The Personalities of Predelinquent Boys

MMPI-based personality types among juvenile sexual offenders

“…Several studies of adult sexual offenders have identified the 48/84 and 43/34 as modal code types (Armentrout & Hauer, 1978;Rader, 1977;Ullman, 1980); these code types accounted for less than 7% of our sample of adolescent offenders. Studies of adolescent non-sexual delinquents indicate a high proportion of profiles with significant elevations on scales 4, 8, and 9 (Hathaway & Monachesi, 1953, 1957Lueger, 1983). In our sample, these scales dominated the two-point code types only of Group IV, the impulsive acting-out group ( Table 4).…”

Correlates of Delinquent Behavior

“…Indeed, the selection method eliminated the "drop-outs," only one boy in the sample had served a training school senrence, fewer than 25% of the delinquents had committed acts which could be rated four or more on the severity continuum, and fewer than 20% had a record of more than one offense in the 2 yr. preceding the study. Many efforts have been made to predict delinquency with the MMPI (Briggs, Wirt, & Johnson, 1961;Gottesman, 1959;Hathaway & Monachesi, 1953, 1957, 1963Rempel, 1958;Wirt & Briggs, 1959), the Rorschach (Taniguchi, DeVos, g: Murakami, 1958), the Szondi (Coulter, 1959), the Glueck and other special instruments. All of these studies have achieved comparable results, and all are implicitly based on the ass~imption that there is a trait, or set of traits, which is antecedent to all delinquent behavior.…”

Predicting Air Force Recidivism by the Mmpi Test-Retest

“…A comparison of the 0MPI profile scales for both groups on the first and second tests are shown on Figure I, graphic form, and in tabular form on Table I and Table II. An inspection of the graph shows that, in general, the unsuccessful restorees scored higher mean T scores on both the first and second tests in the direction of greater abnormality than successful restorees, particularly on the scales of (Pd), (Sc), and (Ma), which are described as typical of delinquent behavior (Hathaway and McKinley, 1956; 1959; Hathaway & Monachesi, 1957;Remple, 1958). Although the failure group presented more disturbed looking WNPI profiles than successful restorees on the first and second tests, only the (Pd) was differentiating on the first test and the (Hy) scale on the second test.…”