Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1977, Vol. 45, No. 4, 505-512
Personality Variables of Blacks Participating in a Prison Riot C. Scott Moss
Ray E. Hosford
Federal Correctional Institution Lompoc, California
University of California Santa Barbara
William R. Anderson and Michael Petracca Federal Correctional Institution, Lompoc, California A racial riot occurred at a federal correctional institution in which the majority of the participants were identified. Five categories of data were abstracted from their central jackets. A second group of blacks who were selected at random from the same institution and who intentionally sought not to become involved served as the controls. The two samples differed significantly on a large number of variables when analyzed by several different statistical techniques. A tentative differential profile of the violent individual is made. Racial strife is not an uncommon phenomenon in the United States today, and outright clashes between blacks and Chicanes and/or between the more militant minority members and the dominant white majority have become extremely serious problems for correctional institutions. The 1971 serious riot at Attica that caught the public's attention, for example, had decided racial overtones. Similarly, the riot that occurred at the Federal Correctional Institution at Lompoc, California, in the spring of 1973 was racially inspired. What was supposed to be a peaceful meeting between approximately 150 black and Chicano inmates became a full-blown riot when many of the blacks produced weapons with which they attacked the Chicanos. Sixty inmates, mostly Chicanos, were hospitalized, some with severe injuries, but fortunately no fatalities occurred. Although the seriousness of the problem increases daily, a review of the literature indicates that to date few research findings exist that administration can use to identify riot-prone individuals, much less to predict violent behavior (rioting and violent behavior This article was presented as part of a symposium on violence in correctional settings at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D. C., September 1976. The authors would like to express appreciation to Susan Walker, Gary George, John Gotten, and Chester Harris for various assistance in the study. Requests for reprints should be sent to C. Scott Moss, Federal Correctional Institution, Lompoc, California 93436.
are used synonymously in this article). And only a few studies have attempted to identify race-specific psychological characteristics associated with violent personalities. Theoretical Approaches Various theoretical departures have been used to explain causes of violent behavior. Perhaps the most popular is that of explaining participation in violence as a manifestation of mental illness. However, Morris and Jacobs' (1974) review on inmates in general found no scientific study in which incarcerated individuals were shown to have a greater incidence of major maladjustment than that found in the general population. Some studies, principally those using Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) protocols, however, have found certain psychopathological traits associated with participation in or predisposition toward violence. For example, individuals exhibiting 4-3 MMPI profile patterns committed violent acts significantly more often than other personality types (cf. Davis & Sines, 1971; Persons & Marks, 1971), and high scores on the Overcontrolled Hostility (0-H) scale can be used to identify individuals who engage in episodic acts of violence (Megargee, 1966; Wheeler, 1971). Other studies have focused on socioeconomic factors to participation in riots (e.g., Berson, 1966; Fox, 1971; Ransford, 1968). Berson (1966), for example, identified five factors— substandard education, unemployment, slum
505
506
C. MOSS, R. HOSFORD, W. ANDERSON, AND M. PETRACCA
housing, poor merchant and consumer relations, and hostile relations between police and the Negro community—which he suggests contribute most to the occurrence of race riots. The most celebrated inquiry into the nature of prison violence, the Attica Report (New York State Special Commission on Attica, 1972), singled out factors within the New York Prison System itself (e.g., deprivation of prisoners' rights to phone calls and letters, isolation from the outside community, poor staff training in ghetto problems, and unfair parole treatment) as being the primary causes of racial discontent and subsequent violence. Toch (1969) cited a combination of personality factors and environmental contingencies that he felt are associated with participation in rioting. Most rioters, according to Toch, are self-defined revolutionaries; many of them are rioting as vengeance; almost all are inspired by the fellowship of their comrades; and, in all instances, they have a mythical, collective conception of the enemy. . . . In the development of riot motivation, economic grievances and social disappointments are prominent in the awareness of rioters, (p. 212)
The association of violence with differences on various physiological dimensions has also been explored. Hildreth, Derogatis, and McCusker (1971) found that aggressive inmates exhibit greater sensitivity to physical closeness than do nonaggressive prisoners. Kreuz (1972) found that 10 individuals with histories of violent offenses had significantly higher levels of plasma testrosterone than did 11 individuals who did not have violent behavior histories. And Farley and Farley's (1972) results indicated that female delinquents high in stimulation seeking had significantly more escape attempts than did those having low scores in this area. There is some evidence (cf. Bandura, 1973) that participation in violence may well be related to exposure to real and/or symbolic models who demonstrate violent behavior. Indeed, Wolfe and Baron (1971) found that exposure to aggressive models on TV was highly effective in raising the level of aggression on the part of inmates as well as college students. However, theorists differ as to whether exposure to aggressive models actually
causes subsequent aggression or whether it triggers psychological predispositions to violence already present in the individual (Menzies, 1971). A few recent studies have attempted to compare violent and nonviolent groups for the purpose of isolating characteristics common to violence-prone individuals and/or to develop profiles of violence-prone individuals on the basis of personality variables. Skelton (1969) compared a group of inmates identified as having assaulted prison guards at the El Reno Federal Correctional Institution with another group that defended the guards. Variables such as present age, age at first arrest, and educational level were used; however, his sample population was not identified racially nor was the riot racially motivated. Some studies have also been conducted by the California Department of Youth Authority in attempts to identify violence-prone youth on the basis of intake data. Molof (1967), for example, compared various groupings of male delinquents committed to the California Youth Authority for assaultive and nonassaultive offenses on the basis of 55 personality variables taken from intake data. He found that in comparison to the population as a whole (a) black and Chicano wards committed a greater than expected average number of assaults; (b) wards with a history of moderate or chronic use of alcohol were more assaultive; (c) wards with no prior commitments were more assaultive; and (d) wards in which the average age of first admission was between 15 and 17 were more assaultive. Molof, however, did not separate his two experimental groups on the basis of assaultive and nonassaultive commitment offenses, nor did he attempt to provide a profile of the violence-prone individual. Wenk (1972), on the other hand, sought to predict the assault proneness of an individual from an analysis of data collected prior to the occurrence of an assaultive act. He found that violent recidivists scored significantly lower on intelligence tests than did individuals who did not recidivate violently and that violent recidivists tend to register higher scores on the Ma scale of the MMPI. Like Molof, Wenk used commitment offense as the independent variable; unlike Molof, however, he attempted to use intake data as a means of developing a
PERSONALITY VARIABLES OF BLACK RIOTERS IN PRISON
violence-proneness profile for predicting subsequent violent behavior. Unfortunately, he did not find enough significant differences between his two groups to develop such a profile. Although the literature contains numerous other studies addressed to the area of violence, methodological problems and the use of unstructured interviews and questionnaires leaves much to be desired in terms of their scientific value (Menzies, 1971). It appears, as Toch (1969) concluded in his review, that violent men may be validly and reliably identified only on the basis of their prior behavior. And because an individual's proneness to violence is affected by a complex and interrelated system of variables, it may be necessary pragmatically to use large numbers of variables to determine which combinations of characteristics best account for the largest percentage of variance associated with violent behavior (Toch, 1969). Method The present study sought to determine whether black inmates actually involved in a prison race riot differ significantly from black inmates in general relative to a variety of psychological, historical, and adjustmentrelated information routinely collected by correctional staff and recorded in each inmate's prison central file. Although both situational and individual factors play major roles in causing group and mass behavior change, institutional factors appear not to have been mitigating factors underlying the violence that took place in this instance. It all started with a fight between one Chicano and one black inmate, which subsequently erupted into numerous other conflicts between members of these two racial groups. Due to the potential violence inherent in such circumstances, the prison staff immediately stepped in to ameliorate the situation. Several meetings were held between representatives of both groups until the staff thought that the problems were resolved. A "peace" meeting was then set up in which members of both groups were to assemble in the prison yard to "shake on it." What the staff and apparently the Chicanos did not know was that a nucleus of very militant blacks was organizing to "get even" rather than for a peace meeting. Many blacks, however, purposely had themselves locked in their cells on that particular afternoon so as not to be pressured into participating. The fact that the riot was surreptitiously videotaped by inmates who happened to be working in the prison learning-resources area made positive identification of many of the participants possible. These tapes were viewed many times by staff members, and identification of the rioters was made when several staff members
507
named the same individual in a particular instance. In addition, as in any follow-up for possible court action, many inmates were interviewed and reinterviewed to identify those individuals (in this case, blacks) who participated in the riot. Whether the blacks, Chicanos, or the prison situation itself caused the riot is, of course, not known. What is known is that no overt actions, verbal or otherwise, were directed at the institution or staff. The 48 rioters so identified were compared with 50 blacks selected at random from among the institution's black population who intentionally chose not to become involved, that is, those who had themselves locked in their cells on the morning of the riot.
Results Table 1 indicates the 41 variables studied, each taken from the inmate's prison central file. An item-by-item comparison was done. The two sample populations differed significantly on 22 of the variables studied using either a two-tailed t ratio or a chi-square. Ten items reached at least the .005 level of significance. A more rigorous test, the discriminate function, 1 was also applied to the data. Table 2 indicates the correlations of the variables with the discriminate function, that is, the extent of the relationship between the particular variable and the condition of rioting or nonrioting. The 17 variables that correlated the highest are presented in Table 2. An overall test of significance is possible. The obtained chi-square computed between rioters versus nonrioters was 144.80, the critical difference was 65, and therefore highly significant. Note that all variables previously evaluated in Table 1 occur in this list as well. Two additional items are highly correlated with riot behavior: Participation in operation breakthrough was negatively related, whereas participation in peer counseling was positively related. Operation breakthrough, and peer counseling 1 The discriminate function is the weighted sum of the variables that best discriminate between the groups under study. Loosely speaking, if one wanted to do a t test between two groups, then the discriminate function would maximize the observed difference. In this study the discriminant function is a component of the variables that relates to the condition of riot versus nonriot. Thus the correlation of each variable with this discriminate function gives the relation between that variable and the riot versus nonriot condition.
C. MOSS, R. HOSFORD, W. ANDERSON, AND M. PETRACCA
508
Table 1 Group Means Between the Rioters and Nonrioters Variable
1.
Length of sentence
2. Present age
3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.
14. IS. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.
26.
IQ (Beta) Grade achievement Prior arrests Prior commitments Age at first arrest L scale (MM PI) F scale (MMPI) K scale (MMPI) Hs scale (MMPI) D scale (MMPI) Hy scale (MMPI) Pd scale (MMPI) Mf scale (MMPI) Pa scale (MMPI) Ft scale (MMPI) Sc scale (MMPI) Ma scale (MMPI) Total no. deviant MMPI scales Drugs vs. no drugs Use of alcohol (yes/no) Psychiatric diagnosis (yes/no) Educational courses completed Vocational training courses completed Job (represented in degree of responsibility)
Rioters
Nonrioters
109.79 22.36 97.68 7.10 10.83 1.92 14.36 53.43 69.49 55.17 60.53 65.81 60.98 73.74 58.19 62.04 61.57 70.28 67.23
82.21* 22.92 98.34 10.35" 6.23** .89** 16.11** 55.15 60.53** 53.79 55.04 63.00 58.11* 68.36* 57.34 56.06* 58.92* 60.85* 68.36
3.30 1.21
1.58** 1.30
1.85
2.15
.62
.50
1.06
3.23**
.60
.70
.58
.53
Note. F.C.I. = Federal Correctional ventory. * Significant at .05 level or better. ** Significant at .005 level or better.
Institution.
programs are both unique to this prison. The former program consisted of a small group of highly selected ex-drug-dependent inmates who went to local high schools and community groups with a staff member to talk about the dangers of using drugs. The latter program was largely inmate led. Individuals were selected who had counseling potential and were then given training to counsel other inmates. At the time of the riot, some 150 inmates were in the counseling program, the majority of whom were blacks. Finally, the data were compared between those inmates who were identified as having
Variable 27. Meritorious service award (money) (yes/no) 28. Meritorious good time (yes/no) 29. Home in honor unit (yes/no) 30. Psychotropic drugs (sedatives/ tranquilizers) (yes/no) 31. Sick calls 32. Convalescence leave 33. Major reprimands 34. Minor reprimands 35. Segregation prior to riot 36. Custody level (close/medium/ minimum) 37. Months at F.C.I, prior to riot 38. Carkhuff helping technique fves/no) 39. Individual psychiatric/psychological treatment 40. Peer counseling program (yes/no) 41. Operation breakthrough (yes/no) \ J ^-^/
J'VJ/
MMPI = Minnesota
Rioters
Nonrioters
.06
2.02*
.06
.30
.02
13
7.70 8.87 3.32 1.77 1.15
1.92** 16.17*
1.02
.47*
1.11
1.55*
8.70
11.32*
3.49
.62** .64
.09
.11
.43
.09**
.53
.06*
.13
.75
Multiphasic Personality In-
engaged in more extreme acts of violence during the riot with those in the control group. Three criteria were used for identification of the more violent inmates: (a) being held in isolation for 100 days, (b) being referred to the FBI for possible prosecution, and (c) being transferred to other correctional institutions for their own protection. Thirty-seven of the 48 inmates confined in segregation satisfied all these criteria. Once again the critical chisquare was 131.80, and the obtained difference was 65; therefore, it can be seen again that the difference between the two groups is highly significant. Table 3 contains the 12
PERSONALITY VARIABLES OF BLACK RIOTERS IN PRISON
509
Table 2 Correlations of Variables with
Educational Background
Discriminant Function
Analyses of the data indicate that inmates not involved in the riot had achieved, on the average, a significantly higherlevel of education, and they attempted and completed more educational courses within the prison than did those who participated in the violence. These latter findings, however, are somewhat confounded by the fact that the nonrioters, on the average, were incarcerated for 3 months longer than were the rioters, and, therefore, they had a longer period of time in which to enroll in educational courses. No significant difference for the number of vocational courses completed was found. And although those not involved in the riot completed a higher level of grade achievement as measured by an achievement test, no significant difference in IQ emerged.
Variable Operation breakthrough Grade achievement Peer counseling program Educational courses completed Prior arrests Number of deviant MMPI scores Meritorious service award (money) Sc scale (MMPI) F scale (MMPI) Prior commitments Major reprimands Custody level Psychotropic drugs Age at first arrest Individual psychotherapy Length of sentence Sick calls Note. MMPI Inventory.
—.6642 —.6500 .5464 .4289 .4267 .3772 .3735 .3679 .3637 .3575 .3525 .3245 .2962 .2947 .2863 .2660 .2548
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
items for which coefficients of .30 or better were found. Discussion For discussion purposes the items used in the analysis were grouped around five categories: historical descriptive (e.g., type of offense, age, length of sentence); educational background (e.g., grade achievement, educational involvement while in prison; diagnostic psychological data (e.g., MMPI scores, psychiatric diagnosis) ; prison adjustment (e.g., number of meritorious awards, number of minor/major incident reports); and health data (e.g., sick call, convalescent leave, etc.). Historical Descriptive Black inmates involved in the riot differed from those in the control group relative to (a) having a greater number of prior arrests; (b) having a greater number of prior prison commitments; and (c) being younger at age of first arrest. There was no apparent difference between the two groups in length of prison sentences, age at time of riot, or type of original offense.
Psychological Data
The third category, psychological diagnosis, consisted of data obtained from MMPI profiles and the psychological assessment interview administered to each inmate upon his incarceration at the institution. Several differences between the two sample populations were found. Those blacks involved in the riot, compared with the controls, had more deviant scores on the F (validating) and Sc scales, as well as on the total number of deviations. However, the Table 3 Correlations of Variables with Discriminant Function for Perceived Violent Rioters Variable
r
Operation breakthrough Grade achievement Peer counseling program Major reprimands Meritorious service award (money) Educational courses completed Psychotropic drugs Prior arrests Prior commitments Sc scale (MMPI) Custody level F scale (MMPI)
—.8462 — .6907 .4649 .4248 .3913 .3839 .3676 .3518 .3385 .3097 .3095 .3086
Note. Sc scale = Schizophrenia scale of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI); F scale = Validity scale of the MMPI.
510
C. MOSS, R. HOSFORD, W. ANDERSON, AND M. PETRACCA
rioters were not diagnosed more often as having some type of mental problem than were those in the control group. This may be explained in part by the fact that graduate counseling psychology students are usually the mental health personnel who interview the new inmates. These interns are trained currently not to pin psychiatric labels on people as evidenced by the fact that they most often select the diagnosis "no mental disorder" rather than use any of the other categories of the American Psychiatric Association's Mental Disorder Manual (//). Thus the range in assessment categories for both groups would be attenuated. Similarly, the blacks who took part in the riot were not diagnosed upon their arrival at the institution as in the high-treatment category, possibly for the same reason. Also, differences in use of alcohol or illegal drugs were about equal. Institutional A djustment Several tentative differences between the two groups were found relative to criteria associated with institutional adjustment. Individuals in the rioting group were more apt to be restricted to close or medium custody than were those in the control group. They also had acquired significantly more major incident reports than did the controls. The two groups had spent about the same time in segregation prior to the riot, even though as a group, the rioters had spent fewer months in the institution (9 months versus 12 months). Conversely, the rioters also received fewer meritorious service awards (a small monetary reimbursement) than did the controls. No differences between the two groups with respect to the number of meritorious good time awards or in the numbers having previously been assigned to the honor unit were found. Health
The final category of data examined— factors associated with physical or mental health—was again typified by several differences. Although controls on the average sought medical assistance more often than did the rioters, the controls received far fewer sedatives and tranquilizers. The number of days
on convalescent leave was the same. It is noteworthy that the rioters when compared with the controls received greater amounts of individual counseling and were more often enrolled in the mental health peer group counseling program. The peer counseling program was based on transactional analysis, and direct confrontation was a primary intervention procedure. Comparing it to other mental health programs, it attracted a disproportionate black representation. In summary, the following hypotheses might be made about the black rioters when comparing them with blacks who chose not to participate in the riot : 1. The rioter is more apt to have a long history of dyssocial activity. 2. He shows less motivation toward educational self-improvement, both prior and during his present imprisonment. 3. He is more often perceived by the custodial staff as a troublemaker. 4. He more often tends to exhibit noticeable psychological problems and is referred to mental health personnel more frequently for diagnostic or short-term counseling. However, he does not appear to seek psychological assistance (or perhaps the mental health staff chooses not to see him), but he does seek and receive more psychotropic medication than do individuals in the nonrioter group. Though this study involved only one, albeit carefully documented, instance of a racial prison riot, a tentative multiple regression equation can be used for the prediction of riot behavior. However, it should be pointed out that such an equation is of little value until it is cross- validated on another group. The general equation is as follows :
Y = a+
+
...+ bkxXk,
where Fis the criterion variable (riot behavior) ; a, hi through bk are the regression correlations ; and Xi through Xk are the predictor variables. For example, computing a correlation matrix for all 41 variables for each of the 94 individuals produces a multiple coefficient of .9317. Squaring this provides the proportion of the variance accounted for by these 41 variables, that is, 87%. Because the total proportion of the variance is 1.00, these 41 variables account for a considerable amount of the variability.
511
PERSONALITY VARIABLES OF BLACK RIOTERS IN PRISON Table 4 Correlations with the Discriminant Function and Derived Regression Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
r .2785 -.1324 -.0332 -.6761 .4438 .3718 -.3065 -.0959 .3783 .0890 .2359 .1147 .1552 .2554 .0518 .2476 .1363 .3826 -.0588 .3923
Regression coefficient
Variable
.0007 -.0089 .0001 -.0939 .0176 .0385 .0263 -.0033 .0027 -.0009 -.0092 -.0010 .0025 .0099 -.0031 .0006 -.0087 .0018 -.0034 .0124
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
Coefficients
r -.0662 -.1209 .1426 -.4461 -.0912 .0475 -.3884 -.1994 -.2250 .3081 -.2651 -.0106 .3667 .1764 .1774 -.3375 -.1643 -.0401 .2978
Regression coefficient .0835 -.0106 .0301 -.0208 .0711 -.0156 .0053 -.0575 -.0239 .0051 -.0046 .0010 .1000 -.0037 -.0196 -.1735 -.0064 .3310 .1679
Note. See Table 1 for identification of variables.
However, because participation in operation breakthrough and peer counseling is unique to this one correctional institution, the multiple regression equation was recomputed excluding Items 40 and 41. Thus the multiple correlation coefficient is .9004, which still accounts for 81% of the variance. By multiplying each of the correlations taken from Table 4 by the corresponding regression coefficients, summing the products, and then adding the Y intercept (a mathematical constant required by the regression equation), a formula is obtained from which participation in a riot should be able to be predicted with better than chance probability. However, before any conclusions can be made, a host of other factors need to be considered. An unanswered question, of course, is to what extent can these findings be generalized to other blacks in other institutions? Nor is it known whether the findings apply to other ethnic/racial groups such as the Chicanos or Anglos. Although it was only by chance that this study focused upon the black rioter, who happened to be involved in the particular riot under study, ethnicity has been shown to be a factor associated with participation in violence (cf. Report of the National
Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, 1968). Further, the relationship between violence per se and participation in riots has not been sufficiently explored. Nor has the recidivism rate of inmates involved in prison riots been compared with those who intentionally chose not to participate. With violence becoming more and more prevalent in society as well as in the nation's correctional institutions, better means of preventing such behavior need to be achieved. One possibility for doing so is suggested by this study. The fact that the riot-involved inmates differed significantly from the nonrioters on a number of psychological and behavioral variables suggests that better than chance discriminations can be made for identifying inmates who may be predisposed toward participation in this form of violence. Such results are in strong contrast to those reported by Steadman and Cocozza (1975), in which they suggest that several years of court psychiatrists' findings show that violence-prone and nonviolence-prone defendants can be differentially identified solely on the basis of the current alleged offense. If research on the predictors of violent be-
512
C. MOSS, R. HOSFORD, W. ANDERSON, AND M. PETRACCA
havior, including rioting, were to show that a great percentage of the variance can be accounted for by variables for which data are routinely collected, specific rehabilitation programs could be developed and tested to determine their efficacy in reducing subsequent violent acts. The individual-specific variables studied here, however, should not be viewed as "causes" of violence but only as personality and behavioral factors that serve to differentiate those who did or did not participate in this riot. In this case, inmate grievances and other factors within the prison itself, no matter how legitimate, did not appear to be mitigating factors associated with the riot's occurrence. The Crumbling Walls (Hosford & Moss, 1975) and The Future of Imprisonment (Morris, 1974) provide some examples of preventative programs that might be developed to reduce inmates' participation in riots. References Bandura, A. Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973. Berson, L. E. Case study of a riot: The Philadelphia story. New York: Institute of Human Relations Press, 1966. Davis, K. R., & Sines, J. O. An antisocial behavior pattern associated with a specific MMPI profile. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1971, 36, 229-234. p'arley, F. H., & Farley, S. V. Stimulus-seeking motivation and delinquent behavior among institutionalized delinquent girls. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1972, 39, 94-97. Fox, V. Why prisoners riot. Federal Probation, 1971, 3, 9-14. Hildreth, A. M., Derogatis, L. R., & McCusker, K. Body buffer zone and violence: A reassessment and confirmation. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1971, 127, 1641-1645. Hosford, R. E., & Moss, C. S. The crumbling walls:
Treatment and counseling of prisoners. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1975. Kreuz, L. E. Assessment of aggressive behavior and plasma testosterone in a young criminal population. Psychosomatic Medicine, 1972, 34, 321-332. Mcgargee, E. 1. Undercontrolled and overcontrolled personality types in extreme antisocial aggression. Psychological Monographs, 1966, 80(3, Whole No. 611). Menzics, E. S. Preferences in television content among violent prisoners, FCI Research Report, 1971, 3, 1-29. Molof, M. J. Differences between assaultive and nonassaultive offenders in the California Youth Authority. Sacramento: California Department of the Youth Authority, 1967. Morris, N. The future of imprisonment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974. Morris, N., & Jacobs, J. Proposals for prison reform. (Public Affairs Pamphlet No. 5JO.) Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1974. New York State Special Commission on Attica. Attica: The official report. New York: Bantam Books, 1972. Persons, R. W., & Marks, P. A. The violent 4-3 MMPI personality type. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1971, 36, 189-196. Ransford, H. E. Isolation, powerlessness, and violence: A study of attitudes and participation in the Watts riot. American Journal of Sociology, 1968, 73, 586591. Report on National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. New York: Dutton, 1968. Skelton, W. D. Prison riot: Assaulters vs. defenders. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1969, 21, 359-362. Steadman, H. J., & Cocozza, J. J. Prediction of dangerousness in offenders. Psychiatric News, 10, 13-35. Toch, H. Violent men. Chicago: Aldine, 1969. Wenk, E. A., & Emrich, R. L. Assaultive youth: An exploratory study of the assaultive potential of California Youth Authority wards. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 1972, 9, 171-196. Wheeler, C. A. Overcontrolled hostility and the perception of violence. FCI Research Report, 1971, 3, 1-19. Wolfe, B. M., & Baron, R. A. Laboratory aggression related to aggression in naturalistic social situations: Effects of an aggressive model on the behavior of college student and prisoner observers. Psychonomic Science, 1971, 24, 193-194.
Received April 21, 1976 •
Personality Variables of Blacks Participating in a Prison Riot C. Scott Moss
Ray E. Hosford
Federal Correctional Institution Lompoc, California
University of California Santa Barbara
William R. Anderson and Michael Petracca Federal Correctional Institution, Lompoc, California A racial riot occurred at a federal correctional institution in which the majority of the participants were identified. Five categories of data were abstracted from their central jackets. A second group of blacks who were selected at random from the same institution and who intentionally sought not to become involved served as the controls. The two samples differed significantly on a large number of variables when analyzed by several different statistical techniques. A tentative differential profile of the violent individual is made. Racial strife is not an uncommon phenomenon in the United States today, and outright clashes between blacks and Chicanes and/or between the more militant minority members and the dominant white majority have become extremely serious problems for correctional institutions. The 1971 serious riot at Attica that caught the public's attention, for example, had decided racial overtones. Similarly, the riot that occurred at the Federal Correctional Institution at Lompoc, California, in the spring of 1973 was racially inspired. What was supposed to be a peaceful meeting between approximately 150 black and Chicano inmates became a full-blown riot when many of the blacks produced weapons with which they attacked the Chicanos. Sixty inmates, mostly Chicanos, were hospitalized, some with severe injuries, but fortunately no fatalities occurred. Although the seriousness of the problem increases daily, a review of the literature indicates that to date few research findings exist that administration can use to identify riot-prone individuals, much less to predict violent behavior (rioting and violent behavior This article was presented as part of a symposium on violence in correctional settings at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D. C., September 1976. The authors would like to express appreciation to Susan Walker, Gary George, John Gotten, and Chester Harris for various assistance in the study. Requests for reprints should be sent to C. Scott Moss, Federal Correctional Institution, Lompoc, California 93436.
are used synonymously in this article). And only a few studies have attempted to identify race-specific psychological characteristics associated with violent personalities. Theoretical Approaches Various theoretical departures have been used to explain causes of violent behavior. Perhaps the most popular is that of explaining participation in violence as a manifestation of mental illness. However, Morris and Jacobs' (1974) review on inmates in general found no scientific study in which incarcerated individuals were shown to have a greater incidence of major maladjustment than that found in the general population. Some studies, principally those using Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) protocols, however, have found certain psychopathological traits associated with participation in or predisposition toward violence. For example, individuals exhibiting 4-3 MMPI profile patterns committed violent acts significantly more often than other personality types (cf. Davis & Sines, 1971; Persons & Marks, 1971), and high scores on the Overcontrolled Hostility (0-H) scale can be used to identify individuals who engage in episodic acts of violence (Megargee, 1966; Wheeler, 1971). Other studies have focused on socioeconomic factors to participation in riots (e.g., Berson, 1966; Fox, 1971; Ransford, 1968). Berson (1966), for example, identified five factors— substandard education, unemployment, slum
505
506
C. MOSS, R. HOSFORD, W. ANDERSON, AND M. PETRACCA
housing, poor merchant and consumer relations, and hostile relations between police and the Negro community—which he suggests contribute most to the occurrence of race riots. The most celebrated inquiry into the nature of prison violence, the Attica Report (New York State Special Commission on Attica, 1972), singled out factors within the New York Prison System itself (e.g., deprivation of prisoners' rights to phone calls and letters, isolation from the outside community, poor staff training in ghetto problems, and unfair parole treatment) as being the primary causes of racial discontent and subsequent violence. Toch (1969) cited a combination of personality factors and environmental contingencies that he felt are associated with participation in rioting. Most rioters, according to Toch, are self-defined revolutionaries; many of them are rioting as vengeance; almost all are inspired by the fellowship of their comrades; and, in all instances, they have a mythical, collective conception of the enemy. . . . In the development of riot motivation, economic grievances and social disappointments are prominent in the awareness of rioters, (p. 212)
The association of violence with differences on various physiological dimensions has also been explored. Hildreth, Derogatis, and McCusker (1971) found that aggressive inmates exhibit greater sensitivity to physical closeness than do nonaggressive prisoners. Kreuz (1972) found that 10 individuals with histories of violent offenses had significantly higher levels of plasma testrosterone than did 11 individuals who did not have violent behavior histories. And Farley and Farley's (1972) results indicated that female delinquents high in stimulation seeking had significantly more escape attempts than did those having low scores in this area. There is some evidence (cf. Bandura, 1973) that participation in violence may well be related to exposure to real and/or symbolic models who demonstrate violent behavior. Indeed, Wolfe and Baron (1971) found that exposure to aggressive models on TV was highly effective in raising the level of aggression on the part of inmates as well as college students. However, theorists differ as to whether exposure to aggressive models actually
causes subsequent aggression or whether it triggers psychological predispositions to violence already present in the individual (Menzies, 1971). A few recent studies have attempted to compare violent and nonviolent groups for the purpose of isolating characteristics common to violence-prone individuals and/or to develop profiles of violence-prone individuals on the basis of personality variables. Skelton (1969) compared a group of inmates identified as having assaulted prison guards at the El Reno Federal Correctional Institution with another group that defended the guards. Variables such as present age, age at first arrest, and educational level were used; however, his sample population was not identified racially nor was the riot racially motivated. Some studies have also been conducted by the California Department of Youth Authority in attempts to identify violence-prone youth on the basis of intake data. Molof (1967), for example, compared various groupings of male delinquents committed to the California Youth Authority for assaultive and nonassaultive offenses on the basis of 55 personality variables taken from intake data. He found that in comparison to the population as a whole (a) black and Chicano wards committed a greater than expected average number of assaults; (b) wards with a history of moderate or chronic use of alcohol were more assaultive; (c) wards with no prior commitments were more assaultive; and (d) wards in which the average age of first admission was between 15 and 17 were more assaultive. Molof, however, did not separate his two experimental groups on the basis of assaultive and nonassaultive commitment offenses, nor did he attempt to provide a profile of the violence-prone individual. Wenk (1972), on the other hand, sought to predict the assault proneness of an individual from an analysis of data collected prior to the occurrence of an assaultive act. He found that violent recidivists scored significantly lower on intelligence tests than did individuals who did not recidivate violently and that violent recidivists tend to register higher scores on the Ma scale of the MMPI. Like Molof, Wenk used commitment offense as the independent variable; unlike Molof, however, he attempted to use intake data as a means of developing a
PERSONALITY VARIABLES OF BLACK RIOTERS IN PRISON
violence-proneness profile for predicting subsequent violent behavior. Unfortunately, he did not find enough significant differences between his two groups to develop such a profile. Although the literature contains numerous other studies addressed to the area of violence, methodological problems and the use of unstructured interviews and questionnaires leaves much to be desired in terms of their scientific value (Menzies, 1971). It appears, as Toch (1969) concluded in his review, that violent men may be validly and reliably identified only on the basis of their prior behavior. And because an individual's proneness to violence is affected by a complex and interrelated system of variables, it may be necessary pragmatically to use large numbers of variables to determine which combinations of characteristics best account for the largest percentage of variance associated with violent behavior (Toch, 1969). Method The present study sought to determine whether black inmates actually involved in a prison race riot differ significantly from black inmates in general relative to a variety of psychological, historical, and adjustmentrelated information routinely collected by correctional staff and recorded in each inmate's prison central file. Although both situational and individual factors play major roles in causing group and mass behavior change, institutional factors appear not to have been mitigating factors underlying the violence that took place in this instance. It all started with a fight between one Chicano and one black inmate, which subsequently erupted into numerous other conflicts between members of these two racial groups. Due to the potential violence inherent in such circumstances, the prison staff immediately stepped in to ameliorate the situation. Several meetings were held between representatives of both groups until the staff thought that the problems were resolved. A "peace" meeting was then set up in which members of both groups were to assemble in the prison yard to "shake on it." What the staff and apparently the Chicanos did not know was that a nucleus of very militant blacks was organizing to "get even" rather than for a peace meeting. Many blacks, however, purposely had themselves locked in their cells on that particular afternoon so as not to be pressured into participating. The fact that the riot was surreptitiously videotaped by inmates who happened to be working in the prison learning-resources area made positive identification of many of the participants possible. These tapes were viewed many times by staff members, and identification of the rioters was made when several staff members
507
named the same individual in a particular instance. In addition, as in any follow-up for possible court action, many inmates were interviewed and reinterviewed to identify those individuals (in this case, blacks) who participated in the riot. Whether the blacks, Chicanos, or the prison situation itself caused the riot is, of course, not known. What is known is that no overt actions, verbal or otherwise, were directed at the institution or staff. The 48 rioters so identified were compared with 50 blacks selected at random from among the institution's black population who intentionally chose not to become involved, that is, those who had themselves locked in their cells on the morning of the riot.
Results Table 1 indicates the 41 variables studied, each taken from the inmate's prison central file. An item-by-item comparison was done. The two sample populations differed significantly on 22 of the variables studied using either a two-tailed t ratio or a chi-square. Ten items reached at least the .005 level of significance. A more rigorous test, the discriminate function, 1 was also applied to the data. Table 2 indicates the correlations of the variables with the discriminate function, that is, the extent of the relationship between the particular variable and the condition of rioting or nonrioting. The 17 variables that correlated the highest are presented in Table 2. An overall test of significance is possible. The obtained chi-square computed between rioters versus nonrioters was 144.80, the critical difference was 65, and therefore highly significant. Note that all variables previously evaluated in Table 1 occur in this list as well. Two additional items are highly correlated with riot behavior: Participation in operation breakthrough was negatively related, whereas participation in peer counseling was positively related. Operation breakthrough, and peer counseling 1 The discriminate function is the weighted sum of the variables that best discriminate between the groups under study. Loosely speaking, if one wanted to do a t test between two groups, then the discriminate function would maximize the observed difference. In this study the discriminant function is a component of the variables that relates to the condition of riot versus nonriot. Thus the correlation of each variable with this discriminate function gives the relation between that variable and the riot versus nonriot condition.
C. MOSS, R. HOSFORD, W. ANDERSON, AND M. PETRACCA
508
Table 1 Group Means Between the Rioters and Nonrioters Variable
1.
Length of sentence
2. Present age
3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.
14. IS. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.
26.
IQ (Beta) Grade achievement Prior arrests Prior commitments Age at first arrest L scale (MM PI) F scale (MMPI) K scale (MMPI) Hs scale (MMPI) D scale (MMPI) Hy scale (MMPI) Pd scale (MMPI) Mf scale (MMPI) Pa scale (MMPI) Ft scale (MMPI) Sc scale (MMPI) Ma scale (MMPI) Total no. deviant MMPI scales Drugs vs. no drugs Use of alcohol (yes/no) Psychiatric diagnosis (yes/no) Educational courses completed Vocational training courses completed Job (represented in degree of responsibility)
Rioters
Nonrioters
109.79 22.36 97.68 7.10 10.83 1.92 14.36 53.43 69.49 55.17 60.53 65.81 60.98 73.74 58.19 62.04 61.57 70.28 67.23
82.21* 22.92 98.34 10.35" 6.23** .89** 16.11** 55.15 60.53** 53.79 55.04 63.00 58.11* 68.36* 57.34 56.06* 58.92* 60.85* 68.36
3.30 1.21
1.58** 1.30
1.85
2.15
.62
.50
1.06
3.23**
.60
.70
.58
.53
Note. F.C.I. = Federal Correctional ventory. * Significant at .05 level or better. ** Significant at .005 level or better.
Institution.
programs are both unique to this prison. The former program consisted of a small group of highly selected ex-drug-dependent inmates who went to local high schools and community groups with a staff member to talk about the dangers of using drugs. The latter program was largely inmate led. Individuals were selected who had counseling potential and were then given training to counsel other inmates. At the time of the riot, some 150 inmates were in the counseling program, the majority of whom were blacks. Finally, the data were compared between those inmates who were identified as having
Variable 27. Meritorious service award (money) (yes/no) 28. Meritorious good time (yes/no) 29. Home in honor unit (yes/no) 30. Psychotropic drugs (sedatives/ tranquilizers) (yes/no) 31. Sick calls 32. Convalescence leave 33. Major reprimands 34. Minor reprimands 35. Segregation prior to riot 36. Custody level (close/medium/ minimum) 37. Months at F.C.I, prior to riot 38. Carkhuff helping technique fves/no) 39. Individual psychiatric/psychological treatment 40. Peer counseling program (yes/no) 41. Operation breakthrough (yes/no) \ J ^-^/
J'VJ/
MMPI = Minnesota
Rioters
Nonrioters
.06
2.02*
.06
.30
.02
13
7.70 8.87 3.32 1.77 1.15
1.92** 16.17*
1.02
.47*
1.11
1.55*
8.70
11.32*
3.49
.62** .64
.09
.11
.43
.09**
.53
.06*
.13
.75
Multiphasic Personality In-
engaged in more extreme acts of violence during the riot with those in the control group. Three criteria were used for identification of the more violent inmates: (a) being held in isolation for 100 days, (b) being referred to the FBI for possible prosecution, and (c) being transferred to other correctional institutions for their own protection. Thirty-seven of the 48 inmates confined in segregation satisfied all these criteria. Once again the critical chisquare was 131.80, and the obtained difference was 65; therefore, it can be seen again that the difference between the two groups is highly significant. Table 3 contains the 12
PERSONALITY VARIABLES OF BLACK RIOTERS IN PRISON
509
Table 2 Correlations of Variables with
Educational Background
Discriminant Function
Analyses of the data indicate that inmates not involved in the riot had achieved, on the average, a significantly higherlevel of education, and they attempted and completed more educational courses within the prison than did those who participated in the violence. These latter findings, however, are somewhat confounded by the fact that the nonrioters, on the average, were incarcerated for 3 months longer than were the rioters, and, therefore, they had a longer period of time in which to enroll in educational courses. No significant difference for the number of vocational courses completed was found. And although those not involved in the riot completed a higher level of grade achievement as measured by an achievement test, no significant difference in IQ emerged.
Variable Operation breakthrough Grade achievement Peer counseling program Educational courses completed Prior arrests Number of deviant MMPI scores Meritorious service award (money) Sc scale (MMPI) F scale (MMPI) Prior commitments Major reprimands Custody level Psychotropic drugs Age at first arrest Individual psychotherapy Length of sentence Sick calls Note. MMPI Inventory.
—.6642 —.6500 .5464 .4289 .4267 .3772 .3735 .3679 .3637 .3575 .3525 .3245 .2962 .2947 .2863 .2660 .2548
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
items for which coefficients of .30 or better were found. Discussion For discussion purposes the items used in the analysis were grouped around five categories: historical descriptive (e.g., type of offense, age, length of sentence); educational background (e.g., grade achievement, educational involvement while in prison; diagnostic psychological data (e.g., MMPI scores, psychiatric diagnosis) ; prison adjustment (e.g., number of meritorious awards, number of minor/major incident reports); and health data (e.g., sick call, convalescent leave, etc.). Historical Descriptive Black inmates involved in the riot differed from those in the control group relative to (a) having a greater number of prior arrests; (b) having a greater number of prior prison commitments; and (c) being younger at age of first arrest. There was no apparent difference between the two groups in length of prison sentences, age at time of riot, or type of original offense.
Psychological Data
The third category, psychological diagnosis, consisted of data obtained from MMPI profiles and the psychological assessment interview administered to each inmate upon his incarceration at the institution. Several differences between the two sample populations were found. Those blacks involved in the riot, compared with the controls, had more deviant scores on the F (validating) and Sc scales, as well as on the total number of deviations. However, the Table 3 Correlations of Variables with Discriminant Function for Perceived Violent Rioters Variable
r
Operation breakthrough Grade achievement Peer counseling program Major reprimands Meritorious service award (money) Educational courses completed Psychotropic drugs Prior arrests Prior commitments Sc scale (MMPI) Custody level F scale (MMPI)
—.8462 — .6907 .4649 .4248 .3913 .3839 .3676 .3518 .3385 .3097 .3095 .3086
Note. Sc scale = Schizophrenia scale of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI); F scale = Validity scale of the MMPI.
510
C. MOSS, R. HOSFORD, W. ANDERSON, AND M. PETRACCA
rioters were not diagnosed more often as having some type of mental problem than were those in the control group. This may be explained in part by the fact that graduate counseling psychology students are usually the mental health personnel who interview the new inmates. These interns are trained currently not to pin psychiatric labels on people as evidenced by the fact that they most often select the diagnosis "no mental disorder" rather than use any of the other categories of the American Psychiatric Association's Mental Disorder Manual (//). Thus the range in assessment categories for both groups would be attenuated. Similarly, the blacks who took part in the riot were not diagnosed upon their arrival at the institution as in the high-treatment category, possibly for the same reason. Also, differences in use of alcohol or illegal drugs were about equal. Institutional A djustment Several tentative differences between the two groups were found relative to criteria associated with institutional adjustment. Individuals in the rioting group were more apt to be restricted to close or medium custody than were those in the control group. They also had acquired significantly more major incident reports than did the controls. The two groups had spent about the same time in segregation prior to the riot, even though as a group, the rioters had spent fewer months in the institution (9 months versus 12 months). Conversely, the rioters also received fewer meritorious service awards (a small monetary reimbursement) than did the controls. No differences between the two groups with respect to the number of meritorious good time awards or in the numbers having previously been assigned to the honor unit were found. Health
The final category of data examined— factors associated with physical or mental health—was again typified by several differences. Although controls on the average sought medical assistance more often than did the rioters, the controls received far fewer sedatives and tranquilizers. The number of days
on convalescent leave was the same. It is noteworthy that the rioters when compared with the controls received greater amounts of individual counseling and were more often enrolled in the mental health peer group counseling program. The peer counseling program was based on transactional analysis, and direct confrontation was a primary intervention procedure. Comparing it to other mental health programs, it attracted a disproportionate black representation. In summary, the following hypotheses might be made about the black rioters when comparing them with blacks who chose not to participate in the riot : 1. The rioter is more apt to have a long history of dyssocial activity. 2. He shows less motivation toward educational self-improvement, both prior and during his present imprisonment. 3. He is more often perceived by the custodial staff as a troublemaker. 4. He more often tends to exhibit noticeable psychological problems and is referred to mental health personnel more frequently for diagnostic or short-term counseling. However, he does not appear to seek psychological assistance (or perhaps the mental health staff chooses not to see him), but he does seek and receive more psychotropic medication than do individuals in the nonrioter group. Though this study involved only one, albeit carefully documented, instance of a racial prison riot, a tentative multiple regression equation can be used for the prediction of riot behavior. However, it should be pointed out that such an equation is of little value until it is cross- validated on another group. The general equation is as follows :
Y = a+
+
...+ bkxXk,
where Fis the criterion variable (riot behavior) ; a, hi through bk are the regression correlations ; and Xi through Xk are the predictor variables. For example, computing a correlation matrix for all 41 variables for each of the 94 individuals produces a multiple coefficient of .9317. Squaring this provides the proportion of the variance accounted for by these 41 variables, that is, 87%. Because the total proportion of the variance is 1.00, these 41 variables account for a considerable amount of the variability.
511
PERSONALITY VARIABLES OF BLACK RIOTERS IN PRISON Table 4 Correlations with the Discriminant Function and Derived Regression Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
r .2785 -.1324 -.0332 -.6761 .4438 .3718 -.3065 -.0959 .3783 .0890 .2359 .1147 .1552 .2554 .0518 .2476 .1363 .3826 -.0588 .3923
Regression coefficient
Variable
.0007 -.0089 .0001 -.0939 .0176 .0385 .0263 -.0033 .0027 -.0009 -.0092 -.0010 .0025 .0099 -.0031 .0006 -.0087 .0018 -.0034 .0124
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
Coefficients
r -.0662 -.1209 .1426 -.4461 -.0912 .0475 -.3884 -.1994 -.2250 .3081 -.2651 -.0106 .3667 .1764 .1774 -.3375 -.1643 -.0401 .2978
Regression coefficient .0835 -.0106 .0301 -.0208 .0711 -.0156 .0053 -.0575 -.0239 .0051 -.0046 .0010 .1000 -.0037 -.0196 -.1735 -.0064 .3310 .1679
Note. See Table 1 for identification of variables.
However, because participation in operation breakthrough and peer counseling is unique to this one correctional institution, the multiple regression equation was recomputed excluding Items 40 and 41. Thus the multiple correlation coefficient is .9004, which still accounts for 81% of the variance. By multiplying each of the correlations taken from Table 4 by the corresponding regression coefficients, summing the products, and then adding the Y intercept (a mathematical constant required by the regression equation), a formula is obtained from which participation in a riot should be able to be predicted with better than chance probability. However, before any conclusions can be made, a host of other factors need to be considered. An unanswered question, of course, is to what extent can these findings be generalized to other blacks in other institutions? Nor is it known whether the findings apply to other ethnic/racial groups such as the Chicanos or Anglos. Although it was only by chance that this study focused upon the black rioter, who happened to be involved in the particular riot under study, ethnicity has been shown to be a factor associated with participation in violence (cf. Report of the National
Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, 1968). Further, the relationship between violence per se and participation in riots has not been sufficiently explored. Nor has the recidivism rate of inmates involved in prison riots been compared with those who intentionally chose not to participate. With violence becoming more and more prevalent in society as well as in the nation's correctional institutions, better means of preventing such behavior need to be achieved. One possibility for doing so is suggested by this study. The fact that the riot-involved inmates differed significantly from the nonrioters on a number of psychological and behavioral variables suggests that better than chance discriminations can be made for identifying inmates who may be predisposed toward participation in this form of violence. Such results are in strong contrast to those reported by Steadman and Cocozza (1975), in which they suggest that several years of court psychiatrists' findings show that violence-prone and nonviolence-prone defendants can be differentially identified solely on the basis of the current alleged offense. If research on the predictors of violent be-
512
C. MOSS, R. HOSFORD, W. ANDERSON, AND M. PETRACCA
havior, including rioting, were to show that a great percentage of the variance can be accounted for by variables for which data are routinely collected, specific rehabilitation programs could be developed and tested to determine their efficacy in reducing subsequent violent acts. The individual-specific variables studied here, however, should not be viewed as "causes" of violence but only as personality and behavioral factors that serve to differentiate those who did or did not participate in this riot. In this case, inmate grievances and other factors within the prison itself, no matter how legitimate, did not appear to be mitigating factors associated with the riot's occurrence. The Crumbling Walls (Hosford & Moss, 1975) and The Future of Imprisonment (Morris, 1974) provide some examples of preventative programs that might be developed to reduce inmates' participation in riots. References Bandura, A. Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973. Berson, L. E. Case study of a riot: The Philadelphia story. New York: Institute of Human Relations Press, 1966. Davis, K. R., & Sines, J. O. An antisocial behavior pattern associated with a specific MMPI profile. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1971, 36, 229-234. p'arley, F. H., & Farley, S. V. Stimulus-seeking motivation and delinquent behavior among institutionalized delinquent girls. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1972, 39, 94-97. Fox, V. Why prisoners riot. Federal Probation, 1971, 3, 9-14. Hildreth, A. M., Derogatis, L. R., & McCusker, K. Body buffer zone and violence: A reassessment and confirmation. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1971, 127, 1641-1645. Hosford, R. E., & Moss, C. S. The crumbling walls:
Treatment and counseling of prisoners. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1975. Kreuz, L. E. Assessment of aggressive behavior and plasma testosterone in a young criminal population. Psychosomatic Medicine, 1972, 34, 321-332. Mcgargee, E. 1. Undercontrolled and overcontrolled personality types in extreme antisocial aggression. Psychological Monographs, 1966, 80(3, Whole No. 611). Menzics, E. S. Preferences in television content among violent prisoners, FCI Research Report, 1971, 3, 1-29. Molof, M. J. Differences between assaultive and nonassaultive offenders in the California Youth Authority. Sacramento: California Department of the Youth Authority, 1967. Morris, N. The future of imprisonment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974. Morris, N., & Jacobs, J. Proposals for prison reform. (Public Affairs Pamphlet No. 5JO.) Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1974. New York State Special Commission on Attica. Attica: The official report. New York: Bantam Books, 1972. Persons, R. W., & Marks, P. A. The violent 4-3 MMPI personality type. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1971, 36, 189-196. Ransford, H. E. Isolation, powerlessness, and violence: A study of attitudes and participation in the Watts riot. American Journal of Sociology, 1968, 73, 586591. Report on National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. New York: Dutton, 1968. Skelton, W. D. Prison riot: Assaulters vs. defenders. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1969, 21, 359-362. Steadman, H. J., & Cocozza, J. J. Prediction of dangerousness in offenders. Psychiatric News, 10, 13-35. Toch, H. Violent men. Chicago: Aldine, 1969. Wenk, E. A., & Emrich, R. L. Assaultive youth: An exploratory study of the assaultive potential of California Youth Authority wards. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 1972, 9, 171-196. Wheeler, C. A. Overcontrolled hostility and the perception of violence. FCI Research Report, 1971, 3, 1-19. Wolfe, B. M., & Baron, R. A. Laboratory aggression related to aggression in naturalistic social situations: Effects of an aggressive model on the behavior of college student and prisoner observers. Psychonomic Science, 1971, 24, 193-194.
Received April 21, 1976 •
