Showing 1 – 2 of 2 results.
Curated
Psychological Classification of Adult Male Inmates in Federal Prison in Indiana, 1986-1988 (ICPSR 2370)
Released/updated on: 2008-04-04
Geographic coverage: Indiana, United States
Time period: 1986-01-01--1988-12-31
This data collection, conducted in a federal penitentiary and prison camp in Terre Haute, Indiana, between September 1986 and July 1988, was undertaken to examine the reliability and validity of psychological classification systems for adult male inmates. The classification systems tested were Warren's Interpersonal Maturity Level (I-level), Quay Adult Internal Management Systems (AIMS), Jesness Inventory, Megargee's MMPI-Based Prison Typology, and Hunt's Conceptual Level. The study sought to answer the following questions: (a) Which psychological classification systems or combination of systems could be used most effectively with adult populations? (b) What procedures (e.g., interview, paper-and-pencil test, staff assessment, or combination) would assure maximum efficiency without compromising psychometric precision? (c) What could the commonalities and differences among the systems reveal about the specific systems and about general classification issues pertinent to this population? and (d) How could the systems better portray the prison experience? The penitentiary was a low-maximum-security facility and the prison camp was a minimum-security one. A total of 179 penitentiary inmates and 190 camp inmates participated. The study employed both a pre-post and a correlational design. At intake, project staff members interviewed inmates, obtained social, demographic, and criminal history background data from administrative records and test scores, and then classified the inmates by means of an I-level diagnosis. Social and demographic data collected at intake included date of entry into the prison, age, race, marital status, number of dependents, education, recorded psychological diagnoses, occupation and social economic status, military service, evidence of problems in the military, ability to hold a job, and residential stability. Criminal history data provided include age at first nontraffic arrest, arrests and convictions, prison or jail sentences, alcohol or drug use, total number and kinds of charges for current offense, types of weapon and victims involved, co-offender involvement, victim-offender relationship, if the criminal activity required complex skills, type of conviction, and sentence length. T-scores for social maladjustment, immaturity, autism, alienation, manifest aggression, withdrawal, social anxiety, repression, and denial were also gathered via the Jesness Inventory and the MMPI. Interview data cover the inmates' interactions within the prison, their concerns about prison life, their primary difficulties and strategies for coping with them, evidence of guilt or empathy, orientation to the criminal label, relationships with family and friends, handling problems and affectivity, use of alcohol and drugs, and experiences with work and school. For the follow-up, the various types of assessment activities were periodically conducted for six months or until the inmate's release date, if the inmate was required to serve less than six months. Data collected at follow-up came from surveys of inmates, official reports of disciplinary infractions or victimizations, and prison staff assessments of inmates' prison adjustment and work performance. The follow-up surveys collected information on inmates' participation in treatment and educational programs, work absenteeism, health, victimization experiences and threats, awards, participation in aggressive, threatening, or other illegal activities, contact with family and friends, communication strategies, stress, sources of stress, and attitudes and beliefs about crime and imprisonment. Follow-up ratings by prison staff characterized the inmates on several clinical scales, according to each rater's global assessment of the interviewee. These characteristics included concern for others, role-taking abilities, assertiveness, inmate's relations with other inmates, authorities, and staff, verbal and physical aggressiveness, emotional control under stress, cooperativeness, need for supervision, response to supervision, maturity, behavior toward other inmates, and behavior toward staff.
Curated
Violence Against Women: Developmental Antecedents Among Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic Women in the United States, 1987-1988 and 1992-1994 (ICPSR 3293)
Released/updated on: 2002-05-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2000-01-01--2000-12-31
The aim of this study was to examine the factors related to different patterns of male violence against women. Employing both intra-individual and sociocultural perspectives, the project focused on the relationship between violence against women and previously established risk factors for intimate partner violence including stressors related to work, economic status, and role transitions (e.g., pregnancy), as well as family power dynamics, status discrepancies, and alcohol use. The following research questions were addressed: (1) To what extent do Caucasian, Black, and Hispanic individuals engage in physical violence with their partners? (2) How are socioeconomic stressors associated with violent relationships among Caucasian, Black, and Hispanic couples? (3) To what extent are changes in patterns of physical violence against women associated with different stages of a relationship (e.g., cohabitation, early marriage, pregnancy, marriage)? (4) To what extent do culturally linked attitudes about family structure (family power dynamics) predict violence among Caucasian, Black, and Hispanic couples? (5) To what extent do family strengths and support systems contribute to the cessation of violence among Caucasian, Black, and Hispanic couples? (6) What is the role of alcohol use in violent relationships among Caucasian, Black, and Hispanic couples? The data used for this project came from the first and second waves of the National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH) conducted by the Center for Demography and Ecology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison [NATIONAL SURVEY OF FAMILIES AND HOUSEHOLDS: WAVE I, 1987-1988, AND WAVE II, 1992-1994 (ICPSR 6906)]. The NSFH was designed to cover a broad range of family structures, processes, and relationships with a large enough sample to permit subgroup analysis. For the purposes of this study, the analytical sample focused on only those couples who were cohabiting or married at the time of the first wave of the study and still with the same person at the time of the second wave (N=3,584). Since the study design included oversamples of previously understudied groups (i.e., Blacks, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans), racial and ethnic comparisons were possible. In both waves of the NSFH several identical questions were asked regarding marital conflicts. Both married and cohabiting respondents were asked how often they used various tactics including heated arguments and hitting or throwing things at each other to resolve their conflicts. In addition, respondents were asked if any of their arguments became physical, how many of their fights resulted in either the respondent or their partner hitting, shoving, or throwing things, and if any injuries resulted as a consequence of these fights. This data collection consists of the SPSS syntax used to recode variables from the original NSFH dataset. In addition, new variables, including both composite variables (e.g., self-esteem, hostility, depression) and husband and wife versions of the variables (using information from both respondent and partner), were constructed. New variables were grouped into the following categories: demographic, personality, alcohol and drug use, relationship stages, gender role attitudes, division of labor, fairness in household chores, social support, and isolation. Psychological well-being scales were created to measure autonomy, positive relations with others, purpose in life, self-acceptance, environmental mastery, and personal growth. Additional scales were created to measure relationship conflict, sex role gender attitudes, personal mastery, alcohol use, and hostility. The Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale and the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) were also utilized.