P re n tic e -H a ll, 1954.
New York:
81
R o tte r, J . B ., Seeman, M., & L iv e ran t^ S. I n te r n a l versus e x te rn a l
c o n tro l of rein fo rcem en t! A major v a ria b le i n behavior th e o ry .
In N. F. Washburne (E d .), D ecisions, v a lu e s, and groups. V ol. 2 .
London: Pergamon P re s s , 1962.
Schneider, L ., & Lysgood, S. The d e fe rre d g r a t i f i c a t i o n p a tte r n :
A p re lim in a ry stu d y . Amer. s o c io l. r e v . . 1953, 18* l42-l*<9.
Seeman, M. A lie n a tio n and s o c ia l le a rn in g i n a re fo rm a to ry .
Sociology ( in p re s s , 1963)*
Am. J . o f
S in g er, J . L. Delayed g r a t i f i c a t i o n and ego development: Im p lic a tio n s
f o r c l i n i c a l and experim ental re s e a rc h , J . c o n s u lt. P sychol. . 1955*
l i , 259-266.
S inger, J . L ,, & Herman, J . Motor and fa n ta s y c o rr e la te s of Rorschach
human movement re s p o n se s. J . c o n s u lt. P svchol. . 1954, 18, 325-331*
S in g er, J . L«, M eltz o ff, Jo , & Goldman, G. D, Rorschach movement
responses follow ing motor in h ib itio n and h y p e ra c tiv ity . J . consult .
Psychol. . 1952, 16, 359-364.
S in g er, J . L ., & O pler, M. K. C ontrasting p a tte r n s of fa n ta s y and
m o tility i n I r i s h and I t a l i a n sc h iz o p h re n ic s. J . abnorm. soc.
P svchol. . 1956, 22. 42-4?.
S in g er, J . L ., W ilensky, H ., & McCraven, Vivian G. Delaying c a p a c ity ,
fa n ta s y and planning a b i l i t y : A f a c t o r i a l study of some b a s ic ego
fu n c tio n s . J . c o n s u lt. Psychol. . 1956, 20, 375-383.
S inger, J . L«, & Spohn, H. E, Some b eh av io ral c o r r e la te s of R orschach's
experience ty p e . J . c o n s u lt. Psvchol. . 1954, 18, 1 -9 .
Spivack, G«, Levine, M,, & S p rin g le , H. I n te llig e n c e t e s t perform ance
and th e d elay fu n c tio n of th e ego. J . c o n s u lt. Psvchol. . 1959, 23.
428-431.
S tric k la n d , Bonnie R», & Crowne, D. P. Conformity under c o n d itio n s o f
sim ulated group p re ssu re as a fu n c tio n o f th e need f o r s o c ia l
a p p ro v a l. J . abnorm. so c . Psychol. . 1961, 62, 395-401.
Washburne, J . N. An experim ent i n c h a ra c te r measurement,
r e s . . 1929, 12. 1 -1 8 .
J . -mvenilfl
J
AUTOBIOGRAPHY
I , Gordon W illiam Ladwig, was born in Urbana, I l l i n o i s ,
February 2, 1933•
I re c eiv e d my secondary-school education in th e
p u b lic schools of B e lo it, W isconsin, and my undergraduate tr a in in g a t
B e lo it C ollege, which g ran ted me th e Bachelor o f A rts degree in 1955*
From th e Ohio S ta te U n iv e rsity , I re c e iv e d th e M aster of A rts degree in
i 960.
I completed my in te rn s h ip in V eteran’ s A d m in istratio n f a c i l i t i e s ,
and have sin ce been involved in th e p re s e n t re s e a rc h p r o je c t a t th e
F ederal Reform atory, C h illic o th e , Ohio.
82
d isch arg e, allow s th e ego a source o f power (Rapaport, 1951» P* **05)•
Thought i s seen a s a r is in g from t h i s binding of energy also*
The sub­
je c tiv e re p re s e n ta tio n of a g ra tify in g o b je c t i s th e f i r s t p rim itiv e
element i n th in k in g , according to t h i s view, and th e concept of d elay i s
th u s seen to be a cornerstone of a th eo ry of th in k in g (R apaport, 1951*
p . 509 fo o tn o te ),
R ap ap o rt's view has a ttr a c te d a number of fo llo w e rs.
Singer (1955) review s a v a rie ty of th e o r e tic a l form ulations having in
common th e notio n th a t d elay of g r a t i f ic a t i o n i s a major v a ria b le i n th e
f a c i l i t a t i o n of hig h er ego fu n c tio n in g .
Redl and Wineman, i n th e t r a d i ti o n of B ettelheim , have p resen ted
a theory of ag g ressiv e d elin q u en t behavior from the psy ch o an aly tic p o in t
of view (Redl and Wineman, 1951)*
i n t h i s kind of b eh av io r.
They emphasize th e r o le of ego d e f i c i t
They g e n e ra lly in d ic a te t h a t r e je c tio n ,
n e g le c t, and a lac k of a ffe c tio n on th e p a r t o f s ig n if ic a n t fig u re s i n
th e d e lin q u e n t's fam ily are f a c to r s i n th e inadequate i d e n t i f i c a t i o n
w ith a d u lts and a d u lt s o c ia l v a lu e s.
E sse n tia l fe a tu re s of th e aggres­
siv e d e lin q u e n t's behavior, stemming from ego d e f i c i t , in clu d e low
f r u s t r a t i o n to le ra n c e and Inadequate tem ptation r e s is ta n c e , both
involving an i n a b i l i t y to to le r a te delay o f g r a t i f ic a t i o n .
F ried lan d er (i960 ) i n her o rth o d o x -an a ly tic in te r p r e ta tio n of
delinquency s tre s s e s th e im portance of e a rly l i b i d i n a l development in
th e form ation of a s o c ia lly adaptive p e rs o n a lity .
She makes th e common
p sy choanalytic o b serv atio n th a t severe f r u s t r a t i o n of I n s tin c tiv e u rges
p rev en ts i d e n tif ic a tio n w ith p a re n ts and th ereb y im pairs development of
the c h il d 's r e a l i t y p r in c ip le .
This r e a l i t y p r in c ip le allow s th e normal
c h ild to s a tis f y h is urges in a.way compatible w ith s o c ia l r e s t r i c t i o n s .