Journal of Abnormal Psychology 1977, Vol. 86, No. 4, 414-420

Relation of Moral and Cognitive Development to Dimensions of Juvenile Delinquency Gregory J. Jurkovic University of Wyoming

Norman M. Prentice University of Texas at Austin

Using Quay's typology, three equal groups (« = 12) of adolescent psychopathic, neurotic, and subcultural delinquent males and a matched nondeliquent control group were individually administered Kohlberg's structured moral dilemmas, two Piagetian tasks of cognitive development (pendulum and balance), and an adaptation of Flavell's role-taking task. Psychopathic delinquents were more immature in level of moral development than all other groups, which did not differ from one another. Psychopathic delinquents were significantly more concrete in their thinking on cognitive tasks than all other groups, which exhibited signs of early formal operational thinking. Psychopathic and, to a lesser extent, neurotic delinquents were deficient in role taking compared with controls and subculturals, who did not differ from one another. The findings provide further evidence against viewing delinquency as a unitary syndrome of deviance.

The past decade has witnessed expanding efforts in extending developmental concepts and methods to the study of childhood psychopathology (cf. Santostefano & Baker, 1972). In the area of juvenile delinquency, for example, investigators have examined the moral development of delinquent and nondelinquent adolescents from the cognitivedevelopmental perspective of Kohlberg (1964, 1969). While these studies have largely confirmed the delinquent's more immature level of moral development (Fodor, 1972; Hudgins & Prentice, 1973), not all the findings have been consistent (Jurkovic & Prentice, 1974). Such inconsistencies may reflect the heterogeneity of delinquency as a form of behavThis study is based on a doctoral dissertation submitted to the University of Texas at Austin (Jurkovic, 1975). A preliminary abbreviated version of the report was presented at the annual meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Los Angeles, April 1976. Appreciation is expressed to James Bieri, Robert C. Cooper, Jr., Judith H. Langlois, and Martin Manosevitz for constructive suggestions at various phases of the project. The gracious and generous statistical advice of Noel Dunivant, Earl Jennings, and Robert K. Young is gratefully acknowledged. Requests for reprints should be sent to Gregory J. Jurkovic, Department of Psychology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming 82071.

ioral deviance. For example, in support of earlier clinical impressions (Friedlander, 1947), more recent factor analytic studies (e.g., Quay, 1972; Quay & Parsons, 1971) have differentiated three common subgroups or dimensions of delinquent youth labeled by Quay as (a) unsocialized-psychopathic, (b) neurotic-disturbed, and (c) socialized-subcultural. Psychopathic delinquents are socially unresponsive and engage in antisocial behavior that is accompanied by little guilt or remorse. Neurotic delinquents, on the other hand, are more socialized and act in response to inner conflicts. These delinquents typically suffer from extreme sensitivity, inferiority feelings, guilt, anxiety, and depression. Although probably more advanced in moral reasoning than psychopathic adolescents, neurotic delinquents may not have fully acquired higher level moral concepts due to interactions with parents who are overly controlling and emotionally constricted (cf. Wright, 1971). Subcultural delinquents also appear to be reasonably well socialized but are more responsive to their delinquencyprone peers than to authority figures. Nonetheless, their ability to develop meaningful interpersonal relations may serve as a strong basis for higher stages of moral development (Kohlberg, Note 1). Although research using Quay's system of

414

MORAL AND COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT IN JUVENILE DELINQUENCY

classification (see Quay & Parsons, 1971) has generated meaningful differences among delinquent subclasses on a variety of variables (Quay, 1972), the sociocognitive developmental aspects of these delinquent dimensions have been neglected. The current investigation was undertaken to study the moral development of homogeneous subclasses of delinquent adolescent males and to investigate cognitive processes (logical reasoning about physical phenomena and role taking in a nonmoral social situation) mediating moral differences among these groups. On the basis of the foregoing, it was predicted that psychopathic delinquents would be lower in moral development than neurotic delinquents. Furthermore, neurotic delinquents were assumed to be lower in moral development than subcultural delinquents and nondelinquents, who were not expected to differ from one another. Moral and cognitive development were expected to be positively correlated, because role taking and formal operational abilities have been shown to be necessary though not sufficient for progression to higher moral levels (e.g., Selman, 1971; Tomlinson-Keasey & Keasey, 1974). However, little evidence exists for making specific predictions concerning group differences in cognitive development. While it seemed reasonable to expect that the cognitive maturity of the nondelinquents as well as that of the neurotic and subcultural delinquents would approach age-appropriate levels, it was less clear how psychopathic delinquents would perform on the cognitive measures. The effectiveness of role taking in the delinquent, for example, has been a matter of some dispute. Chandler (1973) reported that male delinquents as a whole were deficient in role-taking skills. On the other hand, after reviewing the clinical descriptive literature, Albert, Brigante, and Chase (19S9) concluded that many delinquents were quite adept in role-taking skills, although commonly at the expense of others, Method Sample From a pool of approximately 120 institutionalized delinquent boys, three groups of psychopathic.

415

neurotic, and subcultural delinquents were formed according to their composite T scores on the psychopathic, neurotic, and subcultural scales of Quay's classification system (see Quay & Parsons, 1971). 1 Delinquents whose records contained information suggestive of mental retardation or organicity were excluded from the subject pool. T scores were assigned delinquents based on scores obtained on all three instruments of the Quay system: (a) the 55item Behavior Problem Checklist, (b) the 36-item Checklist for the Analysis of Life History Data, and (c) the 100-item Personal Opinion Study. To insure sufficient differentiation of the groups, only those delinquents earning a composite T score on one scale above 50 that exceeded their scores on the other two scales by at least 5 points were considered for inclusion in the study. (On the average, T scores of the highest scale surpassed T scores on the other two scales by 15 points.) After matching the groups as closely as possible for mean age and ethnic composition, 12 psychopathic, 12 neurotic, and 12 subcultural delinquents were selected. All delinquents were primarily first admissions (Af = 4.81 months institutionalized) with histories of offenses involving burglary, theft, forgery, runaway, destruction of property, and so forth. Twelve nondelinquents (selected from a pool of 50 boys) were drawn from a public high school located in a highdelinquency urban area comparable to that in which the delinquents had lived. 2 Reports of school counselors were used to insure that the control subjects were nondelinquent. The delinquent and nondelinquent groups did not significantly differ in age (M = 15.68 years), socioeconomic level (they were lower class with an M of 5.02 on the Hollingshead, Note 2, Occupation scale), or ethnicity (each group was approximately 50% white, 25% black, and 25% Mexican American). However, the nondelinquent group was significantly higher (p < .025) in verbal ability (scale score M — 9.08 on the Vocabulary subtest of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children or the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale) than the delinquent groups (overall M = 6.61), who did not differ from each other. 1

Delinquents were selected from the Brownwood (Texas) State School through the cordial collaboration of Mart Hoffman, former Superintendent and current Deputy Executive Director of the Texas Youth Council (TYC). The support of Ron Jackson, Executive Director of TYC, and of his research staff was also instrumental in securing delinquents. Ira H. Hecht aided very substantially in the classification of delinquents. 2 The nondelinquents were obtained through the cooperation of Jack Allison, Principal, Travis High School, Austin Independent School District (AISD), and his counseling staff. Appreciation is expressed to Freda Holley, Coordinator of Research and Evaluation of AISD, as well as to her staff for assistance in identifying the nondelinquent sample.

416

GREGORY J. JURKOVIC AND NORMAN M. PRENTICE

Assessment oj Moral Development Instrument. Level of moral development was assessed with three of Kohlberg's (1964, 1969) structured moral dilemmas (Numbers 1, 3, and 7), Expanding on Piaget's (1932/196S) earlier work, Kohlberg postulates six stages of moral judgment that form an invariant developmental sequence. The most primitive stage, Stage 1, is characterized by an orientation toward obedience and punishment. In Stage 3 the child is oriented toward conforming to stereotypical images of role behavior, with emphasis on the expectancies of others. In contrast, at the highest stage, Stage 6, morality is determined by principles involving logical universality and consistency. All six stages fall into three moral levels identified as preconventional (Stages 1 and 2), conventional (Stages 3 and 4), and postconventional (Stages 5 and 6). Scoring. The 48 protocols, each consisting of three moral dilemmas administered to each subject, were scored according to Kohlberg's (Note 1) detailed issue scoring guide. Kohlberg's scoring system allows responses to moral dilemmas to be translated into moral stages as well as moral maturity scores that are linked to the six-stage sequence (theoretical moral maturity score range is 100-600). All of the protocols were blindly scored by one rater. To assess reliability of scoring, a random subsample of 25% of the protocols was scored blindly by a second rater, 3 Percentage of agreement for both modal (used 50% or more of the time) and minor (used 25% of the time) stage scores was 67% and for modal stage alone was 83%. In all cases the raters' stage scores were within one stage of each other. A product-moment correlation between the moral maturity scores of the two raters ( y = . 9 2 ) yielded a second estimate of interrater reliability.

Assessment oj Cognitive Development, Role-taking lask. A slightly modified version of the role-taking task devised by Flavell et al. (1968) was used to assess cognitive processes in a nonmoral social situation. Two boxes with 10

Relation of moral and cognitive development to dimensions of juvenile delinquency.

Journal of Abnormal Psychology 1977, Vol. 86, No. 4, 414-420 Relation of Moral and Cognitive Development to Dimensions of Juvenile Delinquency Gregor...
563KB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views