Journal of Criminal Law and CriminologyVolume 51Issue 6 March-April Article 2

Spring 1961

Quantitative Analysis of Adjustment to the PrisonCommunityMarvin E. Wolfgang

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc

Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and CriminalJustice Commons

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted forinclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons.

Recommended CitationMarvin E. Wolfgang, Quantitative Analysis of Adjustment to the Prison Community, 51 J. Crim. L. Criminology & Police Sci. 607(1960-1961)

QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF ADJUSTMENT TO THE PRISON COMMUNITY'

MARVIN E. WOLFGANG

The author, who is Associate Professor of Sociology in the University of Pennsylvania, is a fre-quent contributor to this Journal as well as other periodicals of interest to criminologists.

As an outgrowth of his publication in 1958 of PATTERNS IN C1UAnNAL HOMCIDE, an analysis of alarge number of Philadelphia murderers, Dr. Wolfgang commenced a study of the post-offense ad-justment of the individuals studied. Here, he reports on the adjustment of a select group of theseoffenders to life in a Pennsylvania maximum security institution. After describing his constructionof an index by which adjustment or maladjustment could be measured, Dr. Wolfgang presents hisfindings which indicate that there are significant associations between adjustment and inmates (1) whoare 35 years of age or older, (2) who are or have been married, (3) whose murders were otherthan felony murder, and (4) who have had some previous penal experience.-EDIoTR.

PURPOSE AND SETTING

Adjustment of the inmate to the prison sub-culture is an important topic in penologicalliterature. Interesting descriptive analyses of theproblems inmates face in adjusting to a unisexual,restricted environment have added to our in-sights about this phenomenon. However, as inany area of investigation in the behavioral sciences,difficulties of establishing operational definitionshave delayed reliable accumulations of similarknowledge in a'variety of institutions and amongdiverse groups of inmates. Empirically objective,quantitative data that can readily be collected andcommunicated in like ways by observers engagedin similar research in different institutions arenecessary if the problems of adjustment to theprison subculture are adequately to be understood.

The purpose of the present study is two-fold:(1) as a pilot study of the offender after the crime,to follow up the adjustment patterns of personswho have been convicted of and incarcerated forhaving committed murder; (2) to provide an indexof prison adjustment that is based upon an em-

I This article is part of a larger work that willfully analyze the offender after the crime.

This study of post-offense adjustment is beingsupported by a University of Pennsylvania FacultyResearch Grant. The author wishes to express hisgratitude to the Committee on the Advancement ofResearch; to the administration of the Eastern StatePenitentiary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, particularlyto IV. J. Banmiller, superintendent, and to F. Petri,in charge of records; and to Aram Terzian and LawrenceW. Johnson, Jr., who assisted in the early phases ofthis study.

This article is an extended version of a paper readbefore a meeting of the Eastern Sociological Societyin New York City on April 23, 1960.

pirically quantitative analysis and that affordsopportunity for replication and expansion of theresearch design constructed around this index.

This study is the outgrowth of a previous re-search that analyzed 621 offenders in criminalhomicide in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, betweenJanuary 1948 and December 1952. In Patterns inCriminal Honicide' information regarding thevictim-offender relationship and a variety ofsociological data about each offender were col-lected from the files of the Philadelphia HomicideSquad. As part of a larger study designed to followup each of 387 of these offenders throughout hispost-offense episodes,3 the present research in-eludes analysis of a select segment of the originalgroup. The present universe comprises all malesfrom the original study who were committed tothe Eastern State Penitentiary (Philadelphia,Pennsylvania) for first or second degree murderand who are now serving sentences in this insti-tution. Females, juveniles, those who committedsuicide, were declared insane, were transferredelsewhere, or who had been released from thepenitentiary-all of whom had committed sometype of criminal homicide-are not included inthis report, although they will be discussed in alater publication. The instant universe is com-posed of 44 male murderers (9 white, 35 Negro)presently serving time (in all but two cases, alife sentence) in a maximum security institution.

2WOIXGANG, PATTERNS IN CRnm;AL HomcmE

(1958).3 Excluding those acquitted by court trial, those who

were fugitives, declared insane, committed suicide,etc., 387 persons were traced who actually were sen-tenced to serve a term of imprisonment.

MARVIN E. WOLFGANG

To determine relative degrees of prison ad-justment by type of offense it would be necessaryto compare the murder group with the rest of theprison population. In effect, for the moment weare holding offense constant and analyzing thesubuniverse of convicted murderers, making in-ternal comparisons relative to age and severalother variables.

Space limitations prevent a full description ofthe prison community at the Eastern State Pen-itentiary. Suffice it to say that as a maximumsecurity institution, the physical and social en-vironment, administrative regulations, and inmatesubculture probably do not operate on the inmatepopulation in ways significantly different fromother maximum security institutions.4 It shouldperhaps be noted that unlike many other prisonsthere is a prevailing lack of tension and a feelingboth among guards and inmates of ease of mobilityand of general relaxation within the confines of theprison. Without losing control of the nearly one-thousand inmates of this historically important5

and old (since 1829) penitentiary, the administra-tion permits a considerable amount of freedomthroughout the radial cell blocks.6 A capabletreatment program and a progressive administra-tion operate within an archaic architecture.

PREivous RESEARCH

The topic of prison adjustment has previouslybeen examined, although most studies have beenof a descriptive, heuristic type or have compareddiverse groups of offenders in prison by usingpersonality and intelligence tests. Some studieshave been descriptive sociological contributionsthat are qualitative analyses without numbersor test statistics. The brief review that follows isonly cursory and meant as a selective indicatorof the types of previous studies made in the field.Reference to them is primarily to function as aguide to other research on prison adjustment.There are differences in the quality of itemsmentioned; some of the studies were not princi-

4 See, e.g., CLEMMER, THE PRIsoN COMMUNITY (1940);Svscs, THz SocIETY or CAPTIVEs (1958); OHLrn,SOCIOLOGY AND THE FIELD OF CORRECTONS (1956);Haynes, The Sociological Study of the Prison Community,39 J. CEB. L. & C. 432 (1948).

6TEETERS & SHEARER, THE PRISON AT PHILA-

DELPHIA, CHERRY HILL (1957).6 For an enlightening discussion of this kind of

prison architecture throughout the world, see JoHNsoN,THE DEVLOPMENT OF RADIAL PRISONS: A CASE STUDYLsr CULTURAL DIFFUSION (Unpublished doctoral dis-sertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1958).

pally designed to measure or even to discussadjustment. The reader is strongly urged toevaluate these studies for himself if he hopes tomake use of them in adjustment analyses.

There are two major orientations in researchanalysis of prison adjustment: (1) psychological,and (2) sociological. The first of these attemptsto relate intelligence and personality traits toprison conduct and studies have been primarilydevoted to establishing profiles of psychologicaldeviants by comparing test scores with a stand-ardized "normal" population. Only occasionaland oblique reference is made to the concept ofbehavioral adjustment to the prison subculture.Even when made, there is usually some circularityof reasoning involved in the analysis, i.e., someprisoners are deviant personalities, as measuredby psychological tests designed to determinedeviancy, and these inmates are behaviorallymaladjusted in the prison environment becausetheir personality tests reveal them as deviants.When reference to misconduct in prison appears,failure to measure the amount or degree of mis-conduct is common. In the use of personalityand intelligence tests these psychological studiesdisplay elements of quantification and precisionthat are desirable for descriptive and comparativeanalyses as well as for the application of teststatistics. However, precision in this area is offsetby the lack of quantification in the discussionsof behavioral adjustment.

Hand and Lebo' found that boys with lowpersonality scores were poorly adjusted to thedemands of institutional discipline while boys withhigh personality scores were found to be infrequentviolators of institutional rules. Although Horschand Davis8 found no relationship between soci-ability and misconduct, these authors noted thatthe self-confident, dominant, "thick-skinned" in-dividual is more likely to run counter to institu-tional discipline than the self-conscious, submis-sive, and emotionally unstable individual. Shearerand Barbash 9 discovered that men convicted ofmurder, sex offenses, and assaults had the bestwork histories or job stability. Intelligence andskill level differentials were noted among these

7 Hand & Lebo, Predicting the Institutional Adjust-ment of Delinquent Boys, 45 J. Csx. L., C. &. P.S.694 (1955).

8 Horsch & Davis, Personality Traits and Conductin Institutionalized Delinquents, 29 J. Crim. L. &C. 241 (1938).

9 Shearer & Barbash, Occupational Adjustment andCrine, 29 OccuPATIONs 114 (1950).

[Vol. 51

ADJUSTMENT TO THE PRISON COMMUNITY

groups, but examination of emotional factorsrevealed no significant differences. At Sing Sing,Stanton"° found significant differences on all theclinical scales of the MPPI when he comparedprisoners with "normals" on whom the test wasstandardized. The more socially deviant individ-uals were found to be more psychologically deviant,although the question of prison adjustment wasnot fully explored.

Caldwellu noted in his study that the murderersconformed to a basic personality pattern andsocial type. Both Negroes and whites had ex-ceptionally high mean scores on the PsychopathicDeviate Scale of the MMPI while the formeralso had high scores on the Schizophrenic andPsychasthenia Scales. The white murderer, hecontended, is superior to the Negro murdererin intellectual ability and the Negro murdererexcels in the expression of feminine patterns ofbehavior and schizoid tendencies. Adjustmentor maladjustment to the prison community wasnot related to these observed differences.0 2

In a sample of 225 inmates at the Eastern StatePenitentiary in Philadelphia, and using theRosenzweig Picture-Frustration Study, theGuilford-Martin Personnel Inventory, the ScoviUClassification Test, and the Stanford AchievementTest, Morello2 explored the individual person-ality structure and trends in patterns of suchstructuralization during time intervals of in-carceration, especially in terms of the pris-oners' reactive and adjustive techniques.Among other interesting findings, Morello notedthat "non-Caucasian prisoners showed no trendtoward becoming either more or less well-adjustedas the length of incarceration increased. However,the Caucasians showed a definite trend towardbecoming less well-adjusted in relation to thelength of incarceration.' 4

The sociological contributions to an understand-ing of prison adjustment have been more directly

10 Stanton, Group Personality Profile Related toAspects of Anti-Social Behavior, 47 J. Cznr. L., C. &P.S. 340 (1956).

" Caldwell, Personality Trends in the Youthful MaleOffender, 49 J. Clwx. L., C. & P.S. 405 (1959).

1 The critical remarks of Schuessler and Cresseyregarding the use of personality tests on prisoners istoo well known to need further reference here. SeeSchuessler & Cressey, Personality Characteristics ofCriminals, 55 Ame. J. Soc'y 476 (1950).

"3MoREI.Lo, A Srunv op ~ ADJTuSTIVE BEHAVIOROF PRISON IMsATEs TO INCARCERATION (Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Temple University, 1958).

141d. at 73.

related to the issue. They are usually attempts torelate social variables, such as marital status,pre-institutional work history, inmate informalsocial structure, etc., to adjustment in prison.Descriptions often are detailed with case historiesas illustrative clarifications of concepts that givemeaning to the dynamic interaction betweenadjustment and the social correlates of adjust-ment. Most of these sociological studies are qual-itative, without the use of numbers, and al-though generally enlightening researches, theyrender difficult establishing replications thatwould seek to extend the time and spacedimension of their conclusions. However,these studies present abundant and insightfulsuggestions for empirical research designs thathave not been sufficiently followed up bycriminologists.

Caldwell describes the major factors involvedin life in a prison subculture, among which are adeeply-entrenched status hierarchy, a well-developed formal prison organization, and aninformal social system.'' The degree of prisoniza-tion as shown by Clemmer 8 is believed to beinfluenced by the inmate's personality, his socialrelationships prior to incarceration, affiliation withan informal group, type of work placement, andacceptance or rejection of the prisoner code.Clemmer's study of socialization in the prisoncommunity still stands as one of the most probingand provocative in the field. The problem ofadjustment to the prison environment in termsof the process of prisonization is discussed indescriptive detail. The influence of aspects of thisprocess appears to depend upon the length ofincarceration as much as on the personality of theinmate. Adjustment to the "pains of imprison-ment" is described with similar sociological in-sight by Sykes,17 but as is the case with Clemmer'sanalysis, empirical verification and replicationare difficult to achieve.

Contradiction in the problem of adjustment tothe subsociety of a prison constitutes the focusof an analysis by McCorkle and Korn.18 As theseauthors suggest, if the major adjustive functionof the inmate social system is to protect membersfrom the deleterious effects of internalizing social

15 Caldwell, Group Dynamics in the Prison Cotm-inunity, 46 J. CsRi. L., C. & P.S. 648 (1956).

16 CEMIER, op. cit. supra note 4, at 298-320.17 SYEs, op. cit. supra note 4, at 63-83.18 McCorkle & Korn, Resocialization Within Walls,

293 ANNALS 88 (1954).

MARVIN E. WOLFGANG

rejection, those experienced in social rejectionbenefit most and those whose value system ispredominantly that of the non-criminal societyhave most difficulty adjusting to the inmate socialsystem.

Driscoll19 has made one of the few efforts todevelop a rating scale suitable for measuring thegeneral behavior of the inmate. Like the presentstudy, his rating method embodies principles ofanalysis of concrete behavior rather than generaltrait characteristics. An "adjustment rating scale"was devised on the assumption that four mainareas determine adjustment: social factors, voca-tional factors, personal factors, and behavioralfactors. Correspondence of the scale with badconduct reports was found to be significant at theone per cent level. Procedures for acquiring thekind of information used in construction of thescale are inadequately reported, however, andreplication of the study is thereby rendered diffi-cult. Most of the 60 prisoners were incarceratedfor a period of about one year, which is a relativelyshort time compared to the mean of slightly overeight years among the murderers in the presentstudy. Nonetheless, similarities in the adjustmentpatterns will be noted as further references toDriscoll's findings appear below.

Abundant provocative insights into the pro-blems of institutional and post-institutionaladjustment may, of course, be found in studies bySellin,20 the Gluecks,21 Ohlin,22 Haynes,U Coulter, 4

Train,25 Foreman, 2 Altus,U De Stephens,219 Driscoll, Factors Related to the Institutional Ad-

justment of Prison Inmates, 47 J. A NOR. & SoC.PsYCH. 593 (1952).

20 Sellin, The Criminal History of Released Prisoners,35 J. CRtm. L. & C. 223 (1944).

21 S. & E.T. GLuEcl, FivE HUNDRED CRIMINALCAREERS (1930); LATER CRiMiNAL CAREERS (1937);and CamINAL CAREERS IN RETROSPECT (1943).

12 OHLIN, op. cit. supra note 4, and also SELECTIONFOR PAROLE (1951).

2 Haynes, op. cit. supra note 4.24 Coulter & Korpi, Rehabilitation Programs in

American Prisons and Correctional Institutions, 44J. Cnms. L., C. & P.S. 611 (1954).25 Train, Unrest in the Penitentiary, 44 J. Cans.L., C. & P.S. 277 (1953).

26 Foreman, Guide Theory for the Study of InformalInmate Relations, 34 SOUTWEST Soc. Scr. QUART.34 (1953).

27 Altus, Adjustment Items Which Differentiate Be-tween Psychiatric Categories of Military GeneralPrisoners, 49 J. GEN. PsYcH. 292 (1953).

2 DeStephens, Initial Failures in RehabilitationAmong 16,965 Ohio State Reformatory Inmates, 44J. Cans. L., C. & P.S. 596 (1954).

Zuckerman, Barron, and Whittier," Barker andAdams, 30 Kirkpatrick, 31 and others. In lateranalyses of the present murderer group and whena larger universe as well as more variables can beexamined, these studies that concern adjustmentpatterns of prisoners and of released persons willbe of major value in the construction of empiricallytestable hypotheses.

THE PRIsoN ADJUSTMENT INDEX

Defining and measuring adjustment in anycultural setting is a difficult taskn A prison en-vironment at least has fewer accouterments thangeneral community living, fewer variables externalto the individual that need be accounted for. Butit is this very condition of absence of the normalsocial milieu and the presence of a multitude ofdiurnal strictures that comes to pall on the individ-ual psyche and in due time produces the processcommonly referred to as prisonization. For theninety-five per cent or more of the prisoners whowill ultimately be released, we are still doubtfulabout the benefits of their adjustment to prisonlife and the ends to which society hopes they willadjust. A successful treatment program involvesat least a minimum internalization by the inmateof the communal and legal value system. However,in this sense, adjustment is directed towards anew set of values that are meant to be employedin the culture at large, in the normal, free, inter-personal relationships between the sexes andamong a diverse role-performing population. Thiskind of adjustment may or may not result ingreater capacity of the individual to cope withthe peculiarities of a prison culture. This problemhas not been adequately and empirically studied,nor is the present research designed to solve it.That hardened criminals may present a behavior-ally docile demeanor before the prison administra-tion is too well known to document. On the otherhand, from every perspective of custodial andtreatment authorities-the administration of orderand harmony, the smooth functioning of prison

29Zuckerman, Barron & Whitter, A Follow-UpStudy of Minnesota, State Reformatory Inmates, 43J. Crim. L., C. & P.S. 622 (1953).

10 Barker and Adams, The Social Structure of aCorrectional Institution, 49 J. CRiu. L., C. & P.S.417 (1959).

21 Kirkpatrick, The Human Problems of Prison After-Care, 21 FED. PROB. 19 (Sept. 1957).

H HORST ET AL., THE PREDICTION OF PERSONALADJUSTmENT (1941).

[Vol. 51

ADJUSTMENT TO THE PRISON COMMUNITY

industries, and the attitude of parole boards-theman who does not present serious problems tothe prison staff, compared to one who does, isgenerally considered a better inmate and has betterprospects for early release. Thus, using presentadministrative views of .the inmate population,we can point to reasonably tangible and empiricalcriteria for determining adjustment. Whetherthese same criteria are in fact valid indicationsof adjustment upon release into the communitycan only be inferred from previous research; butthe ultimate test will depend on subsequent studyof the same men in their post-institutionalexperiences.

As in any research, operational terminologydepends upon available data. Examination ofprisoner files at the Eastern State Penitentiaryprovided three major mensurative devices for usein constructing an adjustment index that is basedupon a behavioral image of the inmates. Thesedevices include: (1) the number of jobs and thelength of time a job was held by each inmate inprison; (2) the number of times an inmate wasdischarged from his job because of misconduct;and (3) the number of "bad" statements recordedby cell block guards. Rationale for the use of theseparticular items and the method by which a scoringdevice was established require further elaboration.

(1) Number and duration of jobs--job stability.When an inmate is first assigned a daily prisontask, he may be improperly classified, job vacan-cies commensurate with his abilities" and skillmay not be available, or the staff may require hisservices elsewhere at a later date so that he istransferred. However, despite these potentialvicissitudes of job change and time spent at aspecific job, we may assume that they operaterandomly among a given set of offender types.Moreover, a prisoner may ask for (and frequentlyreceive) a job change because of displeasure withhis job or his associates on the job, or because ofa variety of other reasons. Hence, many changesover a course of time indicate considerable in-stability.- Because we are referring to job changemade by the inmate upon request or by the ad-ministration because of misconduct of the inmate,the instability reflected is not that of the adminis-tration but that of the inmate himself. AsMcCorkle and Korn suggest, "The providing ofjobs is a duty of prison officials and a right, ratherthan a privilege of inmates. Once assigned to a

"Shearer & Barbash, op. cit. supra note 9.

job there are only a limited number of legitimatereasons for which an inmate may be fired."Ohlin uses the inmate's work record to establishan experience table for parole prediction pur-poses, although "working life" is used to refer tothe pre-institutional period of a man's life. Ohlin'sclassification is a combination of the proportionof a man's working life that he has been employed,and the frequency with which he has changedjobs.3 5 For purposes of the prison adjustmentindex, we have modified the use of Ohlin's workrecord category, and have, of course, includedonly the work record during incarceration.

From the Work Assignment Record of everyprisoner, it was possible to get information aboutthe number of jobs and the length of time eachinmate worked on a job. Because these forty-fourmurderers served slightly different amounts oftime, some standardization was achieved by com-puting the mean number of months each inmateworked per job. After obtaining the mean numberof months per job for the total group (29.09),single scoring units of measurement based onone-quarter standard deviations on either sideof the mean were established.36 Units of measure-ment based on one-quarter standard deviationswere used to increase the refinement of differentialsfor scoring purposes. Larger deviations may pro-vide equally valid units for purposes of simpledichotomization of the universe into adjusted andunadjusted. More extensive analysis, as is laterexpected with this group, will hope to use varyingdegrees of adjustment in conjunction with othervariables. Hence the reason for the presentprocedure.

The following diagram illustrates the methodused for obtaining the first part of the adjustmentscore relative to length of job:

-3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3

14.60 19.43 24.26 29.09 33.92 38.75 43.58

m McCorkle & Kom, op. cit. supra note 18.35 OHLnI, SE .CTION FOR PAoRL 128 (1951).16 Use of the median was considered, but this tech-

nique requires even more arbitrary decisions of parti-tioning for score units than does the use of the mean.The Likert technique could be employed to someadvantage should larger numbers of items be used inthe index. See Likert, A Technkue for the Measurementof Attitudes, 140 AIcH. PsycH. 5 (1932). See alsoEdwards & Kenney, A Comparison of the Thurstoneand Likert Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction,30 J. APPLIED PsycH. 72 (1946), and Guttman, ABasis for Scaling Qualitative Data, 9 Am. Soc. REv.139 (1944).

MARVIN E. WOLFGANG

On either side of the mean number of monthsper job for the total group (29.09) are locatedpoints of demarcation based on one-quarter stand-ard deviation (4.83). Thus, X plus .25 s.d. equals33.92 months, and any inmate whose average joblength was between 29.09 and 33.92 months wasgiven a score of +1 for this item. If an inmatechanged jobs more rapidly than the average forthe group, his score would fall somewhere alongthe continuum on the minus side of the mean.For example, if his average job length was between24.26 and 29.09 months, he received a score of- 1; if between 19.43 and 24.26 months, his scorewas-2; and so forth.

(2) Job dismissals for reason of misconduct.Frequently an inmate is transferred to anotherjob because of misconduct on the prison job. Thenecessity for this kind of administrative actionis another indication of prison maladjustment,and the absence of transfer for this reason indicatesadjustment to an important part of the prisonculture. To account for variety in the numberof jobs held by the forty-four murderers, theproportionate number of times each inmate wastransferred for reason of misconduct was used(i.e., number of job dismissals divided by thenumber of jobs held) rather than the absolutenumber of job dismissals.

The diagram below illustrates the second partof the adjustment score:

+3 +2 +1 -1 -2 -3

5.8 10.2 14.6 19.0 23.4 27.8 32.2

On either side of the mean percentage of jobdismissals due to misconduct among the totalgroup (19.0%) are located points of demarcationbased on one-quarter standard deviation (4.4%).Thus, X plus .25 s.d. equals 23.4 per cent of jobslost because of misconduct, and any inmate whosepercentage was between 19.0 per cent and 23.4per cent received a score of -1 for this item. Wehave assigned minus, or negative, scores for casesin which the percentage of job dismissals for mis-conduct is greater than the group average becausesuch behavior is an expression of maladjustment.If an inmate was discharged from jobs because ofmisconduct in a percentage less than the groupaverage, his score would fall somewhere on theplus side of the continuum. For example, if hispercentage was between 14.6 and 19.0 he received

a score of +1; if between 10.2 and 14.6, his scorewas +2; and so on.

(3) Block reports. With some degree of periodicity(every three months) the guard of each cell blockin the prison submits to the administration achecked list from a printed schedule of items thatare presumed to indicate the good or bad conductcharacteristics of each inmate. As McCorkle andKorn suggest, "Probably the most important andstrategically placed individuals involved in theproblem of reconstruction of attitudes are thecell block officers."' ' The cell block officer is ex-pected to be constantly alert to the vagaries ofinmate conduct and to be sufficiently insightfulto give constructive information to the custodialand treatment staff of the institution. That he mayfalter in this task cannot be denied, but unless allcases of officer inadequacy, favoritism, or corrup-tion could be detected, we are forced to assume arelative similarity of ability among these officersin making up their block reports for the inmatesin their charge. We are assuming equality amongthe variety of bad statement types,3 and only thenumber of bad statements about an inmate'sconduct is included in this part of the adjustmentscore. Again, to account for the slightly differentamount of time spent in prison, and consequentlythe differences in the number of block reportsamong the forty-four inmates, we have used theproportionate number of bad statements relativeto the number of block reports (i.e., number ofbad statements divided by number of blockreports) as our measurement. Below is the diagramillustrating this procedure:

+3 +2 +1 -1 -2 -3

.07 .81 1.55 2.29 3.03 3.77 4.51

On either side of the mean number of bad state-ments for the total group (2.29) are located pointsof demarcation based on one-quarter standarddeviation (.74). Thus, X plus .25 s.d. equals 3.03,

-1 McCorkle & Korn, op. cit. supra note 18, at93.

3 Bad statements in block reports include suchitems as, "fights readily," .a wolf," "quarrelsome,""teases others," "argumentative," "insolent in man-ner," "tries to take liberties with officer," "losestemper quickly," etc. Serious misconducts or infrac-tions of prison discipline (save where they resulted injob dismissal) were not used as criteria for the con-tinuum because they did not supply sufficient data.The bad statements in block reports were found to bemore numerous and sensitive to scaling.

[Vol. 51

ADJUSTMENT TO THE PRISON COMMUNITY

and any inmate who received a number of badstatements, proportionate to the number of hisblock reports, that fell between 2.29 and 3.03 re-ceived a score of -1. Again, for obvious reasons,we have assigned minus, or negative, scores forthose cases in which the inmate average numberof bad statements is higher than the group meanas an indication of maladjustment. A plus scoreindicates that an inmate's average of bad state-ments falls below that of the group. Because it isobviously impossible to have received fewer thanzero-order of bad statements, the maximum plusscore for this item is 4.

Adjustment Index. By obtaining the X - .25s.d. (1, 2, 3,... n) for each of the index items andscoring each inmate accordingly, the next step issimply to total the scores on the three continua,thus forming a composite of the score items, whichis the prison adjustment index. The mean adjust-ment score for the group in question is .318, andthe range from manifested- maximum adjustmentto manifested maximum maladjustment is +14to -26.

Although the number of job dismissals becauseof misconduct and the length of time jobs wereheld may not always and in every case be entirelyindependent components, the results of theircomposite use in the index are not influenced bythis apparent interdependence. The mean numberof months on jobs held by inmates designated asmaladjusted and who never had been dismissedfrom any job is only 9.4 compared to a mean of20 months among maladjusted inmates who hadbeen dismissed at least once from a prison job.Fifteen of the 17 maladjusted prisoners weredismissed 38 times; only 8 of the 27 adjusted menwere dismissed 9 times. It is the fact of dismissalfrom a job (for reasons of misconduct) and thenumber of such dismissals that independentlyconstitute important elements of the index. Thereappear to be no significant differences betweenthe length of time on a job from which inmateswere discharged because of misconduct and lengthof time on jobs from which they left for otherreasons. The average amount of time inmates(adjusted and maladjusted combined) worked onjobs from which they were discharged for mis-conduct is approximately the same as the mean

"'We say "manifested" because these have beenobserved and recorded data, whereas theoreticalmaxima scores of adjustment and maladjustment canbe much greater.

number of months for all jobs held by all theinmates in our group (29 months). The jobs onwhich the least number of months were spent byinmates who had never been dismissed from ajob had an average length of 22 months. It is,we should emphasize, the fact of dismissal and thenumber of dismissals that are independentlysignificant factors in measuring adjustment toprison.

The three index items have been given equalweight in determination of the inmate's totalcomposite adjustment score. In this way differ-ences in a particular inmate's position are equallyweighted and may even result in two diverseforms of behavior cancelling out one another toproduce a balance. For example, one inmate mayhave been stable in his institutional jobs, in whichcase he would receive a positive score; but if hehad been discharged several times from his jobsfor misconduct, he probably would receive anegative score for that item. The block reportswould most likely determine his final category ofadjustment. On the other hand, a man who neverwas discharged for misconduct may have re-peatedly changed jobs and his score may be quitesimilar to the previous case. These different situa-tions make obvious the difficulties involved inusing a single item to measure prison adjustment.There may in fact exist a single item such thatmeasurement of it alone would be sufficient todetermine general adjustment, either behavioralor psychological. Unless or until such an item isdiscovered, we are required to use several items inthe index-but not so many that scoring becomesdifficult, cumbersome, or raises too many questionsabout relative weighting of the items.

There are, of course, other variables that mightbe used in establishing an adjustment index. Forexample, from institutional files it may be possibleto determine, as Ohlin did for parole predictionpurposes, the extent of contact with members ofthe inmate's family, i.e., the number of prisonvisits and number of letters sent and received asan indication of cohesiveness of the family, whichin turn may be presumed to be a reflection ofprison adjustment. Emphasis on the behavioraland custodial image of adjustment obtained fromthe variables used in the present adjustment indexmight be tempered slightly by use of clinicalrecords of the prison psychiatrist, psychologist,and social worker. Morello's previously mentionedstudy should prove useful for selection of ap-

1961]

MARVIN E. WOLFGANG

propriate psychological variables. A test of thedegree of correlation between the variables usedin the present adjustment index with those thatmight be components of a more psychologicallyoriented index would be valuable. If high correla-tion exists, then the more simple method of indexconstruction would be adequate and perhaps moreadministratively practicable. Doubtful cases withlow correlation could be reviewed more thoroughlyto determine what factors need be further examinedin order to improve the behavioral index.

The items included in the present study maynot constitute the best selection from the universeof all factors involved in an inmate's adjustmentto the prison. They are considered of value, how-ever, because they combine data that are (a) partof the critical areas of activity in the prison com-munity; (b) related to long time-spans of theinmate's daily activities; (c) involved in behaviorthat is under supervision by a member of theadministrative staff; (d) mensurable; and (e)easily available.

SomE FINDINGS

The relatively small number of murderers underinvestigation in the present study makes sweepinggeneralizations a dangerous pastime. Detailedrefinement of variables associated with inmateslabeled "adjusted" or "maladjusted" is not pos-sible until a larger number of offenders in criminalhomicide is included in the research. We can,however, refer to several interesting findings basedon the adjustment scores of the inmates studiedby dichotomizing them into an adjusted and amaladjusted group.

Race and Adjustment. Morello, as noted above,found that whites became less well-adjusted as thetime of incarceration increased, while no trendswere observed among non-whites. No race differ-ences of any kind emerge from the present analysis.Among the 27 adjusted murderers there are 5whites and 22 non-whites; and among the 17maladjusted there are 4 whites and 13 non-whites.

Length of Incarceration. The amount of timethese offenders have been imprisoned appears tohave no relationship to their adjustment pattern.The mean length of incarceration for the adjustedgroup is 8.7 years, and for the maladjusted group,8.6 years.

Age and Adjustment. In their follow-up studyof prisoners released from the MassachusettsReformatory, Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck con-

tended that one of the most persistently importantfactors in reformation was the aging process.40

For this adult group the authors referred to the"great divide" as occurring at the end of thethirty-fifth or beginning of the thirty-sixth year.That psycho-social and physiological changes occurin the individual passing through his thirties canhardly be denied. The Gluecks also spoke of aretrogression after the mid-thirties for the menobserved in their postinstitutional life, but perhapsthis accompaniment of growth or maturationoperating within the relatively stable prisonenvironment functions differently. Driscoll failsto report specific age differences in his study butdid note that "observations carried out indicatedthat inmates rated as more maladjusted weresignificantly younger." 41

Using age thirty-five as a theoretically meaning-ful age at which to dichotomize the inmates, wehave hypothesized that a significantly higherproportion of prisoners over age thirty-five thanthose under thirty-five are among the adjustedgroup. Analysis of Table I confirms this hypothesis,for 81 per cent of the men over 35 years of agecompared to only one-third under age 35 areamong the adjusted group. Of the 17 poorlyadjusted murderers, 12 are under age 35. What-ever other factors may be involved, there is nodoubt that there is a significant association betweenage and prison adjustment for this particulargroup of offenders. The amount of time theseoffenders have been imprisoned appears to haveno relationship to their adjustment. There is nosignificant difference in time of incarcerationbetween the adjusted and maladjusted groups,nor between those over and those under 35 yearsof age. Hence, age of the inmate (and whateverphysiological or psychical factors that accompanyaging) is itself significantly related to adjustmentin the prison subculture.

Marital Status. There appears to be no relation-ship between the present marital status of theinmate and his adjustment score, probably becauseall but two of these men have been committed ona life sentence and many who had been marriedwere divorced by their wives since the men enteredprison. The status of "ever having been married"may be important, however, for Clemmer suggeststhat marital relations prior to prison commitment

40 S. & E.T. GLUECK, LATER CRMoINAL CAIREERS103-23 (1937).

41 Driscoll, op. cit. supra note 19, at 595.

[Vol. 51

ADJUSTMENT TO THE PRISON COMMUNITY

TABLE 1

AGE AND ADJUSTmENT

35 yrs. and over Under 35 yrs.

N % N %

Adjusted 21 80.8 6 33.3Maladjusted 5 19.2 12 66.7

Total 26 1 100.0 18 100.0

x2 = 10.12; P < .01; T = .48

TABLE IIMARITAL STATUS AND ADJUSTMENT

Ever Married Never Married

N % N %

Adjusted 21 72.4 6 40.0Maladjusted 8 27.6 9 60.0

Total 29 100.0 15 100.0

)e = 4.37; P < .05; T = .32

are positively associated with forming group re-lationships in prison. "It will be noted," he says,"that inmates who have been married are groupedless frequently than men who have always beensingle."' ' Moreover, "ungrouped inmates tend tocommit more infractions of the prison rules thando grouped inmates, although the differences aresmall.""4 Driscoll also says that the malajustedin his study contained a significantly larger numberof single men."

If it is true, as Clemmer notes, that inmateswho have been married are grouped less frequently,and if the ungrouped commit more infractions ofprison rules, we would expect our married groupto be less adjusted than the unmarried. The datain Table II show, however, that there is a signifi-cant association between adjustment and thestatus of ever having been married in the past.This association, although far from being spurious,must be viewed in terms of the foregoing discus-sion of age and adjustment. Cell size for statisticalpurposes becomes too small to subdivide simul-taneously into adjusted/maladjusted, over 35yrs./under 35 yrs., and ever married/never mar-

CI CEMLMR, op. cit. supra note 4, at 122.43 Ibid.44Driscoll, op. cit. supra note 19, at 595.

ried. However, we may note that of the 26 inmatesover age 35, 24 had been married, and 19 of these24 are among the adjusted group. Of the 18 underage 35, 13 had never been married, and 9 of these13 are among the maladjusted group. Comparisonof the degree of association by Tchupproff's(coefficient of contingency) value shows that ageand marital status (T =.67) has a higher degreeof association than does adjustment and maritalstatus (T =.32), while age and adjustment(T =.48) is in an intermediary position. It appears,therefore, that age more than the status of everhaving been married is related to prison adjust-ment but that the three variables are interrelated.

Felony Murder. In Pennsylvania, death thatoccurs during the commission of a robbery, bur-glary, arson, rape, or kidnapping is by statuteconsidered murder in the first degree. A killingthat involves a close victim-offender relationshipsuch as a husband killing his wife, other relativeor intimate associate is most likely to be performedby one whose life orientation is directed towardgeneral adherence to the legal norms of the com-munity. Commission of a felony murder by defini-tion indicates that the offender violated the legalnorms other than by killing.

We are suggesting that persons who commit afelony murder have less fully internalized a valuesystem built upon adherence to the law in generalthan have persons who have not committed afelony murder. The non-felony murderer is morelikely to be an episodic offender; in his daily inter-action with others, he obeys and generally acceptsthe norms of conduct of the prevailing, predomin-ant culture that surrounds him, that writes thelaws and adjudicates deviations. In prison thepredominant, norm-codifying administration rep-resents for him the legal proscriptions and re-straints that generally governed his conduct beforehis instant offense.

The felony murderer, on the other hand, is morelikely to have attitudes favorable to violation ofthe law. The fact that his conviction for murderis partly based upon the concomitance of homicideand another serious felony suggests that he is acriminal irrespective of the death he caused; andthat he is sufficiently far removed from the pro-scriptions of the general and predominant culturevalues opposed to robbery, burglary, rape, etc., thathe considers law-breaking a solution to problemsituations. He takes this same attitude with himinto prison as an anti-administration approach to

19611

MARVIN E. WOLFGANG

TABLE IIITYPE OF MURDER AND ADJUSTMENT

Adjusted Maladjusted

N % N %Felony Murder 3 11.1 9 52.9

Non-Felony Murder 24 88.9 8 47.1

Total 27 100.0 17 100.0

x = 9.18; P < .01; T = .46

life there. Adjustment to the prison rules of conductestablished by the custodial staff will be moredifficult for the felony murderer. Perhaps, too,his adjustment even to the inmate mores will bedifficult, although we are not attempting to meas-ure this aspect of adjustment save as it may bereflected in job stability, job dismissals, and con-duct reports of the guards.

On the basis of these remarks, therefore, we arehypothesizing that a significantly higher propor-tion of inmates who are poorly adjusted than ofthose better adjusted have committed a felonymurder.

Table III confirms this hypothesis. Twelve ofthe 44 murderers were sentenced to life imprison-ment on a felony murder (in all cases, robbery andhomicide) conviction, and 9 of these 12 are amongthe maladjusted group. Only 3 of the 27 adjustedprisoners committed a felony murder compared to9 of the 17 maladjusted.

We are again confronted with the age variableand an inability to break down our distributionsinto refined classifications of age, adjustment, andfelony murder. Examination of age and felonymurder reveals that of the 26 inmates who arepresently over 35 years of age, not a single caseinvolves a felony murder conviction. On the otherhand, of the 18 who are under 35 years of age, 12are serving time for felony murder. The associationbetween age and felony murder is significant(X2 = 23.83; P < .01) and the T value (.74) isconsiderably higher than that for adjustment andfelony murder (T = .46). The interrelationship ofthese three variables-age, adjustment, and felonymurder-is obvious and requires further research.

Previous Penal Experience. We may assume thata prior experience of incarceration aids an inmateto adjust to his instant imprisonment on a lifesentence. In no wise are we asserting that previous

TABLE IVPREvIous PENAL EXPERIENCE AND ADJusvMENT

Previous Penal No PreviousExperience Penal Experience

N % N %

Adjusted 11 84.6 16 51.6Maladjusted 2 15.4 15 48.4

Total 13 100.0 31 100.0

x2 = 4.20; P < .05; T = .31

penal experience helps (or hinders) communityadjustment; we are only hypothesizing that what-ever may have been the type of offense or institu-tion, prior experience of acclimating oneself to theprison routine of working, sleeping, eating, beingidle, and associating with other inmates aids oneto adjust to a similar subsequent experience. Thedata presented in Table IV confirm this suggestion.Among the 31 inmates with no experience analmost equal division occurs between the adjusted(16) and the maladjusted (15), but of the 13 menwith prior penal experience 11 are in the adjustedgroup and only 2 in the maladjusted group.

Examination of the age variable reveals nosignificant differences in having a previous penalexperience and being of a particular age. Absenceof significant association between these two attri-butes is meaningful, for the relationship betweenprevious penal experience and prison adjustmentremains significant on its own basis and withoutthe intervening age variable.

Intelligence, Achievement, and Personality. Sub-ject to more intensive and extensive analysis, thepresent data on these items can only be suggestiveof ultimate conclusions and are not here given indetail as tests of either null or positive hypotheses.We may report, however, that the following testshave been completed by the adjusted and malad-justed groups: Scovill Classification Test, StanfordAchievement Test, Woodworth Personality In-ventory. On none of these tests have significantdifferences emerged between the adjusted andmaladjusted inmates.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This study has been a follow-up of a select groupof persons who had committed murder and hadbeen sentenced to a term of life imprisonment.

[Vol. 51

ADJUSTMENT TO THE PRISON COMMUNITY

An index has been constructed to determine thebehavioral image of their adjustment to thesubculture of a maximum prison. This index iscomprised of (a) the number and duration ofprison jobs, (b) job dismissals for reason of mis-conduct, (c) schedules on the conduct of inmatesreported by cell block guards. The mean amountof time per prison job, the mean frequency of jobdismissals because of misconduct, and the meannumber of bad reports were computed for theinmates under observation. Intervals of quarterstandard deviations on either side of the meanwere used as units for providing plus or minusscores for each inmate. The composite score onthese three items is presumed to measure degreesof adjustment and maladjustment.

Dichotomizing these murderers into adjustedand maladjusted groups has provided a basis fortesting several hypotheses. The findings indicatethat there are significant associations betweenprison adjustment and inmates (1) who are 35years of age or older, (2) who are or have beenmarried, (3) whose murder was other than a felonymurder, and (4) who had some previous penalexperience. Contrariwise, the inmates who areunder 35 years of age, who have never been mar-ried, who had committed a felony murder, andwho never had a previous penal experience areamong the maladjusted. No associations werefound between adjustment and race, or betweenadjustment and length of incarceration. Intelli-gence, achievement, and personality tests thusfar reveal no significant differences between thesetwo groups.

Adjustment to the prison community is a partic-ularly chronic problem for the murderer becausehe generally serves a longer sentence than otheroffenders. He must come to grips during a largeportion of his life with a subculture that is theclosest experience to a totalitarian setting he isever likely to encounter.45 The length of timeduring which he is subjected to imprisonmentprovides a basis for analysis of a long-term patternof accommodation to the prison regime, thecustodial staff, and the inmate social system.Whatever we can learn about the reactions of theseindividuals who have deviated most violentlyfrom the predominant value system will be ofhelp in understanding lesser deviations. Attemptsto measure the adjustment of these men to the

1 SyxEs, op. cit. supra note 4, at xiv-xvi.

prison community may give us new insights regard-ing the pattern of adjustment among other typesof offenders. Needed, of course, is a comparisonof those convicted of murder with those convictedof other forms of homicide; and a comparison ofhomicide offenders with a variety of other types ofoffenders.

Our data have revealed a persistently significantassociation between age and adjustment in prison.Research that seeks to follow up these same menoutside the prison environment will pursue thisrelationship further. We certainly are in no positionto contend that we have found confirmation of theGlueck emphasis on the aging process as the mostimportant factor related to increasing non-crimi-nalism,46 but our analysis points in the samedirection. The significance of passing through thesocio-psychologically meaningful age of the thirtiesshould be investigated from a wide multi-dis-ciplinary approach. The high association we havefound between adjustment and those inmates agedthirty-five and over only points a finger of in-ference at the multiple number of variables thatcomprise the age attribute. It is principally theyoung adult in his late teens or twenties whocontributes most disproportionately to crime inthe community and who persists in his maladjust-ment within the prison community. The restric-tions and restraints of a maximum security institu-tion operate differentially according to age, atleast among those convicted of murder. Becausejob stability, frequent dismissal from jobs becauseof misconduct, and numerous reports of badconduct are presumed to be valid reflections ofbehavioral maladjustment, and because these itemsare observable under the relatively close scrutinyof a maximum institution, there is good reason tosuspect that under the less omniscience of thecommunity at large these same and more seriousmanifestations of maladjustment will occur. Ifaging is a factor in both types of environments,then more concentrated attention should be givento an analysis of the components that make upthis variable.

Is an accommodative process of deference to age(even between a twenty-year-old and a thirty-five-year-old) operative within the prison community?If so, can the administration learn anything aboutplacement of men as cellmates, as co-workers inparticular training or vocational activities, etc.?

46 GLUECK & GLtuEcK, op. cit. supra note 40, at106.

MARVIN E. WOLFGANG

These questions become meaningful in view ofthe age-adjustment association. Perhaps the older,better adjusted inmate can have a positive andsometimes subtle influence on the younger malad-justed associate in prison. Obviously "differentialassociation" that would result in the traditionalfear of an older "con" educating the youngeroffender in more sophisticated techniques ofcriminality could and should be readily detectedand avoided. But if we should find that adjustmenton the basis of the behavioral components used inthis present study also aids in measuring adjust-ment in the post-institutional experience, thenperhaps encouragement of older-younger inmaterelationships might function in a constructivemanner to spread adjustment patterns through-out a larger portion of the inmate population.

The same may be said of the non-felony mur-derer and the felony murderer, of those who everwere married and those who never participatedin a marital relationship, of those with previouspenal experience and those with none. We havenoted a high degree of association between priorincarceration and adjustment during the instantimprisonment. Perhaps this merely means that themen who "have gone through it before" are bettercapable of accepting rigorous restraints on theirindividual freedom. Perhaps they were adjustedin their earlier penal episodes as well. Researchwill have to answer these questions. In any case,

if relatively harmonious functioning of the prisoncommunity is a desirable goal of administration,some positive value might be gained from theintermingling of those inmates with, and thosewithout, prior penal experience-except, again,where there is reason for a serious concern regard-ing transmission of the criminal value system andtechniques.

Further analysis of adjustment patterns willlater be made using a larger number of cases ofpersons who committed criminal homicide. Con-firmation of the validity of the prison adjustmentindex is needed; and follow-up must be undertakenof these same inmates throughout their post-institutional experiences to determine empiricallywhether there is any relationship between prisonadjustment and adjustment in the community.An index of adjustment to the prison subculturemay not function validly as a measurement ofadjustment potential for the inmates who areleaving prison and re-entering the general society.But construction of a prison adjustment indexshould be tested as an aid in determining in ad-vance success or failure on release. Should theadjustment index prove useful in this capacity,the treatment and custodial hierarchies in prisonas well as parole authorities outside would haveadditional clues to guide them in their maximaltask of rehabilitation and in their minimal functionof restraining former offenders from additionalcriminality.

[Vol. 51